Reported fraud losses among older Americans hit $3 billion in 2025 as losses of at least six figures surge, FTC report says

by Sarah Agostino

Key Points

• The fraud losses reported by consumers age 60 and older were up 25% in 2025 from 2024, a report from the Federal Trade Commission shows.
• The number of victims reporting losses of at least $100,000 rose nearly sixfold to 6,769 in 2025 from 1,136 in 2020, and those amounts of six figures or more have driven much of the growth in fraud losses.
• At least two bills in Congress that aim to provide relief and support for fraud victims are in Senate committees awaiting action after being passed by the House earlier this year.

Ekaterina Demidova | Moment | Getty Images

 

Fraud losses reported by older Americans jumped in 2025, driven largely by an increase in victims losing sums of at least six figures, according to a new report from the Federal Trade Commission.

Americans ages 60 and older reported losing about $3 billion to fraud last year, a 25% increase from $2.4 billion in 2024, according to the FTC’s annual report to Congress, released Monday, on fraud among older adults. That figure is up 400% from the $600 million reported lost in 2020.

Just 6% of older fraud victims reported losing $100,000 or more last year, but those losses accounted for 70% of the age group’s total reported losses. The number reporting losses of that magnitude rose nearly sixfold to 6,769 in 2025 from 1,136 in 2020.

Additionally, because many scams go unreported, the FTC estimates actual losses in 2025 could have been anywhere from $13.3 billion to $119.5 billion. In 2024, the estimated range was from $10.1 billion to $81.5 billion.

“The numbers and the increases are staggering,” said Bob Blancato, national coordinator for the Elder Justice Coalition, an advocacy group for ending elder abuse. “Part of it is that the perpetrators are always ahead. They seem to be one step ahead of everybody.”

Investment scam losses spiked 42% in 2025

The rising losses come as scammers increasingly target Americans’ life savings by impersonating banks, businesses and government agencies, according to an August 2025 analysis by the FTC. The schemes often involve fabricated emergencies that convince victims to transfer money to supposedly protect their accounts from being compromised.

The volume of scams has increased with the use of artificial intelligence. AI-generated scams are also increasingly difficult to detect and easier to produce, according to the FBI.

In many impersonation schemes, criminals pose as representatives of banks or government agencies and falsely warn that a consumer’s money is in danger of being stolen. Victims are then instructed to transfer funds, mail cash or deposit money into cryptocurrency ATMs, supposedly to protect their assets.

However, investment scams were the costliest fraud type reported by older Americans last year, with losses exceeding $1 billion, a 42% jump from 2024, the FTC’s new report shows. These scams often begin with social media ads promoting investment opportunities or messages from people posing as financial advisors, according to the FTC. Victims may then be directed to fraudulent trading platforms.

Government impersonation scams ranked second in total reported losses among older consumers, with $448 million in reported losses, followed by business impersonation scams, which resulted in $422 million in reported losses.

Lawmakers weigh relief for victims

Congress is considering legislation intended to provide additional protections and relief for people who lose money to scams.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 temporarily restricted victims’ ability to claim their fraud losses as a deduction on their tax return in certain cases. Prior to that legislation, fraud losses were generally deductible. The provision was scheduled to expire in 2025, but President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” law enacted last year made that change permanent.

While investment fraud losses may be deductible, according to an IRS memorandum issued in March 2025, money lost to other scams — such as some impersonator or romance scams — is not, experts said.

You get scammed out of $100,000 and then you’re paying taxes on that $100,000. That’s crazy.

Bob Blancato
National coordinator for the Elder Justice Coalition

In addition, if the victim tapped a tax-deferred retirement account such as a traditional 401(k) or individual retirement account as part of the fraud, income taxes may be due on the distribution. And if the victim is younger than age 59½, an early withdrawal penalty of 10% may be imposed.

“You get scammed out of $100,000 and then you’re paying taxes on that $100,000,” Blancato said. “That’s crazy.”

The bipartisan Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act, which was passed by the House in September in a 408-17 vote, would eliminate the deductibility restrictions and waive the 10% penalty if it applies, among other provisions. The bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It’s uncertain whether it will gain traction in the upper chamber before this session of Congress is over.

Separately, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act, which cleared the House in June by a vote of 414-2, would allow certain financial institutions such as mutual fund companies to temporarily delay transactions when they reasonably believe a customer is being financially exploited. It was referred to the Senate Banking Committee; whether it will get a floor vote is unknown.

Already, many banks and other financial institutions ask account holders for a “trusted contact,” which is someone who can be contacted in certain circumstances, including when financial exploitation is suspected. That person may be able to intervene to prevent the fraud by reaching out to the account holder. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, requires brokerages to make a reasonable effort to add a trusted contact to accounts, although investors are not required to provide one.

Approach potential victims with care

If you suspect an older adult in your life is being victimized, it’s important to approach the situation with care, experts say.

“It’s usually best to start with an open, nonjudgmental, compassionate approach,” said Marti DeLiema, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota and associate director of education for the school’s Center for Healthy Aging and Innovation.

“You never say ‘you’re being scammed,’ because they’ll throw their guard up,” DeLiema said. “Scammers will try to intentionally isolate the target from potential interveners. They’ll say, ‘Don’t tell anyone about our relationship’ or ‘Don’t tell anyone that you won the lottery.’”

If the money is already gone, it’s important not to blame the victim, DeLiema said. “We do that to scam victims all the time. We say, ‘What were you thinking? How could you be so foolish?’” she said.

“We really need to move away from the shame, because I guarantee you, they’re already doing that to themselves,” DeLiema said. “They’re already pointing the finger inward.”  

Full Article & Source:
Reported fraud losses among older Americans hit $3 billion in 2025 as losses of at least six figures surge, FTC report says

Life, Liberty and Guardians: She lives alone and can travel internationally. But a guardianship still controls her life.

A San Antonio woman has spent more than two years fighting to regain her rights under a guardianship, costing her and her husband more than $300,000.

Author: Tanya Eiserer, Jason Trahan, John Gibson

SAN ANTONIO — Allison Singleton lives alone in her historic San Antonio home. She volunteers at a food bank, sings in her church choir and recently flew to Canada to take her daughter to college.

But Singleton cannot vote.

She cannot drive.

She cannot control her own money or have a credit card.

"I have had all my decision-making stripped from me," Singleton said. 

For more than two years, Singleton has been under a court-ordered guardianship in Bexar County, a case that began amid a bitter divorce and allegations about her mental state.

Singleton and her husband, Scott, have since reconciled. They have tried to dismiss their divorce. Two assessments have raised questions about whether she still needs a guardian.

Yet the guardianship remains.

And the fight over it has cost the Singletons more than $300,000 — and perhaps more. The bills aren't all in.

"Who would have ever thought that could go down in America?" Allison Singleton said.

"I'm spewing venom all the time because I'm mad as hell," she said. 

How the guardianship began

Singleton and her husband say she was struggling in 2024 as the divorce and protective orders took a toll on her mental health.

"I was in a very, very dark place," Singleton said.

Scott Singleton said that, at the time, he was concerned for his safety.

"She was scaring me," he said.

Allison Singleton has an autoimmune disease that means she can work only intermittently. She receives Social Security disability as a result. Before being placed under guardianship, she periodically did contract work as a process engineer.

The guardianship case began after Singleton's own divorce attorney recommended a mental health evaluation, setting a separate probate case in motion.

In May 2024, the court placed Singleton under temporary guardianship, giving one person control over her money and another control over decisions about her life. She did not know either of them.

"In no short order of time Allison lost her car. She lost her driver's license. Her bank accounts were seized by the guardians," Scott Singleton said.

Two caretakers were quickly placed in her home.

"Two people were living inside my house at all times, 24 hour care," Singleton said. "I was trying to just stay in my room."

Credit: WFAA-TV

Allison Singleton and her husband, Scott, have reconciled, but their divorce case remains unresolved because of her court-ordered guardianship.

In June 2024, a psychiatrist showed up at her home to conduct an evaluation. Singleton refused to allow him inside or consent to the evaluation.

She says she talked to him for about six minutes. He says it was about 30 minutes, according to his report.

From that porch conversation, he said she was psychotic and paranoid. He gave a preliminary diagnosis of schizophrenia and recommended 24-hour home supervision — which was already happening at her home.

After Singleton stopped allowing the caretakers into her home that summer, the guardian overseeing her personal care obtained a mental health warrant.

Singleton resisted efforts to take her into custody. She was arrested on assault charges. She later pleaded no contest to a lesser charge and received two years' probation.

In late 2024, a six-person jury in a Bexar Count probate court was asked to decide whether to make Singleton's guardianship permanent.

Jurors heard a series of disturbing allegations about Singleton's behavior — claims she and her family dispute.

There were claims that she had held a gun to Scott's head. They both deny it.

There were claims that a caregiver heard Singleton offer $5,000 to have her mother killed. No caretaker testified to having heard it.

There were also claims that she abused illegal substances. Singleton denies it.

Singleton does acknowledge that she spit on her first guardian of the person and threw a small bottle of wine at her.

"I will admittedly say I lost my cool," she said.

Her own therapist testified at the trial that she had done 10 sessions with Singleton in 2024, diagnosed her with PTSD and believed the guardianship had exacerbated the stress in Singleton's life.

The main argument for a permanent guardianship centered on protecting Singleton's financial interests during the divorce. Her entire family opposed it.

The jury found Singleton incapacitated.

"This whole terrible situation has forced me to come back to aid Allison to try to emancipate her through this process," Scott Singleton said.

The Singletons have tried to dismiss their divorce case. But as long as Allison Singleton remains under guardianship, the probate court won't let them.

Credit: WFAA-TV

Allison Singleton and her husband, Scott, sit at their dining table with their son as she continues her fight to regain her rights under guardianship.

More than $300,000

The Singletons see the guardianship system as a money grab — their money.

"It has to be about money," Scott Singleton said. "I'm paying all of those people out of our estate to do this to us." 

In the first five months of the guardianship alone, about $150,000 in fees and expenses were billed to the Singletons — to be paid from their own assets, according to court records.

That included more than $70,000 for round-the-clock caregivers.

One of Singleton's original guardians, Bill Bailey, ultimately billed more than $100,000 for work on the case over about an eight-month period, records show.

More recently, a court-appointed guardian ad litem, whose job is to investigate Singleton's circumstances and make recommendations to the judge about her best interests, submitted a bill for more than $9,400. Singleton's attorney is challenging the fees, arguing the guardian ad litem went beyond his duties, including billing more than $1,000 for work that involved preparing a motion to remove her chosen attorney. 

The guardian ad litem also billed for pursuing a psychiatric evaluation Singleton opposed. The filing points out errors in the billing paperwork, including references to Singleton as deceased, even though she is alive.

"They use our money to fund themselves to fight us," Scott Singleton said.

"Right. We pay for them," Allison Singleton said.

On Sept. 9, the Singletons were back in court.

Bailey and other lawyers were there, too, demanding their money. Singleton represented herself during that part of the hearing.

Judge Veronica Vasquez gave Scott Singleton two weeks to decide which investment accounts to cash out to pay the bills.

WFAA approached Bailey after the hearing.

"Mr. Bailey. How are you doing today?" Eiserer asked.

"We have no comment. It's an ongoing litigation," Bailey said. "And no one else should comment."

Credit: WFAA-TV

Bexar County Probate Judge Veronica Vasquez is overseeing Allison Singleton’s guardianship case as Singleton fights to regain her rights.

Two assessments raise questions

Two years after the guardianship began, there are questions about whether Singleton still needs a guardian.

Last October, Daniel Groven, who works for the Bexar County Guardianship Program and was appointed after the trial to oversee Singleton's personal and medical decisions — not her money — recommended that Singleton get her rights back.

"Mrs. Singleton is able to meet her own needs," he wrote.

This spring, psychologist Dr. Melissa Graham independently evaluated Singleton.

"Honestly, I have absolutely no idea how she got to be in this position in the first place," Graham said. "I don't see any reason at all psychologically, physically or any other reason why she needs a guardian."

Singleton had chosen Graham to perform her evaluation. That was her right under a guardianship reform lawmakers passed in 2023.

But that right came with an exception: If a judge wants "additional information," the judge can bring in another examiner.

As part of Singleton's fight to get her rights back, a court-appointed investigator interviewed people she volunteered for.

Dawn Laubach, Singleton's guardian of the estate who controls her money, reported concerns to the investigator that "unrestricted access to funds could potentially facilitate future substance abuse." She also reported concerns that Singleton might sell "valuable jewelry if given unrestricted access to those assets."

Singleton refused to allow a home visit, the investigator wrote. The investigator also noted that Singleton had written countless emails threatening legal action.

Based on her interactions with Singleton, the investigator said she had concerns about Singleton's "ability to regulate her emotions when confronted with situations, decisions or individuals with whom she disagrees."

At the Sept. 9 hearing, Vasquez cited concerns about Singleton's impulse control and ordered another psychiatric evaluation.

Graham came to the hearing but did not get a chance to testify about her assessment.

The judge said she wanted "additional information," citing what she characterized as Singleton's impulse control issues.

Singleton's attorney says state law doesn't mention impulse control.

"If impulse control was an issue, then I think everyone at a Cowboys game would be under a guardianship, you know?" Daniel MacNeil said.

"It's basically if somebody can ... do their independent activities daily living right, feed themselves, clothe themselves. Pay their bills. She seems perfectly capable of doing that," MacNeil said.

Asked why Singleton was still under guardianship, MacNeil said, "That's a good question, right?"

"To be honest, I haven't seen anyone get restored," he said.

MacNeil said the Legislature needs to close the exception that allows a judge seeking "additional information" to bring in another examiner.

"Even if she says I want more information, then it should be the doctor of the ward's choice, right?" he said.

The new evaluation will be paid for by the Singletons.

In September, Singleton was released more than a year early from probation. It was a type of probation that left her without a criminal conviction.

Taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court

Singleton also challenged the guardianship through the Fourth Court of Appeals.

She filed an appeal on her own.

Her court-appointed attorney ad litem filed a brief saying her appeal was "frivolous and without merit" and requested to withdraw as counsel.

The court found no "arguable grounds for an appeal exist" and decided the appeal was "wholly frivolous." The court issued its ruling in May.

Singleton is now taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court.

She's challenging the evidence used to take away her rights, whether less restrictive options were properly considered — and whether the appeals process itself was fair.

MacNeil argues it was problematic for the appeals court to accept a brief filed by the same attorney who represented Singleton at trial.

