This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Banking
Fraud
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

First Interstate Bank of Oregon, as Trustee of the Frank Leo Spade Trust v. Jack R. Sowell and Manerati Crystal Sawangphoki

Published: Apr. 18, 1998 | Result Date: Dec. 2, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 680844 Verdict –  $97,500

Judge

David J. Danielsen

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Donald A. English


Defendant

Robert W. Buckley


Facts

Defendant Jack Sowell, as previous trustee for the Frank Leo Spade Trust, made a series of loans from the Trust to Gene Smith and Kevin Stephens. The Trust held secured promissory notes signed by Stephens totaling $60,000, as well as unsecured promissory notes signed by Smith totaling $75,000. Litigation ensued, and the settlement agreement provided that the $135,000 debt be repaid upon the sale of Smith's La Jolla property. Defendant Sowell's tenure as trustee was ended by court order. The La Jolla property sold in March 1994, but no money was received by the Trust from the proceeds of the sale. In April 1994, at the time of the sale of Stephen's property, the plaintiff, First Interstate Bank of Oregon, collected the secured $60,000 plus interest. At the time of the sale of Smith's property, a creditor had subordinated its rights to payment of defendant Sowell. A check for $140,000 was made payable to defendant Sowell and was physically delivered to Smith, who in turn gave it to Sowell. Defendant Sowell endorsed the check and gave it to his former employee, defendant Manerati Crystal Sawangphoki. She deposited the check in the account of a Chinese national, and the next day gave a check drawn on the Chinese national's account for $140,000 to Smith through Sowell. Although Sowell then received a $30,000 check from Smith, the Trust saw no money from Smith. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy theories of recovery. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants were guilty of conversion and conspiracy. The defendants' contentions were not disclosed.

Settlement Discussions

The parties did not engage in settlement discussions.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $____________ in damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately ____ years and _____ months after the case was filed. A settlement conference/ arbitration /mediation was held on ____/____/19_______ before _______________ (name) of _____________ (affiliation) resulting in __________ .

Poll

________ (#s pls.)


#114004

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390