| Index |
| Previous |
| Next |
| Conspiracy Memorandum |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
CASE: Conspiracy
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the defendant notary public’s actions
were in accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, amounted to a conspiracy in
order to invalidate the will.
ISSUES
Issue I: Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both witnesses in
accordance with will requirements.
Issue II: Whether the notary public was a member of a conspiracy armed with the intent to invalidate the will.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 2, 2004, Mrs. Irene Maquard sought the services of Mr. Duchan, the notary. Although the will was
previously drafted by a lawyer and named Texas Riding Line Co. as legatee, Mrs. Maquard wanted to
ensure that her will complied all international legal requirements namely that it be drafted before a
notary, a government appointed public officer and two witnesses. Plaintiff filed a complaint before the
Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr. Duchan’s negligent will representation. The notary represented to plaintiff that
the will was valid, not only in France but also in the United States. The will was recorded by Mr. Duchan at the
Central database of the provisions of last wills, at the Ministry of Finance and he requested an Apostille
from the Court, which would allow the document to be legal if used for international purposes. This will
was to be used in the United States. However, the will was not valid and the plaintiff was not allowed to take under
its terms. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for the notary’s negligence and fraud.
ANALYSIS
Issue I: Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both
witnesses in accordance with will requirements.
Plaintiff’s initial cause of action stemmed from defendant’s MMA failure to promptly pay insurance claims in good faith.
An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay insurance claims promptly and in good
faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something actionable. By failing to indemnify within
a reasonable time, plaintiff asserts MMA committed breach of insurance contract. Plaintiff’s current cause of action
against the notary stems from the notary’s failure to properly verify the nationality of a witness as required by law.
The issue here is whether the notary public’s actions constituted negligence and fraud, thereby allowing plaintiff to
recover damages. A notary is responsible for drafting an authentic will, to ensure the documents are
jurisdictionally and judicially reliable, and to ensure the identification of witnesses. Here, the notary
failed to do so. As such, he had a duty to ensure that the will conformed to all applicable laws. Failure to
do so constitutes negligence. Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must
prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1) the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty,
(3) a casual connection between defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff. As stated
previously, the notary had a duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding the witnesses’ nationalities. He breached
that duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts that the
notary is entrusted with ensuring that a will conformed to applicable laws which would include international laws.
Failure to do so may, as in this case, invalidate a will thereby preventing a legatee from benefiting from the will
contents. After committing his initial act of negligence, Mr. Duchan attempted to conceal his negligence by
committing fraud; representing to plaintiff that the will would be valid in the United States. When a plaintiff
files a lawsuit, the burden of proof usually rests with the plaintiff to prove the elements of his complaint. However, in
situations where a professional’s competence is in question and at issue, the burden rests with the defendant. As
such, the defendant has the burden of proving his innocence and the burden of proving that he performed his duties
in a reasonably prudent matter just as any professional would have done in the same circumstances. Here, it will be
impossible for defendant to prove that he was not negligent and that other notary’s would have performed their duties
similarly. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that had Mr. Duchan inquired and actually correctly performed his duties, plaintiff
would have been able to take under the will. Plaintiff, Texas Riding Company suffered millions of dollars in damages
due to the notary’s negligence. But for the notary’s negligence and fraud, the will would have been a valid
instrument allowing plaintiff to legally inherit under the will. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the
elements of negligence, the Court should therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
Issue II: Whether the notary public was a member of a conspiracy armed with the intent to invalidate the
will.
Under applicable law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. This
agreement may be either an explicit agreement or a tacit or unspoken one as long as its members agree to commit
any crime. It is plaintiff’s allegation that Mr. Duchan’s initial act of blatant and purposeful negligence was the first step
of a larger conspiracy involving other members aimed with the intent to invalidate Mrs. Maquard’s will. The result
would thereby prevent plaintiff from obtaining its rightful benefits under the will.
In addition to Mr. Duchan, plaintiff also alleges that ACAM may be a conspiracy member. ACAM failed to properly
investigate allegations of MMA’s bad faith regarding its failure to indemnify within a reasonable time, thereby
committing breach of insurance contract. In the context of a tort action against an insurer for bad faith, bad faith is
dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct carried out with the state of mind characterized by hatred, ill will, or the
spirit of revenge.
A regulatory entity, such as ACAM, has a duty to conduct a proper and thorough investigation regarding company
complaints. As such, it has a duty to ensure that insurance companies are abiding by all applicable laws.
Furthermore, ACAM, as a public entity, should protect the public and be above from political undertones
and ramifications. The public, not private individuals are the victims when a regulatory entity fails to
adequately perform its duties. Here, ACAM determined that MMA did not breach its insurance contract but failed
to conduct a thorough investigation. Moreover, the essence of a civil conspiracy claim is not the conspiracy
itself, but the actual damages resulting from the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. In addition to
an alleged conspiracy, plaintiff has suffered damages which will be proven at trial. Plaintiffs “actual” damages are
failed to prove any actual damages resulting from Defendant’s alleged conspiracy. Plaintiffs also seek
consequential damages; those damages “flowing naturally” from the will.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its cause of action against the notary. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence. Plaintiff’s
claim of conspiracy may be a little more difficult to prove unless there is some proof, which can be proven via
conspiratorial actions, that an agreement existed. As stated previously, although the burden usually rests with the
plaintiff, in professional competence situations, Mr. Duchan has to prove that he was not at fault. Since he will be
unable to meet his burden, the Court should rule in plaintiff’s favor.
