VALERIE J. LAWRENCE, ET AL.,
v.
HAZEL BARTELDS DECLARATION OF TRUST, ET AL.,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Lawrences appealed a trial court judgment finding them liable for battery, exploitation and abuse of a vulnerable adult, and conversion, and invalidating a quitclaim deed they obtained from Hazel Bartelds shortly after her brain surgery. The appellate court affirmed, holding that evidence of the vulnerable adult's lack of capacity, isolation, financial exploitation, and the confidential relationship between the parties supported the trial court's findings.
The trial court's findings of liability were supported by the testimony and evidence presented at the bench trial. The evidence established that Mrs. Bartelds lacked capacity to execute the quitclaim deed and that the Lawrences abused a confidential relationship with her for pecuniary gain. The amended complaint was properly filed under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) and the trial court did not err in denying the motion to strike.
[1] A quitclaim deed executed by an individual lacking the mental capacity to understand the transaction is invalid.
[2] Abuse of a confidential relationship for pecuniary gain can be established by evidence of isolation and undue influence over a vulnerable adult.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court's findings, following a bench trial, were supported by the testimony and evidence”
Establishes the standard of review and the appellate court's conclusion that the lower court's findings were adequately supported
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHazel Bartelds underwent brain surgery for brain cancer, which affected her ability to communicate and perceive events. Shortly after surgery, her dau…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.190(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before, LOGUE, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Valerie and James Lawrence appeal the trial court’s final orders finding them liable for battery, exploitation and abuse of a vulnerable adult, and conversion, and separately invalidating Mrs. Lawrence’s quitclaim deed purporting to take an interest in property held by the Hazel Bartelds Declaration of Trust. We conclude the trial court’s findings, following a bench trial, were supported by the testimony and evidence, and we therefore affirm.
The trial court heard evidence that shortly after Hazel Bartelds underwent brain surgery, her daughter and son-in law, the Lawrences, who were living in Mrs. Bartelds’ home at the time, brought her to an attorney to execute a quitclaim deed to her home property. There was testimony from family members, Mrs. Bartelds’ treating physician, and Mrs. Bartelds herself that her diagnosis of brain cancer was affecting her ability to communicate and perceive the events around her. The trial court further heard testimony and received evidence that over the following months, the Lawrences cut off Mrs. Bartelds’ communication with her other family members and influenced her to write them checks for over $100,000.00. Mrs. Bartelds’ isolation eventually culminated in a successful escape attempt, by which she used a neighbor’s phone to contact her son and take her away from her home. Along with the other facts presented to the trial court, this was sufficient to show that Mrs. Bartelds
lacked capacity to execute the quitclaim deed and that the Lawrences abused a confidential relationship with Mrs. Bartelds for their own pecuniary gain.
Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to strike the amended complaint, which was properly filed in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a) and answered by the Lawrences.
Affirmed.