Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AUGENTI v. CAPPELLINI

February 26, 1980

Frank AUGENTI, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Gifford R. CAPPELLINI, Joseph Alexander, Sr., Joseph Alexander, Jr., Frank Augenti, Sr., Margaret Augenti, Marie Benson, Michael Benson, John Richard Benson, Tony Augenti, Blanche "Augenti", Robert Caparelli, Paul Litchkowski, Carl Kollar, Patricia Hartman, Daniel Schnae, John Does I through IV, being four unknown named defendants whose identities are unknown, Howie "Hoe", an individual whose last name is unknown, Defendants. Gifford R. CAPPELLINI, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. The HOLY SPIRIT ASSOCIATION FOR the UNIFICATION OF WORLD CHRISTIANITY a/k/a Unification Church, Neil Salonen, Bruce Brown, Bruce Miller, and John Does I through IV being agents, servants, members of the named defendant Unification Church whose names and identities are unknown at this time, Third-Party Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CONABOY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 On January 23, 1980 the Defendant Cappellini filed a motion to amend his answer to add a 20th defense. The twentieth defense sought to be interposed by the Defendant Cappellini is the allegation of champerty and maintenance against the Plaintiff, whereby the Defendant Cappellini would allege that the Plaintiff has entered into a champertous agreement with the Unification of World Christianity a/k/a the Unification Church for the financing of this litigation.

 In this case the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant Cappellini violated his civil rights by his participation in Augenti's "de-programming." Cappellini is seeking to show that Augenti entered into a champertous agreement with the Unification Church in order to bring this action. Even assuming that the Defendant is able to prove his allegations of champerty and maintenance, those allegations and that proof would not bar the Plaintiff from proceeding on his original claim against Cappellini. *fn2"

 The rule is well settled that the fact that there is a champertous contract in relation to the prosecution of a suit between Plaintiff and his attorney in no wise affects the obligation of Defendant to Plaintiff; it is the champertous contract and not the right of action itself which the champerty avoids and therefore, Defendant cannot avail himself of the champertous agreement as a defense to the action. See Burnes v. Scott, 117 U.S. 582, 589, 6 S. Ct. 865, 869, 29 L. Ed. 991; Bedell v. Oliver H. Bair Co., 104 Pa.Super. 146, 158 A. 651, and 14 C.J.S. Champerty and Maintenance § 38 (1951).

 Since the Defendant therefore lacks standing to raise the defense which he seeks to plead in his amendment, the Motion to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.