Next step in my lawsuit against you

I do not want a reunion
with you
under your conditions.

Even if you confessed 
and you told the truth
with or without courts

I doubt
I’ll ever see a day 
where I’d want you in my life again.

——-  “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you…” John 8:32

Anyways, here is the next step in my lawsuit against you.

Tell your lawyer(s) 
or confront me
face to face
before 
the final trial.

https://josephraypowers.com/contact/

—

I’ll keep praying for you.
God bless
in Jesus name.
Amen.

The provision to, “10-1201. DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AUTHORIZED — FORM AND EFFECT,” seems to be a statute related to the legal concept of declaratory judgments.

Let’s break down what this means:

1. Courts of Record: This refers to courts that have the authority to keep an official record of their proceedings. These courts, within their legal jurisdiction, have the power to issue declaratory judgments.
2. Power to Declare Rights, Status, and Other Legal Relations: This means that the court can make a legal determination about a person’s rights, legal status, or other legal relationships. This is done without the need for a traditional lawsuit where one party sues another for damages or specific relief.
3. Whether or Not Further Relief Is or Could Be Claimed: A declaratory judgment can be sought even if no additional relief (like monetary compensation or an injunction) is being asked for. It’s a way to establish legal clarity without the need for more aggressive legal remedies.
4. No Action or Proceeding Shall Be Open to Objection on the Ground That a Declaratory Judgment or Decree Is Prayed For: This means that a request for a declaratory judgment cannot be objected to on the basis that it only seeks a declaratory judgment. In other words, seeking a declaratory judgment is, in itself, a legitimate legal action.
5. Affirmative or Negative in Form and Effect: The declaration made by the court can either state that something is the case (affirmative) or is not the case (negative). For instance, a court might declare that a contract is valid (affirmative) or that a certain law does not apply to a specific case (negative).
6. Force and Effect of a Final Judgment or Decree: A declaratory judgment is legally binding and has the same weight as any other final judgment or decree issued by a court. It’s a conclusive statement on the legal question it addresses and can provide legal certainty to the parties involved.

This statute authorizes courts to issue declaratory judgments, which are rulings that define the legal relationship or status of the parties without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. These judgments are used to clarify legal questions and rights, often before a more acute dispute arises, providing a legal foundation for future actions or avoiding further litigation.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS

Joseph Powers Petitioner, v. Marjorie Puka, Charmelle Puka, & Janette Golay, Respondent(s).

Case No. _____________________ PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE EXERTED BY RESPONDENTS AGAINST PETITIONER

JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Idaho Code § Idaho Code Section 10-1201, as this action seeks a declaratory judgment regarding allegations of undue influence.
2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Petitioner and Respondents, who are residents of Twin Falls County, Idaho, and/or the actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within this jurisdiction.
3. Venue is proper in this Court because the events leading to this claim occurred within Twin Falls County, Idaho, and the Respondents reside in this jurisdiction when the action giving rise to the lawsuit occurred.
4. The Petitioner intends to rescind the Petition requiring challenges heard in the DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Thomas & Marjorie are the father & mother of Denise, Janette, and Charmelle.
6. Kevin and Denise are the father and mother of Joseph and Andrea Powers.
7. Marjorie is the grandmother of Joseph and Andrea.
8. On July 10, 2006, Thomas & Marjorie Puka created The Puka Private Annuity Trust (the ‘Annuity Trust’).
9. On August 25, 2021, Marjorie created the Marge Puka Irrevocable Trust (the ‘Marge Trust’).
10. The Marge Trust allows unequal distributions among beneficiaries.
11. On or around March 23, 2022, Marjorie expressed her desire to keep her cherished home, the 612 Property, in the family name to at least seven people including; Joseph Powers, Lucinda Nevarez, Kevin Powers, Denise Powers, Racheal Dixon, Adam Dixon, Marjorie’s new next door neighbor.
12. On or around March 23, 2022, Marjorie expressed her desire to have family, the Petitioner, live closer (within close physical proximity in the same town) due to Marjorie expressing that Marjorie is getting older.
13. On April 1, 2022, Joseph and Lucinda (collectively referred to as ‘J&L’) entered into a contract (the ‘Contract’) with the Marge Trust, agreeing to serve as property managers of the Marge Trust real property located at 612 Northern Pine Ct., Twin Falls, ID 83301 (the ‘612 Property’) for the duration of Marjorie’s life, ensuring the preservation of value of the property as part of the inheritance for the beneficiaries.
14. The Contract stipulated that the legal title to the 612 Property would be conveyed to Denise upon Marjorie’s death.
15. The Contract specified that once Denise obtained legal title to the 612 Property, Denise would then transfer title to J&L, in accordance with the provisions set forth in Kevin and Denise’s will.
16. On May 3, 2022, the Marge Trust Protector David Taylor amended the Marge Trust (the ‘Amendment’).
17. The Amendment stipulates the trustee of the Marge Trust distributes the 612 Property to Denise upon Marjorie’s death.
18. The Amendment includes a No Contest Provision stating that, “any person, in any manner, directly or indirectly, attempts to contest or oppose the validity of this amendment, or commences, continues, or prosecutes any legal proceeding to set this amendment aside, then that person shall forfeit his or her share, and cease to have any right or interest in the 612 Property, and shall, for purposes of this amendment be deemed to have predeceased the Grantor without surviving descendants.”
19. On multiple occasions, the Respondents, directly and indirectly, opposed the validity of the amendment and commenced legal proceedings to subvert the Amendment.
20. The Respondents forfeit the Respondent’s share in the 612 Property.
21. The Respondents forfeit the Respondent’s rights in the 612 Property.
22. The Respondents forfeit the Respondent’s interest in the 612 Property.
23. The Respondents owe the Petitioner $250,000 and the remaining value of the 612 Property at the time of Marjorie’s death.
24. The Contract stipulated the legal title to the 612 Property would be conveyed to Denise upon Marjorie’s death and subsequently to J&L as per Kevin and Denise’s verbal conveyance to J&L, Kevin and Denise’s will, and/or Kevin and Denise’s Revocable Trust.
25. On May 3, 2022, the Marge Trust Protector David Taylor amended the Marge Trust, stipulating that the 612 Property be distributed to Denise.
26. On September 9, 2022, J&L closed property 413 2nd Ave W, Jerome Idaho 83338 with reliance on the Marge Trust Concract and to accommodate Marjorie’s request to preserve her beloved home at the 612 Property for her to be closer to the Petitoiner’s family and for the Respondents to visit the 612 Property and for the preservation of value of the 612 Property for the long term benefit of the Marge Trust for the beneficiaries and the descendants of the beneficiaries.
27. On October 11, 2022, Marjorie had her lawyer (David Taylor) send J&L a demand letter to vacate 612 Property.
28. On October 27, 2022, Marjorie had her second lawyer (Brooke Redmond) send Denise a demand letter to evict J&L from 612 Property
29. Marjorie refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s first lawyer.
30. Marjorie refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s second lawyer.
31. Janette refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s first lawyer.
32. Janette refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s second lawyer.
33. Charmelle refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s first lawyer.
34. Charmelle refused to respond to J&L’s demand clarification letter to Marjorie’s second lawyer.
35. Lawyer one responded to J&L’s demand clarification letter by withdrawing representing Marjorie’s claim against J&L to evict J&L from cherished 612 Property without cause.
36. Lawyer two refused to respond to J&L and Denise’s demand clarification letter.
37. Between approximately March 2023 to present, the Petitioner published on his personal blog website approximately 300,000 words regarding this case with the intention of finding the truth.
38. The Petitioner states in the Legal Disclaimer on website; “If you believe that any content on JosephRayPowers.com is inaccurate, misleading, or mistaken, you are encouraged to contact the author to inform him of the issue. You have 14 days from the date upon which you become aware of any such issue to reach out to Joseph Ray Powers for a correction. After this 14-day period, you agree to waive your right to request any changes or updates to the content in question.”
39. The Respondents have read every blog on the Petitioner’s website.
40. The Respondent’s Lawyers have read every blog on the Petitioner’s website.
41. The Respondents have watched every conference call on the Petitioner’s YouTube channel.
42. The Respondent’s Lawyers have watched every conference call on the Petitioner’s YouTube channel.
43. The Respondents refuse to correct public information regarding the Powers v. Puka case on JosephRayPowers.com or YouTube channel.
44. The Respondents agree that all publicly published information on the Petitioner’s website and YouTube channel is true and correct.
45. The Respondent’s Lawyers agree that all publicly published information on the Petitioner’s website and YouTube channel is true and correct.
46. The Respondent’s Lawyers have not demanded the Petitioner correct any publicly published information regarding the Powers v. Puka case on JosephRayPowers.com or YouTube channel.
47. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 sent the Petitioner a DEMAND LETTER to subvert the Petitioner’s First Amendment Rights to Free speech, Truth, and pure opinion of the Petitioner documenting the direct personal experience of the Powers v. Puka case.
48. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 sent the Petitioner a DEMAND LETTER to restrict communication with the Respondents and “their family.”
49. The Respondents have not pursued a restraining order against the Petitioner.
50. The Respondents refuse to respond to the Petitioner’s communications, private and public.
51. The Petitioner has invited Marjorie, Janette, Charmelle, lawyer one, lawyer two, and Kelley Golay to approximately 11 Google Meet video conference calls to which no one attended or attempted to reschedule nor extended an offer to have a genuine meeting of the minds with J&L in any capacity.
52. The Petitioner attempted countless times to open a line of communication with the Respondents (and Kelley Golay) via email, text, phone call, voice message, and finally the Petitioner’s public website blog and public YouTube channel to which the Respondents have not responded to the Petitioner in any capacity.
53. The Respondents refused the Petitioner’s mediation offer, even though the Marge Trust says Marjorie desires meditation before litigation.
54. The Respondents refuse to have a genuine meeting of the minds with the Petitioner.

