Capital Fin. Services Group Inc. v. Hummel

The plaintiff did not establish the elements necessary to support a cause of action for conversion because it failed to show an act of dominion or exercise of the right of ownership over, or unauthorized appropriation of the subject brokerage account by the defendant law firm.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this action for conversion, Capital Financial Services Group, Inc. “Capital”, solely owned by Michael Levy, appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Levy’s ex-wife Sirka Hummel and the law firm representing Hummel in a divorce action filed by Levy. Because the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Hummel and the law firm, we affirm. “On appeal from a grant of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence de novo, viewing it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, to determine whether a genuine issue of fact remains and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cit.” Simprop Acquisition Co. v. L. Simpson &c. Unitrust , 305 Ga. App. 564 1 699 SE2d 860 2010. So viewed, the record reveals that in November 2007, Levy filed for divorce from his then wife Hummel. The law firm of Warner, Mayoue & Bates, P. C. “Warner, P. C.” represented Hummel in the divorce action. On March 11, 2009, during the divorce proceedings, the trial court entered a standing order which provided in part: “Each party to a divorce or separate maintenance action is hereby enjoined and restrained from selling, encumbering, trading, contracting to sell, or otherwise disposing or removing from the jurisdiction of the court, any of the property belonging to the parties except in the ordinary course of business.”

Warner, P. C. sent letters to Scottrade and Wachovia informing them of the standing order with a copy of the order attached. In response, Wachovia and Scotttrade froze Levy’s accounts. Levy filed a “Motion for Equitable Relief and Modification of the Standing Order” on May 18, 2009, seeking in part to compel Warner, P. C. to contact Scottrade and Wachovia to inform them that he “is not prohibited from having access to the funds, or the accounts.” Before the court ruled on Levy’s motion, Scottrade and Wachovia released their respective holds placed on Levy’s accounts after being contacted by either Levy’s counsel or Hummel’s counsel, Warner, P. C.

Capital Fin. Services Group Inc. v. Hummel

The plaintiff did not establish the elements necessary to support a cause of action for conversion because it failed to show an act of dominion or exercise of the right of ownership over, or unauthorized appropriation of the subject brokerage account by the defendant law firm.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report