An appellate panel sustained an elder abuse restraining order (EARO) against the appeal of a 95-year-old multimillionaire’s stepdaughter in Riverside County March 8.
In a long line of litigation revolving around Thomas Tedesco’s estate, valued at $40 million in 2005, the restraining order filed by Laura White, Tedesco’s daughter, sticks against Debra Wear.
Wear claimed the EARO was void because Riverside Superior Judge John Evans later accepted a motion to remove himself as judge over her allegation of prejudice, and because she claimed Evans violated due process by amending the allegations in the petition and prohibited Wear from possessing firearms and ammunition.
The appellate panel denied all claims, but did strike the EARO’s prohibition of firearms and ammunition.
Before intellectual impairment
According to the ruling, Tedesco gained his wealth through selling his family business, which invested in commercial properties.
In 1988, he and his then-wife created an estate plan for their three daughters and their grandchildren, and in 2002 divided the family trust into five separate trusts, including a survivor’s trust.
The widower Tedesco married Gloria Basara in 2007, the mother of Debra Wear, with both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, because both spouses already had multi-million dollar estates.
In 2011, Tedesco appointed his daughters as his true and lawful attorneys in fact, and in 2003 brought them as successor co-trustees to manage his living trust.
He also made the living trust irrevocable and unmodifiable unless he and his daughters consented in writing.
No: E076352
Attorneys: Adam Streisand, Nicholas Van Brunt, Valerie Alter, Ian Herzog, Evan Marshall
Court: Appellate
Judges: Art McKinster, Manuel Ramirez, Marsha Slough.
Document: Ruling
After intellectual impairment
According to the ruling the following unfolded.
Tedesco became intellectually impaired after multiple surgeries, and ended his long-time relationship with his family and estate plan attorney, Burton Mitchell.
Mitchell said it seemed Gloria (now Gloria Tedesco) blocked his calls to his client, that Thomas Tedesco was never there when he called, and that he heard Gloria telling Thomas what to say.
Gloria told Thomas to tell Mitchell to disinherit his children, and to have Gloria own their house outright.
Gloria told Thomas his daughters were being bad to him, and removed photographs of them to erase them from his memory. At one point, Gloria accompanied Tedesco to withdraw $500,000 from a bank account that was no longer under his control.
White petitioned for an appointment of a conservator to Thomas in 2014, and applied for a restraining order against Wear on the grounds that she was scheming to sabotage Thomas’ relationship with his daughters, amend his estate plan to favor Gloria, and remove Thomas’ daughters as trustees of his living trust.
The probate court appointed a permanent conservator of Thomas’ estate in 2015, but Wear continued to facilitate communication between Thomas and her employer, attorney Russell Davis.
Davis repeatedly requested to be counsel for Thomas, according to the ruling, and then connected Thomas with Herzog, Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell and attorney Joseph Davis. The Herzog firm has repeatedly requested the probate court terminate the conservatorship, and initiated actions against Thomas’ family members accusing them of misappropriating his assets.
The restraining order
According to the ruling, White petitioned an EARO in 2020 against Wear, Gloria, Gloria’s other daughter, Gloria’s friend, lawyers from the Herzog firm and Joseph Davis, after they attempted to amend the living trust without notice to, or approval of, Thomas’ conservator, the probate court, or the trustees of the living trust.
The amendment would have disinherited Thomas’ biological children and grandchildren in favor of Gloria and her two daughters.
Wear did not respond to White’s petition or appear at the hearing, but the Herzog firm filed a document claiming she was not served with process.
At the hearing, White’s counsel said the alleged abuse extended beyond financial abuse, into mental suffering, harassment and intimidation.
San Bernardino Superior Judge John Evans clarified that, and then checked the box to prevent Wear from owning firearms, saying it was mandatory.
The order caused Wear to not abuse or contact Thomas, to not make or facilitate any change to his estate plan, to stay at least 100 yards from him, to move out and not return to his Indian Wells home, and to not own or try to receive guns or ammunition.
Wear’s Herzog firm attorney, Evan Marshall, filed a challenge against Evans under Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 two weeks later, saying the judge is prejudiced against Wear and her attorneys, and requesting his dismissal.
Marshall claimed Evans was responsible for a pattern of irregular judicial intervention and interference in multiple related cases. Evans granted the challenge and the case was reassigned.
Appeal
Wear appealed the restraining order, claiming Evans’ disqualification proves prejudice, that Evans’ alteration to the restraining order to preclude gun ownership voids the order, and that the petition fails to state a cause of action because she never took anything from Thomas.
The appellate court denied all claims. Section 170.6 does not require someone to actually establish judicial prejudice as a matter of fact for the case to be reassigned, the appellate panel said.
Evans should not have expanded the relief to include the loss of firearm ownership, because Code of Civil Procedure Section 580(a) says that relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer from the defendant, cannot exceed the relief demanded in the complaint, the panel found.
The Elder Abuse Act does say that a person who receives an EARO should not receive a firearm, but carves out an exception if the protective order was issued solely on financial abuse unaccompanied by force, threat, harassment, intimidation or any other kind of abuse. Wear’s firearm rights were restored by the court.
For Wear’s final claim, that she never took anything from Thomas, the court found that elder financial abuse includes taking of any property right.
Parties
Fourth District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Art McKinster wrote the opinion, joined by Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez and Associate Justice Marsha Slough.
Adam Streisand, Nicholas Van Brunt and Valerie Alter of Los Angeles’ Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton represented Laura White
Ian Herzog and Evan Marshall of Los Angeles’ Herzog, Yuhas, Ehrlich & Ardell represented Debra Wear.
Riverside case number PRIN2000361
Appellate case number E076352
Read the ruling on a related case here.
Read the ruling here.
