a few of our successes

Bankruptcy


FIA Card Services v. Conant

After the debtor filed for bankruptcy, FIA Card services filed an adversary proceeding against the debtor alleging that its debt was not dischargeable because the debtor committed fraud. FIA filed their complaint without having any evidence to support its claim. Even after the defendant presented evidence proving that she did nothing wrong, FIA still insisted that she pay.

Result: After discovery concluded, it was discovered that FIA did not have any grounds for objecting to Ms. Conant's discharge. The debt to FIA was discharged and FIA was ordered to pay Ms. Conant's legal fees. FIA appealed the decision and lost on appeal and further ordered to pay Ms. Conant's legal fees relating to the appeal.

McMillan v. Kadis

We represented a party against a Chapter 13 debtor, McMillan. Mr. McMillan sold his home to Mr. Kadis and then rented the house back from Mr. Kadis. Mr. McMillan maintained an option to purchase during the lease period for fair market value. The value of the property increased and instead of exercising his option to purchase, Mr. McMillan sued Mr. Kadis to invalidate the sale. Mr. Kadis filed a counterclaim against Mr. McMillan for his failure to pay rent.

Result: After a one day trial, the contract was upheld and the sale was not invalidated. Mr. McMillan was found to be in breach of the lease agreement and ordered to pay back rents.

Lassman v. Giovanello

Debtor sold his house to his son-in-law and took a promissory note to finance the sale. To repay the note, the son-in-law built an "in-law" apartment and gave the debtor a place to live for life. The Bankruptcy Trustee, Donald Lassman, sued the son-in-law, claiming that the money was still owed and was an asset of the Bankruptcy estate.

Result: At Summary Judgment, the judge agreed that the promissory note was satisfied when the son-in-law built the in-law apartment and gave it to the debtor to live in.


Civil Litigation


Mui v. Delvecchio et. al.

Homeowners sued the prior owner of their home when a retaining wall on the property collapsed. The Plaintiffs alleged that our client, Mrs. Delvecchio, negligently constructed the retaining wall and committed fraud by telling the plaintiffs that "this is a good house" when they purchased the house.

Result: At Summary Judgment, the judge agreed that Ms. Delvecchio could not be held responsible for the construction of the retaining wall when all she did was pay for it. It was also held that the phrase "this is a good house" was a statement of opinion and could not form the basis of claim of fraud.

Roberts v. Kadis

Our client, Mr. Kadis, purchased a rental property belonging to Ms. Roberts at a sheriff's sale. Ms. Roberts had a year to redeem (repay) Mr. Kadis otherwise the property became his. Rather than repaying Mr. Kadis, Ms. Roberts chose to sue Mr. Kadis to recover the property and not pay him.

Results: After a bench trial, the judge ruled that Ms. Roberts had to pay Mr. Kadis and gave her a deadline to make the payment. Ms. Roberts refused to pay and filed a series of frivolous motions that were denied and finally the judge held that she was in default of the court order and no longer was entitled to redeem the property.


Trust/Probate Disputes


Case Name Withheld

Our Clients mother passed away and left him money in a trust. The trustee refused to use the trust funds to support our client as required by the terms of the trust forcing our client to live in his car.

Results: The parties settled and the trustee agreed to begin releasing trust funds to allow our client to get an apartment and to enroll in college.

Case Name Withheld

Our clients were brother and sister. Many years ago, our Clients' grandfather passed away and left his son half of his company and our clients the other half. When our clients father passed away, our clients' step mother said that there was never a trust and the whole company was hers.

Result: During discovery, we learned that the trust had filed tax returns and that the father and step mother had taken our client's trust for themselves after the grandfather passed away. A week before trial, the parties settled for $2.5 million.