Wendy Williams’ Guardian Under Fire: Allegations of ‘Robbing’ Client in $30M Lawsuit Over Financial Control.
Accusations surface: Wendy’s guardian allegedly gains from fraudulent legal actions.
Exclusive: Wendy Williams’ guardian, Sabrina Morrissey, along with her firm Morrissey & Morrissey LLP, and approximately ten other attorneys, stand accused in a $30 million lawsuit alleging a scheme to exploit the troubled host’s finances. This revelation comes from The U.S. Sun.
The lawsuit accused Morrissey and other attorneys of colluding to sustain an unfounded guardianship against Jose Verdugo, a New York resident who had received $5.5 million from a personal injury settlement. Representing Verdugo, attorney Michael Flomenhaft from The Flomenhaft Lawfirm, PLLC, handled his case following injuries sustained in a construction accident. The legal proceedings commenced in November 2022. By August 2023, Flomenhaft filed for discontinuation “without prejudice,” allowing for the possibility of future legal action. This implies Flomenhaft can refile charges, modify claims, or pursue litigation in another jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations. Flomenhaft alleged that the issues arose around 2009 when Herbert Rodriguez, Esq., a former colleague from Schwartz Goldstone Campisi & Kates, LLP (SGCK), reached out to his client.
According to court filings, Rodriguez purportedly misrepresented Flomenhaft’s management of Verdugo’s case, informing Verdugo and his wife—urgently in need of the settlement—that his case couldn’t conclude without his consent to an MHL Article 81 Guardianship, which Verdugo neither desired nor required.
This is where Wendy Williams’ guardian, previously criticized by the star’s family in a recent Lifetime docuseries, allegedly entered the fray.
The court documents assert that Rodriguez and his firm initially collaborated with Sabrina Morrissey, Esq., of M&M to enforce an MHL (Mental Hygiene Law) Article 81 Guardianship on Verdugo. They purportedly pursued a two-pronged litigation strategy under the guise of safeguarding Verdugo’s interests, aiming to discredit Flomenhaft while allegedly securing substantial court-awarded fees for Morrissey & Morrissey as Guardian counsel through litigation, thus maligning Flomenhaft both legally and ethically.
The lawsuit asserts that Wendy’s guardian assumed control of Verdugo on January 19, 2010, and maintained guardianship until October 7, 2015.
Additionally, the complaint alleges her involvement in litigation concerning the conservatorship.
Furthermore, the suit contends that Morrissey and SGCK operated with assurance that their fee requests would be automatically approved by the court, exploiting the consistent judicial reluctance to allow Verdugo to prove his competency under New York Mental Hygiene law, thus challenging the validity of the guardianship. This, the lawsuit claims, enabled the defendants to proceed unchecked with their scheme.
The lawsuit alleged that judges overseeing guardianships were also complicit in the purported scheme.
The complaint claimed ongoing one-sided communications between judges in the Guardianship Part and attorneys representing guardians facilitated the scheme.
“Under the guise of safeguarding Verdugo’s best interests, defendants conspired to perpetuate an unfounded guardianship over Jose Verdugo,” the lawsuit alleged.
“For over a decade, defendants have ensnared Verdugo in a degrading and oppressive guardianship by manipulating and repeatedly deceiving him, as well as the New York Supreme Court and the Appellate Division,” it continued.
Detailing more than a decade of litigation related to the conservatorship, including filings regarding the ward’s guardianship and various other court actions on his supposed behalf, the complaint accused Wendy’s conservator and other guardianship attorneys of “falsely perpetuating an unjustified guardianship to silence and legally incapacitate Verdugo from advocating for himself.”
The plaintiff claimed that the litigation, which partly depleted Verdugo’s settlement through excessive attorney fees, originated from a $5,000 discrepancy in 2007.
In subsequent years, Verdugo was under the supervision of multiple guardianship attorneys, including Wendy’s current guardian, Morrissey.
A barrage of litigation ensued after Verdugo was placed under guardianship, allegedly consuming a substantial portion of his personal injury settlement.
The lawsuit alleged, “Under the guise of purportedly safeguarding Verdugo, utilizing these fraudulent litigations to accumulate exorbitant and illegitimately acquired attorney and guardian fees, looting Verdugo’s multi-million dollar personal injury recovery in the process.”
