KINGWOOD – A woman claims a Morgantown attorney duped her out of hundreds of thousands of dollars following her husband’s death.
Rhonda DeGarmo filed the complaint individually and as executrix of the estate of ex-husband Eric Larew and as a representative of their company Insert LLC against William C. Brewer and Brewer & Giggenbach in Preston Circuit Court.
Brewer did not return messages seeking comment.
Brewer
According to DeGarmo’s complaint, Eric Larew hired Brewer and his firm to represent himself, DeGarmo and their companies. DeGarmo retained Brewer to represent Larew’s estate when he passed away in 2017 at the age of 38.
According to media reports, Larew shot himself during a traffic stop on Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania after fleeing a gas station where police say he put a gun to his wife’s head during a domestic incident. He was stopped shortly thereafter, which is when police say he shot himself with his 17- and 20-year-old daughters in the truck with him.
According to the complaint, Degarmo says Brewer advised her he would continue to represent the companies’ interests and that “he would handle things for her.”
But, at the same time, she says Brewer undertook the representation of Marjorie and Lowell Larew, “who had competing and adverse interests against Eric Larew and Rhonda DeGarmo.” She says Brewer represented Marjorie and Lowell Larew (who are Eric Larew’s parents) in the purchase and sale of their interest in several companies to Eric Larew and Rhonda DeGarmo.
DeGarmo says Brewer also represented her and Eric Larew in the purchase and sale of several companies and assets owned by Marjorie and Lowell Larew “disregarding long held rules and regulations about conflicts of interests and an attorney’s duty to avoid said conflicts with their clients.”
She says Brewer also represented all parties in drafting, advising and completing an owner financing by Marjorie and Lowell Larew of the purchase by Eric Larew and Rhonda DeGarmo.
“Importantly, there was no discussion of a conflict of interest, much less a waiver of conflict of interest pursuant to the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys,” the complaint states.
When Eric Larew died, DeGarmo says Brewer told her his representation “was necessary to continue the operation of several of Eric and Rhonda’s businesses.”
“When in reality, Brewer was simply maintaining his control over the Larew assets such that he could conceal the complication and harm that stemmed from the violation of conflict of interest principles alluded to above,” the complaint states.
When Brewer was sued by Marjorie and Lowell Larew, DeGarmo says he did not disclose that information to her.
“Apparently, the damages sustained by Marjorie and Lowell Larew stem from Mr. Brewer’s representation of Marjorie and Lowell Larew whilst representing Eric Larew and Rhonda DeGarmo,” the complaint explains. “If he should not have been representing Marjorie and Lowell Larew and paid out a settlement because of this, then he should not have been representing Rhonda DeGarmo, the estate of Eric Larew or any of the other plaintiffs.
“Thus, simply adhering to simple principles of logic, if the Larews are entitled to compensation because of what Mr. Brewer did, then plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as well.”
DeGarmo says Brewer’s mishandling of the commercial purchase and loan transaction mentioned meant the loan documents and purchase agreement were “concocted in such a manner that plaintiff Rhonda DeGarmo and the Larew entities have been sued and sustained substantial monetary losses.”
The complaint also says Brewer was concerned about a potential excess verdict by Marjorie and Lowell Larew for his liability in preparing an unenforceable loan document.
So, “he sought to successfully convince Rhonda DeGarmo of her responsibility to pay under this agreement despite the absence of operative legal facts requiring payment,” the complaint states. “Rhonda DeGarmo’s payment of significant sums of money for debts that were not owed served to reduce the damages that the Larews would hold Brewer responsible for in their legal malpractice action.”
DeGarmo says Brewer’s conduct in that situation cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In addition, she says Brewer also took legal positions in pleadings and in the estate process that were inconsistent with her instructions and the “correct, true and accurate legal positions” of the plaintiffs.
“Defendant did so in such a manner that the position taken benefitted his legal position and not the plaintiffs,” the complaint states. “It was only when Rhonda was becoming suspicious of the continued billing and seemingly endless litigation that followed Brewer’s advice that she sought another lawyers’ opinion did she learn of the conduct complained of herein.”
DeGarmo says Brewer failed to give accurate, reliable and reasonable advice to her. She says if he had done so, he would have implicated himself.
She accuses Brewer of legal malpractice, negligence, theft, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.
DeGarmo seeks a refund of all attorney fees paid to Brewer and his firm as well as attorney fees paid defending the lawsuits brought by Marjorie and Lowell Larew. She also seeks damages for litigation costs, expenses associated with the closing of certain businesses, lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience. She also seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and other relief.
DeGarmo is being represented by Mark A. Kepple of Bailey & Wyant in Wheeling and by Daniel P. Taylor of Taylor & Makricostas in Weirton.
Preston Circuit Court case number 21-C-110
