Did David Taylor & Brooke Redmond Intentionally Assist Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle In Fraud, Dishonesty, Deceit, Or Misrepresentation Against Joseph, Lucinda, & Denise?

by | Oct 23, 2023 | Family Disputes

Table Of Contents (Jump To Section)
 [show]

In the complex legal case involving Marjorie Puka, Janette Golay, Charmelle Puka, David Taylor, and Brooke Redmond, there are several intricate details that raise questions about the intentions and legal adherence of the parties involved. 

Link to the written Timeline Of Events in the Powers v. Puka lawsuit.

Below is a Visual Timeline Of Events.

Were Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Lying To Their First Lawyer Or To Their Second Lawyer?

David Taylor, initially representing Marjorie, decided to withdraw his legal services 27 hours after receiving a letter from Joseph Powers, seeking clarification and verification of the legality and lawfulness of their actions. 

This pivotal moment in the case raises the first question.

Did David Taylor’s withdrawal indicate a realization of potential legal discrepancies in Marjorie’s claim against Joseph, Lucinda, and Denise?

Within eight (8) days following Mr. Taylor’s withdrawal, Marjorie sought the legal services of Brooke Redmond from Wright Brothers Law Office, PPLC, based in Twin Falls, Idaho. 

It is here that the situation takes a turn, as Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle manage to convince Ms. Redmond to initiate legal action based on what appears to be intentional falsehoods. 

The subsequent sending of a potential fraud demand letter (page one and page two) by Ms. Redmond to Denise Powers, which was met with a request for clarification and legal verification from Denise Powers, Joseph Powers, and Lucinda Nevarez, adds another layer of complexity to the case.

The lack of response from David Taylor, Marjorie Puka, Janette Golay, Charmelle Puka, and Brooke Redmond, brings us to a critical point of analysis. 

If Marjorie, Janette, Charmelle, David, and Brooke were confident in the clarity, legality, and lawfulness of their actions, why did they choose not to engage with Joseph, Lucinda, and Denise’s valid inquiries? 

This decision to remain silent and not address the questions posed by Joseph Powers raises serious concerns about their motivations and adherence to the principles of justice and good faith due process.

This brings us to an important question that remains unanswered.

Did David Taylor play a role in referring Marjorie Puka, et al, to Brooke Redmond? 

Understanding the connection between Mr. Taylor’s withdrawal and Marjorie’s subsequent legal actions with Ms. Redmond is crucial in unraveling the true intentions behind their actions and whether there was a knowing and intentional effort to assist Marjorie in committing fraud.

To accurately determine whether David Taylor’s decision to withdraw from representing Marjorie Puka was due to a realization of potential legal discrepancies in her claim against Joseph Powers, it would be necessary to have more information about the specific circumstances surrounding his withdrawal. 

Lawyers may decide to withdraw from a case for a variety of reasons, including conflicts of interest, non-payment of fees, or a belief that the client is engaged in fraudulent or unethical behavior.

If David Taylor decided to withdraw after receiving a letter from Joseph Powers requesting verification of the legality and lawfulness of their actions, it could suggest that he had concerns about the validity of Marjorie’s claim or about her intentions. 

Lawyers have an ethical obligation to ensure that they do not assist clients in fraudulent or unlawful activities, and if Mr. Taylor believed that this was the case, he would have had a professional responsibility to withdraw from representing Marjorie.

However, without additional information or direct statements from the parties involved, it is difficult to definitively conclude that Mr. Taylor’s withdrawal was specifically due to a realization of potential legal discrepancies in Marjorie’s claim. 

There could have been other factors at play that influenced his decision to withdraw.

The situation described raises several legal and ethical questions about the actions of David Taylor, Brooke Redmond, Marjorie Puka, Janette Golay, and Charmelle Puka in their legal actions against Joseph Powers, Lucinda Nevarez, and Denise Powers. 

Here’s a breakdown of the situation and potential reasons behind the actions and decisions made by David Taylor, Brooke Redmond, Marjorie Puka, Janette Golay, and Charmelle Puka.

Demanding Joseph and Lucinda’s Removal from Trust Property

  • Lack of Information: David Taylor might not have had all the necessary information or might have been misled by Marjorie about the true nature of the situation.
  • Misinterpretation of Law or Facts: There could have been a misinterpretation of the legal standing of Joseph on the trust property, leading to the demand for his removal.
  • Strategic Legal Move: It could have been a strategic move to put pressure on Joseph, possibly to negotiate a better position for Marjorie.

Unconscionable Unilateral Alteration of an Existing Contract

  • Lack of Mutual Agreement: A meeting of the minds is crucial for any contract alteration. If this was missing, it raises questions about the validity of any changes made.
  • Potential Coercion or Misrepresentation: There might have been elements of coercion or misrepresentation involved, leading to an unconscionable alteration.

Withdrawal After Request for Clarification

  • Realization of Legal Discrepancies: Upon receiving Joseph’s request for clarification and legal justification, David Taylor might have realized that there were legal discrepancies or ethical issues with the case.
  • Professional Responsibility: Lawyers have a professional responsibility to withdraw from a case if they find that they are assisting in fraudulent or unlawful activities.
  • Avoidance of Professional Liability: By withdrawing, David Taylor might have been protecting himself from potential professional liability.

No Longer Representing the Claim

  • Ethical Obligations: Taylor’s withdrawal could have been a result of his ethical obligations to uphold the law and maintain professional integrity.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: There might have been a conflict of interest that was identified, necessitating his withdrawal.

The actions of David Taylor in this case raise serious questions about the ethical and legal standards of the legal proceedings. 

