Link to the written Timeline Of Events in the Powers v. Puka lawsuit.
Below is a Visual Timeline Of Events.
Previous relevant communications.
- Final Attempt To Resolve Without Lawsuit: End the Never-Ending Family Dispute – Mar 5, 2023
- Final Notice – Christ or Cops & Court? (You Decide) – Mar 25, 2023
- Cease & Desist Order For Unwanted Communications (Third Attempt) – Mar 27, 2023
- No Trespassing Order – Mar 27, 2023
- NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE SUIT – Jul 28, 2023
- Family Reconciliation & Final Attempt To Communicate With Other Affected Silent Parties – Aug 15, 2023
- Powers v. Puka – Plaintiffs Statement Of Discoverable Information (PSDI) – Part 1 – Sep 28, 2023
- Janette Golay Finally Responds To Denise! Progress? – Oct 1, 2023
Joseph R. Powers, JD h.c.
July 28, 2023
Via Email & Certified Mail USPS
Charmelle Y. Puka
Diana J. Golay
Marjorie A. Puka
Re: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE SUIT
Dear Marjorie Puka, Diana Golay, and Charmelle Puka,
This letter is served to you as the legal notice of my intention to initiate a lawsuit against you for breach of contract and tortious interference.
The details of the claim are as follows:
- March 27, 2022, Marjorie [Grantor], Denise [Trustee], and Joseph agreed that Joseph would occupy 612 property until Marjorie’s passing. We agreed that the cost for Joseph to occupy 612 property would be equal to or less than what Joseph was paying for his Jerome residence. Joseph purchased Jerome residence for $48,000 with a remaining mortgage balance of $46,992.02 with a monthly payment of $330.51 (P&I and tax reserve), plus insurance, maintenance, and utilities.
- We agreed that upon Marjorie’s passing, the 612 property would be a part of Denise’s 1/3 of her inheritance [that would then be transferred to Joseph].
- December 15, 2022, Marjorie coerced Joseph into purchasing the 612 property for $250,000 under duress.
Regarding your accusations of conflict of interest, self-dealing, reasonable person, and breach of trust, there is an affirmative defense.
All parties involved were aware of the potential conflict and the possible self-dealing but consented to it anyway and the terms of the trust provided for the terms we agree to as per Idaho Code § 15-7-302 you cited in the October 27, 2022 letter to Denise from Brooke, on behalf of Marjorie, et al.
Recently, the Idaho Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2023, in the case Darrow v. White pertains to this situation. This case involves issues of trust, conflict of interest, and pertains to Idaho Code sections 68-108(b) and 68-111. Marjorie, by the terms of the Trust, appointed Denise as trustee knowing she was also a beneficiary of the trust. Even though the Section 10.20 of the Trust does not expressly contemplate the conflict of interest arising when a person is both a trustee and a co-beneficiary, Section 10.20 broadly approves of conflict of interest and did not need court authorization nor co-beneficiary approval.
Under the terms of the agreement, you were obliged to honor the original contract and not interfere with the original contract.
It has been observed that you coerced Joseph into signing an new unconscionable contract under duress.
This act/omission is in clear violation of our terms you conducted your trust advisors to offer Joseph.
The consequences of these actions have caused significant damage and loss to Joseph and his family, both monetarily and in terms of [mental anguish, emotional distress, reputation, etc.], which we believe are a direct result of your actions.
I hereby demand $134,007.98 and a formal written apology to resolve this dispute. This amount will restore me to my previous economic status and the written apology could begin the healing process for the entire family.
If the issue is not rectified or an agreement is not reached by August 28, 2023, I will have no choice but to proceed with legal action to recover full damages of $1,000,000.00 ($250,000.00 for compensatory damages and $250,000.00 for punitive damages for each party involved in malice, fraud, gross negligence, et al) together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances.
Please regard this letter as the final opportunity to resolve this matter amicably without court intervention.
I advise you to consult with an attorney regarding this serious matter. If you or your attorney wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at the earliest convenience.
Please note, this letter is not an exhaustive statement of rights, remedies, claims, or defenses, all of which are expressly reserved.
Sincerely,
Joseph Powers, JD h.c.
