Opinion
No. CV02-0172366S
September 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff in this case, Deanna Marie Vieira, acting by her mother, Suzanne Fenton Depatie, brings this action in seven counts against Ann C. Vieira, Executrix of the Estate of her son, John Marie Vieira, Jr., Ann C. Vieira, John M. Vieira, Sr., Donna L. Martin, Daniel P. Martin, Nancy C. Akey and Vicki L. Brickett. Deanna Vieira was born on March 20, 1993, the daughter of the deceased John Marie Vieira, Jr. and Suzanne Fenton now Suzanne Depatie. Miss Fenton and John Vieira, Jr. had lived together from sometime in 1992 through sometime in 1999 and their daughter Deanna Marie had resided continuously with them. After the mother and child vacated the family residence, John Vieira, Jr. continued to support his daughter through voluntary and court auspices.
Shortly before his death in a motor vehicle accident on August 11, 2000, John Vieira, Jr. had moved in with his new girlfriend, Nancy C. Akey. On August 21, 2000, a will purportedly executed by John M. Vieira, Jr. on May 22, 2000 was presented to the Naugatuck Probate Court and after a hearing on September 14, 2000, that will was admitted to probate, and the decedent's mother, Ann C. Vieira, was appointed as Executrix. It is the authenticity of that will which is the focus of all seven counts of the complaint. In simple terms, the plaintiff claims that the will is a forgery and was not executed until August 18, 2000, a full week after the death of the alleged testator. The court heard testimony over four and one-half days and has reviewed the post-trial briefs submitted by the parties.
One defendant, Daniel P. Martin, has been defaulted for failure to appear. He is the husband of the defendant, Donna L. Martin, from whom he is separated and according to Donna Martin is living in Canada. The defendants, Ann C. Vieira, executrix of the Estate of John Marie Vieira, Ann C. Vieira and John N. Vieira, Sr. are represented by Attorney Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, while the remaining defendants Donna Martin, Nancy Akey and Vicki Brickett represented themselves. They were afforded the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and present testimony as they saw fit.
Suzanne Depatie testified that she had lived with John M. Vieira, Jr. for approximately 7 years from 1992 to 1999. She described him as a large man weighing around three hundred pounds and wearing a goatee. She said he was a floor and carpet installer who had worked on a full-time basis for his father at Vieira and Sons Flooring. She said he was not paid a regular salary, but his mother Ann C. Vieira would deposit periodically into his account whatever money he said he needed for his expenses. Ann C. Vieira testified that her son worked full-time only four years from 1991 to 1999 and was unemployed from 1993 to 1997. The court finds it hard to believe how he supported a child and live-in girlfriend while unemployed.
Mrs. Depatie attended the wake of John M. Vieira, Jr. and spoke with his mother Ann C. Vieira. Mrs. Vieira told her her son John left no will, no insurance and had no social security benefits because he had inadequate quarters for qualification. Mrs. Vieira testified she told Depatie she didn't know if John had a will or insurance. Mrs. Depatie later learned that a will had been located and she attended the probate court hearing on September 14, 2000, at which the will was admitted. She testified as to what the three witnesses to the purported will of May 22, 2000, Donna Martin, Daniel Martin and Nancy Akey, told the Probate Judge. Her testimony is consistent with what Donna Martin and Nancy Akey testified to in this trial.
She further testified that she hired counsel to represent her in this matter. She did not appeal the admission of the will because she had no reason to do so during the time for taking an appeal. She began her own investigation in the spring or summer of 2001. She hired a handwriting expert from Hawaii, Reed Haas (phonetic), who advised her he didn't believe the purported signatures of John M. Vieira, Jr. on the will dated May 22, 2000 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5) were in fact genuine. She paid the expert $400.00. He advised her to get another handwriting expert closer to home. She also hired a private investigator, Mr. Bender, whom she paid $600.00, who took statements from several witnesses. She also hired Jeffrey Luber, a handwriting expert, who for the last 24 years has worked for the Suffolk County Crime Lab in Long Island, New York and the Illinois State Police. Before discussing that testimony, the court will discuss the origin of the purported will, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.
