[redrex2006]

A real estate agent along with A probate attorney went to far. A retired LAPD detective had cancer for 10 years before she died. It should be A no brainer. While under skilled nursing care, no patient advocate or ombudsman present. She signed A pre-pinted living trust. Also taken from her notes she stated she can't eat or sleep and 5ix bowel movements before noon she was in no condition to be dealing with her affairs. The prudential realtor was A co-successor trustee never gave A copy of the trust to the trustee or the other co-successor trustee or the family. Prudential realtor's actions are as follows. Conflict of interest, bad faith, misrepresentation of the fact's, breach of trust, selling family home with out consent, dishonesty deceit that reflects fraud. Throwing out all tangible assets. All inventory from the family business and personal belongings of the beneficiary concealing knowledge of 4 time shares, self dealing. That is just the tip of the iceberg . It's simple if the only son gets his rightful inheritance. Know one gets any money. But she new greed and new how all the professionals involved would respond. Just as greedy as she is there is a lot more to this story. Sorry for going on but it sickens me to because nobody will help or do there jobs. This real estate agent is A despicable greedy self absorbed criminal from Prudential realty in orange county CA, with her aiding and abetting Attorney's. Were can the only son get Justice

[grandhaiku]

Some questions so I am sure I understand what happened:
Who had her sign the Trust? Who exactly was named Trustee of the Trust? Who are the Beneficiaries? How long ago did this happen? It sounds like this is quite a large Trust. Where was everyone while this was going on? I have some experience with Trusts in California, but need some specifics.

[Fr_Chuck]

So the son sues the probate attorney and the real estate agent, won't be the first time, But merely being sick does not mean they are not of sound mind, that will be the issue to prove.

The items in the home would have went into probate or given out according to the will, if they destroyed items that belonged to probate, the son, or the trustee of the probate ( appointed in the will or assigned by the court) could act on behalf of the estate.

[somesaltysea]

Best bet is to show proof that Laws To Protect the Elderly have been violated. Undue Influence cannot be used to obtain assets that heirs have a right to have. At first blush, it would appear that Undue Influence would be difficult to prove but quite the contrary. For Undue Influence to be absent from any transaction with the Elderly, it must be the Elderly person's idea/insistence. Also, person benefiting from a transaction with an elderly person, must prove it was for the benefit of the elderly person and not him/herself.

[excon]

were can the only son get Justice

Hello red:

It's a complicated affair. Even if I were to tell you that you're right, so what? You need somebody to get in the trenches with him to STOP these evil thieves. I can't do that.

You need a lawyer.

excon

[JudyKayTee]

Best bet is to show proof that Laws To Protect the Elderly have been violated. Undue Influence cannot be used to obtain assets that heirs have a right to have. At first blush, it would appear that Undue Influence would be difficult to prove but quite the contrary. For Undue Influence to be absent from any transaction with the Elderly, it must be the Elderly person's idea/insistence. Also, person benefiting from a transaction with an elderly person, must prove it was for the benefit of the elderly person and not him/herself.

Sorry but this is not 100% correct - an elderly person can at any time give gifts to anyone as long as they are in sound mind. The gift does not have to benefit the "giver."

[excon]

Let's take this a step further to see how far you are willing to go to justify 'preying on the elderly'.

Hello salty:

I didn't see any justifying. Indeed, she didn't even take a position on the subject other than to correct your law - which needed correcting.

excon

[excon]

I don't see your point.

Hello again, salty:

I understand that you don't understand. Let's see if we can fix that.

You began by saying the law says that if an older person gives stuff away, that giving MUST benefit the giver.

Judy corrected your law, in that an older person may give away anything they like as long as they are of sound mind. That's accurate. That's the law. She's right. You were wrong.

What she DIDN'T do was justify the mistreatment of the elderly, which is what you accused her of. She didn't even come CLOSE to what you accused her of – not even close.

I pointed out BOTH of those facts to you.

Instead of arguing THOSE points (as you purport to do), you tell me that you looked up the law in a law library, as though that should be enough for me. Well, Sir, it isn't. Telling me that you went to a library ISN'T arguing the law. It's telling me about an afternoon you had. Telling me WHAT YOU DISCOVERED at the library is arguing the law.

You didn't do that. Instead, you insulted me. Being better than you, I didn't insult you back. What I did instead, was point out to you that you mis-read the previous responses, which of course, you did.

Hopefully, this clarified it, but I have the feeling it didn't.

excon

[somesaltysea]

excon - If you reread the original posting/request for info, believe it is clear that help is being requested for what appears a RE agent and attorney did. All of the facts are a little sketchy but from what the 'poster' revealed appears to me Laws to Protect The Elderly have been violated whether it is Coersion or Undue Influence. My opinion was directed to that request for help.

You and JudyKayTee somehow confused that with 'gifting'. 'Gifting' is everyone's right to do but transferring assets because of Coersion or Undue Influence violates laws that have been written for this very purpose - make it illegal for elderly to be disadvantaged. By succession, the heirs have also been disadvantaged.

