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.

[U] Davies v. Veenis

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 5, 2013

LORRAINE C. DAVIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF H. BRUCE DAVIES, DECEASED, Appellant
v.
J. MARK VEENIS, DAVIES-VEENIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND THREE RIVERS EQUITY MANAGEMENT, INC. LORRAINE C. DAVIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF H. BRUCE DAVIES, DECEASED
v.
J. MARK VEENIS, DAVIES VEENIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND THREE RIVERS EQUITY MANAGEMENT, INC. Appellants

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 3, 2011, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at G.D. No. 08-003019

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., ALLEN AND COLVILLE, [*] JJ.

MEMORANDUM

FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

The above-captioned appeals arise from a jury trial which determined what sums were owed to appellants Lorraine C. Davies and the Estate of her husband, H. Bruce Davies, upon the death of Mr. Davies, by cross-appellants, J. Mark Veenis, Davies Veenis & Associates, Inc., and Three Rivers Equity Management, Inc., (TREM) which entities represented Mr. Davies' former investment business interests. Finding no error, we affirm.

We find no error with the trial court's holding. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determination that there is no merit to the questions raised on appeal. The trial court's meticulous, 44-page opinion, filed on September 7, 2012, comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. We will adopt it as our own and affirm on that basis.

In addition to the trial court's rationale pertaining to its reasons for not allowing discovery of the February 7, 2008 Kaplan report, we add the following analysis. Appellants' basis for seeking the 2008 Kaplan report is an alleged contradiction between it and the expert report that Kaplan submitted for trial. According to appellants, the 2008 report did not include the TREM GP (BD) accounts as assets of TREM in its valuation, while the trial report did. Appellants' reason for this belief is an alleged admission by David Kaplan, during his deposition, that his 2008 report did not include these TREM GP (BD) accounts as assets of TREM. Simply stated, Kaplan did not state at his deposition that the TREM GP (BD) accounts were not included as assets of TREM in the 2008 report. Rather, he stated that the accounts were not fully included because their values were based upon inaccurate tax returns. Upon review, we find that Kaplan testified consistently at his deposition and at trial.

Kaplan testified at his deposition as follows:

Q. Do you recall whether or not in connection with the valuation report that you did that you took into account as an asset of TREM or assets of TREM the limited partnership accounts in the names Three Rivers Equity Management GP (BD) and Three Rivers Equity Management GP (MV) as assets of the company?
MR. WYCOFF: You can answer that.
A. It did not or at least did not fully take those into account.
Q. Why?
A. At the time that we were given information, those assets were not fully reflected on the balance sheets of TREM.
Frankly, I think that issue was missed by all three of the firms that originally looked at appraising the interest in TREM, those firms being Mr. McGinty, Mark Gleason's firm and my firm, all for the same reason, because the assets were not fully reflected on the balance ...

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.