Donna L. Martin testified she has been a long-time friend of Ann C. Vieira and has in fact been living with Mr. and Mrs. Vieira since February of 2003. She knew the decedent John Vieira, Jr. very well. She testified that the decedent asked her in April or May of 2000 to help him in the preparation of a will. His mother, Ann, testified that she had been approached by John Jr. earlier on the same subject, but she told him he didn't need one. Whatever, a form will was acquired by Donna Martin from Staples and on May 22, 2000, John Jr., Donna Martin, Daniel Martin and Nancy Akey met at the decedent's home at 82 Aetna Street in Naugatuck. Donna Martin testified that for several hours she assisted John Jr. in the preparation of the will.
When it was completed she, her husband, Dan, and Nancy Akey witnessed the will on May 22, 2000. The will (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5) was in four pages and contained five purported signatures of the testator John H. Vieira, Jr. It is not clear exactly when and where each signature was affixed to the will and that fact is not significant to the issues in this case. It is more probable that the testator's purported signatures on Page 1 and the top of Page 2 of the will were affixed at Aetna Street and his purported signatures at the bottom of page 2 and pages 3 and 4 were affixed at the office of the notary, Vicki Brickett.
All three witnesses to the will, Donna Martin, Daniel L. Martin and Nancy Akey testified at the probate hearing on September 14, 2000 that they witnessed the will of John M. Vieira, Jr. on May 22, 2000 first on Aetna Street and thereafter, on that same day, at the office of Vicki Brickett where the testator again signed the will and they witnessed it. They testified that Miss Brickett required them and the testator to produce photo identification before she took their acknowledgments and notarized the will. The idea to go to a notary and to this particular notary was John Jr.'s only, according to Donna Martin. Donna Martin and Nancy Akey confirmed those facts during their trial testimony.
What happened to the purported will is somewhat unclear and very curious. According to Donna Martin, John M. Vieira, Jr. didn't want to keep it and apparently it was entrusted to Donna Martin and she testified she was told to keep it confidential and not disclose its existence. No explanation was provided for this secretiveness. During this time, the Martins were apparently living in their motor home and that is where Donna Martin claims that the will remained. Sometime in early August of 2000, the Martins left on a motor trip to New Orleans in their motor home. Donna Martin testified that on August 12, 2000, she learned by telephone of the death of John M. Vieira, Jr. and she flew back to Connecticut on that same day and stayed with the Vieiras. She did not bring the will back with her personally, but left it in the motor home. She also claims she did not disclose the existence of the will to the Vieiras until the afternoon of August 18 after her husband returned to Connecticut in the mobile home and physically handed her the will. She then gave it to Ann Vieira. This date and the timing is important to the court's conclusion in this case.
Earlier that Friday, August 18, 2000, in fact at 10:00 a.m., Ann C. Vieira and her daughter Ann Morgan went to the Naugatuck Probate Court and met with the Chief Clerk, Patricia Alegi. Patricia Alegi testified and confirmed the time of the meeting by her calendar. She testified that she asked Mrs. Vieira if there was a will. She recalls Ann Vieira saying she was "not sure," but there might be "but a friend had it" and that she might get it over the weekend. Mrs. Vieira in her testimony claims she told the probate clerk that she had no idea if there was a will. This is highly significant because Mrs. Martin testified that she didn't even disclose the existence of the will until later that day. The friend Mrs. Vieira was talking about was obviously Donna Martin. There is simply no reason for the probate clerk to fabricate what was said by Mrs. Vieira at the 10:00 a.m. appointment. The purported will was presented to the Probate Court at 3:00 p.m. on August 21, 2000 by Mr. Mrs. Vieira and their daughter Ann Morgan.
The final witness to the execution of the decedent's will was Vicki L. Brickett. Her testimony was dramatic and startling. During the year 2000 she was employed by Century 21 Realty Co. at its office at 750 Watertown Avenue in the northern area of Waterbury. As a part of her duties, she was a Notary Public. She identified Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, the purported will, as the document she notarized. She admits that she wrote in the date May 22, 2000 on the document. She did not testify in the Probate Court. She also admitted that she gave a statement to Mr. Bender in March of 2003 that she had in fact notarized the will on May 22, 2000. She also admitted she went to the office of Attorney Edward G. Fitzpatrick, plaintiff's counsel, in June of 2003 and reiterated that she had in fact notarized the will on May 22, 2000. Attorney Fitzpatrick has always represented the plaintiff in this case and commenced the case on August 6, 2002 prior to speaking to Ms. Brickett.
Sometime thereabouts Brickett learned from Bender that the testator, John Vieira, may have been deceased when plaintiff's Exhibit 5 was executed.
She thereafter spoke with her own attorney and advised him that she had in fact backdated the will (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5).
She was told by her attorney that she had probably committed a felony but she should do what was right. In November of 2003, she went back to see Attorney Fitzpatrick and told him that she had backdated the will.
She testified that she had actually notarized the purported will of John M. Vieira, Jr., on Friday, August 18, 2000, sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., seven days after his death. On that afternoon three witnesses, Donna Martin, Daniel Martin and Nancy Akey and the purported testator, John M. Vieira, Jr., came to her office at Century 21 to have her acknowledge and notarize a will. She recalls being called that morning by a friend, Ellen Granoth, who said she was sending some people to her who needed notarial services. She did not know any of the people. She identified their signatures on Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. She required them to all show photo identification. They all did including the purported testator. All the witnesses, she testified, asked her to backdate the will. They told her the person who recommended her, Ellen Granoth, assured them she would. Granoth was a friend of hers and had sent her referrals before. What she didn't know was that Granoth had been a close friend of the Vieiras for thirty years. She knew she was doing something wrong, but she did it anyway.
She was shown the photo driver's licenses of John M. Vieira, Jr. (Defendant's Exhibit B) as well as other photos of him and testified that he was not the person who signed Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 in her presence on August 18, 2000 as testator. She described the person who did sign as of average height and 160-175 pounds. The actual John M. Vieira, Jr. weighed about 300 lbs. When pressed by defense counsel, she testified she was absolutely positive that the person who executed the will was not John Vieira, Jr. She admitted to having lied to Bender, lied initially to Attorney Fitzpatrick and knew she had now committed a crime.
When asked why she is so sure that the purported will (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5) was executed before her on August 18, 2000, she says she remembers it because it was the ninth year anniversary of her divorce and that she started a new job before Labor Day of 2000 and this was just before that date.
Her testimony is, of course, directly in conflict with that of Donna Martin and Nancy Akey. As with most cases, the issue of credibility becomes of paramount importance and this case is no exception. The testimony cannot be resolved and the court, under all of the circumstances of the case, will have to determine what is the best evidence as to the date of execution of the purported will. The only other testimony relative to the will was a defense witness, Ellen Granoth, who was a friend of both Vicki Brickett and the Vieiras. She testified that she met John Jr. at Frankie's Restaurant sometime in April or May of 2000 and that he said he needed a notary. She testified she pointed to Vicki Brickett's office and may have called Brickett to tell her someone was coming.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants called handwriting experts and the court will deal with them together. The plaintiff called Jeffrey Luber, who for the last 24 years has been a questioned document examiner for the Illinois State Police and more recently the Suffolk County Crime Lab. He has handled more than 4000 cases and is Board Certified as well as a member of numerous professional organizations. The defendant called James Streeter who for the past 10 years has been a questioned document examiner for the Connecticut State Police. He was not Board Certified, but was a member of many professional organizations. In each of their testimony, each expert agreed that the other was an expert in this field. They both take on private matters such as this.
They each reviewed several known signatures of the decedent, John M. Vieira, Jr. They were told and assumed that the known signatures were in fact John Vieira, Jr.'s. They then compared those signatures with the 5 purported signatures of John M. Vieira, Jr. on the purported will, Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. Predictably, their opinion on the authenticity of the will signatures were opposed, but they did agree on the range of possible conclusions, from positive to highly probable to inconclusive.
The conclusion of Mr. Luber, the plaintiff's expert, was that based on his comparison of known signatures of John Vieira, Jr. and the signatures on the questioned document, the will, he was positive that the signatures of John M. Vieira, Jr. on the will were not the authentic signatures of John M. Vieira, Jr. On the other hand, Mr. Streeter testified that based on his examination of several known signatures of John M. Vieira, Jr. and the five signatures on the purported will, that his opinion was that it was highly probable that the questioned signatures and the known signatures have characteristics of the same writer. Certainly Mr. Luber's opinion as stated is more conclusive than that of Mr. Streeter's. He conclusively testified that the 5 signatures purportedly of John M. Vieira, Jr. on Plaintiff's Exhibit five were not the signature of John M. Vieira, Jr.
