BRENTWOOD — A judge yesterday granted a $250,000 attachment to the assets of two photographers facing a civil lawsuit from the attorney general's office for allegedly breaking wedding photography contracts.
Michael and Darlene Perrotta, an Atkinson couple who owned Forever in Time Photography in Salem, face criminal and civil charges for allegedly leaving more than 200 newlyweds without the photographs, albums and wedding videos they purchased.
Rockingham Superior Court Judge John Lewis added the $250,000 attachment in the civil case against the Perrottas. The attachment covers the cost of their property at 27 Meditation Lane in Atkinson. It means they cannot sell it until the case is resolved in case it is needed to pay a monetary judgment.
Senior Assistant Attorney General James Boffetti said the $250,000 was not an excessive amount to attach to the case. Boffetti estimated the state would seek around $150,000 in restitution for 206 customers who have filed complaints, some dating to 2001. But the state will seek civil penalties of $10,000 for each violation of the state Consumer Protection Act. With 206 potential violations, if the Perrottas are found liable, that could mean $2 million, Boffetti said.
Lewis already had ordered a freeze on all the Perrottas' property, including their Meditation Lane home. That happened after the judge learned the Perrottas had sold property at 7 Brittany Lane on June 4, after they received notice of the state's petition to attach, but before the hearing. The original attachment was for $250,000 for each property.
The sale of 7 Brittany Lane netted the Perrottas a profit of $71,000, just under $55,000 of which was placed in an escrow account, according to Paul Pappas, Darlene Perrotta's attorney. The judge ordered that money cannot be touched and Pappas must provide the court with a full accounting of what happened to the proceeds of the sale of the property within 20 days.
Pappas disputed the amount of restitution that could be owed to customers. He said the Perrottas had settled some individual lawsuits for between $100 and $300, and the escrow account held "more than enough money."
He said the business was successful for many years, until a September 2008 fire set the photographers back. The business reopened in May 2009. Pappas said the Perrottas did not intend to defraud anybody — the fire and the economy set them back and eventually forced them to close for good in September 2009.
"They didn't will it to happen," Pappas said.
Boffetti said many of the complaints came in the years before the fire — and the Perrottas kept taking new jobs, and money, after the fire, despite their inability to deliver photographs of weddings they had already photographed. Boffetti said 40 complaints were filed for weddings that happened after the fire.
Pappas argued the complaints before the fire were spread over many years. The Perrottas photographed up to 500 weddings a year, he said.
Boffetti said there were two complaints in 2001, five in 2004, four in 2005, five in 2006, and 12 in 2007.
"The events in this case will show a pattern of violations of the Consumer Protection Act," Boffetti said.
Michael Perrotta was in court with a new attorney yesterday, David Horan. In the ongoing criminal trial, the state had argued earlier this summer that it was a conflict for Pappas to represent both Darlene and Michael Perrotta. Darlene Perrotta kept Pappas as her attorney.
Boffetti argued that still was a conflict because Michael Perrotta had told Pappas confidential information while Pappas was his attorney. Pappas could use that information against him in his defense of Darlene Pappas.
"I don't know how a lawyer, once he has received confidential information, how he can continue to represent a client who may have an adverse interest," Boffetti said.
But Horan said the Perrottas already knew everything about one another's legal dealings.
"The reality is that Darlene and Michael, husband and wife, living together, traded massive amounts of information with each other," he said.
Michael Perrotta had signed an informed consent waiver saying he "trusted" Pappas would not use information against him. The judge said that language was unacceptable.
"You can't expect this lawyer (Pappas) to be put in that Catch-22," he said. "He has to fully represent his client."
After a recess, Horan offered a waiver saying Michael Perrotta understood that Pappas "may use any information relating to my representation to my disadvantage."
The judge accepted that waiver.
The Perrottas are scheduled to go on trial Oct. 4 on three charges of violating the Consumer Protection Act.
