Vanacore v. Kenned

86 F.Supp. 2d 42 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Vanacore (P) filed an action against his former attorney, Kennedy (D). That particular action was dismissed against D on grounds of involuntary bankruptcy. P also sued D’s law partnership of Eshram and Kennedy (D1). The facts are as follows: P formed Space Realty in 1965 and it acquired property. P entered into an agreement with Lium to convey to Lium all of the issued and outstanding stock in Space Realty. Lium paid P $365,000 in cash and signed a $950,000 note secured by a mortgage on the property. D represented P during the transaction. The terms of the note were 8.5% interest with payments of $7,649.99 due each month from June 1, 1980, until May 1, 1995. On May 1, 1995, the remaining balance accrued and interest was due at D’s office. P then assigned a 35% interest in the note to his now ex-wife. She agreed to accept a reduced monthly payment for the term of the Note and Mortgage, and she would be paid the shortfall when the note came due in May 1995. Around 1989, P failed to receive monthly payments due under the note. Lium had made the payments, but D failed to convey them to P. D lied and told P that Lium had failed to pay. An agreement to extend the note was negotiated under which the payments were to continue until May 2000, but the ex-wife was to get a $50,000 principal sum payment. On September 1992, Lium contacted D and offered a buyout of $257,191.78 on the note. It was rejected by P. D in fact, told Lium that it had been accepted. D prepared all the papers, they were duly recorded, and the monies were paid over. D only forwarded $97,843.92 to P as that was the alleged arrearages on the note and D kept the rest for himself. D continued sending checks to P and described them as Lium’s mortgage payments. In 1991, D falsely represented to P that he had commenced a mortgage foreclosure, but by May 1996, P discovered the frauds of D. P sued D1 under six causes of action. From 1990 on D was under investigation by the State Bar for concealing information from a different client for 8 years. D1 was fully aware of the nature of the charges and allegations and the false representations by D to the other client.