Mission

The Citizen’s Elder Advocate Support Enterprise is a grassroots, nonprofit enterprise based in the Pacific Northwest US.

Our mission is to assist in the education and promotion of individual vulnerable-person advocates and likeminded grassroots advocacy organizations. An additional focus of CEASE is to provide educational resources to support the vulnerable person and their affected family members to effectively navigate the complex and often manipulated family court or probate system, as well as strengthen the integrity of the courts by networking with other advocate agencies to promote vulnerable person legislation and greater attorney & judicial accountability.

CEASE advocates are not attorneys and do not offer legal advice or counsel.  CEASE advocates are victims, family members of victims or friends of persons whom have been physical, financially, emotionally abused, and directly damaged by professional negligence, malpractice and intentional financial exploitation.

Founded in March of 2017, as a means to assist victims, damaged by negligent or unethical attorneys (attorneys who do not follow the ABA Model rules, Rules of Civil procedure, etc.), guardians, conservators, bankers, primary care providers, accountants, investment managers, physicians, and health care provider’s ethical misconduct.  CEASE provides educational resources, evidence sharing platforms and shared experiences to aid individuals and families acquire experienced-based knowledge to empower those whom need to assist elder abuse victims, family court litigants and vulnerable persons damaged by the collusion of corrupt white-collar professionals.

As a collective of common-focused advocates we also work with other nonprofits  to  expose the systemic failures in the adversarial litigant system that often fails to police itself and the courts via the standards set for by the American Bar Association Model Rules and Judicial Canon rules, while simultaneously providing a conduit for educating the media, state &  federal lawmakers, and the public about repeating  case violation patterns and the need for major system reform to stop the epidemic of vulnerable person exploitation, professional negligence and abuse.

 

The Idaho Undue Influence and Probate Research Project

The Idaho Undue Influence and Probate Project

Research Focus State, Idaho: Elder Abuse, Undue Influence Cases, Summaries & Probate Precedents.

1. Undue influence may be inferred from the fact that the beneficiary was active in the preparation of the will. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 454, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho 419, 93 P.2d 1.

2. Undue influence has been defined as domination by the guilty party over the testator to such an extent that his free agency is destroyed and the will of another person substituted for that of the testator. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563(1963); In re Lunders’ Estate, supra.

3. Although conclusive rights should not be given it, the fact that the testator having the capacity and ability to do so failed for a substantial period of time to change or revoke a will alleged to be the product of undue influence, negatives the claim of undue influence.” 94 C.J.S. Wills § 261, p.1143. With respect to a will which also continued unchanged for two years prior to the testator’s death, calling it strong evidence that he was not coerced into making it, but that it was entirely satisfactory to him when made and that satisfaction continued until his death.”Laberee v. Laberee, 112 Or. 44, 53, 227 P. 460, 462, 228 P. 686; In re McCaslin’s Estate (1960) 222 Or.599, 352 P.2d 1111.

4. If, prior to executing his last will, a testator shows a continuity of purpose running through his former wills and codicils which indicates a settled intent or consistent state of mind on his part as to manner of distributing his estate, such fact may be considered in determining whether he is in possession of a disposing mind, that is, had testamentary capacity and was free from undue influence in making his last will.” In re Nelson’s Estate, 72 Wyo. 444,266 P.2d 238 (1954); In re Hart’s Estate, 107 Cal.App.2d 60, 67, 236 P.2d 884, 889.

5. Weakened mental and physical condition of Testator are factors to be considered in determining question of undue influence. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 15 P.2d 604; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

6. “Undue influence consists of domination by guilty party over testator to such extent that his freeagency is destroyed and will of another person is substituted for that of testator.” Witthoft v. Gathe, 38 Idaho 175, 221 P. 124; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

7. Undue influence is any means employed upon and with testator which under circumstances and conditions by which testator was surrounded, he could not well resist, and which controls his volition and induced him to do what otherwise would not have been done. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

8. Influence arising from gratitude, affection or esteem is not undue, nor can it become such unless it destroys the free agency of the testator at the time the instrument is executed and shows that the disposition therein results from fraud, imposition and restraint of the person whose superior will prompts the execution of the testament in the particular manner which the testator adopted. In re Estate of Hill, 198 Or. 307, 335, 256 P.2d 735, 747; In re McCaslin’s Estate, 222 Or. 599, 352 P.2d 1111.

9. Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as undue if no imposition or fraud be practiced, even though it induced Testator to make unequal disposition of his property in favor of those who contributed to his comfort. In re Reddaway’s Estate, 214 Or. 410, 329 P.2d 886.

10. It is not sufficient for the contestant to merely prove circumstances consistent with the exercise of undue influence; that before the will can be overthrown the circumstances must be inconsistent with the voluntary action on the part of the testator. In re Welch’s Estate, 43 Cal.2d 173, 272 P.2d 512 (1954).

11. Mere existence of a confidential relationship to testator does not in itself establish undue influence. To set aside a will on the ground of undue influence there must be shown influence used directly to procure will, amounting to coercion destroying free agency on part of testator.In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

12. A will cannot be impeached by the subsequent oral declarations of the Testator. Gwin v. Gwin, 5Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

13. The declarations of a testator made after the execution of a will showing his dissatisfaction therewith and his intention to execute a new will are not admissible to show that said will was executed under duress or undue influence. Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

14. The general rule established by the overwhelming weight of authority is that declarations of the testator not made contemporaneously with the execution of the will, or so near thereto as to constitute a part of the res gestae, are not competent as direct or substantive evidence of the truth of the matters stated when offered on the issue of undue influence inducing the execution of the will. In re Estate of Wayne, 134 Or. 464, 291 P. 356, 294 P. 590,79 A.L.R. 1427; 148 A.L.R.1225.

