Civil squirm: Huguely must testify in $30 million lawsuit

Two months after an explosive criminal trial and mere days before time expired to file a civil suit, Sharon Love has filed a $30 million action against the man convicted of killing her 22-year-old daughter. While doubts arise about the likelihood that she will ever collect a penny from the convicted killer, Mrs. Love may get something more valuable: seeing George W. Huguely V take the stand.

"The Loves could call George Huguely as the first witness in the plaintiff's case," says legal analyst David Heilberg, who notes that might be a savvy strategy.

"I love to do that when we perceive our adversary to be the scoundrel," says Heilberg, a practicing lawyer. "You put them right out there first. It sets the tone."

Heilberg says the chance to see Huguely squirm may begin long before the former University of Virginia college lacrosse player ever reaches the witness stand, as the Loves would likely force Huguely to submit to questioning during the pre-trial investigative process known as "depositions."

In a deposition, lawyers for the Love family would likely conduct a veritable fishing expedition and ask questions about money, women, sports, and prior acts of violence.

"The fishing expedition aspect of depositions is to determine what devil is in the details not known before filing," says Heilberg, noting that while Huguely might object, the convicted killer might be largely powerless to avoid answering. "They can ask anything," says Heilberg, "that is calculated to lead to admissible evidence."

Bill Clinton learned a hard lesson about the power of a deposition when asked in a sexual harassment case if he had a relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. For lying under oath, the president lost his license to practice law.

Heilberg explains that the well-known Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination that allows a defendant to avoid testifying in a criminal trial doesn't apply in the civil system. The only ways for Huguely to delay depositions would be getting getting a new trial, something Heilberg doubts will happen, or by dragging out his criminal appeals.

Yeardley Love was found dead on her bed early May 3, 2010, and Huguely was convicted of second-degree murder in February after the jury watched a videotape of him admitting to attacking and injuring her while she was sleeping.

But will Mrs. Love ever see any money from Huguely, a man who appears likely to remain behind bars past his 40th birthday?

"Most criminal convictions are collection proof," says Heilberg. "Those convicted don't have the assets to pay."

On the other hand, the Huguely case starts with an unusual convict. Born into a family that owned a lumber and building supply company for more than 100 years in the D.C. area and having grown up in comfortable Chevy Chase, he could be seen as a "deep-pocket defendant," particularly if he has a trust fund, says Heilberg.

If Huguely has a vested trust fund that hasn't already been wiped out by legal fees, that could be available, says Heilberg, noting also that wealthy families also tend to have insurance.

However, Huguely's father has experienced some financially draining situations in recent years. The elder Huguely's woes include a bitter divorce, some lawsuits, a highly-publicized drunk-driving arrest, and foreclosures that include a six-figure property loss right here in the Ivy area of Albemarle County.

Even a trust fund or a long-planned bequest can be rearranged, says Heilberg, suggesting that Huguely may have already been "written out of some wills."

What probably won't happen to the family of Huguely, who was 22 when he killed Love, is any ruling that holds them liable for his actions. "The only way the parents are liable," says Heilberg, "is if they were negligent themselves."

And even though civil suits demand a lower burden of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that the Charlottesville jury used February 22 to find Huguely guilty and recommend a 26-year sentence, there are still hurdles in squeezing money from a killer via the "preponderance of evidence" standard in a civil trial.

The families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson know this all too well. Despite winning a $33.5 million jury award against the man once known as "The Juice," the families have struggled to extract any money from O.J. Simpson, who allegedly dodged payment and hid assets before going to jail on a subsequent kidnapping conviction.

Sharon Love's lawsuit accuses Huguely of negligence and "acting with utter disregard, and reckless indifference" in the death of her daughter, who was weeks away from graduation from UVA. As the administrator of the estate, Sharon Love seeks $29,450,000 in compensation and $1 million in punitive damages.

In the police interview played during trial, Huguely admitted kicking Yeardley Love's door, engaging in a physical altercation, and conceded that he didn't call paramedics even though his fellow college senior was admittedly left bleeding in her bedroom.

However, several defenses might emerge in a civil suit, and Heilberg points out one of the most common in Virginia is contributory negligence, a blame-the-victim concept that has quashed many lawsuits. Love’s high blood alcohol content might also arise, says Heilberg.

As for how Love's legal team may be compensated, the methods range from a simple retainer to a contingency agreement or even pro bono. Heilberg notes that unlike the personal injury attorneys who typically advertise on television and work for a contingency fee based on what they win for their clients, the complexity of this case may steer Love's attorney, Richmond-based Mahlon "Bud" Funk, away from the usual 40 percent arrangement. Funk did not return a phone call from a reporter.

"Many lawsuits are a matter of principle," says Heilberg, suggesting that in addition to forcing Huguely to testify, another goal may include preventing the man who caused so much sorrow, mental anguish, and loss of solace from getting out of prison with money waiting for him.

Another possible reason was recently offered by the mother of Morgan Harrington, the young woman was found murdered after attending a 2009 concert at John Paul Jones Arena. Gil Harrington informed the Hook last October that she filed suit against the Arena's security company in order to pose questions about what happened that night. Today, Harrington notes that the reasons for initiating a lawsuit are different for every parent of a slain child.

"As parents, we're seeking answers and trying to make sense," explains Harrington. "It'll never make sense. It's an unfathomable act, and there's no answer. That's the conundrum for the surviving family."

If questions remain for Sharon Love, the civil case can't proceed until the criminal one is done, and the Love family may have trouble with discovery because, Heilberg explains, evidence can be withheld until the appeals are exhausted. And Huguely's lawyers reportedly are expected to file a motion for a retrial.

"There are many hurdles for the plaintiffs," says Heilberg. "If money for defense is in no short supply but money to actually pay any judgment award is scarce, this will only be a pyrrhic victory."

Attached Documents: 
This story is a part of the Huguely trial coverage special.


Yep. Georgie will be sitting in jail and thinking... "when I get out, I will owe everything I have for the rest of my life..."

Force him to talk on the stand? LOL

Why should he?

He's facing 26 years and what will a contempt of court ruling do if he declines to testify? The judge puts him in jail? He's already in jail!

I doubt the sentences would run consecutively, probably concurrent, so unless contempt of court is worth more than 26 years, I expect he would tell the court to pound sand.

I guess it's her prerogative to want to hear the gory details over and over again in public. I suppose she is hoping to see remorse (warning: what if she doesn't see it? won't that make things worse?). But I don't really get the strategies in either case. Can't Mrs.Love just go speak to GH in person? Can't the Harringtons ask her friends and the JPJ staff (or the cops, who surely have gathered details) to explain what went down in the arena before Morgan hitched her way to doom? What's this need for a public spectacle?

Until you have a child become the victim of a crime, I guess you would see it as a public spectacle. I don't know the motives/goals of these parents, but from experience, I will tell you that a parent needs to be told "we failed. The system failed. We're sorry. We guarantee you it won't happen to anyone else's child ever again." These parents didn't get that. And until they do, they will exhaust every ounce of their being to get that.

I worked for change for seven years and finally had an epiphany - the only person who cared about my daughter was me - Not UVA staff, not the campus cops, not the local cops, and certainly not the Commonwealth Attorney. I finally met with President Sullivan and she apologized and told me she would make changes -- but since that meeting last November, three parents have written me to tell me their daughters were raped at UVA and (even though the school boasts that policies have been changed) they were treated the same ugly way my daughter was treated. I spent 7 years trying to protect your daughters ... it was too difficult a task because at the end of the journey, it's sad to hear that very little has changed and young women are still the victims of crime and perps go unpunished. What would you tell the parents who contacted me just last week about their daughter's assault? To walk away? They certainly can save themselves a lot of heartache if they accept the fact that the crime will never be properly addressed. The way I see it is that they - and I - have our kids to hug ... Ms Love and the Harrington's do not. Be thankful the Love and Harrington families have the strength to try and prevent these tragedies from occurring to others - whether it is to keep people in jail so they never harm others, have protocols changed, or create foundations to bring awareness to the issue of violence against women.