"A trial lawyer asked to identify arguable appellate issues must evaluate that lawyer's own actions, omissions, stipulations, and objections. The Fourth Court accepted that self-evaluation, described it as a professional and thorough review, and relied upon it in holding the appeal wholly frivolous," MacNeil wrote.

For Singleton, the legal arguments come back to the rights she has spent more than two years trying to regain.

In August, she flew to Canada to take her daughter to college.

She can travel internationally. She can live by herself. She can help her daughter begin a new life.

But she remains under guardianship.

"You do not have life nor liberty when you are in a guardianship," Scott Singleton said.

"And when a guardianship removes your right to life and liberty, they remove your ability to pursue happiness," Allison Singleton said. 

Full Article & Source:
Life, Liberty and Guardians: She lives alone and can travel internationally. But a guardianship still controls her life. 

San Antonio Woman Can Fly to Canada Alone, But a Guardian Still Runs Her Finances

By Maya Bushman

Allison Singleton lives by herself in a historic San Antonio home, sings in her church choir, volunteers at a food bank, and this past August flew to Canada by herself to drop her daughter off at college. Yet more than two years into a court-ordered guardianship in Bexar County, she still cannot vote, drive, or control her own money. She cannot even carry a credit card.

A Case Built On Capacity, Not Freedom

The gap between what Singleton can clearly do and what the guardianship still forbids her from doing is at the center of an investigation by WFAA. The station reports that two separate mental health assessments have now raised questions about whether Singleton still needs a guardian at all. Dr. Melissa Graham, who evaluated Singleton independently this year, said she saw no psychological, physical, or other reason Singleton needed a guardian. Daniel Groven, who was appointed after trial to oversee Singleton's personal and medical decisions but not her money, wrote that Mrs. Singleton is able to meet her own needs and recommended last October that she regain her rights.

Despite those assessments, Dr. Graham did not testify about her findings at a recent hearing. Judge Veronica Vasquez ordered another psychiatric evaluation on September 9, citing concerns about Singleton's impulse control, and that new evaluation will be paid for by the Singletons themselves. Daniel Macneil, an attorney involved in the case, pointed out that state law does not actually mention impulse control as a standard, and said he had not personally seen anyone restored from guardianship.

How a Divorce Became a Guardianship

The case began amid a bitter divorce between Allison and Scott Singleton, along with allegations about her mental state. Her divorce attorney at the time recommended a mental health evaluation. The court placed Singleton under temporary guardianship in May 2024, splitting control between one person over her money and another over decisions about her life. Scott Singleton told the station that the guardians seized Allison's bank accounts and that she lost her car and her driver's license. Two caretakers ultimately lived in her home around the clock, which Allison described bluntly: “Two people were living inside my house at all times, 24 hour care.”

The Singletons have since reconciled and tried to dismiss their divorce, but Bexar County probate court would not allow the case to be dismissed while Allison remains under guardianship. A six-person jury in Bexar County Probate Court No. 1 ultimately found her incapacitated in 2024 and considered whether to make the guardianship permanent, with the argument centered on protecting her financial interests during the divorce. Singleton's family opposed making it permanent.

A Porch Visit, a Warrant, and an Arrest

A pivotal moment came in June 2024, when a psychiatrist visited Singleton's home to conduct an evaluation. Singleton refused to let the psychiatrist inside or consent to the evaluation, and the two disagree on how long their porch conversation lasted — Singleton says about six minutes, while the psychiatrist's report puts it at roughly 30 minutes. The psychiatrist preliminarily diagnosed her with schizophrenia, described her as psychotic and paranoid, and recommended 24-hour home supervision.

The guardian overseeing her personal care then obtained a mental health warrant, and police came to take Singleton into custody. She was arrested on assault charges after resisting, and ultimately pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of resisting arrest, receiving two years of probation that left her without a criminal conviction. She was released from that probation more than a year early this past September. Singleton acknowledged spitting on her first guardian and throwing a small bottle of wine at her, saying, “I will admittedly say I lost my cool.” She and Scott have denied a separate claim that she held a gun to his head, and a caregiver was not brought to testify about an allegation that Singleton had offered $5,000 to have her mother killed. Singleton has also denied abusing illegal substances.

The Financial Toll of Fighting Back

The guardianship fight has cost the Singletons more than $300,000, according to WFAA's reporting. Guardianship fees and expenses totaled about $150,000 in just the first five months, with round-the-clock caregivers billed more than $70,000. Bill Bailey, who billed more than $100,000 for case work over roughly eight months, told the station only, “We have no comment. It's an ongoing litigation. And no one else should comment.”

The court-appointed guardian ad litem submitted a bill for more than $9,400, which Singleton's attorney has challenged, including more than $1,000 billed for preparing a motion to remove Singleton's chosen attorney and additional work pursuing a psychiatric evaluation she opposed. Billing paperwork from the guardian ad litem reportedly included references to Singleton as deceased, despite her being alive. On September 9, when the Singletons appeared in court together, Judge Vasquez gave Scott Singleton two weeks to decide which investment accounts to cash out to cover the bills.

