Rep. Peggy Scott pushes legislation concerning vulnerable adults
By T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol Reporter
Lawmakers expressed sympathy for the people appearing before the House Civil Law committee on Wednesday, Feb. 22 detailing the perceived financial exploitation of their physically vulnerable mothers and fathers.
But some lawmakers, too, had basic questions about Rep. Peggy Scott’s vulnerable adult legislation.
Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, listens to comments from House Civil Law Committee members on Feb. 22 concerning her vulnerable adult legislation. (Photo by T.W. Budig)
“I really hope the two pieces fit together,” said Rep. Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center, of meshing of criminal and civil law in protecting vulnerable adults.
Scott’s bill, which is fashioned after Arizona law, provides civil liabilities for people in positions of trust and confidence to an incapacitated or vulnerable adult and break the bonds of trust.
Examples of breaking the bonds are the use of intimidation or deception in taking control of the vulnerable adult’s personal financial assets or property with intentions of keeping them.
Under the bill, an “interested person” — not necessarily a family member but potentially a health care provider or family friend — could file a lawsuit against the alleged wrongdoer.
If found at fault, that person would forfeit all rights to the vulnerable adult’s estate and potentially suffer other penalties.
A law suit could be filed up to three years after the discovery of perceived wrongdoing under the bill. And the right to bring a suit would not end with the death of the vulnerable adult.
Several testifiers spoke of perceived exploitation of a parent — a stepmother manipulating the financial estate of her husband as to exclude step-children.
She couldn’t tell them, said Eunice Smith of St. Paul to the committee, why one child would lovingly care for a parent while another child would steal from them.
But it happens, she said.
Smith like other testifiers spoke of frustration over an inability to challenge the actions of family members entrusted with a vulnerable parent’s care that they believe is exploitative.
Further, testifiers spoke of a legal curtain screening actions of exploiters while the vulnerable person is alive fully closing after the vulnerable person’s death.
“I just think it’s an additional tool,” said Erick Kaardal, an attorney who specializes in estate planning, of the legislation.
Yes, the penalties sought by the bill are severe, he conceded. But they match the severity of the wrongdoing, he argued.
The Minnesota State Bar Association does not take a position on the bill, but in a letter to Scott raised a number of concerns.
For instance, bar officials note that sometimes that in dealing with people suffering from dementia family members must mislead the vulnerable adult in order to steer them away from obsessive thinking.
And the breadth of potential litigation is huge, bar officials conclude in the letter, because anyone providing health care — good people who had no idea they could even be sued — could potentially be targeted by a wide group of potential defendants.
“I think the bill has some very good intentions,” said Stephen Grisham, president of Alternate Decision Makers, a firm that takes on court-ordered guardianship of vulnerable adults.
But Grisham also argued the bill needed work.
Scott, a Republican from Andover, said she was willing to work on it. “We’re going to work on it over the next week or so,” she said after the hearing.
Scott said Smith asked her to carry the legislation.
“I just couldn’t believe there were no provisions — especially the part after someone dies. You’re hands are tied. You can’t do anything,” Scott said.
“And I just think with our aging population growing at a rapid rate, it’s just something we need to address,” she said of the issue of the exploitation of vulnerable adults.
Other legislation dealing with toughening state laws on those physically abusing vulnerable adults is moving through the legislature.
