Williams v. CWI, Inc.
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16895, 777 F. Supp. 1006, 1991 WL 250905 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A financial advisor who accepts client funds for a specific investment, misappropriates those funds for personal use, fails to execute the transaction, and actively misrepresents the status of the investment is liable for both breach of contract and fraud. Such willful and egregious conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages for the client's losses.
Facts:
- Reginald Williams, a financially unsophisticated professional basketball player, and his wife, Kathy Williams, hired Waymon Hunt as a financial advisor in June 1988.
- Hunt proposed an investment in 'atmospheric reverse refrigeration heating units' and the Williams agreed to purchase $1 million worth of these units.
- The agreement required the Williams to provide a $50,000 down payment to Hunt's company, Success Through Association (STA), which was to arrange the purchase and secure a $950,000 loan.
- The contract explicitly stated that if the purchase could not be made, STA would return the Williams' $50,000 deposit in full by December 16, 1988.
- The Williams forwarded the $50,000 to STA as agreed.
- Immediately upon receipt, Hunt appropriated the entire $50,000 for his own personal use.
- Hunt never arranged the financing, never purchased any units on the Williams' behalf, and never returned their $50,000 deposit.
- Hunt repeatedly told the Williams that their investment was 'going fine' and prepared their tax returns claiming deductions and credits related to the non-existent investment.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald and Kathy Williams filed a claim against Waymon Hunt, his affiliated companies, and Clara Neeley in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The case was tried before the court in a bench trial, without a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a financial advisor commit breach of contract and fraud when he accepts a client's funds for a specific investment, misappropriates the money for his own use, fails to complete the transaction as agreed, and subsequently misrepresents the investment's status, including on the client's tax returns?
Opinions:
Majority - Sporkin, J.
Yes. A financial advisor who misappropriates client funds for personal use, fails to execute an agreed-upon investment, and actively misrepresents the status of that transaction commits both breach of contract and fraud. For the breach of contract, the written agreement was unequivocal: the $50,000 was a down payment to be returned if the deal failed. Hunt's failure to purchase the units and subsequent failure to return the deposit constituted a clear breach. Hunt's self-serving claim that the money was a 'finder's fee' was not credible and was contradicted by his own admission in court that he owed the Williams the money. The fraud was established by Hunt's actions of taking money under false pretenses, misappropriating it, and then actively concealing his wrongdoing by lying about the investment's status and preparing improper tax returns that claimed benefits from the fictitious transaction. This egregious and willful conduct, which put the plaintiffs at risk of tax fraud, justifies the award of punitive damages.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear example of how courts handle blatant professional misconduct in a fiduciary relationship. The court's decision reinforces the fundamental principles of contract law and the tort of fraud, applying them directly to a financial advisor who abused his client's trust. The award of punitive damages underscores the judicial system's low tolerance for intentional, willful, and egregious misconduct by fiduciaries, particularly when their actions expose clients to further legal risks like tax fraud. The case serves as a precedent for holding advisors accountable not just for the direct funds misappropriated, but also for all foreseeable consequential damages and punitive penalties for bad faith actions.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. CWI, Inc.