To avoid prison and guarantee success the “benevolent” care-provider must accomplished the self-directed illicit estate transfers with an Idaho state-bar licensed attorney, and ideally a Living Trust to make the transfers quicker just in case the elder doesn’t pass in the short term. The estate planner already knows the probate courts will allow the transfers no matter the circumstance and even fight on behalf of the scriveners “ruling documents” legitimacy despite the elder being in a hostage like, siege mentality environment; aka Stockholm Syndrome akin to a cult dominated by undue influence over-lords wielding consistent coercion by the “team”; family care provider and estate-fee professionals looking out for what they determine are the elders “best interests” and their new wishes that are oddly contrary to the seniors long-established desires.

The Coeur d’elene Press article of July 19, 2019: Elder Abuse: A Big Ugly Secret, provides an insight to an isolated seniors life at home under a domineering home-care provider and why Adult Protective Services are essentially unable to assist.

“Most elder abuse occurs at home, most victims are women, and most abusers are family members. The abuser is rarely a stranger, but more likely a spouse, son, daughter, grandchild, other family member or care giver, and usually someone the elder knows, trusts and depends on. Why don’t the abused victims tell? Many victims won’t admit to being abused because it could get a loved one in trouble or end an important relationship. If an abuser is found guilty, what happens to the vulnerable elder? Some victims may feel shame and even blame themselves. They may be afraid of not being believed and of retaliation from the abuser. Some victims with dementia may not be able to speak out or understand what’s happening.”

“You might think that the effects of physical abuse would be obvious, but a twisted arm may leave no mark or a purple bruise can be hidden under clothing.  How do the abusers hide from discovery? They might always be in the room when someone visits, or have signals that warn the victims of consequences if they tell. The caregiver may refuse to allow visitors, or cut off or monitor all outside contact.”

Adult protective Services inability to provide assistance in these types of circumstances essentially green-lights the abuse, exploitation and negligence, which is particularly dangerous in Counties where Prosecutors and Law Enforcement refuse to take action, because they deem the matters civil offences. The predators are aware of this and take full advantage; they know they are untouchable.

Once a dependent senior has capitulated to any demand of the care-provider, PoA, trustee, landlord, attorney, the elders new doctor or other confidential relationship, and this may only take a week or two to break ones will to forced subservience to another, the amount of control exercised over the dependent vulnerable senior is shocking. Like cult members the seniors turn on long-trusted family and friends to roboticly acquiescence to whatever the dominating care-provider demands. This is execution of undue influence at’s finest; the insidious psychological breaking of an asset rich dependent senior allows the power mad, psychopathic predator the means to accomplish any desire including long festering dreams of sibling revenge. The assisting attorneys and their infallible; bestowed under the authority of God himself, estate documents supposedly make all the fraud in procurement legal. The ends justify the means, regardless of the means. These events occur far more often than one would think, particularly in rogue probate jurisdictions where undue influence is a myth, fabricated by disgruntled family, so called experts and evidence to the contrary is intentionally suppressed. irrelevant or false.

The National Center on Law and Elder Rights (NCLER) addresses Psychologist Margaret Singer research in their June 2017 Issue Brief. Elder Abuse; The Impact of Undue Influence.

“Psychologist Margaret Singer was one of the first researchers to connect elder abuse to undue influence, which she defined as “(w)hen people use their role and power to exploit the trust, dependency, and fear of others. They use this power to deceptively gain control over the decision making of the second person. The psychological tactics of undue influence have been likened to tactics used by cults, ….”

How is the relevant to Kootenai County Probate Court and other Idaho cases involving elder exploitation? In the past to the present day there has been repeating patterns of expensive long-litigated cases involving elderly senior women with memory impairments and attorney stoked in-fighting among their family members. Sibling’s disgruntled because other sibling destroyed their relationship with their parents, were responsible for their loved ones rapid health decline and used coerced fraud written documents to steal their parents assets for themselves. Events happening all over the USA and other countries, because this is the nature of modern day probate in lawless, incompetent or abetting jurisdictions further exasperated living trust scams, document fraud , networked toxic conservators and state bar licensed professional orchestrating the theft of elderly women’s and on occasion men’s estates long before the senior even passes.

One case included the nations foremost undue influence expert, Park Dietz associate and his verifiable testimony. Undue influence is an insidious form of elder abuse and includes multiple layers of poly-victimizattion to gain total control of a person. i Since the probate court also green-lighted the undue influence the untouchable legal teams and their crony-aligned officers of the court realize there is no stopping them. They are the law and undue influence is a mere myth in Idaho. Not surprisingly these were also multi-million dollar estate that were essentially being looted and justifiable sibling rivalry in North Idaho is a sure path to disinheritance when the family predator is the PoA, care-provider newly networked with the “untouchable team” of state bar licensed professionals, members of influential civic groups and connected to those with firm-rooted positions on municipal court benches. The well-oiled, senior’s estate cash-infused, machine knows the undue influence playbook by heart, no rehearsing required because they have done this many times before. However, The articles below demonstrate the inconsistency among the more lawful vs the lawless Probate Courts in Idaho, These examples also contrast the influential power of the particular attorney and the support of the various professionals orchestrating the seniors transfers in the different regional jurisdictions.

Repeating Patterns and Contrast in Legal Interpretations in Different Counties In the Same “Uniform Code” State.

With an understanding of the aforementioned you can read between the lines in the stark contrasting judgement described in the articles below. The first article occurred in south Idaho, and justice was served, the latter two in Kootenai County’s crony-networked municipal court; the land of the untouchable probate pirates and family ran newspaper conglomerates. The various Journalists reporting the stories are also cognizant not to agitate the powers that be in their regions newspaper publishing circles when selecting a spin on sensitive court cases.

Undue Influence of Mother by Attorney in South Idaho.

IDAHO PRESS July 30, 2018: Court rules lawyer exercised ‘undue influence’ over elderly mother’s will. 

“The Idaho Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court’s ruling that a Boise attorney exercised “undue influence” over his elderly mother when he served as sole witness for a will leaving all her assets to him — cutting out his sister and brother. Victoria H. Smith, who died in 2013 at nearly 100 years old, and her late husband had real estate holdings and other assets estimated at between $1 million and $27 million, according to the high court’s decision. Smith made her will in 1990. In 1999, she granted power of attorney to her son, Vernon K. Smith, and after a fall in 2008, granted a more far-reaching set of legal powers to him. The son drafted both documents. He then used those powers in 2012 to transfer all his mother’s assets to himself.”

Undue Influence of Mother(s) by Attorney in North Idaho.

Elite (old mining baron family money) regionally established power-family and well-connected Idaho Probate/Business Law Attorney has his own brother disinherited while working on another case where he and others orchestrate to have 4 siblings, including a disabled sister disinherited (see second Spokesman Article below). Each case involves dependent elderly women with failing health and memory.

Spokesman Review, July 24, 2015: Magnuson son sues siblings over estate.

“Before she died, Colleen Magnuson’s health had been in decline for several years, according to the lawsuit. Her will was drafted in 2002 along with her husband’s, and both named all five of their children as primary beneficiaries. Her husband died in 2009, and in 2011 she signed a new will drafted by a notary who worked in John Magnuson’s law office. The new will removed Thomas Magnuson as a beneficiary and granted more money to his four siblings. Another revision in 2013, signed by a beneficiary on Colleen Magnuson’s behalf, granted all art, jewelry, furniture, tools, cars and boats, among other belongings, to the other four children. The suit says John Magnuson provided their mother’s legal counsel and “otherwise had a confidential relationship” with her while the will was being revised.”

Spokesman Review: Siblings battle in court over fate of forested ‘piece of heaven’ on Lake Pend Oreille.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42916

Siblings’ expert witness, Dr. Bennett Blum, submitted an affidavit in which he opined that the Sixth Amendment “resulting in the Plaintiffs being disinherited and James Green receiving Ralph and Jeanne’s entire estate indicates a transaction that was the result of James Green’s undue influence over Ralph and Jeanne.”

Green v. Green :: 2017 :: Idaho Supreme Court

Dwight Randy Green, Kathy Lefor, and Gary Green (collectively, “Siblings”), appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal of their lawsuit against James Green (“James”). Siblings brought this action to challenge the Sixth Amendment to the Ralph Maurice and Jeanne GreenRevocable Inter Vivos Trust (“the Trust”), alleging it was the product of undue influence.

