Facts

Plaintiffs Halona Sudduth and Farah Sanders filed a lawsuit against defendants Solomon and Arleen Sacay for fraud in transferring or hiding their assets to avoid paying plaintiffs money owed to them by Solomon Sacay. Plaintiffs previously sued Solomon Sacay in another lawsuit for sexually abusing them when they were children, and obtained a $350,000 judgment against Solomon Sacay in Bankruptcy Court, most of which he has not paid.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
After the molestation lawsuit was filed, Solomon Sacay filed for divorce from his wife, Arleen Sacay, and plaintiffs alleged they divided and concealed their assets in order to hinder, delay, or defraud plaintiffs from collecting their judgment. Plaintiffs sought to enforce the $350,000 judgment against Arleen Sacay for conspiring, and aiding and abetting her ex-husband in hiding or transferring his most valuable assets to her. Plaintiffs also claimed damages for emotional distress and punitive damages from both defendants.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied that they hindered, delayed, or defrauded plaintiffs. Defendants claimed they divorced because the husband had a girlfriend, and that they equitably divided assets in the divorce. Defendants claimed that plaintiffs' lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations.

Settlement Discussions

Before closing arguments at trial, plaintiffs demanded $750,000. Defendants' only offer was $75,000.

Injuries

Plaintiffs claimed emotional distress due to defendants' fraud.

Result

The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them $1,008,712, which included $448,712 in economic damages, $450,000 in non-economic damages, $100,000 in punitive damages against Solomon Sacay, and $10,000 in punitive damages against Arleen Sacay.

Other Information

Immediately following oral arguments on defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the case settled. Arleen Sacay transferred the couple's most significant asset, the family home in Piedmont to plaintiffs. The following day, the court, without knowing of the intervening settlement, granted defendants' motion for new trial based on excessive damages. FILING DATE: March 23, 2013.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

12-0

Length

two weeks