JPMorgan Chase & Co. urged a judge to throw out a stunning $8 billion jury verdict over a mismanaged inheritance, saying the family deserves nothing.

“The law and evidence do not support any claim against JPMorgan, much less the unprecedented multi-billion-dollar punitive damage award, which the heirs have already admitted is unconstitutionally excessive,” the bank said in a filing in Dallas probate court.

Two children of Max Hopper, a former American Airlines executive who died in 2010, have already asked that the damages for them and their father’s estate be reduced to about $74 million, while his widow has yet to weigh in with any adjustment to the ninth-largest verdict in U.S. history.

JPMorgan said the jury “accepted to the penny, the extraordinary invitation” of the family’s legal team to award the $8 billion without doing any ”independent analysis,” according to Thursday’s filing. The bank previously said it was “highly confident” the verdict wouldn’t stand under Texas law.

Hopper, who pioneered a reservation system for the airline, died unexpectedly with assets of more than $19 million but without a will, according to court records.

Financial Deadlines

JPMorgan was hired to administer the estate and the bank should have divided the assets and released them to Jo Hopper and her stepchildren, according to the lawsuit. Instead, her lawyers said in a statement, “the bank took years to release basic interests in art, home furnishings, jewelry, and notably, Mr. Hopper’s collection of 6,700 golf putters and 900 bottles of wine. Some of the interests in the assets were not released for more than five years.’’

The plaintiffs alleged that bank representatives failed to meet financial deadlines for assets under their control, stock options were allowed to expire, and Mrs. Hopper’s wishes to sell stock were ignored. The step children, Stephen Hopper and Laura Wassmer, also claimed that the bank cut them out of decisions and kept them uninformed in order to curry favor with their stepmother.

Jo Hopper initially sued the bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan paid legal fees to defend this out of the estate account, depleting it by more than $3 million, the plaintiffs’ said in court filings.

In September, a probate court jury awarded punitive damage awards of $2 billion each to Jo Hopper, the Hopper estate, Stephen Hopper and Laura Wassmer. Punitive damages are meant to punish a defendant and are separate from compensation for plaintiffs’ actual losses.

JPMorgan denied any wrongdoing, saying it acted in good faith on the Hopper estate.

“The crux of the lawsuit is whether sparring survivors of a decedent may blame an independent administrator for seeking judicial guidance on a distribution issue about which the survivors disagree,” the bank said in Thursday’s filing.

The $8 billion award is the largest jury verdict of 2017 so far, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The case is In re: Estate of Max D. Hopper v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, PR-11-3238-1, Probate Court, Dallas County.

Link

quote:

Jo Hopper initially sued the bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan paid legal fees to defend this out of the estate account, depleting it by more than $3 million, the plaintiffs’ said in court filings.

WTF???

If only a couple of the findings are true, the folks at JPM that mismanaged this acct should die from rat poison shoved into their urethras.

Big banks are a pox upon humanity, and JP Morgan no doubt deserves this somehow.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Jo Hopper initially sued the bank, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. JPMorgan paid legal fees to defend this out of the estate account, depleting it by more than $3 million, the plaintiffs’ said in court filings.

WTF???

If only a couple of the findings are true, the folks at JPM that mismanaged this acct should die from rat poison shoved into their urethras.

I read this a little differently. First, the guy did not have a will... bad move. Second, you have a widow and two step-children who are described as sparring survivors. JPM could have probably cleared the estate in a year and made close to $2 million for their efforts, but something in my gut tells me the three survivors (children vs widow) made that quite a difficult task.

Also, I'm not clear if the widow was Hopper's second wife and the children are her step-children? Lots more going on here is my thought.

It’s true that you can’t really have an informed opinion about the outcome of a case without having seen and heard the evidence, like the jury did.

That said, the evidence and testimony must have been decidedly negative for the bank.

I’m often critical of the approach I have often seen big banks take to litigation. They send younger lawyers with almost no actual authority to do anything, constantly having to play “Mother, may I?”, stonewall every step to the maximum, no easy steps. The billable hours are hideous, but so too for the opponent who seldom has the resources to endure the obduracy.

Worse, no one at the bank with seniority looks at the case to evaluate the merits, to conclude whether they have a viable position or not. They will have a viable position when you are ground down and give up.

quote:

no one at the bank with seniority looks at the case to evaluate the merits, to conclude whether they have a viable position or not. They will have a viable position when you are ground down and give up.

well $8 billion judgement should give them pause to reconsider their obduracy, eh?

How does someone who is worth $19mil not have a will? That's just idiocy.

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:
How does someone who is worth $19mil not have a will? That's just idiocy.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're not cheap and lazy.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It’s true that you can’t really have an informed opinion about the outcome of a case without having seen and heard the evidence, like the jury did.

That said, the evidence and testimony must have been decidedly negative for the bank.

I’m often critical of the approach I have often seen big banks take to litigation. They send younger lawyers with almost no actual authority to do anything, constantly having to play “Mother, may I?”, stonewall every step to the maximum, no easy steps. The billable hours are hideous, but so too for the opponent who seldom has the resources to endure the obduracy.

Worse, no one at the bank with seniority looks at the case to evaluate the merits, to conclude whether they have a viable position or not. They will have a viable position when you are ground down and give up.

Still, how does $19 million turn into 8 billion? I could see interest and some punitive damages if they're negligent.

Also, there is case law from SCOTUS on excessive punitive damages based on appeals by State Farm and Exxon.

There's lots of chum in the water on this and it's a long time before the family is going to see any dough on the decision.

Trust and Fiduciary law is a state by state issue but in many respects laws are very similar, but never exact.

Regardless, a fiduciary has the right to defend itself legally with the assets of the estate or trust. If that sounds harsh, look at it as an individual; if you administered your mee-maws estate and your drunken uncle billy sued you for making a payment to your pregnant cousin Ellie, wouldn't your wife want the estate to pay not your savings account? Of course, if you over spend (and I'd say 15%, as here, might be excessive) you very well could have to put it back.

Anyway, it's legal, routine, usual, fair on its face and not unextected for the fiduciary, man or corporation, to defend the trust with the assets of the trust (or estate). With that said, this is a real sack of warts.

edited to add: I went to the court site to see the case but got bored with the third level of instructions on how to find it. Light reading for another day I think

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It’s true that you can’t really have an informed opinion about the outcome of a case without having seen and heard the evidence, like the jury did.

That said, the evidence and testimony must have been decidedly negative for the bank.

I’m often critical of the approach I have often seen big banks take to litigation. They send younger lawyers with almost no actual authority to do anything, constantly having to play “Mother, may I?”, stonewall every step to the maximum, no easy steps. The billable hours are hideous, but so too for the opponent who seldom has the resources to endure the obduracy.

Worse, no one at the bank with seniority looks at the case to evaluate the merits, to conclude whether they have a viable position or not. They will have a viable position when you are ground down and give up.

Still, how does $19 million turn into 8 billion? I could see interest and some punitive damages if they're negligent.

Also, there is case law from SCOTUS on excessive punitive damages based on appeals by State Farm and Exxon.

Punitive damages are awarded upon a finding of malice, either intentional acts to hurt the plaintiff, or gross negligence.

According to the story, the verdict was $2 billion for each of 4 plaintiffs.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It’s true that you can’t really have an informed opinion about the outcome of a case without having seen and heard the evidence, like the jury did.

That said, the evidence and testimony must have been decidedly negative for the bank.

I’m often critical of the approach I have often seen big banks take to litigation. They send younger lawyers with almost no actual authority to do anything, constantly having to play “Mother, may I?”, stonewall every step to the maximum, no easy steps. The billable hours are hideous, but so too for the opponent who seldom has the resources to endure the obduracy.

Worse, no one at the bank with seniority looks at the case to evaluate the merits, to conclude whether they have a viable position or not. They will have a viable position when you are ground down and give up.

Still, how does $19 million turn into 8 billion? I could see interest and some punitive damages if they're negligent.

Also, there is case law from SCOTUS on excessive punitive damages based on appeals by State Farm and Exxon.

Punitive damages are awarded upon a finding of malice, either intentional acts to hurt the plaintiff, or gross negligence.

According to the story, the verdict was $2 billion for each of 4 plaintiffs.

I understand what punitive damages are and read the $2 billion to each of the four.

However, to expand on my brief mention of SCOTUS case law:

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. Compensatory damages were $1 million, but punitive were $145 million. SCOTUS threw it out on the basis of it being excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. Original ruling was ~$300M in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive damages. 9th Circus court of appeals lowered it slightly, Exxon appealed to SCOTUS who ruled based on State Farm, 9th Circus lowered it slightly, Exxon appealed to SCOTUS again who ruled again based on State Farm, rinse and repeat for years, and in the end punitive damages were settled at $0.5 billion.

Based on the above, the $19M + interest + attorney fees would likely be $25 to $100 M in punitive damages.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

8 billion is ludicrous. May be some fault and damages to pay but 8 billion is silly.

Obviously the awarded damages will be lessened when they are appealed. But maybe the damages were so high as a wake up call to JPMorgan not to slack off on the job.

quote:

gross negligence

It may apply to the case but it is a lead-pipe cinch that it applies to the handling of the case. How does a legal team let a case get that far out of control? If you committed the malfeasance, pay for it. If you didn't, get competent help.

My view is precisely that of JALLEN in this. Banks handle litigation poorly. I can't yell you why, hubris, laziness, disinterest, it doesn't matter, they are ham-handed in selecting and monitoring counsel and unbelievably poor in even determining which cases should go forward.

In a deposition once upon a time, one that was unusually hostile, my lawyer, the bank's lawyer really, went to sleep. He had to be poked to awaken him.
In another case the bank's lawyer put on a witness for the bank that was a trust real estate specialist for the bank who had recently been fired for theft who lied his ass off. I could go on.

Again my experience: banks, especially in the area of trust and estates, defend cases they should settle, settle cases they should defend, hire high priced litigators who don't know the law and refuse to learn the facts and blame the easily forseen outcomes on ignorant juries. They tend to look good in Armani though.

Max Hopper was a pioneer in the implementation of the SABRE reservation system American Airlines and IBM invented. SABRE was used by most airlines and travel agents. He died at 76.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

gross negligence

It may apply to the case but it is a lead-pipe cinch that it applies to the handling of the case. How does a legal team let a case get that far out of control? If you committed the malfeasance, pay for it. If you didn't, get competent help.

My view is precisely that of JALLEN in this. Banks handle litigation poorly. I can't yell you why, hubris, laziness, disinterest, it doesn't matter, they are ham-handed in selecting and monitoring counsel and unbelievably poor in even determining which cases should go forward.

In a deposition once upon a time, one that was unusually hostile, my lawyer, the bank's lawyer really, went to sleep. He had to be poked to awaken him.
In another case the bank's lawyer put on a witness for the bank that was a trust real estate specialist for the bank who had recently been fired for theft who lied his ass off. I could go on.

Again my experience: banks, especially in the area of trust and estates, defend cases they should settle, settle cases they should defend, hire high priced litigators who don't know the law and refuse to learn the facts and blame the easily forseen outcomes on ignorant juries. They tend to look good in Armani though.

Malice which justifies a significant punitive damage award is intentional, or grossly negligent, and outrageous, conduct, which I neglected to mention above.

In one case I was involved in, the Big Old Bank was represented by an odd law firm, nobody anyone ever heard of, and on inquiry, the firm represented only that bank. They were bank staff counsel, full time bank employees, who travelled around the state appearing in cases the bank was litigating. Nothing wrong with that. It helps understand how they executed the strategy of passive resistance.

The other unusual tactic was to use a plethora of expert witnesses, none of whom really knew much about the issues, billing outrageously high rates, such that taking all their depositions was a huge expense for plaintiff.

One fellow was claimed to be their expert in “risk management policies.” 3 or 4 days at $500 an hour plus travel expenses whose testimony was offered to prove that the appallingly ignorant, clueless and malevolent acts of the bank employees in this matter were actually the result of the sophisticated risk management strategy carefully implemented by bank’s senior management!

Make JPMorgan pay the $2B per defendant, with the option of suing, starting in the federal district court, to get it back.

Seems only fair.