The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that Maplewood attorney John Sogliuzzo is liable for damages for using undue influence to take $391,000 from an elderly relative.

The Third Circuit ordered the case sent back to District Court for imposition of damages against Sogliuzzo, reversing a ruling in which a district judge awarded no damages even after finding that Sogliuzzo used undue influence that prompted the woman to make a transfer of cash and bonds to him. The District Court said it would defer to a state probate court on damages because plaintiff Jane Adkins, Sogliuzzo's sister, failed to offer sufficient evidence that a gift was made during the lifetime of Mary Grimley, a cousin of the plaintiff's and defendant's mother. But the finding of undue influence based on transfers made during the donor's lifetime assumes that an inter vivos gift was made, Judges Theodore McKee, Robert Cowen and Julio Fuentes ruled Wednesday in Adkins v. Sogliuzzo.

The finding by U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton that insufficient evidence was presented to show that Grimley made the gift conflicts with her finding that Sogliuzzo is liable for undue influence, McKee said, writing for the court. Acknowledging the conflict, Wigenton cited a prior Third Circuit decision in the present case, which said, “If, after a hearing, the District Court concludes that insufficient evidence has been presented to support damages, such a finding is not inconsistent with a finding of liability,” citing another Third Circuit case from 2006, Carpet Group International v. Oriental Rug Importers Association, which said it was possible to find liability but no damages when a plaintiff was not injured by the defendant's actions.