Preview
STEPHEN W. ROBERTSON, #228708
COELL M. SIMMONS, #292218
HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95814 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
(916) 449-3800 @ Fax (916) 304-9855 Superior Court of California,
Count of Placer
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shirley Wright and 05/28/2020 at 03:10:35 PM
Heath Ristau, as attorney-in-fact for Shirley
By: Olivia Lucatuorto, Deputy Clerk
Wright and as Successor Trustee of the
Wright 1990 Trust, dated November 14,
1991
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
10
1 SHIRLEY WRIGHT AND ALBERT RISTAU, as Case No. SCV0042799
attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as
12 Successor Trustee of the WRIGHT 1990 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
TRUST, dated November 14, 1990, CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF
13 PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS SHIRLEY WRIGHT
14 AND HEATH RISTAU, ATTORNEY
Vv, IN FACT FOR SHIRLEY WRIGHT
15 AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF
LIKELY LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC., a THE WRIGHT 1990 TRUST, DATED
16 California co: oration, JOHN FLOURNOY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990
DAVID FLOURNOY, WILLIAM FLOURNOY,
17 MYLES FLOURNOY, JENNIFER FLOURNOY, Date: June 19, 2020
FRIEDA FISHER-DUBOIS, AND PLACER Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
19
Defendants. Trial Date: July 6, 2020
20
LIKELY LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC., a Complaint Filed: April 2, 2019
21 California corporation,
22 Cross-Complainant,
23 Vv.
a
Ul 24 SHIRLEY WRIGHT AND ALBERT RISTAU, as
Cow attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as
25 Successor Trustee of the WRIGHT 1990
TRUST, dated November 14, 1990, and DOES
26 1-20 inclusive,
tl Mall,Suite 00
a ost 27 Cross-Defendants.
phone (26) 449.8800
fix 6 OHH
28
\\server01\ data home\client\ 8100\ 00001\ 00304930.docx 1 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
(Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, county and State of California shelter in place orders,
multiple court orders including the Statewide Order by the Chief Justice of California and Chair
of the Judicial Counsel, and the required office closure of Hardy Erich Brown & Wilson, these
filings are being submitted now.)
Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Shirley Wright and Heath Ristau, as attorney-in-
fact for Shirley Wright and as Successor Trustee of the Wright 1990 Trust, dated
November 14, 1990, hereby submit their Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement.
1. The attorney or party who is submitting the statement and the party whom
the attorney represents.
10 Stephen W. Robertson and Coell M. Simmons, Hardy Erich Brown & Wilson,
11 Sacramento, CA, representing Plaintiffs /Cross-Defendants Shirley Wright and Heath
12 Ristau, as attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as Successor Trustee of the
13 Wright 1990 Trust, dated November 14, 1990.
14 2. Lead counsel and the represented party for all other parties in the case.
15 Tom Gifford, Law Offices of Tom Gifford, Alturas, CA, represents Defendants
16 Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc., a California corporation, John Flournoy, David
17 Flournoy, William Flournoy, Myles Flournoy, Jennifer Flournoy, and Frieda Fisher-
18 DuBois; in addition to Cross-Complainant Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. There is
19 currently pending a request to the Court to disqualify attorney Gifford.
20 Plaintiffs have settled with defendant Placer Title Company which is
21 represented by Gordon C, Young and Donald Slater of Barr & Young, Danville, CA.
22 3, A statement of the facts, including any background information necessary
to understand the case.
Ha
ER I 24 Shirley Wright is an elderly widow who suffers from progressive dementia and
BROWN
AM 25 other health conditions. Her decreasing mental capacity enabled Defendants to
SON
82 26 victimize and subject her to financial elder abuse. Their undue influence caused her to
Mall,8
sera 27 sell her home to her longstanding neighbors after continuous urging, and deprived her
(216) 149.9800
fax (816) 301-9865,
28 of her belongings and dignity in the community that had been her home for over 30
\\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\
00001\ 00304980.docx 2 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
years.
The Wright property was situated in between ranching land already owned by
the Flournoy family. The family had wanted the Wright property for the family’s
ranching company for at least three generations. Despite a longstanding acquaintance
with Shirley and knowledge of her progressing cognitive impairment, John Flournoy,
C.E.O. and C.F.O. of Likely Land & Livestock, Inc., continuously pressured her to sell
her home situated on 150 acres of ranchland to his ranching company. Shirley’s husband
George had worked for the Likely Company for many years. After her husband's death,
John (“Johnnie”) Flournoy repeatedly came by unannounced and walked into Shirley's
10 home without knocking, and pressured her to sell her property to his company. She
11 continuously refused until her dementia and mental incapacity progressed to the point
12 where John Flournoy was able to unduly influence her to believe she had to sign
13 documents regarding the sale of her home. Shirley did not fully understand what was
14 happening. She did not want to sell her home of over thirty years to anyone and
15 intended to live in her home for the rest of her life. Her wishes as evident from the
16 Wright 1990 Trust documents were that her home and belongings go to her family after
17 her passing.
18 Specifically, John Flournoy used a decades-old and clearly invalid option
19 agreement as the basis for making Shirley believe she had to sell her property to Likely
20 Land & Livestock. Because even by its terms, his company couldn’t exercise the invalid
21 option agreement from 1987 to buy Shirley’s property, John Flournoy further influenced
22 Shirley to enter into a second invalid agreement (Exercise Option Agreement) in
23 November 2017 which would purported exercise the original option agreement. He
ERI 24 chose her longtime friend, Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois, to talk to Shirley and to
BROWN
25 prepare the new legal contract even though Fisher-DuBois was not an attorney. He
ON
26 chose Fisher-DuBois to do so because he knew Shirley trusted her. Several of the
Mall, Suite 200
CA sna provisions in this very document indicate Shirley’s understanding of the effect of
phone 15) 149800
fax 16) 304-9855
28 financial decisions and her ability to plan was impaired. Shirley also failed to sign the
.\server0\ data\ home\ client\ 8100\00001\\00304930.docx 3 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
document as a trustee, further indicating her decreased cognitive function.
Nonetheless, neither of these invalid agreements required Shirley to sell her
home. She sold her home against her wishes and understanding, as a result of the
Flournoys’ undue influence. The Flournoys and Likely Land & Livestock’s apparent
authority as purported contractual parties and the former employer of her late husband
further served to influence Shirley. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70.) John Flournoy
arranged for Shirley to execute the necessary documents to transfer title of the real
property to Likely Land & Livestock through Placer Title Company. As is clear from a
video taken a few days later, she clearly did not understand what she had signed or
10 appreciated the consequences.
11 Nevertheless, Shirley signed the grant deed transferring ownership of her home
12 in March 2018. At the time, she was eighty-two-years-old and had been demonstrating
13 signs of progressive dementia for some time. She was unrepresented by a real estate
14 agent in the transaction proposed by a man whose family had wanted her property for
15 the last three generations. The Wright property was a 150-acre developed property
16 comprised of four parcels with a home, additional structures and ranching land. Despite
17 its value being over half a million dollars, the Flournoys obtained it for $72,179.96.
18 Shirley Wright was in a disadvantaged class more subject to risks of abuse. Her
19 age, dementia and vulnerability enabled defendants to take advantage of her to her
20 detriment through misrepresentations, undue influence, and derogation of duty. This
21 case goes to the very heart of elder abuse.
22 With the assistance of Placer Title Company and Ms. Fisher-DuBois, the Flournoy
Defendants and Likely Land & Livestock finally succeeded in procuring the 150-acre
——
Hoar DY
ERICH 24 ranching property worth over half a million dollars at a thirty-year-old price from the
BROWN
25 elderly widow of a past employee after she began suffering from dementia. Due to her
26 health problems and in light of what Defendants had done to her, Shirley's family was
Mall, Suite 200
o,CA 95814 forced to move her out of her home and into a residential medical facility in Red Bluff,
(916) «19.2800
fos 16) 301-9855
28 California. Yet the victimization of Shirley Wright was not complete. She still had
\\server01\ data\ home client\ 8100\ 00001\ 00304930. docx 4 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
personal property.
At the instruction of defense counsel, Tom Gifford, John Flournoy's son and
daughter-in-law, Myles and Jennifer Flournoy, drove hours to Red Bluff care facility
and tried to manipulate Shirley. As they admitted to in depositions, they sat with her
and wrote out agreements for Shirley to sign to complete their plan to steal everything
she owned. They only added exceptions for her photos, jewelry and clothes. This was
entirely outside the presence of her family. Thereafter, Myles and Jennifer Flournoy,
moved into Shirley's home amongst her belongings. Myles and Jennifer Flournoy were
eager to redecorate the older home, and Myles posted a notice of abandonment,
10 effectively evicting Shirley from her home of over thirty years while she was receiving
11 medical care. Now, the Defendants have put in more than $70,000 into the home.
12 4, Any factual stipulations reached by the parties.
13 None at this time.
14 5. Contested issues of facts, including detail of the claimed damages and
15 defenses.
16 Several factual disputes exist. In particular, the main contested issues are the
17 value of the Wright real property and Shirley Wright's capacity and obvious dementia.
18 Value of the Wright Real Property
19 It is uncontested that the Likely Company paid Shirley Wright substantially less
20 than her home and property was worth. The amount the Company underpaid is
21 contested.
22 Defendants’ own expert opined that the real property was worth $350,000, which
is well over four times the purchase price. Plaintiffs’ expert opined it was worth
HARDY
1c i 24 $506,000, over seven times the purchase price at the time of the sale.
R OWN
i 25 Shirley Wright Was Su rin, ‘om Dementia
m 26 Whether Shirley Wright suffered from dementia during the fall of 2017 through
Mall, Suite 200|
814 27 March 2018 when she signed the grant deed conveying her home to the Likely
(016) 419.3800
fix (@16) 304-9855,
28 Corporation is heavily disputed.
\\server01\data\
home \client\ 8100\ 00001) 0 304930.docx 5 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
Tellingly, the only expert medical evidence in this case will be that Shirley Wright
suffered from dementia, specifically the Alzheimer’s type. Defendants not only elected
to forego an independent medical examination, they have disclosed absolutely no
medical experts. At trial, Glenn Hammel, Ph.D., a clinical neuropsychologist, will opine
that not only did Shirley suffer from dementia during this time, she did not have the
capacity to execute the deed, understood that she was conveying all legal rights in her
home of over thirty years, and was unduly influenced. It is obvious that Defendants
used the invalid agreements in 1986 and 2017 and eventually the escrow documents and
grant deed to take Shirley’s property at the same time that she was suffering from
10 dementia.
11 Shirley Wright's medical records show she was suffering from confusion and
12 additional dementia symptoms as early as June 2017. This was almost a year prior to the
13 forced sale in March 2018. Due to changes of memory and an episode of falling, her
14 primary care provider ordered a brain CT without contrast. Among the findings were
15 the presence of small vessel ischemic changes in cerebral white matter, and a
16 prominence of the ventricles and sulci due to volume loss.
17 From the fall of 2017 and into that winter and early in 2018, neighbors and friends
18 knew Shirley’s condition was deteriorating. They noticed her personality began to
19 change, she had trouble participating in conversations, she had problems formulating
20 words or trying to find the right word, she had memory problems, an inability to follow
21 directions, etc. More specific examples include instances when she called neighbors for
22 help because she had locked herself out of her house but they arrived to find her outside
23 with her house lights on, the doors open and her dinner on the table.
MW 24 Even Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois testified that Shirley was experiencing
N
Se
oO
25 confusion, memory problems, and difficulty finding words in the fall of 2017. This was
0
26 months before she sat next to Shirley as she signed the grant deed finalizing the sale of
1 Mall, Suite 200
ca ose her home in the spring of 2018. Nevertheless, Fisher-DuBois went so far in assisting
216) 48-3800
Fox 16) so1-Kss
28 with the land purchase that she prepared the actual legal agreement purportedly
\\server01\ datal\ home\ client\8100\
00001\ 00304930.docx 6 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
executing the prior Option Agreement. She gave the document for Shirley to sign and
continued to support the transaction despite being faced with a woman she describes as
an adopted mother who asked her for help because she couldn’t understand why a
Christmas tree decoration without a light bulb wouldn’t work.
Shirley became incapable of fully caring for herself and her daily needs without
assistance. She relied on her brother and nephew to assist her with such daily tasks as
paying her bills, driving, and managing her affairs. She experienced increasing
difficulty reading and retaining information. With an increasing number of “bad days,”
she began to lose her ability to think, remember, plan and reason. However, her family
10 lived hours away in different areas of the state and while they were trying to gradually
1 get her used to the idea that she couldn’t live alone, she steadfastly refused to move
12 closer or give up her plan of spending her final days in her home of thirty years.
13 Meanwhile, Shirley’s neighbors and friends continued to see Shirley’s condition
14 was deteriorating. They called her brother, Albert Ristau, about the problems. One of
15 her neighbors took Shirley to her primary care provider and reported Shirley's
16 condition had gotten significantly progressively worse of the past couple of months.
17 Specific examples were that she was she having difficulty writing checks and
18 remembering scheduled appointments. Her primary care provider again ordered a
19 brain CT without contrast due to her confusion and loss of balance in mid-December
20 2017. The findings showed senescent changes of the brain.
21 Later in December 2017, a friend again called her primary care provider with
22 concerns. In January 2018, a concerned neighbor took Shirley to her primary care
23 provider once more. He noted the prior senescent brain changes from the December
©
E Wh 24 brain CT and further opined that she had a volume loss of the brain greater than would
B RO WN
1 25 be expected for her age.
26 That winter, neighbors and even mere acquaintances of Shirley's began
Nall
1a, CA 98814
16) 449.3800
97 contacting Adult Protective Services. A.P.S Adult Services supervisor, Debbie Mason,
Fas @16) 301-9855,
28 was repeatedly approached even while off-duty with reports that Shirley was showing
\\server01\\data\ home \ client\ 8100\ 00001) 00304930.docx. 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
signs of dementia and that she was forgetful and was at risk. An employee at Shirley’s
bank was worried about her because she was coming in confused about her account.
Even Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois made a report. Not only had she actually been
paying Shirley’s bills because she was too confused, but Shirley had been showing up
to regular activities later or not at all, she had to call for help a month ago because she
couldn’t get her car keys to work, and she couldn’t get into her locked house even
though the doors were open and the lights were on. Most importantly, she smelled gas
when she visited and thought Shirley was leaving the gas on.
On March 2, 2018, Frieda Fisher-DuBois sat with Shirley - a woman who she
10 knew was so confused that she was actually paying her bills for her and whom she was
11 worried would literally blow herself and her house up by leaving the gas on - while
12 Shirley signed away the home she never wanted to leave for a thirty-year-old price.
13 Six days later, APS supervisor Debbie Mason conducted a home interview and
14 determined Shirley was exhibiting signs of dementia. After the visit, as Debbie Mason
15 was pulling out of Shirley’s driveway she came across John Flournoy. Mr. Flournoy told
16 her he was doing business with Shirley. Debbie Mason found it odd that someone
17 would be doing business with someone with dementia.
18 6. Contested issues of law.
19 Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged causes of action: (1) Financial Elder Abuse - Welfare
20 and Institutions Code Section 15610.30; (2) Financial Elder Abuse-Welfare and
21 Institutions Code Section 15657.6; (3) Conversion; (4) Trespass to Chattels; (5) Breach of
22 Fiduciary Duty; (6) Action Pursuant to Probate Code Section 850, et seq.; (7) Intentional
23 Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Intentional Misrepresentation; and (9) Negligent
I UW 24 Misrepresentation.
B RO WN
A 25 Likely Land & Livestock Corporation filed a Cross-Complaint for a single cause
07 26 of action for Specific Performance of the option agreements.
Mall, Suite 200
ca 95814 27 Defendants have continuously attempted to reduce this case to a mere contract
(016) 249.9800
fx 15) 204-0865,
28 dispute. It is true that neither the 1987 Option Agreement nor the 2017 Exercise Option
\\server01\ datal\ home\ client\ 8100\ 00001), 0 304930.docx 8 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
Agreement drawn up by non-attorney Defendant Fisher-DuBois were legally valid.
Indeed, Defendants have made absolutely no argument that either agreement is facially
valid. The Likely Corporation’s answer is to simply rewrite them decades later when
George Wright is deceased and Shirley Wright suffers from dementia. This violates the
fundamental principles of contract law and the potential for abuse in this situation is
extreme.
However, this case is not merely about contracts. It wasn’t just a deal gone wrong.
Nor is it merely about personal belongings, or even a piece of land. This case is about
the abuse of and the failure to protect a vulnerable elderly woman suffering from
10 dementia from being victimized. “The Legislature enacted the [Elder Abuse] Act,
11 including the provision prohibiting a taking by undue influence, to protect elderly
12 individuals with limited or declining cognitive abilities from overreaching conduct that
13 resulted in a deprivation of their property rights.” (Bounds v. Superior Court (2014) 229
14 Cal.App.4th 468, citing to Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1140 (2007-
15 2008 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 10, 2008; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600; see also
16 Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins, Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841 [The Act is to be
17 “liberally construed” in an elder’s favor].)
18 The unlawful deprivation of Shirley’s property rights constituted financial elder
19 abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30.) This would have been the case even if the sale
20 had not actually been completed. (See Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468 (an elderly
21 widow suffering from Alzheimer’s disease executed documents forwarding the sale of
22 real property owned by her trust to the principal of a business which had long owned
23 neighboring property who had repeatedly attempted to convince her to sell her and her
Wx
ERICH 24 late husband's property at a bargain price, but despite the sale being stopped once her
BROWN
_ 25 family became aware of the inequitable situation, the conduct could still constitute
Wik oO
x 26 financial elder abuse as a matter of law).)
‘Mall, Site 00
A os14 27 When an elder over sixty-five years of age such as Shirley is unlawfully deprived
916) 449.8800
fax 816). 301-0865,
28 of a property right, financial elder abuse occurs. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30; CACI
\\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\
00001\ 00304930.docx 9 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
3100.) This includes deprivation of “any property right,” including by means of an
agreement regardless of whether the property is held by a trustee. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 15610.30 (c)-(d); Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468.) Such an agreement need not even
constitute a finalized or consummated sale document - merely depriving the plaintiff
of a property right is sufficient. (Id.)
Plaintiffs can but are not required to prove any intent to defraud. They need only
establish by a preponderance of the evidence Defendants unduly influenced or assisted
others in doing so, and knew or should have known that this was likely to harm the
elderly Shirley. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30.) A defendant is conclusively deemed to
10 have taken property for a wrongful use when it knew or should have known its conduct
11 was likely to be harmful to the elder, (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15610.30(b); CACI 3100; Elder
12 Abuse Litigation, The Rutter Group, 2017 (“Elder Abuse Rutter Guide”) Ch. 8, § 8:3
13 (Section 15610.30(b) provides for a “conclusive presumption” of financial elder abuse).)
