Deed Of Trust - Arizona Department Of Housing: Fill & Download for Free

I wrote this article some time ago:Don't Insure for the Mortgage Amount (Regardless of What the Bank Says)Author: Bill WilsonEvery agency has experienced this to one degree or another: A client buys a house and the replacement cost of the dwelling is considerably less than the mortgage amount. The insurer refuses to issue a policy with a Coverage A amount greater than the replacement cost, but the lender insists on a policy limit equal to the mortgage amount.Here's a typical situation:"We need your help! We're getting beat up by lenders insisting that we insure a home for the loan amount rather than replacement value. In our area, selling price values are soaring but replacement values are steady. People are refinancing with lower interest rates, starting a vicious battle between the loan officer (representing the lender) and us (representing the insurance company)."Here lies the problem: the loan officer will absolutely accept nothing short of the loan amount and they become angry and very threatening if we don't do exactly as they demand. The insurance companies demand some type of proof as to why we are requesting an increase (and a refinance is not the reason)."A typical situation is as follows: The bank faxes our office a request to change the mortgage clause and increase coverage to the loan amount. We respond that we need an appraisal showing replacement value from them to increase coverage. They normally supply an appraisal which agrees with our current coverage. We then advise them that we cannot increase coverage as we currently insure at replacement value and that their appraisal agrees. Now the trouble starts. We normally receive multiple calls from the loan officer calling us illegal, unprofessional, not serving our client, threatening to take the business away from us, and on and on. The calls start at the CSR level, then move up to the personal lines manager, and sometimes moves up to me, the owner, with each one of us explaining the same thing."This problem is only getting worse and I'm afraid it could get a lot worse. I'm concerned that banks will use this issue as leverage to rewrite our policies into their markets."I contacted the local insurance department office and he advised I could lodge an individual complaint on each situation with them. We're getting about 7 to 8 requests per day of which 1 or 2 can get real ugly."The lender's position is understandable, but misguided. Clearly, they want to protect their investment. That investment consists of two components: (1) the real estate (land, home, outbuildings, etc.), and (2) the loan itself. Insurance is the mechanism designed to protect against the pure risk of loss to the real property. However, the loan itself is a speculative business risk...that's not the function of insurance.As an example, let's say the purchase price and loan amount for a home is $200,000...for the sake of simplicity, we'll forget about any down payment. This $200,000 represents market value, not insurable value. The cost to rebuild the home itself might be $140,000, with the $60,000 balance being the value of the land and other structures. The purchase price includes the value of land, all structures, and even other property that may not be covered by a homeowners policy.The purchase price may also include the "value" of the location. I once looked at two new homes, both built from the same floor plan by the same contractor. The asking price for one of the homes was 50% higher than the other based SOLELY on the location of the home in a "preferred" neighborhood. The cost to rebuild the homes would be virtually identical.Under a homeowners policy, the insurance company would never pay more than $140,000 if the home was completely destroyed unless required to by a state's valued policy law (which is another reason for not insuring the loan amount). There has been no damage to the land or the "location value" (or at least the policy isn't going to pay that amount), so it would largely be pointless to insure the property for more than the structural replacement costs.It does not serve the bank's interest in any way to be the mortgagee on a policy with a policy limit equal to the loan amount because neither the insured nor the bank will ever collect that amount. The policy will only pay an amount based on the valuation method included in the contract. Again, this is the case if no valued policy law applies...if it does, then the insured could actually profit from the loss by insuring the loan amount rather than the replacement cost of the property. This would violate one of the fundamental tenets of insurance and, conceivably, could create a moral hazard.If an insurance company issues a replacement cost (or, worse, an ACV) policy with a limit greater than the actual cost to repair or replace, they may be in violation of the insurance laws in most states. I'm pretty sure all states require that rates/premiums be adequate, not excessive, and not unfairly discriminatory. What these banks are asking is that the insurance company issue a policy with an excessive premium (payment for coverage the insured can never collect without a total loss and triggering of a valued policy law, which has a likelihood of maybe 1-3%) and that's probably illegal.For example, TENNESSEE has an "Unfair Competition and Deceptive Practices" statute regarding loan amounts that exceed the value of a building or structure:"Lenders of money - Extenders of credit."(a) No person who lends money or extends credit may:"(8) Require, in connection with a loan or extension of credit secured by real property, that the debtor procure insurance for the protection of the property for an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the structures existing on the secured property at the time of the loan or extension of credit or, in the case of a construction or improvement loan, insurance which exceeds the value the structures are expected to have upon completion of the construction or improvements."This law was enacted by an initiative of IIABA's state affiliate, the Insurors of Tennessee, in response to the situation described above.So, as you can see, a lender should not be permitted to demand an insurance limit that exceeds the value of the property insured as defined by the insurance contract. The insured or lender should never receive more than the actual value of the damaged property. In addition, "over-insuring" the property could be illegal, by statute or contract.Note: For another excellent article on this subject, and specific to FLORIDA law, check out Insuring for the Mortgage Amount on the Florida Association of Insurance Agents web site. As the article explains, Florida Administrative Code prohibits a mortgage lender from requiring insurance in an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the home:"4-167.009 Mortgage Fire Insurance Requirements LimitedNo mortgage lender shall, in connection with any application for a mortgage loan in this state which is secured by a mortgage on residential real estate located in this state, require any prospective mortgagor to obtain by purchase or otherwise a fire insurance policy in excess of the replacement value of the covered premises as a condition for granting such a mortgage."Another state that has responded to this situation via insurance department directive is GEORGIA. According to Georgia Directive 98-PC-1, Establishment of Property Values and Corresponding Insurance Amounts on Mortgaged Properties Insured in Georgia (June 26, 1998):"Land values may not be included in the computation when determining the amount of appropriate homeowners insurance because homeowners insurance does not insure the land on which the home is located. Therefore, such activities are in violation of O.C.G.A. 33-6-5(6)(A) which provides as follows: 'No person shall knowingly collect any sum as premium or charge for insurance, which insurance is not then provided or not in due course to be provided subject to acceptance of the risk by the insurer by an insurance policy issue by an insurer as permitted by this title.'"The directive goes on to say that agents engaged in this practice can be fined from $1,000-$5,000 for each act and/or have his licensed suspended, revoked or placed on probation. Any insurer in violation of the law may have its certificate of authority suspended, revoked or placed on probation.Following the publication of this article, we heard from several other states who have similar "over insurance" laws besides Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee...below is a summary listing of the other states we're aware of with "over insurance" prohibitions.ArizonaARS 44-1208. Loans secured by real estate; prohibited practices; insurance. Except for consumer lender loans regulated pursuant to section 6-636, for any loan that is secured by real property, a person shall not require as a condition of the loan that the borrower obtain property insurance coverage in an amount that exceeds the replacement cost of the improvements as established by the property insurer.[Note: The statute covers only real property (not mobile homes) and does not include commercial buildings. For more information, go to: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/44/01208.htm]CaliforniaCalifornia Civil Code § 2955.5 says, in part:(a) No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to provide hazard insurance coverage against risks to the improvements on that real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the property.(b) A lender shall disclose to a borrower, in writing, the contents of subdivision (a), as soon as practicable, but before execution of any note or security documents.(c) Any person harmed by a violation of this section shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief and may recover damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.(d) A violation of this section does not affect the validity of the loan, note secured by a deed of trust, mortgage, or deed of trust.ConnecticutStatute 360-757 originated with public act PA 84-212 which prohibits a mortgage lender from requiring a prospective home buyer to obtain a fire insurance policy in excess of the home's replacement value, as a condition of granting a mortgage loan on residential property located in the state and secured by such a mortgage. The act was effective on October 1, 1984. On October 1, 2000, the statute was broadened by PA 00-95 to include flood insurance, extended coverage insurance, or any combination of insurance, including fire insurance.IllinoisPublic Act 093-1021 Effective August 24, 2004:Section 5. The mortgage Insurance Limitation and Notification Act is amended by adding Section 17 as follows:Sec. 17. Insurance coverage.(a) No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to provide hazard insurance coverage against risks to the improvements on that real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the property.(b) Any person harmed by a violation of this Section shall be entitled to obtain injunctive relief and may recover damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.(c) A violation of this Section does not affect the validity of the loan, note secured by a deed of trust, mortgage, or deed of trust.MassachusettsGeneral Law, Chapter 183, Section 66 says, in part:A bank, lending institution, mortgage company or any mortgagee doing business in the commonwealth, when making a mortgage loan, shall not require, as a condition of a mortgage or as a term of a mortgage deed, that the mortgagor purchase casualty insurance on property which is the subject of the mortgage in an amount in excess of the replacement cost of the buildings or appurtenances on the mortgaged premises.MichiganMORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES (EXCERPT)Act 135 of 1977445.1602a Property/casualty Insurance as condition to loan; limitation on amount required; amount as condition of sale, transfer, or assignment. [M.S.A. 23.1125(2a)]Sec. 2a. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a credit granting institution that requires a mortgagor to maintain property/casualty insurance as a condition to receiving a mortgage loan shall not require the amount of the property/casualty insurance to be greater than the replacement cost of the mortgaged building or buildings.(2) A credit granting institution may require an amount of property/casualty insurance that is required of the credit granting institution as a condition of a sale, transfer, or assignment of all or part of the mortgage to a third party. This subsection does not require that the credit granting institution anticipate a sale, transfer, or assignment at the time the mortgage loan is made.History: Add. 1995, Act 214, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1995MontanaIn 2009, SB 375 amended MCA 32-1-430, 32-3-604, and 32-10-401 to provide that a “lender may not require insurance on improvements to real property in an amount that exceeds the reasonable replacement value of the improvements..”New HampshireRSA 417:4 printed 01-12-2006 from NH Insurance Dept websiteXVI. COERCION IN REQUIRING INSURANCE.(a) No creditor or lender engaged in the business of financing the purchase of real or personal property or of lending money on the security of real or personal property may require, as a condition to such financing or lending, or as a condition to the renewal or extension of any such loan or to the performance of any other act in connection with such financing or lending, that the purchaser or borrower, or the purchaser's or borrower's successors shall negotiate through a particular insurance company or companies, insurance agent or agents, broker or brokers, type of company or types of companies, any policy of insurance or renewal of a policy insuring such property. This provision does not prevent the exercise by any mortgagee of the right to approve on a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis only insurance companies authorized to do business in this state, selected by the borrower.(b) There shall be no interference either directly or indirectly with such borrower's, debtor's or purchaser's free choice of an agent and of an insurer which complies with the foregoing requirements, and the creditor or lender may not refuse the policy so tendered by the borrower, debtor or purchaser. Upon notice of any refusal of such tendered policy, the insurance commissioner shall order the creditor or lender to accept the tendered policy, if the commissioner determines that the refusal is not in accordance with the foregoing requirements of this subparagraph. Failure to comply with such an order of the insurance commissioner is a violation of this section.(c) Whenever the instrument requires that the purchaser, mortgagor, or borrower furnish insurance of any kind on real or personal property which is being conveyed or which is collateral security to a loan, the mortgagee or lender shall refrain from disclosing or using any and all such insurance information to its own advantage and to the detriment of either the borrower, purchaser, mortgagor, insurer, or company or agency complying with the requirements relating to insurance.(d) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a creditor or lender of a loan secured by an interest in real property shall not require the borrower to keep the mortgaged property insured under a property insurance policy in a sum in excess of the value of the buildings on the real property.(e) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no creditor or lender shall require as a condition to closing a loan that the borrower provide an original insurance policy at said closing; provided, however, that the creditor or lender may require the borrower to produce at closing a binder showing the borrower as a named insured and creditor or lender as mortgagee, and confirming that insurance has been issued, is in force, and will remain in full force until a copy of the final policy is delivered to the creditor or lender or until the creditor or lender has received notice of cancellation in accordance with the policy conditions.(f) No insurer may automatically write insurance on a debtor who has contracted credit based on the principle that the insurance is applicable unless specifically rejected by the debtor, unless the premium or such other identifiable charge as may be applicable is paid in full by the creditor.New JerseyNJAC 3:1-13.1Insurance tie-in prohibition(c) No lender shall, in connection with any application for a loan secured by a mortgage on real property located in New Jersey, require any mortgagor to obtain by purchase or otherwise a fire insurance policy in excess of the replacement value of the covered premises as permitted under N.J.S.A. 17:36-5.19 as a condition for granting such mortgage loan.New York3 NYCRR 38.9 Limitation on excess insurance and required disclosures(a) Limitation on excess insurance.No mortgage banker or exempt organization shall require any mortgagor, in connection with the granting of a mortgage loan, to obtain a hazard insurance policy in excess of the replacement cost of the improvements on the property as a condition for the granting of such mortgage loan.North Carolina58-63-25 "Unfair methods of competition" or "unfair and deceptive acts or practices"The following are hereby defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:(13) Overinsurance in Credit or Loan Transactions. In connection with a loan or extension of credit secured by real or personal property or both, requiring the applicant to procure property and casualty insurance against any one risk which results in coverage which exceeds the replacement value of the secured property at the time of the loan or extension of credit. In connection with a secured or unsecured loan or extension of credit, requiring the applicant to procure life or health insurance against any one risk which exceeds the amount of the loan. In connection with a loan secured by both real and personal property, requiring credit property insurance, as defined in G.S. 58-57-90, on the personal property. For the purposes of this subsection, "amount of loan" shall be deemed to be the amount of the principal and accrued interest to be paid by the debtor including other allowable charges.PennsylvaniaHere is a paper written by our Pennsylvania association on this issue relative to PA laws.Rhode IslandCHAPTER 27-5 - Fire Insurance Policies and Reserves - SECTION 27-5-3.2§ 27-5-3.2 Property insurance. No person, bank, or lending institution doing business in this state, whether acting under state or federal authority, which includes but is not limited to (1) a bank, savings bank, or trust company, as defined in this title, its affiliates or subsidiaries, (2) a bank holding company, as defined in 12 U.S.C. § 1841, its affiliates or subsidiaries, (3) mortgage companies, and (4) any other individual, corporation, partnership, or association authorized to take deposits and/or to make loans of money under the provisions of chapters 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 25.2, and 25.3 of title 19, making a mortgage loan, shall, as a condition of the mortgage or as a term of the mortgage deed, require that the mortgagor carry property insurance on the property which is the subject of the mortgage in excess of the replacement cost of any buildings or appurtenances subject to the mortgage; provided, that if a mortgage is sold, transferred, conveyed, or assigned, it shall be the responsibility of the holder of the mortgage to notify the insurance producer issuing the property insurance policy in writing of that sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment. This notice shall be made in writing and shall be sent to the insurance producer within thirty (30) days of the sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment by registered mail. In the event that the holder of a mortgage shall fail to notify the insurance producer who issued the property insurance policy that is in force, in writing, of that sale, transfer, conveyance, or assignment within thirty (30) days, the holder shall indemnify and hold the insurance producer harmless.VirginiaThe question posed was if a bank could force the consumer to have an insurance policy with the insured amount being the loan value even if this exceeds the value of the building. Under Virginia Banking code banks are not allowed to do this. The statutes does not reference personal or business loan so we would assume it applies to both.VA Code- 6.1-2.6:1. Fire insurance coverage under certain loans not to exceed replacement value of improvements.A. No lender shall require a borrower, as a condition to receiving or maintaining a loan secured by any mortgage or deed of trust, to provide or purchase property insurance coverage against risks to any improvements on any real property in an amount exceeding the replacement value of the improvements on the real property.In this section, 'property insurance coverage' means insurance against losses or damages caused by perils that commonly are covered in insurance policies described with terms similar to 'standard fire' or 'standard fire with extended coverage.'In determining the replacement value of the improvements on any real property, the lender may:1. Accept the value placed on the improvements by the insurer; or2. Use the value placed on the improvements that is determined by the lender's appraisal of the real property.B. A violation of this section shall not affect the validity of the mortgage or deed of trust securing the loan."Wisconsin632.07  Prohibiting requiring property insurance in excess of replacement value. A lender may not require a borrower, as a condition of receiving or maintaining a loan secured by real property, to insure the property against risks to improvements on the real property in an amount that exceeds the replacement value or market value of the improvements, whichever is greater.For an example of a related article regarding flood insurance prohibitions on this practice, "Flood Insurance Mandatory Purchase Guidelines".Last Updated: May 17, 2014Source:https://www.independentagent.com/Education/VU/Education/VU/Insurance/Personal-Lines/Homeowners/Conditions/WilsonMortgageAmount.aspx

There have been Presidents who enacted policies that helped address issue of Native Americans. There has never been one that made these issues central because we live in a democracy, of sorts. Native Americas are a very small percentage of the population and thus have not a great amount of voter power. They do not live in concentrated cities or neighborhoods to elect leaders to national office. It is true that there are plenty of presidents who did nothing for Native Americans or did terrible things like Andrew Jackson. But other presidents did try to improve things for Native people. It is important to remember that the US president has little power if the Congress does not want to pass laws. Often that has been the case. The president can try to push laws and can sign ones that have been passed. But they do not make law.Here are some presidents who did a few things for Native peoples.John Quincy Adams was an early advocate for Indians. He called the existing policy “fraudulent and brutal.,,,It is among the heinous sins of this nation,” Adams refused to support Georgia’s aggressive pressure for Indian removalWilson, granted citizenship to the 10,000 Indians who served in World War I.Harding pushed for Indian citizenship. When Harding dedicated the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, he invited the Crow Chief Plenty Coos (or Plenty Coups) to participate in the ceremony. Plenty Coups addressed the crowd of 100,000 in the Crow language. “I am glad to represent all the Indians of the United States in placing on the grave of this noble warrior this coup stick and war bonnet, every eagle feather of which represents a deed of valor” He also invited Jim Thorpe and Zitkala-Sa to the White House.Coolidge enacted the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Before that most Native Americans were not citizens and could not vote. He set up the investigations for the Meriam Report. It concluded that the Dawes Act had been a failure, theft and fraud. The Meriam Report in 1928, and Coolidge’s public support for its findings led to an overhaul of Indian policy.Hoover choose a Native American Vice President. Charles Curtis grew up on a reservation and spoke Kaw as a first language. Hoover attended a school with Native Americans for a while as a child.“They were of course being taught English. I and my cousins were mostly interested in learning Osage."He insisted that Indian land be protected. He decried the loss of Native land through the allotment policy, He introduced legislation to support education among Indian students. He spent money to build schools and hospitals on reservations at a time when federal spending was down. Hoover appointed Charles Rhoads, a fellow Quaker and president of the Indian Rights Association, as commissioner of Indian Affairs and the two helped define federal Indian policies that would span the next four decades. Their plan sought to “make the Indians self-supporting and self-respecting.” He said Native communities “infested with human lice in the shape of white men.” In 1932 the Leavitt Act was passed. It had been pushed by the Hoover admin. It canceled all outstanding debts of the tribes.Franklin Roosevelt enacted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. It started down the path of restoring mineral and land rights and other resources to tribal control. The goal of the act was to reverse the traditional US government goal of assimilation of Indians into American society and to strengthen, encourage and perpetuate the tribes and their historic traditions and culture. The policy helped reverse the Dawes Act’s infamous privatization of communal holdings of tribes. Congress altered is some to led to new problems with lack of oversight and issues around Indians land and royalties. FDR appointed people who were highly interested in helping Native Americans. FDR had been interested in Native rights even before office. He was involved with the members of the American Indian Defense Association (AIDA). This organization worked to stop laws that prevented traditional dances and would have taken more land.Truman signed the law establishing the Indian Claims Commission. This created a process for tribes to address their grievances against the United States, and offered monetary compensation for territory lost as a result of broken federal treaties.Johnson passed the Indian Civil Rights Act in 1968. This act made many, (but not all), of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable within the tribes. Before the law the US Supreme Court had made clear that tribal internal affairs concerning tribal members' individual rights were not covered by the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution. Before the law the tribes were ultimately subjected to the power of Congress and the Constitution but not really covered by it. He appointed Robert Bennett, an Oneida Indian, as commissioner of Indian Affairs. There had not been a Native in this sort of position since the 1860s. He ended the Termination policies. Johnson proposed an Indian policy of “maximum choice” for Indians, “expressed in programs of self-help, self-development, self-determination.” He also issued an executive order establishing the National Council on Indian Opportunity. Head start which he created became important in many tribal areas and lead to the creation of Native run schools and colleges. The first was Dine College founded on the Navajo reservation in Tsaile, Arizona, in 1968.“Both in terms of statistics and in terms of human welfare, it is a fact that America’s first citizens, our Indian people, suffer more from poverty than any other group in America. That is a shameful fact.”Nixon still has a good record in many Native American communities. Nixon came to office as the Red Power movement was growing. Nixon implemented policies that led to a great increase in actual tribal sovereignty. Nixon returned the important Blue Lake lands to the Taos Pueblo and the large amount of uplands areas to the Havasupai. The deal for the Havasupai was signed by Ford after Nixon left office. Nixon increased the annual funding of the Bureau of Indian Affairs by 214%. The bulk of these funds were to be given to tribal governments. Nixon gave the "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations for Indian Policy" (8 July 1970). He recommended self-determination for Indian tribes as a goal of the federal government. His message said that termination was an incorrect policy. Nixon called for broad-sweeping self-determination legislation. This led to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Again, this was signed by Ford but it was Nixon’s bill.“What we have done with the American Indian is its way as bad as what we imposed on the Negroes. We took a proud and independent race and virtually destroyed them. We have to find ways to bring them back into decent lives in this country.”Ford signed the Indian Claims Commission Appropriations Legislation. He called it an opportunity “to take clear and decisive action” to make things right. “Although we cannot undo the injustices from our history, we can insure that the actions we take today are just and fair and designed to heal such wounds from the past.” Signed Senate Bill 634, which transferred 12.5 acres of federal land in Idaho into trust status for the Kootenai and allocated funding to construct roads and a community center. Signed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This elevated the health status of Indians to the highest possible level and encouraging tribes to enter into self-determined contracts with the Indian Health Service.Jimmy Carter passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act in 1978. Before that religious practices could be banned and practitioners jailed. He signed the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, curbing the practice of placing Indian children with non-Native families and establishing regulations for keeping Indian children in their communities. Negotiated an agreement and signed the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act in October 1980“It is the fundamental right of every American, as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution, to worship as he or she pleases… This legislation sets forth the policy of the United States to protect and preserve the inherent right of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiian people to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions,”George H.W. Bush: When he signed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act into law in 1990. He also designated the first national Native American heritage month, and proclaimed 1992 the “Year of the American Indian.”Barack Obama brokered the passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act re-authorization. The Tribal Law and Order Act expanding punitive authority of tribal courts and working to reduce violent crime—especially against women—in Indian country. Finished the $3.4 billion Cobell settlement. He made the $680 million Keepseagle settlement in 2010. By 2012, the Justice and Interior departments had reached settlements totaling more than $1 billion with 41 tribes for claims of mismanagement. Obama signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, reversing the United States’ 2007 position and committing to honor indigenous peoples’ right to exist. He institutionalized an annual White House Tribal Nations summit. He directed every cabinet agency to provide a plan within 90 days—and on an annual basis thereafter—detailing its consultations with tribes, plans to implement change in Indian country and regular progress reports. Over eight years virtually every agency improved somehow in what it did for Indian country. He hired several Indians to posts throughout his administration. He signed Executive Order 13592—Improving American Indian and Alaska Native Educational Opportunities and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities. He signed the Violence Against Women Act, extending to tribes unprecedented authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes on Indian land. He pushed for improvements in Indian schools and increased funding for suicide prevention programs in Indian country. He worked out a deal to protect the Bears Ears with a number of tribes.“We also recommit to supporting tribal self-determination, security, and prosperity for all Native Americans. While we cannot erase the scourges or broken promises of our past, we will move ahead together in writing a new, brighter chapter in our joint history.”

“Guardians from Hell” is a term coined by Tablet Magazine regarding “The completely legal, utterly grotesque system for undermining the rights of the elderly.”Tablet Magazine caters to stories about Jewish life. For Jews, predatory guardianship, in which a person loses all of his or her civil rights, bank accounts, properties, and is placed in a nursing home against his or her will, is particularly scary — a reminder of what transpired in Nazi Germany.The latest Guardianship Nightmare story was published in The Tablet on June 21, 2018. Here it is: (I have written extensively about the guardianship nightmare. Please read my other posts about this topic.)******By Gretchen Rachel HammondAt 92-years-old,Virginia Jean Wahab hadn’t lost any of the vitality and health she maintained throughout her life. She raised two daughters as a single mom and made a home for them in the Detroit, Michigan suburb of Oak Park. Wahab worked on her feet and didn’t retire from her job at a local family restaurant until she was 88.Fiercely independent, Wahab was quite happy living at home after retirement. She had a healthy social life. She did her own grocery shopping and chores. She so rarely needed to pay a visit to a hospital that her health insurance was barely touched.Her eldest daughter Mimi Brun converted to Judaism at the age of 18. She went on to become a prolific Jewish artist, who sold her work all over the world. In 2010, she began to establish art schools for children under 12 in France and then Chicago. Although Brun was estranged from her younger sister, she and her mother were extremely close. Wahab was Catholic, but Brun noted that she had the fastidious nature of a Jewish mother.Wahab’s legal affairs were in order including a durable power of attorney she had signed in January, 2016 which named Brun as a patient advocate (the handler of her medical needs) as well as giving her daughter charge of her financial affairs should she ever become incapacitated. Wahab’s home was also registered in Brun’s name in a quit claim deed signed by Wahab on December 29, 2014.The two talked on the phone every day. Brun particularly relished visits with her mother during which she would gift her a piece of art. Wahab was an eager collector of Brun’s work.That was two years ago. Everything has changed since then.In 2016, after a fall at her home, Wahab was diagnosed with a slight cognitive problem but otherwise deemed healthy. Wahab’s doctor recommended that Brun find her a short-term rehab facility.“I looked for a Jewish one,” Brun said. “They were all full. I found Lourdes because it had a five-star reputation.”On February 23, that year, with the approval of her HMO, Wahab was admitted for short-term rehabilitation at Lourdes Senior Community in Waterford, Michigan—a nonprofit elder care facility founded by Dominican nuns in 1948. According to the organization’s 2016 I-990s, Lourdes listed end of year assets of $22,096,166.00. Expenses totaled $14,476,851.00Brun said she made her mother’s meals and went to each of her physical and occupational therapy sessions.“The insurance granted her up to 120 days,” Brun remembered. “She was excelling like a champ but the therapist at Lourdes started telling me she suspected Mom should not live alone. Mom and I decided that I was going to go back to France and Chicago, put my businesses on hold, rent out my homes and move my work and studio to Mom’s. It was what she had dreamed about—to spend the end of her life living with me.”Brun left for France, placing her aunt and sister in charge of caring for Wahab while she was in rehab.“I called Lourdes every day,” Brun said. “Then the insurance cut off.”Brun asserted that she spoke to Lourdes social worker Sara Van Acker and pledged that she would enter into a payment plan. Shortly thereafter, however, she received an email from a Lourdes administrator which stated “Your payment plan with Sara Van Acker was not approved by me. I cannot receive partial payment nor be patient for your payment plan time frame.”On June 6, Lourdes filed a petition for guardianship on the grounds of a $31,416.65 past-due bill. Brun said that the petition notice was sent to an address that was not hers. The petition shows that the address used to serve Brun belongs to an apartment complex in Harper Woods Michigan—one hour’s drive from Lourdes and 30 minutes from Oak Park. On the address, no apartment number is listed. It is also not the address listed on the Power of Attorney paperwork Brun says she provided to Lourdes.Brun rushed back to Michigan. On the morning of June 29, 2016, she attended a hearing presided over by Oakland County Probate Judge Linda Hallmark, one of four judges serving there. Hallmark vacated Wahab’s power of attorney and appointed a local attorney Jon Munger as Wahab’s guardian. According to Brun, neither she nor her mother ever requested Munger’s services.Also appointed by the court was a man named Matthew Jason Brown, another local lawyer. Brown was named as Wahab’s guardian ad litem (GAL)—a person entrusted with investigating what course of action is in the best interest of a person unable to care for themselves. The June 29 hearing was also attended by two representatives from Lourdes: Van Acker and Lisa Hibbert from the organization’s accounts receivable department.According to court transcripts from that morning, Van Acker stated that she had filed the petition for guardianship because “there’s a concern about the nursing home being paid.”Brown wanted to know if an application for Medicare benefits for Wahab had been made.“Not to my knowledge,” Van Acker replied.“Are you familiar with [Wahab’s] medical condition?” Brown wondered, to which Van Acker answered “slightly.”When Brown asked Brun if she had any objection to the petition, Brun replied “I am contesting this hearing because I was not served. I’ve had no time to get a lawyer.”“Well, you’re here Ma’am,” Hallmark replied, “and it’s a guardianship so there is some urgency about it, so we’re going to proceed.”When Brun protested that she had been appointed as Wahab’s guardian through a power of attorney, Hallmark quickly rebuked her.“That’s different than an appointment by the court,” Hallmark said. “Has any court appointed you guardian?”“No, but I haven’t applied for it yet,” Brun replied. “I’d like to petition for it, but I need time.”Hallmark did not respond to this request.In delivering his report to the court, Brown went on to state that he had visited Wahab at Lourdes only two days earlier. During that visit, he said, he “explained to Wahab her rights and gave her a copy of [the petition].”“She didn’t have any objection to the appointment of a public administrator at that time,” he added. “But I would note that she was not oriented to date, time, and place.”Brown also stated that he “went over [Wahab’s] medical condition with Ms. Van Acker and she went over with me sheets that said she was suffering from dementia, unspecified lack of coordination, osteoarthritis, two…type two diabetes, muscle weakness and hypertension.”Transcripts from that day indicate that Hallmark never asked for medical reports to prove Brown’s assertions.Brun told Hallmark that she had witnesses who would speak on her and Wahab’s behalf. Those witnesses, however, were never called.“My Mom needs love,” Brun went on to tell Hallmark. “No one loves my Mom more than me. When I asked my mom ‘what’s your greatest desire?’ she said ‘I want to go home. I want to go home with you.’”“I want to take her home,” Brun begged Hallmark.“I’m going to grant the petition,” Hallmark said. “I would like to appoint Mr. Munger [as guardian]. If he thinks that an independent medical or some other action is required that’s fine. I’m also going to appoint [Munger] as special fiduciary to make sure we have the Medicaid application on track. I’ll revoke the power of attorney today. If it’s appropriate that [Brun] should serve, if you want to get counsel and bring the matter in, we’ll consider that.”“She hasn’t lost any of her rights…” Hallmark added, speaking of Wahab. “She has a guardian and it’s Mr. Munger…”Brun made one last desperate plea. “Is there a reason why?”“Yes,” Hallmark replied. “Because she’s in need of a guardian and I’m appointing Mr. Munger. That’s why.”Hallmark never mentioned the grounds by which she was revoking the power of attorney.The court adjourned.Brun’s fight to have her mom released from Lourdes would eventually result in Hallmark issuing an injunction restraining her from entering Lourdes premises, denial of her visitation rights (even when chaperoned by a nun and a locally renowned, retired judge) and a bench warrant from Hallmark’s court for Brun’s arrest.Two days after Munger had been assigned, Brun received an email from his office which stated “It will be necessary to close [Wahab’s] bank accounts and locate all assets in order to apply for Medicaid. I understand that there is at least one account at ****** Bank with both of your names on it. It would be more efficient if you cooperate with the closing of the account(s). I will need proof of closure for the Medicaid application. I will then open a guardianship account at ******** for your mother, pay her bills, and apply for Medicaid.”Even though Wahab was originally admitted for a short-term rehab at Lourdes, on July 1, 2016, according to his own accounting, Munger completed a long-term medical assistance application that entitled Lourdes to three months of retroactive disbursement, faxing the application to Michigan State’s Department of Human Services. Five days later, Munger completed and mailed another admissions packet to Lourdes for Wahab.A July 17, 2016 affidavit, signed by Wahab and filed in court, read “I want to go home with my daughter Mimi.”On August 15, 2016 Brun’s then-attorney sent a letter to Lourdes CEO Sr. Maureen Comer stating “Ms. Brun has not and has never been opposed to negotiating the payment of the outstanding bill. Ms. Brun has made arrangements to take Ms. Wahab home and Ms. Wahab has even signed an affidavit stating she wants to return home.”Two days later, Brun, her attorney and Lourdes received an email from Munger which stated that he was clarifying “for both Lourdes and for yourself, that I am not authorizing either Mimi Brun or yourself to discuss, negotiate or otherwise become involved in any potential discharge plan nor payment.”Munger also went on to say “there have already been repeated complaints about your client’s behavior while at Lourdes facility. I have not yet taken full steps to curtail your client’s visitation, but we may need to revisit that issue.”In a subsequent series of emails Brun’s then-attorney called Munger’s actions “highly inappropriate. You are needlessly dragging on this litigation so you can keep billing and billing.”Munger replied “You and your client will cease any communication with Lourdes administration or management. Your failure to abide by this requirement will simply force me to place the matter before Judge Hallmark, where I will ask that both you and your client be sanctioned for this grossly unprofessional, abusive and threatening behavior. I simply will not allow either of you to interfere with Virginia’s care.”On August 18, 2016, Munger billed Wahab $245 for his drafting “of a petition to limit visitation.”An email that day from Munger to Brun’s attorney stated that it was “due to your attempts to pay Lourdes.” It makes no mention of any complaints about Brun’s behavior.Because he was Wahab’s guardian, Munger was legally permitted to bill his ward for any work on her behalf. A 2017 statement of other fees and services billed to Wahab by Munger and Associates shows that in little over a three-month span, Munger billed Wahab a total of $6,097.00 in fees and services.Brun filed an emergency petition to have Wahab released from Lourdes. In an October 5 hearing in Hallmark’s courtroom, Munger was represented by attorney Joseph Ehrlich.Munger billed Wahab $450 to “attend hearing on court motions and “[a] conference with judicial staff attorney.”Following the hearing, Ehrlich secured an order from Hallmark compelling Brun to pay $25,000 to Lourdes and gave her 25 days to come up with the cash.Brun told me that, because it did not include the provision for her mother to be released, she refused to pay it.A subsequent motion Brun filed to vacate the order stated that “upon review of the transcript of this hearing, at no point did Brun ever agree to pay $25,000 to Lourdes. It does not comport with the settlement placed on record.”Lourdes retained attorney Mary Lyneis to represent them.A November 2016 letter from Lyneis to Brun accused her of violating “Court Orders entered into the Probate Court.”While it did not mention which of those orders Brun was supposed to have violated, it went on to accuse her of “Threatening conduct toward the staff at Lourdes. In addition, you upset your mother with unfounded allegations the staff at Lourdes. As a result, you are hereby notified that you are no longer permitted on the premises. Should you attempt to enter the premises, appropriate law enforcement will be contacted.”The letter offered no evidence of any court order sanctioning a decision to bar Brun from the premises.In a February 2, 2017 email, Lyneis told Brun “We want to be paid. You cannot expect to show up to see your mother when you have not paid for the privilege and you have disappeared since November.”A subsequent email from Munger to Brun stated “If you want to visit your mother and or even remain in contact with her, you would be better served by complying with the existing court order than by continuing to harass everyone trying to see your mother. In particular, pay the $25,000.”Concerned about being able to pay her legal fees, Brun sold her and her mother’s home to Michigan banker Bradley Silverstein on the proviso that he draft a lease for her and Wahab to live there. A lease with that condition was drafted on February 28, 2017.Two days later on March 1, 2017, Ehrlich, Lyneis, and Munger appeared before Hallmark and asked for a series of ex parte orders against Brun.Ex parte orders are issued without the presence of or even notification of the parties it affects. Since due process is Constitutionally guaranteed, these orders are supposed to be temporary while allowing ample room for them to be contested.Brun was not present at the hearing when the ex parte orders were issued. At the time, with the support of her doctor and with his medical order in the court file, she had requested a two-month medical leave from the court.Hallmark also issued a permanent injunction against Brun restraining her from entering Lourdes premises, and a bench warrant for arrest alleging that her refusal to pay the $25,000.00 was in contempt of court.Regardless, Munger and Ehrlich requested that the house be transferred back to Wahab’s name “and then [to] permit Jon Munger to sell the house in order to pay for her care, so that [Wahab] would then qualify for needs-based benefits.” The court issued this order on June 28, 2016.Brun told me that, in the months that followed, Munger attempted to force his way into the house. On August 8, 2017, she filed a police report, complaining that Munger had attempted to enter the house on three separate occasions.When Brun replied that she had never received such an order, Munger wrote “A hearing was held on June 21 in front of Judge Linda Hallmark, and you received notice of that. I have every legal right to enter your mother’s home, and I have done so.”A June 30 email from Munger to Brun read “As you are aware, Judge Hallmark entered an order in the eviction case requiring you to vacate your mother’s home by Wednesday, June 28th 2017. I went to the home with several others on the following day, June 29th, and it was apparent that no one was residing in the home. Accordingly, we had the locks changed and the home secured. Upon our entry into the home, it was apparent that you had left a great deal of valuable personal property behind, including artwork. We deem this to be abandoned property under the law. For the time being, we are holding that personal property and artwork as security for repayment of the $25,000 you were ordered to pay on October 5.”Brun has filed criminal police reports for larceny home invasion and theft against Munger with the Oak Park Police. The police took no subsequent action.On August 30, Munger billed Wahab $245 for “a hearing to set aside deed” and $119 for calls to the real estate agent and the locksmith.Brun said she was not present at any such hearing.Brun’s attorney Phillip Strehle would later tell Hallmark “In October ’16 [Munger] filed a forwarding address card with the post office which has Mimi’s name on top and Munger’s address on it. So, he already knew, as of October ’16, that whatever mail he sent to the house, she would never get, because he sent it to himself. Mr. Ehrlich told me out in the hall that the order of August 30 was entered because it was uncontested. There’s a reason why it was uncontested; because Ms. Brun was not properly served.”Brun finally got a break in October 2017 when attorney Lisa Orlando became Wahab’s new Guardian ad Litem.In two reports Orlando submitted to Hallmark in 2018, she wrote “I visited [Wahab] at Lourdes Senior Community first on November 16, 2017 and then again more recently, on February 28, 2018, at which time I again served her a copy of the petition, notice of hearing and the order appointing a Guardian ad Litem. I don’t believe that Virginia was able to understand the information being presented, however she did clearly say that she did not want to go to court. I then asked her if she wanted Mimi to be her guardian and she said ‘of course!’”“In the opinion of this GAL, it is Virginia Wahab a 94-year-old woman, who is paying the price of these ongoing legal disputes and suffering harm by not being able to see her daughter for more than 17 months,” Orlando added. “To isolate and prohibit an aging Mother from seeing her daughter is heartbreaking to this GAL. Mimi Brun has priority under the statute and is Virginia’s choice to be her Guardian.”An affidavit signed by Wahab’s sister Sr. Helen Essa reads “Mimi is a devoted daughter and attended to every detail of her mother’s care not ever putting her own needs first. I know how desperate my sister is to go home with Mimi and have Mimi care for her. I pray, as we all do, that my sister will not die in a nursing home.”In concluding her report, Orlando cited Michigan statutes.“Under MCL 700.5313(3)(b), [Brun] has priority over a professional guardian,” she wrote. “’If suitable and willing to serve as guardian, the court shall appoint, an adult child of the legally incapacitated individual.’” Under MCL 700.5313(2)(b), [Brun] is Virginia’s choice to serve as her guardian. I discovered no clear and convincing evidence why the Petition should not be granted.”Yet, Munger still remains as the sole guardian for Wahab who is still at Lourdes. Despite her best hopes, Brun has yet to see her and bring her homeThe question remains as to why the Oakland County Probate Court effectively became a debt collector for a nursing facility and why the now 95-year-old Wahab is still held there despite her own Guardian ad Litem opinion that Brun replace Munger as guardian and family members’ pleas to Hallmark that Wahab be allowed to go home with her daughter.On May 25, 2018 Hallmark vacated the order to pay $25,000.00. Hallmark also found Brun not guilty of contempt of court.Brun does not believe the petitions she filed in October to have Munger removed as guardian will even be heard until July.“I have been offering to pay Lourdes the money to let my mother go but Munger refuses to accept my working with the facility,” she said. “I promised Mom that her last chapter would be her best. But I think my mom will die before Munger ever lets her go.”Strehle, who has been Brun’s attorney since October, 2017, told me that he felt the entire case against Brun was “bizarre.”“The transcript of June 29, 2016 does not comply with the statute or the court rules,” he said. “There’s not a single bit of evidence to support even the creation of a guardianship; not one iota of evidence.”He added that for a nursing home to present a petition for guardianship based on a past-due bill is something “I’ve never seen in all my years of doing probate. Ever.”In the [June 29, 2016] transcript, the guardian ad litem [Brown] is the one that’s asking the questions,” he added. “Not Munger. Not an attorney for Lourdes. That’s even more bizarre. Usually, the person asking the questions is the petitioner not the guardian at litem. The court grated it because of an overdue bill. That’s not a basis for getting even a limited guardianship.”Strehle also addressed the March 1, 2017 subsequent bench warrant and injunction issued against Brun.“In my view, the bench warrant against Mimi was entered improperly because of the $25,000 provision which the court recently vacated,” he said in an interview with me. “In her petition Lyneis was seeking a restraining order against Mimi. A restraining order lapses on its own in 14 days. That’s not what she got. The court granted her a broad injunction. Lyneis had a huge burden of proof to get the restraining order. After that, she was supposed to notify us of a hearing within 14 days. She didn’t do that. It was based on no evidence whatsoever.”“After all this time, I still have not seen any evidence to support [Munger’s] guardianship,” he concluded. “I have emails from Lourdes saying ‘we don’t want [Wahab] here.’”“Twice on the record now in open court Ehrlich has said he wants to get the house to pay fees,” [referring to both his and Munger’s legal fees]. “I don’t see how that’s a basis for keeping this poor woman in this location, isolated, with no visitation. I’ve never seen it before in 31 years of doing this.”I reached out to both Lourdes CEO Sr. Maureen Comer and Lyneis. In a series of email responses, Lyneis requested my “credentials” in the form of a “CV”. When I refused to provide her with a resume, Lyneis declined to confirm or deny any of the emails or statements on court transcripts made by her or Lourdes staff members. She also refused to answer a long list of questions pertaining to everything from Wahab’s initial medical diagnosis to why a petition for guardianship was filed over a past-due bill.I also reached out to Hallmark via email and telephone and was told by a staff member in her office that, since she had not responded to my email, it was an indication that she had no comment.An Oakland County Probate Court Administrator later replied, “In the interest of fairness to those involved, it is this court’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.”Wahab’s first GAL, Brown, however, did respond. “As I stated in my report, Ms. Wahab consented to the guardianship,” he wrote. “I also felt, after interviewing Ms. Wahab, that she needed a guardian to be appointed. The information regarding the medicals was given to me by the nursing home regarding Ms. Wahab’s medical condition and are consistent with my report and testimony.”This is not a story drawn from a dystopian fantasy. It is happening today all over America, where Probate Courts employ an exponentially growing network of professional, for-profit guardians.I talked at length to six other families—in Michigan, Arizona, New York and Illinois respectively about their experiences with predatory guardians; some are court appointed professionals, others are family members granted leave by Probate Courts to cut their siblings out of a ward’s life.The tapestry of each story was as complicated as it was heartbreaking. Each narrator pulled on the memory of each thread of that tapestry and found tears, despair, rage and frustration behind it.In October, 2017 WXYZ television in Lansing, Michigan launched an investigation into the Oakland County Probate Court and its court appointed guardians Barbara Andruccioli and Thomas Brennan Frasier whom a family member accused of neglecting and financially exploiting her parents Lorrie and Sandy Kapp.Andruccioli and Brennan have yet to respond to these allegations.The Oakland County Probate Court judge in the case, Daniel A. O’Brien, issued an ex parte order denying WXYZ the ability to show the Kapp’s faces.Andruccioli was subsequently fired as a public administrator and has become part of a still ongoing criminal investigation by both the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office and the Sherriff’s office yet she still remains conservator and guardian for cases at the Oakland County Probate Court.According to court documents from the Michigan Court of Appeals, in 2011, Hallmark appointed Munger as guardian to Angela M. Robinson who had been declared legally incapacitated. In 2012, her parents Remo and Marie Marzella petitioned Hallmark to remove Munger as guardian and transfer her to their care. They claimed Munger “had not investigated Angela’s best interests or made proper decisions regarding her future care.”Following an evidentiary hearing, Hallmark denied the petition.“I am not going to remove Mr. Munger at this point,” she said. “I don’t find that Mr. Munger did anything wrong.”In a subsequent 2014 lawsuit, the Marzellas accused Munger of committing legal malpractice. Among the complaint’s allegations, Munger “failed to investigate and ascertain Angela’s best interests with respect to her living arrangements, advocated for Angela to live in an institution instead of with her family” and “failed to foster Angela’s family relationships and family involvement in her care and life.”“Angela and her special needs trust were subsequently shorted and she and her family suffered economic and non-economic damages,” the complaint added.Munger claimed that, because Hallmark had already ruled he “did nothing wrong” during the petition for his removal, the Marzellas were barred by “collateral estoppel” (preventing an issue from being relitigated.)In 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that “no discovery was even conducted before [the evidentiary] hearing. Simply stated, the probate court’s decision not to remove Munger as Angela’s guardian was not tantamount to a finding that Munger did not commit legal malpractice or breach fiduciary duties owed to Angela.”It concluded that the Marzellas “never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues underlying their claims.”The same court dealt with the 2007 case of Brenda Cupp—who suffered head injuries after a car accident. According to court documents, her sister Dana Browning had been appointed as guardian. After Cupp’s attorney contested the case, Munger was appointed co-guardian and co-conservator of Cupp’s special needs trust.Five weeks later, Munger petitioned the probate court for Browning’s removal as co-conservator “on the basis that she acted erratically during Cupp’s independent medical examination [IME] and Munger heard second-hand that Browning intended that the money in Cupp’s estate would not be used to pay legal fees.”The petition was granted.In 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled “the IME incident was not sufficient good cause to remove Browning from her co-conservatorship position a mere five weeks after her appointment” and that “the probate court abused its discretion in finding that good cause existed to remove Browning as co-conservator.”In 2002, Joseph Ehrlich, was sanctioned over $113,000 by a Michigan Court for “pursuing frivolous litigation” in a case disputing the estate of John J. Fannon, Jr.Ehrlich appealed in 2005 and, in denying that appeal, the court stated that “The record reflects that, when they joined the case, Ehrlich and his firm continued to file pleadings and documents that lacked factual and legal support. The record clearly reflects that Ehrlich failed to make reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal merit of the claims he asserted on behalf of plaintiff when he knew or should have known that they lacked such support.”On his website, Munger claims to be an Oakland County Public Administrator although an email from State Public Administrator Michael Moody reads “Mr. Munger’s appointment as an Oakland County Public Administrator was terminated on October 6, 2017.” Munger is also not among the Oakland County Probate Court’s list of Public Administrators.Between June 29, 2016 and September 19, 2017 Munger’s statement of fees and services billed for his guardianship of Wahab totaled $12,282.I reached out to Munger by email and telephone and was told by his office secretary that he had no comment.I reached out to Ehrlich via email and telephone. His office secretary responded that Ehrlich had never received the email. When I asked to speak to him in person, she concluded the conversation.There are also a number of cases involving Holocaust survivors.Al Katz barely escaped numerous Nazi camps, including Dachau, only to become the ward of guardians in Florida at the age of 89, as court documents show.“My father came to the United States in 1946,” his daughter, Dr. Beverly Newman, told me.“His mommy, daddy, little brother, older sister, her husband and their one-month-old baby had all been murdered. He was a walking skeleton with no money, no job and didn’t know the English language. He felt very alone.”Nevertheless, Newman remembered that her father never lost a wonderful sense of humor while he lived by the motto “Never forget, never forgive and never be bitter.”It was at a Purim ball in Indianapolis that Katz met Sophia Passo.“He was stricken with love,” Newman laughed. “He asked her over and over again to marry him. She just would not do it.”Katz started to work in bakery and then a packing house where he was injured twice. It was when Sophia was visiting him in the hospital that she relented.He and Sophia were married in 1947. Katz began a successful insurance career. The couple had two children, Newman and her younger brother, and were inseparable for over thirty years until Sophia passed away in 1977.The devastation Katz felt remained with him the rest of his life.After retirement, Newman said that her father became a snowbird, spending winters in Florida.In 2009, concerned for his health, one of Katz’s doctors contacted a public guardian.That individual was M. Ashley Butler who worked in the Office of Public Guardian for three Florida counties since 2006 together with a partner, Jo Eisch, under the business name Aging Safely, Inc.Newman maintained that the first she heard about it was when she was told by Katz’s Indianapolis attorney that “there are people poking around about putting your father into guardianship. That was August of 2009.Newman added that hospital records she obtained from the time include numerous orders made by the guardians not to inform her of any medical decisions or procedures.“On Rosh Hashanah, September 18, [Butler and Eisch] filed papers to put my dad into Emergency Temporary Guardianship,” Newman said, adding that neither guardian had ever met her father. “They didn’t even know him. I have the transcripts of the hearing. The judge knew that I had not been contacted and went ahead and approved it anyway. Things then moved very quickly.”A 2011 Florida Supreme Court complaint filed by Newman and her husband noted that Bradenton attorney Ernie Lisch was appointed by the court to act as Al’s counsel.“Despite many irregularities at the hearing, Lisch took no steps to advocate for or protect the rights of his client,” the complaint reads. Lisch contested these allegations, and the Florida Appellate Court ruled in his favor.Newman discovered that Katz had been placed in Casa Mora Nursing Home in Bradenton.In 2015, the Bradenton Herald reported that the facility was one of three on a Florida watch list “due to prior problems or deficiencies.”The Herald noted, among those deficiencies, “A 58-year-old Casa Mora resident and the resident’s representative had requested in a resuscitate order that the resident receive CPR if she was ever found unresponsive. This procedure was not followed when she fell unresponsive. She was pronounced deceased after not receiving CPR.”According to the article, these deficiencies have since been corrected.Casa Mora is no longer on the state’s watch list.Newman and her husband Larry immediately drove from their home in Indianapolis down to Florida.She asserted that, shortly before they arrived on September 20, Butler utilized the Florida Baker Act—which allows for involuntary commitment—in order to place Katz in Manatee Memorial Hospital.“They said that he had taken his walker and bumped it into someone at the nursing home,” Newman said. “But my Dad was barely able to use a walker. He was in very poor physical condition and not a danger to anyone else. They never told him anything. Not what was going on, nothing. We arrived while daddy was in the Manatee Hospital emergency room. It was horrifying. My dad just wanted to go home. A psychiatrist chosen by Butler and Eisch made a No-Contact order. The hospital kept my daddy in an underground unit, like a dungeon. There were armed guards and these huge electronic doors. A nurse told us he was pacing the halls like a caged animal. It was traumatizing.”She added that Katz was there for three weeks.Newman remembered Katz calling Butler and Eisch “Nazis” to their faces.Meanwhile, like the family members in Michigan, Newman launched a fight to have Butler’s guardianship removed and her father returned to her care, as court documents show.Opposed by Lisch, the case was heard on October 26, 28, and 30, 2009 in Florida’s Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court.“In the intervening three weeks, Katz was repeatedly hospitalized and near death,” the 2011 complaint noted.“Guardianship in Florida is a very lucrative industry,” Newman said. “People who go into guardianship lose every cent they ever had. Their families are wrecked.”She stated that the guardians even took control over her father’s Holocaust Survivor Compensation checks as part of their oversight of her father’s assets.I attempted to track down Butler. The telephone numbers for Aging Safely have been disconnected. Email addresses for Butler have been shut down. The last I-990 tax return filed by the organization in 2014 listed bet assets of $1,767.00.As of publication, Eisch had not returned phone calls or email requests for comment.In Newman’s case, Florida Circuit Court Judge Paul E. Logan (now retired) restricted visits to her father to only three hours-per-day. “He said I could never tell my daddy that I was fighting in court to get him home or that he was under guardianship,” Newman asserted. “If I did, I would lose visitation completely. Daddy was crying and saying, ‘Take me home!’ ‘Why do you have to leave me?’ ‘Why can’t I go home with you?’ and I was prohibited by court order from telling him the truth.”On November 23, 2009 Newman won her petition for guardianship of her father but not his property.“I didn’t care,” she said. “I just wanted to get daddy out of the nursing home and hospitals and give him a real life. It was such a relief that I couldn’t stop crying.”However, by then, Katz was extremely ill and in the hospital.“I spent Thanksgiving that year with my daddy and in the hospital,” Newman said. “In some ways, that as the best and worst Thanksgiving of my life. At least I could shower him with love and attention.”By the time Newman and her husband got Katz home, it was Hannukah.“He was finally smiling,” she said. “By New Year’s Eve, he was able to eat and talk. We took him to a restaurant that he liked. We got him all dressed up. He wanted us to take pictures of us celebrating New Year’s Eve. It was a happy time.”Their time was all too short. Katz passed away on July 11, 2010.“He had no catheters or feeding tubes in him,” Newman said. “He was just as normal as you could be at 90-years-old.”In January that same year, Lisch filed a petition for $24,354.15 in attorney’s fees and expenses.“For doing essentially nothing,” Newman asserted.She opposed it and took the case all the way to Florida’s and then the United States Supreme Court, the latter of which declined to hear the case. Ultimately, Lisch prevailed in his original petition.Even nine-years after her father’s death, Newman said she is still subjected to verbal abuse and numerous accusations from those with a vested interest in a system against which she has actively taken a stand. Meanwhile, she continues to fight in Indianapolis to settle her father’s estate and to remove liens on Katz’s properties.In 2006, in the case of Marshall v. Marshall, the USSC determined that issues dealing with Probate Courts are “reserved to state probate courts” and “also precludes federal courts from disposing of property that is in the custody of a state probate court.”In memory of her father, the Newmans founded the Al Katz Center for Holocaust Survivors and Jewish Learning in Bradenton.“We serve many hundreds of persons every year through advocacy and programming open to the entire community,” the Center’s website reads, “and we are life-sustaining and life-saving to elders in peril and trauma.”On the opposite side of the country, the probate and guardianship system created another activist and family advocate out of an individual who found herself opposing those who have successfully exploited it.The Bradenton police department wouldn’t help Newman. Brun said that the police in her case were similarly unable to act, unless it was to prevent her from entering Lourdes to see her mother.[T}here is an organization that advocates for those working in the profession.The National Guardianship Association (NGA) was formed during a national conference in Chicago in 1988—one year after the AP’s article was released.In the 30 years that followed, the NGA’s membership increased to over 1,000.Sally Hurme is an attorney and member of the NGAs Board of Directors. She said that, while she is not and has never been a guardian, she has been involved in developing guardianship policy for decades.“NGA does not have any mechanism by which to do anything other than to keep developing standards of practice and educating individuals who want to provide excellence in guardianship,” she said.According to the NGA’s website, those standards of practice have increased from the original seven to their present number of 25. In 1997, the NGA voted to create an entirely separate entity, the Center for Guardianship Certification (CGC) on whose board Hurme has also served.It states its vision as one in which “every professional guardian will obtain and maintain CGC certification.”“The CGC is the only national certifying body for guardians,” Hurme said. “Any guardian; professional, family, public or volunteer is welcome and encouraged to become certified.”Among the five pillars Hurme listed as necessary to obtain certification is an examination.To become a Nationally Certified Guardian (NCG), the $375 exam is scored on core competencies including professional practices, knowledge of person under guardianship, application of surrogate decision making, medical decision making and personal and financial management.The competencies listed in the $525 examination to be certified as a National Master Guardian (NMG) are basically the same with the addition of “professional practices of a master guardian” and knowledge of the guardianship planning process.Hurme stated that, at present, there are approximately 1,500 certified guardians.“There is an agreement to a disciplinary process which receives grievances, determines whether there is probable cause to go forward with a professional review board,” she stated.Ironically, according to Hurme, the professional review board is one in which “due process” is afforded to a certified guardian while a determination is made as to whether or not they have violated standards of practice.“The professional review board has a range of sanctions from a letter of concern, to suspension, dismissal to decertification,” Hurme said. “The one problem with the CGC process is that we can only hear grievances if the individual is certified. If we receive a complaint about a guardian that is not certified, our hands are tied. There’s nothing the CHC can do.”The CGC’s list of disciplined guardians posted on its website numbers 12 and includes April Parks alongside guardians from Oregon, Texas, Utah, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon and Michigan.The CGC lists 12 States that ask for mandatory CGC certification for its guardians or have their own State-specific licensing requirements. In the case of California, it’s a combination of the two. Michigan is not among them. Since 2016, Florida has employed The Office of Public and Professional Guardians (OPPG) to regulate “more than 550 professional guardians statewide, which includes investigating and, if deemed appropriate, the discipline of guardians in violation of the law.“NGA and many of the other organizations such as those that are members of the National Guardianship Network are continually striving to make guardianship work better for those individuals who will need it,” Hurme said.As an example of those efforts, Hurme noted the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act (UGCOPAA). The over 150-page document was drafted, over the course of two years, by a committee consisting of multiple stakeholders including representatives from the American Bar Association (ABA) and was approved and recommended for enactment in all US States at a July, 2017 meeting of the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws.Hurme stated that members of the NGA, herself included acted as technical advisors to the commission “in making sure that the new model; law addresses many of the issues that are floating around in guardianship; perhaps that there are too many guardianships and that there needs to be more emphasis in limiting the authority of the guardian, better recognition of the due process rights of the individual and a more person-centered focus of the individual in the hearing process that limits the authority of the guardian.”American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Senior Legislative Representative Diana Noel was part of the drafting committee.“I felt as if it was a very thorough process that was very public,” she said. “There were a lot of people in the room. One of the things that is very important; that the drafting committee really wanted to come across, which is why the name is so long, is to recognize that guardianship was a system that was really not including the individual that it was about. One of the things the act did was to update terminology. Instead of using the term ‘ward’, it’s ‘individual’ so that the focus is on the individual and so that they have a say in their care.”A Uniform Law Commission document encouraging States to adopt the UGCPOAA, declares that, under the act, “Each guardianship and conservatorship will have an individualized plan that considers the person’s preferences and values. Courts will monitor guardians and conservators to ensure compliance and approve updates to the plan in response to changing circumstances.”It adds that “Without a court order, a guardian under UGCOPAA may not restrict a person under guardianship from receiving visits or communications from family and friends for more than seven days, or from anyone for more than sixty day” and that the act “prohibits courts from issuing guardianship or conservatorship orders when a less-restrictive alternative is available.”These provisions and others in the UGCOPAA could have protected Brun and her mother had the act been adopted in Michigan.It hasn’t.As of the time of publication only Maine has adopted it. The New Mexico State Legislature introduced it this year and opened it up for public comment.Hurme pledged that the NGA would direct its advocacy efforts to assisting States in understanding the importance of what she called “a forward-thinking law.”“This isn’t a partisan issue,” [Noel] asserted. “This isn’t a caregiving and an aging issue. I don’t want you to think that, because States haven’t adopted it, that means that they are not looking at it. They may be looking at it. These things take time. They look at their current laws, they see what’s working and what’s not working and how things like the Uniform Act could help fix what’s not working or enhance what is.”“As long as I’ve been here, I’ve been working on this issue,” she said. “States have been working on and updating their statutes because they are pretty outdated. They’ve been around for a very long time. It’s a very complicated system. What we’re doing and what states are doing is making sure that policy and practice meet and complement each other.”The Elder Abuse and Prevention Act passed by the senate and signed into law by President Trump in 2017, charged the Department of Justice with establishing “best practices for data collection on elder abuse” and “in coordination with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, [to] provide information, training, and technical assistance to help states and local governments investigate, prosecute, prevent, and mitigate the impact of elder abuse, exploitation, and neglect.”“We have a real long history in combatting abuse and exploitation and ensuring that State laws address and prevent abuse by a guardian or a neighbor or whoever,” Noel said. “We’ve really been engaged in working not just with State legislators but State courts.”Wondering about the laws in a State like Michigan and how far they extended in the protection of wards and their families from predatory guardians and the probate courts which employ them, I reached out to probate attorneys across the State.Nathan R. Piwowarski is a highly respected lawyer and share-holder at the firm of McCurdy Wotila & Porteous, PC in Cadillac. He has been practicing trust, estate and elder law for ten years.Ronald Dixon has practiced law since 1975 and served as a hearing panelist for Michigan’s Attorney Discipline Committee for approximately 25 years.Neither Dixon nor Piwowarski were asked to comment on or given the details about any case pending or decided in Michigan Probate Courts.“The problem is that when a person needs a guardian or conservator, frequently the family members are not worked with by the court or by the guardian appointed,” Dixon said. “The families are concerned, always, about the living conditions for the ward.”He added that a conflict between a conservator and the family can be easily avoided with a durable power of attorney that specifically names a family member and an alternative as guardian and conservator “and none other.”However, if judges arbitrarily strike down a durable power of attorney in favor of a court-appointed guardian, Dixon noted that “they should not do that. They should follow the family wishes. If that happens, it should be immediately appealed.”He added that a judge needs to demonstrate sufficient grounds as to why a power of attorney listing a family member can be discarded.“The record should be complete,” he said. “Showing the reasons why this person is not qualified or cannot maintain their position.”Piwowarski noted that the issue “can get a little bit complicated” depending on whether the power of attorney is generic and related to financial transactions or whether it concerns healthcare and placement issues (a patient advocate designation.)“In the case of the latter, unless the court specifically invalidates that document and removes the patient advocate, it remains in place,” he said. “The law presumes that the patient advocate would continue serving. That document should stay around unless there was some problem with it like there were not an adequate number of witnesses when it was signed. There are also situations where there is a valid document, but the patient advocate is not doing their job or honoring the person’s preferences.”In terms of the Constitutional rights a participant in Michigan’s Probate Courts can expect, Piwowarski cited Michigan Compiled Law (MCL) 700.5304 (4) through (6) which addresses the rights of the individual who is allegedly incapacitated.“They include the right to a jury trial [or] a closed hearing, if they request it, the right to be present at a hearing, the right to obtain an independent medical examination,” Piwowarski said. “There are other procedural rights and protections that are supposed to be afforded the individual who is the subject of a guardianship petition. For example, they’re entitled to personal notice in advance of the hearing. The minimum personal notice requirement is seven days. They are supposed to be given a visit by the Guardian ad Litem who is then supposed to report back to the court, in a timely manner, about whether that individual desires to contest any aspect of the petition or exercise any procedural rights such as the right to request something less intrusive than a full guardianship.”According to Piwowarski, different rights are afforded to those who have an interest in the subject’s welfare.“There are certain rights that they just don’t have,” he said. “They can’t demand a jury trial. But if there is a durable power of attorney, all of those individuals are entitled to notice and entitled to participate in the proceeding.”“In terms of who should be serving as a guardian, the nominated patient advocate is right near the top of the list,” he added. “So, the court should be looking to the patient advocate before almost anyone else. The way the statute should work and the way that it’s written is that the court can only intervene in a person’s affairs if that person is legally incapacitated and if there’s an actual need for the court to intervene. The court should evaluate, on the record, why a patient advocate is inadequate. There are express provisions in the Estates and Protected Individuals Code that tell the petitioner and the judge that they have to identify why the court has to actually intervene alternatives short of guardianship can’t be used.”The question of how much power a professional guardian in Michigan has Piwowarski noted both a statutory and political dynamic.“In terms of the statue, a guardian has the right to set appropriate access and limit access for a protected individual,” he acknowledged. “That said, the guardian is specifically required by statute to do everything they can to have as full of a life and as high of a level of function as possible. In terms of financial transactions, the court can issue protective orders to remediate situations where a vulnerable person made a property transfer when they didn’t understand it or were under inappropriate influence. A conservator is not able to do something like that without a court order and there should be pretty significant showing before a court would reverse a transaction like that.”“In my experience the court is typically appreciative of the willingness of a public fiduciary [guardian] to serve,” Piwowarski added. “There is such a need right now for a variety of reasons; families are smaller and more spread out. The public fiduciaries typically are overworked so I can certainly see a situation where a court adopts an overly deferential attitude because of the role that they serve in keeping the local legal system functioning.”“Oakland County is the wealthiest county in Michigan bar none,” Dixon said. “Frequently estates are incredibly large. Public administrators can err on the side of greediness for him or herself. Frequently, because the judge trusts them to carry out their tasks properly and in good order and rely on them for accurate information.”On a national level, the sheer power that has been extended by Probate Courts over wards and family members raises the question as to what the point is of making any kind of will when it can be rendered meaningless.******Gretchen Rachel Hammond is an award-winning journalist and a full-time writer for Tablet MagazineGuardians from Hell - Tablet Magazine