LV woman in battle over missing jewels

Sandy Thompson

Friday, Aug. 6, 1999 | 10:57 a.m.

An 82-year-old Las Vegas woman is seeking the return of thousands of dollars worth of jewelry she says disappeared while in the hands of her divorce attorney's firm.

Unable to get a satisfactory judgment from the Nevada State Bar or District Court, Edith "Maggie" Kay has filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court against the prominent firm of Jimmerson & Hansen.

Jim Jimmerson, who has a reputation as an aggressive attorney who vigorously fights for his clients, represented Kay in her divorce case in 1995. Among his most high-profile clients is boxer Mike Tyson.

This is not the first time Jimmerson has been embroiled in controversy. In 1994, the Nevada Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him for violating rules on conflict of interest, safekeeping of property and administration of justice.

Jimmerson had represented a woman in post-divorce and property distribution matters when he learned that she had no money to prevent foreclosure on a parcel of land. He had offered to help her, but backed off. He then secretly contacted a real estate agent friend and the two agreed to buy the land at public auction. He later sold it for a $35,000 profit, which he did not disclose to his client until six months later.

Kay, who moved to Las Vegas in 1954, has worked as a casino credit manager, owned or managed beauty salons and operated the Snooty Seconds consignment store for 13 years. She says she filed the Supreme Court appeal on her own because "no attorney wants to go up against Jimmerson."

Being on her own is nothing new to Kay. Widowed in 1956 when her son was 4 months old, Kay says she was "happily single" for 35 years until her 1991 marriage to Harry Kay. Her divorce case, begun in 1995, has lasted longer than the marriage. Although the divorce was granted in 1997, there are outstanding property settlement issues. The major one, Kay says, is the missing jewelry.

In August 1995, Family Court Judge Bob Gaston ordered Kay to turn over several valuable pieces of jewelry to her attorney, Jimmerson. The jewelry then was to be placed in a safe deposit box at a bank until it could be divided between Kay and her ex-husband as part of a property settlement.

Kay gave the jewelry to Jimmerson's firm on Sept. 18, 1995. She says each piece was logged in, and a law clerk signed a receipt for the jewelry. But it was two months before attorneys for both sides went to the bank to place the jewelry in a safe deposit box. On that day, Dec. 5, 1995, three pieces were discovered missing -- a black pearl with diamonds, a platinum chain and a white ring guard with diamonds. Kay estimated their worth at $37,000. Other appraisals differed.

Jimmerson later withdrew as Kay's attorney because she refused to pay her mounting legal bills. He said she owed $13,000. She disputed many of the charges.

On April 26, 1996, Gaston ruled that Jimmerson's firm, "having inventoried the jewelry and had it in their possession and control, is responsible for the value of the jewelry which is missing."

But the order carried no weight, Kay says, adding that she was told to seek redress through other avenues.

Jimmerson did not return several phone calls seeking comment on the case. In court documents, Jimmerson didn't actually acknowledge the jewelry was missing. He called it "a red herring brought up by (Kay) only to distract the court" from the fact that she owed $13,000 in attorney's fees from her divorce case.

Jimmerson also claimed that the jewelry was only worth between $200 and $500.

Appraisers disagreed. Court documents refer to two different jewelers' estimates of some of the pieces' value -- $12,893 and $25,733, which are far above Jimmerson's estimate and below Kay's.

In court papers, Jimmerson said the appraisals were not accurate because they were based on Kay's description of the jewelry and not on an examination of the pieces.

Kay hired another attorney in an attempt to get the jewelry -- or its value -- from Jimmerson and to review her $13,000 legal bill.

The attorney said he found several "mistakes" on the bill. For example, he said Kay was erroneously charged $337 for a motion the firm prepared in opposition to her motion seeking recovery of the jewelry. Kay also was charged $307.40 for copy charges when she requested her file after Jimmerson withdrew as her attorney. Kay's new attorney said she should have been given the original file.

Jimmerson, in court papers, said there were some data entry errors on Kay's bill, but they had been corrected. The remaining balance, $13,000, was legitimate, he said, adding that Kay's divorce case was complex and very acrimonious.

Jimmerson filed a claim against Kay for the outstanding bill. He later offered to release that claim and also pay Kay $2,500 in cash if she did not pursue the jewelry case.

Kay's attorney unsuccessfully tried to settle the matter rather than litigate it. Jimmerson's response, in a letter, was that he did not believe his staff was negligent or was responsible for Kay's "claim of lost jewelry. ... it is your client (Kay) who is responsible for this fabrication."

Two months later, Kay's attorney withdrew from the case, saying "it is not in the firm's best interests to represent you in an action against Mr. Jimmerson."

Kay took her fee dispute to the Nevada State Bar. A mediator heard the case in October 1996, but did not release a decision until May 4, 1998.

According to the decision, "the parties agreed to release each other from their pending claims." So the matter appeared resolved, unless either party disputed the accuracy of the decision.

Kay says she did not receive notice of the decision because it was sent to the wrong address. When she learned of it three months later, she contacted the State Bar saying that the mediator's claim was inaccurate. She had not agreed to a settlement.

A District Court arbitrator heard the jewelry dispute Nov. 20, 1998. He asked Kay to provide -- within five days -- a signed and file-stamped copy of Judge Gaston's Family Court order holding Jimmerson responsible for the jewelry.

But Kay says her file could not be found in the Family Court clerk's office. An office worker, she says, told her it probably was in the judge's chambers. It's not unusual for a judge to have a pending case file in his chambers. What was unusual, Kay says, is that no one could get it and give her a copy of Gaston's order.

Her file has since been "found," and Kay has obtained a copy of Gaston's order. But it was too late for the arbitrator.

Since Kay could not meet the five-day deadline to produce Gaston's order, the arbitrator ruled against her. He also ruled she did not prove the value of the jewelry. However, using one of the appraiser's estimates, he noted that some of the jewelry was worth $8,988. He told Kay she could offset that against what she owed Jimmerson. Hence, he ruled, Kay owed the attorney $4,012 plus interest of $6,088.

Not satisfied with the decision, Kay filed a District Court motion earlier this year against Jimmerson.

The case was bounced from judge to judge. According to the court index file, Judge Stephen Huffaker recused himself from hearing the case on March 29, and it was reassigned. On March 30, Judge Lee Gates recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Valorie Vega. But two days later, it was reassigned to Gates "per judge's sec (secretary)."

Kay was surprised Gates was back on the case since the court record indicated he had recused himself. Gates set a hearing for April 26. Again there was a mixup in notifying Kay, and when she failed to appear in court, Gates dismissed the case.

Kay says she received notice of the hearing with the date and "Department 2" stamped on it. However, no time was listed. She says that when she called the court to get a time, she was told her case wasn't on the court calendar.

The hearing, though, had taken place in Department 8, and not 2 as listed on the notice.

Because of the mixup, Gates granted Kay's request for a rehearing. She lost when Gates ruled that she had not arbitrated the matter in good faith. Some of the reasons the judge cited were Kay's failure to respond to the arbitrator's request for Gaston's original order, failure to present corroborating witnesses at the arbitration hearing and failure to timely pay the arbitrator's fees and costs.

Kay says she has no other recourse now than the Supreme Court.

Jimmerson's firm has offered to settle by "each side walking away with nothing." That's unacceptable, Kay says.