14 Furthermore, agreements into by elders are subject to “special scrutiny” in
15 addition to being subject to general contract rules. (Id. at p. 478.) In Bounds v. Superior
16 Court, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468, an elderly widow suffering from Alzheimer’s disease
17 executed documents (letter of intent, two sets of escrow instructions, and a lease
18 agreement) forwarding the sale of real property owned by her trust to the principal of a
19 business which had long owned neighboring property who had repeatedly attempted
20 to convince her to sell her and her late husband’s property at a bargain price. Once her
21 family became aware of the inequitable situation, the sale was stopped and no sale
22 contract was signed, At all relevant times, the widow was the trustee of the trust. Bounds
held the claims brought by the elderly widow and her trust constituted financial elder
Harpy
ERICH abuse as the elderly plaintiff executed documents which deprived her of property rights
COWN
SS 25 even though the property had not actually been sold. In doing so, Bounds further found:
N
26 The financial abuse provisions are, in part, premised on the Legislature's
485 Copitl Mall, Suite 200
95814 27 belief that in addition to being subject to the general rules of contract,
phone 16) 49-9800 financial agreements entered into by elders should be subject to special
fas 010 904-9085
28 scrutiny. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 140 (2013-
\\server01\ data\ home \ client\ 8100) 00001\,00304930.dlocx 10 MANDATORY
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
2014 Reg. Sess.).)
(Id. at p. 478, emphasis added.) Here, the facts go further than Bounds. Where the Bounds
defendants failed to persuading an elderly widow to finalize the sale of real property
owned by her trust, here John Flournoy on behalf of Likely Land succeeded in finalizing
the sale.
Here, as a matter of law, the Flournoys on Likely Land’s behalf took or obtained
a property right of Shirley Wright, an elderly plaintiff over sixty-five years of age, for a
wrongful use thereby causing her harm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30; CACI 3100.)
9 Likely Land and John Flournoy did so by means of invalid agreements and then
10 subsequently by a grant deed. It did not matter that the option agreements did not
11 constitute a finalized or consummated sale document - when Shirley Wright signed the
12 invalid Exercise Option Agreement purportedly executing the prior Option Agreement,
13 this deprived her of property rights. By the Agreements’ terms, the option to purchase
14 was to remain open not only for a period of years, but permanently and indefinitely during
15 the Wrights’ respective lifetimes.
16 Indeed the option would purportedly not even die with the Wrights as it was to
17 further restrict their ability to bequeath their property upon their deaths. And again, the
18 purchase price was to remain $72,179.96 - a purportedly fair, just and reasonable price
19 for the 150-acre property in 1987, irrespective of the extended indefinite length of time
20 the option to purchase at this specific price was to remain open. The terms committed
21 Shirley Wright to a 1987 value for a 150-acre ranching property no matter how many
22 decades passed or how many improvements the Wrights made to the property without
23 allowing for adjustment for market rate increases, improvements, inflation, or periodic
HARDY independent reassessment of market value. (Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468.)
Ricu 24
ROW
a 25 As a result, Shirley suffered adverse economic consequences; diverted from her
26 prior intent to own and reside in her home for the remainder of her life and her prior
sas Mal 200
A 96814 27 course of conduct in repeatedly rejecting the Flournoy Defendants’ pressure and offers
(016) 448-3800
fas (916) 901-0855 to buy her home for several years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70.)
28
\\server01\ data\ home \ client\8100\00001\,00304930.docx 11 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
Particularly in light of her known decline and dementia symptoms, Defendants’
excessive persuasion overcame Shirley Wright's free will constituted actionable undue
influence. With approximately 100 residents, Likely, California and even the nearby
town of Alturas is a small community. Shirley’s neighbors and friends were helping her
get into her unlocked home and start her car with her keys in hand. They were taking
her to her local doctor because they were concerned about her confusion and memory
problems. CT scans showed age-related changes in her brain. Friends, acquaintances
and even one of the defendants were reporting her mental decline to Adult Protective
Services out of fear it put her at risk. Defendant Fisher-DuBois she was worried Shirley
10 could kill herself or blow up her home. This was all before Shirley sold her home in
11 March 2018. After she did so, she couldn’t explain to her family why or even understand
12 what had happened. This was abuse.
13 7. A statement disclosing the highest offer and lowest demand, and the date of
14 the last settlement discussions.
15 Plaintiffs recently settled with Defendant Placer Title Company. The remaining
16 Defendants have refused to engage in settlement discussions. Earlier this month, Shirley
17 Wright and the Wright 1990 Trust each served Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers
18 on the Likely Corporation for $800,000, and on each individual defendant for $200,000.
19 8. The limits of any available insurance coverage.
20 Plaintiffs are not aware of any applicable insurance coverage.
21 9, A statement as to whether or not the case has been through arbitration (attach
22 a copy of any arbitrator’s award).
23 The case has not been through arbitration.
x
Ek 24 10. A statement as to any special problems relating to settlement.
BROWN
SE 25 Plaintiffs provided a written demand at the beginning of the case, have requested
Tasha e187 26 Defendants engage in settlement discussions, and served formal Code of Civil
opitol Mall, Suite 200,
ca 95814 7 Procedure section 998 offers. Defendants have refused to make any settlement offers.
(96) 49-2800
Fox 16 304.9855
28 Defendants simply do not appreciate the risk of exposure presented to them including
\\server01\ data\ home client\8100\ 00001\,00304930.docx 12 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
specifically the damages that are available to Plaintiffs here. Plaintiffs shall be able to
obtain treble damages for the value of the property recovered along with mandatory
award of attorney’s fees and costs. This case will also include punitive damages.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to their Financial Elder
Abuse cause of action; and a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Likely Company’s
Cross-Complaint for specific performance. These motions are expected to be heard May
29, 2020 and therefore will be adjudicated by the time this Conference occurs.
Defendants have continuously tried to hide the ball, going so far as to rifle
through Shirley’s private confidential papers her family unknowingly left behind in a
10 shop building and then instead of disclosing them to Plaintiffs, they attempted to
11 confront her brother, Albert Ristau, with them in a “gotcha” attempt during his
12 deposition. Defendants even now allude to undisclosed “smoking guns.” Plaintiffs do
13 not expect Defendants will part from their established practice to make a good faith
14 effort to resolve this matter at the settlement conference.
