Schwab Faces Cash Sweeps Suit Alleging Elder Financial Abuse

By Dinah Wisenberg Brin

What You Need To Know

• The spread between client and Schwab's interest rates boosted firm profits, the suit contends.
• Schwab breached its loyalty duty to customers, the complaint alleges.
• Schwab says its sweeps program is compliant and transparent.

A proposed class action lawsuit against Charles Schwab over the interest paid in its cash sweeps program accuses the firm of elder care financial abuse in addition to breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement and other violations.

In the lawsuit, recently transferred to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, Elizabeth L. Bueno and Abraham Atachbarian also accuse the financial services giant of unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violations of California business and professional codes.

The complaint addresses Schwab’s alleged actions with respect to programs in which it automatically swept customers’ uninvested cash in their non-advisory brokerage accounts into high-interest-bearing deposit accounts at its affiliated banks while paying them “unduly low interest on this money.”

The court posted a notice Monday encouraging the parties to pursue alternative dispute resolution and indicating that it would later issue an order referring them to mediation.

Customers have filed multiple lawsuits nationally accusing Schwab and other asset managers of paying unreasonably low interest rates on balances in cash sweep programs and placing their own profits over clients’ best interests, contending that clients could have earned significantly higher interest elsewhere.

From November 2021 to May 2025, “Schwab never paid more than .45% interest to its customers in its Cash Sweeps Programs. Since December of 2024, the rate has dropped as low as .05%,” the complaint alleges.

“By doing so, in a conflict of interest and in breach of its duty of loyalty to its customers … Schwab was able to earn significant undisclosed interest on the interest rate spread and fees for itself, while paying its customers … less than the contractually required reasonable or prevailing rates of interest, depending on the type of account they maintained,” it contends.

The suit alleges that “Schwab intentionally failed to disclose the enormous spread that it was earning between the low rates of interest it paid to customers as compared to the rates that Schwab and its Program Banks were earning with customers’ uninvested monies," although the rates were published in a separate disclosure.

This earned interest helped fuel Schwab’s profits and finance its transaction with TD Bank, the lawsuit contends — apparently a reference to its TD Ameritrade acquisition.

“Schwab paid customers depressed rates of interest, in a high-interest rate environment rather than ‘reasonable’ rates or rates of interest that were consistent with prevailing market and business conditions, as required,” the plaintiffs allege.

The proposed class comprises all California residents who held non-advisory brokerage and/or retirement accounts with Schwab and had cash deposits from those retirement accounts invested in cash sweep programs during the relevant period. A subclass includes Californians 65 or older who had cash deposits in their retirement accounts subject to cash sweep programs, according to the complaint.

The case, moved from California Superior Court, appears to be a refiling or amended complaint from one filed earlier in the year.

"Our cash sweep program is transparent, fully disclosed, and operates in compliance with all applicable regulations. We stand firmly behind our program which aligns cash management options to our clients’ financial needs and goals," a Schwab spokesperson told ThinkAdvisor by email.

"We offer extensive support and flexibility, enabling clients to manage their cash in a way that best fits their individual financial needs. Whether they seek more accessible cash for daily use or prefer investments aimed at higher returns, the choice is theirs to make," added the spokesperson. 

Full Article & Source:
Schwab Faces Cash Sweeps Suit Alleging Elder Financial Abuse 

Kelley Roberts sues Rehana Harborth for financial abuse of an elder

By Northern California Record 

In the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, Kelley Roberts has filed a lawsuit against Rehana Harborth and others (Case Number: 34-2022-00319058) on April 28, 2022. The suit alleges financial abuse of an elder, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, imposition of constructive trust, and slander of title.

Roberts is represented by Attorney Thomas D. Walker and is suing for an amount exceeding $25,000. The defendants include Rehana Harborth (also known as Ronal Harborth), Nicqueline Barthus (also known as Niquiele Barthus and Nicky Barthus), Trent Barthus, Kalin Barthus, Jade Barthus, Erenc Harborth, Dean Barthus, Hannah Barthus, Tyler Q. Dahl and Does 1 through 20.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants entered into a relationship with Jerry B. Da Valle approximately two years prior to his death and became his "Care Custodians". It is alleged that the defendants wrongfully attempted to secure property for themselves following Da Valle's death.

Roberts seeks judgment against the defendants for their alleged actions which have resulted in financial abuse of an elder (Jerry B. Da Valle), fraud, breach of fiduciary duty among other allegations.

Full Article & Source:
Kelley Roberts sues Rehana Harborth for financial abuse of an elder

Local attorney disbarred over botched family trust

By Ben Irwin

Attorney Robert Fletcher disbarred by State Bar, Superior Court of California after nephew attempts to collect rightful trust shares, finds nothing left

TULARE – The old saying goes family and business don’t mix, and the Fletchers have learned that the hard way.

Local attorney Robert Fletcher was disbarred in November by the State Bar of California for cutting his nephew Russell out of the family trust. Fletcher sold assets tied to Russell’s share and more for just shy of a million dollars, from which Fletcher personally benefited.

Fletcher was disbarred for breach of fiduciary duty to trust beneficiaries while serving as a trustee, misappropriation of trust funds and dishonest and corrupt acts as a trustee while managing the Thelma F. Fletcher Family Revocable Trust of 1989.

Marion and Thelma Fletcher established their family trust in 1989, which provided that when both had died, the trust assets would be divided in thirds to each of their three children, Marion D. Fletcher Jr., Robert Fletcher and Mary Anne Record.

When Marion D. Fletcher Jr. died prior to the deaths of his parents, the trust was amended in 1996 for Marion D. Fletcher Jr.’s share to be given to his son, Russell Fletcher, on his 35th birthday, April 8, 2018.

Fletcher became the sole trustee of the Fletcher trust in 2002 after the deaths of his parents, when the trust assets totaled about $1.1 million: about $56,000 in cash, a $900,000 apartment building in Fresno County, a $137,000 house in Tulare County and $7,500 in possessions.

In 2003, Fletcher sold the Fresno County apartment building, netting about $910,000 on the sale. According to the State Bar, Fletcher’s sister Record remembered receiving about $330,000 after the sale of the apartment building, what she believed to be one-third of the trust.

In 2018, Russell sought his share of the family trust after his 35th birthday, only to find that virtually no funds remained. Russell then petitioned the Tulare County Superior Court, where Fletcher could not account for the missing funds. According to the State Bar, bank, tax and trust records show that large amounts of funds were misappropriated over the years.

The Supreme Court of California ordered Fletcher to pay $303,494 plus 10% interest per year from 2003 on in restitution to his nephew Russell, and $10,778 plus 10% interest per year from 2015 to his nephew and sister.

Full Article & Source:

Local attorney disbarred over botched family trust

In the Matter of Joanne Black

The third Colorado Court of Appeals opinion relating to the conservatorship of Joanne Black was issued recently.  The opinion addresses an issue of first impression in Colorado involving jurisdiction over a foreign trust funded with assets misappropriated from a Colorado conservatorship.

The history of this case centers around assets that Joanne Black’s mother, Renata Black, left to her via payable-on-death (“POD”) designation.  The POD assets were disclaimed by Joanne’s brother, Bernard Black, while he was acting as Joanne’s conservator.  As a result of the disclaimer, the POD assets were diverted through Renata’s estate, two-thirds to a Supplemental Needs Trust (“SNT”) for Joanne’s benefit and one-third to a trust for Bernard and his children.

After discovering that her brother diverted one-third of her inheritance to a trust for himself and his children, Joanne pursued claims against him.  Joanne ultimately obtained a $4.6 million dollar judgment against her brother for breach of fiduciary duty, surcharge, civil theft and attorney fees, which was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals (“Court”) in a prior published opinion.  Black v. Black, 422 P.3d 592 (Colo. App. 2018)(cert. denied).  The Court also issued an unpublished opinion in a second appeal in 2018, remanding for the Denver Probate Court (“Probate Court”) to make additional findings regarding the basis for the Probate Court’s jurisdiction over the SNT.

The most recent opinion primarily relates to orders from the Probate Court approving distributions from the SNT to Joanne Black for payment of attorney fees relating to ongoing litigation involving Bernard Black and related family members.  The opinion also addresses an order suspending Bernard Black and his son as trustees of the SNT and the Probate Court’s order on remand from the unpublished opinion mentioned above.
 
In this recent opinion, the Court considered a matter of first impression in Colorado: “whether a Colorado probate court can exercise jurisdiction over the trustees and assets of a foreign trust when that trust was funded with assets misappropriated from a Colorado conservatorship.”

The Court reasoned that the Probate Court had jurisdiction over the POD assets as part of the Colorado conservatorship, because the assets were in control of the conservator.  The Court then held that the Probate Court properly retained in rem jurisdiction over the POD assets, despite Bernard Black’s transfer of the POD assets into a foreign trust as a result of the disclaimer.

The Court also addressed interesting issues relating to in personam jurisdiction over the trustees of a foreign trust, including the application of waiver and Colorado’s long arm statute.

View the opinion (opinion dated April 9, 2020; Petition for Rehearing denied, and opinion modified June 11, 2020).

Full Article & Source:
In the Matter of Joanne Black

Guardianship Abuse Focus: Kristyan Calhoun and Senior Avenues

Guardianship Abuse Focus: Kristyan Calhoun and Senior Avenues

There is a current case against Kristyan Calhoun, her realtor friend (Thomas Parker), and Senior Avenues alleging breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.(RCW 19.86.010 et seq.)

In December of 2016, Dorothy O’Dell needed to sign a Power of Attorney in order to be released from the hospital where she stayed in South Dakota. The Power of Attorney presented to her, with no legal representation, assigned Kristyan Calhoun of Senior Avenues in Yakima, Washington. Dorothy intended to move to Washington to be near family. The Power of Attorney was sweeping and intrusive.

Immediately, Kristyan Calhoun began to liquidate Dorothy’s assets. Dorothy specifically told Calhoun not to, and Dorothy’s two rental properties were rented and generating income for Dorothy.

Calhoun ignored Dorothy’s instructions and in February of 2017 she sold Dorothy’s rental for $28,000 to Calhoun’s personal friend, realtor Thomas Parker. The property was never listed or “exposed to the market”. The property’s tax assessment valued it at $66,000 and the Zillow estimate for it was between $106,761 and $139,550. The home rented for $850 a month. A general rule of thumb is that the property is worth 10x its monthly rental. The home had been rented to the same tenant for 6+ years.

Calhoun’s next move was to sell Dorothy’s other rental for far less than market value in a similar scenario. That rental had been earning Dorothy $1000 a month for several years.

Dorothy owned both properties free and clear and the property taxes were paid.

Dorothy’s recovery from her hospital stay was a long and arduous one before she was able to live independently again, reduce her medications, and get her own affairs back in order. That was when she discovered that her properties had been sold by Kristyan. Hoping to regain her life and rid herself of the overbearing costs of Kristyan Calhoun’s “protection”, Dorothy attempted to revoke Kristyan’s Power of Attorney and assign Dorothy’s brother as PoA. Dorothy also sought legal counsel to right the wrongs of Calhoun and Parker.

Calhoun’s response? She petitioned to place Dorothy in a full guardianship. She also filed an Order of Emergency Temporary Relief which granted Calhoun the equivalent of a guardianship over Dorothy. Most importantly, it stopped Dorothy from being able to revoke Calhoun’s Power of Attorney. Calhoun also filed an order granting a preliminary injunction to revoke Dorothy’s ability to sue or be sued other than through a guardian, protects Calhoun at least for the time-being. Meanwhile, in her current position, Calhoun can (and IS) dissipating proceeds from Dorothy’s asset sales, including $10,000 in Calhoun’s attorney fees. It’s a bully move, but a typical one from Calhoun. At the first sign of resistance from her victim or their family, Calhoun uses the legal system to shield herself and isolate her victim.

Dorothy is in limbo until her trial in May. She’s seen none of the proceeds for the sales of her properties and has lost the rental income from them. Her Social Security checks of $590 now go to Kristyan, who generously (sarcasm intended) gives Dorothy a portion of the income. At one point, Kristyan appointed two of her staff to hand-deliver a $500 check to Dorothy (and charged Dorothy $124 for the delivery). Dorothy has never once seen the $590 a month from her Social Security check.

