Date: 04-28-2015

Case Style: Ron H. Dingman v. Maureen Howard Long, individually, and as Trustee and Trustor of Camelot Trust

Case Number: CJ-2013-5452

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Bill Grimm

Defendant's Attorney: No appearance

Description: Tulsa, OK - Ron H. Dingman sued Maureen Howard Long, individually, and as Trustee and Trustor of Camelot Trust on a fraud and deceit theories claiming:

1. Mr. Dingman is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2 Ms Long is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma
3 The Camelot Trust is an express private trust with assets in Tulsa County,
Oklahoma
4 The real property that is the subject matter of this action is described as
The East 200 feet of the West 730 feet of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (S/2 SE/4 NW/4) of Section Eight (8), Township Seventeen (17) North, Range Thirteen (13) East of the Indian Base and Meridian, County of Tulsa, state of Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, consisting of 2.89 acres, more or less (“the Property”).
5. The events giving rise to this dispute occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011, § 2004(F) and venue is properhereinpursuantto 12 O.S. 2011 § 131 & 148.
6. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 pursuant to 12 O.S. 2009 § 2008 (A)(2).
Statement of Facts
7. Mr. Dingman is a 65 year old man who is functionally illiterate due to his limited reading and writing skills which are inadequate to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level due to his limited elementary education.
8. Ms. Long is the founder and administrator of Camelot Cancer Care Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, where she functioned as a treatment coordinator in the field of Alternative Medicine specializing in alternative cancer care.
9. Mr. Dingman and Ms. Long were long-time personal friends.
10. On October 15, 1999, Mr. Dingman acquired the Property and paid to have improvements made thereon, including a structure erected on the Property. Mr. Dingman used the structure to store his worldly possessions while he traveled outside the state.
11. On or about January 30, 2007, Mr. Dingman was admitted to Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital in California for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Thereafter, he underwent surgery to have a shunt placed into the right ventricle of his brain due to injury caused during the accident. Mr. Dingman remained in California for several months thereafter to recover from his surgery.
12. In early 2008, Mr. Dingman returned to his hometown of Tulsa at the invitation of Ms. Long, who agreed to assist Mr. Dingman with his convalescence during his extended recovery and on-going medical issues on a rent-free basis. Mr. Dingman assisted with household duties while Ms. Long was at work. During his recovery at Ms. Long’s home, Mr. Dingman began to suffer from dizziness and memory loss as a result of the shunt in his head.
13. On or about October 7, 2008, Ms. Long, keenly aware of his deteriorating mental condition in his recovery process, advised Mr. Dingman to execute a durable General Power of Attorney (“POA”), naming her as his attorney-in-fact to handle his medical needs. A copy of the POA is attached as Exhibit “A” hereto.
14. Contemporaneous therewith, Ms. Long advised Mr. Dingman to execute a quit-claim deed (“Deed”) transferring the Property to the Camelot Trust, by representing to him that it was necessary to sign the Deed if he wanted to protect his Property while he continued to recover. A copy of the Deed is attached as Exhibit “B” hereto.
15. On or about January 19. 2009, Mr. Dingman began receiving financial aid from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for assistance with health services for his medical condition.
16. On July 21, 2009, Ms. Long, as attorney-in-fact and using the POA, admitted Mr. Dingman to Oklahoma State University Medical Center (“OSU Medical”) for an evaluation of his mental status caused by the shunt in his brain. During the admission process, Ms. Long provided a medical history and claimed Mr. Dingman had an altered mental status caused by HIV dementia which had worsened over the past several weeks. Additionally, Ms. Long stated that Mr. Dingman was unable to take care of himself and no longer welcome in her home. As a result, physicians at OSU Medical diagnosed Mr. Dingman incompetent to make decisions regarding his health.
17. Shortly thereafter, on July 28, 2009, Mr. Dingman was transferred from OSU Medical to Hillcrest Medical Center (“Hillcrest”) for neurosurgical evaluation. Again, using the POA, Ms. Long provided a medical history and stated that Mr. Dingman was in need of hospice care as he was dying and had become a financial burden to her. She requested some source of state funding for future care and the matter was referred to DHS for financial assistance with health services. While at Hillcrest the shunt in Mr. Dingman’s brain was adjusted.
18. On August 6, 2009, Mr. Dingman was discharged from Hillcrest and admitted to Lakeside Care LLC d/b/a Oakdale Manor in Sand Springs, Oklahoma (“Oakdale”) for long term care. Again, Ms. Long, using the POA, provided a medical history during admission to Oakdale that Mr. Dingman suffered from HIV dementia and behavior disturbances which required his permanent institutionalization. As a result, Mr. Dingman was keep under 24-hour observation as a suicide risk and administered daily doses of antipsychotic drugs to prevent him from leaving Oakdale.
19. On September 8, 2009, Mr. Dingman was transferred from Oakdale to the emergency room at Hillcrest due to complications of the shunt revision. Shortly thereafter, the shunt was removed from his brain and he remained at Hillcrest to convalesce.
20. On September 18, 2009, Mr. Dingman was transferred via ambulance from Hillcrest to North Winds Living Center in Oklahoma City (“North Winds”). While at North Winds, Mr. Dingman continued to receive daily doses of antipsychotic drugs. Mr. Dingman remained at North Winds in secured care status until October 12, 2011, when he was transferred to Heritage Manor Nursing Center in Oklahoma City (“Heritage”) for an additional seven months. Finally, after almost three (3) years of institutionalized care, Mr. Dingman was discharged from Heritage on April 22, 2012.
21. During the course of his institutionalization from July 21, 2009 thru April 22, 2012 at various hospitals and nursing home facilities hereinbefore described, Mr. Dingman received several written communications from Ms. Long claiming that she was “paying your taxes and paying for brush hogging your land” (i.e the Property) and “paid the taxes on the 3 acres to keep holding open that hope for the future for you.” See Exhibits “C” & “D” attached hereto.
22. However, unbeknownst to Mr. Dingman and while he was institutionalized at North Winds, on December 11, 2009, Ms. Long filed the Deed with the Tulsa County Clerk reporting documentary stamps in the sum of Thirty-One Thousand Dollars ($3 1,000) as consideration allegedly paid to Mr. Dingman for the transfer of his Property. However, Ms. Long paid nothing to Mr. Dingman as consideration for the Property and the recorded Deed is a sham deed secured by false representations.
23. On or about October 18, 2012, upon learning that Mr. Dingman had been released from Heritage, Ms. Long, as trustee for the Camelot Trust, conveyed the Property by quit claim deed to a third party for the alleged consideration of Forty-Four Thousand Dollars ($44,000). Mr. Dingman has not received any of the proceeds from this sale or an accounting of any funds.
24. Shortly thereafter, on October 22, 2012, Ms. Long wrote Mr. Dingman demanding that he remove his personal property from the structure erected on the Property within ninety (90) days. Upon opening the structure, Mr. Dingman first learned that much of his personal property was gone from the structure without explanation.
First Cause of Action — Fraud & Deceit
For his first cause of action, Mr. Dingman adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-24.
25. During the course of the discussions and communications mentioned above, Ms. Long represented to Mr. Dingman that he needed to sign the Deed to her in order to receive medical attention and she would hold the Deed until he recovered.
26. The representations mentioned above were false when Ms. Long made them, in that Ms. Long intended to sell the Property and the Deed was in no way connected to Mr. Dingman’s continued medical attention.
27. Ms. Long knew the representations mentioned above were false when she made them and made the representations with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
28. Ms. Long made the representations mentioned above with the intent and for the purpose of deceiving Mr. Dingman and to induce him into relying on the representations.
29. Mr. Dingman, in reliance on the representations mentioned above, was induced to sign the Deed.
30. Mr. Dingman’s reliance on the representations mentioned above was reasonable under the circumstances.
31. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant as described above, Mr. Dingman has lost his interest in his Property to his damage in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
32. The actions of defendant were willful and wanton, or in reckless disregard of Mr. Dingman’s rights, and entitle Mr. Dingman to punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
Second Cause of Action -- Constructive Fraud
For his second cause of action, Mr. Dingman adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-32.
33. During the course of the discussions and communications mentioned above, Ms. Long represented to Mr. Dingman that she would simply hold onto the Deed until Mr. Dingman could leave the Oakdale nursing home facility.
34. Ms. Long, by virtue of the power of attorney, owed a fiduciary duty of full disclosure and fair dealing to explain the true nature of the transaction to Mr. Dingman.
35. Ms. Long intentionally misstated and failed to disclose why she wanted Mr. Dingman to sign the Deed.
36. Ms. Long’s misstatement was material to Mr. Dingman signing the Deed.
37. Mr. Dingman relied on Ms. Long’s misstatement in signing the Deed.
38. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendant as described above, Mr. Dingman has lost his interest in his property to his damage in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
39. The actions of defendant were willful and wanton, or in reckless disregard of Mr. Dingman’s rights, and entitle Mr. Dingman to punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
Third Cause of Action — Conversion of Personal Property
For his third cause of action, Mr. Dingman adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-39.
40. Ms. Long was entrusted with Mr. Dingman’s personal property located at the Property. Ms. Long used the personal property to further her own interest or unnecessarily disposed of the same without Mr. Dingman’s express consent. In doing so, she knowingly and willfully converted valuable personal property of Mr. Dingman at his expense. Moreover,
Ms. Long exercised wrongful dominion, control, and use of the personal property without the consent of Mr. Dingman and responsible for its loss.
41. The actions of Ms. Long have damaged Mr. Dingman in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
42. The actions of Ms. Long were willful and wanton, or in reckless disregard of Mr. Dingman’s rights, and entitle Mr. Dingman to punitive damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
Fourth Cause of Action — Breach of Fiduciary Duty
For his fourth cause of action, Mr. Dingman adopts, restates, and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-42.
43. Ms. Long acting as Mr. Dingman’s attorney-in-fact stood in a fiduciary relationship to Mr. Dingman. Ms. Long owed a duty to Mr. Dingman to act in his best interests and protect his Property and personal property located thereat.
44. Ms. Long breached her fiduciary duty to Mr. Dingman through the conduct described herein, and acted in a manner adverse to his rights and interests.
45. As a result of this breach of duty of trust and duties of due care, loyalty, and good faith, the burden of proving the fairness of their actions is placed upon defendant as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ron Dingman, prays that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant, Maureen Long, for actual damages in an amount in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), together with punitive damages in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff prays for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Outcome: Default judgment for $101,317.23.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: