Lepe v. F.M. Tarbell Co. CA4/2 (2016) · DecisionDepot
Lepe v. F.M. Tarbell Co. CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2016 No. E059779Unpublished
Filed 1/5/16 Lepe v. F.M. Tarbell Co. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
JORGE LEPE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E059779
v. (Super.Ct.No. MCC1300622)
F.M. TARBELL CO. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
JORGE LEPE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E060632
v. OPINION
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Edward D. Webster
(retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art.
VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Craig G. Riemer and Gordon R. Burkhart, Judges. Affirmed.
1
Jorge Lepe, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Prenovost, Normandin, Bergh & Dawe and Benjamin K. Griffin for Defendants
and Respondents F.M. Tarbell, Co., et al.
Reed Smith, Michael E. Gerst and Myles A. Lanzone for Defendants and
In March 2007, plaintiff and appellant Jorge Lepe’s daughter used his name
without his permission to obtain a loan for a house located at 27062 Red Maple Street in
Murrieta (Property). Lepe’s daughter did not make payments on the loan and the
Property was foreclosed upon; the foreclosure was recorded against Lepe. Lepe did not
file suit against his daughter. Instead, he sued defendants and respondents Christine
Francis, Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America), US Bank National Association (US
Bank) and F.M. Tarbell Co. (Tarbell) (collectively, “defendants”). Francis had owned
the Property; Tarbell was the realty company that brokered the sale of the house from
Francis to Lepe; Bank of America had granted the loans to Lepe’s daughter; and US
Bank purchased the home at the foreclosure sale.
Lepe filed the original complaint in May 2013, which was dismissed with leave to
amend. In his First Amended Complaint, Lepe alleged causes of action for fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional tort/defamation, and negligence
against respondents based on his daughter obtaining a fraudulent loan in his name.
Tarbell and Francis jointly filed a demurrer; Bank of America and US Bank also filed a
demurrer. After hearings on the demurrers, the trial court granted the two demurrers
without leave to amend.
2
It is nearly impossible to determine what Lepe is raising in the instant appeal. It
does appear he is claiming that the statute of limitations was tolled due to his mental
incapacity but provides no coherent argument with citation to authority. We uphold the
trial court’s orders granting the two demurrers without leave to amend.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
“When considering an appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court
sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, we ‘accept as true all well-pleaded facts in
the complaint and give a reasonable construction to the complaint as a whole.’
[Citations.] In addition, we may consider matters that are properly the subject of judicial
notice, and were considered by the trial court.” (La Serena Properties v. Weisbach
(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 893, 897.) We consolidated our case Nos. E059779, which
involved the proceedings against Tarbell and Francis, and E060632, which involved the
proceedings against Bank of America and US Bank. The factual and procedural
background is derived from the First Amended Complaint, the demurrers filed by
defendants, and the matters properly judicially noticed.
A. SALE OF RED MAPLE STREET
Francis owned the Property. Francis worked as an agent for Tarbell and listed and
sold the Property. She thought she sold it to Lepe. However, it turned out that Lepe’s
daughter, Laura Alonso, fraudulently obtained the loan for over $500,000 in Lepe’s name
secured by the Property. The loan was funded by Bank of America. The deed of trust for
the Property showed Lepe as the borrower. Lepe’s daughter stopped paying on the note
3
in May 2008. There was an unpaid balance of $650,000. On July 6, 2011, the Property
was sold at a trustee sale to US Bank.
B. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Lepe filed the original complaint (Complaint) on May 6, 2013, against “Bank of
America; US Bank National Association; Tarbell Realtors; & Christine Francis.” Lepe
alleged that Bank of America had acknowledged that he was not responsible on the loan
because it was falsely obtained. Lepe sought damages in the amount of $360,000.
Lepe’s first cause of action against defendants was for fraud. He claimed that his
daughter used an imposter to purchase the Property from Francis, who was a broker
employed by Tarbell. Although he was not liable for the loan, his credit had not been
restored and the foreclosure had not been voided by Bank of America. Defendants
received “a benefit via proceeds against [his] credit and causing a foreclosure.” He
insisted that “defendant” concealed the facts up until Lepe reported the fraud to the police
and adult protective services on November 28, 2008. He insisted the elements of fraud
had been found because “defendant’s” own investigator found Lepe not liable on the
loan.
Lepe’s second cause of action was for Intentional Tort. He insisted that Bank of
America’s refusal to fix the foreclosure caused him emotional distress. Lepe also alleged
a cause of action for defamation and negligence based on the same facts. Lepe also
checked the box for the cause of action for breach of contract but provided no facts to
support the claim.
4
Lepe also referred to another lawsuit entitled Greer Ranch Community Association
v. Jorge Lepe, case No. RIC11102581 (Greer Ranch). Lepe explained that Greer Ranch
was the homeowner’s association where the Property was located.
Lepe attached a property history. It showed that US Bank purchased the Property on July
15, 2011. A notice of default was recorded on June 29, 2009. It also listed the loans
taken out on the Property in his name. Lepe also attached a letter from Bank of America
dated January 10, 2012, which was resent on April 17, 2013, which confirmed Lepe was
not responsible on the loans and that Bank of America had sent notice to four major
credit bureaus reporting as such. Lepe also included the purchase agreement for the
Property. It was purchased for $706,000; the loan amount was $564,800. It was signed
on March 8, 2007 by “Jorge Lepe” and Francis. The note for the loan was filed on March
21, 2007. Lepe attached numerous other documents, including his tax returns.
Lepe also attached a police report prepared by the Hemet Police Department. The
reporting officer was called to Lepe’s home on November 18, 2008, regarding possible
elder abuse. Once the officer arrived, Adult Protective Services (APS) was called
because Lepe and his wife reported that they were victims of fraud and forgery by
Alonso. They reported that Alonso had obtained credit cards in their names and charged
$50,000. Lepe was involved with APS because he suffered from insulin dependent
diabetes and had mobility issues. Lepe and his wife also reported that Alonso had
1 Lepe refers to this case on numerous occasions in this opening brief. However, it was never consolidated with this case and has no bearing on this case. We will not consider it.
5
obtained the mortgage on the Property without their consent. Alonso used Lepe’s name
and credit to obtain the loan in 2007. Lepe’s wife thought that Alonso may have used
someone to pretend to be Lepe in order to get the loan. The report also noted that
although the loan on the Property was originally fraudulently obtained, Lepe later agreed
to cosign on the loan. Lepe explained that he confronted Alonso about the mortgage and
she told him it was the only way she could qualify for the loan. He told her he wanted his
name off the mortgage.
Lepe was interviewed at the Murrieta Police Department on February 13, 2009,
regarding Alonso purchasing the Property without Lepe’s permission. He said the
signatures on the title and mortgage were not his. He admitted he signed a loan
modification after the original fraudulent loan. Alonso told the police that she had
permission to obtain the mortgage.
Tarbell and Francis filed a demurrer to the Complaint. They contended that the
Complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. They also alleged
that all of the causes of action were time-barred. They contended the fraud occurred on
March 23, 2007, and was discovered at the latest on November 28, 2008. Further, there
was no theory of liability that could make Tarbell and Francis responsible. Tarbell and
Francis also filed a motion to strike portions of the Complaint.
Lepe filed opposition to the motion to strike. Lepe insisted that Francis, who
owned the Property, and Tarbell, as the realty company who sold the Property, were
responsible for the fraud. Further, he filed opposition to the demurrer on June 11, 2013.
Lepe insisted the claim of fraud was confirmed by Bank of America and he sought to
6
have his credit returned to good standing, and void the foreclosure. He contended the
statute of limitations was tolled because he was a client of APS and was mentally
incompetent, and had reported the incident to the police, and they did nothing.2
On June 25, 2013, the demurrer to the Complaint was heard. The trial court ruled
that the causes of action of fraud, intentional tort, defamation, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and negligence all did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against Tarbell and Francis. The trial court advised Lepe that he needed to allege
in more detail what Tarbell and Francis did wrong and to address the statute of
limitations. Lepe’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
C. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Lepe filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) on July 23, 2013. He alleged
causes of action of breach of contract, overcoming the statute of limitations, fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation and abuse of process. Again, his
claims were based on Alonso using his name and credit to purchase a home.
As for his “cause of action” for overcoming the statute of limitations, Lepe
referred to the Greer Ranch case and that he was being sued for $24,188.98 for the
homeowner’s dues. He insisted the lawsuit tolled the statute of limitations because it was
filed on June 14, 2011. He recognized that his request to consolidate Greer Ranch with
the case had been denied. He also relied on being a “ward” of APS and that he had filed
a police report but no action was taken. He, also argued that the statute of limitations was
2 Bank of America did not respond to the Complaint before Lepe filed his FAC on July 23, 2013.
7
reset on July 6, 2011, when Bank of America issued a “1099-A” recognizing he was a
victim of fraud.