PETITIONER SUBJECT
TO UNDUE INFLUENCE

55. By surprise and without notice, on November 28, 2022 (Marjorie’s great-granddaughter’s birthday – aka – the Petitioner’s daughter Amrita Elakia Nevarez-Powers birthday), Marjorie visited Joseph, Lucinda, and Kevin at the 612 Property to communicate Marjorie’s intention to withhold visits to Marjorie’s granddaughter Andrea (Petitioner’s sister) unless the Petitioner agrees to buy the 612 Property.
56. This condition placed on familial affection constituted undue influence, particularly as it leveraged the Petitioner’s emotional distress over the Petitioner’s sister’s terminal illness.
57. The Petitioner’s agreement to purchase the 612 Property was made under economic duress, lacking viable alternatives, further indicating undue influence.
58. The passing of Andrea on December 7, 2022, exacerbated vulnerability to undue influence.
59. The Respondents exploited the Petitioner’s vulnerability, using emotional and familial pressure to manipulate the Petitioner’s decisions.
60. The combination of emotional distress, familial pressure, and the timing of these Respondent’s actions demonstrates that the Petitioner was subject to undue influence.
61. The Petitioner’s decisions were not a true reflection of intentions, but rather a response to overbearing control and manipulation by the Respondents.
62. The Petitioner’s free will was compromised due to the excessive persuasion and undue pressure exerted by the Respondents.
63. On November 28, 2022, Marjorie communicated her intention that she would not visit her granddaughter, the Petitioner’s sister unless the Petitioner agreed to buy the 612 Property.
64. On November 28, 2022, under economic duress (with no other options), J&L verbally agreed to purchase the 612 Property in exchange for Marjorie to visit the Petitioenr’s dying sister (Marjorie’s granddaughter).
65. On December 7, 2022, Andrea passed away.

MOTIVE
TO EXERT
UNDUE INFLUENCE

66. The Petitioner alleges that Denise consistently denied Janette’s requests for money from the Annuity Trust and the Marge Trust, which created a motive for Janette to exert undue influence on the Petitioner.
67. Denise’s agreement to give Charmelle money from the Annuity Trust, but not further from the Marge Trust, added to the motive for undue influence on the Petitioner.
68. The Petitioner argues Janette’s husband, Kelley Golay, desire to retire contributed to a financial motive for exerting undue influence over Marjorie.
69. The Petitioner submits that Janette’s dissatisfaction with not receiving her inheritance in one lump sum further fueled her motive to influence Marjorie.
70. The Respondent’s demand for complete control over the Marge Trust and the Annuity Trust assets created a motive for the Respondents to exert undue influence over the Petitioner.
71. The Petitioner argues that Janette unduly influenced Marjorie to take control of all trust assets, with the intention of Jannete receiving Janette’s inheritance outright 
72. The Petitioner argues that Janette unduly influenced Marjorie to take control of all trust assets, with the intention of Jannete to deny Denise rightful natural heir inheritance.
73. The dissolution of all trusts was for Janette to get inheritance outright indicates a clear motive for undue influence.
74. These collective actions by the Respondents demonstrate a clear and concerted effort driven by financial motives to exert undue influence on the Petitioner.
75. The Respondents had a motive to exert undue influence over the Petitioner.

