Detectives say William Ly of Simi Valley stole the money from the victim in a series of more than 80 transactions.
A Ventura County man is
facing elder abuse, grand theft, and identity theft charges after
detectives say he stole nearly $100,000 from an 89-year-old man.
Investigators
say in June 2024, William Ly of Simi Valley was introduced to the
victim through a senior citizen breakfast club. They say Ly helped the
victim with his smartphone, and in the process Ly reset the password on
the victim's cryptocurrency account.
Last September, the victim
noticed he was missing a substantial amount of money. He reported it to
the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office. Detectives working with a county
fraud team and the FBI say they discovered nearly $100,000 had been
stolen in a string of more than 80 transactions. They say they traced
the money to Ly’s accounts.
Investigators say they are now looking for more potential victims.
The Lagos State High Court has ordered the Lagos State
Administrator-General to take over the interim administration of the
estate of late billionaire industrialist, Chief Labode Akindele, amid a
legal dispute over his Will.
Justice Tanimola Ajorin-Ajose made the order following an application by
the deceased’s first son, Mr. Oladipo Akindele, who is challenging the
validity of the Will and seeking to prevent the dissipation of his late
father’s assets pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Akindele, who was the Parakoyi of Ibadan, died on June 29, 2020, at the age of 88 at his residence in Lagos.
The claimant had sued 16 defendants, comprising the deceased’s
widows, children, relatives, associates and officials of the Lagos State
High Court Probate Registry, over the disputed Will.
Among those joined as defendants are Rev. Michael Stephen, Prof.
Wale Tomori, Rev. Canon Kolawole Jaiyeoba, Mrs. Oluwatoyin Isemede, Mrs.
Abiola Aderibige, Mrs. Abiodun Duduyemi, Mrs. Ajoke Braithwaite, Mrs.
Oluyemisi Oladapo, Mrs. Titilola Madedor, Mrs. Afolake Coker, Miss
Ayodele Akindele, Mr. Mobolaji Akindele, Mrs. Mojisola Shonibare, Mrs.
Roseline Akindele, Miss Samantha Stevenson, the Registrar of the Probate
Registry and the Administrator-General of Lagos State.
In the substantive suit, the claimant is asking the court to
declare the entire Will invalid, arguing that it failed to comply with
the provisions of the applicable Wills Law and therefore could not
constitute the legal basis for administering the deceased’s estate.
The claimant had also raised concerns over the management of the
estate, which includes properties generating rental income, alleging
that some rents had remained unpaid and that income from some of the
properties had not been properly accounted for.
He argued that the absence of an effective executor or
administrator placed the estate at risk of waste, dissipation or
mismanagement while the dispute over the Will remained pending.
Ruling on the application, Justice Ajorin-Ajose appointed the
Lagos State Administrator-General as interim administrator of the estate
pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The judge ordered the interim administrator to operate under the
immediate control and direction of the court and to file quarterly
reports on the administration of the estate.
The court further directed all parties to cooperate with the Administrator-General to ensure the preservation of the estate.
The application had been opposed by some of the defendants, who
challenged the claimant’s case and questioned the jurisdiction of the
Lagos State High Court.
The defendants argued, among other things, that the properties
allegedly forming part of the estate had not been sufficiently
identified and that the claimant’s affidavit contained vague and
speculative allegations.
They also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Lagos
State High Court, particularly in relation to assets said to be located
outside Lagos State and Nigeria.
However, the court rejected the objections, holding that the
immediate issue before it was the preservation of the estate and
prevention of waste pending the determination of the substantive
dispute.
Justice Ajorin-Ajose held that it was not necessary, at the
interim stage, to determine the precise properties constituting the
estate before taking steps to protect the assets.
The judge also noted that the deceased’s Will was under challenge
and that, at the time of the application, there was no executor or
administrator effectively in place to manage the estate.
The court consequently held that the application for the
appointment of an interim administrator was meritorious and ordered the
Administrator-General to assume responsibility for the interim
administration of the estate.
The order will remain in force pending the hearing and final
determination of the substantive suit challenging the validity of the
Will.
Colorado’s guardianship program, long
criticized for mismanagement and high staff attrition, is undergoing a
“cultural reset,” as its new director works to repair partnerships and
prepare for a major expansion under recent legislation.
Created by lawmakers in 2017, the Office
of Public Guardianship serves as a ward of last resort for indigent or
incapacitated people who lack family, friends or a private guardian to
care for them.
The public guardians are responsible for
protecting their clients’ rights and supporting their independence to
the greatest extent possible.
Staff turnover crippled early operations
The office struggled from the outset.
Lawmakers did not seek state funding for
it in 2017, instead expecting the program to run on gifts, grants and
donations — with hopes of raising $1.7 million. In its first two years,
it collected only about $2,000.
In 2019, lawmakers stepped in to fund the
office through probate fees that generated about $800,000 per year. The
first guardians began taking referrals in Denver’s 2nd Judicial
District, with planned expansion into the districts serving Delta and
Trinidad.
Legislation passed in 2023 broadened the office’s authority, directing it to operate in all 23 judicial districts by 2030.
Later in 2019, the five-member board hired Sophia Alvarez as executive director.
The guardianship office began accepting referrals in 2020 but quickly encountered a major obstacle — severe staff turnover.
The agency
struggled to even get enough guardians to cover the three districts it
was authorized to operate in. Most guardians, frustrated with an alleged
toxic work environment they attributed to Alvarez and the agency’s
deputy director, Janelle Cantu, lasted less than a year.
Some employees left after only a few months.
In its 2024 end-of-year report, the office had listed 11 guardians. By Jan. 19, 2025, seven of the 11 were gone.
In 2024, seven of the division’s former guardians
asked Gov. Jared Polis for an audit. Another former guardian filed a
complaint with the state’s Civil Rights Commission, although the status
of that complaint is unknown due to the privacy laws.
At the same time, several partner agencies
— including Denver Health, its largest — stopped sending referrals,
saying the office was mismanaged. In a 2022 state hearing, Denver Health
reported that one guardian had physically confronted a client at the
hospital and that another client, who died there, had been effectively
abandoned by the agency.
As staffing problems persisted, the
agency’s mortality rate came under scrutiny. Of the first 80 clients,
more than two dozen died during the office’s first three years. Most
were elderly and medically fragile, though some were in their 20s or
30s. The agency declined to release even basic public information beyond
a client’s age or limited details.
The governor’s office showed little
interest in the unfolding problems, even after seven former guardians
sent the 2024 letter pleading for stronger oversight. One former
guardian told Colorado Politics the office replied with a form letter
and never followed up.
The agency’s board meetings showed the agenda was swamped with personnel issues.
New leadership takes charge
Following Alvarez’s resignation in 2025, officials said the agency finally began moving toward the mission it was created to fulfill.
In November, the board hired Amelia Milton
McKeon, a veteran with more than two decades of experience working with
people with disabilities. In Florida, she helped launch the state’s
first statewide public guardianship program and later led three agencies
serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Amelia McKeon, executive director of Colorado’s Office of Public Guardianship. (Photo courtesy of Amelia McKeon)
She arrived in Colorado fully aware of the
office’s troubled past. Before accepting the job, she said she read
every Colorado Politics story detailing the agency’s dysfunction. She
wasn’t deterred, she said, adding she has weathered “tough press”
before.
McKeon’s background is steeped in human
services. Her mother was a health and human services lobbyist who helped
build Florida’s intellectual and developmental disabilities agency. Her
father, a longtime Florida State University professor, taught
educational leadership. Together, they published research in the field
and became guardianship experts.
McKeon jokes she had “no choice” but to follow the same path.
“I love it,” she said.
She started early, at 17, working in a
high school pilot program supporting special‑education students who were
pressured to meet state testing requirements despite qualifying for
exemptions. She mentored those students and met two attorneys, Twyla
Sketchley and Karen Campbell, who specialized in guardianship and
independence. She later worked as Sketchley’s paralegal.
Those experiences shaped her philosophy,
she said, nothing that systems are built for the masses and the
challenge is to tailor services to each person’s needs. She carried that
into her role as a clients’ rights advocate at Florida’s Agency for
Persons with Disabilities, where the state was facing multiple lawsuits
over how it applied waiver services.
“They needed someone to be a thorn in their behind,” she said. “I was that thorn.”
Her approach to guardianship centers on preserving independence, she said.
“Even in a guardianship, it is my
statutory obligation that anything they can exercise, anything they can
choose, I’m going to support them in doing that,” she said.
Guardianship, she added, is not about taking over someone’s life —
ethically or legally. “It is not to substitute our opinions for theirs.”
Florida’s experience closely mirrored
Colorado’s — beginning with guardians in three judicial districts before
expanding statewide, with the same number of districts and similarly
rural regions.
The Colorado office had long struggled to
retain guardians in its two rural districts. McKeon made stabilizing
those areas an early priority. There was also the issue of ensuring that
people in rural areas knew these services were available.
“We need to be available, especially in
the most rural areas that have no other resources,” McKeon said. She
said she wants to avoid a system where people must travel to metro
Denver to get help. “We want them to stay where they are, in their
homes, in their communities.”
It points to another challenge for rural
Colorado: ensuring the services clients need are available and the
barriers to access removed. McKeon said that, too, has been part of her
focus.
Mending bridges
Among McKeon’s major challenges is to repair the relationships with Denver Health and other partner agencies.
Those efforts have been noticed.
Brad Torch, guardianship director for the
Guardianship Alliance, said his organization had been absorbing
referrals when the state office became an unreliable option. Last year,
he told Colorado Politics the alliance was effectively filling the gap
left by the agency’s instability.
The last nine months have been a different story, he said.
“It’s much better,” Torch said, adding the work environment has become collaborative.
He meets weekly with McKeon to work
through the issues, and she’s helping the alliance on some of its state
funding challenges, he said.
The state office recently hired a
Guardianship Alliance staffer, he noted. That guardian is now in the
16th Judicial District, based in Pueblo, a sign of slow but steady
expansion.
Competency mandate reshapes role
The Office of Public Guardianship’s “cultural shift” is not the only big change in the agency in the last nine months.
During the 2026 session, it became part of
state’s efforts to address the competency issue, as enacted through
Senate Bill 26-149.
“We should be involved in this space and have a seat at the table,” McKeon said.
She argued that the state office offers
not only the most cost-effective option, but also long-term stability
and support for people — helping them live better lives, improving
community safety and reducing the likelihood they will cycle back into
the criminal justice system.
Under the new law, if a person is
adjudicated not restorable to competency, it will be up to OPG, working
alongside other state agencies, to stand as an emergency guardian,
responsible for providing long-term care.
McKeon also added staff to ensure the bill
works as intended on their side. She recently hired Brad Turner to
serve as in-house counsel.
Office
of Public Guardianship Executive Director Amelia McKeon and Brad
Turner, its in-house counsel. (Marianne Goodland, Colorado Politics)
Turner wrote the 2026 bill in his role
with the Colorado District Attorney’s Council and in collaboration with
the Colorado State Public Defender.
He explained that the bill requires that,
when a criminal defendant is deemed incompetent, any interested person
can petition the criminal court for the appointment of an emergency
guardian.
That excludes the City and County of Denver, which constitutionally has jurisdiction over appointing a guardian in some cases.
“We wanted to make that process
transparent and easy,” and it’s identical to the process of appointing
an emergency guardian in a civil case, Turner said.
Prior to SB 149, there was a significant
gap in moving someone into the civil or voluntary treatment system. The
new law allows courts to direct district or county attorneys to file
civil petitions for involuntary treatment.
If the guardian agrees, that guardian can take over those petitions instead of the county attorney.
Turner said the major shift under SB 149
is that, once the criminal case or short-term treatment ends, the
guardian remains involved.
The in-house counsel said that distinction
matters: Incompetence determines whether someone can be prosecuted,
while incapacity means they need another person to make decisions for
them.
To meet its new responsibilities, the
office also hired a “flex” guardian — someone who can take cases
anywhere in the state, help people access the civil treatment system and
provide services in districts that don’t yet have an assigned guardian.
McKeon said her office’s role is to
provide guardianship services to those who are incompetent and
incapacitated, and she believes there is more overlap than people might
expect.
When guardianship first came into being,
it was mostly age-based, she explained. That’s shifting now to handling
intellectual or developmental disabilities and mental health, and she
believes individuals in substance abuse will be the next population that
could require guardianship.
“If you have a high-involvement case,
someone committing significant felonies and they have been deemed
incompetent and continue to reoffend, it begs the question if there is a
legal incapacity issue,” she said.
While it hasn’t happened in the past, there’s nothing to prevent the civil and criminal sides from working together, she said.
Navigating ethical dilemmas
Colorado Politics recently visited the
office’s Greenwood Village office, where staff gather weekly to work
through some of the most complicated situations guardians face.
One recent training scenario involved two
residents of the same apartment complex. The woman, 30, is
developmentally disabled but able to live independently. The man, 38, is
a registered sex offender whose offense occurred when he was a teenager
and has not reoffended. The pair are in love, want to marry and may
want children, though the woman cannot care for a child and shows little
interest in doing so.
Guardians — each client has their own —
were asked how they would support the couple’s plans. Then McKeon added a
twist: the woman is now pregnant.
The staff split into two groups, one for
each guardian, to discuss privacy rights and how to approach the
situation. McKeon emphasized that these exercises aren’t meant to
produce clear-cut answers.
In this case, they didn’t. The group
advising the woman’s guardian suggested seeking court guidance but
acknowledged numerous unresolved issues and no simple path forward.
The state office has also created an
on-call guardian role, one of the agency’s biggest operational lifts.
That guardian can respond to emergencies anywhere in the state —
including the death of a client, threats to safety, suspected criminal
activity involving a client, attempted suicide, mistreatment or
disappearance.
The staff of the Office of Public Guardianship as seen on July 2026. (Photo courtesy of the Office Public Guardianship)
Critics question the office’s purpose
Maureen Welch of Navigating Disability
remains a vocal critic of the state office, though she acknowledged the
new director is an improvement over what she called “awful” past
leadership.
Welch argues the agency shouldn’t exist at
all, describing it as “a state office that sanctions civil death by
court appointments of public employees who make life-impacting
decisions.” She contends that many guardian clients have friends or
family who were wrongly excluded from consideration by courts or by the
guardianship office.
Her primary interactions with the agency
have been through board meetings, where she said she was cut off while
attempting to give public comment on July 22. Welch said the board
should be more open to public participation, hold meetings in person so
the public can see “the expensive office space” and improve a website
she finds difficult to navigate. She also noted the director’s monthly
report no longer lists when clients die.
Welch pointed to the office’s $3 million
budget, funded through what she described as a drafting error in the
original bill — one that allows the office to collect fees on every
probate filing statewide, not just guardianship filings or filings in
counties where the office operates. She believes the original intent was
far narrower. To her, the current structure amounts to “empire
building.”
McKeon said she has been in conversation with Welch and welcomes scrutiny of guardianship itself.
“It is the most restrictive option available; it should be questioned and used sparingly and appropriately,” she said.
“I welcome her feedback and criticism.”
The road ahead
McKeon acknowledged the agency still has
significant ground to make up, especially in rebuilding trust and
repairing its reputation, but that signs of progress are emerging.
Among the new hires is a senior guardian
who has followed the agency since its inception and only recently felt
confident enough to join. The office now has nine guardians and plans to
hire at least 12 more over the next year, in part to handle the
caseload expected under the competency bill.
Another recent addition is a guardian
assigned to the 18th Judicial District in Arapahoe County — the site of
one of last year’s most high-profile competency cases, which helped
drive the 2026 legislation.
Since McKeon arrived last November, not a single staff member has left.
Arizona infomercial star Sam Meranto, 94, is currently amid a legal battle with wife Cynthia Meranto, 65, over the couple’s $2.6 million estate after she petitioned for guardianship over him.
By Olivia Evans
An Arizona couple is amid a tense, expensive legal battle.
Sam Meranto, a local Phoenix celebrity who rose to prominence for his self-help infomercials, and his wife of nearly 45 years Cynthia Meranto are currently fighting for control over their $2.6 million estate.
According to Maricopa County Probate Court records obtained by The Arizona Republic, Sam, 94, as well as his three living children Jeffrey “Rico” Meranto, April Meranto and Jason Meranto—he welcomed six kids with his first wife Maria Meranto—have
alleged that he is “terrified” of Cynthia’s effort to place him in a
guardianship and conservatorship that will “deprive him of money,
friendships and family.” They further expressed fear he will be “sent to
a facility to die.”
Cynthia, for her part, has stated in court documents obtained by The Arizona Republic
that her husband is “unable to make meaningful decisions regarding his
care and finance,” and that Rico and Jason had him removed from a care
facility earlier this year without her knowledge and against her
wishes.
The
65-year-old’s court filings also claim she is “afraid” of Sam’s
children, especially Rico, who she alleged in the documents had
previously accused her of stealing Sam’s valuables (she has made similar
allegations toward him).
Meanwhile, Cynthia—who tied the knot
with Sam in 1983—alleged that Rico manipulated her husband into signing a
document that replaced her with him as Sam’s power of attorney.
However, Sam and Rico argue that he had signed over the papers after the
94-year-old called his son multiple times begging for help to get out
of the facility where Cynthia had placed him following a hospitalization
in July 2025 after a bad fall. (According to court documents, Sam’s
sons removed him from the care facility in February, and he’s currently
residing in a “family home.”)
Sam Meranto/Instagram
Cynthia’s attorney Carol Soderquist acknowledged
elsewhere in court documents that the couple’s estate is estimated to
be worth around $2.6 million, but noted that as of July the pair have
lost around $100,000 due to their ongoing legal battle, which began in
March.
Sam was an established television
star at the time the pair tied the knot in 1983, but Cynthia’s petition
alleges that due to their nearly 50-year marriage, “there are very few
assets that are not community property.”
In a statement to The Arizona Republic in June, Cynthia said she loves her husband and the entire ordeal “has been very difficult for everyone involved.”
E! News has attempted to retrieve court documents and reach out to attorneys for Sam and Cynthia but has not yet heard back.
Inspectors cite care facility for failing to report the allegations
By Clark Kauffman
A former Iowa nursing home administrator is accused of elder abuse in
civil court filings alleging she improperly took more than $32,000 from
a relative who resides at the home.
No criminal charges have been filed in the case, but a judge has
issued a temporary protective order against elder abuse. The order
limits the administrator’s contact with the resident.
State inspection records indicate that in July 2026, the niece of a
76-year-old male resident at the Accura Healthcare of LeMars care
facility filed a complaint with the Iowa Department of Inspections,
Appeals and Licensing. According to state records, the niece, Janelle
Scoville, reported that on March 5, 2026, she was notified by her
uncle’s bank of potentially fraudulent charges to his personal account.
Inspectors allege the bank reported the charges involved checks
written by the resident’s stepdaughter, identified in court records as
Katrina Bruner, who was the administrator at the care facility at that
time and had power of attorney over some of the resident’s affairs.
Scoville also reported concerns regarding medical decisions and care
that was being provided at the facility, inspectors allege.
According to the inspectors, an Adult Protective Services worker
reported that while at the care facility, she informed the home’s
executive director of operations of the allegations of financial
exploitation by Bruner, as well as concerns that were expressed about
the resident having to sleep on a couch.
The inspection report indicates Bruner stopped working at the care
facility on March 30, 2026, the same day the courts issued a protective
order preventing her from contacting the resident in question.
The home’s former director of nursing allegedly told state inspectors
Scoville had expressed concerns regarding financial and medical
decisions made by Bruner but could not recall when those conversations
took place. When asked whether the concerns should have been reported
by the facility to DIAL as potential resident abuse, the former director
of nursing allegedly responded, “Until something is proven, there is
nothing we can do.”
In July, the home’s new administrator confirmed that the facility was
required to have notified DIAL as soon as the abuse allegations were
reported to the staff, inspectors allege.
Court records show that Scoville, of Dakota City, Nebraska, filed
with the Plymouth County courts a petition for relief from elder abuse
on March 30, 2026.
In her petition, Scoville alleged under oath that Bruner “has written
$32,000 worth of checks to her children from (the resident’s) account
that he didn’t authorize. She paid for her own home remodel with his
money and paid for her own credit cards. She was supposed to take over
payments of his new car but took the car and paid it off with his money.
Is trying to sell his house. Has all his vehicles and keys. I have
video of him saying he didn’t approve it.”
On March 30, Chief District Court Judge Patrick Tott approved a
Temporary Protective Order Against Elder Abuse, barring Bruner from
having any contact with the resident or exercising control over his
finances.
On May 11, Scoville and Bruner filed a joint agreement with the court
indicating Bruner, while admitting no liability in the matter, had
agreed to relinquish power of attorney and any control she had over the
resident’s finances and property.
“The issue of alleged financial exploitation and any claim for
restitution shall be reserved and deferred for determination by the
court at a later hearing,” the agreement stipulated.
The Iowa Capital Dispatch was not able to reach Bruner for comment on
the case. Her attorney, Robert Brock, declined to comment on the
matter.
Scoville said Friday she is still waiting for a copy of an
investigative report from Adult Protective Services, adding that a
criminal investigation is still ongoing.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer recently signed Public Act 69 of 2026, formerly
Senate Bill 586, which creates new requirements for guardians seeking
to change a ward’s permanent residence and may affect hospital discharge
planning for patients who require placement in a long-term care
setting.
Under the new law, guardians must obtain court approval before
changing a ward’s permanent residence except in limited circumstances. While
temporary placements, including short-term rehabilitation stays, appear
to be permitted, hospitals should review the legislation and consult
legal counsel to understand how the new requirements may affect
discharge planning for incapacitated patients who require a permanent
change in residence.
The MHA was not involved in the development of this legislation and
understands that the additional probate court steps may create barriers
to timely care transitions, prolong hospital stays and increase
administrative burdens for patients, families, guardians and providers.
The association believes the law is a step backward in addressing
guardianship issues and reducing discharge delays.
The MHA is evaluating options to address these concerns and
will continue advocating for solutions that support safe, timely
transitions of care while maintaining appropriate protections for
individuals under guardianship. Hospitals are encouraged to
familiarize themselves with the new law, assess potential operational
impacts and share any challenges or examples with the MHA as the law
takes effect.
Members experiencing guardianship-related discharge challenges are encouraged to share examples with the MHA.
A Montgomery County man is facing criminal charges after investigators discovered he was operating two unlicensed personal care homes out of residential houses where bedridden and disabled seniors were living without required fire safety equipment or state licensing.
I-Team investigator Adam Walser appears as a panelist for the screening of Lifetime film based on real guardianship abuse cases
Concerns about guardianship abuse took center
stage at the Whistleblower Summit and Film Festival on Capitol Hill,
where the Lifetime film "The Bad Guardian" was screened for lawmakers
and advocates.
By:
Adam Walser
WASHINGTON, D.C. —
Concerns about guardianship abuse took center stage at the Whistleblower
Summit and Film Festival on Capitol Hill, where the Lifetime film "The
Bad Guardian" was screened for an audience that included lawmakers,
advocates, and filmmakers.
The film, inspired by real stories, was selected for its accurate portrayal of guardianship abuse.
"It means that our film really hit a nerve," executive producer Elizabeth Stephen said.
From Lifetime to Netflix's top 10
The film first aired on Lifetime before reaching a wider audience on Netflix.
"It
got a new life on Netflix, and in the 1st 3 weeks that it aired, it was
in the top 10 movies in the country, which was incredible," Stephen
said.
Stephen said viewers across the country have reached out to share their own experiences.
"I get emails from people all over the country, and it's always the
same thing. This was my story. That was my father, my mother, my sister.
That was the Guardian, and it's always heartbreaking," Stephen said.
A system meant to protect — but one that can harm
Guardianship is a legal process that allows someone else to make
decisions about a person's finances, healthcare, and even where they
live.
The system is intended to protect vulnerable people who cannot care for themselves.
But
over more than a decade of reporting, our I-Team has uncovered cases
where families say guardianship led to isolation, exploitation, and
abuse.
Panel discussion puts accountability in focus
Following the screening, I joined a panel that included filmmaker
Claudia Myers, National Center on Elder Abuse Director Julie Schoen, and
guardianship reform advocate Rey Contreras.
"This was very real. It's very guttural. They got a lot of things right," I said during the panel discussion.
"People
say this can't be true, and even attorneys who I speak to who end up by
chance in probate court, they feel like they've gone off into Alice in
Wonderland because the rules of a normal court system just don't seem to
apply there," I said.
Contreras said his own family became entangled in the guardianship system despite years of estate planning.
His
stepfather, Pete Beaty, created trust documents naming who should
manage his affairs if he became incapacitated — wishes that were later
disregarded in court.
WFTS
"Trust documents to me are an admission ticket to a circus, a circus,
because the lawyers make all the money on the back end," Contreras
said.
Panelists repeatedly focused on accountability during the discussion.
"The next sequel should be called The Bad Judge because at the end of the day, everything these Guardians do is being rubber-stamped by the judge," Contreras said.
Schoen acknowledged that not all guardianship cases involve abuse.
"There are successful guardianship cases out there, but that's not what we're here to talk about today," Schoen said.
"The best kind of guardianship is to not have one at all. These are supposed to be last-resort measures," I said.
'It could happen to you'
Myers said she hopes the film leads to meaningful change.
"I
can just hope that it helps in some small way lead to change," Myers
said. "I hope so. Eventually, I think they will. I think the question is
how quickly and how efficiently can we tackle this very complex
problem."
Myers offered a stark warning for viewers.
"The takeaway for me is very clearly that it could happen to you," Myers said.
Panel meets with Senator Rick Scott
After the event, members of the panel met with Senator Rick Scott,
who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, to discuss concerns
surrounding guardianship and possible solutions at the federal level.
Stephen said raising public awareness remains a priority.
Rey Contreras
"We have to raise public awareness because if there's any way to
prevent this from happening to people, we need to do that," Stephen
said.
Former
attorney Phil Ross defended himself during a nearly two-week trial over
allegations that he and another defendant defamed Seguin guardian Tonya
Barina by statements they made for a 2020 Netflix documentary on
guardianships.
San Antonio Express-News file photo
A Bexar County jury awarded nearly $8.5 million in damages to Seguin
guardian Tonya Barina in her defamation lawsuit over a Netflix
documentary that falsely portrayed her as exploiting an elderly man.
Jurors deliberated into Monday evening before reaching the verdict after
a nearly two-week trial over “Guardianship Inc.,” a 2020 episode of
Netflix’s “Dirty Money”
documentary series. Although Netflix and the documentary’s producers
settled with Barina before trial, former San Antonio attorney Phil Ross and Jo Ann Rivera, Ross’ former associate, remained in the case and represented themselves at trial.
The
lawsuit stemmed from a yearslong legal battle over the guardianship of
one-time San Antonio businessman Charles Thrash, Barina’s great-uncle.
Also named as defendants were Laura Martinez, whose marriage to Thrash was later annulled,
and her children, Brittany, Michelle and Joe Martinez. Ross represented
the Martinez family during the guardianship litigation before surrendering his law license in lieu of discipline stemming from his role in the guardianship.
Before the case went to the jury, state District Judge Nadine Nieto directed a verdict against the Martinez family after none of them presented a defense at trial.
The jury found Ross, Rivera, the Martinez family and Netflix defamed
Barina by falsely portraying her as exploiting Thrash and awarded her $6
million in actual damages and almost $2.5 million in punitive damages.
Assigning blame
After
finding Barina had been defamed, jurors assigned percentages of
responsibility to each defendant and to Netflix, which settled before
trial.
They
assigned responsibility as follows: Ross, 30%; Netflix, 27%; Laura
Martinez, 20%; Rivera 10%; Brittany Martinez, 8%; Michelle Martinez, 4%;
and Joe Martinez, 1%.
Before
closing arguments, Nieto declined to remove Netflix from the
apportionment question despite a request from Barina’s lawyers. But
because Netflix resolved Barina’s claims before trial, no liability can
be attached to it.
The
jury also awarded punitive damages of $1 million against Ross, $200,000
against Rivera, $500,000 against Laura Martinez and $250,000 each
against Brittany, Michelle and Jose Martinez.
“This
verdict totally vindicates Tonya Barina and establishes she took no
money from Charlie Thrash, nor was she ever involved in guardianship
abuse,” her lawyers, Glenn Deadman and Carl Kolb, said in a statement. “The verdict shows that Ross, Rivera and the Martinez clan intentionally defamed Ms. Barina.”
Ross
said he and Rivera intend to seek a new trial or appeal, arguing the
judge improperly excluded evidence and that the verdict was unsupported
by the evidence.
‘Crime of 21st century’
The
lawsuit centered on “Guardianship Inc.,” a documentary that featured
the Thrash guardianship and another case while portraying guardianship
abuse as “the crime of the 21st century.” Barina alleged the episode
falsely depicted her as exploiting Thrash and destroyed her reputation
and banking career. The documentary was later taken off the air.
Thrash,
now 88, owned a San Antonio automotive repair shop and amassed an
estate valued at $3 million to $6 million before he was placed under a
court-ordered guardianship after being diagnosed with dementia.
The
guardianship sparked years of contentious litigation between Barina and
Ross, who represented Laura Martinez and her family in challenging the
court-appointed guardians.
Among
the statements jurors were asked to consider were Ross’ assertions that
what was happening to Thrash was “a crime,” that he was the victim of
“textbook” guardianship abuse and that his estate was being exploited by
the people appointed to manage it.
Jurors
also considered whether Rivera defamed Barina by promoting the
documentary and related allegations on a Facebook page called “The
Journey of Charlie Thrash.” Barina alleged the posts republished the
documentary’s false claims and further damaged her reputation.
Closing arguments
During
closing arguments, Ross told jurors he was exercising his
constitutional right to free speech and that his statements in the
documentary were true, not defamatory. He said he had no role in
producing the documentary beyond giving interviews.
Ross argued the verdict would have consequences beyond the case, saying it could discourage people from speaking to journalists.
“Whatever happens in this trial is going to send a message to anybody that wants to talk to a reporter,” he said.
Rivera likewise denied defaming Barina, saying she neither created false statements nor acted with malice.
“I’m
not responsible for this,” Rivera said during her closing arguments. “I
didn’t defame her. I haven’t been malicious. I didn’t create lies.”
Kolb
argued the documentary omitted an important part of the story. About 10
months before it aired, a probate judge sanctioned Ross and Laura and
Brittany Martinez in connection with the guardianship litigation. Kolb
said leaving out those findings made the documentary misleading.
Deadman
said that after Ross and the Martinez family lost in the courts, they
went to “the court of public opinion” to get Barina removed as
guardian.
Deadman
also urged jurors not to be swayed by Ross’ free-speech argument,
saying the case was about accountability for false statements rather
than the right to speak.
“Put
a number in there that will redeem this lady’s reputation and get it
published throughout the world,” he said. “Send a message.”