The demand for Joseph’s removal, the attempt to unilaterally alter a contract without proper agreement, and the subsequent withdrawal after a request for clarification all point toward a complex legal situation that requires thorough investigation and analysis.

To fully understand the motivations and legality of David Taylor’s actions, it would be necessary to have access to all relevant legal documents, correspondence, and statements from the parties involved. 

This would provide a clearer picture of the situation and help in determining whether there were any legal or ethical violations committed.

  1. Lack of Evidence: The lawyer realized the evidence was insufficient to support the claim.
  2. Legal Inadequacies: The claim may lack legal merit or authority.
  3. Ethical Concerns: The lawyer could have identified potential ethical violations.
  4. Conflict of Interest: A conflict of interest might have been discovered.
  5. Pressure from Opposing Party: The demand letter might have exerted enough pressure.
  6. Re-evaluation of Case Strength: The lawyer could have reassessed the case’s viability.
  7. Avoidance of Malpractice: The lawyer might be avoiding potential malpractice.
  8. Damage to Reputation: Pursuing the claim might harm the client’s or lawyer’s reputation.
  9. Realization of Unjust Claim: The lawyer might realize the claim is unjust.

If David Taylor knew that Marjorie was lying and subsequently referred her to another lawyer, particularly one that he often refers clients to, there are ethical considerations and duties that come into play for both David Taylor and Brooke Redmond (the lawyer to whom Marjorie was potentially referred).

David Taylor’s Duties

  • Duty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud: Lawyers have an ethical duty to avoid assisting in fraudulent or deceitful actions. If David Taylor knew Marjorie was lying, he should not have referred her to another lawyer to further her potentially fraudulent actions.
  • Duty to Communicate: If David Taylor had already started representing Marjorie and discovered her deceit, he has a duty to communicate this to Brooke Redmond when making the referral, to prevent assisting in fraudulent actions.

Brooke Redmond’s Duties

  • Duty to Investigate: Upon receiving a referral, Brooke Redmond has a duty to independently investigate the facts of the case to ensure she is not assisting in any fraudulent actions.
  • Duty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud: Like David Taylor, Brooke Redmond has an ethical duty to avoid assisting in fraudulent or deceitful actions. If she becomes aware of any potential fraud, she has a duty to avoid assisting in it.

Communication Between Lawyers

  • Confidentiality: While lawyers have a duty to communicate about potential fraud, they also have a duty to maintain client confidentiality. Balancing these duties can be complex and may require seeking guidance from legal ethics boards or legal counsel.
  • Ethical Obligations: Both David Taylor and Brooke Redmond have ethical obligations to uphold the law and maintain integrity in their practice. Failing to communicate or act upon knowledge of potential fraud could result in professional disciplinary actions.

If David Taylor knew Marjorie was lying and referred her to Brooke Redmond, he has a duty to communicate this information to prevent assisting in fraudulent actions. 

Brooke Redmond, upon receiving the referral, has a duty to independently verify the facts and avoid assisting in any fraudulent actions. 

Both lawyers must balance their duties to communicate and prevent fraud with their duty to maintain client confidentiality, and they must uphold their ethical obligations to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. 

Failure to do so could result in professional disciplinary actions.

Did Brooke Redmond Have A Duty To Investigate Marjorie’s Claims Before Demands & Lawsuit Threats Are Made Of Denise, Joseph, And Lucinda?

Yes, Brooke Redmond, as an attorney, had a duty to conduct a thorough and reasonable investigation into Marjorie’s claims before proceeding with demands and threats of a lawsuit against Denise and Joseph. 

This duty is grounded in various ethical and professional standards that attorneys are expected to uphold. 

Here’s why and how this duty is established.

Duty of Competence

  • Professional Standards: Attorneys are required to provide competent representation to their clients, which includes investigating the facts of the case to ensure that there is a basis for the claims being made.
  • Avoiding Frivolous Claims: A thorough investigation helps in preventing the advancement of frivolous claims, which can harm the integrity of the legal system and the reputation of the parties involved.

Duty of Diligence

  • Thorough Representation: Attorneys are expected to act diligently in representing their clients, which includes conducting a proper investigation to understand the merits of the case.
  • Informed Decisions: A diligent investigation ensures that the attorney can make informed decisions about how to proceed with the case and advise the client accordingly.

Ethical Obligations

  • Upholding Legal Ethics: Attorneys are bound by codes of professional responsibility and ethics, which mandate them to uphold the law and avoid assisting in fraudulent or deceitful actions.
  • Avoiding Harm to Third Parties: By investigating the claims thoroughly, attorneys can help prevent harm to third parties who may be unjustly accused or threatened with legal action.

Maintaining Professional Integrity

  • Building Trust: Conducting a proper investigation helps in building trust between the attorney and the client, as well as maintaining the attorney’s professional integrity.
  • Avoiding Professional Discipline: Failure to investigate could lead to professional discipline if it is found that the attorney did not uphold their duties of competence, diligence, and ethical responsibility.

Brooke Redmond had a professional and ethical duty to investigate Marjorie’s claims thoroughly before proceeding with demands and threats of a lawsuit against Denise, Joseph, and Lucinda. 

This duty is crucial in ensuring that the legal claims being made have merit, that the legal process is not being abused, and that the integrity of the legal profession is maintained. 

Failure to uphold this duty could result in harm to all parties involved and potential professional consequences for the attorney.

Did David Taylor & Brooke Redmond Have A Duty To Respond To Joseph & Denise’s Demand Verification Letter?

