Preisler v. Cook CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 29, 2021 No. G059908Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the issuance of a protective order under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error or overcome the trial court's findings.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence of elder abuse.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in including family members as protected persons.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding the appellant from the residence.
Whether the attorney's fee award was improper.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Cook failed to demonstrate error, we affirm.”

“Daniel has failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate error because he has not provided any of Preisler’s initial pleadings, accepted as evidence, nor her documentary trial evidence, assessed by the trial court.”

“In sum, Daniel has not demonstrated any ground of prejudicial error to reverse the trial court’s grant of a restraining order under the Elder Abuse Act.”

Filed 12/29/21 Preisler v. Cook CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ROSELEEN PREISLER,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059908

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020-01162264)

DANIEL COOK, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jacki C. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Dominic A. Quiller for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Daniel Cook appeals from a protective order issued against him under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. Because Cook failed to demonstrate error, we affirm. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Elder Abuse Restraining Order Petition Plaintiff Roseleen Preisler, a woman over the age of 80 and mother of Denise Cook, was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against defendant Daniel 1 Cook, based on a September 2020 incident in which Preisler was injured by Daniel, requiring her to receive medical emergency treatment. At the time of the incident, Denise, Daniel, their teenage daughter K.C., and Preisler had all been living together in a 2 Fountain Valley home (the property) where Daniel had been living for 26 years. Four months after the September 2020 incident, Preisler filed a petition 3 seeking a restraining order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.03, subd. (i)(1).) Daniel filed a declaration opposing the petition. Daniel initially asserted that he owned the property, and thus could not be excluded from it, even if the petition were granted. At the petition hearing, the parties discussed proposed testimony concerning the validity of the deeds attached to the declaration; after Daniel conferred with his counsel during a recess, he withdrew his argument about the ownership of the property in September 2020. Later in the hearing, when the court revisited an issue about competing versions of the deed disputed by the parties, Daniel’s counsel stated he was not requesting the version he had submitted with his declaration to be admitted as

Preisler v. Cook CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ROSELEEN PREISLER,

DANIEL COOK, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’LEARY, P. J.

GOETHALS, J.

AI Brief