The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a ruling directing attorney John Sogliuzzo to repay $591,535 on a claim that he exercised undue influence to take the assets of an elderly aunt.

The Third Circuit rejected Sogliuzzo's claims that the trial court made errors when it entered the order. Sogliuzzo was sued by his sister, Jane Adkins, who claimed he misappropriated the funds of Mary Grimley. The ruling affirms an award of $391,040 in damages and $200,495 in prejudgment interest to Adkins. Adkins claimed that her brother took $70,000 in cash that Grimley was storing in her home, and that he cashed in $321,040 in bonds belonging to Grimley.

Sogliuzzo, a solo practitioner in Maplewood who represented himself, claimed on appeal that U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton wrongly rejected his motion for reconsideration as untimely. He also claimed Wigenton erred by failing to conduct a hearing on his use of the funds for Grimley's benefit and that he should have been given more time to object to the proposed judgment.

Third Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz, Joseph Greenaway Jr. and Marjorie Rendell agreed that Wigenton erred by finding the motion for reconsideration time-barred. Sogliuzzo moved for reconsideration under Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25 days after Wigenton signed the judgment. Wigenton found the motion untimely because it was not filed within 14 days of the entry of the order of judgment, as required by District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).

Shwartz, writing for the court, said Local Rule 7.1(i) provides that it does not apply to motions filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59, which must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Since Sogliuzzo's motion was filed within 25 days of the final judgment, it was timely, Shwartz wrote. Still, Sogliuzzo presented no basis to reconsider or amend the judgment, Shwartz wrote.

The Third Circuit also found Wigenton acted within her discretion when she declined to hold a hearing on the use of funds for Grimley's benefit. Sogliuzzo was not precluded from presenting evidence that would show the funds at issue were used for Grimley's benefit, Shwartz said. Consequently, he faced no undue prejudice from a refusal to take new testimony, the judge said.

The Third Circuit also rejected Sogliuzzo's claim that Wigenton signed the judgment prematurely. Local Rule 58.1(b) allows the prevailing party to submit a proposed judgment and gives the adversary seven days to object to its contents, the rule does not require the court to wait seven days to sign the order, Shwartz said.

Wigenton initially found Sogliuzzo exercised undue influence against Grimley but declined to award damages, deferring to a separate state court case brought on behalf of the estate. But in 2017, the Third Circuit rejected that argument and sent the case back to Wigenton for calculation of damages.

Sogliuzzo is no stranger to allegations of undue influence against elderly relatives. He was also named as a defendant in a separate suit filed on behalf of the estate of Jane Sogliuzzo, the late mother of Sogliuzzo and Adkins. A judgment for $520,000 was entered against Sogliuzzo in that case. Adkins, the estate's executrix, claimed Sogliuzzo siphoned off thousands of dollars of their mother's funds in the years before her death, and a forensic accountant retained by the estate found that Sogliuzzo used his mother's funds to make payments to his law practice and to pay his children's tuition at The Pingry School.

Sogliuzzo did not return call about the ruling. Dennis Gleason of Jardim, Meisner & Susser in Florham Park, and Mark Miller of Dubeck & Miller in Morristown, represented Adkins. Miller said he believes the Third Circuit made the right ruling. Litigation in the dispute has lasted more than a decade, but is nearing the end of the line, although his client now faces the challenge of collecting what she is owed, he said.