Alcoholic and Manipulative Business Partner

[Zigner]

Awesome - it's all clear. I'm sure that the OP's attorney will tell him the same thing when he expresses his concerns that he wants to avoid the appearance of elder abuse.

 

[tranquility]

Awesome - it's all clear. I'm sure that the OP's attorney will tell him the same thing when he expresses his concerns that he wants to avoid the appearance of elder abuse.

Once again, and for the final time, "elder abuse" has no relevance to this issue. None. Not a little bit. No way, not a chance. He is quite simply wrong on the matter and his intransigence confuses me a bit. If a new poster, his answers might be reported. (I've seen it happen for less.)

OP, don't worry about that issue. If you ask your attorney, the result is just his answer costs you more.

 

[Zigner]

Once again, and for the final time, "elder abuse" has no relevance to this issue. None. Not a little bit. No way, not a chance. He is quite simply wrong on the matter and his intransigence confuses me a bit. If a new poster, his answers might be reported. (I've seen it happen for less.)

OP, don't worry about that issue. If you ask your attorney, the result is just his answer costs you more.

And, again, all I am doing is advising the OP to, at the very least, question it with an attorney who KNOWS the specific details. That's all. If my answers WERE reported, they would be restored because it's a valid (albeit, remote) question.

 

[tranquility]

And, again, all I am doing is advising the OP to, at the very least, question it with an attorney who KNOWS the specific details. That's all. If my answers WERE reported, they would be restored because it's a valid (albeit, remote) question.

It is not a valid question. There are no legal sanctions against the OP in this transaction because of the age of the great aunt. Any legal sanctions here would be the same if the aunt were 40. Your advice in this instance has no value. There is no risk. While there are also two sides to most issues, since this is not an issue--there really aren't two sides. Without the facts, there is no issue. Here the only fact that could possibly apply to elder abuse would be the age of the great aunt. Under your scenario, before any time any person makes any deal with any person over 60, they should consult an attorney.

Absent violation of 940.285, there is no specific criminal penalty under elder abuse. The sale of a business is simply not implicated by the statute on our facts. Sure, the purported victim could sue for conversion, theft, or intentional/negligent misrepresentation for any acts related to the business sale--JUST AS ANYONE COULD. The only difference is the greater chance the government does an investigation. If that investigation discovers crimes or torts involved with the transaction, they can get injunctions to stop the transaction and turn the evidence over to the police. The same way any person could. The key to the reporting statute was to create mandatory reporters and to give immunity to others to report suspected abuse and to provide a clear pathway to conserve a potential victim who does not have people who care enough to take the steps themselves.

In official guidance to implement the law with the reporting centers (http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/IAFN/baf09f1c-b3a1-403f-885c-282f980caa41/UploadedFiles/Wisconsin%20Adult%20at%20Risk%20Reporting%20Law.pdf) financial abuse would have as example:

Examples of Exploitation
� Money, property or other assets used, taken, sold or transferred without consent
� Signature forged on checks or other financial and legal documents
� Large sums of money withdrawn from bank accounts without his/her knowledge

Potential indicators of abuse would be:

Signs of Suspected Exploitation
� Overpayment for goods or services
� Unexplained changes in power of attorney, wills or other legal documents (e.g., power of
attorney given when elder is unable to comprehend the financial situation and in reality is
unable to give a valid power of attorney)
� Missing checks or money, or unexplained decreases in bank accounts, activity in bank
accounts that is inappropriate to the older person (e.g., withdrawals from automated
banking machines when the elder cannot walk or get to the bank)
� Missing personal belongings
� Unusual interest in the amount of money being expended for the care of the older person,
concern that too much is being spent
� Refusal to spend money on the care of the elders (e.g., numerous unpaid bills, overdue rent
in situations where someone is supposed to be paying the bills)
� Recent acquaintances expressing gushy, undying affection for wealthy older person
� Recent change of title of house in favor of a �friend� when the older person is not capable
of understanding the nature of the transaction
� Recent [new] will when person is clearly incapable of making (or amending) a will
� Caregiver asks only financial questions of a worker � does not ask care questions
� Placement not commensurate with alleged size of the estate
� Lack of amenities, e.g., TV, personal grooming items or appropriate clothing when the
estate can well afford it
� Personal belongings missing � e.g., art, silverware, jewelry
� Caregiver tries to isolate older adult from old friends and family; tells older person no one
wants to see him/her and older person then becomes isolated and alienated from those who
care for her/him; comes to rely on caregiver alone who then has total control.
� Promises of life-long care in exchange for willing or deeding of all property/bank accounts
to caretaker
� Checks and other documents signed when older person cannot write

As mentioned in earlier posts, most of the rest of the issues have to do with caregivers or those who take on a voluntary duty to take care of the person. There there is a possibility of control or undue influence that is not implicated in our facts. The OP doesn't really like great aunt. I find it unlikely they are taking care of her.

But, all that is not really the point of the law(s) as the purpose (other than the criminal statute) focuses on:

An essential and overriding distinctive feature of protective services for adults, over other
social and health services, is the potential for the use of legal authority (intervention). The
point is �that if legal action should be required the (APS) agency needs to be empowered,
equipped and willing to undertake it.� For example, when an Adult Protective Services worker
is unable to gain access or entry to a home to verify abuse or neglect, the worker relies on law
enforcement to gain entry. Once face-to-face with the adult at risk, the social service worker
uses advice, persuasion and encouragement, e.g., the client is motivated to leave unsuitable
living quarters, assisted with money management, encouraged to take a medical or psychiatric
examination, participate in a nutrition program and/or apply for public benefits. Only when
advice, persuasion and encouragement fail, and risk is still present, would an adult protective
service worker potentially use more strident (legal) intervention. This is because competent
adults are presumed to be self-determining and independent. Any efforts to interfere with the
right to be self-determine must be based on the belief that the adult�s situation, problems,
circumstances or actions are so hazardous or harmful to the adult or others that it overrides the
usual right to be left alone. Protective services are expected to be available to all persons when
in need of them, and to place the least possible restriction on personal liberty and exercise of
constitutional rights consistent with due process and protection from abuse, exploitation and
neglect.
Balancing the client�s right to self-determine with the community�s responsibility to protect can
be challenging. Often, there is no obvious �right� answer. Additionally, adult protective
services (APS) cases often involve highly functionally impaired victims, more than one type of
abuse or neglect and/or complex family dynamics. Studies have shown that decisions made by
groups are more effective than those made by individuals when no one person has the solution,
but each person can contribute to the answer. Therefore, an interdisciplinary team must be a
key component of an ideal APS system. Given the complexity of APS cases, and the fact that
there are often gaps in the services needed to assist victims, a broad range of professionals
looking at a case and planning possible interventions and/or care plans is likely to arrive at
effective results. Interdisciplinary teams provide many benefits including:
� Support and validation for case workers as well as consultations on complex
case;
� Increased knowledge of community resources;
� Wider range of alternative solutions to consider;
� Better coordination of interagency efforts; and,
� Networking and �door opening� among professional groups.

The only thing the OP would fear over the duties and responsibilities we have to anyone else because of the great aunt is over 60 is 940.285. Please provide any scenario under our facts where that statute would be implicated.

 

[Zigner]

Tranq -

Is it really your advice that the OP not even ask the question based upon the information given by anonymous posters on an internet forum? Ok

 

[betachains]

....<snip>> ... Your advice in this instance has no value.

....<snip>...

What do you mean, "this instance"?

 

[tranquility]

Tranq -

Sigh edit:
I deleted my reply and say only, Res Ipsa Loquitir.