Jury hands down verdict in Vinalhaven caretaker case, awards $300,000 to plaintiff, $5,000 to defendant/counter plaintiff
PORTLAND — A jury in Portland found in favor of Vinalhaven summer resident Andreas von Hirsch, who alleged breach of fiduciary duty on the part of caretaker Angelyn Olson, a Vinalhaven resident. The same jury also decided that von Hirsch, or his authorized representative, breached a contract between him and Olson, after he had promised Olson he would pay her in 2020 to continue working for him.
The jury’s verdict stipulated that Olson was to pay von Hirsch $300,000 and von Hirsch was to pay Olson $5,000 for conversion of property.
The decisions were made Friday afternoon, June 16, following a five-day trial before U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen.
The verdict affirmed that Olson had breached her fiduciary duty, including duty of loyalty, and ordered her to pay $175,000 worth of damages. The verdict also said Olson received excessive compensation from von Hirsch during the time she owed fiduciary duty, and ordered her to pay him $125,000 in damages.
And, the jury concluded that Olson failed to provide an accounting of her spending to von Hirsch, but set no damages.
The jury also found that von Hirsch, who bought his property on the Fox Island Thoroughfare in 1975, breached a contract he had with Olson, but awarded no damages to Olson.
Jurors also said von Hirsch promised Olson to pay her $120,000 in 2020 to, “induce her to continue working for him,” but again, awarded no damages. And, the jury concluded that von Hirsch converted property belonging to Olson, awarding her $5,000 in damages.
The original complaint was filed April 13, 2021 by von Hirsch and his attorney, Sigmund Schutz, who is with the Portland firm Preti Flaherty.
Six weeks later, Olson answered the complaint, and filed a counter-complaint against von Hirsch. Denying the allegations, she, represented by J. Robert Miller, Jr., of Dallas, Texas, asked for a jury trial.
For two years, through the discovery phase of the case, numerous documents were amassed, so many that at one point, one of the three judges who had been assigned the case in U.S. District Court, District of Maine, admonished the plaintiff and defendant. He struck a hearing request and 52 additional documents filed by Olson, saying in late November 2021 that the hundreds of documents related to discovery disputes presented far more information that necessary to understand the disputes.
“The parties may refile their requests and/or responses, but only in a succinct manner providing only those materials or portions of materials that are truly essential to understanding the disputes; I will not endeavor to read hundreds of pages of emails and discovery requests/responses to ascertain what is actually in dispute,” wrote Judge John H. Rich III in 2021. “....Finally, given the increasingly heated rhetoric, counsel are reminded that hyperbole and ad hominem attacks have no place in federal court.”
Von Hirsch had claimed that Olson, the caretaker of his seasonal property, had, “abused his trust by charging grossly excessive amounts for her service,” his complaint read.
“For many years von Hirsch engaged Defendant Angelyn (‘Angie’) A. Olson to look after his Vinalhaven property,” the complaint said. “Olson had complete discretion to care for the property and unrestricted access to von Hirsch’s Maine bank accounts to pay his expenses. Trusting Olson completely, von Hirsch provided her with all the money she asked for to attend to his affairs, without asking questions and without any budget. All of von Hirsch’s bills in the United States and all of his Maine bank statements went to Olson only; von Hirsch did not have access to his accounts online. Von Hirsch’s bank statements were mailed to a Vinalhaven post office box to which Olson had access.”
As the health of von Hirsch declined, he questioned the money paid to Olson, and said he and his assistant in Germany: “repeatedly asked Olson for records, receipts, and invoices and information related to and supporting her expenditures. Olson stonewalled. She refused to provide any answers and shared not a single document.”
In 2020, von Hirsch said he obtained the bank records, and, “was shocked to discover that Olson has spent over $4.5 million of his money since 2013.”
The complaint added: “Included in that figure is a small fortune Olson spent on personal merchandise and services, like dining at fancy restaurants, liquor, and spa treatments, for her own benefit while von Hirsch was not even in Maine and his home should have been closed. These expenditures could not plausibly have benefitted von Hirsch.”