//bonnercountydailybee.com/…/supreme-court…/

“Buchanan dismissed the siblings’ complaint after striking an affidavit filed by a doctor who concluded that the elder Greens were subjected to undue influence by John Green. Buchanan ruled that the doctor failed to link his opinion to supporting facts.

Idaho Needs Consistency In Probate Courts, Undue Influence Written into State Statues & New Title 18 Code: These Were The Merits of House Bill 404.

The reality is that in Kootenai county Idaho if an attorney assists in elicit/unduly influenced estate transfers or the abusive care-provider has an attorney assisting/defending them in legal matters there is prosecution and no accountability is required by those commuting abuse, negligence fraud or exploitation, even if the seniors estate is liquidated or the senior is injured or dies prematurely from a home-care provider’s gross negligence.

Undue Influence Key Indicia and Idaho Probate Court Support Research Sources,

Leading Undue Influence Expert Court Witnesses.

» The Bernatz SCAM Model,

bernatzexperts.com/areas-of-expertise/scam%E2%84%A2-model

» Bennett Blum, Undue influence-Behavioral Models,

bennettblummd.com/undue_influence_models.html

UNDUE INFLUENCE IN AN ESTATE PLAN

//yourlawcounsel.com/undue-influence-in-an-estate…/

A probate judge will look for a claimant to prove that the will either

1) Leaves property in an unexpected manner, cutting out close family members in favor of others without an obvious explanation before their death

2) The will-maker may have been particularly trusting of, or dependent on, the influencer, sometimes referred to as a confidential relationship

3) Frailty, illness, or fear of abandonment make the will-maker susceptible to undue influence

4) The confidential relationship influencer took outright advantage of the will-maker and directly benefited by substituting a will of their choosing and not the will-makers

Document Suspicions Circumstances of Elder Abuse, Exploitation Fraud & Undue Influence, Such As:

 (1) the identified victim’s susceptibility or vulnerability to influence (including among other things issues related to age, physical or mental deterioration, emotional state, education, finances, etc.);

 (2) a confidential relationship between the supposed perpetrator and identified victim;

(3) beneficiary’s active involvement or participation in procuring the legal instrument in question;

 (4) secrecy concerning the existence of the transaction or legal changes, or the events occurring in haste;

(5) lack of independent advice related to that transaction or new legal document;

(6) changes in the identified victim’s attitude toward others;

(7) discrepancies between the identified victim’s behavior and previously expressed intentions;

(8) the unjust or unnatural nature of the terms of the transaction or new legal instrument (new will, new trust, etc.);

(9) anonymous criticism of other potential beneficiaries made to the identified victim;

 (10) suggestion, without proof, to the identified victim that other potential beneficiaries had attempted to physically harm him or her;

(11) withholding mail;

(12) limiting telephone access;

(13) limiting visitation;

 (14) limiting privacy when victim is with others (which conduct is generally known as “chaperoning”); (13) discussion of transaction at an unusual or inappropriate time;

 (15) consummation of the transaction at an unusual place;

 (16) use of multiple persuaders against a single vulnerable person;

 (18) demand the business be finished at once;

(19) extreme emphasis on the consequences of delay;

 (20) obtaining a lawyer for the victim;

 (21) using victim’s assets ‐ such as property, money, credit cards, etc.;

(22) becoming conservator, trustee, beneficiary, executor, etc.;

(23) obtaining access to bank accounts;

 (24) obtaining access to safety deposit boxes;

(25) having the victim name the perpetrator on Power of Attorney forms;

 (26) isolating the testator and disparaging family members;

(27) mental inequality between the decedent and the beneficiary;

 (28) reasonableness of the will or trust provision;

(29) presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will;

(30) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will;

(31) recommendation by the beneficiary of a lawyer to draw the will;

(32) knowledge of the contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution;

 (33) giving of instructions on preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the lawyer drawing the will; and,  (34) securing of witnesses to the will by the beneficiary.

Undue Influence & Probate Research Projects

Research Focus State, Idaho: Elder Abuse, Undue Influence Cases & Probate Precedents.

1. Undue influence may be inferred from the fact that the beneficiary was active in the preparation of the will. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 454, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho 419, 93 P.2d 1.

2. Undue influence has been defined as domination by the guilty party over the testator to such an extent that his free agency is destroyed and the will of another person substituted for that of the testator. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563(1963); In re Lunders’ Estate, supra.

3. Although conclusive rights should not be given it, the fact that the testator having the capacity and ability to do so failed for a substantial period of time to change or revoke a will alleged to be the product of undue influence, negatives the claim of undue influence.” 94 C.J.S. Wills § 261, p.1143. With respect to a will which also continued unchanged for two years prior to the testator’s death, calling it strong evidence that he was not coerced into making it, but that it was entirely satisfactory to him when made and that satisfaction continued until his death.”Laberee v. Laberee, 112 Or. 44, 53, 227 P. 460, 462, 228 P. 686; In re McCaslin’s Estate (1960) 222 Or.599, 352 P.2d 1111.

4. If, prior to executing his last will, a testator shows a continuity of purpose running through his former wills and codicils which indicates a settled intent or consistent state of mind on his part as to manner of distributing his estate, such fact may be considered in determining whether he is in possession of a disposing mind, that is, had testamentary capacity and was free from undue influence in making his last will.” In re Nelson’s Estate, 72 Wyo. 444,266 P.2d 238 (1954); In re Hart’s Estate, 107 Cal.App.2d 60, 67, 236 P.2d 884, 889.

5. Weakened mental and physical condition of Testator are factors to be considered in determining question of undue influence. Estate of Brown, 52 Idaho 286, 15 P.2d 604; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

6. “Undue influence consists of domination by guilty party over testator to such extent that his freeagency is destroyed and will of another person is substituted for that of testator.” Witthoft v. Gathe, 38 Idaho 175, 221 P. 124; In re Lunders’ Estate, 74 Idaho 448, 263 P.2d 1002.

7. Undue influence is any means employed upon and with testator which under circumstances and conditions by which testator was surrounded, he could not well resist, and which controls his volition and induced him to do what otherwise would not have been done. In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

8. Influence arising from gratitude, affection or esteem is not undue, nor can it become such unless it destroys the free agency of the testator at the time the instrument is executed and shows that the disposition therein results from fraud, imposition and restraint of the person whose superior will prompts the execution of the testament in the particular manner which the testator adopted. In re Estate of Hill, 198 Or. 307, 335, 256 P.2d 735, 747; In re McCaslin’s Estate, 222 Or. 599, 352 P.2d 1111.

9. Influence gained by kindness and affection will not be regarded as undue if no imposition or fraud be practiced, even though it induced Testator to make unequal disposition of his property in favor of those who contributed to his comfort. In re Reddaway’s Estate, 214 Or. 410, 329 P.2d 886.

10. It is not sufficient for the contestant to merely prove circumstances consistent with the exercise of undue influence; that before the will can be overthrown the circumstances must be inconsistent with the voluntary action on the part of the testator. In re Welch’s Estate, 43 Cal.2d 173, 272 P.2d 512 (1954).

11. Mere existence of a confidential relationship to testator does not in itself establish undue influence. To set aside a will on the ground of undue influence there must be shown influence used directly to procure will, amounting to coercion destroying free agency on part of testator.In re Eggan’s Estate, 86 Idaho 328, 386 P.2d 563.

12. A will cannot be impeached by the subsequent oral declarations of the Testator. Gwin v. Gwin, 5Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

13. The declarations of a testator made after the execution of a will showing his dissatisfaction therewith and his intention to execute a new will are not admissible to show that said will was executed under duress or undue influence. Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295.

14. The general rule established by the overwhelming weight of authority is that declarations of the testator not made contemporaneously with the execution of the will, or so near thereto as to constitute a part of the res gestae, are not competent as direct or substantive evidence of the truth of the matters stated when offered on the issue of undue influence inducing the execution of the will. In re Estate of Wayne, 134 Or. 464, 291 P. 356, 294 P. 590,79 A.L.R. 1427; 148 A.L.R.1225.