Yes, David Taylor and Brooke Redmond, as attorneys, generally have a duty to respond to communications that are pertinent to a legal matter they are handling, including a demand verification letter from another party. 

This duty is grounded in various ethical and professional standards that attorneys are expected to uphold.

1. Duty of Communication (Rule 1.4 of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct)

  • Keeping the Client Informed: Taylor had a duty to keep his client, Marjorie, informed about the status of the matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. This would include informing her about the demand verification letter received from Joseph.
  • Explaining the Matter: He also had a duty to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit Marjorie to make informed decisions regarding the representation, which could involve deciding how to respond to Joseph’s letter.

2. Duty of Diligence (Rule 1.3 of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct)

  • Acting with Diligence: Taylor was required to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing Marjorie, which would include timely responding to communications related to her legal matter.

3. Professional Courtesy and Fairness

  • Maintaining Professionalism: Responding to communications from opposing parties or their counsel is also a matter of professional courtesy and contributes to the fair and efficient administration of justice.

4. Avoiding Potential Negative Consequences

  • Protecting the Client’s Interests: Failing to respond to a demand verification letter could potentially have negative consequences for Marjorie’s legal position or interests, and Taylor had a duty to protect her interests to the best of his ability.

Based on these ethical and professional standards, David Taylor and Brooke Redmond had a duty to respond to Joseph’s demand verification letter, or at the very least, to communicate with his client, Marjorie, about the letter and advise her on how to proceed. 

Failure to do so could be considered a breach of his professional obligations and could potentially result in negative consequences for both Marjorie and himself.

However, it is important to note that the specific circumstances of the case, including the content of the demand verification letter, the nature of the legal matter, and any instructions or preferences expressed by Marjorie, could influence the extent and nature of David Taylor and Brooke Redmond’s duty to respond.

What Do The Idaho Rules Of Professional Conduct State About A Lawyer’s Duty To Verify Their Client’s Truthfulness Before Taking Action Against An Accused Party?

The Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct outline the obligations and duties of lawyers practicing in the state, including their responsibilities towards their clients and the duty to investigate a client’s claims before taking legal action.

While the rules do not explicitly state the lawyer’s obligations regarding the discovery of their client’s truthfulness before taking action against another person, we can infer from related rules and ethical standards that lawyers are expected to uphold certain duties:

Duty of Competence (Rule 1.1)

  • Lawyers are required to provide competent representation to their clients, which includes the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Scope Of Representation (Rule 1.2)

[11] When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might be concealed

  • Brooke Redmond, like David Taylor, has a duty to abide by Marjorie’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, but she also has a duty to ensure that she is not assisting in fraudulent conduct.
  • If Brooke took on Marjorie’s case without adequately investigating the veracity of her claims, she could potentially be in violation of her duties under this rule, particularly if she became aware that the claims were fraudulent.
  • She also has a responsibility to consult with Marjorie about the means of pursuing her objectives and to ensure that she is not taking actions that are prohibited under the rules of professional conduct.

Duty of Diligence (Rule 1.3)

  • Lawyers must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. This implies an obligation to investigate the facts of the case to ensure that there is a basis for the claims being made.

Duty of Communication (Rule 1.4)

  • Lawyers are required to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. This includes explaining the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Duty Not to Bring Frivolous Claims (Rule 3.1)

  • Lawyers must not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.

Duty of Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 3.3)

  • Lawyers must not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.

Duty to Avoid Misleading Statements (Rule 4.1)

  • In the course of representing a client, a lawyer must not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.

Duty to Avoid Assisting in Fraudulent or Criminal Acts (Rule 8.4)

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. They are also prohibited from counseling a client to engage or assisting a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent.

Based on these rules and ethical standards, it can be inferred that David Taylor and Brooke Redmond, as lawyers practicing in Idaho, had a duty to investigate Marjorie’s claims thoroughly before proceeding with demands and threats of a lawsuit against Denise, Joseph, and Lucinda. 

This is crucial to ensure that she is providing competent and diligent representation, maintaining open and honest communication with her client, and avoiding any involvement in potentially fraudulent or criminal acts.

Can Joseph And Denise File A Bar Grievance Against David Taylor And Brooke Redmond For Wrongful Actions Taken Against Them, Despite Not Being Their Clients?

Yes, Joseph and Denise can file a grievance with the Idaho State Bar Association against David Taylor and Brooke Redmond, even though they were not clients of these attorneys. 

Bar associations typically allow third parties to file complaints if they believe that an attorney has violated ethical or professional conduct standards.

Grounds for Filing a Grievance

  • Unethical or Unprofessional Conduct: If Joseph and Denise believe that David Taylor and Brooke Redmond engaged in unethical or unprofessional conduct, such as making false statements, pursuing a frivolous claim, or failing to conduct a proper investigation before initiating legal action, they may have grounds to file a grievance.
  • Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct: Attorneys are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct set forth by the state bar association. Violations of these rules can be grounds for disciplinary action.

Process of Filing a Grievance

  • Contact the State Bar Association: Joseph and Denise would need to contact the state bar association in the jurisdiction where David Taylor and Brooke Redmond practice law.
  • Submit a Written Complaint: They would typically need to submit a written complaint outlining the specific actions or conduct of the attorneys that they believe were unethical or violated professional conduct standards.
  • Investigation: The state bar association would then investigate the complaint, which may involve requesting a response from the attorneys and gathering additional information.

Considerations

  • Evidence: Joseph and Denise should provide any evidence they have to support their allegations of wrongful action by the attorneys.
  • Outcome: The outcome of a bar grievance can vary, ranging from no action if the allegations are not substantiated, to disciplinary action against the attorney if the allegations are found to be true.

While Lucinda, Joseph, and Denise were not clients of David Taylor and Brooke Redmond, they have the right to file a grievance with the state bar association if they believe that the attorneys engaged in unethical or unprofessional conduct. 

The state bar association has a process in place to investigate such complaints and take appropriate action if necessary. 

However, the success of their grievance would depend on the specific facts of the case and the evidence they can provide to support their allegations.

What Questions Could Brooke Have Asked In Marjorie’s First Meeting That Could Have Clearly Revealed Marjorie’s Intentional Deceit & Malice?

When an attorney meets with a new client, especially in a case that may involve potential deceit or malice, it is crucial to ask thorough and probing questions to understand the client’s intentions and the veracity of their claims. 

Below are questions that Brooke Redmond could have asked Marjorie Puka during their first meeting to help reveal any intentional deceit or malice.

1. Background and Motivation

  • Can you provide a detailed account of your relationship with Joseph and Denise?
  • What has led you to seek legal action at this time?
  • Have there been any previous legal disputes or conflicts between you and Joseph or Denise?

2. Specifics of the Claim

  • Can you provide specific examples and evidence to support your claims against Joseph?
  • Are there any documents, communications, or witnesses that can corroborate your story?
  • Have you had any direct interactions with Joseph regarding this matter? If so, what was discussed?
  • Why did your previous attorney, David Taylor, withdraw from representing you in this matter?
  • Did David Taylor express any concerns or reservations about your case?
  • Are you aware of the legal standards and burdens of proof required to prevail in your claims against Joseph?
  • Do you understand the potential consequences if your claims are found to be false or misleading?

5. Intentions and Expectations

  • What is your primary goal in pursuing this legal action? Is it financial compensation, a change in behavior, or something else?
  • How do you expect Joseph to respond to legal action, and how would you like to see the situation resolved?

6. Potential Conflicts or Biases

  • Is there any personal history or animosity between you and Joseph that could be influencing your decision to pursue legal action?
  • Have you ever made false or exaggerated claims against someone in the past?

7. Willingness to Cooperate

  • Are you willing to provide all necessary documents, information, and access to witnesses to support your case?
  • Will you be truthful and transparent throughout the legal process, even if it means disclosing information that could be unfavorable to your case?
  • Do you understand that as your attorney, I have ethical and legal obligations to ensure that the claims we bring forward are truthful and based on factual evidence?
  • Are you willing to work within the bounds of the law and ethical standards to pursue your claims?

9. Clarification on Specific Incidents

  • Can you walk me through the specific incidents that led you to believe legal action is necessary?
  • Were there any witnesses present during these incidents, and can they corroborate your account?

10. Previous Attempts to Resolve the Issue

  • Have you tried to resolve this issue with Joseph or Denise outside of legal proceedings? If so, what was the outcome?
  • What kind of response or reaction did you receive from Joseph or Denise when you raised these issues with them?
  • Are you aware of the potential legal and financial implications of pursuing a lawsuit?
  • Do you understand that making false statements or accusations in a legal setting can have serious consequences?

12. Emotional State and Motivations

  • How has this situation affected you emotionally, and how might that be influencing your decision to seek legal action?
  • Are there any feelings of anger, revenge, or spite that could be driving your desire to pursue this case?

13. Consistency of the Story

  • Can you provide a consistent and detailed account of the events in question from start to finish?
  • Have you told this story to anyone else, and if so, has it remained consistent?

14. Evidence and Documentation

  • Do you have any physical evidence, documents, or other tangible proof to support your claims?
  • Have you retained copies of any communications (emails, texts, letters) between you and Joseph or Denise regarding this matter?

15. Potential for Resolution

  • What would a satisfactory resolution to this situation look like for you?
  • Are you open to mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution?
  • Do you have any previous experience with the legal system, and if so, what was the nature of that experience?
  • How long are you prepared to pursue this legal action, understanding that legal proceedings can sometimes be lengthy and complex?

17. Financial Considerations

  • Are you in a position to afford the potential costs associated with pursuing a legal claim?
  • Have you considered the potential financial impact on Joseph and Denise, and does that impact your decision to proceed?

18. Reputation and Public Perception

  • Have you considered how pursuing this legal action might affect your own reputation, as well as that of Joseph and Denise?
  • Are you prepared for the details of this situation to become public knowledge, if the case goes to court?

19. Potential for Settlement

  • Would you be open to settling this matter out of court if the opportunity arises?
  • What terms or conditions would you require for a settlement to be acceptable?

20. Final Thoughts and Reflection

  • Have you taken time to reflect on this situation and your decision to seek legal action?
  • Is there anything else you think I should know that we haven’t already discussed?

These questions aim to delve deeper into Marjorie’s motivations, the consistency of her story, her emotional state, and her understanding of the legal process and potential consequences. 

They could have helped Brooke Redmond assess the credibility of Marjorie’s claims and uncover any potential deceit or malice.

By asking these comprehensive and probing questions, Brooke Redmond could have gained a clearer understanding of Marjorie Puka’s intentions, the veracity of her claims, and any potential deceit or malice involved. 

This would have enabled Brooke to make an informed decision about whether to take on Marjorie’s case and how to proceed ethically and legally.

Actionable Vs Constructive Fraud: What’s More Relevant & Proveable?

In the Powers v. Puka lawsuit, the timeline of events – from the plaintiff’s perspective – provides evidence that could support both actual and constructive fraud. 

However, proving the “speaker’s knowledge of its falsity” and the “speaker’s intent to induce reliance” for actual fraud might be more challenging based on the provided information. 

The timeline does show potential breaches of duty, especially given the roles of the Trust Protector, Trustee, and Successor Trustees, which could make a case for constructive fraud more relevant and potentially easier to prove.

Given the complexities and the relationships involved, constructive fraud seems more relevant and potentially easier to establish based on the provided timeline.

Actionable Fraud Or Intentional Misrepresentation

  1. a statement of fact
  2. its falsity
  3. its materiality
  4. the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity (not needed for constructive fraud)
  5. the speaker’s intent to induce reliance (not needed for constructive fraud)
  6. the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the statement
  7. reliance by the hearer
  8. the hearer’s right to rely
  9. consequent and proximate injury

What Does Each Of The Elements Of Fraud Mean?

  1. A statement of fact: This refers to a clear, concrete assertion or declaration about something that is presented as true. It is not an opinion, belief, or subjective statement, but rather something that can be proven true or false.
  2. Its falsity: This means that the statement of fact mentioned above is untrue or incorrect. It’s not just a matter of interpretation or opinion; the statement is objectively false.
  3. Its materiality: Materiality refers to the significance or importance of the statement in question. A material fact is one that a reasonable person would consider important or relevant when making a decision. If a fact is material, its presence or absence would influence a decision.
  4. The speaker’s knowledge of its falsity: This means that the person making the statement knows (or should reasonably know) that what they are saying is false. It’s not an innocent mistake or oversight; there’s an awareness of the untruth.
  5. The speaker’s intent to induce reliance: This means that the person making the false statement intends for the listener to act or make a decision based on that statement. The speaker wants the listener to trust and act on the false information.
  6. The hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the statement: This means that the person hearing the statement does not know it’s false. They are unaware of the untruth and may believe the statement to be true.
  7. Reliance by the hearer: This means that the listener acts or makes a decision based on the false statement. They take some action because they trust the information they’ve been given.
  8. The hearer’s right to rely: This means that the listener was reasonable in trusting the statement. Given the context, the relationship between the parties, and other factors, it was reasonable for the listener to believe and act on the statement.
  9. Consequent and proximate injury: This refers to the harm or damage that results directly from the listener’s reliance on the false statement. It’s not just any harm, but harm that was a direct and foreseeable result of acting on the false information.

General Facts: Actionable Fraud Or Intentional Misrepresentation

The Plaintiff was given certain assurances and made significant decisions based on those assurances, only to have those assurances contradicted later, leading to measurable harm.

  1. A statement of fact: There were several statements made, including the original agreement that the Plaintiff could live in the house until the Grantor’s death, as long as he paid for taxes, insurance, and maintenance. There were also subsequent statements by the Trust Protector about the administration of the trust.
  2. Its falsity: The subsequent demand that the Plaintiff either vacate the premises or sign a new lease agreement contradicts the original agreement. There’s also the assertion that the agreement was made without the Grantor’s knowledge or consent, despite earlier communications suggesting the Grantor’s involvement.
  3. Its materiality: The original agreement materially affected the Plaintiff’s decision to sell his previous house and move into the Grantor’s property. The demand for a new lease or eviction also materially affects the Plaintiff’s living situation and financial obligations.
  4. The speaker’s knowledge of its falsity: The Trust Protector’s initial assurance of fairness and later demand for eviction or a new lease suggests knowledge of the inconsistency. The Successor Trustee #2’s acknowledgment that the Grantor is not honoring the original contract also indicates knowledge.
  5. The speaker’s intent to induce reliance: The original agreement and the Trust Protector’s assurances were intended to induce the Plaintiff to make decisions based on them.
  6. The hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the statement: The Plaintiff relied on the original agreement and the assurances of the Trust Protector, unaware that they would later be contradicted.
  7. Reliance by the hearer: The Plaintiff made significant decisions, including selling his previous house, based on the original agreement and assurances.
  8. The hearer’s right to rely: Given the formal nature of the trust and the roles of the involved parties, the Plaintiff had a right to rely on the original agreement and the assurances of the Trust Protector.
  9. Consequent and proximate injury: The Plaintiff faced potential eviction, increased financial obligations, and stress due to the changed terms and conflicting statements.

Pleading Special Matters

I.R.C.P. 9(b)

Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind; Violation of Rights. In alleging fraud or mistake, or a violation of civil or constitutional rights, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the fraud or mistake or the violation of civil or constitutional rights. 

Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.

Particularity: Actionable Fraud Or Intentional Misrepresentation 

Elements & Ultimate Facts Stated With Particularity Of The Circumstances Constituting The Fraud

