Elder Justice Prosecutor Samples
Requests Court deny motion because: a jury must decide whether a condition is open and obvious; defendant's possession and control of premises ascribes liability
Argues Court must vacate judgment and remand because: burden to prove alleged gift's validity or invalidity was placed on plaintiff; confidential relationship imposed presumption of invalidity; failure to apply invalidity presumption was prejudicial; evidence contradicted finding inter vivosgift's were proper and without fraud or undue influence; defendant failed to rebut invalidity presumption
Argues Court must reverse order because:witnesses other than trial counsel were reqired to testify in probate warranted disqualification; no personal representative conflict of interest existed in probate; children waived right to personal representative objection
Argues Court must reverse ruling and remand for trial on the merits because: dismissal was based on appellee's witness's death; appellee was negligent and delayed in preserving its own case
Argues Court must vacate judgment or, in the alternative, reduce damages because: defendant's motion in limineregarding plaintiff's designated expert's testimony was overruled; insufficient evidence was presented to establish appropriate standard of care; incorrect standard of care was applied; negligence was improperly supported; admissible relevant evidence failed to support award
Argues Court must remand rulings and reverse final order because: appellee was granted default judgment erroneously; appellant's motions to vacate default judgment and motion to reconsider were overruled; appellant was not given notice or opportunity to be heard before attorneys were granted motion to withdraw; appellant's summary judgment motion was overruled
Argues Court must reverse judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss because: testimony by financial advisors, two account officers, and attending physician showed decease's cognitive ability was unimpaired; appellee failed to show decease was incompetent or unduly influenced to establish and manage financial affairs
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Legal Malpractice; Second Claim for Relief - Elder Financial Abuse
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Wrongful Death; Second Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse
Requests Court enter judgment and rule plaintiff entitled to damages' recovery because: there is no question of material fact as to note's validity; no evidence contradicts liability and causation on elder abuse claim; no evidence contradicts liability and causation on money had and received claim
Alleges: First Cause of Action - Elder Financial Abuse; Second Cause of Action - Fraud; Third Cause of Action - Money Had and Received
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Malpractice/Negligence; Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Third Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse; Fourth Claim for Relief - Aiding and Assisting Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Fifth Claim for Relief - Aiding and Assisting Fraud and Converstion
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Second Claim for Relief - Rescission - Count 1 - Breach of Fiduciary Dury - Count 2 - Fraud - Count 3 - Undue Influence; Third Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse
Alleges: First Claim for Relief - Count 1 - Violation of Due Process - Count 2 - Violation of Fourth Amendment Right to Be Free From Unreasonable Search and Seizure; Second Claim for Relief - Trespass to Land; Third Claim for Relief - Conversion; Fourth Claim for Relief - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Fifth Claim for Relief - Intentional Interference witn Economic Relations; Sixth Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse; Seventh Claim for Relief - Abuse of Process
Alleges: First Counterclaim - Breach of Contract; Second Counterclaim - Breach of Implied Contractual Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Third Counterclaim - Elder Financial Abuse; Fourth Counterclaim - Conversion; Fifth Counterclaim - Intentional Interference with Economic Relations - Count 1 - Against Matt King and Steve King - Count 2 - Against Matt King only; Sixth Couterclaim - Unjust Enrichment
Requests Court preclude plaintiffs from offering any program statements, guidelines, goals, or similar evidence because: such materials are irrelevant to issues pled; admission of such evidence is prejudicial to defendant; admission of such evidence confuses and misleads jury; goals have no bearing on conduct; such materials raise issues not pled in complaint
Alleges: Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief - Elder Abuse/Abuse of a Vulnerable Person; Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief - Breach of Contract; Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief - Money Had and Received
Recommends Court order defendants produce outstanding documents because: unredacted Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protected information for persons complaining of resident's alleged sexual misconduct can lead to admissible evidence; information relating to loans from defendants, latest tax returns, balance sheets, and income statements can inform jury as to how defendants' money is used; CEO's compensation data and documents relating to loans defendants received can be relevant to punitive damages
Requests Court admit motions because: previous marriages are not relevant; eviction attempts' evidence should be excluded; criminal investigation evidence is irrelevant, could be prejudicial or could confuse issues; complaints' outcome is irrelevant or, if relevant, probative value could be prejudicial; lawsuit filing timing is irrelevant; estate value is irrelevant and non-profit status does not exempt defendants from liability; professional backgrounds are irrelevant; relative's residence is irrelevant; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act excludes personal health information; parties to litigation are dismissed by stipulated motion in limine
Recommends Court deny claim because: vulnerable person abuse requires "permitting" intentional conduct; plaintiff failed to show knowledge of specific conduct in presence of that abuse
Requests Court grant summary judgment on liability for elder abuse because: no pleading, deposition, affidavit, declaration or admission on file showed a genuine issue as to any material fact for trial; throughout her residency, seventy-nine year old was incapable of consenting to sexual acts; Adult Protective Services (APS) investigation found defendants guilty of wrongdoing; subsequent APS investigation found defendants failed to safeguard victim
Requests Court deny motion because: vulnerable person abuse is issue of fact; no undisputable evidence shows sexual contact occurred; defendants' role in abuse is a question of fact; seventy-nine year old resident's ability to sexual contact consent is question of fact
Requests Court deny motion because: motion misrepresents facts; motion violates standard for leave to amend pleadings; claims are substantially different; issues are limited; motion to add claim for punitive damages is improper
Argues Court affirm trial court denial because factual findings independently justified denial (2013)