CASE: Conspiracy
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the defendant notary public’s actions
were in accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, amounted to a conspiracy in
order to invalidate the will.
ISSUES
Issue I: Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both witnesses in
accordance with will requirements.
Issue II: Whether the notary public was a member of a conspiracy armed with the intent to invalidate the will.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 2, 2004, Mrs. Irene Maquard sought the services of Mr. Duchan, the notary. Although the will was
previously drafted by a lawyer and named Texas Riding Line Co. as legatee, Mrs. Maquard wanted to
ensure that her will complied all international legal requirements namely that it be drafted before a
notary, a government appointed public officer and two witnesses. Plaintiff filed a complaint before the
Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr. Duchan’s negligent will representation. The notary represented to plaintiff that
the will was valid, not only in France but also in the United States. The will was recorded by Mr. Duchan at the
Central database of the provisions of last wills, at the Ministry of Finance and he requested an Apostille
from the Court, which would allow the document to be legal if used for international purposes. This will
was to be used in the United States. However, the will was not valid and the plaintiff was not allowed to take under
its terms. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for the notary’s negligence and fraud.
ANALYSIS
Issue I: Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both
witnesses in accordance with will requirements.
Plaintiff’s initial cause of action stemmed from defendant’s MMA failure to promptly pay insurance claims in good faith.
An insurance company is required, under applicable law, to negotiate and pay insurance claims promptly and in good
faith. Failure to do so may constitute malfeasance and bad faith; something actionable. By failing to indemnify within
a reasonable time, plaintiff asserts MMA committed breach of insurance contract. Plaintiff’s current cause of action
against the notary stems from the notary’s failure to properly verify the nationality of a witness as required by law.
The issue here is whether the notary public’s actions constituted negligence and fraud, thereby allowing plaintiff to
recover damages. A notary is responsible for drafting an authentic will, to ensure the documents are
jurisdictionally and judicially reliable, and to ensure the identification of witnesses. Here, the notary
failed to do so. As such, he had a duty to ensure that the will conformed to all applicable laws. Failure to
do so constitutes negligence. Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must
prove the elements of negligence, which are: (1) the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty,
(3) a casual connection between defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff. As stated
previously, the notary had a duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding the witnesses’ nationalities. He breached
that duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts that the
notary is entrusted with ensuring that a will conformed to applicable laws which would include international laws.
Failure to do so may, as in this case, invalidate a will thereby preventing a legatee from benefiting from the will
contents. After committing his initial act of negligence, Mr. Duchan attempted to conceal his negligence by
committing fraud; representing to plaintiff that the will would be valid in the United States. When a plaintiff
files a lawsuit, the burden of proof usually rests with the plaintiff to prove the elements of his complaint. However, in
situations where a professional’s competence is in question and at issue, the burden rests with the defendant. As
such, the defendant has the burden of proving his innocence and the burden of proving that he performed his duties
in a reasonably prudent matter just as any professional would have done in the same circumstances. Here, it will be
impossible for defendant to prove that he was not negligent and that other notary’s would have performed their duties
similarly. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that had Mr. Duchan inquired and actually correctly performed his duties, plaintiff
would have been able to take under the will. Plaintiff, Texas Riding Company suffered millions of dollars in damages
due to the notary’s negligence. But for the notary’s negligence and fraud, the will would have been a valid
instrument allowing plaintiff to legally inherit under the will. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the
elements of negligence, the Court should therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
Issue II: Whether the notary public was a member of a conspiracy armed with the intent to invalidate the
will.
Under applicable law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime. This
agreement may be either an explicit agreement or a tacit or unspoken one as long as its members agree to commit
any crime. It is plaintiff’s allegation that Mr. Duchan’s initial act of blatant and purposeful negligence was the first step
of a larger conspiracy involving other members aimed with the intent to invalidate Mrs. Maquard’s will. The result
would thereby prevent plaintiff from obtaining its rightful benefits under the will.
In addition to Mr. Duchan, plaintiff also alleges that ACAM may be a conspiracy member. ACAM failed to properly
investigate allegations of MMA’s bad faith regarding its failure to indemnify within a reasonable time, thereby
committing breach of insurance contract. In the context of a tort action against an insurer for bad faith, bad faith is
dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct carried out with the state of mind characterized by hatred, ill will, or the
spirit of revenge.
A regulatory entity, such as ACAM, has a duty to conduct a proper and thorough investigation regarding company
complaints. As such, it has a duty to ensure that insurance companies are abiding by all applicable laws.
Furthermore, ACAM, as a public entity, should protect the public and be above from political undertones
and ramifications. The public, not private individuals are the victims when a regulatory entity fails to
adequately perform its duties. Here, ACAM determined that MMA did not breach its insurance contract but failed
to conduct a thorough investigation. Moreover, the essence of a civil conspiracy claim is not the conspiracy
itself, but the actual damages resulting from the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy. In addition to
an alleged conspiracy, plaintiff has suffered damages which will be proven at trial. Plaintiffs “actual” damages are
failed to prove any actual damages resulting from Defendant’s alleged conspiracy. Plaintiffs also seek
consequential damages; those damages “flowing naturally” from the will.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its cause of action against the notary. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence. Plaintiff’s
claim of conspiracy may be a little more difficult to prove unless there is some proof, which can be proven via
conspiratorial actions, that an agreement existed. As stated previously, although the burden usually rests with the
plaintiff, in professional competence situations, Mr. Duchan has to prove that he was not at fault. Since he will be
unable to meet his burden, the Court should rule in plaintiff’s favor.
