Opinion ID: 2182224
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the client's $179.23

Text: The Respondent testified that he held two-thirds of the PIP money ($537.70) to protect the medical amount and that Jefferson received the other third. Jefferson testified that he (Jefferson) had indeed received $179.23 from the Respondent but he also testified that he returned that sum (or rather $178.23  a one dollar mistake on his part that he freely admitted) one day later, on February 23, 1979. His reason was that by this time he was not satisfied with the Respondent's services, did not trust him and wanted to give all of the PIP money back so that when the (Second Case) got settled, I could see everything at one time and I know that I was being treated fairly. Unlike the Respondent's method of doing business, Jefferson paid for and procured a written money order payable to himself dated February 23, 1979 and endorsed it over to the Respondent. The Respondent admits that he endorsed it. So I find by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has had that sum of money ($178.23) from February 23, 1979 to the present. The Respondent seeks to avoid this fact by saying that he (Respondent) returned this $178.23 (in cash) to the Respondent because he (Jefferson) was out of work. This testimony simply does not make sense and this court does not believe the Respondent. What would be the sense of a man paying $178.23 over to another man and then the other man repaying it immediately to the original man? There is documentation for the payment of this sum by Jefferson (the money order) to the Respondent (Respondent's admission that he endorsed it) but there is no documentation that the Respondent paid it back to Jefferson  only the testimony of the Respondent that he paid it (in cash). There was no letter of confirmation by the Respondent, no receipt by Jefferson, nothing in writing whatsoever. The Respondent testified that he merely assisted Jefferson in cashing the money order. However, when asked why Jefferson would buy a money order just to ask the Respondent to cash it, the Respondent testified that Spell influenced Jefferson to do so. At first, he testified that Jefferson and Spell came in together to return their PIP monies to him but later he testified that they were not together. When confronted with the fact that the money orders were numbered consecutively (Jefferson's money order was XXXXXXXXX and Spell's was XXXXXXXXX. Petitioner testified that Spell did not negotiate his money order at the same time Jefferson did because Spell carried (his) money order around for quite a time. However, he also testified that both Jefferson and Spell came in and that he accommodated them by cashing these money orders and giving them his money, both of them. He testified that he gave Jefferson back his money because Jefferson was out of work. What was his reason for giving Spell back his money? He did not testify as to any need on Spell's part. This sort of testimony is unbelievable.