15. A confidential relation exists between two persons, whether their relations be such as are technically fiduciary or merely informal, whenever one trusts in or relies on another. The question is whether or not trust was reposed. Sewell v. Ladd, (Mo.App. 1942) 158 S.W.2d 752,756.16. The existence of a confidential relation is purely a question of fact. Ringer v. Finrock, (Pa. 1941) 17 A.2d 348, 350.

17. A confidential relation may exist as a matter of fact whenever one person has reposed a special confidence in another to the extent that the parties do not deal with each other on equal terms, either because of an overmastering dominance on one side, or weakness, dependence or ignorance on the other side. Ringer v. Finrock, (1941) 340 Pa. 458, 17 A.2d 348, 350; Floyd v. Green, (1939) 238 Ala. 42, 188 So. 867, 871; In re Null’s Estate, (1930) 302 Pa. 64, 153 A. 137,139; In re Day’s Estate, (1953) 198 Or. 518, 257 P.2d 609, 614.

18. Where the beneficiary took the testator to a lawyer and remained with the testator during the preparation and execution of the will, even though the beneficiary was outside of the lawyer’s office, or in the waiting room, while the testator was conferring with the lawyer and while thewill was being executed, there is such evidence of activity in the preparation of the will that undue influence may be inferred from the presence of the beneficiary in this manner. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 451, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho419, 93 P.2d 1; In re Gagliasso’s Estate, (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 65, 309 P.2d 513, 514; In re Estate of Leonard, (1949) 92 Cal.App. 420, 207 P.2d 66, 72.

RELATED ARTICLE LINKS:

IDAHO PRESS: Court rules lawyer exercised ‘undue influence’ over elderly mother’s will. 

Idaho Probate Attorney has own brother disinherited while working on another case where 4 siblings, including a disabled child is disinherited.

Spokesman Review: Magnuson son sues siblings over estate.

Spokesman Review: Siblings battle in court over fate of forested ‘piece of heaven’ on Lake Pend Oreille.

Research assistance and citation’s courtesy of regional grass roots elder rights advocates & affiliated vulnerable person organizations.

Data aggregation sources and leads: regional newspapers, VALU, CPSN & national GAO research monitoring & grant projects. Key search terms: § 18-1505, § 39-5302, Adult Protective Services, Dept. of Health, Elder Abuse and Exploitation in Coeur d’alene, Sandpoint, Idaho, Spokane, Washington consisting of Corrupt, Estate Planning, Attorney, Doctor, Psychologist Evaluation, Conservator, Court Visitor, LSW, Guardian, Guardianship, IRPC, Idaho State Bar, CMS, Hospital Bureau of Occupational License Negligence, Exploitation & Abuse in Kootenai County Probate Court, Toxic Conservatorship Senate Hearing, Congress, Elder Abuse & Vulnerable Person Legislation.

Contribute Your Experience For Repeating Trend Tracking.

 

 

 

 

Advocacy

Elder abuse, exploitation and negligence is so wide spread it has been characterized as an epidemic.  Every State is now mandated to protect the elderly and has laws in place to address elder citizen a use, exploitation, negligence, and failure to report these circumstances. As an example, Idaho ranked 8th from the bottom of the states with the worst elder protection statutes (Wallet Hub Study) vulnerable person statute is IC 18-1505.  Idaho’s northwest border, Washington state, on the other hand, has a marked increased standard to protect vulnerable persons. As an example; undue influence protection should be a requirement coded directly into every state’s legal statutes. 

CEASE is aims to protect the rights of the elderly and vulnerable persons whom are going through estate planning, guardianship and/ or conservatorship legal processes. For this fact the enterprise was founded to promote best geriatric care, elder law, guardianship, conservatorship and estate planning practices. This includes a five-point plan of action – 1) information gathering, 2) education, 3) collaboration, 4) implementation and 5) citizen review.

The CEASE advocate collective works to gather information and educate the community, the media and policymakers at all levels about the estate planners, guardianship attorneys, probate-magistrate courts, judicial issues and best practices, as well as the dire need for attorney accountability with colleague, State Bar and judicial oversight committees; since the legal profession is one of the very few professions that regulates itself, or in practicum is required to regulate itself. Unfortunately for the public, the unwritten code amongst attorneys is that it is professional suicide to report unethical attorney to the State Bar. The State Bar itself, in most states is governed by “the fraternal brotherhood of attorneys” so legitimate ethics complaints from those damaged by malpractice are often dismissed.

CEASE Blog

Elder Abuse Blog

Dementia patient, 86, is beaten to death in Randolph facility By John R. Ellement and Shelley Murphy GLOBE STAFF  SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 An 86-year-old man was fatally injured, allegedly by his 58-year-old roommate, while both were being cared for in the dementia ward of a CareOne nursing facility in Randolph on Tuesday, according to Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s office. …

Email

Email a Citizen’s Elder Advocate Support Enterprise Research Consultant: advocate@cease.online