Did Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Cross The Line? Examining Malice In Family Trusts For Punitive Damage Recovery – PSDI Part 4

---

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

Below is a Visual Timeline Of Events.

---

Joseph received a demand letter from Marjorie’s lawyer, David Taylor, shortly after Janette and Charmelle forced Denise out as trustee and appointed themselves as trustee.

By carefully examining the language of this letter, the evidence clearly shows how David Taylor, Marjorie Puka, and Denise Powers offered Joseph a particular contract to occupy trust property – under specific conditions – until Marjorie’s passing.

A few weeks prior to Mr. Taylor demanding Joseph vacate or become a tenant, Mr. Taylor sent a letter to Marjorie Puka and then Marjorie sent the letter to Janette Golay, Denise Powers, and Charmelle Puka. And then Joseph and Lucinda received the letter to read.

The letter, authored by Mr. Taylor on Marjorie’s behalf, explicitly stated, “We created a plan for Joseph to occupy the home until Marge passes away.”

This statement by Mr. Taylor contradicts what Marjorie later claimed when she hired a second lawyer, Brooke Redmond. 

Marjorie’s first lawyer dropped the claim after Joseph requested verification that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions were legal and lawful. 

Marjorie’s second lawyer, Brooke Redmond, sends a demand letter (page one and page two) explicitly stating that Marjorie had no knowledge and did not consent to Joseph occupying trust property “rent-free” for the duration of her life.

In one instance, Marjorie and her first lawyer affirmed, not once but twice, Marjorie’s intention and desire for Joseph to occupy trust property for the rest of her life. 

However, in the next instance, Marjorie claimed she had no knowledge and did not consent to this arrangement.

Was Marjorie Lying To Her First Lawyer Or To Her Second Lawyer?

The exhibits listed below leave no room for doubt regarding Marjorie’s intentions and the complete awareness of all parties involved regarding the contents of the contract proposed by Marjorie, David Taylor, and Denise Powers to Joseph Powers and Lucinda Nevarez.

• Exhibit 1 – August 23, 2022 – Puka’s text to Denise: “I am just going to let everything stay as is. You have done such a great job with this estate. No one could have done it but you. I don’t want continued fighting among our family.”
• Exhibit 2 – August 24, 2022 – Janette text to John Martin: “Marjorie says she’s leaving the 612 property to Joe to live in rent-free. Marjorie feels she would lose too much money by selling it.”
• Exhibit 3 – August 24, 2022 – John Martin invoice to Puka: “Issues finally resolved after meeting and discussing these things with Puka, Denise, Kevin, & Charmelle.”
• Exhibit 4 – August 24, 2022 – Puka’s check to John Martin memo: “Thanks, John!”
• Exhibit 5 – August 25, 2022 – Charmelle text to Denise: I told her [Janette] that Marjorie is going to just keep things how they are.”

All parties involved, along with the trust advisors, unanimously concurred that Joseph would be responsible for property taxes, insurance, utilities, general upkeep, maintenance, and all repairs to the home.

Following a thorough re-verification process to ensure Joseph and Lucinda’s secure lifetime lease of the trust property until Marjorie’s passing, Joseph proceeded to sell his previous house.

Joseph and Lucinda received confirmation from various sources, including Mr. Taylor (Marjorie’s lawyer), John Martin (Marjorie’s accountant), Marjorie Puka herself, Janette Golay, Denise Powers, and Charmelle Puka, reaffirming that the original offer remained unchanged.

At this juncture, there is no room for reasonable doubt that Joseph and Lucinda held a valid belief and reliance that all parties would uphold and safeguard their contract to occupy trust property until Marjorie’s passing, at which point they were promised ownership of said property.

While Joseph was enjoying his lifetime lease and anticipating future ownership, Marjorie, Denise, Janette, and Charmelle engaged in conflicts and disagreements among themselves, which did not involve Joseph or Lucinda.

The disputes among Marjorie, Denise, Janette, and Charmelle eventually led Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle to terminate Joseph’s contract without properly verifying whether their actions were legal, lawful, moral, fair, or justifiable.

After Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle sent two demand letters to Joseph and Denise demanding the removal of Joseph’s family from trust property, Joseph did not receive feedback regarding the demand verification letter that Joseph sent to both lawyers – Mr. Taylor and Brooke Redmond.

In Joseph’s verification letter, he sought clarification and presented a settlement offer to uphold the original contract. 

Joseph granted all parties a 72-hour window to respond, and if there was no response within that timeframe, the letter stated that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle would be considered as having implicitly agreed to honor the initial commitments.

Joseph received no response from Marjorie, Janette, Charmelle, or Ms. Redmond – however, Mr. Taylor responded to Joseph informing Joseph that Mr. Taylor no longer represents Marjorie, Janette, or Charmelle in the Trust’s claim against Joseph et al.

After not receiving a response from Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle – Joseph was even further under the reasonable assumption that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle gave their tacit consent to honor original promises.

It has now been more than a year since Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle unilaterally removed Denise as Trustee, breached the agreement, and interfered with Joseph’s contract.

During this time, Joseph has made efforts to understand the motivations behind Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s silent and malicious actions against him and his family.

To date, Joseph has identified 28 potential root causes based on the circumstantial evidence that reasonably infers that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle acted with reckless disregard for the truth and the established agreement with Joseph and Lucinda.

Through no fault of Joseph or Lucinda, Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle opted for a strategy of silent avoidance of their familial and legal responsibilities. 

This involved persistent wrongful and careless actions during sensitive periods, leading a reasonable person to question the legitimacy and good faith sincerity of Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions.

Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s reckless disregard for the truth and their obligations to Joseph and Lucinda has caused significant emotional distress. 

Joseph and Lucinda were left without a clear understanding of Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions, which appeared to be orchestrated primarily by Janette.

Upon closer examination of the available evidence, it is reasonable to infer that Janette initiated this wrongful dispute and devised a plan to remove Joseph and Lucinda from the trust property, dissolve the trust, and access funds from the trust.

Janette’s orchestration could be linked to Marjorie’s decision not to permit Janette to receive trust benefits until Marjorie’s passing.

It seems that Janette Golay is primarily driven by a desire to obtain money from the trust and to exclude Denise Powers.

Janette’s ultimate objective appears to involve obtaining a larger share of the trust’s assets following Marjorie’s passing. 

This may be motivated by Janette’s desire for retribution against both Denise and her child, as evident in her intention to completely remove them from the trust and revoke all promises previously made during a sensitive time.

During all of Janette’s influential actions, Joseph and Lucinda were denied the standard due process that a reasonable person would typically expect under similar normal circumstances.

Throughout the critical phases of the dispute’s origin and escalation, Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle consistently chose to maintain complete silence toward Joseph and Lucinda.

Did Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle’s Behavior Show A Reckless Disregard For The Truth? 

• Hogg v. Wolske explains that “Malice has been generally defined by Idaho courts as a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement.”

It appears that Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s behavior could be interpreted as showing a reckless disregard for the truth and the established agreement with Joseph. 

Their actions seem to breach the agreed-upon terms, lack legal and moral verification, and have caused significant distress to Joseph and Lucinda.

Determining whether Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s behavior showed a reckless disregard for the truth involves a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding their actions.

1. Demand Letter and Contract

• Demand Letter: The demand letter from Marjorie’s lawyer, David Taylor, seems to be a critical piece of evidence. The content of the letter, as stated, “We created a plan for Joseph to occupy the home until Marge passes away,” indicates a specific agreement or understanding.
• Contractual Agreement: All parties, including trust advisors, agreed that Joseph would cover expenses related to the property in exchange for his occupancy. This establishes a form of contractual agreement.

2. Breach of Agreement

• Unilateral Actions: Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions to cancel Joseph’s contract and force him out, without verifying the legality or morality of their actions, demonstrate a disregard for the established agreement.
• Lack of Communication: Their failure to respond to Joseph’s verification letter and settlement offer further indicates a lack of willingness to engage in a fair and legal resolution.

3. Motivation and Impact

• Malicious Actions: The silent removal of Denise as Trustee and interference with Joseph’s contract, coupled with over a year of unexplained actions, suggest a potential malicious intent.
• Impact on Joseph and Lucinda: The persistent actions at sensitive times, causing doubt about the validity and good faith of Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle’s actions, have negatively impacted Joseph and Lucinda.

How Does Malice Relate To A Beneficiary Who Ousts An Existing Trustee, Appoints Themselves, And Then Immediately Breaches And Disrupts A Contract?

When a beneficiary interferes with a contract by removing the current trustee, appointing themselves as trustee, and then immediately breaching and interfering with a contract, malice could potentially be a relevant legal concept.

Proving Intent In Malice Claim

Proving intent is a critical component of a malice claim, whether in a civil or criminal context. 

It requires showing that the defendant acted with a deliberate intention to cause harm or with a reckless disregard for the rights of others. 

• Direct Evidence: Proving intent can be challenging, as it requires showing the defendant’s state of mind. Direct evidence of intent, such as a verbal or written statement, can be used to prove malice.
• Circumstantial Evidence: In many cases, intent must be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant’s actions, behavior, or the circumstances surrounding the event.
• Negligence vs. Malice: In some legal contexts, a plaintiff may not need to prove malice if they can show negligence, which is a lower standard of fault. However, the damages available may be different.
• Intentional Wrongdoing: Malice is relevant if it can be demonstrated that the beneficiary’s actions were driven by an intent to cause harm or gain an unfair advantage.
• Reckless Disregard: Alternatively, malice could also apply if the beneficiary acted with a blatant disregard for the contractual obligations and the rights of the other parties involved.

Malice Vs. Negligence

Understanding the differences between negligence and malice is crucial in legal contexts, as they involve different standards of conduct, states of mind, and have different implications for liability and damages. 

Negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care, while malice requires intentional wrongdoing or a reckless disregard for the rights of others. 

The legal standards, burden of proof, and potential damages vary significantly between the two, highlighting the importance of accurately characterizing the defendant’s conduct in legal proceedings.

Evidence Required For Proving Malice

• Direct Evidence: Proving intent can be challenging, as it requires showing the defendant’s state of mind. Direct evidence of intent, such as a verbal or written statement, can be used to prove malice.
• Circumstantial Evidence: In many cases, intent must be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant’s actions, behavior, or the circumstances surrounding the event.

Could The Following Action Of Marjorie, Janette, And Charmelle Be Interpreted As Malice Requiring Punitive Damages To Be Paid To Joseph & Lucinda?

Denise, Joseph’s mother, serves as the trustee for Joseph’s grandmother Marjorie Puka’s irrevocable trust, which designated Denise will receive a specific real property that will then be given to Joseph – designating Joseph as a future beneficiary. 

A few years back, Denise prevented her sister Janette from buying a property from the trust at a reduced price. 

Following this, Janette was denied a financial request from the trust by Denise. In retaliation, Janette managed to remove Denise as trustee and appointed herself in that role.

As the new trustee, Janette forces an unfair change in the contract terms regarding the property, or alternatively, to have Joseph vacate the premises. 

When this effort was unsuccessful, she pressured Joseph into agreeing to purchase the house at a reduced price. 

During this high-pressure situation, and just three days after the death of Joseph’s sister Andrea, Marjorie, Janette, and Charmelle manipulate Joseph into relinquishing his rights to a lifetime contract to occupy trust property and as a future beneficiary who will receive ownership of the trust property upon Marjorie’s passing. 

Joseph initially agreed to these new terms under duress, believing Joseph would eventually inherit the property back after Puka’s passing. 

This belief, coupled with Marjorie’s ultimatum that she would not visit Joseph’s dying sister until the property dispute was resolved, led Joseph to comply with their coercive demands for money now.

Later, Marjorie confessed to Denise that Janette’s true motive for all her actions was to evict Joseph from the trust property, operating under a vindictive logic of “if Janette can’t have a house, no one can,” as revenge against Denise for her previous actions.

This situation raises questions about potential malice, manipulation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, breach of care, breach of duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless disregard, and indifferent carelessness that a reasonable person would have with managing the interests of another.

What Specific Elements Suggest That The Actions Taken By Marjorie, Janette, & Charmelle Were Done With Malicious Intent?

Whether or not Marjorie, Janette, and/or Charmelle’s actions constitute malice depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case. However, based on the information above, it is possible that Marjorie, Janette, and/or Charmelle’s actions could be considered malicious.

Malice is a state of mind that is characterized by a desire to harm another person or to recklessly disregard the safety or well-being of others. Malice can be inferred from a person’s actions, motives, and words.

In this case, Marjorie, Janette, and/or Charmelle’s actions appear to be motivated by a desire to harm Joseph, Lucinda, and Denise. Marjorie, Janette, and/or Charmelle’s actions forced Denise out of her position as trustee of the trust and then coerced Joseph into buying the trust house at a discounted price. Marjorie, Janette, and/or Charmelle’s actions tricked Joseph into signing himself out of the will as a future beneficiary causing economic and emotional damages.

In addition, Janette’s words suggest that she was motivated by revenge when Janette told Marjorie that the only reason she wanted to force Denise out of being a trustee was to kick Joseph and his family out of the house.

FAQ’s About Malice

What Is Malice?

Legal Definitions of malice.

To get a more precise and nuanced understanding of “malice” in a legal context, it might be helpful to look at legal dictionaries or case law where the term has been defined or discussed. If you are interested in a specific area of law or a specific jurisdiction, I can help find relevant case law or legal definitions on the topic.

Malice In Tort Law

In tort law, malice can be a factor in cases involving intentional harm or extreme recklessness. For example:

1. Defamation: A statement made with malice, meaning with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, can lead to liability for defamation.
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Malice may be a required element to prove this tort, showing that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.

Malice In Contract Law

In contract law, malice is less commonly a factor, but it might be considered in cases involving bad-faith negotiations or fraudulent misrepresentations.

In the law, malice is a state of mind that is characterized by a desire to harm another person or to recklessly disregard the safety or well-being of others. 

Malice is often an element of serious crimes, such as murder, assault, battery, and defamation.

There are two types of malice in the law: express malice and implied malice.

Express malice is present when a person intentionally commits an act with the specific intent to cause harm to another person. 

• For example, if a person shoots another person in the head, this would be considered express malice.

Implied malice is present when a person intentionally commits an act that they know is likely to cause harm to another person, even if they do not have the specific intent to cause harm. 

• For example, if a person drives their car at high speed through a crowded pedestrian area, this would be considered implied malice.

Malice is also an element of the tort of defamation, which is a false statement that is published to a third party and causes harm to the person’s reputation. 

Malice can be difficult to prove in court, but it is an important concept in the law because it helps to ensure that people are held accountable for their actions.

Examples Of Malice

1. A person who murders another person out of hatred or revenge is acting with malice.
2. A person who assaults another person with a deadly weapon is acting with malice.
3. A person who publishes a false and defamatory statement about another person with the intent to harm their reputation is acting with malice.
4. A person who knowingly exposes another person to a deadly disease is acting with malice.

Malice: Idaho Case Law

1. Cox v. Stolworthy: The court addressed the issue of punitive damages, emphasizing the need for evidence showing that the defendant’s acts were wanton, malicious, or gross and outrageous. Read More
2. State v. James Leroy Skunkcap: The court discussed the definition of malice in the context of a malicious mischief statute, highlighting the intentional nature of malicious acts. Read More
3. Zollinger v. Big Lost River Irrig. Dist.: The court held that the record failed to show wilful malice, fraud, or gross negligence in a case involving punitive damages. Read More
4. Morrison v. Quality Produce, Inc.: The court reversed a punitive damage award in a replevin action, holding that the evidence did not show that the appellant acted maliciously, fraudulently, or with gross negligence. Read More
5. Gunnell v. Largilliere Co.: The court reversed an award for punitive damages, emphasizing the need for facts showing that the defendant’s acts were wanton, malicious, or gross and outrageous. Read More
6. Tinker v. Colwell: The court defined legal malice as the intentional commission of a wrongful or unlawful act without legal justification or excuse. Read More

How Do You Claim Malice?

To claim malice in a legal context, particularly in defamation cases or cases involving intentional torts, you need to establish certain elements. 

Malice can be claimed by demonstrating:

1. Intent: Show that the defendant acted with the intention to cause harm or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
2. Knowledge: Prove that the defendant knew their statements were false or acted with a reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false.
3. Evidence: Provide clear and convincing evidence to support the claim of malice. This is a higher standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence, which is required in most civil cases.

Is Malice A Standalone Cause Of Action Or Does It Need To Be Claimed With Another Cause Of Action?

Malice itself is generally not a standalone cause of action. 

Instead, it is an element or a factor that can enhance or modify other causes of action. 

Malice is often relevant in intentional tort cases, defamation claims, and other areas of law where the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with a certain level of wrongful intent.

1. Defamation: In defamation cases, particularly against public figures or on matters of public concern, the plaintiff must prove actual malice, meaning that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
2. Punitive Damages: Malice can be a factor in awarding punitive damages. In some jurisdictions, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, or oppression to recover punitive damages.
3. Intentional Torts: In cases of intentional torts like assault, battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff may need to prove that the defendant acted with malice or wrongful intent.
4. Fraud: In fraud cases, proving malice can be crucial as it demonstrates the defendant’s intent to deceive.

What Causes Of Action Can You Also Claim Malice?

1. Defamation: Including libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation).
2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Where the defendant’s conduct is intentional or reckless, extreme, and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress.
3. Fraud: If the defendant knowingly made a false representation with the intent to deceive.
4. Tortious Interference: In cases where there is intentional interference with contractual or business relationships.
5. Assault and Battery: If the defendant intentionally caused or threatened to cause physical harm.

What Are The Elements Of Malice?

The elements of malice generally include:

1. Intent: A deliberate intention to cause harm or injury.
2. Knowledge: Awareness that the actions are wrongful or harmful.
3. Recklessness: A conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.

In The Pleadings, Do You Have To Claim Malice Generally Or Particularly?

In the pleadings, malice must be claimed with particularity. 

This means that the plaintiff must state the facts that give rise to a plausible inference of malice. General allegations of malice without specific supporting facts are typically insufficient.

How Much Damages Can You Get For Proving Malice In Idaho?

1. Compensatory Damages:

• Actual Damages: These are damages meant to compensate the plaintiff for actual losses suffered. Proving malice may not directly impact the amount of actual damages awarded, but it can be a crucial element in certain causes of action.
• Emotional Distress: In cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress, proving malice or intentional misconduct can lead to damages for emotional suffering.

2. Punitive Damages:

• Purpose: Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future.
• Malice as a Factor: Proving malice is often a prerequisite for the award of punitive damages.
• Limitations: Idaho law places limits on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded. According to Idaho Code § 6-1604, punitive damages may not exceed the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded.

3. Case-by-Case Basis:

• Damages are determined on a case-by-case basis, and the specific facts and circumstances of each case will play a significant role in determining the amount of damages awarded.

Can You Get Malice Damages From Each Individual In The Party Or Only As A Whole?

In Idaho, whether you can recover malice damages from each individual in a party or only from the party as a whole depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the legal theory under which you are proceeding.

1. Joint and Several Liability:

• Definition: Joint and several liability means that each defendant is individually responsible for the entire amount of damages awarded, regardless of their individual share of the fault.
• Application in Idaho: Idaho follows a modified form of joint and several liability. Under Idaho Code § 6-803, a defendant is only responsible for their proportionate share of the damages unless they were engaged in a concerted action with other defendants or acted with the intent to harm.

2. Concerted Action:

• If the defendants were acting in concert or as part of a common plan or scheme, you might be able to hold each individual liable for the entire amount of damages.

3. Individual Liability for Malice:

• If you can prove that each individual in the party acted with malice, you may be able to recover malice damages from each individual. This would require showing that each person’s actions met the legal standard for malice.

4. Party as a Whole:

• In some cases, especially if the party is a legal entity like a corporation, you might seek damages from the party as a whole rather than from the individual members.