Van Dusen v. Malova
| Decision Date | 05 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1225,1225 |
| Parties | DENNIS VAN DUSEN v. ALLA MALOVA |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Montgomery County
UNREPORTED
Eyler, Deborah S., Graeff, Alpert, Paul E., (Senior judge, specially assigned) JJ.
Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.
*This is an unreported opinion and therefore may not be cited either as precedent or as persuasive authority in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland court. Md. Rule 1-104.
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alla Malova, the appellee, sued Dennis Van Dusen, the appellant, for invasion of privacy, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent conveyance. Malova alleged that Van Dusen installed hidden cameras in a bedroom she rented from him in his house at 6910 Ridgewood Avenue, in Chevy Chase ("the Property"), and used the cameras to secretly record her most private moments while she lived there. She also alleged that Van Dusen conveyed the Property to himself and his estranged wife as tenants by the entireties shortly after she filed her suit, in order to render himself judgment-proof.
The case was tried to a jury. After Malova rested her case-in-chief, the court entered judgment against Van Dusen on liability for invasion of privacy, trespass, and fraudulent conveyance, and entered judgment in favor of Van Dusen for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case went to the jury on damages. It returned a verdict awarding Malova $456,288 in compensatory damages and $371,400 in punitive damages.
On appeal, Van Dusen presents four questions for review, which we have combined into one:
Did the trial court err by denying Van Dusen's motion to dismiss the fraudulent conveyance claim, granting judgment in Malova's favor on that claim, denying Van Dusen's motions for new trial on that claim, and making various other rulings regarding that claim?1
We shall affirm the judgments.
In September of 2009, Malova began renting a bedroom at the Property from Van Dusen. Several other young women rented bedrooms there as well. Van Dusen lived at the Property.
On the morning of October 13, 2012, while Malova was visiting her parents in Frederick, one of the other tenants called and told her that the night before RebeccaPrywes, another tenant, had discovered a camera hidden in the smoke detector in her bedroom. She had called the police and they were at the Property investigating.
The next day, Malova moved out of the Property. Shortly thereafter, Detective Marc Frazier, of the Montgomery County Police Department, contacted Malova and asked her to come to the police station to identify herself in videos retrieved from computer hard drives police officers had seized from Van Dusen's living quarters at the Property. The videos showed, among other things, Malova sleeping in her bed, trying on clothes, and engaging in sexual relations with her then-boyfriend.
On January 28, 2013, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Malova filed a complaint against Van Dusen for invasion of privacy, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought compensatory and punitive damages.2 She later amended her complaint to add a count for fraudulent conveyance.
A jury trial commenced on February 25, 2014. Malova, Detective Frazier, Detective William Heverly (also with the Montgomery County Police Department), and forensic psychologist Dr. Michael Sweda testified in Malova's case. Malova also called Van Dusen as a hostile witness and introduced portions of his videotaped pre-trial deposition.
The evidence showed the following. Sometime after Malova became a tenant and moved into the Property, Van Dusen placed two hidden cameras in the smoke detector and in a wall electrical socket in her bedroom. The cameras were motion-activated and recorded 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Both were positioned to record the bed in the room. Footage from the cameras was sent to a computer kept in Van Dusen's office in the Property, on which he watched, stored, and edited the footage from Malova's room with footage from hidden cameras in other tenants' rooms. At one point later during Malova's tenancy, Van Dusen re-entered her room and changed the angle of the camera hidden in the smoke detector so it faced a mirror hanging on one of the room's walls. He also re-entered the room on another occasion, also during the tenancy, and replaced that mirror with a larger one, so the camera in the smoke detector could capture a wider reflection.
As a result of learning of Van Dusen's actions, Malova suffered from an anxiety disorder and a host of other emotional problems, including difficulty with sexual intimacy, difficulty trusting others, paranoia, struggling to concentrate at work, and, ultimately, the demise of her relationship with her ex-boyfriend. Dr. Sweda opined that two years of weekly psychotherapy treatments were needed to resolve these symptoms. After moving out of the Property in 2012, Malova rented an apartment in Virginia that was more than twice the monthly cost of living at the Property.
At the close of her case, Malova moved for judgment on all counts. Van Dusen also moved for judgment on all counts except invasion of privacy. As noted, the trialcourt granted Malova's motion on liability on her claims of invasion of privacy, trespass, and fraudulent conveyance and granted Van Dusen's motion on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Van Dusen did not put on any evidence.
The court advised the jurors that it had directed a finding of liability in favor of Malova "as to invasion of privacy and [as] to trespass[,]" and instructed them to deliberate on the amount of damages "only as to" those claims. It also instructed the jurors to determine whether Malova was entitled to punitive damages. Ultimately, the jurors returned a verdict awarding Malova $456,288 in compensatory damages and $371,400 in punitive damages, for a total damages award of $827,688.3 On March 7, 2014, the circuit court entered separate judgments against Van Dusen in those amounts.4
On February 13, 2013, two weeks after Malova sued him, Van Dusen executed a deed conveying the Property to himself and his estranged wife, Irina Popova Van Dusen("Popova"), as tenants by the entireties ("the February 13 deed" or "February 13 transfer"). The deed stated that the transfer was made "in consideration of the sum of $0.00[.]" On March 4, 2013, Malova, unaware of the February 13 transfer, filed a "Request for Attachment Before Judgment" of the Property. The court, also unaware that the Property had been transferred, granted Malova's motion the next day. On March 7, 2013, a writ of attachment was executed and Van Dusen was ordered to "hold" the Property "subject to further proceedings" in the case.5
Discovery commenced, and the February 13 deed was disclosed. Upon discovering the transfer, Malova amended her complaint to add Popova as a defendant and to add a claim for fraudulent conveyance against Van Dusen and Popova. As relief, Malova sought a declaration that the February 13 deed was invalid, a ruling setting aside the conveyance, and an injunction preventing Van Dusen or Popova from conveying or encumbering the Property before any judgment entered in the case was satisfied.
Popova filed an answer in which she raised several affirmative defenses by which she maintained the validity of the February 13 deed. She also asserted counter- and cross-claims, which eventually were dismissed.
On January 17, 2014, about a month before trial, Popova executed a quitclaim deed conveying "all of her interest" in the Property back to Van Dusen, leaving theProperty again titled in Van Dusen's name alone. Thereafter, Popova signed a written stipulation that she would not challenge Malova's attachment on the Property "in this or any other proceeding." Before the jury was empaneled on the first day of trial, Malova voluntarily dismissed Popova as a defendant.
At trial, when called as a hostile witness, Van Dusen testified that he purchased the Property before he married Popova. The Property remained titled in his name alone throughout the marriage, until he transferred it on February 13, 2013. By that time, he and Popova had been separated for over ten years. Popova did not know that Van Dusen was transferring the Property to the two of them as tenants by the entireties when he did so. Van Dusen told her about the transfer "several weeks" after it happened. A month before Malova sued him, Prywes, and her boyfriend, Keith Woodhams, sued him for invasion of privacy ("the Prywes lawsuit"). Prywes sought an attachment before judgment on the Property, which initially was denied. Van Dusen acknowledged that, when he executed the February 13 deed, he was aware of the Prywes lawsuit and of Prywes's failed attempt to levy an attachment on the Property. He maintained, however, that he conveyed the Property to Popova "because [he] loved her" and wanted to recognize the financial contributions she had made to the Property during their marriage. He testified that he did not convey the Property to protect it from future judgments in Malova's and Prywes's lawsuits against him. Other evidence admitted at trial showed that the Property, valued at nearly $1.1 million dollars at the time, was Van Dusen's only asset of significant value.
As noted, the trial court granted Malova's motion for judgment on the fraudulent conveyance claim.
On March 17, 2014, Van Dusen filed a "Motion for New Trial and in the Alternative Remittitur." He argued: 1) the trial court erred by granting Malova's motion for judgment on trespass, because he "did not forcibly enter [Malova's] leasehold to deprive her of [its] use"; 2) the trial court erred by granting Malova's motion for judgment on fraudulent conveyance, because Popova had...
To continue reading
Request your trial