Showing posts sorted by relevance for query grant goodman. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query grant goodman. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, May 27, 2011

Arizona Attorney Grant Goodman Sanctioned

Grant Goodman, a local attorney who became a private version of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas by filing a series of failed so-called racketeering lawsuits against court-appointed guardians, conservators, lawyers and judges, is in very hot water.

Superior Court Judge Peter Cahill (from Gila County) issued the latest in a series of hefty financial sanctions against Goodman in a stinging 15-page ruling in an action against the sole practitioner by a large group of litigants, including a now-closed private fiduciary firm, Superior Court judges and several attorneys.

At one point, Goodman claimed that the shuttered fiduciary firm, the Sun Valley Group, in cahoots with Superior Court Judges and a cabal of greedy attorneys, was ripping off adults deemed "incapacitated" by the court for everything they had.

Judges often appoint private fiduciaries to help with all aspects of a clients's life, and Goodman's representation of those vulnerable people was marked by half-baked legal assaults and inane in-court verbal exchanges with judges and opposing counsel.

"Claims that the [clients] did not receive what they deserved--that, instead, scoundrels (`Racketeers,' as Mr. Goodman calls them) took advantage of them and stole all their property are serious," Judge Cahill wrote in his ruling, which was issued yesterday afternoon.

But the judge noted that Goodman never did file any paperwork to show his clients were entitled to legal relief, writing that "Alfred Dreyfus surely would have died on Devil's Island if Goodman had been his `[Emile] Zola.'" (Great literary reference there--check it out by linking to Zola.)

Cahill added about another $200,000 in legal sanctions against Goodman to the $24 million that the litigious little guy already is on the hook for. However, he suggested that, based on past behavior, "the court believes it is quite likely that these financial sanctions will mean nothing to Mr. Goodman."

The out-of-town judge, who was asked to sit on the Goodman case because of conflicts-of-interest in Maricopa County, wrote that "it is reasonably likely--actually it is a certainty--that Mr. Goodman will victimize others.

Cahill recommended that Maricopa County's presiding judge Norm Davis hold a hearing, after which Davis deem Goodman a "vexatious litigant," (vexatious denoting "an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant").

If Judge Davis does so, Goodman would have to file any and all complaints with Davis himself for review and possibly immediate dismissal. Any defendants of a Goodman lawsuit wouldn't have to respond until the judge gave the go-ahead.

Cahill wrote that "Mr. Goodman's conduct--the manner in which he has handled these important matters--has brought discredit to the profession and the courts. In addition, his conduct caused significant harm to the litigants."

Full Article and Source:
Grant Goodman, Gadfly Phoenix Attorney, Sanctioned Heavily in Probate Cases

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Former AZ Attorney Grant Goodman Loses Case

Goodman, a Phoenix (now suspended) attorney who had his 15 minutes of fame a few years ago as an alleged champion of local folks being abused by their legal guardians/conservators and by the Maricopa County Probate Court, has lost yet another case--his own.​

In a memorandum decision filed January 25 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel shot down Goodman's appeal of serious sanctions imposed against him by federal judge Mary Murguia, who is based in Phoenix.

Last summer, the Arizona Supreme Court suspended Goodman from the practice of law for up to five years following a finding that he habitually exploited vulnerable Probate Court clients.

William O'Neil, the presiding disciplinary judge for the Arizona State Bar, wrote that Goodman's actions would be potentially harmful to the public and the legal profession if he had been allowed to continue practicing law.

"A growing number of probate court observers worry,' [Sara Fenske at the LA Weekly] wrote, "that Grant Goodman is less a white knight than a shark who smells blood in the water -- and that he intends to use Maricopa County's most vulnerable for both good publicity and a fat payday."

Earlier, the Phoenix barrister had been trumpeted as a shining star in a series of Arizona Republic stories about troubles in the county's Probate Court.

In truth, Goodman quickly became known (and reviled) for filing endless court papers against judges, court-appointed guardians and lawyers under the guise of protecting Probate Court clients, then try and rake in the legal fees.

Without taking oral argument, the appellate court last week said that Judge Murguia had not abused her discretion by issuing the sanctions against Goodman.

Goodman's remaining contentions, including those related to the district court's alleged bias in imposing sanctions, are unpersuasive. Goodman's motion, in which he appears to ask this court to dismiss the state disciplinary proceedings against him or to void his suspension from practice by the State Bar, is denied."