We’ve seen this pattern repeated by Calhoun but in reverse. Typically she starts out as a guardian. When she comes under fire for violating Standards of Practice, she gets herself removed from her guardian role and places herself as Power of Attorney (because she can do that as a guardian). The Power of Attorney role has very little oversight other than a court of law (the guardianship certification board is meant to oversee guardians). Courts of law are spendy, especially when you’ve been fleeced and are looking at a bleak retirement, stripped of your assets.

It must be worth it to Calhoun to seek the guardianship position and drop the case against herself in Kitsap County, despite any theoretical oversight she may be exposed to from the Certified Guardianship Board. Given that our own complaint has been “under investigation” for 18 months as of now (Feb. 2019), she likely calculated correctly.

She has some risks associated with taking this route though. First, Dorothy has pushed that she wants a jury trial — a jury of her peers to determine whether she needs a guardian or not. Knowing how Calhoun operates, she’s blown all of Dorothy’s money. If Calhoun wins, she would ONLY gain the ability to stop the other case. Dorothy has no value whatsoever to Calhoun. If Calhoun loses (which is highly probable, in my opinion), she not only is out her legal fees (thousands of dollars for litigation) and possibly (hopefully) Dorothy’s legal fees, but also is exposed to the case against her in Kitsap County.

What Happens If Calhoun et al. Lose the Case Against Them in Kitsap County?

Here’s hoping that her reign of terror ends and she loses her certification. She also may be required to pay damages to Dorothy (or possibly her insurance would). That might be the crux of why she’s taking this big gamble to place Dorothy in guardianship. Hopefully Parker would lose his realtor license, and pay damages.

Why is Calhoun even in this position to begin with? Why would she, immediately after being assigned POA, sell her victim’s assets for so cheap? The assets were generating income, were paid for free and clear. As of December, 2018, Calhoun has spent $100,000 of Dorothy’s money, with $25,000 of it going toward Calhoun for her fees (delivering checks, etc.) That is the single largest expense that has been paid from the proceeds. The second largest expense? Calhoun’s attorneys ($10,000 paid, and $32,000 not awarded or paid yet). Even if Dorothy was in desperate need of funds, a better course of action would have been to get Dorothy the best price possible for her assets, rather than get Parker the best deal possible on a rental for his portfolio.

Calhoun has bent herself over a barrel. The only reason she’s in her current position is because she’s trying to stop the Kitsap County case, which would likely put her out of business.


Scenario 1: Calhoun wins the guardianship case. There’s no money left. Which means she’ll be performing no duties for Dorothy, no assistance, nothing. She’ll also receive no income. No one gains from this scenario — Dorothy certainly doesn’t. Even if she DID need a guardian, she wouldn’t have one in Kristyan Calhoun, who’s already demonstrated that Dorothy’s well-being is the least of Calhoun’s concerns. (But, she may still stop the Kitsap County case.) Even if Kristyan is awarded fees in this scenario, Dorothy has no money left to pay it with. Outcome: Dorothy bankrupt, Kristyan $0, but likely not facing Kitsap County case, so able to continue abusing others.

Scenario 2: Calhoun loses the guardianship case. Dorothy is hopefully awarded fees (don’t get me started on that!). Dorothy pursues legal action in Kitsap County. Dorothy gets 100% of her Social Security check and doesn’t have to pay a $124 “delivery” fee, and doesn’t have to deal with any further abuse from Calhoun and her associates. Dorothy: life somewhat restored, Kristyan: loses several thousand dollars if she has to pay fees. Kristyan: would then face court in Kitsap County.

Scenario 3: Dorothy appeals the decision in Yakima, removing the injunction so that she can sue without a guardian, and wins. Dorothy’s lawsuit against Kristyan Calhoun, Thomas Parker, et al. in Kitsap County proceeds, Kristyan’s Guardianship petition proceeds in Yakima County. (If Dorothy loses, we are looking at Scenarios 1 and 2, with probably a billion variations, but those two seem the most likely). Fortunately, Dorothy has filed a notice of discretionary review (Feb. 7, 2019). This is similar to an appeal. While it could take some time (a couple of months?), it’s a step in the right direction.

There is a line from a Meatloaf song that applies here, “folks, we have a real pressure-cooker now!”

“First they took my property, now they want to take my life!” Dorothy O’Dell

The problem is, in every scenario, Dorothy loses everything.

Everything.

And who cares? Kristyan certainly doesn’t. Thomas Parker doesn’t care. He got a smoking deal on a rental from a little old lady. The lawyers don’t. Win or lose, they get paid. They ALWAYS get paid.

Dorothy has worked and saved and accumulated her portion of wealth over the course of her lifetime, only to have it irresponsibly squandered in a matter of months. She would have a difficult time getting a job now, and frankly, she put in the time and effort to ensure that she wouldn’t have to work now. She has earned a retirement that has been stripped of her by greed. Dorothy is truly a victim in all of this.She’s overcome adversity to be in a position that, if she were allowed access to her assets, would be comfortable. Instead, because of Calhoun and Parker, she’s now in a position of being a burden to society with no control over her future.

Full Article & Source:
Guardianship Abuse Focus: Kristyan Calhoun and Senior Avenues

Guardianship legal battle ends in secrecy

A daughter’s claims of excessive billing and millions of dollars of mismanagement by her mother’s corporate guardian/conservator were secret from the start. During four years of litigation, virtually all of the court case was sealed from public view.

Now the professional malpractice lawsuit – a rare case against a New Mexico court-appointed professional guardian/conservator – has ended with a secret out-of-court settlement.

The settlement came a month after the judge in the case reversed himself and opened up court files in response to a motion by the Albuquerque Journal. The terms of the settlement weren’t revealed publicly.

Without a public trial, which was set for October, the opportunity to learn more from Leonie Rosenstiel’s case against Decades LLC of Albuquerque appears all but lost, just as a commission appointed by the state Supreme Court is looking for ways to reform the system.

Nancy Oriola, founder of Decades, told the Journal on Friday that the settlement was “an economic decision by the insurance companies that I agreed to. Otherwise, I feel I had a very strong case.”

Rosenstiel, in a statement, told the Journal she believes she would have won at trial.

“However, I’m happy about the settlement, because I can now move on to other things. I am especially glad that the record of this case has been opened for all to see. It’s my hope that these sorts of cases become more transparent in the future. I’m deeply concerned that all the unwarranted secrecy has led to the perception among people caught in the system that commercial guardians and conservators are favored by the courts.”

Rosenstiel, the daughter of a New York financier, was an only child, and the personal representative for her mother, Annette Rosenstiel.

Annette Rosenstiel, who died in 2012, was a published author and lecturer who held a Ph.D. in anthropology.

After her father died and her mother began to show signs of dementia, Leonie sought to become guardian for her mother, but ultimately agreed to the appointment of Decades as both the guardian to make decisions on her mother’s daily care and as conservator tasked with overseeing her mother’s finances.

Rosenstiel’s lawsuit in 2013 alleged that over a nine-year-period, Decades “abused their position” as the appointed guardian and conservator for her mother, who died at the age of 100.

“The alleged abuse took multiple forms,” her complaint stated. She contended that Decades breached its fiduciary duty by negligently handling her mother’s assets and charging “astonishing expenses” for her mother’s care, which included nearly $250,000 in legal fees.

Rosenstiel’s securities expert estimated that her mother’s estate lost at least $10 million under Decades’ oversight, in part because the conservator firm failed to diversify her concentrated stock in New York Mercantile Exchange Holdings until after a dramatic drop in value.

Decades sought to disqualify that expert, maintaining that the firm had acted prudently, had no duty to act, and was bound by a court ruling that required prior court approval for any re-allocation of assets.

Leonie contended that the annual reports Decades was required to provide by law to the court didn’t provide enough information for Leonie to ascertain the status of her mother’s finances.

Only when Leonie went to court herself in November 2007, alleging mismanagement by Decades, did the company take steps to diversify the stock, she alleged. Then, six months before her mother’s death, Decades asked the judge in the case to relieve it of “all liability” in the performance of its duties from November 2008 to December 13, 2011, her lawsuit stated. Decades, in its answer, denied that allegation .

Decades stated that, after Annette’s death, her estate still had a total asset value of more than $5.6 million, “which was net of years of expensive in-home care, guardianship and conservatorship expenses and hundreds of thousands of dollars of gifts” to her sole heir, Leonie.

Leonie Rosenstiel was “clearly disappointed that she has not inherited as much as she would have liked. …,” Decades’ attorney said in one filing.

Oriola told the Journal she had several experts who would have testified that her company provided “excellent” care to Rosenstiel. She also said the “estate did benefit by more than $6 million after her death. In our opinion we did well by Dr. Rosenstiel.”

Rosenstiel’s securities expert Douglas Schultz concluded that Decades had “neither the expertise or experience in how to deal with diversifying and hedging” such a large concentrated asset. For Decades to say there are no damages to the estate, “is like trying to take credit for the sun coming up in the morning because you happen to be on your porch watching,” he wrote in a report.

In the civil lawsuit against Decades, state District Judge Alan Malott rendered only one substantive ruling on the lawsuit’s allegations. In May 2016, he denied a Decades motion to dismiss Rosenstiel’s claim that Decades had been negligent in failing to diversify.

“There are genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to whether or not Decades LLC exercised due care and appropriate prudence in not seeking the Court’s permission to re-allocate Ms. Rosenstiel’s (New York Mercantile Exchange) stock until late 2007,” Malott wrote.

Closed from public view

For part of the case, the two sides argued over whether the filings in the case should be sealed from public view. Under state law, guardian/conservator court proceedings are closed to the public and all records filed in the case are sealed.

Decades argued that records in Rosenstiel’s civil case should also be sealed, because her allegations referenced the guardianship matter. The company stated that it welcomed “scrutiny” but added, despite “Defendants’ desire for public vindication in its 10 plus year battle with Plaintiff, it is still constrained to respect Annette Rosenstiel’s privacy.”

After various filings were sealed initially, Malott in 2014 imposed confidentiality on all further filings related to the guardian/conservator case, adding, “The Court further bemoans the ongoing level of vitriol which counsel feels is appropriate in furtherance of these proceedings.”

Guardianship matters are shrouded in secrecy – even after the incapacitated person is dead – and Malott’s initial sealing order was upheld by the Supreme Court after Rosenstiel’s lawyers appealed.

But when the Journal asked Malott to reconsider this summer, Malott on July 10 rescinded his order. He concluded that Leonie Rosenstiel, as personal representative, had the authority to waive confidentiality.

One month earlier, Malott ruled against Rosenstiel in finding there were no grounds to force his recusal on the case. Rosenstiel’s attorney David Garcia argued that the judge had an appearance of bias when he criticized news coverage of guardianship issues and defended the guardianship industry at an Albuquerque Lawyers Club panel earlier this year.

Malott, in that ruling, made it clear he didn’t want lawyers talking about the case publicly.

“The parties and counsel are reminded the appropriate place for the trial is in the Bernalillo County Courthouse, not the “Court of Public Opinion,” Malott wrote.

Until an Aug. 7 mediation, court records show both sides were continuing to spar. Decades also challenged the fact that one of its insurance companies had failed to defend the company in the case.

Decades was founded in 2001 and provides comprehensive elder care services in New Mexico, according to its website. The company has been appointed by judges in more than 70 guardian/conservator cases since 2004, state court records show.

Full Article & Source:
Guardianship legal battle ends in secrecy

Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M for doing senior wrong in guardianship

Advocates for guardianship reform clamored in vain for years that Florida’s system failed to properly protect incapacitated seniors, that its primary purpose had been perverted to line the pockets of greedy attorneys and professional guardians with the hard-earned life savings of the elderly.

Now they can point to a new federal verdict awarding a whopping $16.4 million in a lawsuit claiming that two West Palm Beach attorneys breached their fiduciary duties while running up “unnecessary and excessive fees” of $1 million.

“It’s really kind of a landmark case,” said Julian Bivins, who brought the suit as the personal representative of the estate of his father, Oliver, a Texas oil man. “It sends a message to these unscrupulous lawyers and guardians that they are not going to be able to get away with it anymore.”

The Bivins guardianship case emanates out of the court of Circuit Judge Martin Colin, the subject of an investigation by The Palm Beach Post into the judge’s conflicts of interest because his wife is a professional guardian.

Colin in open court had heaped praise on the attorneys who lost the case and refused to hold a hearing to decide whether the attorneys had “secretly” kept money from the sale of one of Oliver Bivins’ properties in an escrow account for more than a year, according to court documents.

The Post’s award-winning series featuring Colin, Guardianships: A Broken Trust, resulted in an overhaul of guardianship rules in Palm Beach County. Colin retired last December after he was transferred from the Probate & Guardianship Division because of The Post’s reporting.

Weeks after The Post published, Julian Bivins filed a motion to disqualify Colin, saying his concerns about the “close-knit atmosphere of the Guardians, their attorneys” and Colin had been “glaringly brought to light” in the stories.

Retired Judge Martin Colin

Held captive? 
The younger Bivins said he felt his father was “held captive” in South Florida by the guardianship so the attorneys could liquidate real estate assets — including a New York City Upper East Side mansion — and charge more fees. Colin granted an emergency order prohibiting the senior from returning to Texas.

The jury found on July 28 that attorneys Brian M. O’Connell and Ashley N. Crispin of the Ciklin, Lubitz & O’Connell firm not only breached their fiduciary duty but committed professional negligence.

The lawsuit claimed they failed to get appraisals on two high-end New York City properties being divided among family. They were not of equal value and as a result, Julian Bivins ended up with one that was worth millions less than other.

The jury’s decision to award $16.4 million makes up the difference.

But the fight over the property is far less important to reform advocates than the fact that attorneys who carry out the wishes of professional guardians and are paid with the ward’s money were held accountable.

Oliver Bivins died at age 97 in March 2015. He ended up in the court-ordered guardianship when he visited his condominium in Palm Beach in 2011 and a social worker became concerned with his well-being, according to court documents.

 

Oliver Wilson Bivins Sr. passed away at age 97 in 2015 but his son continued to fight the professional guardian who ... read more

 

Oliver Bivins appeared to be coming to Florida for a weekend vacation, leaving his refrigerator in Texas fully stocked, plaintiff attorneys told the jury. His son said he often didn’t visit his Palm Beach condominium for years at a time.

The verdict takes a further step toward re-establishing that attorneys are supposed to represent the incapacitated ward, not the court-appointed professional guardian — a position many lawyers have argued in court to thwart families trying to rein in a fee frenzy.

“If it wasn’t for me, they would have completely depleted my dad’s estate,” said Julian Bivins, who now lives in Palm Beach. “I’ve been fighting them from the beginning to just get him back to Texas. Finally, I got him back there 35 days before he passed away.”

As with many family members who challenge the status quo in guardianship in Palm Beach County, Julian said he found himself relentlessly attacked in court. He was even sued by one of the guardians in the case, Curtis Rogers.

The biggest toll, he said, though, was his relationship with his father as Rogers told the elder Bivins that his son only wanted his money. “He turned my dad against me,” Julian Bivins said. “I could never explain to my father how he was being held for ransom, how they wouldn’t let him go.”

The Ciklin firm said it is confident it can prevail on post-trial motions in front of U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Marra.

“We think the verdict was not in keeping with the law or the facts and, in fact, was considerably more than the plaintiff even asked for,” said Alan Ciklin, the firm’s managing partner. “We feel pretty good about our ability to have this reduced dramatically.”

Rogers, one of two professional guardians dismissed as defendants in the lawsuit, testified for more than two days at the trial. He told The Post he believes the younger Bivins financially took advantage of his father. “The verdict was a total shock to me,” he said. “I anticipated there was no way that type of verdict could be made.”

+

It may come as a shock to Judge Colin, as well.

Colin during a Feb. 3, 2016, hearing in the guardianship case bristled at the suggestion that the Ciklin Lubitz firm was not acting as a good custodian of Bivins’ assets. The senior’s son questioned why the firm had failed to turn over $472,000 from the sale of his father’s commercial property in New York City, requesting Colin refer their actions to the Florida Bar or keep them from holding onto the money.

“The Ciklin Lubitz law firm has a well-earned reputation of honesty. And this is honesty,” Colin said in court. “Not for a moment do I have any concern because their reputation is well-earned in this respect.”

Colin denied Julian Bivins’ request without hearing any evidence but ordered the firm to return about $400,000.

An attorney for Julian Bivins filed a motion to disqualify Colin because of those statements, but the judge denied it.

“We never got anything done in his court,” Julian said. “We complained about the amount of the fees and he (Colin) cut them down 25 percent, but then we had to pay their fees for them to defend those fees. So they just made it back.”

Guardianship Catch-22 
It is in this Catch-22 that families often find themselves when trying to decide whether to fight unethical actions by a professional guardian: Either way they pay, and either way the lawyers’ wallets grow fatter.

The guardianship issue is being looked at by a task force formed by Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga. The state Legislature established the new Office of Public & Professional Guardianship as a result of lobbying by advocacy groups and others about lawyers and guardians siphoning off fees.

Attorney Greg Coleman, past president of The Florida Bar, wrote to the work group in June to alert it to “inappropriate, improper and illegal activities of a very small number of Florida attorneys” practicing in the guardianship arena.

“Unfortunately, the way guardianship statutes and rules are currently constituted allows for a window of exploitation by bad attorneys and bad guardians for their own personal monetary gain,” said Coleman, who was not associated with the Bivins guardianship or any of the relating litigation.

Coleman said everything is moving in the right direction for seniors. “The issue has the (Florida Supreme) Court’s attention, I can tell you,” he said. “It is not something that is being ignored or swept under the rug.”

Oliver Wilson Bivins Sr. was an oil man whose family were pioneers in Amarillo, Texas. He visited his Florida condo infrequently ... read more

 

Dominoes falling? 
Attorneys who represented the Bivins family — Charles D. Bavol and Ron Denman of The Bleakley Bavol law firm in Tampa — compared the trial to a climactic brawl from the movie Rocky. The Ciklin defendants knocked out their expert witness and cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to turn over crucial emails between the Ciklin lawyers and the guardians. The son’s testimony persuaded the jury, his lawyers said.

“What the defendants did in this case was wrong,” Denman told the jury. “It was legally wrong, what they did was ethically wrong, and what they did was morally wrong.”

Bavol and Denman said the verdict builds off a 2015 state court appellate finding out of Palm Beach County, ruling that the guardianship attorneys’ duty is to the incapacitated adult, not the professional guardian.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in recent years has reined in circuit courts in Palm Beach County that reform advocates say patently favor professional guardians and their attorneys.

Bavol and Denman said the verdict underscores the need for accountability from guardians and their lawyers.

“Based on this significant jury verdict and the ongoing investigative journalism in Southern Florida concerning professional guardianships, the need for reform of the guardianship system to protect Florida’s elderly citizens is again underscored,” the lawyers said in a news release.

Full Article & Source:
Jury hits lawyers with $16.4M for doing senior wrong in guardianship

Finra panel orders Morgan Stanley to pay $34 million to estate of former Home Shopping Network chief

Arbitration panel cited the firm for churning Roy M. Speer's account and for violating a Florida law against exploitation of vulnerable adults

A Finra arbitration panel awarded more than $34 million to the estate of Roy M. Speer, the co-founder of the Home Shopping Network, in its claim against Morgan Stanley for churning Mr. Speer's account.

The all-public arbitration panel ruled that Morgan Stanley, broker Ami Forte and branch manager Terry McCoy were jointly liable for unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty/constructive fraud, negligence, negligent supervision and unjust enrichment.

The arbitrators also found that Morgan Stanley violated a Florida law against exploitation of vulnerable adults. It awarded $32.8 million in compensatory damages to Lynnda Speer, Mr. Speer's widow and representative of the estate, as well as $1.5 million to reimburse costs incurred during the arbitration process, which spanned 13 months and involved 142 hearing sessions.

The chair of the arbitration panel signed the decision on March 18. It was posted on March 21.

Ms. Speer will next seek to recover potentially millions in attorneys fees in Florida court, according to her attorney, Scott Ilgenfritz, a partner at Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns.

The award covered a period from January 2009 to June 2012 and involved investments in the banking and financial services sectors.

Mr. Ilgenfritz said there were about 12,000 transactions in six of Mr. Speer's accounts, 85% of which centered on corporate and municipal bond trading.

“The unauthorized trading was rampant,” Mr. Ilgenfritz said in an interview. “They were trading individual bonds like pork bellies.”

Mr. Speer, who died in August 2012, suffered from dementia, according to Mr. Ilgenfritz. He asserts that Mr. Speer was exploited by Ms. Forte, who was alleged to be in a relationship with Mr. Speer in addition to serving as his broker.

Mr. Speer's estate sought $118.7 million in compensatory damages and $366 million in punitive damages. The arbitration panel denied the punitive damages as well as requests for expungement by Ms. Forte and Mr. McCoy.

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said the award was not justified.

“Although disappointing, it is a small fraction of the more than $476 million sought by claimants,” Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Christine Jockle said in a statement. “Even so, the award is inconsistent with substantial evidence showing that the accounts were profitable for the client and managed in accordance with his wishes.”

Attorneys representing Ms. Forte and Mr. McCoy were not immediately available for comment.

Mr. Speer's widow hopes the case will lead to greater protections for elderly investors.

“One of her goals in this whole process was to bring to light the financial abuse and elder abuse of her late husband and to prevent other brokers and investment advisers from taking advantage of their elderly clients,” Mr. Ilgenfritz said.

Full Article & Source:
Finra panel orders Morgan Stanley to pay $34 million to estate of former Home Shopping Network chief

ATTORNEY ADMITS TO TAKING $797,000 FROM CLIENTS

A Long Island elder law attorney has admitted to embezzling more than $797,000 from her clients over a four-year period, the Queens District Attorney's Office announced on Tuesday.

Martha Brosius, 52, of Brosius & Associates of Great Neck, appeared Tuesday before Acting Supreme Court Justice Helene Gugerty and pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree grand larceny and one count of scheme to defraud, according to a news release from Queens District Attorney Richard Brown's Office.

"The defendant has admitted to breaching her fiduciary duty and unjustly enriching herself at the expense of her client," Brown said in the release. Brosius was indicted for the offenses in 2013. Her clients included a 77-year-old man who had been deemed mentally incapable and for whom Brosius served as legal guardian, as well as two brothers who retained Brosius to sell their deceased father's estate and establish a special-needs trust for their disabled sister, who was the sole heir to the father's estate.

Brosius is scheduled to appear before Gugerty on Aug. 12 for sentencing. Gugerty has indicated that her prison sentence would range between four and 12 years. Brosius is a graduate of the St. John's University School of Law and was admitted to the bar in 2003. According to the Office of Court Administration website, she has not been publicly disciplined. Her guilty plea will subject her to mandatory disbarment.

Assistant District Attorneys James Liander and Yvonne Francis appeared for the Queens District Attorney's Office.

Full Article & Source:
ATTORNEY ADMITS TO TAKING $797,000 FROM CLIENTS

Former Public Guardian, Metro in Court Faceoff

By Walter F. Roche Jr

Davidson's former Public Guardian, Jeanan Stuart, and lawyers for Metro are battling each other in a suit brought by a woman who was placed in a conservatorship without her knowledge while recovering from serious head injuries.

In the suit now pending in Davidson Circuit Court Ginger Franklin of Hendersonville has charged that Stuart violated her fiduciary duties by placing her in a group home that didn't suit her needs and then ignoring her pleas to end the conservatorship.

Stuart's lawyers contend their client was acting as a Metro employee and should be protected from any liability under a state law, the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, limiting the claims that can be filed against a government agency or individual employees.

"She was elected by Metro Council," a recent filing states, adding that she also was issued a Metro employee ID badge and Metro provided her with bond coverage.

Stuart resigned from her post last year simultaneous with an announcement by Probate Judge David "Randy" Kennedy that he would no longer appoint her in any conservatorship cases.

In the Franklin case, Stuart's lawyers filed papers naming Metro government as a  third party defendant. Metro countered charging that the statute of limitations had run out by the time the claim was made and that Stuart's alleged actions fell outside of those that can be protected under governmental immunity.

"Contrary to Metro's assertions the complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty for which Metro would be liable," a recent filing by Robyn E. Smith, Stuart's lawyer, states, adding that Stuart should be immune.

"Metro government also gratuitously asserts that the complaint alleges only intentional torts for which it would not be liable," the filing adds.

In its latest filing Metro lawyers state that while they still want the case dismissed, if it does continue that "discovery be limited to ascertaining the employment status of Ms. Stuart."

Citing a prior ruling in the case by Judge Hamilton Gayden, Metro lawyer Jeff Campbell stated in a filing that the court's original decision to deny proceeding under Governmental Tort Liability Act was "correct."

In another filing seeking dismissal of the claims against Metro, government lawyers argued that "absent an allegation of direct negligence on the part of a supervisor of Ms. Stuart, the government maintains its immunity for intentional torts."

Franklin's lawyer, Michael G. Hoskins, in response to Stuart's move to invoke the governmental immunity statute wrote, "The Metro government did not have any authority to direct or supervise defendants actions as conservator."
 
Full Article & Source:
Former Public Guardian, Metro in Court Faceoff

The Saddest Story in the World

  ANGLETON, Texas (CN) - A Texas evangelist tricked a disabled woman into moving in with him, defrauded her of her $270,000 personal injury settlement and then kicked her out of his house, the woman claims in court.

Marilyn Rupard sued John David Crow and the John David Crow Evangelist Association on Nov. 13, in Brazoria County Court.

Rupard claims that Crow "represented himself as a pastor and investment advisor" when she met him. At the time, Rupard was pursuing a personal injury claim involving artificial hip implants that had disabled her.

When Crow learned about her personal injury claim, Rupard says, he "began to pressure her to reach a settlement as soon as possible."

Crow told her "that once she got a settlement he would assist her in investing her money and that he would take care of her personal needs," according to the complaint.

In September this year, when Crow learned she was about to get "a significant settlement" for her claim, he invited her to move into his home "on the pretext that he could assist her with her daily personal care, and assist her in investing her money," the complaint states.

Rupard says she moved into Crow's house on Sept. 20.

Crow "insisted on accompanying the plaintiff to her attorney's office to pick up the settlement check," which was for $270,000 Rupard says.

She claims that Rupard took the check from her attorney, "and kept it."

With her check in his hand, Rupard says, Crow told her that if she deposited the money in "her name only" she would lose her Social Security disability and Medicaid benefits.

He offered to deposit the $270,000 in his name and put the money under the control of his evangelistic association, Rupard says.

He could only do it, however, if Rupard wrote a letter giving him authorization - so she did, Rupard says.

She claims that Crow had the letter notarized - though she did not appear in front of the notary - and that on Oct. 2 Crow deposited the check into a new Wells Fargo account under both their names and Crow's evangelistic association.

When Rupard asked if she could have a debit card for the account, Crow "said she could not have a debit card and laughed at her," according to the lawsuit.

Full Article & Source:
The Saddest Story in the World

Palm Springs fiduciary Ron Olund accused of negligence

Maxine Douglas on Dec 29, 2010, after she was back living at her home. She died Jan 8, 2011.(Photo:Courtesy of Janis Garcia)

A Palm Springs fiduciary is facing discipline from a state board on accusations he bungled a senior woman's finances.

Ron Olund was entrusted by a judge with preserving an 82-year-old's estate from 2009 to 2010, but a complaint leveled by Professional Fiduciaries Bureau Chief Julia Ansel accuses him of failing to pay the woman's bills, accruing late fees and bouncing checks.

Maxine Douglas' supplemental Medicare health insurance was canceled, her TV and phone services disconnected and her home narrowly escaped foreclosure during Olund's stint as her fiduciary, the accusation states.

According to the complaint, Olund committed incompetence, gross negligence, willful violation of duty and unprofessional conduct. The state Attorney General's Office is providing legal counsel.

Olund's professional fiduciary license may be suspended or revoked and he may have to pay the investigation and enforcement fees if found guilty by the state Office of Administrative Hearings on Tuesday in San Diego.

Olund did not return several calls for comment.

The bureau took no disciplinary action in 2008-2010, four actions in 2011, 11 in 2013, 10 in 2013 and five so far in 2014, according to its website. Punishments include written reprimands, citations, two- or three-year probation and license revocation.

"They have a relatively small licensee population of about 700," said Monica Vargas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Consumer Affairs. "Any complaint the bureau receives is looked at and investigated, but not everything warrants a disciplinary hearing against a license."

Douglas died at home with her daughters beside her in 2011, six weeks after they agreed to be her co-conservators so they could take back control of her finances and get her out of a Palm Springs assisted living home.

Cathedral City's former Mayor Carol Joseph and her sister Janis Garcia will testify on their mother's behalf against Olund on Tuesday, after Garcia filed a complaint in June 2010.

Full Article & Source:
Palm Springs fiduciary Ron Olund accused of negligence

HTC, Lawyers Sued by Nina Simone's Daughter

CN) - The daughter of Nina Simone has taken aim at HTC over the use of the legendary jazz singer and pianist's song "Sinnerman," and at a law firm for allegedly mishandling her mother's estate.  Lisa Simone Kelly filed the federal complaint against HTC and advertising agency Deutsch LA in Manhattan on Sept. 27, claiming they neither sought permission nor paid the estate for use of "Sinnerman."   She seeks $1 million in damages. Her mother was signed to the Mercury Records subsidiary Phillips Record when she recorded the 1965 hit song, which fell under the umbrella of a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the complaint alleges. Because HTC is a party to contracts with the federation and the Screen Actors Guild governing the commercial use of recordings, it was obliged to negotiate with Simone's estate before using the song, according to the 5-page filing. Kelly filed a separate lawsuit that same day in Los Angeles Superior Court, naming as defendants her former attorneys Sussan Shore, Blake Rummel and the estate-planning law firm Weinstock, Manion, Reisman, Shore & Neumann. In her complaint for professional negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, Kelly claims that the law firm failed to investigate whether Simone was domiciled in France when she died there on April 21, 2003, at the age of 70 after a long battle with breast cancer.   Kelly says that it was in her interest that administration of the estate take place in France under the country's hardship laws. Weinstock Manion allegedly wanted Simone's estate probated in California, however, because it would net them more in fees. "Defendants knew that plaintiff Lisa Simone Kelly was in a vulnerable state after the death of her mother and wanted to close the estate quickly," the complaint states. "The breaches of fiduciary duty by defendants caused the probate proceedings to drag on interminably with acrimonious litigation, arbitration and other disputes; indeed, ten years after Nina Simone's death, the probate proceeding in California is still ongoing."   Full Article and Source: HTC, Lawyers Sued by Nina Simone's Daughter

Criminal probe requested in conservatorship case

John E. Clemmons

Citing “incomplete accountings and other misrepresentations,” a court-appointed conservator is recommending that the district attorney general and the TBI open criminal investigations into a Nashville attorney’s handling of a conservatorship.