The consequences of the court's decision in this matter are obvious. The inventory in the case totaled some $223,935 with a distributable estate of approximately $191,000.00. The main asset of the estate was a recovery in a wrongful death case arising out of the accident that caused the death. If the court finds the will to be a forgery and that John M. Vieira died intestate, then his daughter Deanna Marie Vieira would be his sole heir and would inherit everything. If the will is in fact authentic, then the testator's parents, John H. Vieira and Ann C. Vieira, would receive all the specific devises and bequests contained in the will plus 90% of any after-acquired assets with the daughter Deanna receiving 10% of the after-acquired assets in trust until she is 25 years of age.
The party alleging fraud bears the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence. Creeland v. Rogowski, 152 Conn. 382 (1968). The evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Zapolsky v. Sacks, 191 Conn. 194 (1983). In this case there is both direct and circumstantial evidence. Based on all the evidence and the reasonable and logical inferences that can be drawn from them, the court concludes that the plaintiff has proven its case by clear and convincing evidence and has established that the will in question is in fact a forgery by that same standard. The court finds the plaintiff has proven all of the factual allegations of each count of the complaint except that portion of paragraph 20 of each count wherein it is alleged that the defendants have dissipated or intend to further dissipate the estate of the decedent.
It is of interest to note that this case was initiated by the plaintiff in August of 2002 long before the eventual testimony of Vicki Brickett was known. Ms. Brickett was not called as a witness at the probate hearing on September 14, 2000, when the purported will was admitted to probate. When she first gave a written statement to the plaintiff's investigator, Mr. Bender, she was consistent with the testimony of the three witnesses to the purported will. She repeated that version of the event when she first talked to Attorney Fitzpatrick in early 2003. It was not until November of 2003, after speaking to her own lawyer about her duplicity, that she went back to Attorney Fitzpatrick's office and told him she notarized the will on August 18, 2000 and not on May 22, 2000. By then she was well informed that she had committed a crime, probably a felony and was ready to accept the consequences of her actions.
To call her testimony a blockbuster would not be an exaggeration. More importantly, it had the ring of truth, it explained the illogic and unreasonableness of the defendants' case. Everyone else in the case has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case with the exception of Vicki Brickett who had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
So many things along the way bothered the court concerning the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the defendants' case. First, why would the decedent's mother oppose his executing a will from the beginning when he was building a house on a property his mother had lent him $60,000 to purchase? If she rejected the idea, why didn't the decedent go to a lawyer to execute a will instead of using his mother's friend Donna Martin who had no experience with wills? He had purchased real estate and procured a construction mortgage so he must have known a lawyer. Why was the execution of the will such a secret act and why was Martin sworn never to divulge it? Why didn't the decedent keep the will rather than entrusting it to the Martins to roam the world in their motor home with it? When Donna Martin learned of the death of John Vieira, Jr., on August 12, 2000, in New Orleans and immediately flew to Connecticut that day, why didn't she bring the will with her rather than leaving it in the motor home to await her husband's return with it? If the will was executed on May 22, 2000, why did John Vieira go from Naugatuck to the northern part of Waterbury to Vicki Brickett's office when within nine months before he had used a Naugatuck notary to notarize a support and custody agreement concerning his daughter? Why when at 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 2000, in the Naugatuck Probate Clerk's office, Mrs. Vieira when asked by the clerk if her son had a will, she answered "she wasn't sure, but there might be, but a friend had it"? Why did Mrs. Vieira in her own testimony deny that she said this to the probate clerk? How could she know a friend (Donna Martin) might have it at 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 2000, when Donna Martin testified that she did not disclose the existence of the will to anyone until her husband arrived in Connecticut on the afternoon of August 18, 2000? Why did Ellen Granoth, a friend of both Mrs. Vieira and Vicki Brickett, recommend Ms. Brickett as a notary on August 18, 2000, when there were notaries available in Naugatuck, and why did Ellen Granoth call Vicki Brickett on the morning of August 18, 2000?
All of the answers to these questions lead to the conclusion that there was no executed will at 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 2000, but one was being planned and prepared and would not be ready for execution and notarization until the afternoon of August 18, 2000, when the third and final witness, David Martin, returned to Connecticut from New Orleans.
