From the Eagle Tribune;
Former wedding photographers go on trial Oct. 4
By Jillian Jorgensen jjorgensen@eagletribune.com
BRENTWOOD — A judge yesterday granted a $250,000 attachment to the assets of two photographers facing a civil lawsuit from the attorney general's office for allegedly breaking wedding photography contracts.
Michael and Darlene Perrotta, an Atkinson couple who owned Forever in Time Photography in Salem, face criminal and civil charges for allegedly leaving more than 200 newlyweds without the photographs, albums and wedding videos they purchased.
Rockingham Superior Court Judge John Lewis added the $250,000 attachment in the civil case against the Perrottas. The attachment covers the cost of their property at 27 Meditation Lane in Atkinson. It means they cannot sell it until the case is resolved in case it is needed to pay a monetary judgment.
Senior Assistant Attorney General James Boffetti said the $250,000 was not an excessive amount to attach to the case. Boffetti estimated the state would seek around $150,000 in restitution for 206 customers who have filed complaints, some dating to 2001. But the state will seek civil penalties of $10,000 for each violation of the state Consumer Protection Act. With 206 potential violations, if the Perrottas are found liable, that could mean $2 million, Boffetti said.
Lewis already had ordered a freeze on all the Perrottas' property, including their Meditation Lane home. That happened after the judge learned the Perrottas had sold property at 7 Brittany Lane on June 4, after they received notice of the state's petition to attach, but before the hearing. The original attachment was for $250,000 for each property.
The sale of 7 Brittany Lane netted the Perrottas a profit of $71,000, just under $55,000 of which was placed in an escrow account, according to Paul Pappas, Darlene Perrotta's attorney. The judge ordered that money cannot be touched and Pappas must provide the court with a full accounting of what happened to the proceeds of the sale of the property within 20 days.
Pappas disputed the amount of restitution that could be owed to customers. He said the Perrottas had settled some individual lawsuits for between $100 and $300, and the escrow account held "more than enough money."
He said the business was successful for many years, until a September 2008 fire set the photographers back. The business reopened in May 2009. Pappas said the Perrottas did not intend to defraud anybody — the fire and the economy set them back and eventually forced them to close for good in September 2009.
"They didn't will it to happen," Pappas said.
Boffetti said many of the complaints came in the years before the fire — and the Perrottas kept taking new jobs, and money, after the fire, despite their inability to deliver photographs of weddings they had already photographed. Boffetti said 40 complaints were filed for weddings that happened after the fire.
Pappas argued the complaints before the fire were spread over many years. The Perrottas photographed up to 500 weddings a year, he said.
Boffetti said there were two complaints in 2001, five in 2004, four in 2005, five in 2006, and 12 in 2007.
"The events in this case will show a pattern of violations of the Consumer Protection Act," Boffetti said.
Michael Perrotta was in court with a new attorney yesterday, David Horan. In the ongoing criminal trial, the state had argued earlier this summer that it was a conflict for Pappas to represent both Darlene and Michael Perrotta. Darlene Perrotta kept Pappas as her attorney.
Boffetti argued that still was a conflict because Michael Perrotta had told Pappas confidential information while Pappas was his attorney. Pappas could use that information against him in his defense of Darlene Pappas.
"I don't know how a lawyer, once he has received confidential information, how he can continue to represent a client who may have an adverse interest," Boffetti said.
But Horan said the Perrottas already knew everything about one another's legal dealings.
"The reality is that Darlene and Michael, husband and wife, living together, traded massive amounts of information with each other," he said.
Michael Perrotta had signed an informed consent waiver saying he "trusted" Pappas would not use information against him. The judge said that language was unacceptable.
"You can't expect this lawyer (Pappas) to be put in that Catch-22," he said. "He has to fully represent his client."
After a recess, Horan offered a waiver saying Michael Perrotta understood that Pappas "may use any information relating to my representation to my disadvantage."
The judge accepted that waiver.
The Perrottas are scheduled to go on trial Oct. 4 on three charges of violating the Consumer Protection Act.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
ARTICLE SUBMISSION PLEASE:
The Osborn's were back in Court today, trying once more to lay claim to the land they developed, owned by Carol Davis.
Once again, their story has changed.
You may remember the many times Maggie has claimed to "own a deeded right of way" that allowed them to build the driveway. Well they have now dropped that argument. Their NEW line of attack is to claim that they are not responsible, that there was no INTENT to do harm to Mrs. Davis, because they did "due diligence" to see if they could open the road.
They conveniently ignore the fact that the right of way is one Mrs. Davis' deed, and not theirs.
They ignore the fact that it was never granted to anyone.
They ignore the fact that it never appeared on any plot plan until 1995. They ignore the fact that their plot plan specifically refers to the "Stowers plot plan of 1924".
And they forgot to tell the Court that the language in their deed stating they have the right to "pass and re pass over A RIGHT OF WAY" was inserted into their deed BY THE OSBORNS. All the previous deeds in stead have language marking the boundaries of their property.
Their atty. Bernie Campbell, tried to claim that it is a "road by prescription", only to be shut down by Davis atty. pointing out that to be a "road by prescription" it must be in constant and regular use for more than 20 years. It didn't even exist until 1995!
Then Campbell made the argument that the Osborns "opened" the road, because since it was on Davis' plot plan, it could be granted and accepted by the town as a right of way at some point in the future, and then they would have a right to use it.
Quite a bit different from Mags tales of woe to the selectmen.
If the judge ends up siding with the Osborns, he will have made it legal for anyone to use feature of anyone else's deed, as their own, as long as they can make some spurious argument as to a right.
They do not have the right to claim a feature that was not granted to them.
Ridiculous.
The point is that if Judge Lewis rules in favor of the Osborns, then none of our property rights are protected from people like the Osborns.
If someone were to survey your property and file a plot plan with the registry of deeds that included an illegal ROW, then the Osborns came in and laid claim to it..........your land would be gone.
Watching Judge Lewis's decision is paramount to all our property rights. If he makes the wrong decision then we need to turn over our property to the State or Osborn look alike's.
We've seen this before with LIBERAL JUDGES........now we get to see if Judge Lewis is one of them.
Stay tuned because your property rights depend on it.
mo
Anon September 1, 2010 11:35 AM is stating misinformation when he/she says:
QUOTE
“Osborns in court today, ordered not to use new driveway or house, they fall again”. as listed in "Do the Selectmen EVER plan on informing the public of their activities?" section of this blog.
Leon Artus says:
The actual hearing was scheduled and held in front of Judge Lewis at 1 PM today with both attorneys arguing for summary judgment for their clients.
Osborn’s attorney argued that a right of way depicted on Mrs. Davis’s plot plan gave them the right to cut her trees and drive a road through her property because the road could be accepted by prescription at a later date without being offered or accepted.
Carol Davis’s attorney argued that the right of way was a depiction only and was never offered or accepted so prescription doesn’t apply. In addition, a Land and Boundaries report states that Carol Davis never offered or gave any rights to her property to anyone at anytime.
Judge Lewis took the case under advisement and I’m sure he’ll turn it over to his law clerks to research the factual cases that apply to this case. Don’t be surprised if his decision isn’t available for weeks. Depending on his decision the next trial date is November 9 & 10 at 8 AM. If he decides in favor of Carol Davis the Osborns will be done unless, of course they appeal to the Supreme Court.
I will keep you informed when the decision is made.
Post a Comment