15 Dated: May 27, 2020 HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
16
17
18 COELL M. SIMMONS
State Bar No, 292218
19
20
21
22
23
HarRDY
Lc H
2 WN
25
26
200 7
9814
100
8
28
\\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\
00001\ 00304930.docx 13 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-
DEFENDANTS
PROOF OF SERVICE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTIONS 1011, 1013, 1013a, AND 201
Preview
STEPHEN W. ROBERTSON, #228708 COELL M. SIMMONS, #292218 HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON A Professional Law Corporation 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95814 ELECTRONICALLY FILED (916) 449-3800 @ Fax (916) 304-9855 Superior Court of California, Count of Placer Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shirley Wright and 05/28/2020 at 03:10:35 PM Heath Ristau, as attorney-in-fact for Shirley By: Olivia Lucatuorto, Deputy Clerk Wright and as Successor Trustee of the Wright 1990 Trust, dated November 14, 1991 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER 10 1 SHIRLEY WRIGHT AND ALBERT RISTAU, as Case No. SCV0042799 attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as 12 Successor Trustee of the WRIGHT 1990 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT TRUST, dated November 14, 1990, CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF 13 PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS- Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS SHIRLEY WRIGHT 14 AND HEATH RISTAU, ATTORNEY Vv, IN FACT FOR SHIRLEY WRIGHT 15 AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF LIKELY LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC., a THE WRIGHT 1990 TRUST, DATED 16 California co: oration, JOHN FLOURNOY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990 DAVID FLOURNOY, WILLIAM FLOURNOY, 17 MYLES FLOURNOY, JENNIFER FLOURNOY, Date: June 19, 2020 FRIEDA FISHER-DUBOIS, AND PLACER Time: 8:30 a.m. 18 TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 19 Defendants. Trial Date: July 6, 2020 20 LIKELY LAND & LIVESTOCK CO., INC., a Complaint Filed: April 2, 2019 21 California corporation, 22 Cross-Complainant, 23 Vv. a Ul 24 SHIRLEY WRIGHT AND ALBERT RISTAU, as Cow attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as 25 Successor Trustee of the WRIGHT 1990 TRUST, dated November 14, 1990, and DOES 26 1-20 inclusive, tl Mall,Suite 00 a ost 27 Cross-Defendants. phone (26) 449.8800 fix 6 OHH 28 \\server01\ data home\client\ 8100\ 00001\ 00304930.docx 1 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS (Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, county and State of California shelter in place orders, multiple court orders including the Statewide Order by the Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Counsel, and the required office closure of Hardy Erich Brown & Wilson, these filings are being submitted now.) Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Shirley Wright and Heath Ristau, as attorney-in- fact for Shirley Wright and as Successor Trustee of the Wright 1990 Trust, dated November 14, 1990, hereby submit their Mandatory Settlement Conference Statement. 1. The attorney or party who is submitting the statement and the party whom the attorney represents. 10 Stephen W. Robertson and Coell M. Simmons, Hardy Erich Brown & Wilson, 11 Sacramento, CA, representing Plaintiffs /Cross-Defendants Shirley Wright and Heath 12 Ristau, as attorney-in-fact for SHIRLEY WRIGHT and as Successor Trustee of the 13 Wright 1990 Trust, dated November 14, 1990. 14 2. Lead counsel and the represented party for all other parties in the case. 15 Tom Gifford, Law Offices of Tom Gifford, Alturas, CA, represents Defendants 16 Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc., a California corporation, John Flournoy, David 17 Flournoy, William Flournoy, Myles Flournoy, Jennifer Flournoy, and Frieda Fisher- 18 DuBois; in addition to Cross-Complainant Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. There is 19 currently pending a request to the Court to disqualify attorney Gifford. 20 Plaintiffs have settled with defendant Placer Title Company which is 21 represented by Gordon C, Young and Donald Slater of Barr & Young, Danville, CA. 22 3, A statement of the facts, including any background information necessary to understand the case. Ha ER I 24 Shirley Wright is an elderly widow who suffers from progressive dementia and BROWN AM 25 other health conditions. Her decreasing mental capacity enabled Defendants to SON 82 26 victimize and subject her to financial elder abuse. Their undue influence caused her to Mall,8 sera 27 sell her home to her longstanding neighbors after continuous urging, and deprived her (216) 149.9800 fax (816) 301-9865, 28 of her belongings and dignity in the community that had been her home for over 30 \\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\ 00001\ 00304980.docx 2 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS years. The Wright property was situated in between ranching land already owned by the Flournoy family. The family had wanted the Wright property for the family’s ranching company for at least three generations. Despite a longstanding acquaintance with Shirley and knowledge of her progressing cognitive impairment, John Flournoy, C.E.O. and C.F.O. of Likely Land & Livestock, Inc., continuously pressured her to sell her home situated on 150 acres of ranchland to his ranching company. Shirley’s husband George had worked for the Likely Company for many years. After her husband's death, John (“Johnnie”) Flournoy repeatedly came by unannounced and walked into Shirley's 10 home without knocking, and pressured her to sell her property to his company. She 11 continuously refused until her dementia and mental incapacity progressed to the point 12 where John Flournoy was able to unduly influence her to believe she had to sign 13 documents regarding the sale of her home. Shirley did not fully understand what was 14 happening. She did not want to sell her home of over thirty years to anyone and 15 intended to live in her home for the rest of her life. Her wishes as evident from the 16 Wright 1990 Trust documents were that her home and belongings go to her family after 17 her passing. 18 Specifically, John Flournoy used a decades-old and clearly invalid option 19 agreement as the basis for making Shirley believe she had to sell her property to Likely 20 Land & Livestock. Because even by its terms, his company couldn’t exercise the invalid 21 option agreement from 1987 to buy Shirley’s property, John Flournoy further influenced 22 Shirley to enter into a second invalid agreement (Exercise Option Agreement) in 23 November 2017 which would purported exercise the original option agreement. He ERI 24 chose her longtime friend, Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois, to talk to Shirley and to BROWN 25 prepare the new legal contract even though Fisher-DuBois was not an attorney. He ON 26 chose Fisher-DuBois to do so because he knew Shirley trusted her. Several of the Mall, Suite 200 CA sna provisions in this very document indicate Shirley’s understanding of the effect of phone 15) 149800 fax 16) 304-9855 28 financial decisions and her ability to plan was impaired. Shirley also failed to sign the .\server0\ data\ home\ client\ 8100\00001\\00304930.docx 3 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS document as a trustee, further indicating her decreased cognitive function. Nonetheless, neither of these invalid agreements required Shirley to sell her home. She sold her home against her wishes and understanding, as a result of the Flournoys’ undue influence. The Flournoys and Likely Land & Livestock’s apparent authority as purported contractual parties and the former employer of her late husband further served to influence Shirley. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70.) John Flournoy arranged for Shirley to execute the necessary documents to transfer title of the real property to Likely Land & Livestock through Placer Title Company. As is clear from a video taken a few days later, she clearly did not understand what she had signed or 10 appreciated the consequences. 11 Nevertheless, Shirley signed the grant deed transferring ownership of her home 12 in March 2018. At the time, she was eighty-two-years-old and had been demonstrating 13 signs of progressive dementia for some time. She was unrepresented by a real estate 14 agent in the transaction proposed by a man whose family had wanted her property for 15 the last three generations. The Wright property was a 150-acre developed property 16 comprised of four parcels with a home, additional structures and ranching land. Despite 17 its value being over half a million dollars, the Flournoys obtained it for $72,179.96. 18 Shirley Wright was in a disadvantaged class more subject to risks of abuse. Her 19 age, dementia and vulnerability enabled defendants to take advantage of her to her 20 detriment through misrepresentations, undue influence, and derogation of duty. This 21 case goes to the very heart of elder abuse. 22 With the assistance of Placer Title Company and Ms. Fisher-DuBois, the Flournoy Defendants and Likely Land & Livestock finally succeeded in procuring the 150-acre —— Hoar DY ERICH 24 ranching property worth over half a million dollars at a thirty-year-old price from the BROWN 25 elderly widow of a past employee after she began suffering from dementia. Due to her 26 health problems and in light of what Defendants had done to her, Shirley's family was Mall, Suite 200 o,CA 95814 forced to move her out of her home and into a residential medical facility in Red Bluff, (916) «19.2800 fos 16) 301-9855 28 California. Yet the victimization of Shirley Wright was not complete. She still had \\server01\ data\ home client\ 8100\ 00001\ 00304930. docx 4 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS personal property. At the instruction of defense counsel, Tom Gifford, John Flournoy's son and daughter-in-law, Myles and Jennifer Flournoy, drove hours to Red Bluff care facility and tried to manipulate Shirley. As they admitted to in depositions, they sat with her and wrote out agreements for Shirley to sign to complete their plan to steal everything she owned. They only added exceptions for her photos, jewelry and clothes. This was entirely outside the presence of her family. Thereafter, Myles and Jennifer Flournoy, moved into Shirley's home amongst her belongings. Myles and Jennifer Flournoy were eager to redecorate the older home, and Myles posted a notice of abandonment, 10 effectively evicting Shirley from her home of over thirty years while she was receiving 11 medical care. Now, the Defendants have put in more than $70,000 into the home. 12 4, Any factual stipulations reached by the parties. 13 None at this time. 14 5. Contested issues of facts, including detail of the claimed damages and 15 defenses. 16 Several factual disputes exist. In particular, the main contested issues are the 17 value of the Wright real property and Shirley Wright's capacity and obvious dementia. 18 Value of the Wright Real Property 19 It is uncontested that the Likely Company paid Shirley Wright substantially less 20 than her home and property was worth. The amount the Company underpaid is 21 contested. 22 Defendants’ own expert opined that the real property was worth $350,000, which is well over four times the purchase price. Plaintiffs’ expert opined it was worth HARDY 1c i 24 $506,000, over seven times the purchase price at the time of the sale. R OWN i 25 Shirley Wright Was Su rin, ‘om Dementia m 26 Whether Shirley Wright suffered from dementia during the fall of 2017 through Mall, Suite 200| 814 27 March 2018 when she signed the grant deed conveying her home to the Likely (016) 419.3800 fix (@16) 304-9855, 28 Corporation is heavily disputed. \\server01\data\ home \client\ 8100\ 00001) 0 304930.docx 5 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS Tellingly, the only expert medical evidence in this case will be that Shirley Wright suffered from dementia, specifically the Alzheimer’s type. Defendants not only elected to forego an independent medical examination, they have disclosed absolutely no medical experts. At trial, Glenn Hammel, Ph.D., a clinical neuropsychologist, will opine that not only did Shirley suffer from dementia during this time, she did not have the capacity to execute the deed, understood that she was conveying all legal rights in her home of over thirty years, and was unduly influenced. It is obvious that Defendants used the invalid agreements in 1986 and 2017 and eventually the escrow documents and grant deed to take Shirley’s property at the same time that she was suffering from 10 dementia. 11 Shirley Wright's medical records show she was suffering from confusion and 12 additional dementia symptoms as early as June 2017. This was almost a year prior to the 13 forced sale in March 2018. Due to changes of memory and an episode of falling, her 14 primary care provider ordered a brain CT without contrast. Among the findings were 15 the presence of small vessel ischemic changes in cerebral white matter, and a 16 prominence of the ventricles and sulci due to volume loss. 17 From the fall of 2017 and into that winter and early in 2018, neighbors and friends 18 knew Shirley’s condition was deteriorating. They noticed her personality began to 19 change, she had trouble participating in conversations, she had problems formulating 20 words or trying to find the right word, she had memory problems, an inability to follow 21 directions, etc. More specific examples include instances when she called neighbors for 22 help because she had locked herself out of her house but they arrived to find her outside 23 with her house lights on, the doors open and her dinner on the table. MW 24 Even Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois testified that Shirley was experiencing N Se oO 25 confusion, memory problems, and difficulty finding words in the fall of 2017. This was 0 26 months before she sat next to Shirley as she signed the grant deed finalizing the sale of 1 Mall, Suite 200 ca ose her home in the spring of 2018. Nevertheless, Fisher-DuBois went so far in assisting 216) 48-3800 Fox 16) so1-Kss 28 with the land purchase that she prepared the actual legal agreement purportedly \\server01\ datal\ home\ client\8100\ 00001\ 00304930.docx 6 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS executing the prior Option Agreement. She gave the document for Shirley to sign and continued to support the transaction despite being faced with a woman she describes as an adopted mother who asked her for help because she couldn’t understand why a Christmas tree decoration without a light bulb wouldn’t work. Shirley became incapable of fully caring for herself and her daily needs without assistance. She relied on her brother and nephew to assist her with such daily tasks as paying her bills, driving, and managing her affairs. She experienced increasing difficulty reading and retaining information. With an increasing number of “bad days,” she began to lose her ability to think, remember, plan and reason. However, her family 10 lived hours away in different areas of the state and while they were trying to gradually 1 get her used to the idea that she couldn’t live alone, she steadfastly refused to move 12 closer or give up her plan of spending her final days in her home of thirty years. 13 Meanwhile, Shirley’s neighbors and friends continued to see Shirley’s condition 14 was deteriorating. They called her brother, Albert Ristau, about the problems. One of 15 her neighbors took Shirley to her primary care provider and reported Shirley's 16 condition had gotten significantly progressively worse of the past couple of months. 17 Specific examples were that she was she having difficulty writing checks and 18 remembering scheduled appointments. Her primary care provider again ordered a 19 brain CT without contrast due to her confusion and loss of balance in mid-December 20 2017. The findings showed senescent changes of the brain. 21 Later in December 2017, a friend again called her primary care provider with 22 concerns. In January 2018, a concerned neighbor took Shirley to her primary care 23 provider once more. He noted the prior senescent brain changes from the December © E Wh 24 brain CT and further opined that she had a volume loss of the brain greater than would B RO WN 1 25 be expected for her age. 26 That winter, neighbors and even mere acquaintances of Shirley's began Nall 1a, CA 98814 16) 449.3800 97 contacting Adult Protective Services. A.P.S Adult Services supervisor, Debbie Mason, Fas @16) 301-9855, 28 was repeatedly approached even while off-duty with reports that Shirley was showing \\server01\\data\ home \ client\ 8100\ 00001) 00304930.docx. 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS signs of dementia and that she was forgetful and was at risk. An employee at Shirley’s bank was worried about her because she was coming in confused about her account. Even Defendant Frieda Fisher-DuBois made a report. Not only had she actually been paying Shirley’s bills because she was too confused, but Shirley had been showing up to regular activities later or not at all, she had to call for help a month ago because she couldn’t get her car keys to work, and she couldn’t get into her locked house even though the doors were open and the lights were on. Most importantly, she smelled gas when she visited and thought Shirley was leaving the gas on. On March 2, 2018, Frieda Fisher-DuBois sat with Shirley - a woman who she 10 knew was so confused that she was actually paying her bills for her and whom she was 11 worried would literally blow herself and her house up by leaving the gas on - while 12 Shirley signed away the home she never wanted to leave for a thirty-year-old price. 13 Six days later, APS supervisor Debbie Mason conducted a home interview and 14 determined Shirley was exhibiting signs of dementia. After the visit, as Debbie Mason 15 was pulling out of Shirley’s driveway she came across John Flournoy. Mr. Flournoy told 16 her he was doing business with Shirley. Debbie Mason found it odd that someone 17 would be doing business with someone with dementia. 18 6. Contested issues of law. 19 Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged causes of action: (1) Financial Elder Abuse - Welfare 20 and Institutions Code Section 15610.30; (2) Financial Elder Abuse-Welfare and 21 Institutions Code Section 15657.6; (3) Conversion; (4) Trespass to Chattels; (5) Breach of 22 Fiduciary Duty; (6) Action Pursuant to Probate Code Section 850, et seq.; (7) Intentional 23 Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Intentional Misrepresentation; and (9) Negligent I UW 24 Misrepresentation. B RO WN A 25 Likely Land & Livestock Corporation filed a Cross-Complaint for a single cause 07 26 of action for Specific Performance of the option agreements. Mall, Suite 200 ca 95814 27 Defendants have continuously attempted to reduce this case to a mere contract (016) 249.9800 fx 15) 204-0865, 28 dispute. It is true that neither the 1987 Option Agreement nor the 2017 Exercise Option \\server01\ datal\ home\ client\ 8100\ 00001), 0 304930.docx 8 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS Agreement drawn up by non-attorney Defendant Fisher-DuBois were legally valid. Indeed, Defendants have made absolutely no argument that either agreement is facially valid. The Likely Corporation’s answer is to simply rewrite them decades later when George Wright is deceased and Shirley Wright suffers from dementia. This violates the fundamental principles of contract law and the potential for abuse in this situation is extreme. However, this case is not merely about contracts. It wasn’t just a deal gone wrong. Nor is it merely about personal belongings, or even a piece of land. This case is about the abuse of and the failure to protect a vulnerable elderly woman suffering from 10 dementia from being victimized. “The Legislature enacted the [Elder Abuse] Act, 11 including the provision prohibiting a taking by undue influence, to protect elderly 12 individuals with limited or declining cognitive abilities from overreaching conduct that 13 resulted in a deprivation of their property rights.” (Bounds v. Superior Court (2014) 229 14 Cal.App.4th 468, citing to Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1140 (2007- 15 2008 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 10, 2008; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600; see also 16 Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins, Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841 [The Act is to be 17 “liberally construed” in an elder’s favor].) 18 The unlawful deprivation of Shirley’s property rights constituted financial elder 19 abuse. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30.) This would have been the case even if the sale 20 had not actually been completed. (See Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468 (an elderly 21 widow suffering from Alzheimer’s disease executed documents forwarding the sale of 22 real property owned by her trust to the principal of a business which had long owned 23 neighboring property who had repeatedly attempted to convince her to sell her and her Wx ERICH 24 late husband's property at a bargain price, but despite the sale being stopped once her BROWN _ 25 family became aware of the inequitable situation, the conduct could still constitute Wik oO x 26 financial elder abuse as a matter of law).) ‘Mall, Site 00 A os14 27 When an elder over sixty-five years of age such as Shirley is unlawfully deprived 916) 449.8800 fax 816). 301-0865, 28 of a property right, financial elder abuse occurs. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30; CACI \\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\ 00001\ 00304930.docx 9 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS 3100.) This includes deprivation of “any property right,” including by means of an agreement regardless of whether the property is held by a trustee. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30 (c)-(d); Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468.) Such an agreement need not even constitute a finalized or consummated sale document - merely depriving the plaintiff of a property right is sufficient. (Id.) Plaintiffs can but are not required to prove any intent to defraud. They need only establish by a preponderance of the evidence Defendants unduly influenced or assisted others in doing so, and knew or should have known that this was likely to harm the elderly Shirley. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30.) A defendant is conclusively deemed to 10 have taken property for a wrongful use when it knew or should have known its conduct 11 was likely to be harmful to the elder, (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15610.30(b); CACI 3100; Elder 12 Abuse Litigation, The Rutter Group, 2017 (“Elder Abuse Rutter Guide”) Ch. 8, § 8:3 13 (Section 15610.30(b) provides for a “conclusive presumption” of financial elder abuse).) 