Full Article and Source:
Grant Goodman, Disgraced Local Attorney, Shot Down By Appellate Court

See Also:
Attorney Grant Goodman Suspended

Friday, July 29, 2011

Grant Goodman Suspended Without a Hearing

Longtime Arizona attorney Grant Goodman has made serious allegations over the last year against attorneys and guardians in Maricopa County Probate Court.

“Assets are being raped and pillaged every day,” said Goodman.

Accusations like that may have landed him in trouble.

“The conduct that’s going on in probate is in effect, unconstitutional," he said.

The State Bar of Arizona has now temporarily suspended Goodman's license to practice law.

The bar claims his conduct "will result in substantial harm, loss or damage to the public, the legal profession or the administration of justice."

“I haven't had a client so far that has complained,” said Goodman.

The suspension comes after Goodman filed lawsuits on behalf of incapacitated adults. They were adults Maricopa County Probate Court ruled couldn't handle their money or medical care.

The ABC15 Investigators reported on those lawsuits in a series of stories last year, uncovering flaws in the Maricopa County Probate System.

Families accused the court of allowing their loved ones to be isolated and heavily medicated while their assets were liquidated.

In an interview with ABC15 more than a year ago, Goodman described the county's probate process as criminal.

“These people are more organized than the mob. Plus, they have a court rubberstamp the proceeding.”

Full Article, Video, and Source:
Attorney Grant Goodman Suspended Without a Hearing

Attorney Grant Goodman Suspended

Local attorney Grant Goodman had his law license suspended for five years following a finding that he habitually exploited "vulnerable" Probate Court clients.

In an order signed [7/21/11] by William O'Neil, the presiding disciplinary judge for the Arizona State Bar, Goodman's actions are described as potentially harmful to the public and the legal profession if allowed to continue.

Source:
Grant Goodman, Attorney, Gets Law License Suspended For Exploiting "Vulnerable" Probate Court Clients

See Also:

Read the "Temporary Restraining Order of Temporary Suspension and Report"

Arizona Attorney Grant Goodman Sanctioned

Monday, May 14, 2012

Former AZ Attorney Grant Goodman Disbarred for Two Years

An Arizona attorney has been suspended from practicing law after an investigation by the State Bar.

During the investigation, the three-member panel, led by the Acting Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona, found that Grant Goodman exploited protected individuals, knowingly made false statements to the court, opposed counsel and failed to respond to the State Bar's request for information.

Prior to the disciplinary hearing, Goodman was placed on an interim suspension on July 21, 2011, at the request of the disciplinary judge.

The State Bar ruled this week to suspend Goodman for two years, retroactive to July 2011.

Both Goodman and the State Bar can appeal the panel's decision.

Source:
AZ Attorney Suspended for Alleged Misconduct

See Also:
Former AZ Attorney Grant Goodman Loses Case

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Guardianship in Arizona: Elder Care or Elder Abuse?

Many people move to Arizona for the weather and recreation because it's considered a haven for retirees who want to live out their golden years. But something else is happening here - something haunting.

For Clair's mom, Gloria Horrigan, it was a nightmare. Clair said her mother was taken to a nursing home against her will and not allowed visitors, not even family.

It was a struggle for Robert Brown to bring his wife, Rosemary, home. She was also taken and within a matter of weeks, the family wasn't allowed to see her either.

What happened in both cases started in a Maricopa County Courtroom - right in front of a judge.

The court approved a guardian in both cases. And both times, the guardian was Sun Valley Group of Tempe. Their website states they offer "support for client's physical, social, emotional and mental health." As part of their service, Sun Valley Group also took care of Gloria's personal finances.

But Clair said her mom did not get proper medical treatment and her bills weren't paid. Gloria's house went into foreclosure. “I’m physically sick from seeing what they've done to my mother. My family, my children, everyone has been affected by this,” said Clair.

Rosemary had a similar story. She was depressed and refused medical care. But Robert said under the company's care, she never did, so now family friend and doctor, Marge Butler, is Rosemary's guardian. “The bills were now coming at a ferried pace,” said Marge. In total, Marge said the family spent over a $100,000. That was for just four months of Sun Valley Group's care. It ended when the nursing home thought Rosemary was dying. They finally allowed the family to see her.

As for Gloria, Clair said the company seemed much more interested in her mom's money than her health. Gloria's final bill was just under $500,000 and included charges for an employee to open her mail at $75 an hour. “They are supposed to be her guardian and are supposed to be like her parents and look out for her best interests,” said Clair.

