A 2014 complaint against Jean Glass of Scottsdale Arizona stated David Hussey was a victim of fraud and/or theft. Hussey’s attorney also noted that their client would be entitled to the amount in question, $125,000, in addition to the interest on that amount from the date he engaged with Jean Glass until the date of repayment. The lawsuit centers on a Sonoran real estate transaction.
The Maricopa County Superior Court has since ruled Hussey’s claims against Glass to be “frivolous and entirely untrue.” Subpoenaed bank records have shown that no wrongdoing took place on the part of Jean Glass and she has since been cleared of all charges. No acquittal was necessary because the case was dismissed and not taken to verdict by Maricopa County Superior Court. Ms. Jean Glass has filed no requests for a countersuit of defamation at the time of this publication.
The $125,000 amount was proven to have never changed hands, so Jean Glass was not required to exchange any money with David Hussey per the findings of the court. Glass was accused of fraud in her role as a real estate agent, but Maricopa County found her innocent on all accounts. She furnished all communication records in compliance with the court’s wishes, exonerating herself in the matter.
Jean Glass Lawsuit Records Sealed
Glass and Hussey’s court findings were officially sealed on February 26th and neither party is permitted to speak publicly on the case, as confirmed by the defendant’s attorney. Maricopa County Superior Court indicated that a sealed settlement is the best protection of Ms. Glass’s reputation that can be legally enforced. The court acknowledged her request to keep the matter confidential.
The third count in the case alleged, David Hussey’s funds were “money had and received” by Glass, another claim which was deemed “frivolous.” Hussey’s attorney declined to comment when requested.
A fourth count claimed Glass was unjustly enriched by a sum of $125,000 that was to the detriment of Hussey, an additional claim throw out by the court in their ruling. Rather than a formal acquittal, this charge and the entire case were dismissed and were not taken to an official verdict.
Glass furnished the count with their original agreement, set in writing, which showed any money delivered from Hussey to her was for the aforementioned transaction. The lack of actual transfer of funds left Hussey with no grounds for additional counts under the Maricopa County Superior Court.
Ms. Glass indicated that an additional contingency of their agreement was that Hussey was expected to place the required $125,000 in a separate escrow account, which he had still not done at the time of filing. He instead deposited it into a personal account which Glass had not been given access to.
While Glass and Hussey had planned to be joint owners of the Military Road lot, Glass purchased the property in her name only, after the joint venture fell apart. Glass settled with the seller for $95,000 per public record. Maricopa County Superior Court acknowledged that this was entirely within her right as an independent investor and Hussey had no formal claim to the property.
Records provided by Glass on request of the Courts clearly demonstrated and showed that large sums owed by Hussey to Glass for unpaid loans and expenses were never repaid. An escrow account of $125,000, as claimed to exist by Hussey, was never setup and Hussey was only able to produce records of his personal bank accounts.
Prior to Hussey’s assertions, Glass had purchased the Military Rd. property in her name only rather than as a joint ownership as Hussey accused. Hussey wanted to use Glass’ property for a construction investment and approached Glass with a proposal to do so. Glass purchased the Military Rd. property from the seller for $95,000 per public record. Maricopa County Superior Court acknowledged that this was entirely within her right as an independent investor and Hussey had no formal claim to the property.
Hussey also attempted to contact the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office regarding the case and they informed him that he had no legal action to take against Glass because her actions were not outside the legal guidelines for purchase of property.