15. A confidential relation exists between two persons, whether their relations be such as are technically fiduciary or merely informal, whenever one trusts in or relies on another. The question is whether or not trust was reposed. Sewell v. Ladd, (Mo.App. 1942) 158 S.W.2d 752,756.16. The existence of a confidential relation is purely a question of fact. Ringer v. Finrock, (Pa. 1941) 17 A.2d 348, 350.

17. A confidential relation may exist as a matter of fact whenever one person has reposed a special confidence in another to the extent that the parties do not deal with each other on equal terms, either because of an overmastering dominance on one side, or weakness, dependence or ignorance on the other side. Ringer v. Finrock, (1941) 340 Pa. 458, 17 A.2d 348, 350; Floyd v. Green, (1939) 238 Ala. 42, 188 So. 867, 871; In re Null’s Estate, (1930) 302 Pa. 64, 153 A. 137,139; In re Day’s Estate, (1953) 198 Or. 518, 257 P.2d 609, 614.

18. Where the beneficiary took the testator to a lawyer and remained with the testator during the preparation and execution of the will, even though the beneficiary was outside of the lawyer’s office, or in the waiting room, while the testator was conferring with the lawyer and while thewill was being executed, there is such evidence of activity in the preparation of the will that undue influence may be inferred from the presence of the beneficiary in this manner. In re Lunders’ Estate, (1953) 74 Idaho 448, 451, 263 P.2d 1002; Estate of Randall, (1939) 60 Idaho419, 93 P.2d 1; In re Gagliasso’s Estate, (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 65, 309 P.2d 513, 514; In re Estate of Leonard, (1949) 92 Cal.App. 420, 207 P.2d 66, 72.

Related Idaho Elder Exploitation and Probate Matter Articles – North Idaho’s Probate Court Dominating Attorney’s Intentionally Stoking Family Conflict To Transfer Assets To Their Clients & Themselves.

Seattle Times: Secrecy Hides Cozy Ties in Guardianship Case

The Gold Bar Reports; A Whistle-blower & Former Lawyer’s Expose of Inland Northwest Corruption in Elder Law, Probate Courts & State Bars

“License to steal” with the assistance of the Washington State Bar and Washington State Guardian Board //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/lin-odell…/

Geriatric Care Service Providers: Murder & Nursing Home Case Management //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/attorney-lin…/

State Bar & Racketeering //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/…/washington…/

SnoCo Reporter Investigative Journalism: Bad Business & Undue Influence: 

//www.snocoreporter.com/lin-odell-bad…/

“License to steal” with the assistance of the Washington State Bar and Washington State Guardian Board //goldbarreporter.wordpress.com/tag/mary-cus…

Undue Influence & Elder Abuse; The Status Que in Idaho Estate Planning.

Court rules lawyer exercised ‘undue influence’ over elderly mother’s will //www.idahopress.com/…/article_2fcaba58-eae0-5274…

Elder abuse can be ‘hidden problem’ //www.idahopress.com/…/article_ea36e923-7fa6-559d…

Insidious Pressure & The Sandpoint, Idaho Real Estate Baron’s Trust Battles. VILLELLI v. R.A.V., INC.

//www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20121228040

Who Runs The Elder Care Policies & Probate Courts: A lesson for Kootenai County From Clark County.

Organized “Elder Exploitation Crime Rings” by Probate Court Professionals Devastate Families & Highlight Corruption in County Probate Courts & Eldercare Facility Networks.

Elders are the undeserved community this is glaringly obvious becuase apathetic, absent, tax-paid professionals such as city and county law enforcement, courts & prosecutors can’t or refuse to keep the communities elderly safe or prosecute white-collar criminals, Elder exploiters often run in packs of professionals which can included; estate planning attorneys, guardians, conservators, primary care physicians, neurocognitive psychologists, LSW court visitors, Guardian ad litems, accountants, real estate agents, bankers, and financial managers. Individually and as a group they intimidate frail and memory-compromised seniors in concerted efforts to force them to capitulate to their demands. All emboldened knowing that law enforcement, prosecutors and compromised probate courts will not enforce the states elder protection statutes. In the case of state licensed Guardian; April Parks she ran her exploitation & elder trafficking schemes with the assistance of attorneys, judges & police.

RICO, Guardianships & Elder Abuse | The STATE OF NEVADA Plaintiff, -Vs_- APRIL PARKS #1571645, MARK SIMMONS, GARY NEAL TAYLOR, NOEL PALMER SIMPSON

“Defendants APRIL PARKS, MARK SIMMONS, and GARY NEAL TAYLOR, did on or between December 21, 2011 and July 6, 2016, then and there, within Clark County, Nevada, knowingly, willfully and feloniously, while employed by or associated with an enterprise, conduct or participate either directly or indirectly, in racketeering activity through the affairs of said enterprise, and/or in the affairs of the enterprise through racketeering activity, did engage in said acts, to wit: by Defendants working for A Private Professional Guardian, LLC using their position to steal funds belonging to elderly and disabled persons over whom they had guardianship authority, through the use of a series of fraudulent billing practices, said activity constituting Racketeering contrary to NRS 207.400 (1)(c)(2).“

KTNV 13 Las Vegas: The guardian is guilty: April Parks, others plead guilty in guardianship abuse case

The Guardians: Documentary Trailer

“If you’re retired, wealthy, and thinking of moving to Las Vegas, think twice. An investigative look at the systemic abuse of elderly people by court-appointed guardians.”

In the Rare Case An Elder Exploitation Case Is Presented to a Jury.

Below Are the Juror Instructions (Rigged Probate Court Doesn’t Allow Jurys).

Idaho Civil Jury Instructions

//isc.idaho.gov/main/civil-jury-instructions

Although the Court is not approving any specific instruction and will simply address instructions through appellate review, the Court does hereby accept the recommendation of the Committee and in accord with IRCP 51(a)(2) the instructions shall be disseminated for general use by the trial bench and the bar in Idaho

IDJI 6.28.6 – Defense of undue influence

INSTRUCTION NO. ____

            To establish the defense of undue influence, the party must prove each of the following propositions:

            1.         The party was compelled to accept the contract by deceit, force or fear;

            2.         But for the deceit, force or fear, the party would not have entered into the contract.

            A person has a right by fair persuasion or argument to induce another person of sound mind to contract in his favor, and a transaction under such influence will not be invalid on that account.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the [party claiming the issue]. If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for [party adverse to this issue].

IDJI 6.07.2 – Unjust enrichment – equitable theories

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            Even though there is no agreement between the parties, under certain circumstances where a party has been unjustly enriched by the actions of another the law will require that party to compensate the other for the unjust gain.  To recover under this theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:

            1.         The plaintiff provided a benefit to the defendant;

            2.         The defendant accepted the benefit; and

            3.         Under the circumstances, it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff for its value.

Comment:

For the elements of unjust enrichment, see Hertz v. Fiscus, 98 Idaho 456, 567 P.2d 1 (1977); Common Builder, Inc. v. Rice, 126 Idaho 616, 888 P.2d 790 (App. 1995).

IDJI 6.27.1 – Fraud

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            To establish the defense of fraud, the defendant has the burden proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the following propositions:

            l.  The plaintiff made a representation of a past or present fact;

            2.  The representation was false;

            3.  The represented fact was important;     

            4.  The plaintiff knew the representation was false (or acted with a reckless disregard of the truth of the representation);

            5.  The defendant was not aware of the falsity of the representation;

            6.  The plaintiff intended that defendant rely upon the representation in agreeing to enter into the contract;

            7.  The defendant did rely upon the representation;

            8.  The defendant’s reliance was justified; and

            9.  The defendant [has returned] [has offered to return] to the plaintiff (whatever the defendant would be legally obligated to return in order to prevent his being unjustly enriched.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.  If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Estoppel

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is “estopped”. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

IDJI 6.10.1 – Breach of bilateral contract – general case – no affirmative defenses

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1.  A contract existed between plaintiff and defendant;

            2.  The defendant breached the contract;

            3. The plaintiff has been damaged on account of the breach; and

            4.  The amount of the damages.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of the plaintiff has been proved, then you must consider the issue of the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, and explained in the next instruction.  If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of the propositions in this instruction has not been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            In order to establish plaintiff’s claim of breach of a unilateral contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1. The defendant made statements which constituted an “offer” as defined in these instructions.

            2. The defendant intended that a person, such as the plaintiff, would perform acts in accordance with the offer.

            3. The plaintiff performed the acts required or requested by the defendant’s offer.

            4. The plaintiff performed the acts with the intention that the acts would constitute an acceptance of the defendant’s offer.

            5. The defendant was notified of plaintiff’s performance within a reasonable time.

            6. The defendant has not fulfilled defendant’s part of the offer.

            7. The nature of the performance required of defendant to complete the contract, and the value or dollar amounts thereof.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Idaho Civil Jury Instructions – Capacity To Contract, Unjust Enrichment & Fraud

//isc.idaho.gov/main/civil-jury-instructions

Although the Court is not approving any specific instruction and will simply address instructions through appellate review, the Court does hereby accept the recommendation of the Committee and in accord with IRCP 51(a)(2) the instructions shall be disseminated for general use by the trial bench and the bar in Idaho

IDJI 6.02.4 – Capacity to contract – mental capacity to contract

INSTRUCTION NO. ____

            A person has the mental capacity to enter into a contract when the person possesses sufficient mind to understand, in a reasonable manner, the nature, extent, character, and effect of the contract in question.

To establish the defense of undue influence, the party must prove each of the following propositions:

            1.         The party was compelled to accept the contract by deceit, force or fear;

            2.         But for the deceit, force or fear, the party would not have entered into the contract.

            A person has a right by fair persuasion or argument to induce another person of sound mind to contract in his favor, and a transaction under such influence will not be invalid on that account.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the [party claiming the issue]. If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for [party adverse to this issue].

IDJI 6.07.2 – Unjust enrichment – equitable theories

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            Even though there is no agreement between the parties, under certain circumstances where a party has been unjustly enriched by the actions of another the law will require that party to compensate the other for the unjust gain.  To recover under this theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following:

            1.         The plaintiff provided a benefit to the defendant;

            2.         The defendant accepted the benefit; and

            3.         Under the circumstances, it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff for its value.

Comment:

For the elements of unjust enrichment, see Hertz v. Fiscus, 98 Idaho 456, 567 P.2d 1 (1977); Common Builder, Inc. v. Rice, 126 Idaho 616, 888 P.2d 790 (App. 1995).

IDJI 6.27.1 – Fraud

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            To establish the defense of fraud, the defendant has the burden proving by clear and convincing evidence each of the following propositions:

            l.  The plaintiff made a representation of a past or present fact;

            2.  The representation was false;

            3.  The represented fact was important;     

            4.  The plaintiff knew the representation was false (or acted with a reckless disregard of the truth of the representation);

            5.  The defendant was not aware of the falsity of the representation;

            6.  The plaintiff intended that defendant rely upon the representation in agreeing to enter into the contract;

            7.  The defendant did rely upon the representation;

            8.  The defendant’s reliance was justified; and

            9.  The defendant [has returned] [has offered to return] to the plaintiff (whatever the defendant would be legally obligated to return in order to prevent his being unjustly enriched.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence in the case that each of the foregoing propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.  If you find that any of the propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Estoppel

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is “estopped”. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

IDJI 6.10.1 – Breach of bilateral contract – general case – no affirmative defenses

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            The plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1.  A contract existed between plaintiff and defendant;

            2.  The defendant breached the contract;

            3. The plaintiff has been damaged on account of the breach; and

            4.  The amount of the damages.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of the propositions required of the plaintiff has been proved, then you must consider the issue of the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant, and explained in the next instruction.  If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of the propositions in this instruction has not been proved, your verdict should be for the defendant.

INSTRUCTION NO. ___

            In order to establish plaintiff’s claim of breach of a unilateral contract, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

            1. The defendant made statements which constituted an “offer” as defined in these instructions.

            2. The defendant intended that a person, such as the plaintiff, would perform acts in accordance with the offer.

            3. The plaintiff performed the acts required or requested by the defendant’s offer.

            4. The plaintiff performed the acts with the intention that the acts would constitute an acceptance of the defendant’s offer.

            5. The defendant was notified of plaintiff’s performance within a reasonable time.

            6. The defendant has not fulfilled defendant’s part of the offer.

            7. The nature of the performance required of defendant to complete the contract, and the value or dollar amounts thereof.

            If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff.