RLA Secures Victory for Defrauded Client
After four years of hard-fought litigation, Rutgers Law Associates (RLA) recently won a jury trial on behalf of an eighty-year-old client who had been deceived into signing over his home’s deed. RLA fellow Sam Romeo ’23 tried the case, and successfully convinced six out of seven jurors that his client was a victim of fraud. “The opportunity to try a jury trial this early in my career speaks to how unique and educationally enriching the RLA fellowship program is,” Romeo says. “Achieving victory at trial for this particular client made the whole experience even more rewarding because, at its core, this was a case of elder abuse.”
Details of the Case
In this case, RLA represented an elderly man from North Jersey who left school at a young age to support his brother after a traumatic accident. The pair worked as ride operators at Palisades Amusement Park, where they befriended a coworker who later helped manage their affairs, as the brothers were unable to read. When they purchased a condo, she persuaded them to add her name to the deed. She and her son then orchestrated a plan to deceive RLA’s client into signing over the deed entirely to her.
The scheme involved telling RLA’s client that he needed to sign homeowner’s insurance papers and that it had to be done in the presence of a notary. They went to a bank, she put the papers in front of him to sign, and handed him ten dollars (he wasn’t clear why). When he went to pay property taxes and discovered he no longer owned the condo, he reported the fraud. “Though the county prosecutor decided not to go ahead with the case, the Egg Harbor Police Department saw this man as a victim of fraud and referred the case to RLA,” says Andrew Rothman, professor of professional practice and RLA’s managing attorney.
Proving Fraud
The RLA fellows had their work cut out for them. The original perpetrator died during the proceedings, making it difficult to prove intent since she was no longer available to testify. Her son then became the defendant, moved into the condo, and changed the locks. This added complexity to the case, requiring numerous motions to remove him from the property and prevent him from making changes until the deed issue was resolved. Additionally, RLA’s client had moved into a nursing home, so the fellows had to accommodate his health by conducting a de bene esse deposition to avoid requiring his presence at the trial.
“Finally, two weeks ago, the case went to the jury,” Rothman says. “The fifth fellow to handle this case conducted a flawless two-day trial, which ended with the jury finding that fraud had been perpetrated and resulted in the title of the house being returned to our client.”
According to Rothman, this process has been an invaluable learning experience for the fellows, who typically try bench trials before a judge. Jury trials are more complicated to try because the lawyer must focus on multiple audiences: the several jurors, the judge, the witness, and, of course, the adversary counsel and client. Plus, fraud cases like this one require a higher standard of proof. Instead of the burden of proof being the preponderance of the evidence (whoever has the most wins), fraud cases require that the plaintiff convince the jury by clear and convincing evidence. Romeo had to prove by that high standard that his client was deceived, that the deception was deliberate, and that the deception caused injury and damages.
“It was a privilege to provide counsel for my client, who likely would not have received legal assistance elsewhere, and ultimately convince a jury that he is the rightful owner of his home,” Romeo says. “The tears in my client's eyes after hearing the verdict tell the whole story!”