Angelique Friend allegedly used her position to hire her husband's
company and pay herself over $165,000 while caring for the incapacitated
woman.
A California fiduciary named Angelique Friend is accused of stealing
from the trust of an Alzheimer's patient, Patricia Mettler, whom she was
put in charge of overseeing. Friend allegedly hired her husband's
company, Towngate In-Home Services, to care for Mettler and paid the
company over $1.1 million, while also paying herself over $165,000 from
the trust. The lawsuit alleges Friend failed to disclose the conflict of
interest to Mettler's attorney.
Why it matters
This case highlights the importance of oversight and
accountability for those entrusted with managing the affairs of
vulnerable individuals. Fiduciaries have a legal and ethical duty to act
in the best interests of their clients, and this alleged abuse of power
for personal gain raises concerns about the potential for elder
financial exploitation.
The details
According to court documents, Mettler was in poor health with
Alzheimer's when Friend was put in charge of her trust in 2021. Friend
immediately hired Towngate In-Home Services, a company owned by her
husband David Esquibias, to care for Mettler. Over the nearly four-year
period, the estate paid Towngate $1.1 million, while Friend also paid
herself over $165,000, totaling $1.275 million. The lawsuit alleges
Friend failed to disclose the conflict of interest to Mettler's
attorney.
Friend was put in charge of Mettler's trust in 2021.
Towngate In-Home Services cared for Mettler for nearly four years.
The players
Angelique Friend
A
California fiduciary accused of stealing from the trust of an
Alzheimer's patient, Patricia Mettler, whom she was put in charge of
overseeing.
Patricia Mettler
An Alzheimer's patient in Southern California whose trust was allegedly mismanaged by Angelique Friend.
David Esquibias
Angelique Friend's husband, who owns the company Towngate In-Home Services that was paid over $1.1 million to care for Mettler.
What’s next
Relatives are asking for Friend to be removed as trustee and
for the return of all assets 'improperly disbursed'. They are also
asking for attorney fees to be paid.
The takeaway
This case highlights the need for stronger oversight and
accountability measures to protect vulnerable individuals from financial
exploitation by those entrusted with managing their affairs. It
underscores the importance of fiduciaries upholding their legal and
ethical duties to act in the best interests of their clients.
A Michigan judge appointed Ronald Hearns as the sole guardian and conservator for his father, Tommy Hearns.
The ruling follows a series of emergency hearings in Oakland County
prompted by concerns from Adult Protective Services regarding the
67-year-old’s vulnerability and potential financial exploitation by
other family members. This ruling gives Ronald authority over his
father’s personal and medical care, including where he lives and his
healthcare decisions. Hearns, who was diagnosed with dementia, is
currently living with Ronald.
This specifically grants Ronald control over his father’s finances
and assets. The move was deemed necessary after reports surfaced of
unauthorized GoFundMe campaigns and suspicious real estate transactions
involving other relatives while Hearns’ health was in decline.
The Future
The guardianship comes as Hearns continues to navigate a challenging
physical and cognitive recovery. In July 2025, Hearns underwent a
successful hip replacement surgery to address a long-standing
“bone-on-bone” condition. While the surgery was a success, his recovery
has been complicated by the ongoing progression of dementia. Despite his
health issues, Ronald Hearns noted that his father remains active and
is still scheduled to make a public appearance at the Box Fan Expo in
Las Vegas on May 2, 2026.
“My job with the conservator and the court is to make sure that
nobody takes advantage of him and he is treated with dignity and respect
that he so richly deserves,” Wolf Mueller (Ronald’s attorney)
“Just keep praying for my dad and the family as we move forward in
our lives. That’s my main goal, to make sure that he’s enjoying his life
and nobody else can hurt him in any kind of way, financially,
physically, or mentally,” Ronald
Kristin Exner, a Connecticut lawyer and state-appointed conservator, made headlines last year when another attorney petitioned to
have her disbarred. That petition followed two instances in which she
sold houses owned by people whose estates she controlled to the co-owner
of her real estate business. The houses were allegedly sold below
market rate and then resold by her real estate company for a profit.
