Silliman

INTRODUCTION

Russell Silliman contended his son and daughter-in-law, Dean C. Silliman and Kylene Silliman, misappropriated his money and real property. 1 Following a bench trial on the equitable causes of action in Russell’s complaint, the trial court found Russell and Dean had entered into an oral partnership agreement, by virtue of which they owed a fiduciary duty to each other, and that the real properties at issue were owned by the partnership. The court also found that Dean had not breached his fiduciary duty to Russell. The court therefore found in favor of Dean and Kylene, and against Russell, on all equitable causes of action. Following the bench trial, the court entered judgment on several legal causes of action, concluding that Russell could not establish those causes of action in light of the findings made in connection with the equitable causes of action. The court also sustained Dean and Kylene’s demurrer to the remaining legal causes of action, and denied Russell leave to file an amended complaint. On appeal, Russell argues the trial court erred by entering judgment on the legal claim for elder financial abuse. The court properly concluded Russell could not…