  1. A statement of fact
    1. 01Sep22: Letter from Trust Protector to all three beneficiaries; “I’d like to clarify the plan and reasoning for this [contract that grantor originated and offered to Plaintiff]. Grantor came to me a few months ago and said that Grantor would like to keep the home that Grantor and Grantor’s spouse built in the family. We created a plan for Plaintiff to occupy the home until Grantor passes away. Plaintiff is responsible for paying the taxes, insurance, and maintenance on the home while he occupies the home. Upon the Grantor’s death, the value of the home will be calculated (either as agreed or by a professional), transferred to Beneficiary #1, and then subtracted from Beneficiary #1’s share of the inheritance. When Grantor approached me with this idea, I had no concerns about unfairness. I will oversee the affairs of the Trust to ensure everything is administered according to Grantor’s wishes. I want to ensure that Grantor and Grantor’s late spouse’s wishes are carried out.“
    2. Section 2.11 Provisions for Trust Protector – The function of the Trust Protector is to direct Grantor’s Trustee in matters concerning the trust, and to assist, if needed, in achieving Grantor’s objectives as manifested by the other provisions of Grantor’s estate plan. 
  2. Its falsity
    1. 14Oct22: Trust Protector sends demand that Plaintiff either vacate the premise or sign a new lease agreement, despite the original agreement. 
    2. 14Oct22: The demand letter contradicts the initial agreement made in April.
    3. 14Oct22: The demand letter contradicts the subsequent clarification letter to the beneficiaries sent on 01Sep22.
    4. 15Oct22: Janette Golay’s statements seem to contradict the initial agreement and the understanding of the Grantor’s intentions.
    5. 27Oct22: Lawyer #2’s Demand Letter claims the agreement was done “without Grantor’s knowledge or consent.” However, the 01Sep22 letter from the Trust Protector indicates that the Grantor was involved in the decision-making process.
    6. 27Oct22: The assertion that the agreement was made without Grantor’s knowledge or consent, despite earlier communications suggesting Grantor’s involvement.
  3. Its materiality
    1. 01Apr22: The original agreement materially affected Plaintiff’s decision to sell his previous house and move into the Grantor’s property.
    2. 09Sep22: The Trust Protector’s clarification to beneficiaries on 01Sep23 materially affected Plaintiff’s decision to sell his previous house and move into the Grantor’s property.
    3. 14Oct22: The demand for a new lease or eviction materially affects Plaintiff’s living situation and financial obligations.
  4. The speaker’s knowledge of its falsity (not needed for constructive fraud)
    1. 14Oct22: The Trust Protector’s initial assurance of fairness and later demand for eviction or a new lease suggests knowledge of the inconsistency.
    2. 18Oct22: Trust Protector emails Former Trustee, indicating awareness of the original agreement and stating, “I didn’t find anything wrong with your actions as Trustee.”
    3. 27Oct22: Successor Trustee #2’s acknowledgment that the Grantor is not honoring the original contract.
  5. The speaker’s intent to induce reliance (not needed for constructive fraud)
    1. 01Apr22: The original agreement was intended to induce Plaintiff to move into the house and take on certain responsibilities.
    2. 01Sep22: The Trust Protector’s assurance was intended to make Plaintiff believe that the trust would be administered fairly.
    3. 09Sep22: Plaintiff closes on a previous house with reliance on the Grantor’s contract to occupy property under the conditions offered.
  6. The hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the statement
    1. 01Apr22: Plaintiff was under the impression that the original agreement would be honored, 
    2. 01Sep22: Plaintiff was further under the impression that the original agreement would be honored based on the subsequent communications from the Trust Protector and Grantor.
    3. 09Sep22: Plaintiff closes on his previous house, indicating he was unaware of any changes or falsities in the initial agreement.
    4. 09Sep22: Plaintiff relied on the original agreement and the assurances of the Trust Protector, unaware that they would later be contradicted.
  7. Reliance by the hearer
    1. 01Apr22: Plaintiff sold his previous house and moved into the Grantor’s property based on the original agreement and assurances.
    2. 09Sep22: Given the formal nature of the trust and the agreements communicated by the Trust Protector, the Plaintiff had a right to rely on the subsequent clarification statements made.
    3. 28Oct22: Plaintiff deposited a check with the Trust to honor the original contract.
  8. The hearer’s right to rely
    1. 01Apr22: Given the formal contract Plaintiff signed with the trust on behalf of the Trustee, with the intention and blessing of the Grantor, Trust Protector, and Accountant, Plaintiff had a right to rely on the stated terms.
    2. 01Sep22: Plaintiff had a right to rely on the original agreement and the assurances of the Trust Protector, especially given the formal nature of the trust and the roles of the involved parties.
  9. Consequent and proximate injury
    1. 14Oct22: Trust Protector’s demand letter introduces a significant increase in housing costs for the Plaintiff.
    2. 14Oct22: The demand letter from the Trust Protector to Plaintiff potentially threatens eviction and increased housing costs.
    3. 14Oct22: Plaintiff faced potential eviction and increased financial obligations due to the changed terms.
    4. 14Oct22 and 27Oct22: Plaintiff experienced stress and uncertainty due to the conflicting statements and actions of the involved parties.
    5. 27Oct22: The financial calculations provided indicate significant increases in costs for the Plaintiff.
    6. 27Oct22: The financial calculations provided indicate significant potential financial losses for the Plaintiff due to changes in the agreement.
    7. 27Oct22: Plaintiff is coerced into purchasing the property under duress, resulting in financial losses and increased obligations.
    8. 28Oct22: Plaintiff incurs additional costs and financial obligations due to the changed terms.

What Is fraud?

Fraud is a deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. 

It encompasses a wide range of illicit practices and illegal acts involving intentional deception or misrepresentation. 

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

  1. Deceptive Act or Misrepresentation: At the core of fraud is deception. This can be an outright lie, a half-truth, or even just remaining silent about a critical fact. The deceptive act can be verbal, written, or even conveyed through actions.
  2. Material Fact: The misrepresented or concealed fact must be material, meaning that it is significant or central to the issue at hand. If someone were to lie about something inconsequential, it wouldn’t be considered fraud.
  3. Knowledge and Intent: For an act to be fraudulent, there must be intent to deceive. The person committing the fraud must know that what they’re saying is false and intend for someone else to believe it.
  4. Reliance: The victim must rely on the false statement or deceptive act when making a decision.
  5. Damages: For most fraud cases to be actionable (meaning you can sue for damages), the deceit must cause harm. This harm is typically financial, but it can also involve other types of harm, such as loss of rights or opportunities.