Having found the will of May 22, 2000, purportedly of John M. Vieira, Jr. to be a forgery, it still is necessary to determine the liability as to each named defendant. As has already been mentioned, the defendant, Daniel P. Martin, has been defaulted and judgment shall enter against him as to Counts One, Two, Three, Four and Five and Seven, respectively Fraud, Collusion, Conspiracy, Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation. As to Count Six, Unjust Enrichment, the court will not determine that count because of its findings as to the earlier counts. Count Seven which incorporates all of Counts One through Five asks for attorneys fees which will be subsequently discussed.
As to Donna Martin and Nancy Akey, judgment shall enter against them as to Counts One, Two, Three, Four and Five and Seven. The court finds they witnessed the forged will on August 18, 2000, and were well aware of the backdating from August 18, 2000 to May 22, 2000. They were further well aware that someone else other than John M. Vieira, Jr., signed Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 on August 18, 2000. The court accepts Mrs. Martin's testimony that she prepared the will document, filled it out and then witnessed someone else sign it on behalf of John M. Vieira, Jr.
As to the defendant Vicki Brickett, there is a different question. She clearly violated some statute in backdating the will, but there is no specific claim on that subject against her in this case. She will have to wait for another day to see how that is played out. When she notarized the purported will on August 18, 2000, she had no reason to doubt that it was not John M. Vieira, Jr., who signed the will. The purported testator showed her photo identification which she verified. There is no evidence that she was aware of the forging or misrepresentation. Therefore, judgment shall enter for her as to all counts.
As to the defendant John M. Vieira, Sr., there is little evidence to link him to anything. He never made an appearance at trial and there was no opportunity for the court to determine if he matched the description of the purported testator who appeared on August 18, 2000 before Vicki Brickett. In the absence of any evidence, judgment shall enter in favor of John M. Vieira, Sr., as to all counts.
That leaves the remaining two defendants, Ann C. Vieira and Ann C. Vieira, Executrix of the Estate of John M. Vieira, Jr. The case against her was not as strong when the plaintiff rested as it was after she and Ellen Granoth testified for the defense. In assessing her culpability, it is fair to factor in what her motivations may have been and how the outcome of this case would benefit her or her family.
Other than for the proceeds from the wrongful death insurance payments in the amount of $212,500 to the estate, the balance of the estate would not even have been sufficient to pay the claims. Although the decedent owned a building lot, he borrowed $60,000 from his mother to acquire it and gave her a note for that amount. Without the wrongful death proceeds, there was no estate to go to anyone whether there was a will or not. With the potential of the wrongful death settlement, it would be clear to anyone that those proceeds would go to the plaintiff and not to the parents if there was no will. It was that greed that led to the execution of a forged will.
Mrs. Ann Vieira had always completely run her son's life and finances. As she said, he never got a real salary from working with his father, but would receive what he needed by a deposit his mother would make to his bank account. When he separated from Suzanne Fenton, it was Ann Vieira who negotiated and prepared the Joint Custody Agreement (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8), which she then had them get notarized in Naugatuck. When he borrowed $60,000 from Ann Vieira to purchase his building lot, she prepared and had her son execute a promissory note on June 2, 2000 (Defendant's Exhibit I).
The court finds the testimony of Ann C. Vieira not credible in several areas. The court does not believe that John M. Vieira, Jr., didn't work in four of the previous eight years before his death as was stated by his mother. Miss Fenton said he worked full time when she lived with him except for a two-month period in 1994, when he was injured. The court found her not credible, when having been shown several of the known signatures of her son, John M. Vieira, Jr., used by plaintiff's handwriting expert, she testified they didn't look like his signatures. The court simply disbelieved her when she denied telling the Probate Court Clerk on the morning of August 18, 2000, that her son might have had a will and it might be with a friend. That is why the Probate Clerk did not pursue an intestate application and told her to bring in the will on Monday, which she did.
Although she got others to do her bidding, Mrs. Vieira's hand is present and controlling on what took place on August 18, 2000. The court has already found that there was no will before that date. There is no way Donna Martin on that date would have understood the significance and need of a will to deal with the potential wrongful death proceeds and then only with the assistance of Nancy Akey and her husband concocted the scheme to prepare and execute a will all without the knowledge of Ann C. Vieira.
