The state's highest court has agreed to hear the case of a local couple that says they were evicted from their home last winter without warning or an opportunity to retrieve any personal belongings.
On Jan. 23, 2009, Marie and Robert Winfield and their two teenage children were ordered by police and sheriff's deputies to leave the first-floor apartment they were renting at 67 Laurel Ave.
The Winfields had a valid agreement with the co-owner of the property, Lillian Schiavoni, to rent the apartment for $800 per month, according to court papers filed by the couple. Schiavoni, 91, owns the home with her older sister, Nettie Carpinone, 92, who lives on the second floor, court papers said.
The police eviction was the result of protective orders obtained from a judge by Elder Services of Merrimack Valley. The state agency, in court papers, claims the Winfields were stealing money from the elderly women and were "imminently going to swindle (Carpinone's) home."
The Elder Services agency said the case started in November of 2008 with a petition alleging that "Schiavone had financially exploited her sister, Nettie Carpinone." Subsequent petitions by the agency name the Winfields as financially exploiting both elderly women.
A court-appointed investigator has agreed with the Elder Services agency that the Winfields have committed "acts of financial exploitation against Schiavoni and Carpinone," according to court filings by the agency's lawyer, Eric Schutzbank of Lowell. Several lower court judges have also sided with the agency. Schutzbank did not return a call seeking comment last week.
But the Winfields deny the allegations, and said they were not allowed to refute the charges against them prior to being evicted.
Full Article and Source:
State's Highest Court to Decide Haverhill Eviction Case
8 comments:
Whether the eviction was right or wrong, they should have been able to retrieve their belongings.
You're right, Stand Up, they should have been allowed to get their stuff before being evicted and shouldn't be evicted until after a full hearing.
It's impossible to know what theis couple's true intention is without looking at the evidence. I would think it would be easy to show swindle if it happened.
This article reminds me that caregivers of wards of the state are often evicted so the guardian can force the ward into a nursing facilty.
I don't belive any petitions for guardianship anymore not after seeing case after case of: fraudulent petitions for emergency and permanent guardianship based on hearsay, false allegations, speculation and fantasy for one reason: for the guardianship clan to seize the person and estate.
They could have been trying to help the older couple out. We just don't know.
This reminds me of years ago when you'd be out driving and you'd see someone with car trouble and so you'd stop. Then, the crooks started faking car trouble to lure people in for the kill or robbery.
So, now you can't do a kind deed.
It's the same here. If you mean well, it won't be taken that way because there is so much predation on the elderly.
It's a crying shame.
This smells like a guardianship disguised as an eviction. In many guardianships APS ( or whoever brings the Petition) alleges wrongdoing like financial exploitation but never offers any evidence like the law requires. Those charged are never given the opportunity to defend themselves and then the court slaps a guardian on the elderly person and before you know the person is taken out of their home against their will, the house is sold to pay for the nursing home and all of the drugs that will be given to the elderly person, and the guardian, lawyers and APS will dissipate the estate.
"But the Winfields deny the allegations, and said they were not allowed to refute the charges against them prior to being evicted."
That's the problem when elder abuse agencies operate like STAR CHAMBERS!
Purely unconstitutional!
Post a Comment