![]() Plaintiff rested her contentions of negligence and breach of alleged duty upon testimony Gibson provided at his deposition. She alleges that defendants acted negligently in allowing the account to be changed without adhering to the protocol prescribed by Morgan Stanley's internal policies and procedures. Plaintiff then filed the present lawsuit in the Law Division against both Morgan Stanley and Gibson, claiming that these defendants owed a duty to her even though she was not a customer of the financial institution. Subsequently, that litigation settled, with plaintiff receiving approximately $450,000 from Mistri, Alexander, or both.1 Walter Koprowski, Jr., issued a lengthy written opinion on Jgranting summary judgment on certain issues and denying summary judgment on other issues. ![]() After discovery, defendants in the probate case moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff consequently sued both Mistri and Alexander in a probate action in the Chancery Division (Docket ESX-CP-0013-2011). ![]() Plaintiff contested the transfer, arguing that Johnson had been the subject of undue influence by Mistri. Because of the account change, the Citibank investments were treated as non-probate assets and were transferred to Mistri. Johnson died a few months later in May 2008. As a joint account holder with her mother, Mistri consequently obtained a right of survivorship in the funds if her mother predeceased her. Mistri Thank you."ĭefendants thereafter converted Johnson's two Citibank accounts, as requested, to joint accounts with Johnson and Mistri. The letter read as follows: "Please take my individual accounts, and make them a joint with my daughter Deirdre I. On February 8, 2008, Gibson received a one-page typewritten letter signed by "Patricia Johnson" and dated February 3, 2008. Gibson was the individual manager on those accounts. Their mother maintained several investment accounts with Citibank that were managed by Morgan Stanley. Plaintiff has two sisters, Deirdre Mistri and Carol Alexander. Plaintiff's present lawsuit is essentially a follow-up to previous litigation she brought concerning the estate of her mother, Patricia Hardy Johnson. 229, 237-38 (2012) (applying de novo on appeal the same summary judgment standards). We consider the factual record in a light most favorable to plaintiff, who was the non-moving party on the summary judgment motion. We affirm because it has not been shown that defendants owed or breached any legal duties to plaintiff, as she was neither their customer nor a person known to them with whom they had any established contractual or special relationship.Īlthough the focus of our analysis necessarily centers on pivotal legal issues of alleged duty, we briefly note the following pertinent facts, allegations and procedural history. ![]() The essence of plaintiff's claims is that defendants acted negligently and improperly in carrying out a written request to have the mother's investments changed from accounts solely in her name to joint accounts with one of plaintiff's sisters. Plaintiff Kathleen Wolens appeals the trial court's Octoorder granting summary judgment and dismissing her complaint against her deceased mother's former investment company, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney ("Morgan Stanley"), and its account manager, co-defendant William Gibson. The opinion of the court was delivered by Komyati and Boris Peyzner, on the brief). Komyati argued the cause for respondents (Bressler, Amery & Ross, attorneys Mr. Fernicola & Associates, LLC, attorneys Mr. Fernicola argued the cause for appellant (Paul V. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. Telephonically argued FebruDecided February 21, 2017īefore Judges Sabatino, Nugent and Currier. ![]() (NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |