(a)“Financial abuse” of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following:
(1)Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(2)Assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.
(3)Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in
taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70.
(b)A person or entity shall be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained, or retained property for a wrongful use if, among other things, the person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains the property and the person or entity knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder or dependent adult.
(c)For purposes of this section, a person or entity takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property when an elder or dependent adult is deprived of any property right, including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or
testamentary bequest, regardless of whether the property is held directly or by a representative of an elder or dependent adult.
(d)For purposes of this section, “representative” means a person or entity that is either of the following:
(1)A conservator, trustee, or other representative of the estate of an elder or dependent adult.
(2)An attorney-in-fact of an elder or dependent adult who acts within the authority of the power of attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Consum. Solutions Reo, LLC v. Hillery, 658 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
“olation of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), (3) violation of California Financial Code § 4973 (predatory lending), (4) quiet title, (5) violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), (5) violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices…”
Knox v. Dean II, 205 Cal. App. 4th 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
“Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.”
Fong v. E. W. Bank, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 838 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“When some of these transactions ended badly, Fong brought this action, alleging conversion and financial abuse of an elder under *840 Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.”
Errico v. Pac. Capital Bank, N.A., 753 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“Elder Abuse Plaintiffs’ eleventh and final cause of action is for elder abuse under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.”
Van Zandt v. Mbunda (In re Mbunda), 604 F. App'x 552 (9th Cir. 2015).
“First, Van Zandt argues that he could have amended his § 523(a)(6) claim to allege that Mbunda violated California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.”
Alhadi v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 74 (Tax Ct. 2016).
“Financial *108 abuse is defined under the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.”
Levin v. Winston-Levin (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Her argument that Debra is liable for double damages traces a route through three different statutes: Probate Code section 859, Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15610.”
Marble v. Fibiger CA2/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “) The probate court did not err by concluding the Porter Family Trust’s survivorship clause did not bar the Ayala estate from being a beneficiary of the bypass trust.”
Thomas Van Zandt v. Wileharda Mbunda, 604 F. App'x 552 (9th Cir. 2015).
“First, Van Zandt argues that he could have amended his § 523(a)(6) claim to allege that Mbunda violated California Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.”
Holt v. Denholm CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “30, subdivision (a), provides in relevant part: “(a) ‘Financial abuse’ of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity does any of the following: [¶] “(1) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.