YOUNGSTOWN — An appeals court panel on Wednesday refused to overturn the majority of a visiting judge’s decisions in a civil case involving former Mahoning County Judge Diane Vettori-Caraballo and a client in her private practice, from whom she stole money.

Vettori-Caraballo, who formerly served as Mahoning County Sebring Area Court judge, was sent to federal prison in September 2019 for 2 1/2 years and ordered to pay $328,000 in restitution and after being convicted in federal court for her actions. She was removed as a judge in 2018 during an investigation.

Attorney Douglas Neuman filed the suit in Mahoning County Probate Court in 2018 seeking the return of assets Vettori-Caraballo stole from the estate of Dolores Falgiani. Neuman is administrator of Falgiani’s estate.

The case went to trial in December 2018, and visiting judge Thomas Swift ruled in March 2019 that Vettori-Caraballo concealed $110,200 in cash assets from Falgiani’s estate and filed false statements to the Mahoning County Probate Court regarding estate assets. He ruled she should repay the the money, plus legal fees she received, interest and other costs totaling $185,678.

A Vettori-Caraballo appeal of the ruling argued that the decisions should be overturned because Swift, a retired longtime Trumbull County Probate judge, had improper ex-parte communications with Neuman and engaged in other improper behavior. Ex-parte means separate from the other party or parties in a case.

Vettori-Caraballo’s attorneys argued that for Neuman to present a copy of a settlement agreement to the judge without giving a copy to Vettori-Caraballo’s lawyers was improper. Such communications made the proceedings unfair and denied Vettori-Caraballo due process, her lawyers argued.

But the appeals judges ruled that even if that type of communication occurred, Vettori-Caraballo must show that it caused “some prejudicial impact” on her. She did not show that it had a prejudicial impact, the ruling stated.

The court also ruled that other alleged improper behavior did not deny Vettori-Caraballo due process or a fair hearing.

The judges, however, ruled that Swift erred in assessing $12,060 in prejudgment interest against Vettori-Caraballo because Swift did not hold a hearing to determine whether statutory requirements were met, and no evidence was in the record to show how the trial court calculated the $12,060.

Prejudgment interest is interest that accrues starting at the time of damage until the time the judgment is entered by the judge.

That part of Swift’s decision in the case is vacated, reversed and sent back to Swift for further proceedings.