In a case that dives into evidentiary standards and proper applications of the law, a case arising from Lee County recently made its way to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. In the case of P.T.S. III v. S.S., the Court reviewed an elder-abuse protection order, clarifying evidentiary requirements and addressing the relevance and applicability of the Elder Abuse Protection Order and Enforcement Act.

In January of 2023, the trial court granted the petition of S.S., the stepmother, for an elder-abuse protection order against P.T.S. III, her stepson. Several weeks later, the stepson successfully dissolved the initial order, leading to a trial on April 11, 2023. Following the trial, the court entered a permanent elder-abuse protection order against the stepson. The order prevented the stepson from threatening, harassing, or contacting his stepmother, or otherwise engaging in abusive acts towards her. The stepson was prohibited from vising his stepmother’s home or managing her finances. Additionally, the trial court ordered the stepson to return $25,000, which the trial court found he had wrongfully withdrawn from a joint account he shared with his stepmother.

Following this judgment, the stepson filed a post-judgment motion for a new trial and relief from judgement under Rules 59 and 60 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. These motions were denied, and the trial court upheld the protection order, giving rise to this appeal. On appeal, the stepson raised two main arguments: insufficient evidence and misapplication of the law. He disputed the trial court’s findings of financial exploitation, theft, abuse, or harassment, and asserted that these findings were not supported by proper evidence.

In reviewing the stepson’s claims, the Court referenced the Elder Abuse Protection Order and Enforcement Act. The act, enacted in 2017, offers a clear definition of financial exploitation as “unauthorized control over an elderly person’s property to deprive them of it.” Applying this definition to the stepson’s actions, the Court found that the stepson’s withdrawal from the joint account without permission constituted financial exploitation. This finding aligned with the findings of the trial court. Accordingly, the stepson’s actions met the definition of elder abuse, and the trial court finding such was not in error.

The Court did find error, however, in the trial court’s denial of the stepson’s motion for a new trial. Reviewing the merits of the motion, the Court found the error ultimately harmless. Since the motion lacked merit, denying a new trial did not materially affect the stepson’s legal outcomes, particularly regarding the findings of financial exploitation. The harmless error did not warrant reversal, and the trial court’s protection order was upheld.

P.T.S. III v. S.S. demonstrates the application of statutory language to properly determine an evidentiary standard. The stepmother was able to show that the stepson’s actions were within the statutory definition of financial exploitation, and therefore her protection order was upheld. When the parameters of an offense are clearly defined, the burden was merely to prove that the stepson’s actions met the definition, and nothing further. When that burden is met, applicable protections are available, and courts have the authority to order such protection.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.