Skip to main content

Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corporation

Ill. App. Ct.December 11, 2009No. 1-07-3566, 1-08-0702, 1-08-0746, 1-08-1373, 1-08-1982, 1-08-1983, 1-08-2151 & 1-08-2152 Cons. Rel
Plaintiff WinBoulevard Mortgage Corporation$1,270,574 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The trial court found in favor of plaintiffs on all counts, declaring title to three real estate properties vested in the plaintiffs and voiding all forged/inconsistent instruments. The court awarded compensatory damages of $595,574 and punitive damages of $675,000 against the defendants. The appellate court affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corporation** This case involved a serious fraud scheme by Boulevard Mortgage Corporation against the Gambino plaintiffs regarding real estate properties. The mortgage company apparently forged documents and made false claims about who owned three properties, which damaged the plaintiffs' property rights and reputation. The trial court ruled completely in favor of the Gambinos on all claims. The judge declared that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of the three properties and canceled all the forged or inconsistent documents created by Boulevard Mortgage. The court awarded the plaintiffs $595,574 to compensate for their actual losses, plus an additional $675,000 in punitive damages to punish the company for its misconduct. When Boulevard Mortgage appealed, the higher court upheld the entire judgment. **Why this matters for workers:** This case shows that courts will hold employers accountable for serious fraud, even awarding substantial punitive damages to deter bad behavior. While this case involved property fraud rather than typical workplace issues, it demonstrates that employees can successfully fight back against employer misconduct in court. The large damage award also shows that companies cannot escape consequences by claiming ignorance when they engage in fraudulent schemes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.