Millan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Plaintiff: Maria Millan

Defendant: Miguel Millan, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Appellant: Maria Millan

Appellee: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Trial court winner: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Lower appellate winner: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Winner of this decision: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Facts: Miguel Millan was an employee of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. His mother, Maria Millan, opened two brokerage accounts at her son’s place of business. During a three year time frame, Miguel Millan took $287,000 from his mother’s account without her permission. As a result, Maria Millan sued both her son and the company for unauthorized transactions and negligence.

Plaintiff’s theory: Miguel Millan was not an authorized user of the accounts and should be responsible for damages. The company did not adhere to its own written policy at a time where a check for a large sum was written, thus they should also be responsible.

Defendant’s theory: The money was taken over a three year time period, so the plaintiff should have been aware of the issue sooner.

Legal issue: Was Dean Witter Reynolds responsible for discovering the fraud on the account?

Holding of the court: Dean Witter Reynolds was partially responsible for the incidents to the tune of 15% of her damages.

My thoughts: I think this decision was unfair to Maria Millan. She trusted her son Miguel to take proper care of her accounts, although I see this situation as a conflict of interest. The company failed to follow its own policy in regards to the check and verification of signature at the time the account was opened.

Was this case decided correctly: Personally I would say no. The legal issue was whether Dean Witter Reynolds was responsible for discovering the fraud on the account, and I find that if they would have taken into consideration that her original signature was never verified on the account opened solely by Miguel, none of the events that followed would have happened.

Park University (2011). Business Law 2. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

The Parties

Plaintiff: Maria Millan

Defendant: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Appellant: Maria Millan

Appellee: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

The History of the Case

Who won at trial court: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Who won at the lower appellate level: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Who won in this decision: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

The Facts

The plaintiff sued because money was deliberately stolen from her accounts. The money was stolen by her son Miguel who was an employee/agent of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

The Plaintiff’s Theory

The plaintiff sued Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. for unauthorized transactions, negligence, and gross negligence.

Maria Milan believes she is right in suing because she feels that as an agent of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., her son Miguel emptied both of her accounts illegally.

The Defendant’s Theory

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. does not believe they are responsible for James actions. Miguel looted his mother’s accounts under no direction of the principle, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

The Legal Issue

Was Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. fully responsible for Miguel’s actions?

The Holding of the Court

The court determined that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. was responsible for fifteen percent of the damages and Miguel was responsible for the other eighty-five percent.

My Thoughts:

I feel that the courts got it partially right. I feel that Dean Witter Reynolds was at fault for failing to follow its own policy for failing to verify Millan’s signature twice. The large transaction for $35,000 should not have been missed. Miguel should bear majority of the blame for his part. He should also face criminal charges. I feel that if Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. would have adhered to their established oversight policies this might not have happened. With the previous statement in mind; I feel that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. should have been responsible for seventy percent of the damages and Miguel the other thirty. The Parties

The plaintiff: Maria Millan

The defendant: Miguel Millan and Dean Witter

The appellant: Maria Millan

The appellee: Miguel Millan and Dean Witter

The history of the case

Who won at trial court? Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

Who won at the lower appellate level? Dean Witter

Who won in this decision? Dean Witter

Maria Witter opened two brokerage accounts at Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. one for herself and the other for her as trustee for her son James. The broker for both accounts was her other son Miguel Witter who systematically looted his mother’s account stealing more than $287,000. 00. He managed to do this by forging her signature.

The facts

Maria Millan wanted Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. to be held accountable for the damages that her son had committed. She believed that the negligence has occurred because of the company employee’s negligence to verify the check’s signature. Therefore, Maria Millan sued Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. for an unauthorized transactions, negligence, and gross negligence from her account.

The plaintiff's theory

Maria Milan thinks she was right, she thinks that her son’s action was within the scope of his employment, where under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of an agent or employee.

The defendant's theory

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. thinks he was right and not liable for all of the action and negligence of Miguel Milan’s negligence, for the reasons that Miguel’s action was out of the scope of his employment.

Legal issue

Can Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. hold 100% responsible for Miguel Milan’s negligence?

Holding of the court

Under the direct liability, the court finds that Dean Witter was responsible for15% of Miguel Millan’s damages and the 85% for Maria Milan.

Based from the principal and agents relationship Miguel’s action was out of the scope of his general authority and therefore, I think that it is only fair that Dean Witter shouldn’t be held full accountable for the damages that Miguel Millan has committed. However, it is unfair to think that after all the amount of money Maria had lost she was only able to gain 15%. She trusted her money to the company thinking that her account was secure. It is true that the account holder’s responsibility to check her account, in which I believed is what she had done, but because of Dean Witter’s deceitful employee, who is her son, manages to alter her statements and seen nothing is unusual out of the ordinary; it didn’t occur to her that she should have done multiple check on her account to ensure complete care of her account, other than just relying from hard statements that she believed were coming from Dean Witter. What the company should have done was a security check alert especially with big amount of money being withdrawn from customers’ account and its frequency.