]]> Home | Message Board Home Search Arbitration Investors Brokers Finance Law Compliance Archives Panel Awards $750,000 in Sale of Annuity to 96 Year Old Man
Danks vs. Merrill Lynch
DANKS v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., NASD ID #01-06242 (Boca Raton, 1/22/03).
On claims relating to the propriety of a single, large investment by a 96 year-old decedent, a three-person Panel grants compensatory damages of $606,682, plus pre-judgment interest of $143,318.
The say-nothing Case Summary in this Award recites the names of three causes of action and indicates the product involved was an annuity. The pleadings and other submissions in this matter describe a bitter dispute following the death of the accountholder, Robert Danks, one which spilled into the probate courts and led to accusations of wrongdoing and greed on both sides.
At base, though, the issue for the Arbitrators was simple: was Mr. Danks purchase of a single premium immediate annuity suitable? Under this annuity, Mr. Danks paid $720,000, leaving approximately $400,000 in a Merrill Lynch trust account, and secured the right to a monthly payment of approximately $20,500 for the rest of his life. No death benefit attached to this investment, so, when Mr. Danks died seven months later, the annuity ceased.
Merrill Lynch maintained that Mr. Danks was obsessed with the fear that he could live for several years and that he would run out of money before he died. Moreover, Merrill maintained, Mr. Danks did not care about leaving an estate. Thus, this annuity addressed his financial concerns.
However, Mr. Danks daughter, Evelyn Danks Corbetta, who became personal representative of the estate, asserted that Respondents liquidated Mr. Danks equity portfolio and sold him a high commission product which could not possibly have been suitable for someone of Mr. Danks age and financial situation.
Although the Statement of Claim alleges it, the Award fails to acknowledge a state securities claim in the Case Summary section and the Arbitrators, while sustaining claims of negligence, negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty, are silent about the disposition of that claim, except to say that any and all claims for relief not specifically addressed herein, including claimants request for punitive damages, are denied. Presumably denied as well was an expungement request relating to the unnamed broker. Forum fees are equally split between the two sides.
Copyright 2003 Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc. P.O. Box 112, Maplewood, NJ 07040; t: 973-761-5880 f: 973-761-1504. Materials denoted with a SAC Reference No. (e.g. SAC Ref. No. 99-01-001) are on hand at SAC and may be obtained by calling the Securities Arbitration Commentator, or by email to email@example.com. The Securities Arbitration Commentator is the leading publication for securities arbitration news and information, and maintains the most complete database of arbitration awards availalble anywhere. For more information regarding their services, visit their website at www.sacarbitration.com
Nothing herein is intended as legal or financial advice. The law is different in different jurisdictions, and the facts of a particular matter can change the application of the law. Please consult an attorney or your financial advisor before acting upon the information contained in this article.
Return to The Securities Law Home Page
Visit Beam & Astarita, LLC, securities arbitration, regulation and litigation attorneys