Covino v. Forrest
| Decision Date | 03 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 13-0433,1 CA-CV 13-0433 |
| Parties | GLENNA COVINO, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TERRY FORREST and DEBORAH A. FORREST, husband and wife; JEFFREY COVINO and JUDY COVINO, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Eileen S. Willett, Judge
AFFIRMED
Morris Law Firm PLLC, Surprise
By Richard W. Morris
Charles M. Giles Attorney at Law, Tucson
By Charles M. Giles
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Donn Kessler joined.
¶1 Glenna Covino, in both her individual and trustee capacity (collectively, Glenna), brought an action against her step-children, Jeffrey Covino and Deborah Forrest, and their spouses (collectively, Defendants), for, inter alia, conversion and unjust enrichment. The conversion claim was tried to a jury, which found for Glenna and awarded $15,000 in damages. The unjust enrichment claim was submitted to the trial court, which found against Glenna. Following the jury's verdict, she filed a comprehensive motion attacking the damages award, which the trial court denied in full.
¶2 Glenna appealed, asserting: 1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for partial summary judgment on the conversion claim; 2) the trial court erred in denying her numerous post-verdict motions attacking the sufficiency of the conversion damages; and 3) the trial court erred by finding in favor of Defendants on her unjust enrichment claim. Finding no error, we affirm.
¶3 Charles Covino, Jeffrey and Deborah's father, decided to move to Arizona, where Jeffrey and Deborah lived, in or around 2003, following the death of his first wife. To this effect, he sold two real estate properties located in New York and New Jersey, and used the proceeds to purchase a house in Arizona (Arizona house); he also purchased 300 Krugerrands.1
¶4 In May 2006, Charles married Glenna. Shortly thereafter, the couple began establishing their estate plan. On January 18, 2007, theyexecuted the Covino Family Living Trust (Covino Trust). The Covino Trust provided that in the event Charles predeceased Glenna, Glenna would become the Trustee of her trust assets in a revocable living trust known as "Trust A." Also, Glenna was to then serve as Trustee of Charles's trust assets under the newly formed "Trust B," created within the Covino Trust. The Covino Trust further provided:
From this TRUST B the Trustee shall allow GLENNA L. COVINO the use and enjoyment of [the Arizona house] during her lifetime. Also, the Trustee shall allow GLENNA L. COVINO to drawn [sic] on the income and/or principal of the remaining corpus of TRUST B for her health, maintenance and support needs as the Trustee deems appropriate. If GLENNA L. COVINO determines that her continued use and enjoyment of the home is unreasonable, then she can direct the Trustee to sell the home and thereafter the Trustee shall pay to GLENNA L. COVINO, from the sale proceeds of the home, a monthly allowance of three thousand dollars . . . until her death.
Upon the death of GLENNA L. COVINO, the Trustee shall divide the remainder of Trust B assets equally among JOHN A. COVINO, DEBOARH A. FORREST AND JEFFERY [sic] C. COVINO.
¶5 That same day, the couple executed several other ancillary documents to effectuate the purpose of the Covino Trust. The first document was a "Community Property Agreement," in which they converted any property they had acquired as joint tenants into community property. They also executed an "Assignment of Personal Property," which assigned to the Covino Trust "[a]ll of our present and future interest in and to all of our personal property and household goods, furnishings located in any home we might own or have an interest in now or hereafter." Charles also executed a will. The will provided that Glenna was to receive "any interest [Charles] may have in all personal automobiles, clothing, jewelry, china, silver, books, pictures and other works of art, household furniture and furnishings and all other items of domestic, household or personal use." If Glenna did not survive Charles, these items were directed to be placed in the Covino Trust. Charles's will also contained a residuary clause, whereby Charles devised the rest of his separate and community property to the Covino Trust.
¶6 Charles died on August 15, 2010, predeceasing Glenna. Five days later, Jeffrey and Deborah went to the Arizona property and removed numerous items, including four safes (which held the Krugerrands and various other coins), guns, and other sentimental items they contended Charles had gifted them during his lifetime.2 After Glenna told them the items belonged to the Covino Trust and requested, to no avail, the items be returned, Glenna filed this action on November 5, 2010, against the Defendants, alleging claims of: 1) conversion, 2) trespass, 3) unjust enrichment, 4) infliction of emotional distress, and 5) breach of duty to a vulnerable adult. The Defendants answered and filed counter claims for breach of duty to a vulnerable adult and reformation of the trust.
¶7 Following discovery, Glenna moved for partial summary judgment on her conversion and unjust enrichment claims, arguing the removed items became part of the Covino Trust upon Charles's signing of his "Assignment of Personal Property," or alternatively upon Charles's death by way of his the residuary clause of his will. In response, Defendants asserted summary judgment was inappropriate as questions of material fact existed concerning whether they had been gifted the items by Charles, which would have removed the items from the purview of either document Glenna relied upon. The Defendants also cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing Glenna had not provided competent evidence the safes and guns had not been gifted to them. The trial court denied both motions without comment.
¶8 A three day jury trial commenced in late February 2013. Glenna testified twenty-four different items were taken from her residenceand that it was her understanding they belonged to the Covino Trust. She admitted several items had been returned to her,3 but estimated the value of the outstanding items taken approached $432,000, with the 210 Krugerrands, alone, estimated to be worth approximately $349,000. She retrieved her estimated values from the internet.
¶9 Each defendant also testified. The gist of their collective testimony was that the guns, safes and the safes' contents, including the 210 Krugerrands they contended were purchased as an investment for them, were purchased by Charles before he married Glenna and gifted by Charles to Jeffrey and Deborah many years before his death. At the close of testimony, Glenna moved for a directed verdict on her conversion claim, which was denied.
¶10 Subsequently, only Glenna's conversion claim was submitted to the jury, as the parties agreed to submit the unjust enrichment and reformation of trust claims to the court; the balance of the claims were dismissed with prejudice at some point during the proceedings. The jury received two general verdict forms: one to be used in the event the jurors found in favor of Glenna, the other if the jurors found in favor of Defendants. The form to be used if they found in favor of Glenna allowed the jury to determine which of the four defendants, if not all, were liable and allowed the jury a line upon which to insert an amount reflecting "the full damages."4 Ultimately, the jury found Jeffreyand Deborah liable for conversion and awarded Glenna $15,000 in damages.
¶11 Thereafter, the parties submitted briefs to the trial court on Glenna's unjust enrichment claim. After taking into account the trial testimony, the admitted exhibits, and the jury's verdict, the trial court found Glenna had an appropriate remedy at law (her conversion claim) for the relief she sought in her unjust enrichment claim, and determined Glenna failed to meet her burden of proof. Also, it dismissed Defendants' reformation of trust claim with prejudice because neither side pursued the claim in the presented briefs.
¶12 Glenna then filed a "Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively for a New Trial, or Alternatively for Additur, or Alternatively for Correction of the Verdict's Damages Amount; Motion for Stay Pending Final Decision on All Post Trial Motions and Appeals." The crux of Glenna's motion was her belief that the jury's verdict in her favor meant it found Jeffrey and Deborah had converted all of the items Glenna asserted had been converted, and that since the parties had allegedly stipulated to those items' values, and the damages award ($15,000.00) was inconsistent with the allegedly stipulated values and the evidence admitted at trial, the verdict was in error. In an unsigned minute entry, the trial court denied the motion, finding that damages were disputed, that the jury resolved the dispute, and the award was justified by the evidence presented at trial. Thereafter, Glenna filed a notice of appeal. We suspended the appeal to allow Glenna to obtain a signed order from the trial court, which she did. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-2101(A)(1), (5)(a).
¶13 Glenna essentially raises four issues on appeal. First, she argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying her partial motion for summary judgment on her conversion claim. Second, she argues the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgment as a matter of law. Third, she contends the trial court erred by denying her other post-verdict motions regarding the amount of damages awarded on her conversion claim....
To continue reading
Request your trial