What is “mild cognitive impairment”? – forwarding a post by Dr. Mikol Davis and Carolyn Rosenblatt

I am forwarding below a link to a post by Dr. Mikol Davis and Carolyn Rosenblatt in which they discuss mild cognitive impairment (“MCI”). In my will and trust contest and financial elder abuse cases it is not uncommon for there to be issues relating to cognitive impairment, weakness or limitation vulnerabilities. In Court these can present challenging legal, evidentiary, and burden of proof issues. See also, for example, California Probate Code §86, and California Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.70 relating to undue influence, which are also copied and pasted below (and you should also note that additional statutes and case law pertain to these issues).

Thanks for reading. Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

The following is the link to the post by Dr. Mikol Davis and Carolyn Rosenblatt at aginginvestor.com:

https://www.aginginvestor.com/blog/what-is-mild-cognitive-impairment/?inf_contact_key=92cb029f002eadfe0044d6a1379ef77b1190ab49470cf8074c7b0b733b9b30c7

The following are California Probate Code §§86 and 15610.70:

California Probate Code §86

“Undue influence” has the same meaning as defined in Section 15610.70 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. It is the intent of the Legislature that this section supplement the common law meaning of undue influence without superseding or interfering with the operation of that law.

California Welfare & Institutions Code §15610.70

(a) “Undue influence” means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. In determining whether a result was produced by undue influence, all of the following shall be considered:

(1) The vulnerability of the victim. Evidence of vulnerability may include, but is not limited to, incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s vulnerability.

(2) The influencer’s apparent authority. Evidence of apparent authority may include, but is not limited to, status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser, expert, or other qualification.

(3) The actions or tactics used by the influencer. Evidence of actions or tactics used may include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(A) Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information, or sleep.

(B) Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion.

(C) Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.

(4) The equity of the result. Evidence of the equity of the result may include, but is not limited to, the economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.

(b) Evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.

* * * * *

Advertisements