Powers v. Puka – Plaintiff’s Statement Of Discoverable Information (PSDI) – Part 2 – Due Process

by | Oct 5, 2023 | Family Disputes

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

Below is a Visual Timeline Of Events.

Plaintiff’s Timeline Of Events.

  • A timeline of events is a chronological sequence of key events related to a case. It provides a structured and detailed overview of occurrences, starting from the initial incident that might have prompted legal action, all the way through various developments and steps in the legal process

What Is Due Process?

Due process is a fundamental principle of law and justice that ensures fairness in the legal process. 

It mandates that every person is entitled to a fair, orderly, and impartial proceeding when it comes to the deprivation of their rights, whether substantive or procedural. 

Due process is enshrined in the U.S. constitution and legal frameworks to protect individuals from arbitrary decisions or actions by the state or any public body.

There are generally two aspects to due process:

  1. Substantive Due Process: Concerns the content of laws and policies. It ensures that the laws themselves are fair and reasonable and do not infringe on fundamental rights.
  2. Procedural Due Process: Concerns the methods and processes by which laws are enforced or applied. It guarantees a fair procedure when rights are deprived. This typically includes the right to a fair hearing, the right to be informed of charges, the right to legal representation, etc.

In essence, Due Process boils down to the right of every American to have an opportunity to defend themself before a judgement is rendered.

Simply put, Due Process means you get to be heard before action is taken against you.

Potential Due Process Violations In The Provided Information In Timeline Of Events

  1. Lack of Proper Notification: Due process often requires that parties be given adequate notice of any actions or decisions that might affect their rights. For instance, sudden demands without prior notice or clear justification, such as the letter demanding money from Lawyer #1 (David Taylor) and Lawyer #2 (Brooke Redmond), may be seen as a violation of procedural due process.
  2. Coercion: Coercion directly challenges the principles of due process. The situation where the Plaintiff was coerced into signing a contract to purchase a home just four days after the death of his sister, especially without a clear understanding or voluntary consent, is a glaring breach of due process principles.
  3. Lack of Fair Hearing or Representation: Due process generally ensures that parties have a fair opportunity to present their side or defend their rights. From the information, it seems the Plaintiff’s attempts to communicate, verify demands, or even seek legal clarity (like sending Demand Verification letters) were often ignored or rebuffed.
  4. Ambiguity and Unfair Terms: The unexpected and unexplained changes to contracts, and the lack of clarity in demands or terms, can be seen as undermining the fairness and transparency that due process embodies. For instance, the lack of transparency from the Successor Trustees and their legal representatives could be considered a violation.

However, it’s essential to note that due process violations typically arise in interactions with the state or public entities. 

While there might be elements that seem unfair or unjust, they may not directly translate to “due process violations” in the strict legal sense.

In such private disputes, issues of fairness, transparency, and coercion are generally tackled under contract law principles like unconscionability, rather than constitutional due process principles. 

Still, the principles of fairness and justice enshrined in the concept of due process can provide a useful lens to evaluate the actions and events described.

Plaintiff’s Statement of Due Process

  1. The Plaintiff continually attempted to clarify the terms of the original contract and sought verification of any demands made upon him.
  2. The Plaintiff took proactive steps in ensuring that the contract he had with the Trust was honored, even making a deposit to the Trust bank and seeking clarity on the correct method of payment.
  3. The Plaintiff communicated with the Successor Trustees and Grantor, trying to understand their position and to seek a resolution to the issue.
  4. Plaintiff forwarded multiple settlement offers in an attempt to amicably resolve the dispute, showcasing a willingness to negotiate.
  5. The Plaintiff’s due process attempts also included seeking external validation from Layer #1 and Lawyer #2 regarding the claims and demands made against him.
  6. Even under distressing personal circumstances, the Plaintiff engaged in dialogue and eventually purchased the property, albeit under duress, in an effort to resolve the familial and legal issues.

Statement of Due Process That Plaintiff Was Deprived Of

  1. Despite the Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to clarify the situation and understand the demands being made upon him, he was often met with silence or vague and unhelpful responses from the other parties involved.
  2. There were multiple instances of unannounced visits, and on one such occasion, Grantor coerced the Plaintiff into signing a contract during a period of extreme personal grief.
  3. Demands and allegations were made against the Plaintiff without providing him with clear evidence or justification for such demands.
  4. The Plaintiff’s original contract with the Trust was disregarded and replaced with a new one, significantly altering his financial obligations without a genuine meeting of the minds.
  5. The Plaintiff was left in a vulnerable position where he was forced to make financial decisions under duress and without the benefit of full, transparent, and honest communication from the other parties.

Legal Standards For Unconscionability

A court traditionally does not permit a party to escape contractual obligations. 

“The courts possess no roving commission to rewrite contracts. Equity will not intervene to change the terms of a contract unless it produces unconscionable harm, is unlawful or violates public policy.” Quintana v. Anthony, 109 Idaho 977, 981, 712 P.2d 678, 682 (Ct. App. 1985).

Equity might, however, take jurisdiction based on unconscionable conduct, provided the conduct is egregious enough to justify court interference. This does not extend to mere hardship, but applies when an unconscionable advantage is leveraged due to another’s necessity or weakness. 28 Am.Jur.2d Equity § 24 (1966).

Professor Dobbs postulates that the unconscionability doctrine is widely accepted because its remedy is defensive. An unconscionable act or contractual term need not amount to fraud or serious misconduct for its invocation. D. Dobbs, Remedies, § 107 at 707 (1973).

Further distinctions are drawn between procedural and substantive unconscionability:

  • Procedural Unconscionability deals with the bargaining process leading to the agreement. It manifests where there’s significant disparity in the parties’ bargaining positions, or one party is under extreme duress. Hershey v. Simpson, 111 Idaho 491, 725 P.2d 196 (Ct.App. 1986).
  • Substantive Unconscionability concerns the content of the agreement. It comes into play when the contract seems unwise or its enforcement harsh. Notable elements include one-sidedness, oppression, and unfair surprise. Id.

Application To The Case At Hand

While the term may be seen as procedurally unconscionable due to factors discussed below, it does seem to meet the threshold of a term “no sane person would agree to and no fair person would accept.” Hershey, 111 Idaho at 491, 725 P.2d at 196. 

Notably, even if the term appears harsh in this context, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing might offer a remedy if one party acted in bad faith.

Claim Of Procedural Unconscionability

Procedural unconscionability refers to the process by which a contract or an agreement is formed. 

It focuses on the conditions and circumstances surrounding the signing of the agreement. 

If one party has been deprived of a choice or subjected to undue pressure, the contract might be seen as procedurally unconscionable.

Furthermore, procedural unconscionability pertains to the processes and methods through which a contract or agreement is formed, emphasizing the fairness and transparency of the pre-contractual phase. 

It arises when there’s an imbalance in the bargaining power between parties, leading one party to enter the contract without genuine consent or understanding, often due to factors like high-pressure sales tactics, hidden terms in fine print, or misleading language. 

In essence, procedural unconscionability looks at the conditions and circumstances surrounding the contract’s creation to determine if one party was unfairly disadvantaged or manipulated into agreement.

Again, procedural unconscionability pertains to the process by which a contract or agreement is formed. 

It concerns the fairness of the methods, tactics, and circumstances surrounding contract formation or the methods by which terms are presented to the weaker party.

In relation to the information provided in the Timeline Of Events:

  1. Lack of Opportunity for Meaningful Negotiation: At several points, the Plaintiff seems to have been presented with terms rather than engaging in a mutual discussion. The immediate demands from lawyers and the unilateral alterations to the original contract without mutual consent are cases in point.
  2. Surprise and Ambiguity: The sudden presentation of demands or changes to the contract, especially ones not clearly explained or justified, contributed to procedural issues. For instance, the letter demanding money sent by Lawyer #1 and Lawyer #2 or the unexpected demands from Successor Trustee #1 and Successor Trustee #2 via text without clear context are indicative of surprise elements in the contractual process.
  3. Coercion and Duress: A significant incident relates to the Plaintiff being coerced into signing an agreement to purchase the home for $250,000.00 just four days after the tragic loss of his sister. This act, in a moment of vulnerability, highlights clear procedural issues.
  4. Imbalance in Bargaining Power: Throughout the interactions, there appears to be a significant power imbalance. The Successor Trustees, Grantor, and their legal representatives appear to be in a dominant position, often dictating terms and changing conditions without mutual consent. The Plaintiff’s attempts to seek clarity or verification, and his efforts to stand by the original agreement, were frequently met with silence or unyielding demands.
  5. Lack of Transparency: The Plaintiff’s consistent attempts to gain clarity, verify demands, and seek transparency in communications (like sending Demand Verification letters) went unanswered. This lack of clear communication and the omission of crucial information from the Plaintiff hint at procedural flaws.
  6. External Pressure: The context in which the Plaintiff was operating adds to the procedural unconscionability. Given the familial relationships and emotional pressure, especially with the illness and death of the Plaintiff’s sister, the Plaintiff was under additional stress, making the contractual interactions even more skewed.

In sum, the events and communications provided indicate multiple instances where the process of contract formation and alteration was not conducted in a fair, transparent, or mutual manner. 

The tactics used, the timing, and the lack of opportunities for mutual discussion and negotiation contribute to a clear picture of procedural unconscionability.

Claim Of Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability pertains to the terms within the contract itself, focusing on the fairness and reasonableness of the agreement’s actual content. 

It arises when the terms are overly harsh, one-sided, or egregiously favor one party over the other, leading to an unjust enrichment or detriment. 

In essence, substantive unconscionability evaluates the essence of a contract to determine if its terms are so unreasonably biased or oppressive that they shock the conscience, rendering the contract potentially void or unenforceable.

There are several aspects that potentially touch upon substantive unconscionability, including.

  1. Overly Harsh Terms: The contract terms that emerged from the various interactions seem to place the Plaintiff under significantly unfavorable conditions. For instance, the contract to purchase the home for $250,000.00 that the Plaintiff was coerced into signing just four days after the death of his sister can be viewed as imposing unfair or oppressive terms.
  2. One-Sidedness: There appears to be a significant imbalance in power and benefit. The Plaintiff faced increasing financial demands, such as the escalated mortgage and tax obligations, which seem to be inconsistent with the original agreement or understanding.
  3. Hidden Clauses: Although not directly mentioned, there seems to be ambiguity and lack of clarity in the agreements. For instance, the unclear terms surrounding rent, the unilateral alteration of the existing contract, and the changing nature of the Plaintiff’s obligations can be seen as terms that are not transparent and thus disadvantageous to the Plaintiff.
  4. Unfair Surprise: The sudden and unexpected demands, such as Lawyer #1 and Lawyer #2’s demand letter and the increase in various financial obligations (like the 285.172% increase in the mortgage and the 189.14% increase in tax) can be seen as terms that the Plaintiff would not have reasonably expected, especially given the original understanding.
  5. Price Gouging: The difference in the original and new mortgages and taxes, especially the significant percentage increases, can be perceived as charging unfair prices. The Plaintiff’s newly imposed financial obligations, especially given the original terms of the agreement, can be seen as exorbitant.

From the details provided, the situation hints at substantive unconscionability because the contract’s terms seem to be unduly favorable to the Grantor and Successor Trustees at the expense of the Plaintiff. 

The one-sided obligations, unexpected financial demands, and the context in which these terms were imposed (e.g., shortly after the death of the Plaintiff’s sister) might be deemed to “shock the conscience” and therefore be found substantively unconscionable.

Final Thoughts Of Due Process

In this case, the Plaintiff was often met with non-responses, obfuscation, and unexpected demands. 

The terms of the original agreement were unilaterally altered without a genuine negotiation or understanding. 

More alarmingly, the Plaintiff was coerced into signing a new agreement during an extremely vulnerable period, just days after the death of his sister. 

These actions by the other parties highlight a gross imbalance in the negotiation process, taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s vulnerable state, and clearly showcase procedural unconscionability.