My question to you is the same as the person posting the request for help: if you were sitting on a civil jury with the facts as they have been presented would you vote in favor of the RE Agent & Attorney or in favor of the son who apparently will receive nothing?

[JudyKayTee]

Let's take this a step further to see how far you are willing to go to justify 'preying on the elderly'.

Assume it was not a gift but a sale & purchase at a low price and the Elderly Person needed full value for those assets to take care of themselves. You still contend the Elderly person was not harmed by having someone taking advantage of them?

Also, why do you believe there are Laws To Protect The Elderly? If it wasn't a problem, there would be no laws. Also, when an elderly person goes into a state supported nursing home, it is taxpayer dollars paying for that but first the elderly person must show little or no assets other than their home to enter that type facility. Because some greedy person has siphoned off the assets, it would then be possible. When you are old, do you want to be deceived by a 'loving' relative so that you have to spend your last days in state facility unstead of the friendly, comfortable confines of your own home?

I've talked to numerous people about this and you are the first to take such a position. Are you guilty of having done this yourself?

You are absolutely way out of line here - you have attacked every post I have made. It is not my opinion or thinking that counts; this is a matter of law. As far as accusing me of having done "this" myself - you are offensive beyond words.

If you want to argue, post on a message board.

I notice you have spent a lot of time in the law library reading "about this" - I would warrant a guess that I have spent more time in Court on Elder Law matters in the past year than you have in a lifetime.

[ScottGem]

excon - If you reread the original posting/request for info, believe it is clear that help is being requested for what appears a RE agent and attorney did.

First, If YOU had checked the date on the original post you might noticed that the thread was 6 months old. If the issue wasn't resolved by now its probably not going to be.

Second, you seem to think that anyone disagreeing with your advice about laws to protect the elderly is an advocate for taking advantage of the elderly. So you accuse them of doing so. Your assumptions along those lines are invalid and off base. I already edited personal attack along those lines from one of your posts. I would have deleted the whole post that time, but some of it may have been valuable advice.

Finally, you don't seem to get like excon is saying. You made a statement that a person "benefiting from a transaction with an elderly person, must prove it was for the benefit of the elderly person and not him/herself." That statement is not true since any person can give a gift to the benefit of the recipient. As long as the giver can be shown to be of sound mind. Judy was correcting that incorrect statement. Instead of dealing with the narrow and specific correction she made, you launched into a personal attack (which has been deleted) falsely accusing her of justifiyng preying on the elderly.

You need to get off your high horse and really read what people are saying. If you disagree that's fine, but confine your disagreement to the points rasied. Do not start personal attacks or go far afield in disagreeing. Such attacks are not tolerated here.

[Fr_Chuck]

You will find that actually although many laws are written certain way, years of case law gives it other actual meanings, so unless one researches not only local state cases but also other state cases, where trial courts have ruled on these laws, one can not be sure how the courts will view it.
Also with that you have also prove your points, since there was no guardian appointed, at that point you have to prove that the perosn was not of sound mind at the time of the signing. Since they are now dead, it will be hard to prove it, you will have to get doctors testomony and the such, but if the perosn was still making their own medical choices, the doctors will not say they were not of sound mind, since that would make any medical treatments they did at that point, up for challenge also.

But with that said, yes a cheating relation cheats family members every day of the year somewhere. It is a matter of morals and lack of respect of the other people.

Undue influence is very hard to prove also, what you see as undue, may not be in antohers eyes. So that is always up to the courts opinion,

[somesaltysea]

ScottGem & Fr_Chuck - So if you were on the Civil Jury deciding the case presented, how would you vote? In favor of the RE Agent and his attorney or the son.

[Fr_Chuck]

There would have to be legally submitted evidence that can be presented with evidence of illegal activity on the part of the real estate person.

If there is no proof that anything illegal was done, the mere fact the property was transferred in and of it self is not illegal. The reasons for that transfer, the way it was transferred and any proof of undue influcense would have to be presented in court.

At this point, since there is no proof of any wrong doing, merely emptly beliefs, I would have to say the real esate people are still ahead.

Remember court is not what is fair, not even what people think is right, but what can be legally presented in court. Many family members are left out of wills, trusts all the time for reasons, so merely favoring one family memember does not make it illegal. Just not fair.

Also as a note I will delete all of your posts if you continue your undue attack on other people who are tyring to tell you the truth on how courts work, they don't work like law school books say, they work by many different standards, and the first is legally approved and submitted evidence. Opinoins are not allowed, what proof is there? I have seen none listed so for.

[ScottGem]

ScottGem & Fr_Chuck - So if you were on the Civil Jury deciding the case presented, how would you vote? In favor of the RE Agent and his attorney or the son.

I would vote according to the legal evidence presented and accoesding to the prevailing law as presented by the judge.

That's the point you seem to miss. These issues are ones of what the law says. Yet you seem to want to turn it around and make it a personal issue. You attack people who are simply stating what the law is.

I go along with Chuck. If you continue these personal attacks they will be deleted and you will be banned. If you want to discuss the facts, that's fine, but stop the personal attacks.