fShare
18

{socialbuttons}

document here : https://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jackson2901-signed.pdf

It's the Estate's request for a demmurrer of Safechuck's case. It does not contain Safechuck's lawsuit, but it does refer to some elements of it so we can learn from it:

- Safechuck alleges MJ molested him between 1988 and 1991.
- Safechuck admits he learnt about MJ's death shortly after he died and he was aware of his Estate. (No "I had no idea 
about the administration of the Estate" claim here as in Robson's claims.) 
- He learnt about Robson's allegations shortly after May 1, 2013. 
- Safechuck's lawyer, Maryann Marzano (same as Robson's lawyer) said in their lawsuit that she's been working on Safechuck's case 8 months before they filed in May, 2014. Which would mean she's been working on it since September, 2013. 
- He claims he did not testify in 2005 because he was concerned his mother would find out he was sexually abused by MJ. He 
claims regardless ultimately he told his mother in 2005 that MJ was a "bad man" and that he "had been abused by MJ". 
- He claims he did not initially connect various anxiety issues he suffered to the alleged abuse until mid-2013.
- He claims he became concerned about having pedophilic urges when his son was born and that he was prescribed Xanax during his wife's pregnancy in 2010. 
- He claims he did not link these anxiety issues to his alleged abuse until he saw Robson in 2013 and went into therapy on May 20, 2013, discussing the alleged abuse.

They have a different strategy as with Robson. Safechuck admits knowing about the Estate since 2009, and does not claim he was unwilling or unable to realize his alleged abuse until shortly before he filed, he does not claim repressed memories etc. He claims though that he did not connect his anxiety issues to his alleged abuse until he went to therapy in May 2013. 

They have no chance with probate court law (having to file 60 days after learning about the Estate or the facts supporting the claim), so they rely on equitable estoppel. However they apparently present a brand new equitable estoppel theory that has never been used in courts before. Estate says they have found no case supporting the application of estoppel the way Safechuck tries to. Equitable estoppel, according to the Estate argument, could only be applied in this case if it was a result of the conduct of the Executors or Befeficiaries, not the Decendent's (equitable estoppel could have only been used because of the Decendent's alleged conduct within one year of his death). 

Safechuck claims MJ's conduct is the reason why he did not connect the alleged harm to the alleged abuse until mid-2013. Apparently the claim is that MJ manipulated him to believe that he was "in love with [MJ] and [MJ] had done nothing wrong" (actually this is a quote from a precedent case, but the document says Safechuck claims the same thing). And Safechuck claims he's realized the "truth" that he's been a victim of sexual abuse only after therapy in 2013. (How does it jive with his other claim that he told his mother in 2005? Or that he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010? If he thought it was love until mid-2013 why was he concerned about that?) 

However, argues the Estate, this would be the case of delayed discovery, not equitable estoppel and delayed discovery is irrelevant here, because in case of delayed discovery he should have filed his lawsuit 60 days within acquiring knowledge about the connection between his psychological harms and the alleged abuse. 



Also:
 

 
"Safechuck spends the majority of legal argument on the contention that the policy considerations behind CCP 340.1 somehow "estop" the Executors from relying on the applicable deadlines.
The plain language of 340.1., however, confirms that it has no application to these proceedings."

Then they cite precedent cases where it's quiet clearly stated if the creators of a law intended to state something in a law then they would have done so. There is no support in Court practice for interpreting things into laws which aren't there. At least that's how I understand this argument.

Then the Estate asks for the dismissal of Safechuck's late claim.

Note: Above summary is done by OTW.