June, 2026
Washington — Over the past several years, I've been working on good public policy causes that sorely needed attention, as explained from time to time in previous "Three Capitals" blog posts. Those causes sometimes have led to litigation as a part of advocacy, in which I was either an advisor or a plaintiff.
In this and subsequent blog posts, I'll summarize and update these efforts with the assistance of AI. (In all cases I have fact-checked AI and to the best of my knowledge the information is accurate.)
Part I deals with a successful effort to protect the elderly from financial exploitation.
Question of AI: In Maryland, what was the Vess v. Price case and what new legal protections for elderly victims of financial abuse came out of it?
The Vess v. Price Case
In Maryland, In re Estate of Howard Lewis Vess v. Price (2017) was a prominent estate battle that exposed severe gaps in how the state handles elder financial exploitation. [1]
- The Conflict: Howard Lewis Vess, an elderly resident, intended to leave his estate entirely to favorite charities. However, his long-time financial advisor, Robert Price, allegedly established a confidential relationship and emerged as the primary beneficiary in a revised will. [1, 2]
- The Standing Bottleneck: Vess's niece, Claudia Vess, challenged the new will on the grounds of undue influence. Because she was acting purely out of public policy concerns—and was not a named heir in the original charitable will—the Appellate Court of Maryland struggled with whether she possessed the legal "standing" to fight the advisor. [1]
- The Gaps Revealed: The case proved that under old Maryland laws, if a senior had no family heirs because they left their estate to charity, a predatory advisor could manipulate their estate plans. If the family lacked legal standing to intervene, the exploitation could succeed completely unchecked. [1]
Who Created the New Legal Protections?
The effort to turn the lessons of Vess v. Price into concrete legal safeguards was driven by a coalition of grassroots advocates, lawmakers, and state departments:
- Claudia Vess (Grassroots Advocate): Following her uncle's case, Claudia Vess became a vocal advocate. She provided powerful testimony to the General Assembly regarding the regulatory failures of state insurance and financial watchdog agencies, keeping the case in the legislative spotlight. [1]
- The Maryland General Assembly: State lawmakers responded to these structural gaps by introducing and unanimously passing the Maryland SAFE Act (Statute Against Financial Exploitation), which went into effect on October 1, 2021. [1]
- The Maryland Department of Human Services & Attorney General: Agencies like Maryland's Project SAFE and the Office of the Attorney General were instrumental in shaping the frameworks that allow state officials or authorized representatives to initiate civil actions against exploiters. [1, 2]
- The Banking Sector & Judiciary (2026 Update): Building upon the momentum of elder advocacy, the General Assembly passed the Vulnerable Adult Banking Protection Act, which allows financial institutions to freeze accounts and delay disbursements when they suspect financial exploitation. [1, 2]
Question of AI: How has the SAFE Act been enforced and what evidence shows that it is working?
The Maryland SAFE Act (Statute Against Financial Exploitation) is enforced primarily through private civil litigation and state agency actions. Evidence of its efficacy is found in substantial jury verdicts, clarified judicial precedents, and a shift in how financial institutions freeze suspicious assets. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Mechanisms of Enforcement
Unlike older laws that relied solely on overstretched criminal prosecutors, the SAFE Act decentralizes enforcement: [1]
- Private Right of Action: Victims aged 68 and older, or "susceptible adults," can sue exploiters directly in civil court.
- Proxy Enforcement: Legal guardians, trustees, family members, and heirs can file a civil suit on the victim's behalf.
- Attorney General Intervention: The Maryland Office of the Attorney General has the authority to independently prosecute civil claims against systemic predators. [1, 2]
Evidence That the Act Is Working
1. High-Value Jury Verdicts and Damages
The financial teeth of the Act—specifically the provision allowing courts to award up to triple (treble) damages and recover attorney’s fees—have successfully incentivized private firms to take on elder abuse cases. [1, 2]
- Example Case: In a notable December 2023 verdict, a jury awarded $472,000 under the SAFE Act to an 87-year-old Maryland woman with dementia. Her former Power of Attorney had financially exploited her, and the new statutory framework allowed her legal team to claw back the funds and hold the perpetrator accountable. [1, 2]
2. Lower Legal Hurdles to Hold Predators Accountable [1]
Historically, proving elder financial abuse required meeting a high standard of proof or proving a criminal intent.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: In appellate decisions like William Bailey, Sr. v. Jamia Happer (2026), Maryland courts confirmed that a SAFE Act claim only requires a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. [1]
- Course of Conduct Review: The same ruling established that courts can look at a predator’s entire course of conduct, including manipulative behaviors that started before the Act went into effect, making it much easier to build a successful case. [1]
3. Expanded Statute of Limitations
Predators often isolate seniors so that the abuse goes undetected for years. The SAFE Act successfully captures these cases by allowing victims to bring forward lawsuits up to 5 years after they discover the exploitation, or 1 year after the conclusion of related criminal actions. [1, 2]
4. Catalyzing Preventive Banking Enforcement [1]
The success of the SAFE Act exposed a remaining bottleneck: by the time a civil lawsuit is filed, the senior's money is often already gone. This realization directly prompted the General Assembly to pass the Vulnerable Adult Banking Protection Act. Banks and credit unions now use the legal definitions established by the SAFE Act to temporarily pause suspicious transactions before funds can be wired away by scammers.
