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.

Torts
Elder Abuse
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Henry Ferre v. Daniel Ferre

Published: Dec. 30, 2003 | Result Date: Sep. 12, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C0300325 Verdict –  $1,168,470

Judge

Steven K. Austin

Court

Contra Costa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Joseph M. Morrill

Christopher Schweickert

Loren Barr


Defendant

Scott K. Zimmerman


Experts

Plaintiff

Clifford A. Egan
(technical)

Edward T. Hanley Jr.
(technical)

M. Patricia Fisher
(technical)

Defendant

Nick G. Tarlson
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff sought damages for Financial Elder Abuse under California Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 15610.30 and 15657 and fraud, alleging that the defendant forged the plaintiff's name to a series of deeds transferring 1/3 of a 38 acre almond ranch from the plaintiff's living trust to the defendant. The plaintiff is 74 years old and the defendant is his eldest son. The defendant had assisted his father with his business affairs over the years and was the plaintiff's agent under a durable power of attorney for financial affairs. The defendant introduced the plaintiff to the defendant's lawyer, who represented both the plaintiff and the defendant in most of the disputed transactions. At trial, the defendant admitted signing his father's name to the deeds but insisted that he did not sign his father's name to the notary book or to the written partnership agreement. The plaintiff's forensic document examiner, Patricia Fisher, testified that the defendant signed the plaintiff's name to the notary book and the written partnership agreement. The plaintiff also introduced evidence that there were other forgeries in the notary book and that the defendant had attempted to make a gift of $50,000 to the notary. A detective from San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department testified that the defendant had provided false information in connection with a criminal investigation conducted prior to the filing of the civil complaint. The plaintiff's expert testified about the defendant's fiduciary duties as the defendant's son and agent under the durable power of attorney, and about the propriety of the attorney's conduct in representing both the plaintiff and the defendant in the disputed transactions without informing the plaintiff of actual conflicts of interest. The defendant contended that he signed the deeds with the defendant's consent and that the plaintiff ratified the deeds by signing a notary book in the presence of a notary. The defendant also claimed that he was entitled to a 1/3 interest in the ranch pursuant to a partnership agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant and the plaintiff's other son. The plaintiff contended that he did not sign the deeds, never consented to transfer any interest in the ranch to his son. The plaintiff also contended that the written partnership agreement produced by the defendant was a forgery. The partnership was an oral agreement to raise almonds and had nothing to do with the ownership of the land itself.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $300,000; the defendant offered $120,000.

Result

The jury unanimously found that the forgery and wrongful retention and other acts of the defendant constituted financial elder abuse and fraud and awarded the defendant a total award of $1,168,474. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages (the ranch had been sold for $1.5 million at the time of trial). By a vote of 11-1, the jury found clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice and awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in pain and suffering and $325,000 in punitive damages. Because it was shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud and malice, the plaintiff was also awarded $178,068 in attorney's fees and $65,405 in costs pursuant to the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, California Welfare & Institutions Code, Section 15657.

Poll

12-0 (liability and compensatory damages), 11-1 (pain and suffering, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs)

Length

five days


#123081

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

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