Jury awards Scranton businessman Bob Bolus $1 in lawsuit against bank
Jul. 16—SCRANTON — A Lackawanna County jury awarded Scranton businessman Bob Bolus $1 in damages for a lawsuit that alleged he was financially harmed by a bank's 22-day delay in restoring $226,850 that had been misappropriated from his account by a bank employee 20 years ago.
The jury deliberated for about an hour Friday before ruling Wells Fargo Bank breached a contract with Bolus. The panel awarded only nominal damages, however, after finding Bolus suffered no harm.
The verdict, reached after a five-day trial before Judge Julia Munley, is a stinging loss for Bolus, who as of February was seeking $2.5 million in damages and rejected a $300,000 settlement offer, according to a joint pretrial statement filed on April 22.
Bolus filed suit in 2004 against First Union Corporation, which later merged with Wachovia Corporation, doing business as First Union Bank. Wells Fargo assumed the case after it merged with Wachovia in 2008.
According to the lawsuit, Bolus, owner of Bolus Truck Sales and Parts, temporarily lost access to money in his business accounts after former bank employee Richard Gray transferred funds from the accounts without Bolus's knowledge or permission.
Gray was charged with a federal count of bank fraud in 2004 relating to another person's account at the bank. He pleaded guilty to the offense in December 2004 and was sentenced to five months in prison.
Bolus discovered the issue with his account and demanded the money be restored on May 22, 2002. The bank investigated, fired Gray and credited his account on June 14, 2002, according to court documents.
In closing arguments Friday, Bolus's attorney, Michael Melnick of Shavertown, told jurors that delay financially harmed Bolus because he bounced several checks and also lost out on the purchase of a North Carolina property he alleged would have netted him at least a $225,000 profit.
The bank's attorney, Andrew Soven of Philadelphia, said evidence showed no checks bounced because they were covered by overdraft protection from another account. He also said there was no written evidence Bolus made an offer on the North Carolina property.
"He is looking for a windfall and looking for money he did not deserve," he said in his closing. "He thought, 'I got a bank, and people don't like banks."
Although the case was filed in 2004, it sat largely dormant until 2016. The long delay in bringing the case to trial created issues for both Bolus and the bank because some documents, including bank statements that might have supported their respective positions, were not available.
Speaking after the trial, Bolus said part of the delay was caused because he was fighting to obtain documents for years. He finally had to forgo them and take the case to trial. He said he is considering an appeal.
"We believe the verdict was wrong," Bolus said. "The bank allowed a thief to be there and we were damaged by what he did."
Officials with Wells Fargo declined to comment Friday.
Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9137; @tmbeseckerTT on Twitter.