The case estimated that following Verdugo’s initial award, he retained $2.47 million “after attorney fees, case expenses, and discharge of liens.” However, in the ensuing years, the defendants purportedly pursued litigation without their client’s consent, totaling at least another $1.1 million.
The claims were voluntarily dismissed before Morrisey or any of the other defendants responded to the specific allegations.
Morrissey was also contacted for comment regarding this matter.
The lawsuit contended that the defendants prolonged Verdugo’s undesired conservatorship, actively obstructing his rightful release from guardianship and striving to shield him from discovering the exploitation of the arrangement for personal financial gain.
According to the case, Verdugo’s daughter attempted to terminate her father’s conservatorship in 2021.
Medical records purportedly confirmed Verdugo’s mental capacity over the course of more than a decade.
“The persistent refusal of the guardians and the court to arrange a capacity hearing to assess the necessity of the conservatorship compelled Fatima (Verdugo’s daughter) to initiate an Article 78 proceeding demanding this assessment,” the filing noted.
Several doctors in the lawsuit attested to Verdugo’s cognitive abilities, asserting that he exhibited no deficiencies.
One of the doctors stated, “He does not exhibit incompetence to the extent that he requires a guardian from a neuropsychiatric perspective.”
Further legal action by Wendy’s conservator, as alleged in Flomenhaft’s complaint, occurred in 2016. The conservator initiated additional litigation against Flomenhaft, prompting her ward to submit an affidavit.
Verdugo purportedly expressed in his statement, “I do not support the lawsuit against Mr. Flomenhaft and his law firm. I received the Peachtree money and deposited it into my bank account. I granted Mr. Flomenhaft permission to utilize the remaining funds as he deemed appropriate to cover my case expenses. I am frustrated by being manipulated.”
“The conservator is exploiting me to sue Mr. Flomenhaft without my consent, incurring significant legal fees that have already cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“I am aware that Mr. Flomenhaft attempted to have the case dismissed. However, the attorney from the law firm representing my former guardian, Michael Wiener, falsely asserted that I have been mentally unsound since 2003, despite never having met Mr. Wiener.”
“I understand that Mr. Rodriguez and his current law firm also supported this falsehood. I am a capable, intelligent, and self-sufficient individual, employed by various companies in various roles. I am certainly not mentally unsound,” he concluded.
Flomenhaft’s latest lawsuit additionally accused Morrissey and the other defendants of engaging in racketeering.
“As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants and each of them have participated in and contributed to a consistent pattern of collusion and conduct involving both deception and attempted deception towards Plaintiffs, Verdugo, and the guardians themselves.
“As a result of the above, Plaintiffs have suffered significant harm, incurring legal fees and expenses, substantial loss of professional time, damage to reputation, and delays in receiving allocated attorney fees and investment losses with interest.”
The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants violated Civil Rights Law.
“In contravention of Civil Rights Law § 70, these Defendants prosecuted each of the matters in the Consolidation ostensibly on behalf of Verdugo without his consent, despite his capacity and entitlement to be free from guardianship control and thus empowered to make his own legal decisions.”
The total amount of punitive damages sought from all defendants amounted to $30 million.
Wendy’s Guardianship
As exclusively reported by The U.S. Sun in early 2022, Wendy encountered a significant development when her bank, Wells Fargo, barred her access to her accounts and initiated legal proceedings for a guardianship hearing.
Wendy’s legal representative at the time contended that Wells Fargo held “several million dollars’ worth of funds” belonging to the unwell host.
According to the documents, Wendy’s former financial advisor informed the bank that Wendy “was of unsound mind,” prompting Wells Fargo to restrict her access to bank accounts and statements.
Wells Fargo defended its decision to freeze Wendy’s accounts by citing provisions in various client agreements that allow them to “pause or reject instructions for a proposed transaction” if they suspect financial exploitation, dementia, or undue influence.
Subsequently, over the following months, Wendy found herself under a court-appointed financial conservatorship led by attorney Sabrina Morrissey, as exclusively revealed by The U.S. Sun.
It’s worth noting that most conservatorship cases in New York State are filed under seal.