As for fraud, he stated facts that an imposter in 2007 impersonated him to get the
loans for the Property. He insisted Francis and Tarbell knew the paperwork was false.
He alleged intentional tort/defamation for his bad credit as caused by the foreclosure and
Bank of America reporting to credit bureaus. As for negligence, he alleged that the
defendants owed a duty to him and were the cause of him being in bad standing on his
credit and had profited by receiving $900,000. Finally, Lepe alleged that there was an
abuse of process because Tarbell and Francis filed a demurrer to the Complaint.
D. TARBELL’S DEMURRER TO FAC
Tarbell and Francis filed a demurrer and motion to strike. Tarbell and Francis
again argued that the FAC failed to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action
against them on any of the five causes of action and again argued all of the causes of
action were time-barred. They also argued that they could not be parties to the action
because they were realtors who could not be held liable. They sought to strike the entire
FAC.
8
E. BANK OF AMERICA’S DEMURRER TO THE FAC
Bank of America and US Bank filed a demurrer to the FAC. 3 They argued that all
of the causes of action did not state sufficient facts to sustain the causes of action. Bank
of America argued the entire FAC was impermissibly vague and uncertain; the claims
were all time-barred; the causes of action were insufficiently pled; and Lepe failed to
assert justifiable reliance on the fraud or actual damages.
Bank of America and US Bank asked the court to take judicial notice of several
documents, including the deed of trust that listed Lepe as the sole owner of the Property
as of March 21, 2007. Further, that the Property was part of the Greer Ranch
Homeowner’s Association. The notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale and the
notice of sale to US Bank were also provided.
F. OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
Lepe filed opposition to the demurrers filed by Bank of America and US Bank.
He argued in his opposition to the demurrers to the FAC that his causes of action were
not time-barred because of tolling based on temporary insanity. He was rendered
temporarily insane based on the trauma caused by his daughter defrauding him. Further,
equitable estoppel allowed him to file a lawsuit even though he failed to comply with the
statute of limitations. He additionally argued tolling due to the filing of Greer Ranch
3 The record includes documents regarding a motion to set aside the default against Bank of America and US Bank, and their response requesting relief from default pertaining to the demurrer to the FAC. These proceedings are not relevant to the issues in this appeal.
9
and ratification based on a 1099-A sent to Lepe by Bank of America. Lepe wanted to file
a Second Amended Complaint, which he attached to the opposition.
Lepe filed his opposition to the demurrer to the FAC filed by Tarbell and Francis.
He argued that Bank of America already found fraud and that Francis and Alonso where
both in the real estate business and worked together. Further, he argued mental
incompetency and elder abuse tolled the statute of limitations. Lepe also referred to the
date of July 6, 2011, as reaffirming the debt owed, and that it tolled the statute of
limitations. Lepe made an incomprehensible argument about the deed being void and
therefore the “relation back doctrine” applied to the fraud, intentional tort, and
defamation claims. He also attached a proposed Second Amended Complaint along with
many of the same documents attached to the Complaint.
Lepe attached an APS report dated November 18, 2008, the same day that the
police were notified, regarding their investigation of elder abuse occasioned by Alonso.
Lepe was advised that the matter would have to be reported to law enforcement. Lepe
reported he did not want his daughter to go to jail. The report also provided that Lepe
was not particularly vulnerable. No diminished capacity was reported.
G. REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
Tarbell and Francis filed a reply to the opposition to the demurrer. They argued
that there was no tolling of the statute of limitations because Lepe had not been declared
mentally incompetent or insane at the time the causes of action accrued. Further, based
on the Complaint and FAC, Lepe had been able to report to APS and the Hemet Police
10
Department in November 2008 about the actions of Alonso. He also admitted working
between 1990 and 2011.
Bank of America also filed a reply to the opposition to the demurrer. Bank of
America contended that Lepe’s claims were time-barred despite the assertions of tolling
and that his assertions of equitable tolling failed. Lepe had admitted that he knew about
Alonso’s actions in 2008. Bank of America contended that Lepe should not be granted
leave to amend the FAC.
Lepe filed a response. He insisted he had shown a tolling of the statute of
limitations as he suffered from a mental incapacity. Lepe also filed a trial brief in lieu of
oral testimony. He stated that he objected to a request for sanctions by Tarbell and
Francis.
H. HEARING ON DEMURRER AND RULING
The demurrers were heard on different days. The hearing on the demurrer filed by
Tarbell and Francis was held on September 11, 2013. As for the first cause of action,
overcoming the statute of limitations, the trial court stated that no such cause of action
existed. The demurrer to this first cause action was sustained without leave to amend.
The trial court then advised Lepe that it intended to sustain the remaining causes of action
without leave to amend unless he could explain how he got around the statute of
limitations. Lepe stated that he was a ward of APS because he was mentally
incompetent. The trial court noted that he was being helped by APS because of diabetes.
The trial court did not believe that factually, mental incompetency had been shown.
Tarbell and Francis argued that he had never been declared mentally incompetent and
11
based on his actions showing competency he could not amend to allege incompetency.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend for all the causes of action.
The matter was dismissed on September 13, 2013. The notice of entry of judgment was
entered on September 19, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on October 4, 2013.
The demurrer filed by Bank of America and US Bank was heard on January 9,
2014. At the hearing, the trial court clarified that the FAC was based on Lepe’s damaged
credit and the foreclosure that was on the record. Lepe affirmed this was the basis of the
lawsuit. Lepe confirmed that in 2007, Alonso took out a loan in his name, did not pay
and the Property was foreclosed upon due to the failure to pay.
The trial court then asked Lepe to confirm that Bank of America notified the credit
reporting organization that the defaulted loan did not belong to Lepe, and Lepe responded
that this was true. Lepe confirmed that Bank of America conducted an investigation and
determined in 2008 that he was not responsible for the loan. The trial court ruled that the
case was time-barred and that suing the bank because his daughter ruined his credit was
not proper. The case was dismissed in its entirety and Lepe was not given leave to amend
the FAC.
Notice of entry of judgment in favor of Bank of America and US Bank was
entered on January 21, 2014. Lepe’s notice of appeal was filed on February 11, 2014.
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“On appeal from an order of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer, the
standard of review is de novo: we exercise our independent judgment about whether the
12
complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law. [Citation.] First, we give the
complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.
Next, we treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Then we
determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
[Citations.] [¶] We do not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or
conclusions of law.” (Stearn v. County of San Bernardino (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 434,
439-440 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].)
“We are not bound by the trial court’s stated reasons, if any, supporting its ruling;
we review the ruling, not its rationale.” (Mendoza v. Town of Ross (2005) 128
Cal.App.4th 625, 631.)
B. INADEQUATE BRIEFING
Initially, Lepe’s opening brief is incomprehensible and does not comply with the
California Rules of Court.
The brief does not provide a summary of the significant facts. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.204(a).) The brief does not contain an adequate statement of appealability.
(Ibid.) The brief contains statements of matters apparently in the record but not
supported by appropriate citation references to the Clerk’s or Reporter’s Transcripts.
Further, there are citations to records not part of the appeal. (Ibid.) The points and
authorities are wholly unintelligible and incomprehensible and fail to state each point
under separate heading with supporting argument. (Ibid.)
13
Further, Lepe has failed to cite to any legal authority or provide pertinent or
intelligible legal argument. Although he appears to raise the tolling of the statute of
limitations for his causes of action, he does not provide the relevant time periods for the
causes of action. Lepe does not provide proper authority to support his claims.
“When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with
reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Badie v.
Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; see also Guthrey v. State of
California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [“reviewing court is not required to make
an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the
judgment”]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [appellate court “‘is
not required to discuss or consider points which are not argued or which are not
supported by citation to authorities or the record’”]; accord, Mansell v. Board of
Lepe has failed to provide any comprehensible argument challenging the trial
court’s order. Lepe discusses “maladministration” by the trial court in finding for
defendants, “exploitation” and generally discusses mental incapacity. We have no choice
but to consider his arguments waived or abandoned.
Even if we were to consider that Lepe is raising a claim that the statute of
limitations was tolled and his causes of action were not time-barred, as he did in the trial
court, and as he states are the issues he claims to have presented to this court on appeal,
we would reject the claim.
14
Statutes of limitations “‘prescribe the periods beyond which’ a plaintiff may not
bring a cause of action.” (Norgart v. Upjohn Company (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 395.)
“Under the statute of limitations, a plaintiff must bring a cause of action within the
limitations period applicable thereto after accrual of the cause of action.” (Id. at p. 397.)
Generally, a cause of action accrues, and thus triggers the statute of limitations, when it
“‘is complete with all of its elements.’ [Citations.] An important exception to the general
rule of accrual is the ‘discovery rule,’ which postpones accrual of a cause of action until
the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action.” (Fox v. Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806-807.) “We must take the allegations of
the operative complaint as true and consider whether the facts alleged establish [the
claim] is barred as a matter of law.” (Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55
Cal.4th 1185, 1191.)
Lepe’s cause of action for fraud is governed by the three-year limitations period
set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d). (Alfaro v. Community
Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356,
1390.) His intentional infliction of emotional distress claim must have been brought
within one year from the date of the wrongful act. (Scannell v. County of Riverside
(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 596, 616 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two]; see also Cantu v. Resolution
Trust Corporation (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 889.) His claim of defamation also had a
one-year statute of limitations. (Knoell v. Petrovich (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 164, 168;
Code of Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (c).) His claims of negligence had to be brought within
15
two years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. (1); see also Hydro-Mill Co., Inc. v.
Hayward, Tilton and Rolapp Ins. Associates , Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.)
Here, the alleged fraud occurred in March 2007 when Alonso bought the Property
in Lepe’s name. Lepe knew about the fraud at the latest in November 2008, when he
filed a police report with the Hemet Police Department and reported elder abuse to APS.
Lepe conceded he knew about the fraud in 2008. He also knew about the intentional
infliction of emotional distress and negligence (based on Alonso defrauding Bank of
America) in 2008. Lepe alleged, as to the defamation, that Bank of America wrongfully
reported his credit. The only date for that action was a letter dated January 10, 2012.
Further, the foreclosure occurred in July 2011. However, Lepe did not file the Complaint
until May 2013. All of his causes of action were time-barred.
Moreover, Lepe failed to properly allege that he suffered from a mental incapacity
that tolled the statute of limitations. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 352,
subdivision (a), “[i]f a person entitled to bring an action, . . . is, at the time the cause of
action accrued either under the age of majority or lacking the legal capacity to make
decisions, the time of the disability is not part of the time limited for the commencement
of the action.” “A finding that a person was ‘incapable of caring for his [or her] property
or transacting business or understanding the nature or effects of his [or her] acts, [is]
equivalent to a finding in express terms that [he or she] was insane within the meaning of
the statute of limitations.’” (Feeley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 234
Cal.App.3d 949, 951-952.)
16
Lepe did not show that he was incapable of caring for his property or transacting
business. Lepe was able to report to the Hemet Police Department and APS about
Alonso’s actions in 2008. He made no attempt to explain how he could make the report,
but was mentally incompetent. Further, the APS report submitted by him detailed that
APS assisted him to due to his diabetes and immobility and not because of a mental
illness. As noted, he attached his tax returns, which showed he worked from 2007
through 2010.
Moreover, to overcome the time-bar as to these claims, Lepe “bears the burden of
proving there is a reasonable possibility of amendment” to save the complaint.
(Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) “To satisfy
that burden on appeal, a plaintiff ‘must show in what manner he can amend his complaint
and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleadings.’” (Ibid.) “Where
the appellant offers no allegations to support the possibility of amendment and no legal
authority showing the viability of new causes of action, there is no basis for finding the
trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.”
(Id. at p. 44.)
17
Lepe has failed to assert facts that could cure the above defects in an amended
complaint. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of leave to amend the FAC was not an
abuse of discretion.4
DISPOSITION
We affirm the trial court’s order granting the demurrer without leave to amend.
Respondents as the prevailing parties are awarded their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
KING Acting P. J.
CUNNISON J. *
4We have reviewed Lepe’s written oral argument and the responses filed by Bank of America and Tarbell. The argument does not change this court’s resolution of the case.
* Retired judge of the Riverside Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
18
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend, finding that the claims were time-barred and the plaintiff failed to provide a coherent legal argument or demonstrate a reasonable possibility of amendment.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants' demurrers without leave to amend.
Whether the plaintiff's causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged mental incapacity to toll the statutes of limitations.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We uphold the trial court’s orders granting the two demurrers without leave to amend.”
“All of his causes of action were time-barred.”
“Lepe did not show that he was incapable of caring for his property or transacting business.”