After repeatedly being turned down for an on camera interview, The ABC15 Investigators went to Sun Valley Group's office. They asked us to leave. We then caught up with the owner of Sun Valley, Peter Frenette, at a county courthouse. He was leaving a probate hearing involving fees from a different case. Even after several questions, Frenette would not comment.

The ABC15 Investigators have found more issues plaguing Sun Valley Group. Frenette's wife, Heather, is co-owner, but she is being investigated by the Arizona nursing board. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Organized Crime Unit is also investigating Sun Valley Group. By state law, both investigations are secret.

We also discovered three multi-million dollar lawsuits filed this year against the company for fraud and racketeering. Grant Goodman is the attorney for three former Sun Valley Group clients. “It's more of a criminal enterprise,” said Goodman, “They need to be prosecuted.” He claimed to find a pattern with these cases. “They effectively medicate them to such an extent that they really are non-functional,” said Goodman, “And they do that while they're liquidating their assets.”

The three lawsuits also blame probate court. “The mob isn't this efficient, nor does the mob have the luxury of having a court rubberstamp these proceedings,” said Goodman.

Goodman is not the only one who thinks that way. Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an Administrative Order to investigate probate court. One of the issues is regulating fees.

Full Article, Video and Source:
Guardianship in Arizona: Elder Care of Elder Abuse?

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Lawyer Finds Unusual Pool of Clients - Victims of Probate Court

Just about everybody who came into contact with Edward Ravenscroft in 2008 concluded that he needed some serious help.

Thanks to a bad crack habit, Ravenscroft, then 47, had burned through more than $1 million in two short years — with little to show for it. As an heir to the Abbott Laboratories fortune, Ravenscroft was rich, but he was spending his money way too quickly, and stupidly.

In court papers, Ravenscroft admitted that, in addition to his drug problem, he was mentally ill. His defense lawyer wrote that Ravenscroft described himself as bipolar and obsessive-compulsive. Three different doctors agreed. So did the court-appointed psychiatrist who examined him in jail.

That diagnosis may have made all the difference. Under a program launched by the county's presiding judge, criminal defendants with mental illness end up in a special court to assess their competency, and then, if need be, referred to probate court for help. Probate court deals with people who are legally incapacitated: anyone who can't take care of themselves or manage their finances because of mental illness, old age, or disability.

Sent to probate in January 2009, Ravenscroft was assigned a guardian ad litem to fight for his best interests, even if Ravenscroft had no idea what they were. (In this case, that entailed helping Ravenscroft get well enough to check into rehab.) As Ravenscroft's case progressed and he continued to spiral out of control, he also got a guardian (to take care of him), a conservator (to watch over his money), and a lawyer (to express his desires in court).

And then, slowly, Edward Ravenscroft got better.

Today, he's been sober eight months. He takes his medication and is preparing to live on his own. He'd been in probate for a little over a year when Probate Court Judge Karen O'Connor terminated his guardianship last month. He is, she said, capable of taking care of himself.

Sounds like a happy ending, right?

Not if you're Grant Goodman. The Phoenix-based attorney is convinced that the whole thing was a scam to steal Ravenscroft's money.


Full Article and Source:
In Debt and Under Fire, Attorney Grant Goodman Has Found an Unusual Pool of Clients: the 'Victims' of Probate Court

See Also:
Ravenscroft Denied Freedom

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Edward Abbot Ravenscroft Wins Some Say

After months of trying, a Scottsdale millionaire has at long last been given some say-so in who controls his money.

It was left to a non-probate judge to finally listen to Edward Abbott Ravenscroft and to remove the Sun Valley Group as his conservator. Sun Valley fought to the end to retain control of Ravenscroft's finances and for good reason.

Sun Valley now can no longer control whether Ravenscroft can sue the company, its attorneys and other lawyers who operate within the cozy confines of probate court – the ones who have pocketed at least a quarter of a million dollars of his money. Instead, that power now transfers to Ravenscroft's new conservator, Jane Anne Geisler of Managed Protective Services.

“This is like a miracle …,” Ravenscroft told me. “Now I can breathe. Now I can start working with Jane Anne Geisler and get on with my life.”

Ravenscroft, 49, came under the watchful eye of probate in January 2009 after a series of drug arrests raised questions about his mental health and his vulnerability, given the size of his bank account. But he's been clean for nine months and since then has been trying to regain control over his life and his bankbook. A court-appointed guardian bowed out in March while Sun Valley continued on, based on a court-appointed psychiatrist's finding that he still needs help managing his money.

But this week, that psychiatrist, Dr. Jack Potts, testified that Sun Valley should be removed, both because Ravenscroft wants someone else to handle his money and because little progress has been made toward moving him to financial independence.

Judge Hugh Hegyi bounced the company, saying that while there was no evidence of impropriety, Ravenscroft's relationship with Sun Valley “is hindering his transition to financial independence.”

Hegyi also voided attorney Grant Goodman's contract with Ravenscroft, presumably invalidating his racketeering lawsuit against Sun Valley and Ravenscroft's other former probate protectors. Goodman filed a series of lawsuits earlier this spring on behalf of Ravenscroft and several other wards of the court, accusing various lawyers and fiduciaries of working together to squeeze their vulnerable clients while probate judges looked on and did, well, nothing.

Hegyi ruled that Goodman had no authority to file a lawsuit on behalf of Ravenscroft because he's “incapacitated”. The power to sue, he said, rests only with the judge or the conservator.

Which was Sun Valley, until this week.

Full Article and Source:
Millionnaire Wins Some Say in Who Controls His Money

See Also:
Progress in the Edward Abbot Ravenscroft Case

Monday, February 1, 2010

AZ: Three Racketeering Lawsuits Filed

The old lady who lost all her money while being “protected” by Maricopa County's probate court is now pleading her case to another court — and she isn't the only one.

Three federal racketeering lawsuits were filed this week, accusing a group of lawyers and fiduciaries of working together to squeeze their vulnerable clients while Maricopa County's judges look on and do, well, nothing.

“Obviously, it (the probate system) isn't doing what it's intended to do, it isn't protecting vulnerable adults,” said attorney Grant Goodman, who filed the lawsuits after reading about 88-year-old Marie Long, who went from having $1.3 million to nothing in four years. “It's actually allowing these predators to strip these estates bare under the cloth of a judicial rubber stamp.”

Goodman filed the lawsuits on behalf of Marie and two other Scottsdale residents. Each of the defendants who responded to a request for comment denied any wrongdoing.

“The lawsuit is baseless and we are confident that we will prevail on the merits in court,” attorney Brenda Church wrote in an e-mail.

According to probate court records, Church's law firms have collected $343,000 from Marie's trust since 2005, when the widow suffered a stroke and came under the protection of the court. Sun Valley, meanwhile, has collected $413,000 in guardian and companion care fees while seven other attorneys have scooped up another $86,000. As a result of all this “protection”, Marie is now in the poorhouse and will need taxpayer support.

The federal lawsuits, filed against nine attorneys and two of the state's largest fiduciary companies, allege that once appointed to handle the affairs of incapacitated adults, they “siphon off” their money, “ultimately abandoning their victims once their trust accounts and other assets have been dissipated.”

Full Article and Source:
Old Lady Goes to Federal Court - And Now She Has Company

See Also:
Woman Attempting to Recover Funds

Thursday, May 26, 2016

How to Protect Yourself or a Loved One From an Abusive Guardianship

(Editor’s note: This is the final installment of a three-part series on guardianship abuses appearing this week on Next Avenue. Here are Part 1 and Part 2.)

Most of us don’t think we would ever end up in a nursing home against our will. We can’t imagine having our hard-earned savings drained by someone assigned to take care of us. We would never believe that we might someday be kept away from the people we love the most. 

But those are the kinds of nightmares suffered every day by some of the estimated 1 million to 2 million people who have been placed under guardianship or conservatorship in the United States. 

Ordered by a judge, a guardianship or conservatorship is ideally a protection for older adults. But too often, it is a drastic measure often prompted by warring relatives, nursing homes that want to get paid or a “friend” who gains the trust of an older adult in order to take advantage of him or her. It’s based on a legal determination that the person is “incapacitated” and needs someone else to make decisions.
But there are things you can do now to make sure that becoming a victim of guardianship abuse does not happen to you or a loved one.

You clearly don’t want to appoint someone who has had money problems, because that person won’t be able to manage yours.

— Naomi Karp, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Plan Ahead

Not only can guardianships and conservatorships be exploitive, the process is public, expensive and time-consuming, said Naomi Karp, senior policy advisor at the Office of Older Americans of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Washington, D.C.
The key to avoiding an abusive guardianship — which is likely to be extremely difficult to escape from if it happens — is to plan ahead.
Karp and other experts advise taking the following steps (you can find a list of resources at the end of this article):
  • Create a durable power of attorney for finances. This is a document in which you name a person to make decisions for you if you cannot. (A regular, or “nondurable” power of attorney ends if you lose mental capacity.) For instance, if you are severely injured in a car accident or incapacitated by a stroke, your “agent” or “attorney-in-fact” will be able to sign financial documents, pay bills and buy things you need.
  • Create a durable power of attorney for medical care. With this document, also referred to as an advance directive, you designate a trusted person to make health care decisions for you if you cannot. The “agent” or “health care proxy” can get access to your medical records, talk to doctors about your condition, make decisions about getting you into a hospital or nursing home and grant or withhold permission for tests and treatments.
  • Think carefully about whom you appoint as your agent. Said Karp: “You want someone who has common sense and good judgment. You clearly don’t want to appoint someone who has had money problems,” because that person won’t be able to manage yours if he or she has a bad history managing finances.
  • Make sure your prospective agent agrees, and give him or her the necessary information to do the job. One excellent resource: a series of guides from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Managing Someone Else’s Money.
  • Build in a safety mechanism. “I like to say, ‘Trust, but verify,’” Karp said. You can require in your financial power of attorney document that the person you appoint provide a periodic accounting with a third person you trust, she said. “It’s another set of eyes,” Karp noted.
  • Revoke the document if you change your mind. If you decide the person you chose is no longer appropriate or cannot serve for some reason, you can revoke the original power of attorney and draft a new one naming a different person.
  • Don’t put it off. Set aside some time for getting these documents filled out, or make an appointment with an attorney. If you plan to have an attorney draft a will, that’s the perfect time to ask him or her to complete the power of attorney forms as well, Karp said.
Karp acknowledged that this is an unpleasant topic. “A lot of people just avoid the planning and avoid discussing it in their families,” she said. But not only does preparing help you protect your interests, it saves your loved ones from confusion, complicated paperwork and heart-wrenching decisions.

Helpful Resources

You can find useful planning information and other resources here:
For information on guardianships and efforts against abuse, check these websites:
If you or a loved one is being abused, call your local adult protective services agency; you can find the appropriate contact for your area at www.eldercare.gov or call 800-677-1116.

This article was written with support from the Journalists in Aging Fellowships, a program of New America Media and the Gerontological Society of America, sponsored by the Retirement Research Foundation.

Full Article & Source:
How to Protect Yourself or a Loved One From an Abusive Guardianship

See Also:
Next Avenue:  Guardianship Laws Are Improving, Problems Persist

Guardianship in the US:  Protection or Exploitation?"

Monday, April 16, 2018

‘You saved my life’: Woman ‘thriving’ after ordeal

Kise Davis, far left, celebrates the news she is moving from Las Cruces to California with her stepson, Larry Davis, and his wife, Marcia Davis.
On Dec. 16, 2016, Larry Davis got the shock of his life. A neighbor of his stepmother Kise Davis was on the phone, calling from La Mesa, N.M. “I think you should know,” the neighbor told him, “they came and picked up Kise and said they’re taking her to an institution.”

Based on an emergency petition filed by a handyman she had befriended and given her power of attorney, 85-year-old Kise Davis had been deemed incapacitated in a secret court action. She was placed in the care of a Las Cruces-based corporate guardian/conservator for her own good.

There was no court hearing or prior notice to her family, including her closest relative, her stepson Davis, who lives in Sonoma County, Calif.

It took Davis and his wife 14 frustrating months and more than $50,000 in legal fees and other costs to undo what had been done.

The handyman, who said he was only trying to protect Kise, offered to withdraw his petition just a month after it was filed.

But the case had taken on a life of its own as court appointees, being paid out of Kise’s assets, fought to keep her in Las Cruces.

“I think this happened because of the vested interest of the company assigned to manage (Kise Davis’) care,” said Las Cruces attorney Raul Carrillo, who represented Davis and his wife, Marcia. “It’s difficult to think there’s any other explanation. This is a situation where a woman is kept here despite the existence of family and a perfectly great place to go (in California).”

Sandy Meyer, owner of the guardianship firm, Advocate Services of Las Cruces, told the Journal that the guardianship fees were “minimal” and that she was “insulted” by the suggestion that profits were a motivating factor.

After more than a year of legal wrangling, Davis and his attorneys succeeded in convincing a state district judge at a closed hearing in late February to grant Kise’s transfer to California. It was the first time Davis testified in the case.

Davis said he was surprised that chief District Judge James T. Martin of Las Cruces also made him Kise’s guardian/conservator, considering that, last year, the judge put the corporate guardian in charge.

Kise was free to go home with Davis and his wife, the judge ruled.

Elated, but still wary, Davis and his wife were fearful of a new legal maneuver to keep Kise in Las Cruces. They hurried to get her out of New Mexico, packing up her belongings and flying back to California a week later.

She now lives with Davis and his wife, Marcia, pending a move to a nearby assisted living facility in Sonoma.

“You saved my life,” a happy Kise Davis told her stepson after learning the judge’s decision. “I owe you my life.”

Captive, of sorts

Kise, who is of Japanese descent, was described in court as an active and independent woman who has bouts of short-term memory loss. Her stepson said she had been a captive, of sorts, in the Las Cruces assisted-living facility.

She was housed in a memory care unit for people afflicted with more serious dementia, with residents who didn’t talk much, who watched television programs for 10-year-olds, one of Davis’ attorneys told the judge at hearing in April 2017.

The court-appointed corporate guardian dictated whom Kise could see and when; where she could go and what friends and family could tell her, Davis said. She wasn’t allowed to leave the premises, even to have lunch with a friend who had worked with her in the floral department at Hobby Lobby.

“I think she’s stifled to the point where she is not herself anymore,” testified Rita Diaz-Yarter, Kise’s friend from Las Cruces at the hearing in February. “I don’t believe that she should be here, left to die alone in a place where she has no family.”

Alleged ‘smear’

Blocking their attempts to get Kise to California was a Las Cruces attorney who had been appointed by the judge as a guardian ad litem, or GAL, to represent Kise and advise the court.

In most cases in New Mexico, family members are appointed as guardians or conservators.

But Kise’s guardian ad litem, CaraLyn Banks, argued that Kise should stay in Las Cruces under a corporate guardianship.

Banks told the Journal last week that she was acting in Kise’s best interest.

“As a guardian ad litem, you have a certain responsibility to make sure your clients are safe, and I feel like I did just that,” Banks said.

Court docket sheets show that Banks has represented the owner of Kise’s guardian/conservator firm, Advocate Services of Las Cruces, on other legal matters.

Banks also had extensive experience with the company in guardian/conservator cases.

As a petitioner’s attorney, Banks has filed more than 65 guardianship cases since 2012 in which Advocate Services was appointed. Under state law, petitioners propose the guardian to be appointed.

Banks told the Journal she had no conflict of interest in taking on the GAL role in Kise’s case.


This was the La Mesa, N.M., home where Kise Davis, now 86, lived alone after her husband died. Her corporate guardian sold the home last November. (Colleen Heild/Albuquerque Journal)

She said she never represented Meyer personally and only worked for her on conservator cases involving financial matters.

Banks said there are only a few guardianship firms in Las Cruces, explaining why she recommended Advocate Services so often.

Davis, meanwhile, said the campaign to keep Kise in New Mexico involved personal attacks on him.

“It’s hard enough for families to cope with the emotional reality of dementia (of a loved one) without having the added stress and abuse of being bullied, threatened and smeared by court appointees.”

Banks said she never bullied Davis or his wife.

“I bent over backwards to interview them, to talk to them, and they just didn’t like what I had to say,” she told the Journal.

Meyer, of Advocate Services, told the Journal, “Actually, it was Mr. Davis who was behaving badly. We refused to be subjected to his accusations and tirades. After he was represented by his attorneys, we never had further conversations with him.”

At times, during the 14-month ordeal, Davis said he and his wife felt like they “had nowhere to turn.”

He said he checked with an attorney in California for advice but was told that (situation in New Mexico) “just can’t happen. That this would never happen in California.”

The deeper tragedy, Davis said, is that “they took away from Kise one of the last, best years of her life.”

Samurai woman

After Kise’s neighbor told him his stepmother had been taken away, Davis initially thought there had been a mistake.

A retired educator with a doctorate in cultural psychology, Davis said he and his wife had, since 2014, been trying to figure out how to get help for his stepmother, if she needed it, in the home she shared with Davis’ father until his death in 1993. The home is in La Mesa, a rural area south of Mesilla, N.M.

One physician concluded that, eventually, given her memory issues, Kise would need to be cared for in an institution. But that could be two weeks away – or 10 years away, Davis said.

Davis became Kise’s power of attorney and said he asked the state Adult Protective Services division twice in 2016 to assess whether his stepmother could live alone. He said he was told that she was OK.

Kise, he said, wanted to remain at home.

Had he removed her against her will, Davis said, “I knew she would never speak to us again.”

“She’s a stubborn, Samurai woman,” Davis said of the petite woman, who married his divorced father when Davis was 14 years old.

“My life became a lot better when she married my father. He was a career military officer who had served in World War II and Korea. I’d gone to Berkeley, and there were a lot of issues. Kise was always the peacemaker, who convinced me to see his side. Frankly, I wouldn’t have had a father (without her).”

Davis, 75, said he and his wife, Marcia, were in contact with Kise throughout 2016 – until she was placed under the guardianship, although it became difficult to reach her by phone.

The couple had visited Kise that June and planned to travel to Las Cruces again after the Christmas holiday.

Davis said he was never notified that Kise had transferred her power of attorney from him to Larry Franco, a handyman/gardener who said he had known Kise for 25 years.

Davis said he had never met Franco, but his stepmother told him Franco was helping her.

In the fall of 2016, Davis said he learned from the state Adult Protective Services that Franco had called the agency for an assessment of Kise, and protective services concluded she could live alone.

The Adult Protective Services report noted that Franco was Gov. Susana Martinez’s brother-in-law, Davis said.

Franco told the Journal he spent 40 to 50 hours a week helping Kise with projects and errands without pay.

“This has been a nightmare,” Franco said last week. “I was traumatized.”

Franco acknowledges he was slow to realize Kise’s signs of dementia, because, some days, “she was sharp as a tack.”

Franco said he never asked to become her power of attorney. He said that was “Ms. Davis’ idea.” That was also true of her decision to change her will to give him 30 percent of her estate and be her executor, Franco said.

Kise owned her own home and receives spousal military retirement benefits.

In court testimony, Franco said the day came when he had to take away Kise’s car keys for her own safety. When she asked, he denied doing so, Franco testified.

In retrospect, Franco told the Journal he probably should have contacted Larry Davis before contacting his lawyer, who filed the emergency guardianship petition that listed him as the petitioner.

“But I totally believed her (Kise) when she said he (her stepson) wasn’t helping her,” Franco told the Journal. “That’s all I needed to hear.”

Donnie Mendez, left, meets with his former neighbor Kise Davis, right, after a judge agreed she could be transferred from a corporate guardian in Las Cruces to California. Mendez first alerted her stepson, Larry Davis, of Sonoma County, Calif., that Kise had been taken to an “institution” on Dec. 16, 2016.

Kise’s longtime neighbor, Donnie Mendez, told the Journal he noticed that someone had put chains with locks on the wrought-iron gates around Kise’s house. Franco said Kise asked him to do so, because she believed people were stealing from her.

It was Mendez who noticed strangers at Kise’s house, inquired what they were doing, and picked up the phone to alert Larry Davis that Kise was taken away.

‘Interested person’

What happened to Kise Davis is legal under New Mexico law. Several legislative guardianship law reforms take effect July 1, including expanded notification to families of court hearings.

But there will still be a narrow exception that permits one party to seek a court order so guardians can take custody of an alleged incapacitated person – without the judge hearing from others, including, in this case, family members.

“It’s a big loophole in the law,” said Davis. Had he been notified beforehand, Davis said he believes he could have kept the guardianship petition from being filed and found a better remedy to care for his stepmother.

Such emergency temporary guardianship/conservatorship orders are permitted under the law when the usual notification requirements would cause “immediate and irreparable harm to the alleged incapacitated person’s physical health.” The law allows any “interested person” to initiate the proceedings.

Franco’s petition alleged that Kise’s physician advised that she was in need of immediate placement, that she owned a loaded revolver that was missing and that she couldn’t understand her basic finances, having overpaid the IRS.

A letter was attached – not from Kise’s doctor, but from someone on his staff. Later, there was testimony of rotting food in her refrigerator.

Franco didn’t want the job of guardian, so his attorney nominated Advocate Services of Las Cruces.

Its guardians aren’t nationally certified. But Meyer, owner of the company, said they still adhere “to all ethical and legal and moral guidelines.”

The emergency petition never mentioned that Kise had a stepson. Davis was described only as Kise’s “former” power of attorney “who took no protective action” for Kise and”despite medical concerns allowed her to remain, unsupervised, in her home.”

Davis said the court visitor, appointed to investigate the need for a guardianship, said she had been told that Davis was a “distant nephew.”

After Kise was moved out of her home, Franco said he got a phone call from Davis.

As Davis recalled, Franco said he was “in over his head” trying to help Kise.

The two men “compared notes,” realizing Kise had negative things to say about the both of them, Franco told the Journal.

By mid-January 2017, Franco and his attorney had offered to withdraw the petition for guardianship, as long as Kise received 24/7 care in California, Davis told the Journal.

But Banks, as Kise’s appointed guardian ad litem, wouldn’t agree.

She told the Journal last week that Kise had “revoked” her stepson’s power of attorney, “so there was nobody who was able to protect her at the time.”

Banks said she also had “concerns” about Davis. She filed a report with the judge, citing Davis’ “conduct” prior to the temporary guardianship petition being filed. Her report also mentioned “representations made by Mr. Davis’ former counsel regarding his questionable competency.”

Attorney Cristy Carbon-Gaul of Albuquerque, who initially represented Davis, told the Journal that Banks was “misstating what I said (regarding the competency issue).”

Davis and his wife strongly deny the dementia claims, which they say were part of the “smear” campaign to keep Kise in New Mexico.

“For 14 months, (the argument) was that I was negligent in taking care of her and I am not suitable as a guardian,” Davis said.

Change of heart

At the initial hearing in the case in March 2017, Judge Martin sided with Banks.

“Even though Larry Davis has a relationship with her, I think that a corporate guardian and conservator would be better to maintain a professional relationship with Ms. Davis,” Martin ruled.

Kise was “high functioning but does suffer memory lapses,” Martin stated. “She is sometimes overly trusting of individuals she doesn’t know.”

The judge ordered that the parties “attempt” to transfer Kise to an appropriate facility in California.

But, two weeks later, Davis and his wife had to travel back to Las Cruces from California for another hearing, because Banks refused to sign off on the proposed written order, questioning its language.

By then, Davis and his wife had retained another attorney, Peter Goodman of Las Cruces.

“I’m scared by the thought of how much she (Kise) is paying just to have this little hearing to argue about whether to put something in an order that the Judge said he was going to put in his order,”Goodman said during the April 2017 hearing. “It should have been resolved consensually. How much is Kise paying for all of the people who are here today?”

The judge gave the parties 120 days to “file their motion for transfer,” adding that an extension would be granted for “good cause.”

That deadline came and went without any action.

Banks told the Journal that the delay occurred because “we couldn’t get the property (Kise’s home) sold quick enough so we couldn’t get her transferred to a corporate guardian and conservator in California.”

Even after Kise’s home sold in November, Banks never filed for the transfer. Instead, she filed a new report with the court reiterating why Kise was better off in New Mexico.

“There was a concern about money, a concern right from the start,” Banks told the Journal.

Davis hired new attorneys to enforce the judge’s order allowing Kise to move to California.

Then they waited four months for Martin to hold a hearing.

‘She’s thriving’

The hearing on Feb. 26 focused in part on whether Kise could afford to move.

Attorney Carrillo, now representing Davis, told the judge that, despite claims by Banks and the corporate guardian, Kise wouldn’t be paying more to live in California.

Getting rid of the cost of a corporate guardian would provide Kise enough money to live at a nearby assisted living facility near Davis in Sonoma, Calif., Carrillo said.

Alaina Johnson of Advocate Services testified that the corporate guardian’s services, deducted from Kise’s assets, amounted to nearly $500 a month, or $75 an hour.

When Carrillo asked what work was performed to justify the cost, Johnson responded that she paid Kise’s medical, pharmacy, housing and guardianship company bills.

Franco took the stand to endorse Kise’s move to be closer to her family.

He also told the judge that Kise’s corporate guardian had asked him to provide a statement “supporting them, that everything was fine, Ms. Davis is doing well (in New Mexico).” He never did so, and testified that he hadn’t seen Kise in a year.

Judge Martin ruled that he had assumed Kise would have been moved to California within six months and was “disappointed” that hadn’t happened.

Earlier in the case, Banks proposed that she and Advocate Services research and arrange the transfer to California and the hiring of new corporate guardian/conservator in California.

But the judge found that Larry Davis was “qualified, willing and able to serve” as Kise’s guardian and conservator. Martin approved the transfer and dismissed Banks and the guardian from the case.

The judge also ordered Advocate Services to file a financial accounting of Kise’s assets and expenses, but Davis said that, so far, the records provided are “wholly inadequate.”

Davis said he did notice that Banks’ fees of about $20,000 included a $12,000 payment the day before the final hearing.

While living in California, Kise has been reading books on Japanese gardening and birds, her stepson said. She says she wants to tell her story.

“She’s thriving,” her stepson said. “It’s like coming out of prison after 14 months. We’re free at last.”S

Full Article & Source:
‘You saved my life’: Woman ‘thriving’ after ordeal