ShareThis Page
Attorneys argue over whether Scaife children’s wealth should’ve been disclosed |

Attorneys argue over whether Scaife children’s wealth should’ve been disclosed

| Thursday, April 2, 2015 1:39 p.m

An Allegheny County judge is considering whether the private fortunes of late Tribune-Review Publisher Dick Scaife’s daughter and son are relevant in a dispute over a trust fund their father depleted.

William Pietragallo, lawyer for Jennie Scaife, 51, of Palm Beach, Fla., argued Thursday that Common Pleas Judge Kathleen Durkin should strike from the court record claims that Jennie and her brother, David Scaife, are paid about $1 million a month from a trust their grandmother set up for them.

Disclosing the trust, which Scaife’s longtime lawyer H. Yale Gutnick said is worth about $560 million, “put a target on Jennie Scaife’s back,” Pietragallo said. He said the value is inaccurate and irrelevant.

Gutnick’s lawyer, E. J. Strassburger, a partner in their Downtown law firm, said after the hearing that her wealth wasn’t a secret.

“She’s got a lot of money. Everybody knew that,” Strassburger said.

The court case centers on a trust that Sarah Mellon Scaife, Dick Scaife’s mother, established for her son in 1935. Jennie and David Scaife, 49, of Shadyside, argue they should have inherited money from that trust. They claim the trustees — Gutnick, who is chairman of the Tribune-Review’s board of directors, Scaife relative James Walton, and PNC Bank — violated their fiduciary duty by allowing their father to spend all the money in the account.

The Scaife children sued in November to get the court to force the trustees to provide an accounting of the spending. The trustees agreed to provide that accounting by June 1. That should have made Thursday’s court hearing moot, said Thomas Frampton, Walton’s lawyer.

“As of right now, there is nothing before the court,” Frampton told Durkin. “…The petitioners have received what they want.”

Details of Jennie and David Scaife’s wealth can’t be taken out of the public record, but striking them from court records would help eliminate “bad behavior” as the case progresses, Pietragallo said.

David Strassburger told Durkin that Pietragallo wanted to strike the 1963 trust from the record so the trustees couldn’t use it later to show Sarah Mellon Scaife wanted the 1935 trust to benefit only her son. The trustees argue that Jennie and David Scaife’s trust, set up shortly before Jennie Scaife’s birth in 1963, shows that their grandmother never intended her grandchildren to inherit the 1935 trust.

“She provided handsomely for them because she knew the assets of the other trust would not be available to them,” said David Strassburger, another Gutnick lawyer from their law firm.

Gutnick and E. J. Strassburger knew details about the other trust because Gutnick used to serve as a trustee and Strassburger still does, Pietragallo said.

He accused Strassburger and Gutnick of “violating the standards of professional lawyers” by making “statements that ridicule people to whom you have a fiduciary duty.”

Mike Wereschagin is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7900 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.