Rousseau v. Perricone
A court can find that a party was motivated to invest as a result of revenge and that the investment decision did not result from fraud, duress and undue influence. The parties met in November 2006 and married in July 2007. It was the husband's third marriage and the wife's second. The husband, Robert Rousseau, owns interests in eight limited liability companies, one of which, Preferred Display, manufactures displays for the cosmetic industry and has gross profits of $40 million. The wife, Madeline Perricone, received approximately $16 million when she divorced her first husband. The court credited the plaintiff husband's claims that Madeline, who paid for the marital residence, instigated the purchase, allegedly because she was unhappy with Robert's modest home, a ranch with four bedrooms. In April or May 2008, Robert vacated the marital residence. The court found that Madeline loaned Robert $750,000, when one of his businesses experienced short-term cash flow problems, and that Robert paid back the money. Because Madeline had experience hiring divorce attorneys, the court did not credit her claims that Robert manipulated her, to prevent her from obtaining independent legal counsel with respect to an unsuccessful $400,000 property investment. The court also rejected Madeline's claim that Robert and a third party guaranteed the investment. None of the parties were responsible for the loss, which resulted from the recession. The court found that Madeline was motivated in part by the desire to obtain revenge on her first husband, Dr. Perricone, when she invested $2 million in Californian cosmetic companies without any return on her investments. The court did not credit Madeline's claims of fraud, duress and undue influence. The court dissolved the marriage and did not award alimony. The court awarded the wife the marital residence and two shares of the husband's interest in Madeleine LLC. The court awarded the parties the remaining assets on their financial affidavits. The court ordered the wife to pay $25,000 as a discovery sanction. The court kept jurisdiction over the husband's claims of discovery abuse, because the wife's attorneys allegedly failed to sign a confidentiality agreement and misplaced documents.