Maurice Voce spent decades learning the stock market on his own, building a $19 million fortune through stock-options trading while working as a barber. But in the final years of his life, as his family became concerned about his declining cognitive health, questions emerged about whether the financial professionals managing his investments were adequately protecting his interests. Now, more than a decade after his death at 93, a California appeals court has revived key claims brought by his family against Morgan Stanley and financial adviser John Privitelli.In an opinion filed on October 8, 2026, and certified for publication on October 29, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the family’s financial elder abuse claim and parts of its breach-of-fiduciary-duty case should not have been dismissed. The decision in ‘DeVone v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC’ sends the dispute back for further proceedings, although it does not establish that Morgan Stanley or the adviser committed wrongdoing.
From barber to self-taught investor
According to the court opinion, Voce began investing in the 1960s and trading stock options in the 1970s. He worked with financial adviser Joseph Privitelli in the 1980s, when the adviser was associated with Dean Witter Reynolds, a firm that later merged with Morgan Stanley. After Joseph Privitelli died in 1993, his son, John Privitelli, took over Voce’s investment accounts. Voce was 74 at the time. The adviser continued working with him until June 2012, shortly before Voce died in August that year.Over the decades, Voce accumulated a fortune worth approximately $19 million, which he left to his three children through a series of trusts. His Morgan Stanley accounts were valued at about $18 million at the time of his death.His investments included a portfolio focused on income-generating assets and a separate trading account used for buying and selling stock options. These included covered calls, which involve owning the underlying shares, and uncovered options, which can expose investors to significantly greater risks.The family’s lawsuit alleged that the options-trading strategy was unsuitable for Voce in the final phase of his life and that the adviser continued facilitating trades and collecting commissions despite concerns about his cognitive health.
Family raised concerns about his declining health
The court record describes growing concerns among Voce’s children and other relatives about his memory and mental condition beginning around 2010. In December that year, family members emailed Privitelli about Voce’s memory lapses, disorientation and declining health. According to the appellate opinion, Privitelli acknowledged that he was aware of concerns about Voce’s cognitive impairment in early 2011, while continuing to execute trades based on Voce’s instructions.At trial, the adviser was asked whether the family’s concerns should have been escalated to a supervisor or the firm’s risk-management team. “Sure. It should have been,” Privitelli answered, according to the court’s account of the testimony.The family alleged that Morgan Stanley and Privitelli should have taken greater steps to assess the risks of continuing the trading strategy. They also challenged advice they said the adviser provided on tax and estate-planning matters, claiming it contributed to expensive insurance arrangements and tax liabilities.The defendants disputed the allegations. The case therefore centres not simply on how much money Voce made or lost, but on what the financial professionals knew about his circumstances and what responsibilities they had towards him.
Why the lower court dismissed the case
The family first pursued arbitration through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, in 2014. A panel dismissed the claims in January 2019, without prejudice to the family pursuing them in court. The family filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2019. During the 2024 trial, the court ruled that the claims were timely but restricted the conduct for which the family could seek damages to the period after September 11, 2010.The trial court subsequently dismissed the financial elder abuse claim, reasoning that the investment accounts had increased in value during the relevant period. The defendants pointed to approximately $4.2 million in net gains from 2010 to 2012. The court also dismissed the excessive-trading theory of the fiduciary-duty claim, finding that the family had not presented sufficient expert evidence to establish that the trading volume or commissions were excessive.
Appeals court says profits do not settle the question
The family challenged those decisions, arguing that the lower court had wrongly excluded much of the investment relationship from consideration and placed too much emphasis on the account’s eventual performance. The appeals court agreed on key points. It held that once a claim is found timely, the statute of limitations does not automatically restrict the family to recovering damages for only a narrow period of the alleged conduct.It also rejected the idea that an account’s gains, by themselves, defeated the financial elder abuse claim. Under California law, the court explained, the question includes whether a defendant knew or should have known that the conduct was likely to harm an older person when it occurred.“Under the Elder Abuse Act, a defendant who exposes an elder to a foreseeable risk of harm does not escape liability merely because the risk did not materialize,” the opinion stated.The court also ruled that questions about whether Privitelli’s responsibilities extended to tax and estate-planning advice could not be resolved solely by noting that he had not been formally hired or paid for those services. The broader relationship, including the advice actually provided and the client’s reliance on the adviser, had to be considered.However, the appeals court upheld the dismissal of the separate excessive-trading theory of the fiduciary-duty claim because the family had not provided sufficient expert evidence to support it.The ruling now allows the surviving claims to return to further proceedings. For Voce’s family, the legal dispute over how his fortune was managed in his final years remains unresolved. For the court, the central question is whether the evidence supports the allegations under the applicable legal standards, not simply whether the investor’s accounts ultimately made money.