14 Furthermore, agreements into by elders are subject to “special scrutiny” in 15 addition to being subject to general contract rules. (Id. at p. 478.) In Bounds v. Superior 16 Court, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468, an elderly widow suffering from Alzheimer’s disease 17 executed documents (letter of intent, two sets of escrow instructions, and a lease 18 agreement) forwarding the sale of real property owned by her trust to the principal of a 19 business which had long owned neighboring property who had repeatedly attempted 20 to convince her to sell her and her late husband’s property at a bargain price. Once her 21 family became aware of the inequitable situation, the sale was stopped and no sale 22 contract was signed, At all relevant times, the widow was the trustee of the trust. Bounds held the claims brought by the elderly widow and her trust constituted financial elder Harpy ERICH abuse as the elderly plaintiff executed documents which deprived her of property rights COWN SS 25 even though the property had not actually been sold. In doing so, Bounds further found: N 26 The financial abuse provisions are, in part, premised on the Legislature's 485 Copitl Mall, Suite 200 95814 27 belief that in addition to being subject to the general rules of contract, phone 16) 49-9800 financial agreements entered into by elders should be subject to special fas 010 904-9085 28 scrutiny. (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 140 (2013- \\server01\ data\ home \ client\ 8100) 00001\,00304930.dlocx 10 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS 2014 Reg. Sess.).) (Id. at p. 478, emphasis added.) Here, the facts go further than Bounds. Where the Bounds defendants failed to persuading an elderly widow to finalize the sale of real property owned by her trust, here John Flournoy on behalf of Likely Land succeeded in finalizing the sale. Here, as a matter of law, the Flournoys on Likely Land’s behalf took or obtained a property right of Shirley Wright, an elderly plaintiff over sixty-five years of age, for a wrongful use thereby causing her harm. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30; CACI 3100.) 9 Likely Land and John Flournoy did so by means of invalid agreements and then 10 subsequently by a grant deed. It did not matter that the option agreements did not 11 constitute a finalized or consummated sale document - when Shirley Wright signed the 12 invalid Exercise Option Agreement purportedly executing the prior Option Agreement, 13 this deprived her of property rights. By the Agreements’ terms, the option to purchase 14 was to remain open not only for a period of years, but permanently and indefinitely during 15 the Wrights’ respective lifetimes. 16 Indeed the option would purportedly not even die with the Wrights as it was to 17 further restrict their ability to bequeath their property upon their deaths. And again, the 18 purchase price was to remain $72,179.96 - a purportedly fair, just and reasonable price 19 for the 150-acre property in 1987, irrespective of the extended indefinite length of time 20 the option to purchase at this specific price was to remain open. The terms committed 21 Shirley Wright to a 1987 value for a 150-acre ranching property no matter how many 22 decades passed or how many improvements the Wrights made to the property without 23 allowing for adjustment for market rate increases, improvements, inflation, or periodic HARDY independent reassessment of market value. (Bounds, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th 468.) Ricu 24 ROW a 25 As a result, Shirley suffered adverse economic consequences; diverted from her 26 prior intent to own and reside in her home for the remainder of her life and her prior sas Mal 200 A 96814 27 course of conduct in repeatedly rejecting the Flournoy Defendants’ pressure and offers (016) 448-3800 fas (916) 901-0855 to buy her home for several years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70.) 28 \\server01\ data\ home \ client\8100\00001\,00304930.docx 11 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS Particularly in light of her known decline and dementia symptoms, Defendants’ excessive persuasion overcame Shirley Wright's free will constituted actionable undue influence. With approximately 100 residents, Likely, California and even the nearby town of Alturas is a small community. Shirley’s neighbors and friends were helping her get into her unlocked home and start her car with her keys in hand. They were taking her to her local doctor because they were concerned about her confusion and memory problems. CT scans showed age-related changes in her brain. Friends, acquaintances and even one of the defendants were reporting her mental decline to Adult Protective Services out of fear it put her at risk. Defendant Fisher-DuBois she was worried Shirley 10 could kill herself or blow up her home. This was all before Shirley sold her home in 11 March 2018. After she did so, she couldn’t explain to her family why or even understand 12 what had happened. This was abuse. 13 7. A statement disclosing the highest offer and lowest demand, and the date of 14 the last settlement discussions. 15 Plaintiffs recently settled with Defendant Placer Title Company. The remaining 16 Defendants have refused to engage in settlement discussions. Earlier this month, Shirley 17 Wright and the Wright 1990 Trust each served Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers 18 on the Likely Corporation for $800,000, and on each individual defendant for $200,000. 19 8. The limits of any available insurance coverage. 20 Plaintiffs are not aware of any applicable insurance coverage. 21 9, A statement as to whether or not the case has been through arbitration (attach 22 a copy of any arbitrator’s award). 23 The case has not been through arbitration. x Ek 24 10. A statement as to any special problems relating to settlement. BROWN SE 25 Plaintiffs provided a written demand at the beginning of the case, have requested Tasha e187 26 Defendants engage in settlement discussions, and served formal Code of Civil opitol Mall, Suite 200, ca 95814 7 Procedure section 998 offers. Defendants have refused to make any settlement offers. (96) 49-2800 Fox 16 304.9855 28 Defendants simply do not appreciate the risk of exposure presented to them including \\server01\ data\ home client\8100\ 00001\,00304930.docx 12 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS specifically the damages that are available to Plaintiffs here. Plaintiffs shall be able to obtain treble damages for the value of the property recovered along with mandatory award of attorney’s fees and costs. This case will also include punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Adjudication as to their Financial Elder Abuse cause of action; and a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Likely Company’s Cross-Complaint for specific performance. These motions are expected to be heard May 29, 2020 and therefore will be adjudicated by the time this Conference occurs. Defendants have continuously tried to hide the ball, going so far as to rifle through Shirley’s private confidential papers her family unknowingly left behind in a 10 shop building and then instead of disclosing them to Plaintiffs, they attempted to 11 confront her brother, Albert Ristau, with them in a “gotcha” attempt during his 12 deposition. Defendants even now allude to undisclosed “smoking guns.” Plaintiffs do 13 not expect Defendants will part from their established practice to make a good faith 14 effort to resolve this matter at the settlement conference. 15 Dated: May 27, 2020 HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON A Professional Law Corporation 16 17 18 COELL M. SIMMONS State Bar No, 292218 19 20 21 22 23 HarRDY Lc H 2 WN 25 26 200 7 9814 100 8 28 \\server01\ data\ home\ client\8100\ 00001\ 00304930.docx 13 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS/CROSS- DEFENDANTS PROOF OF SERVICE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 1011, 1013, 1013a, AND 201