• Report: #1131260

Complaint Review: Jennifer S. Gromley, Tamra Palmer

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Mon, March 17, 2014
  • Updated: Sat, August 15, 2015

  • Reported By: Victims of Gormley & Palmer — 18th Judicial District Colorado
Jennifer S. Gromley, Tamra Palmer
6060 Greenwood Plaza GREENWOOD VILLAGE, Colorado USA

Jennifer S. Gromley, Tamra Palmer Palmer, Goertzel and Associates, P.C., Matthew Alex Dill, Jean Powell, Mathew Bailis, Marcy Gray, John Berman Legal Malpractice Suit filed against Gromley and Palmer GREENWOOD VILLAGE Colorado

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

 District Court

City and County of Denver, Colorado

Court Address: 1437 Bannock St., Room 256                                                                                                                                                 Denver, CO 80202                          Febuary 5,2014                                                                               

 Case no. 2014CV30514                          

 

Plaintiff/Petitioner(s): Mildred Janowitz, by and through her

Conservator Joshua M. Rexon                                                         

V.

Defendant/Respondent(s): Jennifer S. Gormley; the Law Office of               

Jennifer S. Gormley, P.C.; Tamra Palmer; Palmer, Goertzel &

Associates, P.C.; Matthew Alex Dill; Jean Powell; Matthew Bailis;

Marci Gray_

Attorney or Party Without Attorney (Name and Address):                                                se Number:

The Limbaugh Law Firm, LLC, by Oren "Von" Limbaugh

5445 DTC Pkwy., Ste. 240, Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Phone Number: 303-662-9922 E-mail:von@thelimbaughlawfirm.com

Atty. Reg. #: 31640

 

COMPLAINT

Mildred Janowitz, by and through her Conservator, Joshua M. Rexon, by and through her attorneys, The Limbaugh Law Firm, I,I,C and Frost & Beck, LLP, hereby complains as follows:

Introduction

 

  1. 1.       Mildred Janowitz (hereafter -Janowitz") is a 95-year-old widow and this is an action to recover damages she suffered as a result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, malpractice and fraud.

Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue

 

  1. 2.      Janowitz is a resident of Douglas County, Colorado.
  2. 3.      Joshua M. Rexon (hereafter "Rexon") is Janowitz's grandnephew and was appointed by the Douglas County District Court, State of Colorado to serve as Janowitz's guardian and conservator in Douglas County District Court Case No. 12PR91.
  3. 4.       Rexon is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
  4. 5.      Defendant Jennifer S. Gormley (hereafter "Gormley") is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado
  5. 6.      Defendant The Law Office of Jennifer S. Gormley, P.C. (hereafter "Gormley, P.C.") is a Colorado Professional Corporation with its principal place of business located in Arapahoe County, Colorado.

 

7. Defendant Matthew Bailis (hereafter "Bailis") is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado.

8. Defendant Marci Gray (hereafter "Gray") was an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado.

9. Defendant Tamra Palmer (hereafter "Palmer") is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado.

  1. Palmer, is, and was at all times complained of herein, the Public Administrator of the 18th Judicial District, State of Colorado.
  2. Defendant Palmer, Goertzel & Associates, P.C. (hereafter "Palmer, P.C.") is a Colorado Professional Corporation with its principal place of business located in Arapahoe County, Colorado.
  3. Defendant Matthew Alex Dill (hereafter "Dill") is a resident of the State of Colorado.
  4. Defendant Jean Powell (hereafter "Powell") is a resident of the State of Colorado.
  5. Plaintiff anticipates that additional defendants will be made known during the discovery process and reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add such parties as they become known.
  6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.S. §1 3- 1 - 1 24.
  7. The actions complained of herein occurred in Douglas County, Colorado; Arapahoe County, Colorado; and in the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Venue is proper pursuant to CRCP 98(c) (5).

Background Facts

  1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the above Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Janowitz and her husband owned and operated the Janowitz Land And Cattle Company, also known as Horse Patch Farms (hereafter "Horse Patch Farms"). They raised championship Palomino Quarter Horses, some of which were used in Marlboro advertisements in the 1970s, and were inducted into the Palomino Horse Breeders of America Hall of Fame.
  3. After her husband died, Janowitz continued to operate successfully horse Patch Farms. She was inducted into the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame in 2004.
  4. As Janowitz aged, her ability to operate Horse Patch Farms was compromised by her deteriorating health.

 

  1. Janowitz began to rely more and more on Dill, as her "Ranch Manager," to operate Horse Patch Farms and manage her financial affairs.
  2. Unknown to Janowitz, Dill, sometime during 2010, began to use the Horse Patch Farms facilities, e.g. barn, stables, riding arena, corrals, and pastures, and supplies for his own benefit.
  3. Without Janowitz's knowledge, Dill, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 used Janowitz's money to purchase horse feed, supplies and services for Dills horses and Powell's horses.
  4. Unknown to Janowitz, Dill, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 charged individuals to train and board their horses. Dill kept all of the money from such activities for himself.
  5. Unknown to Janowitz, Dill, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 charged individuals to graze cattle on Janovitz's land. Dill kept all of the money from such activities for himself.
  6. Unknown to Janowitz, Dill, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 used Janowitz's money advertise and sell his horses and Powell's horses.
  7. As a result of Dill's actions, Janowitz ran out of money and was not able to pay her care givers.
  8. Janowitz, in November, 2011, consulted with her physician, Amelda Heckman, DO, who advised Janowitz to seek help with her financial affairs. On or about November 6, 2011, Janowitz wrote a letter directing her friend Paula Collis and Rexon to act on Janowitz's behalf for all of her financial affairs.
  9. 29.    Rexon and Collis began to assist Janowitz with her financial affairs in November, 2011. They negotiated with Janowitz's creditors and ensured that Janowitz had the in-home care that she needed.
  10. While examining Janowitz's finances, Rexon and Collis became concerned about Dill's activities. They also noticed that many of Janowitz's checks were not written by her and appeared to have been forged.
  11. Rexon and Collis notified Janowitz's attorney, Jerry Burk (hereafter "Burk") of their concerns and sought Burk's assistance on behalf of Janowitz.
  12. Burk, on December 9, 2011, sent Dill letter asking for an accounting of his activities as Janowitz's Ranch Manager.
  13. After receiving Burk's demand letter, Dill, or someone acting on his behalf, arranged for Gormley to meet Janowitz.

 34.Gormley met Janowitz on or about December 28, 2011. On or about January 9, 2012, Janowitz signed powers of attorney prepared by Gormley in which Palmer was appointed to serve as Janowitz's attorney-in-fact for financial matters and conservator; Karen Buchanan (hereafter "Buchanan") and Valerie Crider (hereafter "Crider") were appointed to serve as Janowitz's guardian or successor guardian and substitute agents for medical decisions. Janowitz did not know Palmer, Buchanan or Crider.

35.After Janowitz signed Gurley’s powers of attorney, Gormley contacted Rexon, Collis and Burk and demanded that they stop working on Janowitz's matters.

First Claim for Relief: Theft (Dill)

36.Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

37.With the intent to permanently deprive Janowitz of the use or benefit of her property, Dill, by deception or otherwise without Janowitz's authorization, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 knowingly obtained or exercised control over Janowitz's property, including, but not limited to, hay and horse feed; pasture; facilities; checking, financial and bank accounts, without Janowitz's authorization or by deception.

  1. As a result of the above actions, Janowitz was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

Second Claim for Relief: False Representation (Dill)

39.Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

40.In 2010, 2011 and 2012, Dill made numerous false representations to Janowitz concerning the needs and expenses of horse Patch Farms in order to induce Janowitz to purchase horse feed, hay, and services for Dill's horses and Powell's horses.

41.Dill intended that Janowitz would rely upon the misrepresentations to make purchases.

42.Janowitz relied on Dill's misrepresentations and was justified in so relying.

43.The facts Dill misrepresented were material, and, at the time he made them, Dill knew the representations were false or was aware that he did not know whether the representations were true or false.

44.As a result Janowitz's reliance upon Dill's misrepresentations, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in amounts to be proven at trial.

  Third Claim For Relief: Deceit Based On Fraud (Dill)

  1. 45.     Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
  2. 46.     In 2010, 2011 and 2012, Dill concealed or failed to disclose facts about his use of Janowitz's property, e.g. hay, feed and facilities, to keep his horses and Powell's horses and the number of horses he owned and otherwise kept or boarded at Horse Patch Farms.
  3. 47.     Dill had a duty to disclose those facts.
  4. The facts Dill failed to disclose or concealed were material and Dill failed to disclose or concealed those facts with the intent of creating the false impression in Janowitz's mind and in the mind of her conservator, that Janowitz was making purchases to benefit her horses and business.
  5. Dill failed to disclose or concealed those facts with the intent that Janowitz and her conservator would continue purchasing feed, hay, services and supplies that neither Janowitz nor her conservator would have purchased had they known the actual facts.
  6. Janowitz and her conservator purchased feed, hay, services and supplies in reliance upon the assumption that the concealed or undisclosed facts did not exist or were different from what they actually were.
  7. Such reliance was justified and as a result of such reliance, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

Fourth Claim for Relief:  Breach of Fiduciary Duties (Dill)

  1. 52.     Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
  2. 53.     Dill, during 2010, 2011 and 2012 acted as Janowitz's fiduciary with respect to the management and operation of horse Patch Farms, including, but not limited to, breeding, raising and selling Janowitz's horses.
  3. Dill had a duty not to compete against Janowitz with respect to the management and operation of Horse Patch Farms.
  4. 55.     Dill breached his duty not to compete against Janowitz by taking care of his horses while neglecting Janowitz's horses; using Janowitz's money to market and advertise his horses and Powell's horses; selling his horses rather than Janowitz's horses; using Janowitz's property to train horses owned by other individuals; and using Janowitz's property to show or display his horses and those of other individuals.

 Dill had a duty to use or apply Janowitz's property solely for Janowitz's benefit.

  1. Dill breached his duty to use or apply Janowitz's property solely for her benefit by self-dealing and neglecting and mistreating Janowitz's property and horses.
  2. Dill had a duty to disclose to Janovitz that he was using Janowitz's facilities, supplies and funds to care for and maintain his horses and Powell's horses, board and care for the horses of other individuals, to train horses for other individuals, and to allow individuals to graze cattle on Janowitz's property.
  3. Dill breached his duty of disclosure to Janowitz.
  4. Dill had a duty to deal with Janowitz's ranch operations and business not to favor the interests of third parties more than Janovitz’s interests.
  5. Dill breached that duty by allowing individuals to board their horses on Janowitz's property at no cost to them or without paying Janowitz the fair market value of such boarding.
  6. Dill further breached that duty by allowing individuals to graze cattle on Janowitz's property without paying Janowitz the fair market value of such grazing.

61. As a result or Dill's breaches of fiduciary duty, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

Fifth Claim Relief: Civil Conspiracy (Dill And Powell)

 Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

  1. Dill and Powell, between 2010 and 2012, agreed by words or conduct to use Janowitz's money and property for their own benefit and deprive Janowitz of her property and the use of her property by means of fraud and deceit.
  2. Dill and Powell, between 2010 and 2012, concealed, misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts to Janowitz and otherwise took actions to accomplish their goals to use Janowitz's money and property for their own benefit and deprive Janowitz of her property and the use of her property.
  3. As a result of Dill and Powell's actions performed to accomplish their goals, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

Sixth Claim For Relief: Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty (Palmer)

 Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

 Palmer acted as Janowitz's fiduciary with respect to the management and administration of Janowitz's finances and property.

  1. Palmer had a duty to disclose to Janowitz that Palmer had business relationships and a personal relationship with Gormley.

71.Palmer did not disclose to Janowitz that Palmer had business relationships arid a personal relationship with Gormley.

  1. Palmer had a duty to use and apply Janowitz's money for Janowitz's benefit and in a manner consistent with Janowitz's best interests.
  2. Palmer used Janowitz's money to pay the fees of an expert witness hired by Gormley to oppose Roxon’s action to be appointed as Janowitz's guardian and conservator rather than to take care of Janowitz. At the time Palmer paid Gm Ealey's expert witness, Janowitz did not have the ability to pay for medications or food and her house was infested by raccoons.
  3. Palmer had a duty not to favor the interests of third parties over the interests of Janowitz.

75.Palmer breached that duty by favoring the interests of Gormley and Gurley’s expert witness over the interests of Janowitz.

  1. As a result of Palmer's breaches of fiduciary duty, Janovitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial,

Seventh Claim For Relief: False_Kepresentation (Gormley_)

77. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set 'brill herein.

  1. In 2011 and 2012, Gormley made numerous false representations to Janowitz concerning Dill, Rexon and Collis in order to induce Janowitz to hire Gormley.
  2. Gormley intended that Janowitz would rely upon the misrepresentations to hire Gormley to prepare estate planning documents and force Rexon and Collis to stop acting for Janowitz.
  3. Janowitz relied on Gurley’s misrepresentations and was justified in so relying.
  4. The facts Gormley misrepresented were material, and, at the time she made them, Gormley knew the representations were false or was aware that she did not know whether the representations were true or false.
  5. As a result Janowitz's reliance upon Gurley’s misrepresentations, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in amounts to be proven at trial.

Eighth Claim For Relief: Malpractice (Gormley, Gray and Bailis)

  1. 83.      Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
  2. When dealing with Janowitz, Gormley, Gray and Wills had a duty to act in a 'Dimmer consistent with that of a reasonable and careful attorney.
  3. When dealing with Janovitz, Gormley, Gray and Bailis failed to take action that a reasonable and careful attorney would in dealing with a client who has diminished capacity.
  4. When dealing with Janovitz, Gormely, Gray and Bailis took action that a reasonable and careful attorney would not have taken in dealing with a client who has diminished capacity.
  5. Although Gormley, Gray and Bailis knew or were aware that Janowitz had diminished capacity, none of them consulted with Rexon, Collis, Burk or Heckman about Janowitz's condition and affairs.
  6. Gormley gave false information to Janowitz about Rexon at the time Gormley asked Janowitz hire Gormley. Gormley was negligent in obtaining and communicating that information and provided it for Janowitz's use and guidance when Janowitz made decisions pertaining to Gurley’s representation. Gormley provided the information to Janowitz with the intent and knowledge that Janowitz would act in reliance upon the information.
  7. 89.    Janowitz relied upon the information from Gormley regarding Rexon.
  8. Neither Gormley, Gray nor Bailis followed-up on the concerns expressed by Rexon, Collis and Burk about Dill's actions with Janowitz's property and money.
  9. Gormley, Gray and Bailis did not follow the direction of Attorney Thomas Ramunda (hereafter "Ramunda"), Janowitz's guardian ad litem with regard to the representation of Janowitz.
  10. 92.    Gormley gave false information to Ramunda regarding Roxon’s financial affairs. Gormley was negligent in obtaining and communicating that information and provided it for Armanda’s use and guidance when he made decisions as Janowitz's guardian ad litem. Gormley provided the information to Ramunda with the intent and knowledge that he would act in reliance upon the

Information.

  1. Gormley and Gray obstructed Armanda’s attempts to obtain Janowitz's legal file and documents from Gurley’s office.
  2. 94.   After Janowitz expressed her desire that Gormley not represent her, Gormley, Bailis and Gray continued to file motions and assert that they represented Janowitz.

95.After Rexon, as Janowitz's guardian and conservator told Gormley to cease representation of Janowitz, Gormley, Gray and Bailis continued to file motions and assert that they represented

Janowitz.

96.Gormley, Gray and Bailis filed pleadings and motions opposing Roxon’s appointment without Janowitz's knowledge or consent.

97.After Rexon was appointed as Janowitz's guardian and conservator, Gormley, Gray and Bailis, without Janowitz's knowledge or consent, filed motions opposing Roxon’s efforts on behalf of Janowitz.

  1. Gormley and Bailis, without Janowitz's knowledge or consent, tiled a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Cowl (Case No. 12-593), a CAR 21 Petition with the Colorado Supreme Court (Case No. 2012SA227) and an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals (Case No. 2012CA1736).
  2. In each of the above-listed cases and in Douglas County District Court Case No. 12PR 91, Gormley and Bailis filed pleadings and documents that contained information they knew, or should have known, was false or inaccurate. For example, Gormley and Bailis misrepresented the amount of land owned by Janowitz and denied the fact that Gormley was served with a copy of the proposed orders before they were signed by the Douglas County District Court.
  3. Gray, in Douglas County District Court Case No. 12PR91, filed pleadings and documents that contained information she knew, or should have known, was false or inaccurate.
  4. Gormley charged Janowitz for the legal services Gormley provided that were done without Janowitz's knowledge or consent.
  5. Gormley did not disclose that she had business or personal relationships with Palmer, Buchanan and Crider, the individuals she suggested serve as Janowitz's agents.
  6. Gormley failed to supervise Bailis and Gray while they worked on the Janowitz case in a manner in which a reasonable and careful attorney would have done.
  7. Gormley, Gray and Bailis provided assistance and legal advice to Dill, Powell and other third parties in their attempts to collect from Janowitz debts they alleged were owed to them.
  8. 105.         Gormley, Gray and Bailis provided legal advice and assistance to Dill and Powell in their attempts to intervene in the guardian and conservator case and file claims against Janowitz.
  9. Gormley, Gray and Bailis disclosed, without authorization, to Dill, Powell and other individuals confidential and protected information about Janowitz and the cases involving Janovitz.
  10. As a result of Gormley, Gray and Bailis's actions and the false information provided by Gormley to Janowitz, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

Ninth Claim For Relief: Breach Of Fiduciary Duties (Gormley, Gray and Bailis)

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Gormley, Gray and Bailis acted as Janowitz's fiduciary with respect to Janowitz's estate plan, business and personal finances and the legal action in which Rexon was appointed as Janowitz's guardian and conservator.
  3. Gormley had a duty to disclose to Janowitz that Gormley had business relationships and a
    personal relationship with Palmer.
  4. Gormley had a duty to disclose to Janowitz that she had business and personal relationships with Buchanan and Crider.
  5. Gormley did not disclose to Janowitz that Gormley had business relationships and a personal relationship with Palmer, Buchanan or Crider.
  6. Gray and Rallis had a duty to disclose to Janowitz that Gormley, Palmer, Buchanan and Crider had business or personal relationships.
  7. Gormley, Gray and Bailis exceeded the scope of agency set forth in the agreement signed by Janowitz concerning the legal services to be provided by Gormley.
  8. Gormley, Gray and Bailis had a duty not to favor the interests of third parties over the
    interests of Janowitz. Gormley, Gray and Bailis breached that duty by favoring the interests of Dill and Powell over the interests of Janowitz,
  9. Gormley, Gray and Bailis had a duty to investigate the concerns expressed to her by
    Rexon, Collis and Burk regarding Dill's actions and use of Janowitz's property. Gormley, Gray and Bailis did not investigate those matters.
  10. Gormley, Gray and Bailis had a duty to protect Janowitz from being taken advantage of
    by Dill and Powell. Gormley, Gray and Bailis failed to protect Janowitz from Dill and Powell and enabled Dill and Powell to take advantage of Janowitz.
  11. As a result of Dill, Powell, Palmer, Gormley, Gray and Bailis's actions performed to accomplish their goals, Janowitz suffered damages and losses in an amount to be proven at trial.

Eleventh Claim For Relief: Liability Based On Respondent Superior

  1. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
  2. Gormley, Gray and Bailis were, at all times complained of herein as to their actions, employees of Gormley, P.C. Gormley, P.C. is liable for the actions of its employees performed in the scope of their employment.
  3. Palmer was, at all times complained of herein; an employee of Palmer, P.C. Palmer, and P.C. is liable for the actions of its employees performed in the scope of their employment.
  4. As a result of the actions of the employees of Gormley, P.C. and Palmer, P.C., Janowitz suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

Twelfth Claim For Relief: Violation Of The Colorado Organized Crime Control Act

 Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.0 were, at all times complained of herein associated in fact.

  1. Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.C.'s association in fact was an enterprise, as defined by the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, C.R.S. §18-17-101 et seq. (hereafter "COCCA"), such enterprise is herein after referred to as the "Enterprise".
  2. Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.C. through their associations with the Enterprise knowingly conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in the Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
  3. Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.C., conspired or endeavored to violate the provisions of subsection (1), (2) or (3) of C.R.S §18-17-104.
  4. Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.C., committed, attempted to commit, conspired to commit, and solicited, coerced, or intimidated other persons to commit offenses against governmental operations, including, but not limited to: bribery; attempt to influence a public servant; misuse of official information; and first degree or second degree perjury.
  5. Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, and Palmer, P.C., engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.
  6. Palmer is a public servant.
  7. Gormley offered, conferred or agreed to confer to Palmer Janowitz's money or other property with the intent to influence Palmer’s opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action in Palmer's official capacity as the Public Administrator of the 18th Judicial District.
  8. Gormley offered, conferred or agreed to confer to Palmer Janovitz's money or other property with the intent to influence Palmer's testimony as a witness in the hearing on the Matter before the Douglas County District Court.
  9. Gormley conspired with or otherwise improperly arranged for Janovitz to appoint Palmer as Janowitz's attorney-in-fact so that Palmer could receive payments from Janowitz or Janowitz's estate in order to influence Palmer to oppose Rexon and Collis's efforts to protect Janowitz and to use Janowitz's money to benefit Dill, Gormley, Palmer and Powell.
  10. 141.          Gormley and Palmer conspired and otherwise agreed by words or conduct that if Palmer were Janowitz's agent; Palmer would pay Gormley from Janowitz's assets and estate.
  11. Palmer, while a public servant, solicited, accepted, or agreed to accept payments from Janowitz upon an agreement or understanding that Palmer's opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action as a public servant would thereby be influenced.
  12. Gormley and Palmer engaged in a pattern in which Gormley would offer, confer or agree to confer upon Palmer pecuniary benefits with the intent to influence Palmer's opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action as a public servant and in which Palmer would solicit, accept or agree to accept pecuniary benefits upon an agreement or understanding that Palmer's opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action as a public servant would thereby be influenced, to wit Gormley and Palmer would conspire to have Palmer appointed as a fiduciary of various estates or individuals in which Gormley was involved and Palmer would, in turn, improperly pay herself and Gormley from those estates or property of the individuals.
  13. 144.            Gormley attempted to influence Ramunda by means of deceit with the intent thereby to alter or affect his decision, opinion, or actions concerning the fulfillment of Armanda’s appointment and charge by the Douglas County District Court. To wit, Gormley provided information to Ramunda that Gormley knew or should have known was false or misleading in an effort to alter or affect Armanda’s actions, decision and opinion regarding the matter.
  14. Gormley knowingly made materially false statements that she did not believe to be true in official proceedings, to wit pleadings filed in the above-listed cases before the Douglas County

District Court, the Colorado Supreme Court, the Colorado Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court,

  1. Gormley solicited, coerced, or intimidated Claudia Ostler, an employee of the Douglas
    County Department of Human Services, to misuse information obtained by the Douglas County Department of Human Services to assist Gormley in her efforts to hinder or obstruct Rexon.
  2. As a result of the actions of the Enterprise, Gormley, Gormley, P.C., Palmer, P.C. and
    Palmer, Janowitz was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial and seeks threefold her actual damages for the violations of C.R.S. §18-17-104, together with attorney’s fees and costs as provided by C.R.S. §18-17-106. Janowitz also asks the court to impose reasonable restrictions upon the future activities of the Defendants to include prohibition of Gormley and Palmer working on the same matter or case; requiring Gormley and Palmer to disclose their business dealings and relationships to future clients.

Damages

 Janowitz seeks recovery of her actual economic losses and injuries suffered as a result of

  1. the Defendants' actions or lack of actions.
  2. Janowitz reserves the right to seek exemplary damages pursuant to C.R.S. §13-21-102.
  3. Janowitz seeks court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and treble damages for
    Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Janowitz.
  4. Janowitz seeks three times the amount of the actual damages, the costs of this action and
    reasonable attorney’s fees as a result of the theft of her property.
  5. Janowitz seeks the injunctive relief set forth above.

Jury Demand

  1. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all matters complained of herein.

 


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/17/2014 12:21 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Jennifer-S-Gromley-Tamra-Palmer/GREENWOOD-VILLAGE-Colorado-8I0111/Jennifer-S-Gromley-Tamra-Palmer-Palmer-Goertzel-and-Associates-PC-Matthew-Alex-Dil-1131260. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Jennifer S. Gromley, Tamra Palmer

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.