But "Restore" has a point -- can't really force him to do or say anything, assuming conviction stands. Victim family, of course, did the same with O.J., who didn't testify at his criminal trial, but OJ was acquitted so a) he had no jeopardy any longer and b) he had lots of assets to worry about losing.

And, in addition, why relive?

It's different with Harrington -- unlike Huguely, still a lot of unanswered questions and JPJ should be held accountable if some of the reports that they wouldn't let her back in are accurate.

JPJ won't be held accountable because of contributory negligence -- that is, if Morgan's own actions are seen as being even 1 percent responsible for her predicament, and JPJ is found to be 99 percent responsible, she's out of luck.

As it is, JPJ or rather the entity being sued has already claimed to have changed their policies-- pre-law suit - so that's already a good thing that's come out of a tragedy, and a win for the Harringtons.

$30 Million dollars won't bring Yeardley back or give George any pennance. If anything George is suffering more with the guilt of having done this atrocity and it will be with him for the rest of his life. In or out of prison...

Now is the time for the Love family to heal. The Civil Law Suit will only keep them connected to Mr. Huguely. It is time for them to "bury" him. Remember the good times and honor her memory with positive acts.

I agree with Deborah Mullins. It is more important for a family to heal than to prove a point.

Susan and Deborah, I am in agreement however lawyers are just as oily as used car salesmen and will do anything for a buck. I highly doubt any lawyer would do this suit pro bono given Huguely's price tag.

"I worked for change for seven years and finally had an epiphany - the only person who cared about my daughter was me."

There it is in a nutshell. I and many others know exactly what you are talking about. It isn't that other people do not care it is the people who have the power to do anything about it really do not care or choose not to rock the boat.

No accountability has become the norm.

In a civil trial, since when can the defendant be forced to testify or submit a deposition? He has no money to lose, so why should he give a crap?

Btw, in the OJ civil trial mentioned in the article, the judgement was the main reason OJ resorted to armed robbery. In his efforts to hide money, getting back and selling his memorabilia was an attempt to get some cash which the Goldmans wouldn't know about. So that civil trial turned out to be a good thing. Maybe not as good as a conviction in the murder trial, but at least he's in prison for quite few years.

"noting also that wealthy families also tend to have insurance"

I'd love to see the insurance policy that pays off when the insured is convicted of murder. Like a lot of the rest of you, I ain't seein' the point of this one.

Deleted by moderator.

"It isn't that other people do not care it is the people who have the power to do anything about it really do not care or choose not to rock the boat." - discoduck

Sad but true. I, too, have been the victim of serious crimes, but it's rare that anyone takes the crimes seriously and all of the men who attacked me were left on the streets, some having repeated their crimes -- or worse -- since then. In my experience, crimes against women are much higher than actually reported. Predators are always on the prowl, and rape drugs have increased the number of men willing to engage in such behavior because they think they'll never be caught, and unfortunately they're often right.

At least in this family's case, they know who the killer is, and he is locked up. If they want to take him to court to try to get more answers, that's their right and I can understand it. But at least he won't be able to do the same thing to another girl while he's in jail.

I do hope that things change, and maybe it will take a small army of families who were victimized. Why people allow the most violent in society to victimize their daughters, I'll never understand. But people can help -- if you know something, report it. Some guy who thinks he's your friend admits that he did something, or he tries to get you involved with a rape video ring or such, report him. You can always do it anonymously, and at least give the police an idea of what's going on. People covering for these men or not believing that anyone could be so evil is how they ramp up to serial rape and murder. It's rare that they're disciplined enough to keep their mouths shut to everybody.

Soothsayer -- you are correct about how contrib negligence works -- so it's all in the artfulness of the wording and creativeness of the claims. See the (routine) artfulness in the suit against Huguely? Not claiming intent because then insurance wouldn't cover. There are ways the Harrington claim could be done.

cville reader2, you are a shrewd observer. I, too, noticed the interesting and almost benign wording of the Love's claim. As for the H's, I don't see how they can get away with getting a pound of flesh out of the dumb arena. That girl seemed like she was hell bent on destruction that night. But who knows. Their lawyer likes to take on supreme court cases. Maybe he thinks he can overturn contributory negligence with morgan as the lovable poster child. Someone already used the H's to advance familial dna.