OPPORTUNITY
TO EXERT
UNDUE INFLUENCE

76. The Respondents had ample opportunity to exert undue influence, particularly following the loss of a family member, creating a vulnerable situation.
77. On December 11, 2022, the Respondents exploited this opportunity by presenting a misrepresented agreement, PETITION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO TRUST AND ESTATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, (the ‘Petition’) to the Petitioner.
78. The Petitioner did not receive proper notice from the Respondents of the Petition.
79. The Respondents did not email, fax, nor mail the Petitioner a copy of the Petition to the Petitioner for final approval prior to the Respondent’s filing the Petition with the court.
80. The Respondents refused to have a genuine meeting of the minds with the Petitioner regarding the Petition.
81. On December 11, 2022, Marjorie presented the Petitioner with the Petition omitting the three-page bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement.
82. On December 11, 2022, the Petitioner signed the Petition agreeing to buy the 612 Property in exchange for Marjorie to visit the Petitioner’s dying sister Andrea.
83. The Petition filed on December 20, 2022, by the Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond was not what Marjorie presented the Petitioner with to sign.
84. The Petition filed on December 20, 2022, by the Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond included three additional pages that are bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, that the Petitioner has no knowledge of at the time of signing.
85. The Respondents lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, which were unduly included in the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, were not a result of a genuine meeting of the minds, as per audio recording of the conversation on November 28, 2022, between Marjorie, Kevin, and Joseph, and Lucinda.
86. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, which were fraudulently added by the Respondents to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022.
87. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, which were improperly added to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, were not agreed to by the Petitioner.
88. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, that were added to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, did not benefit all beneficiaries.
89. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, that were added to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, were another attempt to undermine, contest, oppose, the Amendment in the Marge Trust where Denise was to inherit the 612 Property which was then to be transferred to the Petitioner.
90. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, that were added to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, lacked fair and reasonable due process of the law.
91. On December 20, 2022, the Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly filed the unverified Petitioner with the court without the knowledge of the Petitioner.
92. The Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond negligently, intentionally, and recklessly added three pages bates stamped as Settlement and Release Agreement, that were added to the Petition filed on December 20, 2022, rendering the Petition void ab initio.
93. On Dec 20, 2023, the Respondent’s lawyer #2, Brooke Redmond, negligently, intentionally, and recklessly violated HIPPA law by emailing the Petitioner the private confidential medical records of MarryAnn Ward without MarryAnn Ward’s permission or knowledge.
94. On Dec 20, 2023, the Respondent’s lawyer #2, Brooke Redmond, negligently, intentionally,  and recklessly violated the Idaho Rules Of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) by emailing the Petitioner the private confidential medical records of MarryAnn Ward without MarryAnn Ward’s permission or knowledge.
    1. Did Brooke Redmond Violate Idaho Rule Of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) & Federal HIPAA Laws? https://josephraypowers.com/law/lawyer-reviews/did-brooke-redmond-violate-idaho-rule-of-professional-conduct-1-6a-federal-hipaa-laws/ 
95. The Respondent’s lawyer #2, Brooke Redmond, refused the Petitioner’s request to obtain MaryAnn Ward’s permission for the Petitioner to publish private confidential medical documents on the Petitioner’s website.
96. The Respondents did not engage in a genuine meeting of the minds with the Petitioner to terminate and dissolve the Annuity Trust.
97. The Respondents did not engage in a genuine meeting of the minds with the Petitioner to terminate and dissolve the Marge Trust.
98. The Respondents did not engage in a genuine meeting of the minds with the Petitioner to terminate and dissolve the Marge Trust’s amendment.
99. The Petition, prepared by the Respondent’s lawyer #2 Brooke Redmond was designed to dissolve and terminate the Marge Trust under false pretenses.
100. The inclusion of provisions to dissolve the Marge Trust within the Petition was part of the scheme to exert undue influence.
101. The swift and immediate changes to the Marge trust and property ownership, without proper due process, due deliberation, independent advice, or a genuine meeting of the minds, presented a prime opportunity for undue influence.
102. The disinheriting of the Petitioner on December 11, 2022, was a direct result of the Respondents exploiting their opportunity to exert undue influence.
103. The Petitioner’s distressed state, feeling a pressing need to comply to ensure familial harmony, was a key opportunity utilized by the Respondents to influence the Petitioner’s free will.
104. The lack of proper due process, due deliberation, independent advice, or a genuine meeting of the minds available to the Petitioner at the time of these critical decisions facilitated the Respondent’s opportunity to exert undue influence.
105. The Respondent provided the Petitioner with a petition that differs from the one filed with the court, thus rendering the Petition void ab initio.
106. The Respondents had an opportunity to exert undue influence over the Petitioner.

EXCESSIVE PERSUASION
OVERCOMING
THE PETITIONER
FREE WILL
RESULTING IN INEQUITY

107. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent’s refusal to respond to multiple demand clarification letters exemplifies their use of excessive persuasion.
108. The conditional visitation to a dying relative, as imposed by the Respondents, amounts to excessive persuasion that overcame the Petitioner’s free will.
109. This excessive persuasion led to an inequitable situation, notably for Andrea, who was deprived of her grandmother’s comfort in her final moments due to disputes over property.
110. The Respondent’s active solicitation and persistence in persuading Joseph to cancel his life estate property manager contract demonstrates excessive persuasion.
111. The Respondent’s overbearing control, insistence, manipulation, and false representations of the Petitioner disinheriting himself from receiving the 612 property title after Marjorie’s death is an example of excessive persuasion.
112. The Petitioner’s decision-making was heavily influenced by the Respondent’s actions, not reflecting their true intentions but rather the result of undue influence.
113. The Respondent’s tactics resulted in decisions that were not carefully planned for the future, evidencing a lack of free will.
114. The Respondent’s actions led to a rapid and unconsidered transfer and change in agreements, highlighting the excessive persuasion used.
115. The Respondents refused to respond to Petitioner’s demand clarification letter #1.
116. The Respondents refused to respond to Petitioner’s demand clarification letter #2.
117. Andrea experienced profound bereavement when Grandma Marjorie, her favorite special grandma, withheld visits due to a dispute over the 612 property. This dispute hinged on Joseph’s decision to purchase the property. If Joseph refused to buy it, he risked facing contentious legal challenges from Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle — as well as Andrea passing away without her cherished grandmother’s comfort in her final moments.
118. Marjorie’s conditional visitation to a dying relative is excessive persuasion that overcame the free will of the Petitioner resulting in inequity to the Petitioner.
119. The Respondents actively solicited and unduly persisted in persuading Joseph to cancel his life estate property manager contract and to disinherit himself from receiving the 612 property title, after Marjorie passed away.
120. At no time did the Petitioner want to cancel his contract for his life estate as caretaker of Marjorie’s special 612 property. Nor did Joseph intend on disinheriting himself from receiving the 612 property upon Marjorie’s death.
121. The Respondents exerted excessive persuasion over the Petitioner resulting in inequity for the Petitioner.

DISPOSITION
TO EXERT
UNDUE INFLUENCE

122. The Respondents, by virtue of their actions and relationships with the grantor, had a disposition to exert undue influence over the Petitioner.
123. The Respondent’s active involvement in the preparation and execution of legal documents altered the distribution of the grantor’s assets.
124. The Respondent’s actions went beyond mere acts of kindness and were instead designed to unfairly advantage themselves.
125. The Respondents played a significant role in encouraging the transfer of assets, contacting attorneys, and preparing, and influencing the drafting of legal documents to misrepresent to the Petitioner for the unjust enrichment of the Respondents.
126. The Respondents undermine bequests to natural heirs, suggesting a disposition to exert undue influence.
127. The Respondents alienate the Grantor from family members and isolate the Grantor from interested third parties.
128. The Respondents exacerbated the situation to exert undue influence.
129. The undue influence is less likely to be found where the grant was not made at the request, suggestion, or direction of the grantee, which was not the case here.
130. The Respondent’s actions indicate a clear intention to take control of the grantor’s assets and decisions, thus exerting undue influence.
131. Gmeiner v. Yact
     1. Under the final requirement, the court “examines the character and activities of the alleged undue influencer to determine whether his conduct was designed to take unfair advantage of the testator.” “Disposition,” in this sense, must mean more than simply the performance of acts of kindness accompanied by the hope of material gain. One factor that assumes critical importance is whether or not the alleged undue influencer took an active part in the preparation and execution of the will or deed. The beneficiary of a grantor’s largesse will be viewed more suspiciously if he has been active in encouraging the transfer, in contacting the attorney, or in preparing and typing the documents. See McNabb v. Brewster, supra; In re Estate of Randall, supra. 
     2. While none of the above factors is per se indicative of undue influence, Mollendorf v. Derry, supra, it is clear that undue influence is less likely to be found where it can be shown that the grant was not made at the request, suggestion, or direction of the grantee
     3. Another broad area of judicial concern in dealing with the element of “disposition” is the alleged influencer’s attempts at undermining bequests to the natural heirs. The court will look closely at situations where the recipient of a deed or bequest has apparently been responsible for alienating the affections of the testator-grantor from the other members of his or her family. The situation is further exacerbated if the grantee has isolated the grantor from all contact with family or with disinterested third parties.
132. The Respondents had a disposition to exert undue influence over the Petitioner.

AUTHORITY
OF INFLUENCER

133. The Respondents exercised undue authority over trust matters, influencing decisions beyond their lawful capacities.
134. The Respondents unjustly removed Denise as the trustee of both the Annuity Trust and the Marge Trust, despite Denise’s longstanding role as sole trustee since 2006.
135. The Petitioner asserts that this removal was executed without just cause and was driven by the Respondent’s desire to control trust assets for the Respondent’s unjust enrichment.
136. The Respondents, by assuming control over the trusts, breached the contractual agreement with Joseph regarding his life estate contract as a property manager and subsequent inheritance of the 612 Property.
137. The Petitioner submits that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions constitute tortious interference with Joseph’s contract, violating his legal rights.
138. It is alleged that these actions by the Respondents demonstrate an unauthorized and unlawful exertion of influence and control over the trusts and their assets.
139. The Petitioner maintains that this overreach of authority by the Respondents led to significant financial and personal damages to the beneficiaries of the trusts.
140. Consequently, the Petitioner seeks redress for the breaches of duty and the undue influence exerted by the Respondents under the guise of authority.
141. Marjorie did not have the legal or lawful authority to influence and was controlled via undue influence by Charmelle and Janette during the recent death of family member Andrea, as per Gmeiner v. Yact.
142. Successor Trustees Janette and Charmelle of the Trust to which the Petitioner had a life estate contract as property manager, with the Trust to pay for property tax, house insurance, maintenance, and repairs
143. Denise served as the sole trustee of the Annuity Trust since 2006.
144. Denise served as the sole trustee of the Trust since 2006.
145. Early October 2022, the Respondents remove Denise as Trustee with cause.
146. The Respondents breached the Petitioner’s contract with the Marge Trust.
147. The Respondents tortiously interfere with the Petitioner’s contract with the Marge Trust.
148. The Respondents had a duty of care for the Petitioner’s contract with the Marge Trust.
149. The Respondents had an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the Petitioner’s contract with the Marge Trust.
150. The Respondents had authority over the Petitioner to exert undue influence. 

RESULTS
INDICATING
UNDUE INFLUENCE OCCURRED

151. The Respondent’s actions resulted in an unnatural, unjust, and irrational distribution of assets.
152. The financial damages experienced by the Petitioner, including selling multiple Trust properties at a loss, are indicative of undue influence.
153. The significant disparity in financial benefits with the Respondents receiving substantial gains, while the Petitioner suffers losses, points to undue influence.
154. The sale of the 612 property far below its market value, as indicated by its Zillow estimate, suggests manipulation under undue influence.
155. The sale of the 612 property far below its market value, was for the sole purpose of Janette and Charmelle’s unjust enrichment of the proceeds from the sale of the 612 Property of approximately $125,000 for Janette and $125,000 for Charmelle, and the remainder of the Trust’s assets were unduly self dealt to Marjorie of approximately $2,800,000.
156. The dissolution of the trusts and the subsequent financial transactions led to unjust enrichment and self-dealing by the Respondents.
157. The drastic change in their financial situations, particularly the Petitioner’s increased debt and doubled cost of living, was a result of undue influence exerted by the Respondents against the Petitioner.
158. The drastic change in his relationship with the Petitioner’s grandmother Marjorie in which Janette and Charmelle isolated Marjorie and restricted Marjorie from communicating with the Petitioner.
159. Denise lost her rightful inheritance, further evidencing the impact of undue influence.
160. The timing and nature of the decisions made, especially during a period of emotional distress, are consistent with undue influence.
161. Disinheriting of Denise and the Petitioner without just cause is a result indicative of undue influence.
162. The Respondent’s actions results are suspicious “unnatural, unjust or irrational.” In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 451 362 P.2d 1002 (1953).
163. Financial damages due to selling houses at a loss.
164. Unjust enrichment, self-dealing
     1. Marjorie – 2.8 million
     2. Janette – $125,000
     3. Charmelle – $125,000
     4. Denise – $0 plus rightful natural heir inheritance
     5. Kevin – $181,000 debt
     6. Joseph – $78,000 lost profits from the sale of his previous residents to accommodate Marjorie’s wish to have family take care of her cherished 612 Property
165. The Petitioner incurred $181,000 of debt.
166. Joseph’s cost of living nearly doubled.
167. Denise lost her natural heir inheritance.
168. The Respondents are unjustly enriched.
169. 612 Property worth approximately $400,000 of Zillow.
     1. 612 house sold for $250,000
     2. Marge Puka Irrevocable trust lost $150,000
170. 2908 house
     1. Trust bought it for $579,753
     2. Upgrades – 60,000
     3. Total – $ 639,753
     4. 2908 house sold – $543,300
     5. Approx – realtor fees and closing fees $45,000
     6. $498,300
171. The results of the Respondent’s actions indicate undue influence occurred to the Petitioner.

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION
SHIFTING
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
TO RESPONDENTS

172. The circumstances of this case establish a rebuttable presumption of undue influence, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the Respondents.
173. The vulnerability of the victims, particularly under the emotional distress of a family member’s imminent passing, supports this presumption.
174. The actions exerted by the Respondents, including the timing and nature of decisions made, are indicative of undue influence.
175. The rapid succession of events, especially during a period of familial grief, further establishes this rebuttable presumption.
176. The swift and immediate changes to the trust and property ownership, without proper due process, due deliberation, independent advice, or a genuine meeting of the minds, presented a prime opportunity for undue influence and further established this rebuttable presumption.
177. The Respondent’s decisions, which significantly benefited themselves at the expense of the Petitioner, contribute to the presumption of undue influence.
178. The Respondent’s control over assets and decisions that were not rightfully the Respondent’s demonstrates an abuse of influence to the Petitioner.
179. The nature of the relationship of the Petitioner to the Respondent’s involving caregiving and fiduciary responsibilities, inherently suggests a potential for undue influence.
180. The Respondents, as executors and heirs, trustees, and beneficiaries, hold positions that naturally shift the burden of proof onto the Respondents regarding the undue influence claims exerted by the Respondents against the Petitioner.
181. The combination of these factors creates a presumption that the Respondents must now rebut to disprove allegations of undue influence exerted by the Respondents against the Petitioner.
182. Vulnerability of Petitioner (susceptible to suggestions or pressure)
     1. Petitioner’s sister 9 days from passing
     2. Petitioner’s sister passed 3 days after
     3. Petitioner’s sister was not even buried yet
183. Emotional distress
184. Actions exerting influence
     1. Timing and nature of decisions made
     2. Marjorie benefitted by seizing control of assets she did not have control over.
     3. Expense of the victim, $250,000
     4. Disinherited no cause and no fault
     5. Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle stop communicating with Petitioner
185. Certain type of relationship exists (like a caregiver or fiduciary relationship), there might be a presumption of undue influence, shifting the burden of proof to the other party.
     1. Executors and heirs
     2. Trustees and beneficiaries
186. The rebuttable presumption of undue influence shifts the burden of proof to the Respondents.

WHEREFORE
PETITIONER MOVES
THIS HONORABLE COURT
TO ENTER AN ORDER 

1. FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE EXERTED BY RESPONDENTS AGAINST PETITIONER.
2. Reasonable attorney’s fees.
3. Together with such other and further relief as the circumstances and demands of justice may warrant.

UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY
I AFFIRM THAT THE FACTS
ALLEGED IN THE FOREGOING
ARE TRUE AND CORRECT
ACCORDING TO MY OWN
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

________________________________

Joseph Powers, 

Petitioner.

STATE OF IDAHO

COUNTY OF TWIN FALLS

BEFORE ME personally appeared JOSEPH POWERS who, being by me first duly sworn, executed the foregoing in my presence and stated to me under penalties of perjury that the facts alleged therein are true and correct according to his own personal knowledge.

_________________________________

Notary Public

My commission expires: