Civ Pro, Bower v.

Weisman
Pleadings and Amendments

Civ Pro, pgs 223-231

1. Title & Citation: Bower v. Weisman (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

2. Identities of the Parties: (P) Bower (D) Weisman

3. Procedural History: Bower claims that Weisman’s real estate agents and attorneys made unauthorized visits to the
townhouse and disturbed her personal belongings. Bower issued a complaint on the bases of 7 claims:
 Claim 1: money damages from breach of express agreements
 Claim 2: fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit in connection with agreement
 Claim 3: reach of contract and conversion
 Claim 4: trespass
 Claim 5: false imprisonment
 Claim 6: intentional infliction of emotional distress
 Claim 7: private nuisance
Defendant raises 2 issues: (1) asserts comopalint fails to disclose the specific provisions of the alleged agreements; P fails to
reveal the which parts of the agreements have been modified & which remain in effect. MOTION TO DISMISS: DENIED. (2)
complaint fails to identify which of the 3 defendants is charged with each act and merely discusses all as ‘the defendant’.
MOTION TO DISMISS: GRANTED.

4. Facts:
 Bower and Weisman terminated a 15yr close and personal and business relationship. According to P, in exchange
for valuable business and social assistance (she provided Weisman), Weisman promised to provide Bower with an
economic interest in his affairs and to provide Bower and her daughter with financial security. She and Weisman
had agreed that he would provide these benefits even after their relationship terminated, as long as Bower, a
Japanese citizen did not remarry or leave the US, and that Weisman breached a series of written and oral
agreements, codifying Weisman’s promise of financial security.

 Final version of agreement between parties dated July 6, 1985: Weisman agreed on the following (1) purchase a
house in CA for Bower at a cost of $6.5million (2) provide Bower with an irrevocable trust in the amount of
$3.9million and a $100,000 trust for Bower’s daughter (3) pay Bower an annual sum of $120,00 for 10 yrs after
promissory note held by Weisman’s company dated Nov. 1, 1983 (4) pay Bower’s living expenses until her
remarriage or departure from US (5) provide rent-free possession of Weisman’s NY townhouse until
remarriage/departure. In Sept and Nov 1985, post-relationship termination, Weisman violated this agreement by
entering townhouse, stripping the artwork and furniture, change the locks on the door, and station 3 guards to
prevent entry of unauthorized individuals…this occurred while Bower’s daughter was home ill.

5. Issue: Whether the Rule 8a2 is met in each of the 7 claims Bower has alleged in the complaint.

6. Holding & Rule: Yes, Rule 8a2 was met in all but 3 of the claims addressed:
 Claim 2: fails to meet Rule 9b, which requires that details be provided in claims of fraud. P has 30 days to replead.
 Claim 5: Ps own allegations show that there was no false imprisonment. P has 20 days to replead.
 Claim 7: P failed to allege an interference which is substantial in nature and unreasonable in character

7. Judgment: Bower’s complaint is sustained on all but 3 counts. Cts rarely dismiss complaints as seen in Conley v. Gibson, ct
has to be 100% confident there are no facts at all that could support claims alleged in complaint in order to dismiss.