Von Hirsch said bank records indicated that Olson had increased her compensation to $10,000 per month: “even during months when von Hirsch was not in Maine and Olson had little or nothing to do. She also paid herself a bonus of $80,000 in 2019. She paid herself about $700,000 from 2013 to 2020. But that is not all. Olson also paid her son and her husband another $150,000 (approximately), and bought many thousands of dollars of personal items for herself using von Hirsch’s money.”
But Olson denied the allegations and laid out in her counterclaim, filed May 27, 2021, the evolution of her property caretaking and personal caregiver role dating back to 2000.
She claimed that Baron von Hirsch had written in a letter entitled Angie’s Compensation that he intended to increase her salary in 2019 to $120,000, and designated her and another person as his health care power of attorney.
“Since Mrs. Olson took over the role of caretaker for Baron von Hirsch, Mrs. Olson diligently ensured all of Baron von Hirsch’s needs were met,” the counterclaims read. From 2010 to 2020, “Mrs. Olson’s responsibilities continued to expand as she was not only expected to care for Baron von Hirsch’s Property, but also his person. As the years progressed, Mrs. Olson’s responsibility with caring for Baron von Hirsch increased exponentially with his growing needs.”
Her job duties, according to the the counter-complaint included management, maintenance, upkeep and repair of the property, personal and general care of von Hirsch while he was on the property, maintaining his schedule, administering medications, shopping, cooking, hiring a boat captain, taking him to dental, physical therapy and massage appointments, and transport his guests.
Olson said in the counterclaim that she was terminated as full-time caretaker Dec. 23, 2020, and not allowed back onto the property.
She enumerated the personal belongings left inside the house, including books, photographs, artwork, and personal memorabilia.
Olson alleged fraud, and breach of contract, citing a 2018 written agreement that Olson specified that he was to pay her $60,0000, as well as a bonus of $80,000 for 2018. And that his intention was to increase her salary in 2019 to $120,000 and for each year after that.
She also claimed that in 2000, von Hirsch said he intended to leave the Olson family the property. He expressed the same intention in 2019, she said.
She asked for a jury trial, and requested the court dismiss the von Hirsch suit, award attorneys’ fees, pay $60,000 in lost wages, reimburse Olson’s out-of-pocket expenses of $11,352, vesting the deed to the Vinalhaven property to Olson upon von Hirsch’s death (the value estimated between $1.9 million and $2.3 million), pay Olson $50,000 a year for 15 years, and return the personal property.
In a March 3, 2023 decision, Judge Torresen noted that in 2020 von Hirsch had composed a handwritten note revoking the bequest he had made to Olson, and a year later he gave notarized testaments cancelling the Vinalhaven property bequest. He had requested a summary judgment against Olson’s counterclaim of Anticipatory Breach of Contract, which maintained that von Hirsch had bequeathed the Vinalhaven property to Olson.
In her March summary judgment, Torresen wrote: “As von Hirsch notes, the record is replete with evidence that von Hirsch had every intention of fulfilling his promises to Olson. For example, in the years immediately after executing the Angie’s Compensation Document, von Hirsch pursued various legal avenues to enshrine his bequest to Olson in a more formal document—including by making addendums to his will and signing a notarized testamentary document. Even von Hirsch’s neighbors knew that von Hirsch intended to give Olson the Property after his death.”
But to the allegation that he acted with fraudulent intent, Torrensen wrote in her decision, “pointing to von Hirsch’s deposition in which he stated that: ‘it was never my intention to give [Olson] the house in Vinalhaven.’ ....Ordinarily, this statement would be enough to defeat summary judgment, but here I am not convinced.”
She referenced von Hirsch’s dementia, and negated fraudulent intent behind the Angie’s Compensation Document. That document, which included bequeathing the Vinalhaven property to Olson, was not an enforceable contract, the judge said.
“This is the rare case where we actually have a recording of the conversation that gave rise to the disputed document, but even the recording does not shed light on the missing terms,” she wrote.
Judge Torrensen affirmed von Hirsch’s motion for summary judgement on Olson’s counterclaim, concluding: “In sum, even viewing the record in Olson’s favor, von Hirsch has established that no reasonable juror could conclude that there was a meeting of the minds on all the terms necessary to render this contract enforceable as an irrevocable testamentary disposition.”
