Who Is To Blame When Car Dealer Sells $62K Nissan To Man With Dementia?

A woman in California has a brand new, extras-packed Nissan Murano convertible worth a whopping $62,130 sitting unused in her garage. Why? Because she says the car dealership should never have sold the vehicle to her husband, who has been diagnosed with dementia.

The woman, who has power of attorney over her husband’s finances, had actually been meeting with his brother to discuss long-term care options when he drove himself to the dealership and traded in his Altima Hybrid for the new car. She claims he didn’t attempt to negotiate with the salesman on anything, including the more than $10,000 in options.

“He never in a million years would have agreed to this in his sound mind,” she tells the Petaluma Argus-Courier.

Under California law, anyone with an unsound mind can not enter into a contract, so the wife has brought on a lawyer in her attempt to get the dealer to take back the car and cancel the financing contract.

The lawyer explains that the various parties involved are saying conflicting things. The owner of the dealership told him that Wells Fargo, which set up the loan, had offered a settlement. But when the wife called Wells Fargo and was told they had no record of any settlement.

The husband’s doctor described the husband as having “markedly impaired judgment, lack of impulse control, aggressive and compulsive behavior and an almost total lack of insight into his condition.”

But other elder care experts tell the Argus-Courier that dementia is not always apparent to everyone at all times and that the dealership might have had no idea anything was wrong.

“If this guy wasn’t declared incompetent, he had the right to do whatever he wanted,” one attorney specializing in elder abuse tells the paper.

Dealer sells car to man with dementia [PressDemocrat.com]

Thanks to Wayne for the tip!

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Power Imbalance says:

    “markedly impaired judgment, lack of impulse control, aggressive and compulsive behavior and an almost total lack of insight into his condition.”

    Yet, he’s allowed to drive?

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      Depending on how long the condition may be known about, he may still have a “valid” DL. If the DL expires or has to be renesed every 10 year or whatever, his DL could still technically be good. It should have been taken away once he was no longer able to make decisions on his own though.

      That his wife left him with car keys is questionable.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        It was his brother who left him alone at his home with access to the keys, they live together. The “wife” here is seperated from the car buyer.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      From the sound of it his condition had maybe just gotten to the point where his family was discussing how to care for him in that condition. Doesn’t seem like he’ll be driving himself around for much longer.

    • CubeRat says:

      It took us almost 15 years to get my father’s licence taken away; and we had cases where he had gotten on the freeway driving the wrong direction.

      He did the same thing with cars, even after his licence was taken away. He ‘escaped’ from the care facility he was sent to by the state to evaluate his dementia, and in PJs & slippers, went to a car dealer and bought a car. He then went ‘shopping’ and lost it, and wandered around. He was found by a kindly person who realized this old guy was lost and called the police. He told the police he was looking for his home, the neighborhood he was found in was where he lived with my mom after they married in 1939 (they moved in 1940). It took another 2 weeks for us to locate the car; he had parked it on another car dealer’s lot and tried to buy another car. THAT dealer wouldn’t sell him one, but still didn’t call the police.

      The state still never revoked the licence. It expired and wasn’t renewed (as he was now in a locked facility.)

    • MeowMaximus says:

      This is an asshole move by a greedy dealership. Sue the hell out of them.

      • bluline says:

        No, it’s not. How are they supposed to know the guy has dementia? The article clearly states that, “dementia is not always apparent to everyone at all times and that the dealership might have had no idea anything was wrong.”

        My father-in-law is 88 and recently traded in a practically new Lexus SUV for a brand-new Jaguar, basically on a whim. Is the dealership supposed to take some steps to determine the competency of someone who does something like this? And if so, what are the steps?

        • DustingWhale says:

          Because he bought a boutique convertible SUV, which is already overpriced, with many options and did not negotiate. Just look at the SUV, you’ll know he wasn’t of sound mind. And I’m sure the dealer knew when they sent him out the door with it.

      • Jawaka says:

        So should a dealership be required to ask for your medical records before they sell you a car? How are they supposed to know that you have a problem?

        • alana0j says:

          It’s not their responsibility to know ahead of time, but I feel like they should step up and do the right thing in this situation since the car obviously hasn’t been used much if at all by the couple. If they still have the car he traded in why not just trade back and give the guy his money back? I absolutely hate how most people these days won’t do the right thing because it’s right, they have to be legally pressured and persuaded.

          • kobresia says:

            This sort of thing happens with some frequency, but it’s really not the stealership’s problem.

            I blame the OP 100%. The man should have a flag on his credit so credit checks hit a snag. He should have a trustee handling his finances. These things should be in place if he is not competent to handle his money.

            It’s an even worse situation if the stealership has to judge a potential customer for mental fitness. It’s not their job, and they would be sued for discrimination if they discriminated against people based on perceived mental deficits.

            Also, there are a good many cars that nobody in their right mind would ever buy, and that therefore a dealer could never sell. For example, the Pontiac Aztec. The dealer would be caught in a Catch-22.

            • alana0j says:

              I understand it’s not the fault or problem of the dealership. They did their job-they sold a man a car. I’m simply saying that in this case the right thing to do would be to rectify the situation. But again, most people don’t follow the golden rule and hell, in a capitalistic country such as ours everyone is more concerned with lining their own pockets than helping out a fellow human being.

              • MeowMaximus says:

                Then they should have no problem taking back the car and giving a full refund.

                • bhr says:

                  The problem is, legally, the car is now “used” following the title change. They can not sell it as new and would have to take a loss (15-20k) on the book value of the car if they took the car back.

                  • MeowMaximus says:

                    It’s the right thing to do. The bank that made the loan should make up their losses.

                    • alana0j says:

                      See I agree 100% but again, most people in the business world won’t do something that will cost them money, even if it is the morally right thing to do.

        • coffeeculture says:

          They’re car dealers, not medical professionals. I don’t expect them to be able to diagnose dementia and act accordingly. Obviously, he was of sound enough mind to drive to the dealership, trade in a car, ask for extras, and drive back home.

    • EricS says:

      BTW, no, according to the original article, he isn’t allowed to drive. He, however, doesn’t remember that.

  2. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    …but apparently the wife has no problem leaving him alone with the car keys.

    • BluePlastic says:

      His brother is the one who left him home alone with access to car keys, actually, not the wife.

  3. rpm773 says:

    A few months ago I saw one of those Murano convertibles on the road and muttered “You’d have to be crazy to buy something that looks like a bathtub on wheels”.

    I feel vindicated.

    • taaurrus says:

      LOL!!!

    • BigDragon says:

      Yep, and now we know who is actually buying those hideous things. No wonder the dealership is fighting this so hard. They probably can’t find anyone else to buy the Murano convertable.

    • Kestris says:

      We test drove a Murano 2 years ago when looking for a new used car. I felt like I was pretending to be something I wasn’t, ie pretentous and rich. Needless to say, we didn’t get it.

    • Ed says:

      Exactly! It is a Nissan. Anyone that pays $62K for one of those is demented.

    • GearheadGeek says:

      I actually opened the full article to post essentially the same thing. The regular Murano is “meh” but OK if you want a crossover with a CVT I guess. The convertible is a ridiculous abomination. Dealers should be held liable for selling one to a competent person (assuming they could find one who’d buy it) to say nothing of palming one off on an impaired person.

  4. SkokieGuy says:

    If he should not of been driving, does he have a valid drivers license? You can’t drive a car off a lot without one.

    Also, other than the insane price tag, I love me some Murano convertible. Four wheel drive AND a ragtop, and high up driving position. Perfect for Chicago winter and summer.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      and all the other soccer moms would be so envious of you!

    • Chmeeee says:

      The thing makes no sense to me whatsoever. It combines the negatives of a sports car (no storage, poor back seat room) with the negatives of an SUV (poor handling, poor gas mileage). What positives do you get? AWD and a convertible top? No thanks. For the $45k pricetag, I’d prefer a $30k sports car and a $15k used SUV that are both better at their respective strengths.

      Oh yeah, and it’s HIDEOUSLY ugly.

    • failurate says:

      When I dream, I dream I am driving an AMC Eagle SX/4.

  5. GMFish says:

    I seem to remember reading about a dealership that would send sales people into convalescent homes to trick residents into buying cars they could not even drive.

  6. Extended-Warranty says:

    The dealer is definitely in the wrong here. Everyone knows that these rich white guys are evil and seek to ruin everyone’s lives.

    People with any sort of disabilities are free to do whatever they please. God forbid you treat them like anyone else, you will hear from my lawyer!

  7. Blueskylaw says:

    “Who Is To Blame When Car Dealer Sells $62K Nissan To Man With Dementia?”

    Who is to blame? The question should be why this man hasn’t yet been promoted to the highest levels of government.

  8. az123 says:

    Um, what happened to the laws about major purchases and having some period of time to back out of the contract?

    • sirwired says:

      Very few states have such laws for car purchases. I believe federal consumer protection law allows 3-day recession for in-home purchases and health club memberships. Some also apply this to car purchases, but most states do not.

    • George4478 says:

      Do those exist in CA? I bought a new car last spring in GA. One of the papers was a notice that such a law did not exist in Georgia and the contract I was signing did not include a buyers-remorse period.

    • Akuma Matata says:

      You’re talking about “buyer’s remorse” and afaik that doesn’t apply if you travel to the place of business.

    • kc-guy says:

      I believe what you’re referring to is a rule most states have giving around 3 days for in-home purchases (ie door-to-door salesmen).

  9. taaurrus says:

    Wow really? Are the dealership & Wells Fargo both that money hungry and/or dumb that they can’t see a chance for good publicity when it’s staring them in the face??

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      short answer: Yes
      long answer: yes, yes they are.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      Anyone can say that someone is insane or not sound. You have to watch with cases like this, because if you just accept it, you can be opening yourself up to larger issues. It’s cases like this that need to be tried and judged in a court, by professionals, and not in the “court” of public appeal by armchair professionals.

  10. Kaleey says:

    Sounds like if she had power of attorney, that he COULDN’T be legally held to the contract. I don’t doubt that he looked like a normal, healthy person. Dementia and other forms of mental illness don’t stand out like sore thumbs all the time.

    The dealership should take the car back, provided she can prove that he was not of sound mind at the time the purchase occured. (Not meaning at that moment – I mean that he was diagnosed with dementia sometime before the dealership event occured.)

    Of course, now they are dealing with Wells Fargo – that’s making everything worse.

    • GrayMatter says:

      Lawyer: “Wells Fargo, which set up the loan, had offered a settlement”

      Wells-Fargo: “no record of any settlement”

      Considering my experience with Wells-Fargo, why is the latter’s statement not a surprise?

    • George4478 says:

      Giving someone else power of attorney over my finances doesn’t remove my ability to alter my finances. They have power IN ADDITION to my having power.

    • lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

      My elderly mother in law looked and sounded perfectly sane a lot of the time when she was progressing through dementia. She talked about her sister’s visit, the black horse that grazed in the field behind her house, that she was sad her brother died, and about the cow that got loose and ate the flowers in the yard.

      Problem was – sister was dead for years, the black horse was a figment of her imagination because she was reading the Horse Whisperer over and over, her brother died 60 years ago, and the cow didn’t exist.

      People with demential can seem perfectly OK, especially in the morning, and as the day goes on, they decompensate. It’s possible they dealership just thought they had a guy who was impulsive about buying a car.

      I agree with you – they should take the car back and cancel this deal after they found out the true situation.

      • Kestris says:

        My grandfather was the same way- talked about walking to school, talked about having to go to work (he’d been retired for decades)- things that happened 50-60 years ago.

        Yet, to look at him, you’d think he was a bit skinny, but that nothing was otherwise wrong.

  11. Cat says:

    Who Is To Blame When Car Dealer Sells $62K Nissan To Man With Dementia?

    He hasn’t been declared incompetent by the courts.

    Enjoy your new car. And the payments.

    • Kaleey says:

      But under California law, he just has to be of unsound mind. Does that mean at the time of signing the paperwork? 50% of the time? 30% of the time? Or at some point being evaluated by a doctor who states “unsound mind, dementia, not getting better”?

      Does the law state he HAS to be declared incompetent? Or just of “unsound mind”?

      • Cat says:

        A matter of degrees? At what point does someone become of unsound mind?

        As with lawsuits and disabilities, you can almost always find a lawyer and a doctor willing to testify to anything, and it’s pretty suspicious when they testify after the fact.

        FWIW, I’m sure a lot of people consider me to be of “unsound mind”. (/s)

    • Snowblind says:

      Why pay? Let them repo it.

      What’s it going to do? Ruin his credit?

      • Doubting thomas says:

        Yes, it will ruin his credit, but he won’t care since he will be living in a psychiatric facility for the rest of his drugged unnatural life. However it will also ruin his separated but not divorced wife’s credit. She might care.

        • Yomiko says:

          Not unless her name is on the loan. Considering she wasn’t there to stop the purchase, I’d say it’s not.

          • Yomiko says:

            Ok, self correction.

            I did not think this was possible, but CA is a community property state. What she has in her favor is that she didn’t sign the loan and the car isn’t titled in her name, so hopefully the vehicle and the debt will be assigned to him in the divorce and they won’t persure her for payment.

            http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/May/1212943_1.html

            My bad. Good call, Tom.

  12. tinmanx says:

    The husband’s doctor described the husband as having “markedly impaired judgment, lack of impulse control, aggressive and compulsive behavior and an almost total lack of insight into his condition.”

    Sounds normal to me.

  13. Straspey says:

    “If this guy wasn’t declared incompetent, he had the right to do whatever he wanted,” one attorney specializing in elder abuse tells the paper.

    Unfortunately, from a purely legal standpoint, this is probably true.

    Those of us who have gone through the difficult experience of having to take control of the decision-making process for an aging parent or loved one, know full well the legal complexities of the process.

    One needs to have a medical professional declare the elderly person to be incompetent, and then have an attorney take the subsequent legal steps required by state law to make it official.

    The woman may have power of attorney over the poor man’s finances, but all that means in this case is that she is in charge of his estate and responsible for paying his bills. Unless he is declared legally incompetent, then, yes – he can do whatever he wants.

    • Extended-Warranty says:

      There are too many people out there that while they don’t have dementia, they can’t make sound decisions due to some type of condition.

      Having worked in retail, I know I’ve sold to these types of people many times. Where do you draw the line? God forbid you refuse to serve someone who you believe is old and decrepit, you will get the pants sued off of you.

      The answer here does not involve blaming the retailer.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Personally I don’t fault them for selling it to him, as others have said sometimes people off their rocker really do not outwardly project this. However, I do blame the retailer for not reversing the sale after they found out from family that this was not your average customer.

        • StarKillerX says:

          So you think the retailer should just accept a loss of several thousand dollars because this man’s family decided he shouldn’t have bought the car?

        • j2.718ff says:

          There are also some wealthy eccentrics, who act like they’re off their rocker, but are actually completely sane, just strange.

  14. areaman says:

    I just looked at some pictures of the Murano. I would say anyone who buys one at any price is out of their mind.

    It looks like an overweight VW.

  15. sirwired says:

    This is a tough call, and the laws vary widely from state to state. In some states, the dealership just has to “take one for the team” and the contract becomes voided as long as a judge can be convince he had no mental capacity to make the decision at the time. In others, as long as he was not declared incompetent at that particular point, he’s the legal owner of the vehicle.

  16. maxamus2 says:

    The real crime is, how can a freaking Nissan sell for $62,000???

    • tbax929 says:

      My Altima coupe was about $30,000. It’s fully loaded, and I figured I could buy a low-end Z with no options for that price or a top of the line Altima with all of the options.

      Once you start adding on things, it’s not hard to go way above the MSRP on a car. That beind said, $62K for a Murano is ridiculous.

    • OttersArePlentiful says:

      The man asked for all the upgrades you could get on that model. His wife says the fact that he didn’t haggle should be proof that he wasn’t of sound mind, but really, how is a salesman supposed to differentiate between a man with seemingly high-functioning dementia vs. a man with a lot of money who doesn’t care about costs?

  17. crispyduck13 says:

    I suggest everyone go read the article, it is a much more complex situation than is presented here. This happened last year by the way, and for a little perspective the guy is currently a full time resident of a psychiatric ward.

    I feel bad for this woman, since they were not divorced she is responsible for the debt. I can’t believe the dealership and the bank didn’t immediately call off the sale when she told them what was going on. They need to reverse that sale AND pay her attorney’s fees that they forced to occur due to their own stupidity. Lawyers did not need to be involved here, other than maybe $200 for a letter explaining the situation.

    • Cat says:

      “They need to reverse that sale AND pay her attorney’s fees that they forced to occur…”

      Really? You’ve been here long enough to know that this will never happen.

      BTW, “incur”. Incur is the word you’re looking for.

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Yes, I know this won’t happen, but it’s fun to pretend.

        No, I meant occur, I know how to string grammar together. This is pretty cut and dry with the doctor’s statement that they guy can’t control what he does. The fact that he was committed between then and now and this shit is still being drug out is appalling. The dealership/bank is actively causing the need for a lawyer because they won’t be rational and look at the very obvious situation that is readily available lawyer-free.

        She has to hire a lawyer because she is legally responsible for a purchase made by a demented man who is now committed. They are forcing the lawyer’s presence and are therefore forcing the associated fees to occur. She is incurring those fees, there, happy now?

    • SamanthaSSJ says:

      I feel sorry for her too, but the dealership was (we presume) acting in good faith and simply sold a car to a willing buyer. That is kind of their business, isn’t it? And the buyer was able to drive around, choose a car, sign papers, etc. If the wife contacted them within a short time after the purchase the dealership should have taken the car back but I think they would have been justified in charging a fee if the car would then be considered used rather than new. I don’t know exactly when that would happen – when it is driven off the lot?

      • crispyduck13 says:

        Did you read the article?? She did exactly that – contacted the dealership immediately when he showed up at her house with it. From what I read she did everything right except trust his brother to keep car keys out of his hands.

        The dealer should not be faulted for selling him the car, but for refusing to reverse the sale when they found out about his condition. Months later they are still dragging it out, it’s ludicrous.

        • StarKillerX says:

          You can’t just “take back the sale” and everyone be whole again. Once the title application is signed the vehicle becomes used and you can’t sell it as new.

          Ironically had they dealership taken it back, sold it as new and the OP posted here that they were sold a used car as new I’d bet a months pay that everyone here saying the dealership should have just “take back the sale” would be screaming that the dealership was defrauding customers.

    • sirwired says:

      The problem is that once the title application goes to the DMV, you can’t “reverse” the sale. This isn’t like returning a TV to Wal-Mart. Once a title application has been filed, the car can no longer be sold as “New.” It’d be a huge loss to the dealership (or bank) to resell the car, even if there are only a few miles on the clock.

      • Mike says:

        This is a problem the dealer created. The guy drove home with the car with a salesman, who was informed immediately of the situation by the wife. They could have easily undone the sale at that point, but they were greedy.

        • sirwired says:

          No. Once the title application is signed, the vehicle is sold. Period. It cannot be “undone.” The dealership can buy the car back at tremendous loss, but the sale cannot be backed out.

    • Yomiko says:

      “I feel bad for this woman, since they were not divorced she is responsible for the debt.”

      I did not think this was possible, but CA is a community property state. What she has in her favor is that she didn’t sign the loan and the car isn’t titled in her name, so hopefully the vehicle and the debt will be assigned to him in the divorce.

      http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/May/1212943_1.html

      I don’t like community property. It may be right for other people, but I’m glad it’s not the system in force where I live.

  18. ajaxd says:

    Anybody buying a convertible Murano is pretty much insane. I kinda feel bad for the dealers who have to sell this POS.

  19. dullard says:

    If you build one of these on the Nissan web site you come up with a price of $49,305. Even taking into consideration taxes, fees and license, the dealer must have added everything he/she could think of to bring the price up to $62,130.

  20. homehome says:

    Powe of attorney so does that mean she has total control over his finances or that she has control in addition to his control. Because if he’s still in control of his finances, he made a legal purchase. But she would just have to provide doctor records showing his dementia. All dementia isn’t the same, I’ve known perfectly functional ppl with dementia and you ppl you wouldn’t know who had it unless you spent hours around them.

  21. ninabi says:

    An elderly friend’s husband was in serious mental decline and she took away the car keys. One day she heard a noise in the garage- he was driving away, zig zagging his way down the road at 5 mph.

    How on earth….? Turns out years ago he had made some spare keys in and put them in his golf club bag. He found them and it was off to the races. Luckily a neighbor was able to get him stopped before he left the subdivision.

    It happens- sadly, it’s often like watching a toddler- just when you think everything is safe they find trouble.

  22. Gorbachev says:

    I don’t know why a dealership would be fighting this. It’s going to cost them more in lost business from bad PR than to eat whatever small loss from taking the car back.

    Of course now that they’re paying hourly for lawyers, it’s going to cost them even more.

    • Kaleey says:

      Yes, And the car has 40 miles on it. If they tow it back, it’s still “new” – there are new cars on lots now with 50 miles or so from test driving.

      The salesman even CAME HOME with him. They knew about this before the ink dried. It’s hard to believe that they are fighting this that hard.

  23. kathygnome says:

    There will be more and more of this as our population ages. There are no good options. You cannot simultaneously say that elders are valuable capable members of our society, but criticize businesses if they treat elders as capable adults in terms of purchasing big ticket items or investing their money. We want to have it both ways and this is the inevitable end result.

  24. Buckus says:

    She has power of attorney. Case closed.

  25. benminer says:

    @az123 In California there is no cooling off period for new cars.

  26. scoosdad says:

    It would be a great thing if everyone involved– the dealer, Wells Fargo– would just act like a f***ing human and quietly take the car back and cancel the whole deal and not have to resort to lawyers and doctors and California getting in the loop.

    Won’t happen, I know. Sad.

  27. Kestris says:

    If the wife has power of attorney AND his doctor has stated the he has dementia, then, yes, he is incompetant and the contract should, legally, be considered null and void.

    As far as driving himself, it’s possible he found a spare set of keys that the wife either didn’t know about or forgot about.

    My late grandfather, who died from complications from alzheimer’s and lung cancer, routinely attempted to drive himself right up until the few months before he was unable/unwilling to get out of bed. He did not fully understand what was happening, only that *something* was happening.

    It could very well be the same for this man.

  28. tz says:

    Somehow the credit reporting agencies didn’t have any notes that there was a power of attorney with someone else handling his finances?

    • Yomiko says:

      I don’t know if there’s a mechanism in place to note the POA held by the wife, but it brings another solution to mind. She should put a security freeze on his credit report with all of the agencies. That would keep any new creditor from pulling his history and issuing a new line of credit.

  29. Cacao says:

    Here’s another example. But unscrupulous salespeople stole a lot more money from the victim: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003533229_huling20m.html

  30. gman863 says:

    Anyone who spends $62K on a Nissan has dimentia. Period.

  31. graytotoro says:

    Good lord, $62K? If I had 62K to spend on a Nissan, I’d probably buy a used GT-R, which is probably what I’ll do if I developed dementia…

  32. StarGeek says:

    Here’s another case from quite a few years back.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-19/local/me-134_1_car-salesman

  33. human_shield says:

    Drive the car back to the dealer, drop it off, toss them the keys, and tell them to pound sand. If they sue, bring to court the paperwork that shows he can’t enter a contract. Having the vehicle in your garage is dumb. Just give it back and let them try to collect something.

  34. PortlandBeavers says:

    Wow, it’s white, too. He got ripped off, no matter what his mental state. You can get a new Corvette for less. Or a mid-size Mercedes. Or a Lexus. And it could be in a color other than white.

  35. yankinwaoz says:

    How is this the dealer’s fault? The man drove himself. He had a legal license. He had access to the funds. He probably didn’t seem any crazier that half the other customers these guys deal with. The only clue was that he had more money than brains, which is a salesman’s dream.

    His family is going to have to lock down his bank accounts and take away his car keys.

    Perhaps this case isn’t as shocking as it seems. You can’t expect a merchant to know if a customer is of unsound mind. Therefore it seems that the only remedy is to get the contract voided in court by convincing a judge that the customer qualifies as unsound mind person. So all this noise is just the normal way this quirk of California law is enforced. Yea, it is ugly, and news worthy, but there really isn’t another option.

  36. Tacojelly says:

    I really wish there was some legal accountability associated with people who sell you cars. I’ve seen many people (some of them mentally ill, some of them just stupid) buy lemons, and the lemon laws current around do not aquatically protect the consumer.

    And really, laws should be set up to defend consumers. If a place wants to be in business, they should do their job competently.

  37. Paul @ The Frugal Toad says:

    Sounds bad at the surface however people can have dementia and appear to function normally. I have a relative with dementia and she functioned for years with the disease and you would not have known it unless you were close family. I would not jump to any conclusions until details surface as to the severity of his dementia.

  38. OttersArePlentiful says:

    I understand that the man’s (legally separated) wife is frustrated, but her cry of “elder abuse!” is insulting. The article also states that she only came back into his life once his health was in extensive decline, and notes that he needs 24/7 care – a duty she left for her husband’s brother to provide. Having known this, why was no one with him when he left the house? The article says she and the brother got together to discuss long-term care, yet none of them thought it might be a bad idea to leave the husband home alone during this meeting, as well as keeping his car keys within easy reach? If she is in charge of his finances, shouldn’t there be a flag on his accounts? How can she expect others to know the situation if she knows he has episodes of seemingly complete lucidity?

    I find it amusing of the elder abuse attorney to say ‚ÄúYou’d think that it would be a good business practice to inquire and make sure you’re selling to someone who is properly able to contract.‚Äù

    Really? So now one of the requirements when selling a car is to ask, “So… you’re not mentally disabled or anything, are you? Because we’re required by law to check your mental health records before completing a sale.” I’m sure that will go over well.