Facts

Plaintiff Harry Mansdorf, age 88 at the time of trial, along with his brother, Lee Mansdorf, and other family members slowly started buying property in Malibu by Deer Creek over a period of 40 years. Eventually, they amassed 1,291 acres of Malibu coastal property, including 2.7 miles of coastline.

In June 2003, Lee Mansdorf died and left plaintiff as the surviving member of the family responsible for the Mansdorf Family Trust.

Defendant Michele Giacomazza introduced himself to Harry Mansdorf just before the funeral as being a 30-year partner of Lee Mansdorf. He was asked to go to the funeral but instead stayed outside the Mansdorf home in Beverly Hills and reported that two people had entered and removed boxes of documents from the home.

Later, Giacomazza informed plaintiff that his brother owed him $7 million for excavation work he had done on the property and that his brother had agreed to repay him by conveying him the Malibu property and the Beverly Hills estate. In time, all 1,291 acres of the property that had been accumulated by the Mansdorfs in Malibu were transferred to shell corporations owned by Giacomazza, along with the Beverly Hills estate.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that Giacomazza was an imposter and had never meet Lee Mansdorf, and had not worked with him for any part of the claimed 30 years. Plaintiff further claimed that Giacomazza used threats in order to coerce the transfer of plaintiff's property.

According to plaintiff's counsel: Following their initial meeting, Giacomazza gradually intruded into the life of plaintiff. He told plaintiff that he was an attorney and would help him with the legal matters, and then also used a combination of expressing great love for him and then immediately demeaning him. Threats by Giacomazza to plaintiff became interwoven into their relationship.

At first Giacomazza recorded liens against plaintiff's property in the sum of $600,000, $20 million, and $95 million. He also reported to plaintiff that his brother owed him $7 million for excavation work he had done on the property and had agreed to repay him by conveying him the Malibu property and the Beverly Hills estate.

The transfers of all the property from plaintiff to Giacomazza was done with no payment back to plaintiff, who at the end was left with no money, subsisting on his WWII pension after being worth several hundred million dollars a couple years earlier.

Using threats and fraud, Giacomazza had plaintiff testify in court proceedings that the property had been transferred to defendant because of outstanding debts. However, plaintiff's counsel challenged Giacomazza to produce one witness who saw defendant together with Lee Mansdorf at any time, or to produce one piece of corroborating evidence. In support of his claims, Giacomazza only called his daughter Kathryn Gatto, who was the initial recipient of the $2.5 million loan taken out by them against the Beverly Hills home.

There was no records showing any work done under the claim of a $7 million excavation project. Nor were the three liens Giacomazza had recorded against the property supported by any records of any work done, but had the effect of shutting plaintiff off from access to funds.

Giacomazza produced a contract he claimed was written in 1997 with Lee Mansdorf where he was to receive the property, except the font of that document look like it was produced by a laser printer and was inconsistent with document production techniques that existed at that time. Giacomazza then produced a grant deed from Lee Mansdorf dated 1986, which was never recorded and for which there was no original, and which lacked the attachment description of the properties.

Both of these documents by Giacomazza also had been notarized using seals that were not yet issued or signed by notaries using names they did not yet have at the time of the alleged signing.

The plaintiff brought in numerous people who had worked with the family for decades in areas including taxes, project development, architectural work, and legal representation. None of them had ever heard of Giacomazza until after the death of his brother Lee Mansdorf.

As for defense's motion for mistrial following the threat made against the judge, the threat was made after the court had issued its tentative statement of decision in favor of plaintiff and did not influence the ruling.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied that any fraud or extortion was committed and claimed that he was the rightful owner of the property. The defendant argued that plaintiff had stated that Giacomazza owned the property without any duress or coercion in previous testimony, and argued that the legal principle of judicial estoppel should prohibit plaintiff from dramatically changing his prior testimony and IRS tax appeals.

Giacomazza claimed that he had worked with Lee Mansdorf since the early 1970s; that he had been the partner and attorney in fact for Lee Mansdorf; that Lee Mansdorf was always short of money and that the two of them did everything together. Giacomazza claimed that he had problems remembering the names of possible witnesses to that relationship because his memory was bad and he did not have any records because someone had stolen them from his home.

According to defense counsel: The allegations of physical threats were not supported by any corroborating evidence. Plaintiff was a close friend of Giacomazza and acknowledged in several prior judicial proceedings that there was a prior relationship and partnership between Giacomazza and plaintiff's brother. Mansdorf admitted to the court that he made these representations and admitted that he changed his testimony because of the promise of a third party to pay him $45 million. Furthermore, an unidentified person phoned and left a threat against the judge, which led to a motion by defendant for a mistrial, which was denied.

Result

The court, hearing the claims in equity, returned 1,291 acres of Malibu Coastal property, including 2.7 miles of coastline. The court found that defendant Michele Giacomazza had wrongfully taken the property by fraud and undue influence. The estate in Beverly Hills was also returned. A constructive trust was imposed on the proceeds of a $2.5 million loan taken by Giacomazza against the Beverly Hills estate, with an accounting ordered.

Other Information

According to plaintiff's counsel: This may be the largest reported recovery for a financial elder abuse case. FILING DATE: Feb. 22, 2008.