Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples
Argues Court must reverse decision because: population is aging; nursing home use is declining; senior housing with services and assisted living options are increasing; senior care providers must update and expand services
Argues Court must affirm denial of conditional use permit because: application conflicts with comprehensive plan; expansion injures adjacent neighborhood; city rejects conditions suggestions
Alleges: First Cause of Action - Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult; Second Cause of Action - Discriminatory Targeting of Disabled Persons; Third Cause of Action - Violations of Covenants of Habitability; Fourth Cause of Action - Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit; Fifth Cause of Action - Unlawful Bad Faith Ouster
Alleges: abuse of vulnerable adult; neglect of vulnerable adult (2013)
Argues Court must affirm judgment because: claims are barred by statute of limitations; claims are barred by credit agreement statute; claims are barred by parol evidence rule; district court denied plaintiff's motion to assert claim for reformation of the mortgage; district court denied plaintiff's motion to assert claim under Truth In Lending Act
Argues Court must affirm order because: plaintiff failed to establish cause to vacate sale; plaintiff failed to commence action within applicable statute of limitations; plaintiff's amendments were futile; plaintiff failed to state claim for fraud, misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation; plaintiff failed to state claim for promissory estoppel; plaintiff failed to state claim for mutual mistake of fact
Argues Court must determine omissions are actionable and apply Consumer Fraud Act because: CFA prohibits material omissions; CFA does not require disclosure; different types of evidence may prove damages; CFA applies to claims against regulated entities
Argues Court must disregard claims relating to decedent's estate plan because: protected spouses are not similar to other spouses; a court hearing must precede conservator's elective share portion filing
Recommends jury consider aggravating factors in financial exploitation of vulnerable adult because: there were multiple incidents per victim; monetary loss exceeded statutue minimum; exploitation occurred over time; defendant's status facilitated offenses; defendant breached trust, confidence and fiduciary relationships; defendant had history of similar offenses
, , 4 pgs
Alleges: abuse of vulnerable adult; neglect of vulnerable adult (2013)
Neglect of a Vulnerable Adult
Alleges: Count I - Lack of Consideration; Count II - Unilateral Mistake; Count III - Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit; Count IV - Breach of Contract; Count V - Conversion; Count VI - Financial Exploitation
Alleges: Count 1 - Fraud and Misrepresentation; Count 2 - Negligent Misrepresentation; Count 3 - Promissory Estoppel; Count 4 - Mutual Mistake; Count 5 - Set Aside; Count 6 - Financial Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult
Recommends Court grant motion because: claims are barred by statutes of limitation; claims are barred by credit agreement statute; claims are barred by parol evidence rule
Argues Court must reverse actions and remand because: court denied continuance for discovery; court dismissed plaintiff's claim of undue influence; court erred not vacating summary judgment on grounds of excusable neglect; court erred awarding defendant attorney's fees
Argues Court must reverse order or, in the alternative, reverse order and remand because: court erred appointing a conservator; conservatorship appointment was an abuse of discretion; court erred granting protective powers; statutory construction requires a bond
Argues Court must reverse order and remand because: accounts belonged to estate; defendant had to prove ownership; defendant seized accounts before testator's death; defendant violated fiduciary duties; rationale to award certificates was unsound
Argues Court must affirm judgment because: evidentiary record supported findings; co-personal representative breached fiduciary duties; fiduciary breaches damaged estate beneficiaries
Alleges: financial exploitation of vulnerable adult; abuse of vulnerable adult; neglect of vulnerable adult (2012)
Argues Court must affirm court's orders because: district court considered all factors; appellants failed to establish substantial prejudice
Recommends Court grant judgment or, in the alternative, a new trail because: court excluded plaintiff's expert rebuttal witnesses; defendants' failed to disclose its experts; defense counsel failed to disclose defendant's pretrial affidavit; court excluded plaintiff's rebuttal expert evidence; court awarded attorney fees against plaintiff after denying plaintiff's motion to compel depositions of treating physicians; court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to depose defendants' experts; court granted defendants' motion in limine prohibiting argument, insinuation or reference to violation of Hippocratic Oath; court denied plaintiff equal protection and due process
Recommends Court require temporary funding for all Medicaid services and publicly funded programs providing care to seniors
Requests leave to file amicus brief and to present oral argument because: Aging Services of Minnesota and Care Providers of Minnesota support motion to dismiss; Aging Services and Care Providers can present cases neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have interest or resources to show
Alleges: First Cause of Action - Discrimination on Basis of a Disability; Second Cause of Action - Discrimination with Regard to Public Assistance; Third Cause of Action - Reprisal Against a Person Who Opposes Discriminatory Practices; Fourth Cause of Action - Violations; Fifth Cause of Action - Conversion