Our attorneys’ experiences in pretrial matters, evidentiary issues, and trials have enabled them to identify appellate matters for our clients. Russo & Minchoff prides itself on strong oral advocacy and persuasive brief writing. By the time a case has made its way into the Appeals Court, the client has typically been in the litigation process for years. The appellate process is no time to take your foot off of the gas pedal – it is the time for the final push.
Appellate Cases
India L. Minchoff successfully obtains and defends a million-dollar judgment on behalf of local contractor
Judicial Estoppel – Unclean Hands
India secured a million-dollar judgment for her client following a 14-day trial in the Superior Court. On appeal, Appellants argued that the trial judge should have applied judicial estoppel to bar India’s client’s counterclaims for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The Appellants also argued that India’s client, because he was an owner-operator of a company, was not entitled to prevailing wages.
The Appeals Court upheld the trial court’s basis for the award of contract damages and determined that India’s client was not precluded – or judicially estopped – due to this failure to make certain pretrial disclosures.
The Appeals Court held, as India had argued at trial and on appeal, that the judge was warranted in concluding that the other side had unclean hands relative to his defense of judicial estoppel…and since judicial estoppel has its underpinnings in equity, it follows that a party cannot rely on judicial estoppel if it comes to the court with unclean hands.
Read full appellate decision here.
Emma S. Funnell successfully defends appeal when undue influence existed to procure primary beneficiary status in the decedent’s estate
Undue Influence – Fiduciary Status
In a case where Emma’s client challenged the validity of a new will, the Probate and Family Court found that the disposition was unnatural for the decedent. The new will suddenly and practically disinherited the decedent’s church that had significant meaning to him, and instead sought to leave more than $250,000 to an individual who the decedent had only known for a few years.
On appeal, the Appellant argued that the finding that he served as a fiduciary for the decedent, which changed the burden of proof in the case, was not supported by the evidence. The Appeals Court disagreed and found that the lower court’s determination that the decedent was susceptible to undue influence due to his age, deteriorating health, and dependence upon the Petitioner was supported.
Read full appellate decision here.