facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Canfield couple sues First Merit Bank over $1.4 million in trust fund losses



Published: Sun, January 20, 2013 @ 12:07 a.m.

Samuel and Loraine Pipino claim the bank misled them, causing them to lose more than $1.4 million in trust funds established for their autistic children

By Peter H. Milliken

milliken@vindy.com

YOUNGSTOWN

A Canfield couple is suing an Akron-based bank, saying the bank misled them into making risky investments that caused them to lose more than $1.4 million in trust funds they had established for the benefit of their autistic minor children.

Samuel D. and Loraine M. Pipino said they clearly instructed First Merit Bank that they wanted to invest trust assets in “extremely safe and risk-free vehicles,” the Pipinos’ lawsuit says.

Instead, bank officials convinced the Pipinos to invest trust assets in exchange-traded financial instruments, known as Ultrashort Securities, which bank officials said were consistent with the couple’s conservative investment plan, the suit said.

Prospectuses for each of the Ultrashort Securities describe the funds as “extremely volatile investments, designed for an investor with high risk tolerance.”

The suit alleges the bank, which charged $500 to $1,000 per transaction, “engaged in excessive transactions ... to generate excessive sales and transaction commissions.”

The Pipinos initially sued First Merit in 2010 in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, where the case was assigned to Judge R. Scott Krichbaum.

First Merit tried to remove that suit to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson returned it to common pleas court “for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and untimely removal.”

The Pipinos recently dismissed and refiled the suit in common pleas court to give the parties more time and opportunity for pretrial exchange of evidence, said Forrest A. Norman of Cleveland, one of the Pipinos’ lawyers.

Bank officials and their lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

While the initial suit was pending, First Merit subpoenaed gambling records from casinos in West Virginia and Canada, but these records showed only one line of credit at a casino on one trip by the Pipinos, Norman said.

First Merit apparently was trying to show that the Pipinos had significant risk tolerance because they gambled, but, in reality, the Pipinos have been to casinos only four or five times in their lives, Norman said.

What little gambling the Pipinos did was with money that was totally separate from the trust funds for their children, Norman said, calling First Merit’s subpoenas for casino records “a fishing expedition” and “character assassination.”

The legal dispute arose in another forum, when First Merit sued the Pipinos in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in Cleveland, saying the bank is entitled to recover more than $25,000 in expenses it incurred while acting as their agent from the bank’s Cleveland office.

In that complaint, the bank points to an agreement the Pipinos signed, which says the bank isn’t liable for losses incurred in its good-faith handling of the couple’s investments.

In a motion to dismiss the Cleveland lawsuit, the couple argues that the bank hasn’t established an obligation by the couple to indemnify the bank.

First Merit should present its defense “on the merits in the context of the Pipinos claims” against the bank, the couple argued.


Comments

1bmanresident(597 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Sounds to me like someone didn't read the fine print before they signed on the dotted line. Hopefully the courts put a stop to this kind of lawsuit. Whenever someone invests there is always a risk involved. Opening a can of worms like this would be devistating to the investment and banking industry. Don't expect a verdict in the favor of the couple.

Suggest removal:

2Wapiti(139 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Just another bank manipulation to get as much money from clients as they can. I don't expect a verdict in favor of the bank.

Suggest removal:

3Youngstown(19 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Awful. If the jury finds that the facts are as this story reports, the couple has a right to recover their losses. Yes, investing involves risk but anyone familiar with trading and investment knows that "ultrashort" inverse funds are VERY risky. Investing in those instruments after the couple said they want to invest conservatively is recklessness on the part of the bank, and I bet it can be shown that it was done in bad faith (it wasn't a mistake, it was intentional)

Suggest removal:

4TylerDurden(367 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

If you are dealing with one million plus dollars of money for your autistic child, perhaps you should monitor what a third party is doing with that money more closely.

Minus evidence of fraud, it's going to be a tough case for the plaintiffs to win.

Suggest removal:

5AnotherAverageCitizen(1174 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

I would think after the couple lost the first $2-300,000 they would have put a stop to the transactions. Waiting till all the money is gone seems a little foolish to me.

Suggest removal:

6sweetiepie(15 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

wow

Suggest removal:

7JoeFromHubbard(1028 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

> > Ultrashort Securities, which bank officials said were consistent with the couple’s conservative investment plan....Prospectuses for the Ultrashort Securities describe the funds as “extremely volatile investments, designed for an investor with high risk tolerance.” < <

Some one is not being fully honest, accurate, or both. I'd love to be in the court room to hear this issue explained.

Suggest removal:

8redvert(2058 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

Doesn't matter which side is wrong, it all depends on the makeup of the jury. If it is made up of sensible people then it could go either way. If it is made up of the gimmie gimmie crowd then the bank, right or wrong has no chance.... and this is the valley!!!

This is why people that excel in selecting juries make big bucks.

Suggest removal:

9dearthquake(9 comments)posted 1 year, 7 months ago

While it does look like the bank was playing a numbers game with this couple's money, I wonder if the market had gone the other way, would the couple have given their big gains back to the bank?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport