E-FILED 4/16/2020 10:02 PM 1 ANNE MARIE MURPHY ......2020/04/16 · psychic services of “Mystic Michelle.” MICHELLE MARKS, age 27, had set up her tent off the main street to offer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT

ANNE MARIE MURPHY (SBN 202540)

[email protected]

EMANUEL B. TOWNSEND (SBN 305373)

[email protected]

ANYA N. THEPOT (SBN 318430)

[email protected]

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

840 Malcolm Road

Burlingame, California 94010

Telephone: (650) 697-6000

Facsimile: (650) 692-3606

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

VICTORIA NELSON, an individual, on her

own behalf, and by and through her Guardian

Ad Litem JULIETTE CANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. TAMMY ADAMS, a/k/a TAMMY

MARKS, a/k/a TAMMY VENTO, an

individual;

2. MICHELLE PAMELA MARKS, a/k/a

MICHELLE ADAMS, a/k/a “MYSTIC

MICHELLE,” an individual;

3. ANGELO G. ADAMS, an individual;

4. JIMMY C. ADAMS, a/k/a JIM ADAMS,

a/k/a JIMMY VENTO, an individual;

5. HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION,

a California corporation; and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No. ______________________

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. Quiet Title and for Cancellation of

Instruments;

2. Financial Elder Abuse;

3. Physical Elder Abuse;

4. Fraud and Deceit;

5. Negligent Misrepresentation;

6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;

7. Aiding and Abetting Fraud;

8. Aiding and Abetting Breach of

Fiduciary Duty;

9. Violation of California Business and

Professions Code § 17200, et seq.;

and

10. Civil Conspiracy.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

E-FILED4/16/2020 10:02 PMClerk of CourtSuperior Court of CA,County of Santa Clara20CV366112Reviewed By: Y. Chavez

20CV366112

mailto:[email protected]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 4

III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 4

A. Plaintiff ..................................................................................................................... 4

B. Defendants ................................................................................................................ 5

C. Other Defendants ...................................................................................................... 6

D. Agency and Concert of Action ................................................................................. 6

E. Aiding and Abetting/Conspiracy .............................................................................. 7

F. Alter Ego ................................................................................................................... 7

IV. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE: PSYCHIC/FORTUNE TELLER SCAMS................. 7

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................... 10

A. Victoria’s Los Gatos Home .................................................................................... 10

B. Victoria Meets David in Late 2018 ......................................................................... 10

C. Defendant Michelle Marks Begins to Instill Fear in Victoria with Lies About A Past Life and Looming Financial Troubles ......................................................... 10

D. Defendant Tammy Adams Continues to Deceive Victoria and Ultimately Steal Victoria’s Los Gatos Home .................................................................................... 14

E. Defendants Knowingly Exerted Undue Influence Over Victoria and Victoria Lacked the Capacity to Transfer Her Los Gatos Home and was of Unsound Mind when the Transfer Occurred .......................................................................... 19

1. Undue Influence .......................................................................................... 19

2. Victoria Lacked the Capacity to Transfer Her Los Gatos Home and Was of Unsound Mind When the Transfer Occurred ................................. 20

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................... 21

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION QUIET TITLE AND FOR CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 21

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq. (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT ii

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PHYSICAL ELDER ABUSE California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq. (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 25

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD AND DECEIT (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 26

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 27

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 28

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 29

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 30

NINTH CAUSE OF ACITON VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ. (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 30

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against All Defendants) .................................................................................................... 31

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................... 32

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .................................................................................................... 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 1

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Criminals routinely target vulnerable elders with elaborate schemes designed to

rob them of assets that took an entire lifetime to obtain. VICTORIA NELSON (“VICTORIA” or

“Plaintiff”) has become a victim of such a scheme perpetrated by a family of criminal “fortune

tellers.” Defendants targeted VICTORIA because of her age and vulnerabilities, taking the Los

Gatos home she owned and lived in for forty years, all of her possessions, all of her family

mementos, including those related to her late husband, and substantial sums from her bank

accounts. VICTORIA spent many months scared for her life due to Defendants’ lies and

deception.

2. After Defendants absconded with the title to VICTORIA’s home, they placed her

in what they termed a “safe house.” Between early January and late February 2020, 73-year-old

VICTORIA NELSON, a widow, spent six weeks sleeping on the floor, on a stained mattress with

no sheets, alone in a house furnished only with a table and a few chairs. VICTORIA felt trapped

and afraid to go outside in the unfamiliar and dangerous Sacramento neighborhood. Her family

did not know she was there, over 124 miles from the comfortable Los Gatos home she had

purchased with her late husband and lived in since 1979. VICTORIA owned the Los Gatos home

free and clear until September 2019 when, out of fear, she “gifted” it to Defendant TAMMY

ADAMS (“TAMMY”), a 44-year-old woman she had known for just a few months.

3. VICTORIA could not leave the Sacramento house. She no longer owned nor had

access to her Los Gatos home. Furthermore, TAMMY had convinced VICTORIA that the ex-

wife of VICTORIA’s then-boyfriend, David Sample, was jealous of VICTORIA and wanted to

kill her. TAMMY also lied to VICTORIA and told her the State was going to take her Los Gatos

home away for failing to pay her income taxes. TAMMY told VICTORIA the only way to save

her home was to gift it to TAMMY’s HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION, a false non-profit.

4. TAMMY’s lies and fear tactics caused VICTORIA to experience intense anxiety

and despair and left her in a prolonged state of deep emotional anguish. TAMMY knew

VICTORIA was extremely distraught and, consequently, of unsound mind and lacking capacity

when she signed her Los Gatos home over to TAMMY’s sham foundation. TAMMY knew

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 2

VICTORIA had relied on her late husband to handle the couple’s financial affairs during their

forty-year marriage and that VICTORIA was unable to manage her own financial resources after

his death. TAMMY also knew that due to a series of events she had carefully orchestrated,

VICTORIA had reposed trust and confidence in her such that VICTORIA would believe

TAMMY when she told her that VICTORIA’s life was in danger and that the State was going to

take her house. TAMMY knew her lies had rendered VICTORIA so terrified that she would be

unable to resist TAMMY’s offer to “help” and insistence that VICTORIA gift her house to

TAMMY so she could go into hiding.

5. TAMMY’s plan was successful. In addition to taking VICTORIA’s house,

TAMMY would also induce VICTORIA to appoint her as VICTORIA’s financial power of

attorney. TAMMY would use the power of attorney to attempt to steal VICTORIA’s inheritance

and retirement.

6. VICTORIA first met TAMMY in Mount Shasta, California during the week of the

Fourth of July 2019. VICTORIA’s then-boyfriend, David Sample, took VICTORIA to Mount

Shasta that week ostensibly to celebrate her birthday. While there, VICTORIA would meet

TAMMY ADAMS and her daughter in-law, Defendant MICHELLE MARKS (“MICHELLE”).

VICTORIA, a believer in psychics, had noticed a tent off the town’s main street offering the

psychic services of “Mystic Michelle.” MICHELLE MARKS, age 27, had set up her tent off the

main street to offer her alleged psychic services. Her tent was one of many set up near the main

street and opened for business during Mount Shasta’s weeklong Fourth of July festivities. David

took VICTORIA to the enjoy the festivities on the main street multiple times throughout their stay

in Mount Shasta. Each time, they walked by “Mystic Michelle’s” tent.

7. On July 4, 2019, VICTORIA went to “Mystic Michelle” to discuss her life and her

relationship with David, which up to that time had ebbed and flowed between certainty and

uncertainty, as new relationships tend to do. VICTORIA hoped MICHELLE’s psychic abilities

could illuminate the path ahead for her life and her relationship with David. TAMMY ADAMS

was with MICHELLE at the Mount Shasta tent on July 4, 2019 when VICTORIA sought

MICHELLE’s psychic services. MICHELLE introduced VICTORIA to TAMMY that day.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 3

8. During her psychic consultation, VICTORIA revealed intimate details about her

life and her relationship with David to MICHELLE. VICTORIA opened up, believing

MICHELLE would use the information to see into VICTORIA’s future. Instead, MICHELLE

quickly identified VICTORIA as a vulnerable and overly trusting senior citizen, who MICHELLE

and TAMMY could manipulate and scam.

9. In the days that followed, MICHELLLE and TAMMY would work together to

manipulate VICTORIA into withdrawing twenty thousand dollars from her bank account and

depositing it into Defendant ANGELO ADAMS’ (“ANGELO”) bank account. ANGELO is

TAMMY’s son and MICHELLE’s husband. MICHELLE would use some of the money to take

VICTORIA with her and ANGELO to the Hawaiian Island of Maui.

10. In Maui, MICHELLE spent limited time with VICTORIA, choosing instead to

vacation with her husband, ANGELO, and spend VICTORIA’s money. MICHELLE used the

limited time she did spend with VICTORIA to take her around the island and tell her a contrived

story about VICTORIA’s tragic past life with David and to uncover additional details about

VICTORIA’s life and finances. MICHELLE and TAMMY used the tale of VICTORIA’s past

life to make her fearful of David and his ex-wife. MICHELLE would provide the information she

learned about VICTORIA’s life and finances to TAMMY, who would use the information to

manipulate VICTORIA into transferring her Los Gatos property to TAMMY and fleeing to

Sacramento in fear for life.

11. TAMMY and MICHELLE did not act alone. In addition to ANGELO, TAMMY’s

husband, JIMMY ADAMS, also worked to carry out the scam.

12. VICTORIA’s niece, Juliette (“Julie”) Cane, eventually rescued VICTORIA from

the derelict Sacramento house on February 21, 2020. By that time, VICTORIA had known

TAMMY and MICHELLE for seven months. Over those seven months, VICTORIA lost her

home and lived in perpetual fear for her life. Sadly, in addition to losing her home, TAMMY

removed all of VICTORIA’s household possessions from the Los Gatos home, including financial

paperwork and photos of VICTORIA’s late husband. TAMMY has discarded a large number of

VICTORIA’s household possessions and has hidden others.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 4

13. This lawsuit seeks to hold Defendants TAMMY ADAMS, MICHELLE MARKS,

ANGELO ADAMS, JIMMY ADAMS, and their sham nonprofit, HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION (collectively “Defendants”) responsible for their actions and return to

VICTORIA the Los Gatos home she owned and lived in for forty years. Accordingly,

VICTORIA, on her own behalf, and by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Julie Cane, now

brings claims to quiet title and for cancellation/rescission of the grant deed, affidavit of death, and

financial power of attorney pursuant to California Civil Code sections 39 and 3412; and for Elder

Abuse in violation of California Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15600 et seq., including

15610.30 (Financial Abuse) 15610.07(a) (Physical Elder Abuse); Fraud; Negligent

Misrepresentation; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Aiding and Abetting a Fraud; Aiding and Abetting

a Breach of Fiduciary Duty; violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and Civil

Conspiracy. VICTORIA NELSON, on her own behalf, and by and through her Guardian Ad

Litem, Julie Cane, seeks restitution, disgorgement, and compensatory, punitive, and treble

damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. Venue is proper in Santa Clara County because the real property at issue is located

within Santa Clara County, and the acts giving rise to Defendants’ liability occurred in Santa

Clara County. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

15. VICTORIA NELSON, age 73, was, and at all times mentioned herein is, a resident

of Santa Clara County. VICTORIA was the rightful and sole owner of improved residential real

property situated in Los Gatos, California, commonly known as 15545 Benedict Lane, Los Gatos,

California 95032, A.P.N. 424-20-008, TRACT 391 CHIRCO SUBD BOOK 15 PAGE 13 LOT 25

(“Los Gatos property” or “Los Gatos home”). VICTORIA was married for forty-years and is

now widowed. Plaintiff VICTORIA NELSON brings this suit in her individual capacity and

through her Guardian Ad Litem Juliette (“Julie”) Cane. Julie Cane is Plaintiff’s niece. Ms. Cane

is a former Naval Aviator and holds an MBA from UCLA.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 5

B. Defendants

16. Defendant TAMMY ADAMS, a/k/a TAMMY MARKS, a/k/a TAMMY VENTO,

age 44, an individual, is a resident of Granite Bay, California. She purports to be a shaman and

life coach. She has several aliases, including Tammy Marks and Tammy Vento. She is the owner

and CEO of Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION. She lives in Granite Bay,

California with her husband, Defendant JIMMY ADAMS, her son, Defendant ANGELO

ADAMS, and her daughter-in-law, Defendant MICHELLE MARKS (“Mystic Michelle”).

Source: AskTammyAdams.com Website

17. Defendant MICHELLE PAMELA MARKS, age 27, a/k/a Michelle Adams, an

individual, is a resident of Granite Bay, California. She purports to be a psychic and life coach.

Her psychic name is “Mystic Michelle.” She is the wife of Defendant ANGELO ADAMS and

daughter-in-law of Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and JIMMY ADAMS.

Source: Yelp.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 6

18. Defendant ANGELO ADAMS, an individual, age 23, is a resident of Granite Bay,

California. He assists Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS with their

fraudulent psychic schemes. He is the husband of Defendant MICHELLE MARKS and the son

of Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and JIMMY ADAMS.

19. Defendant JIMMY ADAMS, a/k/a JIMMY VENTO, an individual, age 44, is a

resident of Granite Bay, California. He assists Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE

MARKS with their fraudulent psychic schemes. He is the husband of Defendant TAMMY

ADAMS, the father of Defendant ANGELO ADAMS (as presumed by VICTORIA), and the

father-in-law of Defendant MICHELLE MARKS. He is the owner and CFO of Defendant

HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION.

20. HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION (“HOAF”) is owned and operated by

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and JIMMY ADAMS. HOAF is registered as a domestic

nonprofit with the California Secretary of State. HOAF has its principal business address is 5530

Douglas Blvd. #160, Granite Bay, California 95746. HOAF obtained Plaintiff’s Los Gatos

property through fraud with the help of all other Defendants.

C. Other Defendants

21. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 20 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said

Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff

alleges that each of said fictitious Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts

hereinafter set forth. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of

these DOE Defendants, as well as the manner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible,

when these facts are ascertained.

D. Agency and Concert of Action

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein

mentioned each of the Defendants was an agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venture of each

of the remaining Defendants, and was at all times acting within the course and scope of such

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 7

agency, service, employment, and/or joint venture, and each Defendant has ratified, approved, and

authorized the acts of each of the remaining Defendants with full knowledge of said acts.

E. Aiding and Abetting/Conspiracy

23. Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered

substantial assistance to the other Defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff, as alleged

herein. In taking action, as alleged herein, to aid and abet and substantially assist the commission

of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoing complained of, each of the Defendants acted with an

awareness of her/his/its primary wrongdoing and realized that of her/his/its conduct would

substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and

wrongdoing. Defendants, and each of them, also knowingly and willfully conspired to cheat,

defraud, and harm Plaintiff, and did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in

furtherance of, the conspiracy. Defendants, and each of them, agreed to work together with the

illegal and fraudulent purpose of taking advantage of Plaintiff and obtaining her property through

false promises, misleading and unlawful agreements, and other fraudulent practices.

F. Alter Ego

24. There is a unity of interest between Defendants, and each Defendant acts as the

alter ego of the other.

IV. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE: PSYCHIC/FORTUNE TELLER SCAMS

25. Financial elder abuse is a serious, yet underreported and all-too-often overlooked

problem, both nationally and locally. It is estimated that only one in twenty-five incidents of

financial elder abuse is ever reported.

26. The California legislature has recognized the severity of this problem, and has

noted that, “elder and dependent adult abuse is . . . indiscriminate . . . and factors such as one’s

socioeconomic status, gender, race, ethnicity, educational background and geographic location do

not provide an impregnable barrier against its broad, horrible reach.” 2005 CA A.C.R. 8. The

Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act contains important Legislative findings,

excerpted here:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 8

The Legislature further finds and declares that infirm elderly persons and

dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, that cases of abuse of these

persons are seldom prosecuted as criminal matters, and few civil cases are

brought in connection with this abuse due to problems of proof, court

delays, and the lack of incentives to prosecute these suits.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600.

27. A specific form of financial elder abuse, the defrauding of senior citizens by

criminals purporting to have psychic powers, has been a known problem in the United States for

decades. In 1983, the Special Committee on Aging for the United States Senate published an

information paper entitled “Consumer Frauds and Elderly Persons: A Growing Problem.” The

paper noted that:

Fortune telling scams are the favorite of gypsy con artists who may go under the title of fortune teller, reader, or seer, medium, healer, or spiritualist, palm reader, card reader, or psychic. The classic costly scam is to tell the victims who have come to her to read their future or ask for advice that there are “evil spirits” on their money causing bad fortune.

Consumer Frauds and Elderly Persons: A Growing Problem. An Information Paper Prepared by

the Staff of the Special Committee of Aging of the United States Senate,

https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/reports/rpt183.pdf.

28. More recently, the Elder Fraud Unit for the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s

Office has flagged fortune telling/psychic scams as an ongoing problem, including the following

information on its website:

Fortune Telling / Psychic Scams:

Here, a fortune teller does a reading, sees the victim is distressed and tells the victim it is because of a curse-which only more money and elaborate rituals can cure. The cost to cleanse the soul and ward off evil spirits keeps going up. Through a course of managed manipulation, the scammer will ask the victim to give them cash to be “blessed,” may ask them to purchase gift cards for them, and when the victim runs out of money, the scammer will ask the victim to procure additional credit through credit cards and tap into equity in the victim’s home. The scammer “promises” the return of the money once the “work” is done (and it never is). The scammer keeps pressure on the victim, who becomes terrified.

IF YOU VISIT SOMEONE CLAIMING TO BE A FORTUNE TELLER, NEVER PAY MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL NOMINAL FEE (USUALLY ABOUT $20.00).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 9

County of Santa Clara, Office of the District Attorney, Elder Fraud Unit, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/prosecution/DistrictAttorneyDepartments/Pages/Elderfraudunit.aspx.

29. There have been a number of reported cases involving psychic/fortune teller scams

throughout the United States over the past twelve years. Many of the victims in these cases were

elderly, but others were not. In 2008, a Santa Clara County psychic and her daughters-in-law

plead guilty to charges of grand theft for scamming almost $450,000 from a San Jose woman.1 In

2009, a San Mateo woman, Janet Adams, was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay

$400,000 in restitution to the 85-year-old victim of her fortune telling scam.2 In 2014, over the

course of seven months, a 33-year-old corporate executive with a law degree was scammed out

$55,712.72 by a fortune teller in New York who told her money was needed to remove the

“curse” that had been placed on her.3 Ironically, that fortune teller was also named Tammy.

Again in 2014, nine members of a Florida fortune-telling family were arrested and convicted for

defrauding well-known romance novelist, Jude Deveraux, out of more than $20 million.4 In

2015, three members of an Oregon fortune-telling family were convicted for defrauding a wealthy

bachelor out of $15 million. At least one member of that family was sentenced to eight years in

prison for the scam.5

30. As set forth in detail below, Plaintiff VICTORIA NELSON is the victim of a

similar fortune telling scam.

1 County of Santa Clara, Office of the District Attorney:

https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/NRA2008/sccpsychicpleadsguilty

totheftcharges.aspx 2 The San Mateo Daily Journal: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/psychic-to-see-

prison-term/article_f02611e2-f9a6-5d7f-a5b7-825bff4c6f81.html 3 The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/when-is-fortunetelling-a-

crime/382738/ 4 ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/US/author-jude-deveraux-lost-20-million-fortune-

telling/story?id=14371150 and https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/when-is-

fortunetelling-a-crime/382738/ 5ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/US/psychic-stole-millions-dollars-oregon-timber-

heir/story?id=31364199; https://truecrimedaily.com/2017/03/16/the-sweetheart-swindle-rich-

older-bachelor-targeted-by-gypsy-family/;

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/maddux.sgarlata%20sentencing%20memo.pdf

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 10

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Victoria’s Los Gatos Home

31. Plaintiff VICTORIA NELSON, age 73, was happily married for forty years to her

late husband, Raymond Nelson. The couple did not have children. Mr. Nelson passed away in

2010 at age 69. After his death, VICTORIA lived alone in the Los Gatos home they purchased

together in 1979, located at 15545 Benedict Lane, Los Gatos, California 95032.

Victoria’s Los Gatos Home (Source: Google maps)

B. Victoria Meets David in Late 2018

32. In November 2018, VICTORIA met David Sample, age 64, at a coffee shop. The

two soon began dating. David told VICTORIA he was a singer, poet, and published author. The

couple dated for less than one year. VICTORIA would eventually end their relationship because

David continued to have a close relationship with his ex-wife, Jane Sample. David’s relationship

with Jane made VICTORIA uncomfortable. VICTORIA and David argued about his relationship

with his ex-wife on multiple occasions. David was unwilling to accept VICTORIA’s decision to

end their relationship. Around September 2019 he began stalking her, which led VICTORIA to

seek a restraining order against him. David is currently in jail for violating a three-year

restraining order.

C. Defendant Michelle Marks Begins to Instill Fear in Victoria with Lies About A Past

Life and Looming Financial Troubles

33. While they were still dating, David took VICTORIA to Mount Shasta purportedly

to celebrate her birthday. The couple stayed at the Dream Inn Bed & Breakfast in Mount Shasta

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 11

on July 1-5, 2019.

34. During their trip to Mount Shasta, David took VICTORIA to, and near, the main

street in town where numerous vendors were set up on the street, in tents, for a weeklong Fourth

of July festival. Numerous times throughout their stay, David took VICTORIA to peruse the

various vendors along the main street. Each time, the couple would walk by the tent of “Mystic

Michelle,” which was owned and operated by Defendant MICHELLE MARKS, who purported to

be a psychic and spiritual healer. David knew VICTORIA believed in psychics. MICHELLE’s

tent caught VICTORIA’s eye each time she and David walked by.

35. VICTORIA would eventually return to the tent without David, thinking it would

be fun to see what “Mystic Michelle” could tell her about her life and future with David. There

she met Defendants MICHELLE MARKS. MICHELLE introduced VICTORIA to TAMMY.

MICHELLE told VICTORIA that TAMMY was MICHELLE’s mother.

36. MICHELLE MARKS describes herself as an “intuitive life coach & spiritual

healer.” During her initial psychic consultation, like the one VICTORIA would have in Mount

Shasta, MICHELLE claims to be able to get “straight to the major points” her client’s “angel will

be sharing with her.” During the initial session, MICHELLE promises to give her client “clear

direction…[and] a solution, not more questions” a result of her connection with the client’s

“Guardian Angels and Spirit Guides.”6

37. The July day VICTORIA came to her tent in Mount Shasta, MICHELLE

conducted a psychic reading on VICTORIA. During the reading, MICHELLE solicited

information from VICTORIA about VICTORIA’s life and relationship with David. VICTORIA

confided in MICHELLE that David’s relationship with his ex-wife made her uncomfortable.

During the reading, MICHELLE gave VICTORIA a yellow crystal, which she said was meant for

“protection.” MICHELLE told VICTORIA that they would talk more about her life and

relationship with David once VICTORIA returned home to Los Gatos. VICTORIA believes she

paid MICHELLE for the psychic reading with her debit card.

6Mystic Michelle website, https://psychicmysticmichelle.com/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 12

38. When VICTORIA returned to her Los Gatos home, MICHELLE began to call her

every day to discuss VICTORIA’s life and her relationship with David. VICTORIA believed she

had found a new friend in MICHELLE. The two women would meditate together on the phone in

the morning, discuss VICTORIA’s plans for the day, and MICHELLE would often tell

VICTORIA what color clothes she should wear. MICHELLE told VICTORIA she expected

VICTORIA to call her every night to make sure she made it home safe. During their calls,

VICTORIA told MICHELLE about her relationship with David and again shared that David’s

relationship with his ex-wife made her uncomfortable. On a few occasions, VICTORIA drove to

visit MICHELLE near Sacramento. VICTORIA believed MICHELLE was her friend.

VICTORIA thought MICHELLE called her regularly and asked her to come see her near

Sacramento because they were friends. Many months later, VICTORIA would discover that

MICHELLE was secretly charging VICTORIA’s debit card. VICTORIA did not authorize

charges to her debit card.

39. In addition to her concerns about David’s ongoing relationship with his ex-wife,

VICTORIA also told MICHELLE about her finances. During their forty-year marriage,

VICTORIA relied on her late husband to handle the couple’s finances. Since he passed away in

2010, VICTORIA had struggled to keep her finances in order. She had received strange,

threatening calls over the past few months, purporting to be from the “government” regarding a

financial obligation she had failed to meet. She worried that she may have done something

wrong. She confided in MICHELLE that she was worried about her ability to get her finances in

order. MICHELLE told VICTORIA that MICHELLE’s mother, TAMMYS ADAMS, could help

her get her finances in order.

40. On July 19, 2019, a few weeks after they had first met, VICTORIA drove up to see

MICHELLE near Sacramento. During that visit, MICHELLE drove VICTORIA to a Bank of

America in Sacramento so that VICTORIA could withdraw $20,000 to give to MICHELLE. The

money would be used for a trip the two women were to take to the Hawaiian Island of Maui.

MICHELLE had told VICTORIA that they needed to go to Maui so MICHELLE could take

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 13

VICTORIA to specific locations on the island where significant events had transpired in

VICTORIA’s past life with David.

41. VICTORIA withdrew the $20,000 via a cashier’s check. Once the money was

withdrawn, MICHELLE called TAMMY, who instructed her to deposit the money into ANGELO

ADAMS’ bank account. ANGELO is TAMMY’s son and MICHELLE’s husband. Although

VICTORIA did not yet know ANGELO, she had reposed trust and confidence in TAMMY and

MICHELLE, who she believed were her friends and spiritual advisers. TAMMY too claims to

have psychic and spiritual powers. MICHELLE and TAMMY told VICTORIA not to tell anyone

about the $20,000 or the planned trip to Maui. Since their initial meeting in Mount Shasta,

VICTORIA and MICHELLE had spoken each day. Although VICTORIA had only known

MICHELLE for a few weeks, she felt they had become close friends. VICTORIA believed

MICHELLE had psychic and spiritual powers and looked forward to going to Maui with her.

42. VICTORIA and MICHELLE arrived separately in Maui on August 1, 2019. They

planned to stay in Maui for four days. When they arrived on the island, MICHELLE instructed

VICTORIA to rent a car and then meet her at a fancy restaurant. To VICTORIA’s surprise,

ANGELO showed up, purportedly to drive the two women around the island. Instead, ANGELO

and MICHELLE took VICTORIA’s rental car and sent VICTORIA to her hotel in an Uber.

MICHELLE and ANGELO did not stay at the same hotel as VICTORIA and spent limited time

with VICTORIA during the Maui trip. Eventually, however, they would pick VICTORIA up and

take her around the island to specific locations where MICHELLE told VICTORIA significant

events happened during VICTORIA’s past life with David. According to MICHELLE, by

exploring VICTORIA’s past life throughout the island, MICHELLE would give VICTORIA the

information she needed to “fix” her relationship with David. MICHELLE explained to

VICTORIA that the information would come from angels.

43. As they visited various locations throughout the island, MICHELLE told

VICTORIA the story of VICTORIA’s past life with David. MICHELLE took VICTORIA to the

place where VICTORIA and David had fallen in love. Apparently, David’s family was well-off

and VICTORIA’s was poor. VICTORIA and David had planned to run away together, but when

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 14

David did not show up at the designated meeting place on the day of their planned escape,

VICTORIA committed suicide. David arrived late to the meeting location and found

VICTORIA’s body. During the large gathering to celebrate the late VICTORIA’s life, a large

fight broke out between VICTORIA’s family and David. VICTORIA’s brother-in-law punched

David, blaming him for VICTORIA’s death. VICTORIA’s father had a heart attack and died.

44. After leaving Maui, MICHELLE told VICTORIA that angels told her VICTORIA

was in serious financial trouble. MICHELLE told VICTORIA that TAMMY could help with

VICTORIA’s finances. When VICTORIA returned from Maui to her Los Gatos home, she hoped

the information she learned about her past life would help resolve the issues she was having with

David. She also felt it was imperative that she speak to TAMMY about the looming financial

trouble the angels had alerted MICHELLE about.

D. Defendant Tammy Adams Continues to Deceive Victoria and Ultimately Steals Victoria’s Los Gatos Home

45. TAMMY ADAMS is 44 years old. She purports to be a shaman and life coach.

Like her daughter in-law, MICHELLE, TAMMY claims to have the ability to communicate with

angels, spirit guides, and loved ones who have passed away. TAMMY offers her clients spiritual

healing through crystals, mediation, and prayer. She also offers chakra cleansing, psychic

reading, intuitive life coaching, and personalized spiritual retreats.

46. According to her website: TAMMY “[speaks] with your guardian angels and

spirit guides to find you answers” and “was born with the ability to speak with angels and spirit

guides which enables [her] to have intuitive and divine insights guiding others in connecting with

their personal angel or past loved one… It’s now been over 30 years since [TAMMY began using

her abilities] to help others overcome negative blockages, heartbreak, abuse and confusion, find

their personal life purpose and as a medium for spiritual connection with loved ones… [TAMMY

has] had this ability for many lifetimes and [has] been chosen once again in this lifetime, working

[her] hardest to reach and help as many people as possible.”7

7 Asktammyadams.com.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 15

47. On August 30, 2019, MICHELLE told VICTORIA to drive up from Los Gatos and

stay at the Flower Farm Bed and Breakfast in Loomis, California. The two met for lunch at a

restaurant called Mimi’s. This was the last time the two women would see each other.

MICHELLE explained to VICTORIA that she was expecting a baby soon. MICHELLE told

VICTORIA that TAMMY would help her with her finances. MICHELLE said TAMMY helped

clients with their finances all the time. TAMMY then told VICTORIA she would be happy to

help VICTORIA with her finances and with spiritual and psychic guidance. TAMMY told

VICTORIA that she would help her as a friend and that VICTORIA was not a “formal client.”

48. As MICHELLE had done, TAMMY began to correspond with VICTORIA often.

TAMMY began to give VICTORIA spiritual, psychic, legal, and financial advice. TAMMY

claimed to be able to speak to VICTORIA’s dead husband, Raymond Nelson. TAMMY would

relay messages to VICTORIA that TAMMY claimed Raymond wanted VICTORIA to hear. It

did not take long for VICTORIA to feel as though she and TAMMY had become best friends.

VICTORIA trusted TAMMY as her friend and advisor, someone with special psychic abilities

and specialized financial knowledge. TAMMY told VICTORIA she was not a client, which

VICTORIA interpreted as confirmation that the two had become true friends. TAMMY invited

VICTORIA to come and visit her in Granite Bay, California and VICTORIA happily accepted.

49. During their in-person meetings and phone conversations, TAMMY worked to

instill an intense fear and anxiety in VICTORIA through an intricate web of lies. TAMMY used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 16

the information she learned about VICTORIA from MICHELLE to create elaborate stories about

the psychic visions TAMMY had and discussions she had with VICTORIA’s guardian angels.

TAMMY told VICTORIA that the government was going to take VICTORIA’s Los Gatos home

from her for failing to pay ten years of income taxes. This was a lie. TAMMY told VICTORIA

the only way to save her Los Gatos home was to sign it over to TAMMY’s HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION (“HOAF”), a “nonprofit” run by TAMMY and her husband, JIMMY.

50. TAMMY also told VICTORIA that David’s ex-wife, Jane, had put a hex on him,

which was why David could not break ties with Jane. TAMMY also told VICTORIA that

David’s ex-wife was very jealous of her, and that VICTORIA should fear for her life because

David and his ex-wife were dangerous. TAMMY’s warnings terrified VICTORIA.

51. In September 2019, VICTORIA had reposed deep trust and confidence in

TAMMY, who she believed to be her psychic, life coach, spiritual advisor, financial advisor, and

friend. VICTORIA believed TAMMY when she said VICTORIA’s life and liberty were in

danger. VICTORIA felt she needed TAMMY’s protection. Fearing she would lose her home,

VICTORIA signed her Los Gatos home over to TAMMY’s sham HOAF via a grant deed dated

September 23, 2019.

52. Although VICTORIA had transferred her Los Gatos home to the HOAF, TAMMY

told her she could still live at the Los Gatos home until she found a new home in Mount Shasta.

To VICTORIA’s surprise, however, when she arrived at her Los Gatos home one day in late

November/early December, her key did not work, and she could not get inside the house.

VICTORIA was in shock because TAMMY had told her she could return to her Los Gatos home

any time. Because VICTORIA could not get into her Los Gatos home, she went to stay with her

sister in Capitola, California, a thirty-minute drive from her Los Gatos home. As TAMMY

instructed, VICTORIA did not tell her sister about TAMMY or MICHELLE, or that she had

deeded her home to TAMMY’s foundation HOAF.

53. A few days later, VICTORIA would meet TAMMY and TAMMY’s husband,

JIMMY, at the Los Gatos home. TAMMY and JIMMY had told VICTORIA they would help her

“fix” the “broken” lock. TAMMY and JIMMY arranged for a locksmith to come and change the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 17

lock on the back door. David showed up at the Los Gatos home while VICTORIA, TAMMY,

and JIMMY were there dealing with the lock. He had been looking for VICTORIA. He wanted

to talk to VICTORIA about their relationship. David eventually left.

54. Once the locks were changed, TAMMY did not offer to give VICTORIA the new

key to the house. TAMMY told VICTORIA it was unsafe for her to stay at the Los Gatos house

because David had showed up there. TAMMY also told VICTORIA that David’s ex-wife had

placed poisonous snakes and rats in the house. VICTORIA believed TAMMY and continued to

stay with her sister in Capitola.

55. While VICTORIA was living with her sister in Capitola, TAMMY told her not to

speak with Adult Protective Services, which had tried to get ahold of VICTORIA. TAMMY told

VICTORIA that David and his ex-wife were trying to set VICTORIA and TAMMY up by calling

Adult Protective Services on them. TAMMY demanded that VICTORIA give TAMMY her

social security number so that TAMMY could “find out” who called Adult Protective Services.

VICTORIA then gave TAMMY her social security number. TAMMY also told VICTORIA to

erase everything from VICTORIA’s cell phone, including all of the pictures she had from her trip

to Maui with MICHELLE and ANGELO. TAMMY told VICTORIA the State was going to take

her car. TAMMY also obtained VICTORIA’s passport and the engagement ring David had given

her. JIMMY ADAMS obtained and kept VICTORIA’s car keys.

56. By early December 2019, TAMMY had disposed of some of VICTORIA’s

furniture and personal belongings contained inside the Los Gatos home, despite previously telling

VICTORIA she would put all of VICTORIA’s things in storage in Mount Shasta to be retrieved

later.

57. Before VICTORIA transferred her Los Gatos home to HOAF, TAMMY told

VICTORIA the house would be established as a Ronald McDonald Foundation House for sick

children. TAMMY promised to help VICTORIA buy a new home in Mount Shasta. At

TAMMY’s request, VICTORIA appointed her as VICTORIA’s financial power of attorney

(“FPOA”). Once TAMMY became VICTORIA’s FPOA, she attempted to access VICTORIA’s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 18

late husband’s IRA account and VICTORIA’s inheritance from her mother. To date, the Los

Gatos house remains unaffiliated with the Ronald McDonald Foundation.

58. In December 2019, TAMMY told VICTORIA it was no longer safe for

VICTORIA to stay in Capitola with VICTORIA’s sister and that VICTORIA needed to begin to

move up north, towards Mount Shasta. TAMMY convinced VICTORIA to retire from her job as

a kindergarten teacher; a job VICTORIA held for thirty-five years at the same school. TAMMY

had visited the school and told VICTORIA there was negative energy surrounding the school due

to David’s ex-wife, Jane. TAMMY moved VICTORIA into a derelict “safe house” in

Sacramento. TAMMY left VICTORIA there for six weeks. The “safe house” was located in a

dangerous neighborhood. One night, unknown individuals climbed into the backyard. The

intruders left when a neighbor shined a light on them. The intruders broke the fence as they left.

VICTORIA was left completely alone, forced to sleep on a stained mattress on the floor with no

sheets. As TAMMY instructed, VICTORIA did not tell her family where she was.

59. VICTORIA was afraid to leave the “safe house.” The streets outside seemed

dangerous, replete with illegal drug activity, constant yelling, and other suspicious activity. One

day, VICTORIA noticed a man’s body lying on the ground for hours. VICTORIA was terrified.

TAMMY told VICTORIA her feelings about the “safe house” were due to the negativity of

David’s ex-wife, Jane. The house was furnished only with a table and chairs. There was no food

in the house or any basic supplies. VICTORIA was forced to navigate through the dangerous

neighborhood to get food and basic supplies during her six-week stay. She had only brought a

weeks-worth of clothes. Each time she went outside she was scared something bad would happen

to her and her family would not know where she was. VICTORIA stayed at the Sacramento

house because she believed, as TAMMY had told her, that David and his ex-wife wanted to harm

her and that they would find her unless she stayed hidden in the “safe house.”

60. After six weeks alone in the “safe house,” VICTORIA’s niece, Julie Cane came to

her rescue. On Friday, February 21, 2020, Julie drove up to Sacramento from the Bay Area and

rescued VICTORIA. Julie took VICTORIA to stay with her. VICTORIA would eventually tell

Julie what had transpired over the past seven months, including how she had transferred her home

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 19

to TAMMY’s foundation HOAF. Julie is a former Naval Aviator and holds an MBA from

UCLA. Since rescuing VICTORIA from her six-week isolation, Julie has worked diligently to

help VICTORIA put her life back together.

E. Defendants Knowingly Exerted Undue Influence Over Victoria and Victoria Lacked the Capacity to Transfer Her Los Gatos Home and was of Unsound Mind when the Transfer Occurred

1. Undue Influence

61. The Grant Deed executed by VICTORIA on September 23, 2019 (“Grant Deed”),

which purports to transfer ownership of VICTORIA’s Los Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF

ANGELS FOUNDATION, was the direct result of undue influence exerted over VICTORIA by

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS. As detailed above, VICTORIA’s

husband died ten years ago. During their forty-year marriage, VICTORIA relied on her husband

to handle all of their finances. Consequently, she is admittedly inept when it comes to financial

endeavors and transactions. In the few months before she met Defendants, VICTORIA had

received strange, threatening calls, purporting to be from the “government” regarding a financial

obligation she had failed to meet. The calls left VICTORIA perplexed and worried. Defendants

played off of the anxiety VICTORIA felt about the threatening phone calls she had received about

the undisclosed financial obligation she had allegedly failed to meet. Defendant MICHELLE

MARKS ensured that VICTORIA would continue to fear she was in financial trouble when she

was not by telling her that angels had informed MICHELLE that VICTORIA was in serious

financial troubles. Similarly, Defendant TAMMY ADAMS told VICTORIA the State was going

to take VICTORIA’s Los Gatos home from her for failing to pay ten years of income taxes. This

was a lie that TAMMY used to create extreme fear and anxiety in VICTORIA so that she would

give her house over to the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION.

62. Defendants TAMMY AND MICHELLE MARKS also knew VICTORIA had

reposed trust and confidence in them believing they had psychic powers and were experts on

spiritual matters. Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS further knew

VICTORIA believed them when they told her TAMMY had financial expertise and would use her

expertise to help VICTORIA with the financial trouble they told VICTORIA she was in.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 20

TAMMY and MICHELLE knew their lies, misrepresentations, and omissions rendered

VICTORIA vulnerable and subject to influence. Defendants TAMMY and MICHELLE

capitalized on VICTORIA’s weakness to secure increasing control over her and her decisions.

63. On September 23, 2019, VICTORIA executed a Grant Deed, which purported to

transfer her Los Gatos home to TAMMY ADAMS’ and JIMMY ADAMS’ HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION. The September 23, 2019 Grant Deed was the direct result of undue influence

exerted over VICTORIA by Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS.

2. Victoria Lacked the Capacity to Transfer Her Los Gatos Home and Was of Unsound Mind When the Transfer Occurred

64. VICTORIA lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute the September 23,

2019 Grant Deed and transfer her Los Gatos home to the HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION.

When VICTORIA executed the Grant Deed she did so as a result of the undue influence

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS executed over her, and VICTORIA did

not have sufficient mental capacity to understand and appreciate: (a) the rights, duties, and

responsibilities created by, or affected by the decision to transfer her Los Gatos home to

Defendant HOAF; (b) the probable consequences for VICTORIA of transferring her Los Gatos

home to Defendant HOAF; or (c) the significant risks, benefits, and reasonable alternatives to

transferring her Los Gatos home to Defendant HOAF.

65. On September 23, 2019 when 73-year-old VICTORIA executed the Grant Deed,

she was in an extremely vulnerable mental and emotional state due to Defendants TAMMY

ADAMS’ and MICHELLE MARKS’ lies, misrepresentations, and omissions. Among other lies,

Defendants lied to VICTORIA and told her she had failed to pay her incomes taxes for ten years

and as a result the State was going to take her Los Gatos house unless she transferred the home to

Defendant HOAF.

66. When VICTORIA executed the Grant Deed she did so believing she had to in

order to avoid losing her home to the State. When VICTORIA executed the Grant Deed she did

not understand or appreciate that the State was not going to take her Los Gatos house from her

and that she could keep her Los Gatos home. When VICTORIA executed the Grant Deed she did

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 21

not understand that reasonable alternatives existed to resolve any potential tax liability, and that

such alternatives did not involve transferring her home to HOAF or any other third-party. Nor did

VICTORIA understand the probable consequence of transferring her Los Gatos home to

Defendant HOAF meant she would be left homeless and forced to live in isolation away from her

family. Because VICTORIA did not understand or appreciate the reality of the circumstances

surrounding the execution of the Grant Deed, she did not have the requisite mental capacity to

execute the Grant Deed and transfer her Los Gatos home to Defendant HOAF.

67. Similarly, due to Defendant TAMMY ADAMS’ and MICHELLE’s ADAMS lies,

misrepresentations, and omissions, and the trust and confidence that VICTORIA placed in

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS as a direct result of their lies,

misrepresentations, and omissions, VICTORIA was unable to resist Defendants’ fraud and undue

influence. Consequently, VICTORIA was of unsound mind when she executed the Grant Deed.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

QUIET TITLE AND FOR CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS

(Against All Defendants)

68. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.

69. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title and for cancellation of instruments purporting to

transfer the following real property to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION: 15545

Benedict Lane, Los Gatos, California 95032, also known as: TRACT 391 CHIRCO SUBD

BOOK 15 PAGE 13 LOT 25; A.P.N. 424-20-008.

70. The Grant Deed that VICTORIA NELSON executed on September 23, 2019,

which purports to transfer ownership of 15545 Benedict Lane, Los Gatos, California 95032 from

VICTORIA NELSON (“Grant Deed”), the Affidavit of Death filed on September 23, 2019

(Document Number 24286590), which purports to transfer the late Raymond Nelson’s rights as

joint tenant (“Affidavit of Death”), and the Financial Power of Attorney (“FPOA”), which

purports to grant TAMMY ADAMS the power to act on VICTORIA’s behalf in financial matters,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 22

should be declared void as the alleged execution of the Grant Deed, Affidavit of Death, and

FPOA were procured by fraud, undue influence, and fiduciary abuse. Plaintiff did not have the

requisite capacity to execute these documents and/or was of unsound mind when she allegedly

executed the documents. Any assignment or encumbrance of said real property should therefore

be declared void, and title should remain in the purported grantor—Plaintiff. Moreover,

Defendants, including Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION, are not bona fide

purchasers of encumbrancers. Defendants knew/know the Grant Deed, Affidavit of Death, and

FPOA were procured by fraud, undue influence, and fiduciary abuse, and that Defendants,

including Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION, had/have no right in 15545

Benedict Lane, Los Gatos, California 95032, also known as: TRACT 391 CHIRCO SUBD

BOOK 15 PAGE 13 LOT 25; A.P.N. 424-20-008.

71. Defendants have given nothing of value to Plaintiff, and/or the damages sustained

by Plaintiff exceed the value of any benefit that might be restored.

72. Because the failure to cancel the Grant Deed, Affidavit of Death, and FPOA would

cause serious injury to Plaintiff, each document should be canceled pursuant to California Civil

Code section 3412.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE

California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq.




74. This cause of action is brought pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code

sections 15600 et seq. (The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act.)

75. At the time of the appropriation of Plaintiff’s Los Gatos home, as herein alleged,

Plaintiff resided in California and was more than 65 years of age, and was, therefore, an “Elder”

as defined by California Welfare and Instructions Code section 15610.27 and is entitled to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 23

statutory protections from financial abuse provided by California Welfare and Institutions Code

sections 15610.07 and 15610.30.

76. Defendants are responsible for financial elder abuse under Sections 15610.30 et

seq. of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act.

77. Defendants are responsible for taking, secreting, appropriating, and/or retaining

Plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to her Los Gatos home, household possessions, and

money, for a wrongful use or with the intent to defraud.

78. Defendants are responsible for taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining and/or

retaining Plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to her Los Gatos home, household

possessions, and money, by undue influence as defined in California Welfare and Institutions

Code section 15610.70.

79. Defendants can be deemed to have taken, secreted, appropriated, obtained and/or

retained Plaintiff’s property for wrongful use or with the intent to defraud, because Defendants

knew, or should have known, that their conduct was likely to be harmful to Plaintiff due to

Plaintiff’s vulnerable mental and emotional state, and consequent susceptibility to Defendants’

undue influence and inability to adequately protect her property rights.

80. Plaintiff was deprived of her property rights by means of the purported Grant

Deed, which purports to transfer ownership in Plaintiff’s Los Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE

OF ANGELS FOUNDATION, the Financial Power of Attorney, which purports to grant

TAMMY ADAMS the power to act on VICTORIA’s behalf in financial matters, and the

Affidavit of Death, which purports to transfer/extinguish the joint tenancy held by Plaintiff’s late

husband.

81. Defendants MICHELLE MARKS and TAMMY ADAMS, at all relevant times,

had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff in that they were the psychic, spiritual, and/or financial advisors

to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants MICHELLE MARKS and

TAMMY ADAMS abused their position of trust and breached their fiduciary duty by inducing

and/or otherwise wrongfully procuring the purported Grant Deed, Affidavit of Death, and

Financial Power of Attorney.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 24

82. Defendants were aware, at the time Defendants wrongfully procured the Grant

Deed and Affidavit of Death, that Plaintiff was in an extremely vulnerable mental and emotional

state and was therefore susceptible to their undue influence and incapable of protecting her

property rights, and that Plaintiff was over the age of 65.

83. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has sustained and

will sustain substantial economic losses and other general and specific damages all in an amount

to be determined according to proof.

84. Defendants are responsible for taking, secreting, appropriating, and/or retaining

Plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to her Los Gatos home, household possessions, and

money when Plaintiff lacked capacity pursuant to Section 812 of the Probate Code and/or was of

unsound mind pursuant to Section 39 of the Civil Code. Accordingly, Plaintiff demands, and

Defendants must, return Plaintiff’s property, including but not limited to her Los Gatos home,

household possessions, and money. If Defendants fail to return Plaintiff’s property, by reason of

such failure, Plaintiff shall be entitled to the remedies provided by Welfare and Institutions Code

section 15657.5, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

85. The actions taken by Defendants as set forth above were in all respects reckless,

malicious, willful and oppressive, and manifested either disregard or contempt for the rights of

Plaintiff. Defendants were fully cognizant of the fiduciary position of trust in which Defendants

MICHELLE MARKS and TAMMY ADAMS stood. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an award of

punitive and exemplary damages as well as attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions

Code section 15657, and pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, in an amount according to proof at

the time of trial.

86. As the subject transactions involved a senior citizen, Plaintiff is further entitled to

treble damages and penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 3345 because Defendants knew or

should have known that their conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens.

/././

/././

/././

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 25

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

PHYSICAL ELDER ABUSE

California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15600 et seq.




88. This cause of action is brought pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions

Code sections 15600 et seq. (The Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Protection Act).

89. At the time of Defendants’ wrongful acts, as herein alleged, Plaintiff resided in

California and was more than 65 years of age and was, therefore, an “Elder” as defined by

California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.27. As such, Plaintiff was entitled to the

statutory protections from abuse provided by Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.07.

Defendants knew Plaintiff was an elder.

90. By their actions, Defendants are responsible for elder abuse because of their

treatment of Plaintiff, as described above, including their use of fear and deception to keep

Plaintiff for weeks in the Sacramento “safe house” with only a bare stained mattress, minimal

furniture, and no food. Defendants’ wrongful acts were done while Plaintiff was under

Defendants’ care and while Defendants were acting as Plaintiff’s care custodians. Through their

wrongful acts, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of goods or services necessary to avoid physical

harm or mental suffering, and Defendants’ actions resulted in physical harm and/or pain and/or

mental suffering to Plaintiff in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.07(a)(1)-

(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies provided by the Elder Abuse Act.

91. As a legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages, including

general and economic damages, including mental distress, in an amount according to proof at

trial.

92. In committing the actions and conduct described above, Defendants, and each of

them, acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and malice, and Plaintiff therefore is entitled to

an award of exemplary or punitive damages including pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 26

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD AND DECEIT




94. As alleged in detail above, Defendants TAMMY ADAMS, MICHELLE MARKS,

and HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION fraudulently induced Plaintiff to transfer her Los

Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION and pay them for psychic and

spiritual services by making false and material misrepresentations, and/or concealing important

information and facts. These Defendants also induced Plaintiff to retire from her job of thirty-five

years by convincing her, through misrepresentations and omissions, that her life was in danger

and that, therefore, she needed to relocate to Mount Shasta, which meant she could no longer

work as a teacher at the school she loved and worked at for thirty-five years.

95. Defendants TAMMY ADAMS, MICHELLE MARKS, and HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION were under a duty to disclose all material facts to Plaintiff based on the

relationship that existed between these Defendants and Plaintiff and under a similar duty not to

misrepresent or conceal important facts.

96. Before Defendants TAMMY ADAMS, MICHELLE MARKS, and HOUSE OF

ANGELS FOUNDATION presented Plaintiff with the property transfer documents, they

knowingly lied to her, telling her that: (1) the State of California would take her Los Gatos home

from her for failing to pay her income taxes, unless she transferred her Los Gatos home to

Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION; (2) Defendant TAMMY ADAMS would help

Plaintiff purchase a new home in Mount Shasta; and (3) that Plaintiff’s life was in danger.

Plaintiff would not have transferred her Los Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION if Defendants TAMMY ADAMS, MICHELLE MARKS, and HOUSE OF

ANGELS FOUNDATION had not told Plaintiff these lies. Plaintiff also would not have granted

TAMMY ADAMS a Financial Power of Attorney if Defendants had not told Plaintiff these lies.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 27

Plaintiff also would not have retired from her teaching job if Defendants had not told Plaintiff

these lies.

97. Each Defendant knew or should have known of the other Defendants actions and

were therefore complicit in them.

98. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has sustained

and will sustain substantial economic losses and other general and specific damages. These

damages include, inter alia, the loss of her Los Gatos home, lost money, and emotional distress,

all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

99. The actions taken by Defendants as set forth above were in all respects malicious,

willful, and oppressive, and manifested either disregard or contempt for the rights of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount

according to proof at time of trial.

100. As the subject transactions involved a California resident who at all times relevant

to the complaint was a senior citizen, Plaintiff is further entitled to treble damages and penalties

pursuant to Civil Code section 3345 because Defendants knew or should have known that their

conduct was directed to one or more senior citizens.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION




102. Defendants made the representations and omissions alleged above knowing that

they had no reasonable grounds to believe that the State of California, or any other entity,

intended to take Plaintiff’s Los Gatos home for failing to pay her income taxes. Therefore, in

making the representations and omissions alleged above, Defendants acted without reasonable

grounds for believing the representations were true and intended by such representations to induce

Plaintiff to transfer her Los Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATATION.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 28

103. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations in transferring her Los

Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS FOUNDATION. This reliance was justified

because Plaintiff was unaware of the true facts, and if the true facts had been known to Plaintiff,

she would not have transferred her Los Gatos home to Defendant HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION.











SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY




108. Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence in Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and

MICHELLE MARKS, who she believed to be her psychic, spiritual, and financial advisors, and

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS accepted the trust and confidence

Plaintiff reposed in them. As such, a confidential relationship existed between Plaintiff and

Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS such that they owed Plaintiff a

fiduciary duty, in which Plaintiff was entitled to their trust, confidence, integrity, and fidelity.

109. In performing the acts and omissions outlined above, Defendants TAMMY

ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff. Among other

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 29

things, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, these Defendants knowingly exerted

undue influence over Plaintiff in order to obtain the purported Grant Deed, Financial Power of

Attorney, and Affidavit of Death, and ultimately appropriate Plaintiff’s Los Gatos home.







112. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and/or

fraud; acted despicably and with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and welfare of

Plaintiff; and are liable under Civil Code sections 3294 and 3345 for exemplary, punitive, and

treble damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD




114. Defendants knew of the fraudulent scheme alleged above and knowingly

substantially assisted in the commission of the fraudulent scheme.

115. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ substantial assistance, Plaintiff has

sustained and will sustain substantial economic losses and other general and specific damages.

These damages include, inter alia, the loss of her Los Gatos home, lost money, and emotional

distress, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

116. The actions taken by Defendants as set forth above were in all respects malicious,

willful, and oppressive, and manifested either disregard or contempt for the rights of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount

according to proof at time of trial.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 30





EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY




119. Defendants JIMMY ADAMS, ANGELO ADAMS, and HOUSE OF ANGELS

FOUNDATION knew Defendants TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS breached their

fiduciary duties to Plaintiff as alleged above, and knowingly and substantially assisted Defendants

TAMMY ADAMS and MICHELLE MARKS in breaching their fiduciary duties owed to

Plaintiff.

120. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ substantial assistance, Plaintiff has

sustained and will sustain substantial economic losses and other general and specific damages.

These damages include, inter alia, the loss of her Los Gatos home, lost money, and emotional

distress, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

121. In doing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and/or

fraud; acted despicably and with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and welfare of

Plaintiff; and is liable under Civil Code sections 3294 and 3345 for exemplary, punitive, and

treble damages.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACITON

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 31

123. By their wrongful conduct, as set forth above, Defendants, and each of them,

engaged in unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent acts in violation of California Business and

Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.

124. Defendants’ practices were unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices

for the reasons set forth below, without limitation:

(a) Defendants’ acts and practices violated sections 15600 et seq. of the California

Welfare and Institutions Code;

(b) Defendants’ acts and practices constitute fraud and deceit and breach of fiduciary

duty;

(c) Defendants’ acts and practices were unfair in that they offend public policy as

expressed in statutes and regulations, and are unscrupulous;

(d) Defendants’ acts and practices caused injury to Plaintiff.

125. Plaintiff seeks restitution from Defendants, and each of them, as a result of their

unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business acts or practices.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL CONSPIRACY




127. On or about July of 2019 through the present, Defendants agreed and combined to

engage in a conspiracy. Defendants targeted Plaintiff because of her age and vulnerabilities, and

combined efforts to cultivate a false sense of trust and friendship with Plaintiff and to leverage

that relationship to cause Plaintiff to spend many months scared for her life due to Defendants’

deception. Defendants agreed to enact the scheme described herein to use fraud and undue

influence to take the Los Gatos home Plaintiff owned and lived in for forty years, all of her

possessions, and substantial sums from her bank accounts.

128. Defendants, and each of them, agreed and/or combined to engage in a civil

conspiracy to commit the unlawful acts as described in this complaint, including, but not limited

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES

COTCHETT, PITRE

& MCCARTHY, LLP

COMPLAINT 32

to, the fraudulent taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining and/or retaining Plaintiff’s property,

including but not limited to her Los Gatos home, household possessions, and money, by undue

influence.

129. Defendants, and each one of them, combined to engage in a civil conspiracy of

which the principal element was to inflict wrongs against and/or injury on Plaintiff as described in

this complaint. Defendants, and each of them, understood, accepted, and/or explicitly and/or

implicitly agreed to the general objectives of their scheme to inflict the wrongs against and/or

injury on Plaintiff as described in this complaint. Defendants, and each of them of them,

acquired, possessed, and maintained a general knowledge of the conspiracy’s objectives to inflict

wrongs against and/or injury on plaintiff as described in this complaint. Defendants, and each of

them, combined to engage in a scheme that was intended to violate the law and concealed and

secreted the scheme. Defendants, each and every one of them, combined to engage in a scheme

that was intended to violate the rights of Plaintiff.

129. In committing the acts described above, Defendants acted with malice toward

Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages, as well as

attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code section 3294, in an amount according to proof at the time

of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment in her favor against Defendants as follows:

i. General and special compensatory damages according to proof;

ii. For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof;

iii. For treble damages and penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 3345;

iv. For restitution, in an amount according to proof at trial;

v. For disgorgement, in an amount according to proof at trial;

vi. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest upon such judgment at the

maximum rate provided by law;

vii. Reasonable costs of suit;

Documents

E-FILED 4/16/2020 10:02 PM 1 ANNE MARIE MURPHY ......2020/04/16 · psychic services of “Mystic Michelle.” MICHELLE MARKS, age 27, had set up her tent off the main street to offer