The complaint was forwarded to a local grievance panel by the
Statewide Bar Counsel’s Office on Feb. 26. In the meantime, Exner will
not be appointed to manage new cases in the Milford-Orange Probate
Court, according to court documents.
In addition to that petition, court records show that three
Connecticut nursing homes have accused Exner of neglecting eight people
in conservatorships by failing to maintain their Medicaid benefits.
These nursing homes have not received payments for care, one of Exner’s
responsibilities as a conservator, allegedly shorting them almost
$195,000, which they are seeking to recover via lawsuits.
Exner tells a different story. She calls these suits “baseless,”
“frivolous,” and says they “have no merit.” Court records show that the
lawyer who filed the petition to have Exner disbarred has represented
multiple people in suing Exner, and defended a woman who was ultimately
removed from a conservatorship that Exner took over.
This investigation provides an overview of the role of a conservator,
a summary of the issues documented at the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court,
and the allegations made by nursing homes currently working their way
through Connecticut’s judicial system.
An Appointed Power
A conservator is
someone appointed by a probate court judge to oversee the personal or
financial affairs of an incapacitated adult who is deemed incapable of
competently managing on their own. According to a report published by
Connecticut’s Probate Court Administrator Workgroup, conservators are
most often relatives; however, if a court determines that an adult needs
a conservator but cannot find a relative or close friend who is fit to
manage that adult’s affairs, a judge may appoint a third-party lawyer.
That’s where Exner’s role as a state-appointed conservator comes in.
Exner is one of hundreds of lawyers in the state whom judges appoint
to manage conservatorships. Like other lawyers in this line of work, she
is either paid by the conserved person via their financial assets or
through a state fund. As is required by law, if she is working for a
person with an estate, she charges an hourly rate for the work she does
to manage the conservatorship and then submits the invoices to a probate
judge for approval. Once the invoices are cleared, she can receive payment.
If a person is indigent, Exner receives compensation through the Probate Court Administrative Fund,
which has taxpayer money that is appropriated to the Judicial
Department. In those instances, there is a flat rate of $90 a month,
with an additional one-time payment of $1,300 to handle Medicaid
applications, which her case files indicate is substantially less than
what she charges in her private practice.
Conservatorship can be controversial in Connecticut and across the country. In the past few years, there have been highly publicized instances of conservators abusing their power.
There are even some high profile celebrities that were placed under
conservatorships, including Britney Spears, whose parents allegedly forced her to
have an IUD and prohibited her from getting married, former Beach Boys
member Brian Wilson whose conservator Eugene Landy who gave him unnecessary psychiatric medication and had him monitored 24-7, and former NFL quarterback Michael Oher,
the player who inspired “The Blind Side,” who claimed that his
conservators lied to him to get him to sign away his rights by claiming
he was being adopted. In all of these cases, the conservators extracted
millions of dollars from the conserved people over the course of many
years.
But most instances of conservatorship abuse do not involve millionaires or celebrities.
There are an estimated 1.5 million adults and $273 billion under the control of guardians or conservators in the United States.
“The extent of elder abuse by guardians [and conservatorship]
nationally is unknown due to limited data on key factors related to
elder abuse by a guardian, such as the numbers of guardians serving
older adults, older adults in guardianships, and cases of elder abuse by
a guardian,” a 2016 report from the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) found.
The lack of transparency and comprehensive understanding is, in part,
due to a lack of comprehensive documentation of the various types of
elder abuse committed by different types of guardians, including
conservators. However, the GAO researchers did find indications that
financial abuse is the most common form of elder abuse in guardianship.
No one has accused Exner of abusing any of her conservatees, but she
is facing multiple charges of negligence. Additionally, she is accused
of selling two houses that were a part of estates she managed, including
one that was in a conservatorship, to a man with whom she co-owned a
real estate company.
Exner declined to comment on the house sales because they were a part of ongoing litigation.
The Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District
Inside Investigator reviewed the files for 16 open conservatorships
Exner manages in the Norwalk-Wilton Probate Court District. This is not a
comprehensive list of her conservatorship cases, and Exner did not
respond to a question about how many conservatorships she is managing in
total.
Filings show that Exner charges $250 per hour for her services when
she is managing someone who has an estate, and one of her paralegals
charges $150 an hour. For one of the conserved people she is managing—a
72-year-old man with depression, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and who
thinks he has dementia, even though his medical evaluations do not
indicate that—her law firmwas paid $13,800 for services rendered in a two-year period between April 2023 and May 2025.
That man’s files contain an email exchange between him and Exner
during her annual check-in, and the notes from that check-in. According
to those documents, both he and Exner are happy with the conservatorship
arrangement.
Some of her other cases are more complex.
Sometimes she made decisions that the conserved individual did not like.
For example, Exner sold the house of one of the conserved persons
under her care, against that woman’s wishes. The house in question had
plumbing and structural issues, which the woman could not afford to fix,
according to Exner’s report. Even though the woman was financially
supporting her two adult sons, who lived in the house, prior to becoming
conserved she had not paid her bills for months leading up to the sale.
Finally, the home was facing foreclosure. Exner was appointed as the
conservator, paid the bills, and by the time Exner sold the house, the
woman had already moved in with her granddaughter.
Almost all of the people identified by Inside Investigator whose
affairs Exner managed needed help managing their healthcare. All but
three people under her care in the Norwalk-Wilton district suffered from
dementia or severe mental illness when they were assigned a
conservator.
Of the three conserved people who Exner managed without dementia or
documented mental illness, one of them was a brain-dead homeless man who
was brought to Norwalk Hospital after he was discovered unconscious in a
bush. He was on a ventilator for several weeks but was not responding
to treatment. The staff at the Hospital could not find a living
relative, nor any documentation that stated whether or not he wanted to
be resuscitated. Hospital officials petitioned the court to appoint a
conservator, who wound up being Exner, then advised Exner to tell them
to take him off life support. She did.
The second was a woman who did not have any documented mental
illnesses, but she was flagged for conservatorship when she refused
medical treatment at a hospital. Exner was appointed to her case to get
her medical treatment. According to filings in her conservatorship case,
the Department of Children and Families (DCF) opened a case into that
woman’s child because of suspected domestic violence. A Motion for
Advice submitted by Exner states, “the Conservator has a reasonable
belief of domestic violence and abuse in the home against (her), and
that she is not capable of making decisions for her safety and well
being.”
The last person was a 79-year-oldwoman of sound
mind who petitioned the court to voluntarily enter a conservatorship
last year because she needed help re-applying for Medicaid.
Even though Medicaid is legally guaranteed for people below a certain income threshold, it can be difficult to obtain.
In 2012, a group of 5,000 Connecticut residents sued the Department
of Social Services (DSS) for taking too long to process Medicaid
applications. State law required most Medicaid applications to be
processed within 45 days, but thousands of
people had to wait longer. The class-action lawsuit was settled in
2014, and as a part of the settlement, the state had to commit to hiring
109 more people to help process applications and to process at least
92% of Medicaid and short-term care applications within the statutory
timeframe by 2016. The state was given a two-year extension to meet that
deadline, but fell behind. In 2018, only 85% of applications were processed on time.
Things turned around shortly after. By 2022, 98% of Medicaid applications
were being processed within 24 hours of submission. However, submitting
the application is only one step in the process. To get Medicaid for
assisted living, a person needs to submit financial documents from the
previous five years to prove they qualify for help. It can take months
to gather the paperwork needed to apply for Medicaid.
While attorney fees vary, typically, the type of lawyer who practices elder law charges between $200 and $250 per hour.
The consequences for not obtaining Medicaid can be dire.
There are only six reasons that
a nursing home can evict a patient, and non-payment is one of them. A
home is required to give residents 30 days’ notice before eviction, and a
resident or their representative can appeal. These appeal processes
can drag on for
months, but at the end of the day, state officials cannot force a
nursing home to continue to care for a nonpaying resident.
The lawsuits against Exner show that homes will keep a resident
despite months, and sometimes years, of non-payment. If a resident has a
pending application for Medicaid, a nursing home legally cannot evict them. However, during this time, debt can accumulate.
Sometimes, this debt can be paid retroactively from portions of the person’s estate. One of the nursing homes that is suing
Exner is trying to access the estate of a deceased man whose
conservatorship she managed. Since she was his legal representative in
life, she is automatically listed as a defendant, even though she is no
longer managing his estate. That man has a daughter, who is also being
sued.
In the worst-case scenario, a resident is evicted.
One of Exner’s conservatees was evicted from a nursing home in 2023,
before she managed his case. The man, who had severe medical conditions,
was homeless for a period of time and lived in various hospitals until
Exner found a home where he could live. This conservatee was determined
to be not of sound mind and couldn’t make decisions for himself.
Less than a year ago, Exner became a conservator of that 79-year-old
woman who was of sound mind. When Inside Investigator reviewed the court
records in mid-February, it was not clear if Exner had yet successfully
helped the woman reapply for Medicaid. The records also did not contain
any invoices. The conserved person continued to live at the nursing
home she resided in when she voluntarily asked to be placed under a
conservatorship, Wilton Meadows Nursing & Rehabilitation in Wilton,
until Feb. 9, according to a social worker at the center. She left the
nursing home to live with her family.
The social worker said that Exner and her office were “nothing but
excellent and responsive,” and “we had no issues or problems working
with them.”
But not every nursing home has had positive experiences with Exner.
Nursing Home Allegations
Inside Investigator found four lawsuits filed by nursing homes
against Exner in the state of Connecticut. Three of them, which were all
filed in 2023, are still ongoing. Those three each contain allegations
that Exner neglected people under her care by mismanaging their Medicaid
payments and applications.
The three active lawsuits came from the Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the West Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation, and the Southport Center
for Nursing & Rehabilitation. Together, these lawsuits allege Exner
improperly managed Medicaid applications and payments made to eight
senior citizens.
All three lawsuits were filed by attorney Taruna Garg at Harris Beach
Murtha Attorneys at Law. Each lawsuit starts with a list of 19
identical lines outlining the responsibilities Exner had to ensure the
people in her care had Medicaid, and why that was important. Then, it
repeats those 19 lines when it outlines each “count” of negligence it
accuses Exner of. In each lawsuit, there is one count per resident in
Exner’s care.
“In connection with her appointment as conservator of the estate of
the wards referenced herein,” each lawsuit states, “Exner has been
granted both the duty and authority to enroll in, apply for, and claim
benefits from federal or state benefit programs, including Medicaid. At
all relevant times herein, Exner knew or should have known that public
assistance would be required to cover the monthly cost of services
provided by Plaintiff for the care, comfort, and maintenance of her
wards, including lodging and meals. Exner was obligated to perform her
duties within a reasonable time given the circumstances of each ward…
Exner has failed to fulfill her statutory obligations to timely apply
for and obtain benefits, among other actions, on behalf of her ward.”
Exner categorically denies these claims.
“Those allegations were part of frivolous lawsuits that have either
been withdrawn or are in the process of being withdrawn, and are
factually false,” Exner said in an email. “In every instance where I am
appointed conservator, my sole priority is the welfare of the person to
whom I have been appointed.”
Some of the claims made by the nursing homes have already been
withdrawn. Each complaint was amended multiple times. All Centers
removed Exner’s former employer, Gallo & Associates, LLC, as a
defendant, modified language in the complaints, and made additional
revisions to remove counts of neglect.
The Waterbury Center revised its initial complaint twice,
in addition to removing Gallo & Associates as a defendant. It
struck three counts of negligence and revised the alleged dollar amounts
lost in one case. The nursing home initially calculated that a patient
owed $112,000 in debt, but increased the estimated debt to $139,000.
The West Haven Center also made tworevisions that each removed a single count of alleged neglect. The Southport Center also submitted two revisions that withdrew twocounts of neglect.
When withdrawing one count of neglect, the Southport center also
withdrew an allegation that Exner transferred $100,000 from a resident’s
bank account to her employer, and that she charged improper rates.
Garg filed a separate lawsuit for each nursing home before combining the three into one lawsuit.
Online judicial records show that Garg filed for three extensions to
provide evidence of these claims, and Exner applied for one extension of
time to plead. Garg attempted to get a default decision against Exner
for “failure to plead,” but that was rejected.
Garg did not respond to questions.
“I have no comment on those cases,” Garg said.
But there are other records in the Norwalk probate files that indicate persistent problems with Exner.
In 2023, the Business Office Manager at the Southport Center for
Nursing and Rehabilitation, Marcia Henry, emailed the probate court,
asking Exner to be removed as the conservator of a resident mentioned in
the lawsuit, although the allegation of neglect was later withdrawn.
The email stated, “I have attempted to reach out to Attorney Exner on
numerous occasions via calls to her office in which I would speak to [a]
representative who would transfer to her voicemail with no return call.
I have sent numerous emails with no response. (The resident Medicaid
application) has been down since 07/19/2013 due to lack of supportive
documents such as bank statements and [updated] gross pension benefits
needed from the conservator. This is a serious matter now that the
resident has no medical insurance coverage and owes the facility money.”
When asked about this email, Exner said, “[He] remains a client for
whom I am serving as conservator, and we remain in regular contact. I
was not familiar with those claims, but I can tell you based on my
knowledge of the case that they are baseless.”
Exner has also had other issues with nursing homes.
Another facility, the Mary Wade Home in New Haven, is suing Exner and
the daughter of a deceased former resident, whose conservatorship Exner
managed. The Mary Wade Home is accusing Exner of failing to get
Medicaid for the conserved person and claimed that he owed them over
$80,000 by the time he died. The Mary Wade Home filed the lawsuit to try to get some money from his estate, according to court filings.
The petition for discovery states that Exner was applying for
Medicaid on behalf of the conservatee when he was admitted to the home,
but that application was later denied. The complaint states that staff
at the Mary Wade Home tried to collect payment for the year that he
lived there, but no payments were sent.
Exner say these claims are “incorrect.”
“His Medicaid application was not denied,” she wrote in an email. “As
with all of my clients in which I am appointed conservator, my sole
goal is to maintain their dignity, keep them safe and try and help them
make their lives more livable. That was the case here as well.”
The Ludlow Center for Health and Rehabilitation also sued Exner, accusing her
of failing to apply for Medicaid on behalf of a resident and,
consequently, not paying the nursing home for their services. The home
won a default judgment because she failed to plead.
Garg has represented at least one other nursing
home in a case against a different conservator, the Connecticut
Judicial Branch’s online portal shows. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff won
a default judgment because the conservators failed to plead.
Damon Kirschbaum, the lawyer who filed for Exner to be disbarred, has
had multiple run-ins with Exner. This includes one lawsuit where he
represented a woman who was removed from a case that Exner took over.
The former conservator, Rachel Menti, was initially designed by the
conserved person himself. But she was removed when his family made
numerous allegations of misconduct against her, and she was caught lying
about her relationship with him to the staff at a hospital. Menti, who
had no familial relationship to the man, told staff at a hospital that
she was his daughter.
Conclusion
None of the nursing homes who have sued Exner for negligence evicted the residents they claim owe them money.
According to the most up-to-date court documents, the Southport
nursing home calculates its current losses at around $36,454.85. The
nursing homes in West Haven and Waterbury calculate their losses at
around $20,000 and $139,000, respectively.
The nursing homes’ court filings each accuse Exner of trying to
remove residents from their care in response to their complaints.
Each of the three active lawsuits against Exner simultaneously claims
that “harm and losses are anticipated to continue accruing” if the
residents remain in their care, and that Exner is “retaliating” against
them by moving residents out of the facilities “in an effort to cause
additional harm.” Inside Investigator was not able to confirm the
current addresses of the four residents listed in the lawsuit.
Last year, Exner tried to persuade the Connecticut General Assembly
to give conservators qualified immunity “for actions taken in good faith
and in accordance with court orders,” according to a testimony she submitted.
A Trial Management Conference for the three lawsuits filed by Garg is
scheduled for the morning of November 10, 2026. If a settlement is not
reached, the case will move to a jury trial. A jury selection date has
already been set for November 19, 2026.
One of the lawsuits filed by Kirschbaum, in which his client is
accusing Exner of mismanaging his mother’s estate when she was his
conservator and selling her house to her business partner, has a hearing scheduled for the morning of Monday, March 23.
“This is an ongoing case and therefore I am unable to comment,” Exner said in an email.
North Carolina’s involuntary mental health commitment system is under significant strain, increasingly overwhelming jails, hospital emergency rooms,
and law enforcement, according to multiple lawmakers and experts
involved in committee hearings. Lawmakers are now revisiting state laws
as concerns intensify over gaps in the mental health system that affect
public safety.
The House Select Committee
on Involuntary Commitment and Public Safety has focused its recent
meetings on evaluating both mental health system capacity and the legal
processes for committing, treating, or releasing individuals.
After the killing of Charlotte resident Iryna Zarutska, lawmakers passed Iryna’s Law
last year. The law imposed stricter pretrial release limits and
expanded the role of mental health assessments in certain cases, further
constraining the system.
Since Iryna’s Law passed, the legislature has escalated its focus on
whether current policies adequately address the needs of individuals
with severe mental illness and public safety concerns.
Continuing this examination, faculty from the UNC School of Government presented a case study at a March 18 committee meeting, illustrating how current laws operate in practice.
The example centered on a 36-year-old woman, Paula, experiencing
homelessness who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance
use disorder.
In the case study, a court determined three years ago that Paula was
incompetent. As a result, she lost the authority to make decisions about
her property, health care, and finances. With no assets, Paula is
currently under the guardianship of the county Department of Social
Services. In the past six months, she has undergone two involuntary
commitments, but there has been no sustained improvement, highlighting
gaps in outcomes for individuals like Paula.
“What happens when that court adjudicated Paula as incompetent is
they took away her authority to make decisions for herself that can be
related to her property or her person, her health care, her finances,”
associate professor Meredith Smith said. “They removed her authority to
make decisions from her, and they gave it to someone else.”
Paula’s family — or another connected individual — can then file a
motion seeking guardianship due to concerns about Paula’s living
conditions. If approved, responsibility for Paula would shift from the
county to her family member.
Associate Professor Mark Botts noted that while family guardianship
can sometimes be a better outcome for the individual, that is not always
the case.
“Maybe the guardian is doing all they can do, maybe they’re not. But
even when they’re doing all they can do, there are limits, because you
need Paula’s cooperation,” Botts said.
The discussion underscores a recurring problem: Individuals often
cycle through involuntary commitment without lasting improvement. This
has prompted lawmakers to question how to strengthen the system’s
ability to intervene when someone with a mental illness poses a risk.
Botts said the issue is more complicated than that.
Under Iryna’s Law, magistrates must consider whether there is
reasonable cause to believe someone is dangerous, mentally ill, or poses
a risk to others when deciding on pretrial release. If these conditions
are met, the magistrate can issue an order to begin involuntary
commitment.