Fraud can manifest in various forms, including credit card fraud, securities fraud, real estate and mortgage fraud, identity theft, mail and wire fraud, and more. 

It can be a civil or criminal offense, depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the act. 

In a civil context, a victim of fraud can sue the fraudster to recover losses. 

In a criminal context, fraud can lead to penalties like fines, imprisonment, or both.

Whats The Difference Between Breach Of Contract And Fraud?

Breach of contract and fraud are distinct legal concepts, each with its own set of elements and implications. 

Here’s a breakdown of the differences.

  1. Nature of the Wrong
    1. Breach of Contract: This occurs when one party to a contract fails to fulfill their obligations as set out in the contract, whether it’s not performing on time, not performing in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or not performing at all.
    2. Fraud: This involves intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. It’s a deliberate act of dishonesty.
  2. Elements
    1. Breach of Contract: The primary elements include the existence of a contract, performance by one party, breach by the other party, and damages resulting from that breach.
    2. Fraud: The elements typically include a false representation of a material fact, knowledge on the part of the offender that the representation is false, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance by the victim on the representation, and resulting damages.
  3. Intent
    1. Breach of Contract: Intent is not a necessary element. A party can breach a contract due to negligence, a misunderstanding, or other reasons without an intent to deceive.
    2. Fraud: Intent is a crucial element. The deceptive act must be done knowingly and intentionally to mislead or deceive another party.
  4. Remedies
    1. Breach of Contract: Remedies typically involve compensating the non-breaching party for losses directly caused by the breach. This can include damages, specific performance (forcing the breaching party to fulfill their obligations), or rescission (cancellation) of the contract.
    2. Fraud: Remedies can include compensatory damages, punitive damages (intended to punish the wrongdoer), and, in some cases, rescission of a contract induced by fraud.
  5. Criminal Implications
    1. Breach of Contract: Generally, this is a civil matter, and the defaulting party is not subject to criminal penalties, though there are exceptions in certain jurisdictions or under specific circumstances.
    2. Fraud: This can be both a civil and a criminal offense. Criminal fraud can lead to penalties like fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the fraudulent act.
  6. Proof
    1. Breach of Contract: The non-breaching party typically needs to prove the existence of a contract and its terms, their performance, the other party’s breach, and resulting damages.
    2. Fraud: The burden of proof is often higher for fraud, requiring clear and convincing evidence in many jurisdictions.

While both breach of contract and fraud can arise in the context of contractual relationships, they address different wrongs. 

A breach pertains to a failure to uphold the terms of an agreement, while fraud pertains to deceitful conduct intended to cause harm or gain an unfair advantage.

What Is Constructive Fraud?

Constructive fraud, also known as legal fraud or fraud in equity, is a type of fraud recognized in civil law. 

Unlike actual fraud, which requires intentional deception or misrepresentation, constructive fraud can occur even if the party committing the fraud did not have any malicious intent or was not deliberately trying to deceive the other party.

Key Characteristics of Constructive Fraud

  1. Lack of Intent: Constructive fraud does not require an intent to deceive. It can occur when a party unknowingly makes a false representation or omission that another party relies upon.
  2. Breach of Duty: Constructive fraud often involves a breach of fiduciary duty or a violation of a duty of care owed by one party to another.
  3. Reliance and Damage: The victim of constructive fraud must have relied on the false representation or omission, and this reliance must have resulted in harm or damage.
  4. Unfair Advantage: The party committing constructive fraud typically gains an unfair advantage or benefit, even if this was not their intention.

Examples of Constructive Fraud

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: A trustee who mismanages trust assets, even without malicious intent, could be liable for constructive fraud if their actions result in harm to the beneficiaries.
  2. Undue Influence: If a person in a position of power or trust takes advantage of another person’s vulnerability to obtain an unfair benefit, this could be considered constructive fraud.
  3. Unfair Business Practices: A business that engages in unfair or deceptive practices, even if not intentionally fraudulent, could be liable for constructive fraud.
  4. Real Estate Transactions: A seller who unknowingly provides false information about a property, leading the buyer to make a purchase decision based on that information, could be liable for constructive fraud.
  1. Rescission: The court may void or rescind the fraudulent transaction, returning the parties to their original positions.
  2. Damages: The victim of constructive fraud may be awarded damages to compensate for their losses.
  3. Equitable Relief: The court may provide other forms of equitable relief, such as specific performance or an injunction, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Constructive fraud is a legal concept that addresses situations where a party unknowingly makes a false representation or omission that results in harm to another party. 

It is distinguished from actual fraud by the lack of intent to deceive. 

Victims of constructive fraud may seek various legal remedies, including rescission of the fraudulent transaction, damages, and other forms of equitable relief.

How Does Idaho Case Law Define Constructive Fraud?

“An action in constructive fraud exists when there has been a breach of a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence, as in a fiduciary duty.” Hines v. Hines, 129 Idaho 847, 853, 934 P.2d 20, 26 (1997). 

“Examples of relationships from which the law will impose fiduciary obligations on the parties include when the parties are: members of the same family, partners, attorney and client, executor and beneficiary of an estate, principal and agent, insurer and insured, or close friends.” Mitchell v. Barendregt, 120 Idaho 837, 844, 820 P.2d 707, 714 (Ct.App.1991). 

“The gist of a constructive fraud finding is to avoid the need to prove intent (i.e., knowledge of falsity or intent to induce reliance) [under the elements required to prove actual fraud], since it is inferred directly from the relationship and the breach.” Country Cove Dev., Inc. v. May, 143 Idaho 595, 601, 150 P.3d 288, 294 (2006). 

“A party must establish nine elements to prove [actual] fraud: `(1) a statement or a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity; (5) the speaker’s intent that there be reliance; (6) the hearer’s ignorance of the falsity of the statement; (7) reliance by the hearer; (8) justifiable reliance; and (9) resultant injury.'” Glaze v. Deffenbaugh, 144 Idaho 829, 833, 172 P.3d 1104, 1108 (2007) (quoting Mannos v. Moss, 143 Idaho 927, 931, 155 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2007)). 

In sum, if a plaintiff establishes that there has been a breach of duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence, the plaintiff is not required to prove (1) the speaker’s knowledge of the falsity regarding the statement or representation of fact, or (2) the speaker’s intent that the hearer rely on the statement or representation of fact, to sustain a claim of constructive fraud. See Country Cove, 143 Idaho at 601, 150 P.3d at 294. 

However, the party is still required to prove the remaining seven elements of actual fraud.

Furthermore, Idaho’s fraud statute of limitations, Idaho Code section 5-218(4), applies to constructive fraud claims and that the discovery rule under that statute applies in determining when a constructive fraud cause of action accrues.

What Is A Relationship Of Trust And Confidence?

A relationship of trust and confidence, often referred to as a fiduciary relationship, is a legal or ethical relationship between two or more parties where one party, the fiduciary, is in a position to have a special trust, confidence, and reliance placed in them by the other party, the principal or beneficiary. 

The fiduciary is obliged to act for the benefit of the principal or beneficiary while subordinating their personal interests.

Characteristics of a Relationship of Trust and Confidence:

  1. Fiduciary Duty: The party in whom trust and confidence is placed (the fiduciary) owes a duty to act in the best interests of the other party (the principal or beneficiary). This is one of the highest standards of duty established by law.
  2. Loyalty: The fiduciary must be loyal to the principal, avoiding conflicts of interest and not seeking personal gain at the expense of the principal.
  3. Good Faith: Actions taken by the fiduciary must be in good faith, demonstrating honesty and fairness.
  4. Confidentiality: The fiduciary must maintain the confidentiality of all information related to the relationship.
  5. Prudence: The fiduciary is expected to act with prudence and exercise due care in managing the affairs of the principal.
  6. Transparency: The fiduciary should be transparent in their actions, providing the principal with all necessary information to make informed decisions.

Examples of Relationships of Trust and Confidence:

  1. Attorney and Client: An attorney has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their client, providing competent and diligent representation.
  2. Trustee and Beneficiary: A trustee manages property or assets for the benefit of the beneficiary, and must act in the beneficiary’s best interests.
  3. Guardian and Ward: A guardian has a fiduciary duty to care for and make decisions in the best interests of their ward, who may be a minor or an incapacitated adult.
  4. Financial Advisor and Client: A financial advisor is expected to provide advice and manage investments in the best interests of their client.
  5. Doctor and Patient: While primarily a relationship based on medical ethics, a doctor is expected to act in the best interests of their patient.

Violating a fiduciary duty can lead to legal consequences, including liability for damages caused by the breach of duty. 

The principal or beneficiary may bring a legal action against the fiduciary to recover losses or damages resulting from the breach.

A relationship of trust and confidence is a fiduciary relationship where one party is obliged to act in the best interests of the other, maintaining loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence, and transparency. 

These relationships are foundational to various professional and personal interactions, and violating the duties associated with them can result in significant legal consequences.

In Idaho, What Is The Main Difference Between Civil And Criminal Fraud?

In Idaho, as in many other jurisdictions, the main differences between civil and criminal fraud lie in their purposes, procedures, and consequences. 

Here’s a breakdown of the primary distinctions.

  • Purpose
    • Civil Fraud: The primary purpose of a civil fraud action is to compensate the victim for losses suffered due to the fraudulent actions of another party. It is a private dispute between individuals or entities.
    • Criminal Fraud: The primary purpose of criminal fraud is to punish the offender for violating the law. It is a public offense where the state prosecutes the accused on behalf of society.
  • Burden of Proof
    • Civil Fraud: The plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit) must prove the elements of fraud by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that it is more likely than not that the fraud occurred.
    • Criminal Fraud: The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a much higher standard of proof.
  • Consequences
    • Civil Fraud: If the defendant is found liable, they may be required to pay damages to the plaintiff to compensate for the harm caused. There may also be other remedies, such as injunctions or specific performance.
    • Criminal Fraud: If the defendant is found guilty, they may face penalties such as imprisonment, fines, probation, or community service.
  • Procedures
    • Civil Fraud: Civil cases follow civil procedure rules. The process may involve discovery, motions, and a trial before a judge or jury.
    • Criminal Fraud: Criminal cases follow criminal procedure rules. The accused has specific constitutional rights, such as the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy trial, and the right to legal representation.
  • Initiation
    • Civil Fraud: The aggrieved party (plaintiff) initiates the lawsuit.
    • Criminal Fraud: The state, usually through a prosecutor or district attorney, initiates the criminal charges.
  • Elements
    • While the specific elements of civil and criminal fraud may vary, both generally require a misrepresentation or deceit with the intent to cause harm or gain an unfair advantage. However, the specifics of what must be proven can differ between civil and criminal contexts.

It’s important to note that an act of fraud can lead to both civil and criminal consequences. 

For instance, a person who commits fraud could be sued by the victim in a civil court for damages and also be prosecuted by the state in a criminal court for the offense.