BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 140 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 140 (Dickinson) As Amended May 13, 2013 Majority vote JUDICIARY 7-2 AGING 4-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, |Ayes:|Yamada, Brown, Gray, | | |Dickinson, Garcia, | |Levine | | |Muratsuchi, Stone | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Wagner, Maienschein | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROPRIATIONS 12-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | | | |Bradford, | | | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | | | |Weber | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Modifies the definition of undue influence. Specifically, this bill : 1)For purposes of the Elder and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EDACPA) and the Probate Code, defines "undue influence" as excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from action and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, requires the court to consider all of the following: a) The vulnerability of the victim; b) The influencer's apparent authority, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the victim's vulnerability; AB 140 Page 2 c) The actions or tactics used by the influencer; d) The equity of the result. 2)Provides that the above definition of undue influence is intended to supplement common law, without superseding or interfering with that law. 3)Provides the provisions of this bill shall not be construed to imply that an inequitable result, without more, constitutes undue influence or excessive persuasion. EXISTING LAW : 1)Defines "undue influence" as: a) Using a confidence or a real or apparent authority over another person for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over that person; b) Taking unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or c) Taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another person's necessities or distress. 2)Establishes EDACPA to protect elderly and dependent adults from abuse. 3)Provides that "financial abuse" occurs when a person takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use, or with intent to defraud, or by undue influence, or when a person assists another in that conduct. 4)When it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is liable for financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult, requires the court to award compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. 5)Provides that the execution or revocation of a will is ineffective if it was procured by duress, menace, fraud or undue influence. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, to the extent the bill leads to additional civil AB 140 Page 3 actions claiming undue influence in elder financial abuse cases there will be an impact on court costs and/or court case backlogs. Associated costs will likely be absorbable, as will the costs for courts to consider the specified factors in determining whether undue influence was present. COMMENTS : This bill seeks to modify the definition of undue influence and apply that definition to actions brought under EDACPA and the Probate Code. By its own terms, the bill would supplement, but not alter, the common law definition of undue influence. While undue influence is defined under the Civil Code, the author notes that this definition dates back to 1872 and has not been updated since then. Moreover, there is no definition of undue influence in the Probate Code, even though the Probate Code provides that the execution or revocation of a will is ineffective if it was procured by "undue influence." Because of the general nature of the definition of "undue influence" in Civil Code Section 1575, a body of California case law has fleshed out the elements of "undue influence." Although it did not deal with an elderly victim, one of the seminal cases on undue influence in California is Odorizzi v. Bloomfield (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123. The court, in upholding the plaintiff's action, described undue influence as "a shorthand legal phrase used to describe persuasion which tends to be coercive in nature, persuasion which overcomes the will without convincing the judgment. The hallmark of such persuasion is high pressure, a pressure which works on mental, moral, or emotional weakness to such an extent that it approaches the boundaries of coercion. In this sense, undue influence has been called overpersuasion." (Id. at 130.) The court found that the characteristics of overpersuasion include: "(1) discussion of the transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time, (2) consummation of the transaction in an unusual place, (3) insistent demand that the business be finished at once, (4) extreme emphasis on untoward consequences of delay, (5) the use of multiple persuaders by the dominant side against a single servient party, (6) absence of third-party advisers to the servient party, (7) statements that there is no time to consult financial advisers or attorneys." (Id. at 133.) As with elements set forth in Odorizzi, the factors set forth in this bill focus on the nature and context of "persuasion." However, where Odorizzi speaks in terms of "coercive" or "high AB 140 Page 4 pressure" persuasion, especially pressure that works on a person's "mental, moral, or emotional weakness," this bill would define undue influence as any "excessive persuasion" that causes a person "to act or refrain from acting and results in inequity." In short, this bill appears not only to modify but arguably expands the definition of "undue influence" by incorporating considerations of the equity (or fairness) of the result as opposed to only looking to the methods and context of persuasion that overcome the will. An unfair result would not in itself be evidence of excessive persuasion, but it would be something that a court would consider along with the methods and context of persuasion. The bill lays out several factors that a court shall consider in determining whether the persuasion was "excessive" and whether it led to an "inequity." These factors appear to be more or less consistent with the language in Civil Code Section 1575 and the factors set forth in Odorizzi. That is, they look to the vulnerability of the victim (which the 1872 statute more prosaically defines as "weakness of mind") to the apparent authority of influencer; to the influencer's tactics and the settings in which the persuasion took place; and the equity of the result in light of the victim's intent and the value of the things exchanged. The definition of "undue influence" and the factors set forth in this bill are potentially more expansive than in existing statute and case law. The author contends, however, that this new definition is needed in order to take account of our contemporary knowledge about how elders are unduly influenced and the nature and extent of financial elder abuse that occurs today - not that which might have occurred in 1872. Indeed, the existing definition of "undue influence" appears in the Civil Code provisions governing contracting generally; it was written well before the Legislature determined that elder financial abuse had become a significant problem and, accordingly, enacted EDACPA. The financial abuse provisions of EDACPA are premised, at least in part, on the view that financial agreements entered into by the elderly should not be subject only to the general rules of contract, but should instead be subject to special scrutiny. Moreover, the author and sponsor contend that the language of the existing definition does not adequately capture the nuances of elder financial abuse. For example, an elderly person's cognitive vulnerability may not rise to the level of AB 140 Page 5 "weakness of mind;" persons who take advantage of the elderly are not always persons with real or apparent authority; and an elderly person may have considerable assets and thus not suffer from "necessities or distress" as usually understood. Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000532