Under Texas Estates Code Chapter 1155, guardianship court expenses, attorney ad litem fees, and professional guardian compensation are generally billed directly against a ward's estate, according to FindLaw, which helps explain why contested cases like this one can drain an estate so quickly. Guardian compensation for personal care alone is capped by statute at $3,000 annually or 5% of gross income unless county funds are allocated.

Fighting Before the State's Highest Court

Singleton filed an appeal through the Fourth Court of Appeals, but her own guardian ad litem filed a brief calling the appeal frivolous and without merit, and requested to withdraw as counsel. The appeals court agreed in May 2026, ruling that no arguable grounds for appeal existed. Daniel Macneil has argued that the appeals court improperly accepted a brief written by Singleton's trial lawyer. Singleton is now taking her fight to the Texas Supreme Court, challenging the evidence used to remove her rights, the consideration of less restrictive options, and the fairness of the appeals process itself.

Her case lands amid a broader legislative effort in Texas to protect wards' autonomy. Lawmakers passed guardianship reform in 2023 giving people under guardianship the right to choose their own evaluator, and Senate Bill 1624 that same year clarified that attorneys representing wards must advocate for their expressed wishes rather than a lawyer's own assessment of their best interest, according to Texas Legislature Online. Under Texas Estates Code § 1151.351, wards retain constitutional rights and legal privileges except those specifically restricted by court order, per FindLaw's breakdown of the statute. Daniel Macneil has urged the legislature to close an exception that still allows judges to bring in another examiner even after a ward chooses their own.

A Statewide Pattern of Strain

Singleton's case is not an isolated data point. The Texas Office of Court Administration estimates that between 34,000 and 50,000 active adult guardianships are under judicial supervision statewide, managing an estimated $4.9 billion to $5 billion in assets, even though specialized statutory probate courts exist in only 10 of the state's 254 counties. The same office's Guardianship Abuse, Fraud, and Exploitation Deterrence Program found that roughly 33% to 41% of reviewed guardianship files were out of compliance with mandatory annual reports or financial accountings.

Nationally, the picture is larger still: the National Center for State Courts estimates that about 1.3 million adults across the country live under guardianship or conservatorship, managing roughly $50 billion in assets, with that population growing by about 32% over the past decade. Research compiled by the National Core Indicators initiative has found that adults under full guardianship report higher rates of self-assessed helplessness and lower psychological well-being than those who retain rights through supported decision-making alternatives — a dynamic disability advocates cite in urging courts to exhaust lighter-touch options before imposing plenary guardianship.

Bexar County Probate Court No. 2 Presiding Judge Veronica Vasquez, who was first elected in 2018 as the court's first woman of color judge and ran unopposed for a third term this year, co-chairs the Bexar County Elder Abuse and Exploitation Task Force, according to Ballotpedia. For Singleton, the legal and financial stakes remain deeply personal. “I have had all my decision-making stripped from me,” she said. Scott Singleton put it more starkly: “You do not have life nor liberty when you are in a guardianship.” Allison added, “And when a guardianship removes your right to life and liberty, they remove your ability to pursue happiness.”

Singleton's therapist, who conducted 10 sessions with her in 2024 and diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, testified that she believed the guardianship itself had worsened Singleton's stress. Before the guardianship began, Singleton worked periodically as a contract process engineer and now receives Social Security disability; she has an autoimmune disease that limits her work to intermittent periods. Daniel Macneil said Singleton appeared capable of daily activities including feeding herself, dressing, and paying bills. Hoodline previously covered a related Bexar County guardianship dispute in its courtroom defamation showdown report this summer. 

Full Article & Source:
San Antonio Woman Can Fly to Canada Alone, But a Guardian Still Runs Her Finances 

Handling visitation disputes in guardian cases

Attorney Jehan Crump-Gibson with Great Lakes Legal Group explains how families can navigate visitation disputes. 

Source:
Handling visitation disputes in guardian cases 

Former Disney star accused of elder abuse and fraud

by: Christine Samra

An elderly Southern California couple is suing former Disney star Erik von Detten and Rosland Capital, a precious metals company, for elder abuse and fraud.

On May 11, 97-year-old Norman Greenberg and his 85-year-old wife, Sheila, of La Jolla, filed a lawsuit against von Detten and Rosland Capital LLC in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to USA Today. The lawsuit notes that the “Brink!” actor is a broker for the company.

TMZ broke the story on Tuesday morning.

The couple claims that around the summer of 2020, they reached out to the company after seeing television ads that “created real concern for the safety of their wealth,” docs obtained by E! explained.

“Rosland’s marketing campaigns are and were, at all times relevant,” the lawsuit said. “(They were) designed in large part to appeal to senior citizens through their television and internet advertising, direct mail brochures, and high-pressure boiler-room type sales practices.”

When the Greenbergs reached out to Rosland, they were connected with von Detten. During their conversations, they revealed they didn’t know much about gold and had over $2 million in their retirement accounts.

“Von Detten acknowledged that he understood their goals and their lack of knowledge and that he possessed sufficient experience and expertise and could help,” the filing reads. “He earned their trust and confidence such that they agreed to accept his recommendations without question.”

The couple said they placed two orders for Lady Liberty gold coins, which were about $1 million each. Instead of being delivered to them, the items were sent to Delaware Depository for storage, which led to fees from both companies to store the coins and to maintain the account.

Court documents stated that while they never saw the first shipment, this happened to them again when von Detten encouraged them to invest another $1 million in coins.

The transactions took place between October 2020 and August 2021. It wasn’t until 2025, when the couple investigated the worth on their own, that they realized they paid more than what the coins were actually worth. The Greenbergs said they spent over $2.1 million on gold coins only worth $1.3 million.

“The prices Defendants charged Plaintiffs in every instance were not fair and reasonable but were instead grossly in excess of the market value for each order at the time each order was executed,” the lawsuit explained.

The filing continued by saying Rosland and von Detten misled the two “into believing that they were paying a fair price relative to the things they bought and for the reasons they bought them.”

“Instead of helping them protect their hard-earned wealth, Defendants helped themselves to it,” the lawsuit claims. “In addition, Defendants committed financial elder abuse because they took, secreted, appropriated, obtained or retained Plaintiffs’ money with the intent to defraud.”

The couple is requesting a jury trial and is seeking at least $900,000 in damages. They also want to recover their losses and punitive damages. In addition to claims of elder abuse and fraud, the couple is accusing the defendants of constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.

In a statement to E! News, Rosland Capital said they “cannot comment directly on the lawsuit,” but continued by offering some information on what’s next in the lawsuit.

“However, we can state that as counsel for Rosland Capital LLC as debtor in possession, we have worked with the Creditors Committee to create a liquidating trust which will have the power to investigate the financial history of the company to provide answers to the claims of the Greenbergs and other investors.”

Von Detten hasn’t publicly addressed the lawsuit. KTLA 5 has reached out to his team.

USA Today reports that the case has been assigned to Judge Bradley S. Phillips, and court records show a case management conference is scheduled for Nov. 9 at 8:30 a.m. in Santa Monica. 

In July, two months after the Greenbergs filed their lawsuit, Roseland Capital filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Von Detten, 44, famously starred opposite Anne Hathaway in 2001’s “The Princess Diaries.” He also starred in the Disney Channel television movie “Brink!” and the Disney Channel series “So Weird.”

He voiced the character of Sid in 1995’s “Toy Story” and later returned to the franchise to voice an older Sid in a cameo in 2010’s “Toy Story 3” before he stepped away from acting. He joined Rosland Capital in 2018.

His latest acting role is listed as Mark in the 2024 TV movie “My Acting Coach Nightmare.”

Full Article & Source:
Former Disney star accused of elder abuse and fraud 

Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman

Lawsuit alleges caregiver negligence resulted in multiple fractures, severe pain, and suffering during elderly woman's final weeks

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 15, 2026 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- A San Francisco court will soon be asked to determine the extent of the neglect and abuse that a family alleges an in-home care attendant inflicted upon an elderly woman, resulting in devastating injuries and contributing to her painful death.

What should have been a time of comfort, dignity, and compassionate care became a nightmare for 87-year-old June Cohen and her family.

The lawsuit, Matt Cohen v. Aviva In Home Care, was brought by a San Francisco Bay Area family who entrusted the care of their elderly mother to a professional in-home care provider. Instead of receiving the safety and protection she desperately needed, Mrs. Cohen allegedly suffered catastrophic injuries at the hands of the very caregiver hired to help her.

According to the lawsuit, on the night of August 10, 2026, an allegedly inexperienced home care attendant dropped Mrs. Cohen, aggravating a preexisting fracture and causing several additional fractures. The injuries left her suffering through the final weeks of her life in hospice care, where, according to the family's allegations, she endured excruciating pain before her death.

The complaint alleges that Aviva In Home Care violated its legal obligations under California's elder abuse laws, including provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, by failing to provide the level of care and protection owed to a vulnerable elderly woman.

For families across America, the case raises a deeply troubling question: When we place our aging parents in the hands of professional caregivers, how can we be certain they are safe?

As our population ages, millions of families face the difficult decision of entrusting their loved ones to outside caregivers. They do so believing these professionals will provide compassion, competence, and protection. But as the Cohen family's allegations illustrate, failures in elderly care can have heartbreaking and potentially fatal consequences.

The Cohen family is now seeking accountability through the courts, while their case serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of proper caregiver training, oversight, and the protection of our most vulnerable citizens.

A copy of the filed complaint is available to members of the media upon request.

Media Contact

Joel H. Siegal, Esq, Siegal & Richardson, LLP, 1 (510) 271-6720, press@moiralouisepr.com, https://siegalrichardsonlaw.com/

Moira Noiseux, MoiraLouisePR, 1 5107179923, press@moiralouisepr.com, moiralouisepr.com 

Full Article & Source:
Family Files Elder Abuse Lawsuit Against In-Home Care Provider Following Death of 87-Year-Old Woman 

$3.5M criminal network targeting elderly residents dismantled

Manatee County sheriff's detectives dismantled an organized elder fraud network that they say targeted older residents across Florida, leading to multiple arrests and a federal prison sentence. 

Source:
$3.5M criminal network targeting elderly residents dismantled 

Nevada Guardian April Parks Robbed the Elderly the Courts Handed Her, and Got 16 to 40 Years

By M.A. Rothman

The short version

• Clark County Judge Tierra Jones sentenced professional guardian April Parks on Jan. 4, 2019, to 16 to 40 years in prison for exploiting elderly wards.
• Parks pleaded guilty to elder exploitation, theft and perjury counts, and the case carried restitution of $559,205.32, with her partner and husband also sentenced.
• Families said they want more accountability for the judges who approve guardianships, and Nevada has changed its guardianship law since the investigation began.

April Parks was handed control over the lives of elderly and disabled Nevadans by the courts, and she used that power to rob them. On January 4, 2019, Clark County District Judge Tierra Jones sentenced the former professional guardian to 16 to 40 years in Nevada state prison in what prosecutors called the state’s largest elder exploitation case. The story is making the rounds again, and it deserves to, because the system that put Parks in charge of those people never fully answered for its part.

Parks owned A Private Professional Guardian, LLC, a business based in Boulder City. According to the Nevada Attorney General’s office, she and her co-defendants used the company to financially exploit the elderly wards a court had appointed them to protect. Her business partner, Mark Simmons, and her husband, Gary Neal Taylor, were sentenced the same day.

“How is that not harm?”

Victims packed the Las Vegas courtroom for a hearing that ran nearly four hours. Parks, shackled and seated, kept her head turned and never looked their way, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. When she spoke, she told the judge she accepted responsibility “but never intended harm,” that “things could have been done better,” and that she had a “great passion” for guardianship.

Judge Jones wasn’t buying it. “You told us you never meant any harm,” she told Parks, according to KTNV 13 Action News. “But after hearing these stories of people Scotch taping their shoes, people being charged for Christmas gifts, and nothing to eat, how is that not harm?” She called Parks’ conduct “absolutely shocking” and “downright offensive.”

She was not a guardian to me. She did not protect me. As each day passed, I felt like I was in a grave, buried alive.

The victims explained why. Herman “Bill” Mesloh, who is blind, said Parks first visited him at a rehabilitation center in late 2013, and that he was involuntarily isolated from his wife, Kathy, for six months. “There are some evil people in this world,” he said. “And April Parks is a predator of the worst kind.” Barbara Ann Neely said Parks cut her off from family and friends: “She was not a guardian to me. She did not protect me. As each day passed, I felt like I was in a grave, buried alive.”

Larry Braslow told the court that a decades-old family address book vanished while Parks was in charge of his mother, along with his father’s footlocker of military uniforms. Victims described losing their life savings and feeling like prisoners. And in one of the most disturbing details of the case, KTNV reported that a storage locker was found holding urns with the ashes of some of Parks’ clients who had died.

Karen Kelly, Clark County’s public guardian, read a long list of victims who spent their final years in “intense anxiety and anguish.” Her summary of Parks was brutal: “She didn’t see them as people. They were paychecks.”

The Norths

The case that drew national attention was that of Rudy and Rennie North, a retired Las Vegas couple. As The New Yorker reported in 2017, and the Vera Institute of Justice summarized, Parks showed up at their home in 2013 claiming a court order required them to move to an assisted-living facility. Her assistant threatened to call the police if they refused. They were gone in about 35 minutes, and their daughter, Julie, wasn’t told.

The temporary guardianship was made permanent after a cursory 10-minute hearing. Parks then sold much of the Norths’ property, including Renoir lithographs and Rudy’s car, and moved their savings into her own account. When Julie tried to help, Parks called the police and Julie was cited for trespassing. Only after a 2015 hearing found Parks had sold the couple’s belongings without proper approval, and a judge suspended her guardianship, were the Norths able to leave the facility and move in with their daughter.

At sentencing, Rennie North had cancer and was too sick to attend. Rudy and Julie were there. Rudy compared Parks to Adolf Hitler and told the court, “This lady should be banished.”

The sentences

Parks pleaded guilty in November 2018. She had originally faced more than 200 felony counts. According to the Attorney General’s office, the outcome broke down this way:

• April Parks: pleaded guilty to two counts of elder exploitation, two counts of theft and one count of perjury in the main case; sentenced to 192 to 480 months, with a concurrent 72 to 180 months in a second case.
• Mark Simmons: 84 to 216 months, plus a concurrent 48 to 120 months in the second case.
• Gary Neal Taylor: 24 to 60 months, the term his plea agreement jointly recommended.
• Restitution of $559,205.32.

The state had asked for even more: 307 to 768 months for Parks. Her attorney, Noel Palmer Simpson, pleaded guilty to one count of elder exploitation in the second case, which involved an elderly couple exploited through guardianship between December 2010 and May 2017; the court continued Simpson’s sentencing to a later date. Parks, Simmons and Taylor had been in custody since March 2017.

Then-Attorney General Adam Laxalt said the sentencing “sends a strong message to those looking to exploit our vulnerable elderly.” The case was investigated jointly by his office and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

The judges who signed off

Parks didn’t sneak into these people’s lives. She was invited in by the court. She often served as the surrogate decision-maker for 50 to 100 elderly and mentally incapacitated people at a time, the Review-Journal reported, with full control over their finances, estates and medical decisions. According to the Vera Institute’s summary of The New Yorker’s reporting, it was routine in Clark County for guardians to petition for temporary guardianship without notifying the person who was about to lose their rights.

That’s why the families left the courtroom unsatisfied. KTNV reported that they called the sentence a step in the right direction, but they wanted more change, especially more accountability for the judges who approve guardianship agreements. Nevada has changed its guardianship law in the years since the station began investigating the system, KTNV noted. But a prison sentence for one guardian doesn’t explain how a family court handed one woman the keys to so many lives with so little scrutiny.

Every family with an aging parent should read this case closely. Guardianship is meant to be a shield for people who can’t protect themselves. In Clark County, it became a legal way to take away their homes, their savings and their freedom, and the people who were supposed to check it waved it through.

April Parks is behind bars where she belongs, but the court system that rubber-stamped her guardianships owes those families an accounting of its own.

Editor’s note: This article covers a January 2019 sentencing that drew renewed attention in October 2026. 

Full Article & Source:
Nevada Guardian April Parks Robbed the Elderly the Courts Handed Her, and Got 16 to 40 Years 

See Also:
Ex-Nevada guardian pleads guilty to exploitation, theft charges

UPDATE: Private guardian April Parks behind bars in Las Vegas 

Family sees first victory in guardianship case

BREAKING: Private Guardian April Parks Found Guilty Of Fraud, Theft, And Conversion
 
Steve Miller: The Story of Elizabeth Indig 
 
Elderly couple fights guardianship system
 
The Vegas Voice: Guardianship, Part 3: NOW GET RESULTS!
 
Steve Miller: Jared Shafer's Clark County Family Court Lackeys Removed From All Guardianship Cases
 
Contact 13 Investigates: Guardian Gouging?
 
Steve Miller on the Removal of Nevada Private Guardian April Parks
 
Couple liberated from guardianship system
 
New Family Court Judge Puts Immediate Stop To Elder Abuse And Exploitation By For-Hire "Guardians" Jared Shafer And April Parks
 
Steve Miller: The Story of Elizabeth Indig

  Steve Miller: A Message From the Son-in-Law of an Exploited Ward of the Clark Co. (Nevada) Family Court
 
Boulder City police investigate guardianship cases
 
Steve Miller: Judge Steel Frees Three "Wards" From Exploitive Court Ordered Guardianship On Same Day
 
Dan Roberts, The Vegas Voice on Private Guardian April Parks: She Had the Dogs Killed
 
Families Caught up in Guardianship Losing Their Homes
 
Steve Miller: "Guardian" April Parks Home and Office Raided by Police and Nevada AG
 
Search warrants served as police investigate guardianship exploitation
  Contact 13: Judge in guardianship cases recuses herself
 
Guardianship Commission to ask for criminal investigations
 
Steve Miller: Embattled Private Guardian April Parks Censured For Exploiting The Elderly, Mastermind Jared Shafer Stays Under The Radar - For Now

Sewickley Woman Sentenced for Bank Fraud Involving Guardianship Agency Funds

For Immediate Release

U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Pennsylvania

PITTSBURGH, Pa. - A resident of Sewickley, Pennsylvania, has been sentenced in federal court to two months of imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release, on her conviction of bank fraud, United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.

Senior United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer imposed the sentence on Judith A. Hetzell, 64, on October 13, 2026, also ordering the defendant to pay $80,966 in restitution to her former employer.

According to information presented to the Court, between November 2023 and February 2025, Hetzell, the former business manager for a non-profit guardianship agency based in the Western District of Pennsylvania, fraudulently drafted checks against individuals’ bank accounts to which the agency had access as a provider of guardianship and other fiduciary services to the victims. The checks were drafted to cash and to Hetzell’s mother and deposited into two personal bank accounts that Hetzell controlled.

Prior to imposing the sentence, Judge Fischer stated that, while Hetzell had otherwise lived a law-abiding life, her criminal conduct was quite serious in that she stole funds from the accounts of vulnerable individuals who, for various physical and mental health reasons, required the services of a guardianship agency. Judge Fischer also observed that Hetzell’s conduct risked the viability of the agency for whom she worked.

First Assistant United States Attorney Carolyn J. Bloch prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.

United States Attorney Rivetti commended the United States Postal Inspection Service for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Hetzell. 

Source:
Sewickley Woman Sentenced for Bank Fraud Involving Guardianship Agency Funds