In a 26-page report filed Thursday in Davidson County Probate Court, Paul Gontarek found that attorney John E. Clemmons paid himself over $370,000 while acting as the conservator of Nannie P. Malone. Court records show that most of those payments were made without court approval.

Malone passed away last year at the age of 81, but her family has filed a civil suit against Clemmons, who is facing criminal charges in a separate case in Rutherford County.

Gontarek was named to replace Clemmons in the Malone case on April 10 after the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended Clemmon’s license to practice law. Probate Judge David “Randy” Kennedy also named Gontarek to take over three other of Clemmons’ cases.

Gontarek said that his review of the four cases showed Clemmons routinely submitted accounting reports that omitted the payments he made to himself. He said some of those reports were “totally fraudulent.”

Full Article and Source:
Criminal probe requested in conservatorship case

See Also:
Nashville Attorney John E. Clemmons Charged With Theft in Conservatorship Case

Tennessee Attorney John E. Clemmons, Court Appointed as Conservator, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and More

Defalcation, Bankruptcy and Fiduciary Litigation

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. Specifically, the Court resolved a deeply fractured Circuit split on the scope of the term “defalcation” within Section 523(a)(4) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. That Section of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual cannot obtain bankruptcy discharge “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” For years, the lower courts had struggled with what, exactly, “defalcation” means. Wonder no longer because the Supreme Court has defined it.

Full Article and Source:
Defalcation, Bankruptcy and Fiduciary Litigation

Nashville Attorney John E. Clemmons Charged With Theft in Conservatorship Case

A Nashville attorney, whose license to practice law was recently suspended, has been charged with theft of more than $60,000 from a client.

John E. Clemmons, 65, was charged last week with theft from a retired teacher.

While serving as the conservator of the Rutherford County resident, Clemmons paid himself more than $50,000 in fees without court approval.

Paul Housch, Clemmons’ attorney, said his client already had entered a not guilty plea to the criminal charge. He declined to respond to the charge, stating that it would be addressed in court. An initial hearing is scheduled for June 7.

The charges were initially spelled out in an April order from the state Supreme Court which indefinitely suspended Clemmons’ license to practice law, concluding that allowing him to continue posed “a threat of substantial harm to the public.”

Chancellor Robert E. Corlew III on March 5 removed Clemmons as Russell Church’s conservator. Rutherford County Clerk and Master John A.W. Bratcher then referred the matter to District Attorney General Robert Whitesell, whose office brought the charges to a grand jury.

The indictment was unsealed last week.

Clemmons also is facing charges in a civil case brought by the daughter of a woman for whom Clemmons served as a conservator for more than four years. The suit charges that Clemmons misappropriated about $450,000 from the estate of Nannie P. Malone, who died last year.

The suit on behalf of Malone’s daughter, Teresa A. Lyle, charges that Clemmons breached his fiduciary duty and failed to properly account for thousands of dollars in proceeds when Malone’s property was auctioned. The insurance company that provided a bond for Clemmons under his services in the conservatorship has filed a cross claim against Clemmons for the value of the $300,000 bond.

Full Article and Source:
Nashville Attorney Faces Theft Charges in Conservatorship Case

See Also:
Tennessee Attorney John E. Clemmons, Court Appointed as Conservator, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and More

TN Attorney John E. Clemmons, Court Appointed as Conservator, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and More

A Nashville attorney whose law license already is under suspension for misappropriation of a ward’s funds is being accused in a civil suit of misappropriating at least $450,000 from a now-deceased elderly woman whom the courts had entrusted to his care.
In the suit filed in Davidson County Circuit Court, John E. Clemmons has been charged with breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, intentional misappropriation of more than $450,000 and repeatedly failing to account for his handling of the estate of Nannie P. Malone.

In a 16-page complaint filed Friday, Teresa A. Lyle, Malone’s daughter, charged that Clemmons had sold off at auction hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of Malone’s property but had failed to properly account for the proceeds.

The suit comes after the state Supreme Court indefinately suspended Clemmons license to practice law, citing him for misappropriation and concluding his continued practice of law “poses a threat of substantial harm to the public.”

The high court action stemmed from a Rutherford County case in which chancery court officials found that Clemmons had paid himself $50,400 without court approval from the estate of a nursing home resident who had been entrusted to his care. A review showed an additional $16,500 could not be accounted for.

In the suit filed in Davidson County, attorneys for Lyle charged that “Clemmons has not made any itemized accounting of any expense” incurred in the auction of Malone’s properties, including a 68-acre farm and four lots.

Full Article and Source:
Suspended Lawyer Faces Lawsuit in a Conservatorship Case
See Also:
TN Attorney John E. Clemmons Suspended After $50,000 Taken From Disabled Ward

Thieves Swindle Disabled Veterans, Program

They survived the Nazis, the Viet Cong and the Taliban.   But hundreds of mentally disabled veterans suffered new wounds when the country they served put their checkbooks in the hands of scoundrels.
Gambling addicts, psychiatric cases and convicted criminals are among the thieves who have been handed control of disabled veterans' finances by the Veterans Affairs Department, a Hearst Newspapers investigation has found.

For decades, theft and fraud have plagued the fiduciary program, in which the VA appoints a family member or a stranger to manage money for veterans whom the government considers incapacitated. The magnitude and pace of those thefts have increased, despite VA promises of reform. Three of the largest scams — ranging from about $900,000 to $2 million — each persisted for 10 years or more before being discovered.

In the past six years, the VA has removed 467 fiduciaries for misuse of money, but only a fraction have faced criminal charges, a Hearst analysis of data from the VA's Office of the Inspector General shows. 

The government has never adequately tracked fiduciaries' thefts from brain-damaged or memory-impaired veterans. The inspector general's office says it conducted 315 fiduciary fraud investigations from October 1998 to March 2010, resulting in 132 arrests for thefts amounting to $7.4 million.

But a Hearst analysis of court records and documents obtained by freedom of information requests shows that the thieves' take since 1998 is more than $14.7 million — nearly twice the amount reported to Congress.

Full Article and Source:
Thieves Swindle Disabled Veterans, Program

See Also:
NASGA:  Veterans in Peril