However, as Botts noted, this does not guarantee the patient will complete the process or receive treatment.
“That doesn’t mean that they necessarily get to an inpatient
facility. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily get treatment,” Botts
said. “Even if they do get to the facility and get inpatient treatment,
at some point, they’re going to be discharged.”
As the committee continues its work, lawmakers are expected to
consider whether adjustments to commitment standards, guardianship
authority, or system capacity are necessary to support the goals of
Iryna’s Law.
I was honored to join AIM Services
in Saratoga to celebrate the official launch of facilitated Supported
Decision-Making in New York State. At its core, Supported
Decision-Making honors people’s ability to control their own lives by
giving them the freedom to make decisions without the stigma of relying
on support.
The road to Supported Decision-Making, as a less
restrictive alternative to guardianship, has been a long one. New York’s
Supported Decision-Making began ten years ago as a pilot program, led
by Supported Decision-Making New York (SDMNY) and CUNY Hunter College, and funded by the Council on Developmental Disabilities. In 2021, OPWDD dedicated funding to extend and expand the pilot program,
including the process of facilitating as an effective way to assist
people in creating sustainable Supported Decision-Making Agreements.
In
2022 Governor Kathy Hochul signed Supported Decision-Making legislation
into law, making it available to anyone in New York State and laying
the groundwork for this monumental accomplishment. Now, Supported
Decision-Making expands even further. With the launch of paid
facilitation, every New Yorker with a developmental disability who wants
to choose this option will be able to do so as AIM Services assumes its
role as the designated statewide coordinator of Supported Decision-Making Facilitation.
AIM has already begun working with people to create Supported
Decision-Making agreements and to develop a structured, replicable model
for use across New York State.
As we continue our celebration of Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month,
we are grateful for the self-advocates who dare to ask for more for
themselves and who inspire us every day to continue pushing for
autonomy, inclusion, and a life of dignity.
I am so proud of the
work of everyone who had a hand in making this program a reality and I
am excited to see more stories from people like Trina, who are making Supported Decision-Making work for them!
John Brautigam is executive director of Legal Services for Maine
Elders. James Haddow is a Maine attorney in private practice who has
handled contested guardianships and other probate matters for decades.
Probate court judges address some of the most personal and
consequential legal matters for Mainers: Who can make life choices for
you if you cannot, who can manage your money, and what happens to a
family home after a death. Most of us hope never to need to have a judge
answer such questions. Many of us will.
Consider an older Mainer whose memory is failing. One child is trying
to keep her safe at home. Another worries that bills are going unpaid
and that she is being pressured to sign documents she does not
understand. A guardianship case is filed so the court can decide whether
someone should be appointed to make decisions on her behalf. In a
system built for speedy, consistent, and impartial justice, the court
would promptly schedule a hearing, appoint counsel to represent her if
appropriate, and the probate judge would make a clear unbiased decision
that protects her rights while addressing her urgent needs.
Unfortunately, while such decisions may be clear, there is no guarantee that they are free from judicial bias.
Maine still runs probate as it did in 1855: as 16 separate county
courts, each with its own probate judge. Probate judgeships are
generally part-time and
filled by county-based elections. All other Maine judges are appointed
subject to a vigorous screening process that involves a public
legislative hearing and state Senate confirmation. And they also receive
required judicial training that is not available to probate judges.
Probate judges are also exempt from the judicial ethical rules that
prohibit all other judges from practicing law. Even when everyone
involved acts in good faith, this structure can create the appearance of
bias or conflicts and can undermine public confidence in judicial
decisions. The roles of attorney and judge are vastly different and
inconsistent: one must fulfill a duty to clients, and the other is
strictly bound to serve the public interest.
Guardianship and conservatorship cases are especially high stakes.
They can take away a person’s authority over where they live, what care
they receive, and how their money is spent. In many cases, respondents
appear without counsel, even when appointment may be required or
available.
Maine has known for decades that the probate structure needs modernization. In 1967, Maine voters approved a
constitutional amendment that directed the Legislature to replace the
county-based probate system with a different system with full-time
judges. Multiple studies and commissions have
returned to the same conclusion: probate adjudication should be brought
into the state judicial branch, with full-time judges, consistent
procedures, and the administrative support that comes with being part of
a unified court system.
This does not mean scrapping what works. Registers of probate perform
important local functions and over the years probate code changes have
given them increased powers. They now may fully process informal cases
like the probate of an uncontested will without need of a judge’s
involvement. Reform should preserve those roles.
The change that matters most addresses who decides cases that
determine rights and responsibilities. Probate judging should operate
like other judging in Maine: full-time, accountable, and insulated from
the pressures that come with elections and private practice.
We are two attorneys who understand the high stakes of probate
matters from different vantage points: legal aid and private practice.
We have seen families arrive in crisis, confused by process and
frightened by delay. We have also seen how a well-run hearing, with
clear rules and meaningful representation, can protect a vulnerable
person while reducing conflict among relatives. Updating this structure
is desperately needed to ensure a fair, timely, and consistent process.
A bill this session, LD 1766,
would move probate adjudication into the judicial branch and create
full-time judgeships. This change is long overdue. Maine’s probate
courts should be modern courts, not a patchwork where lawyers serve as
judges in their spare time.
Equal justice under the law is not a slogan. In probate, it is the
difference between dignity and chaos for people at the most vulnerable
moments of their lives.
LANSING – Yesterday, Phillip Lee Sprague, 62, of Farwell, was arraigned in front of Magistrate Steven R. Worpell, Jr. of the 80th
District Court in Harrison on one count of Embezzlement by an Agent
$100,000 or More, a 20-year felony, and two counts of Embezzlement by an
Agent $50,000 or More but Less Than $100,000, each a 15-year felony,
announced Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. It is alleged that
Sprague embezzled from an 82-year-old victim who had sustained a
traumatic brain injury.
Sprague allegedly obtained more than
$400,000 of assets from the victim. Of that, more than $300,000 was
reportedly obtained through changes the victim made to his Will and
Trust to benefit the defendant instead of the victim’s children and
grandchildren.
“While the majority of caregivers support
adults in their care, my office will not tolerate those who steal from
the very people they are meant to protect from such exploitation,” said
Attorney General Nessel. “We remain committed to seeking justice for
vulnerable victims and their families.”
A Probable Cause Conference has not yet been set.
###
Please note:
For all criminal proceedings, a criminal charge is merely an
allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven
guilty. The Department does not provide booking photos.
(The Center Square) – Four Michiganders, including a sitting judge,
have been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with
embezzlement-related charges.
All four are residents of Detroit
and allegedly conspired to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from
incapacitated individuals.
United States Attorney Jerome F. Gorgon, Jr. made the announcement recently, which U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded over the weekend.
“No one is above the law – judges included,” Bondi said.
“Using the power of the bench to allegedly take advantage of vulnerable
people is a particularly vile crime. Thank you to our great prosecutors
in Eastern Michigan.”
Nancy Williams, Avery Bradley, Andrea
Bradley-Baskin and Dwight Rashad were all charged in a federal
indictment. The indictment came as part of an investigation by the FBI
and the IRS.
Andrea Heim was found guilty of misdemeanor theft by unlawful taking, according to court documents.
She was sentenced to 18 months of probation in the case. As part of a
plea agreement, an abuse of a vulnerable adult charge was dismissed,
court documents state.
Heim and Patrick Thornton, a couple who lived together, were
"assigned caretakers" who received the adult into their home in March
2025.
Although the couple received a monthly stipend of $755 to
offset the adult's room and board costs, investigators reported finding
bank records totaling over $2,500 in unauthorized purchases on the
adult's personal debit card.