The final piece of the puzzle was the role of Ellen Granoth, a close friend of Ann Vieira's and a friend of Vicki Brickett. Once the will was prepared, it needed to be witnessed, backdated and notarized. It had been prepared in Naugatuck on Aetna Street. Ann Vieira knew they couldn't use the Naugatuck notary who had signed the Joint Custody Agreement because that person might remember John or might be aware of his recent death. They needed someone out of the area and they needed the will backdated. Ellen Granoth had the solution, Vicki Brickett, a notary from the northern section of Waterbury who knew nobody and nothing. Granoth called Brickett on the morning of August 18, 2000, to make the arrangement for the appointment that afternoon. Although they had no guarantee that Brickett would in fact backdate the will, they had to hope she would because of the friendship, and they were right. The witnesses told Brickett that Granoth assured them she would backdate it. Based on all the evidence in the case, the court finds for the plaintiff against Ann C. Vieira individually and in her representative capacity as executrix as to Counts One through Five and Seven of the complaint.
The plaintiff has asked the court to issue certain orders which it shall based on the court's conclusion that the purported will of John N. Vieira, Jr. dated May 22, 2000 is a forgery.
1. That the Naugatuck Probate Court order of September 14, 2000, admitting the purported will of John M. Vieira, Jr. to probate is set aside and declared null and void and the estate be concluded as an intestate estate.
2. That a permanent injunction enter restraining the defendant Ann C. Vieira individually and as executrix from any further involvement with the administration of the estate of John M. Vieira, Jr.
3. That the Naugatuck Probate Court remove Ann C. Vieira as the executrix of the Estate of John H. Vieira, Jr., and appoint an administrator.
There were additional claims for relief set forth in the complaint which include Monetary Damages, Punitive and Exemplary Damages and attorneys fees. As the estate was not distributed and no money has been lost, there is no evidence to support the claim for Monetary Damages.
On the subject of punitive damages, they may be awarded when the evidence shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights. Alaimo v. Royer, 188 Conn. 36 (1982). If awarded, they are restricted to the cost of litigation. The court in this case finds there was an obvious and flagrant indifference to the rights of the plaintiff and an intentional and wanton violation of her rights. It would be difficult to imagine a more intentional, wanton and reckless violation of the plaintiff's rights than forging a will seven days after decedent's death to rob the plaintiff, the daughter of the decedent, of her rights to inherit from her father.
The Seventh Count of the Complaint which incorporates Counts One through Five of the Complaint specifically asks for an award of counsel fees. The court concludes counsel fees should be awarded in this case against the defendants whose liability has been found as to Counts One through Five. The court does, however, have some problems with that request for counsel fees in this case. In Alaimo, supra, the court further stated, "Further for an award of punitive damages, it is essential that evidence of the cost of the litigation of the case being tried must be offered." The only evidence offered on this subject was Plaintiff's Exhibit 24, a Contingency Fee Agreement, between the plaintiff and the law firm that represented her. That agreement calls for a recovery by the law firm of 33 1/2 percent of any money damages it procured. Technically, here no money damages were recovered. In that the plaintiff's attorney is seeking $65,000 in attorneys fees, it would appear that he is asking for approximately one-third of the distributable net estate. The court questions whether attorneys fees can be awarded based on a contingent fee agreement under the facts of this case.
The court, therefore, is going to conduct a post-trial hearing on the subject of attorneys fees and punitive damages. Counsel must appear, but the parties do not have to be present. At that hearing, the plaintiff's attorneys should present the exact amount they are seeking for counsel fees and what the specific basis is for that request. In the alternative, they should present time sheets to support an alternative basis for the award of attorneys fees based on time actually expended in pursuit of the case.
The court feels strongly that these defendants, against whom judgment has been rendered, should pay for the plaintiff's counsel fees. She should not have to pay fees to recover what was truly hers from the beginning in the face of an outrageous fraud perpetuated against her.
The court will approve the costs in the amount of $6,400 incurred in the presentation of this case, $600 for the private investigator, Mr. Bender, $400 for Mr. Haas (phonetic spelling) for the initial handwriting opinion and $5,400 for the report and testimony of Jeffrey Luber, the plaintiff's primary handwriting expert.
GORMLEY, JTR