In re Love

Citation182 BR 161
Decision Date05 May 1995
Docket NumberBankruptcy No. 93-33469(2)13. Adv. No. 94-3080.
PartiesIn re Claire LOVE, Debtor. Claire LOVE, Plaintiff, v. Grace LOVE, Defendant.
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Kentucky

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Philip Lanier, Louisville, KY.

William Lawrence, Trustee, Louisville, KY.

MEMORANDUM-OPINION

J. WENDELL ROBERTS, Chief Judge.

This case was brought by the Plaintiff, Claire Love ("Plaintiff"), a debtor in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy action, against her former spiritual advisor, Grace Love ("Defendant"). Plaintiff seeks by this lawsuit to recover large sums of money, totalling $156,261.00, transferred by Plaintiff to Defendant in the form of (1) class and retreat fees, (2) loans, (3) money spent on running Defendant's errands, (4) donations to Defendant and her religious center, and (5) mortgage payments made on farm property which Plaintiff owned jointly with Defendant and Defendant's husband. Plaintiff asserts that the payments at issue were the result of undue influence on the part of Defendant.

Plaintiff filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 12, 1993. She subsequently filed this adversary proceeding on September 9, 1994, which came on for trial on March 14 and 15, 1995. Having considered extensive testimony and exhibits introduced at trial, Defendant's deposition and arguments of counsel for the Plaintiff and arguments of Defendant, who represented herself, this Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover $146,036.93, which constitutes payments made in the form of loans, money spent running Defendant's errands, and donations. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover her class and retreat fees. Nor is Plaintiff entitled to recover mortgage payments made for property in which Plaintiff possessed a property interest.

This Court sets forth its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as follows.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During the 1980's and early 1990's, Defendant was the spiritual leader, or "Guru," of a religious community known as an "ashram,"1 located in Jefferson County, Kentucky. A "Guru" is a Sanskrit term meaning "enlightener." A Guru heads and directs an "ashram," the center where the Guru's followers come to learn from the Guru, meditate and perform services under the direction of the Guru.

Plaintiff is a 54 year old woman who lived under Defendant's guidance and direction at the ashram from 1989 until approximately October 1993. During that period, Plaintiff "embarked upon a spiritual journey to satisfy deep yearnings within herself to achieve a heightened state of spiritual bliss." Defendant taught that God chooses and sends a particular Guru to enlighten each of his followers (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5), and persuaded Plaintiff that she, Defendant, was the spiritual guide intended to assist Plaintiff in her spiritual pursuits.

A. HISTORY OF PLAINTIFF'S RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT.

Plaintiff's relationship with Defendant began around 1986. Plaintiff was a professional artist living with her second husband and two youngest children in Massachusetts. Plaintiff's artwork completed prior to the commencement of her relationship with Defendant is presently displayed in museums, hospitals, airports and other community centers throughout the world. It is clear from the evidence presented at trial that Plaintiff's artwork constituted a major part of her life during this period.

Plaintiff had experienced a state of spiritual bliss in the past. She sought to reattain that state and an acquaintance gave her Defendant's name and recommended her as a spiritual adviser. In response to Plaintiff's initial contact, Defendant travelled to Massachusetts where she met with Plaintiff and taught her various meditations. Thereafter, Plaintiff began travelling to Kentucky to attend Defendant's spiritual retreats. Through the fall of 1986, Plaintiff attended these retreats on an increasingly frequent basis, each time staying longer and longer periods at Defendant's ashram. Eventually, Plaintiff was in essence living there.

Plaintiff testified that by December 1986, she was in a deep "meditative space" that Defendant had assisted her in attaining. Plaintiff almost completely stopped eating, drinking and sleeping. She became so extremely physically weak that she was often unable to even speak, and was too weak to leave the ashram on her own. Plaintiff's parents and sister, who were living in Canada at the time, became alarmingly worried about Plaintiff's condition. Fearing Plaintiff was being held against her will, the family came to Louisville to get her, armed with a court order requiring her release to their custody.

During the months that followed, Plaintiff resided in Canada with her parents. Nevertheless, Plaintiff and Defendant maintained an ongoing telephonic contact, speaking with one another for hours at a time, several times a week. While Plaintiff initiated these phone calls, they were necessitated by Plaintiff's perceived reliance on Defendant's guidance. Defendant taught Plaintiff that Plaintiff needed to check with Defendant regarding all decisions Plaintiff made. Defendant advised Plaintiff that Plaintiff had not attained a high enough level of spirituality to trust her own internal directives. Defendant said, however, that she possessed the requisite spiritual guidance necessary for decision-making.

During this period, Defendant encouraged Plaintiff to divorce her husband and "develop an independence" from her family. Plaintiff's husband, upset by the "marital advice" given by Defendant to his wife, threatened to file a lawsuit against Defendant. Consequently, Defendant broke-off communications with Plaintiff out of fear of such a lawsuit.

Plaintiff eventually divorced her second husband and, in 1989, renewed her contact with Defendant. Plaintiff moved back to the ashram in Louisville and thoroughly entrenched herself in Defendant's teachings. Plaintiff became a "staff member in training." She resided at the ashram and devoted 24 hours a day to her religious pursuits under the direction of Defendant.

B. DEFENDANT'S CONTROL OVER ALL ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF'S LIFE.

By the time Plaintiff returned to the ashram in 1989, Defendant was representing that she had attained an even higher spiritual level. She had now taken on the titles "sai," the Sanskrit term for "saint," and "Guruji," meaning "Blessed Enlightener." She represented that she was only one of two or three individuals in the United States to attain such a spiritual level. Defendant testified that once she had attained this level, she was able to transmit blessings through her hands and feet.

Defendant demanded total reverence and respect. She instructed Plaintiff that she must "completely submit to" and "obey" her, as the Guruji, in order to become "pure" and "attain enlightenment." Defendant represented to Plaintiff that God spoke through her and that her words were the words of God. To question Defendant was to question God, himself. Defendant taught Plaintiff that "God's home" was wherever she, Defendant, was. Moreover, Defendant told her followers that there was a distinct possibility that she had been Buddha in a previous life, and in another previous life she witnessed the signing of the Constitution of the United States.

In this delusive atmosphere, Defendant supervised all aspects of Plaintiff's life. She effectively controlled where Plaintiff lived, what Plaintiff wore, what Plaintiff ate, and how she spent her money. Defendant even advised Plaintiff to enter into a third marriage with another of Defendant's followers, a man by the name of Loving Peace,2 and then subsequently advised Plaintiff to divorce him. Under Defendant's influence, Plaintiff even changed her name to Anubhava Loving Peace.

Defendant's control over Plaintiff pervaded all aspects of Plaintiff's life. Immediately upon Plaintiff's entrance into the ashram, Defendant cut off all of Plaintiff's contacts to the outside world. Defendant directed Plaintiff to cut off ties with her family, including her five children, the two youngest of which were only ages 12 and 13 at the time. Defendant instructed Plaintiff that the needs of the world outweighed the needs of her children and, appallingly, that they were old enough to care for themselves. Moreover, Defendant instructed Plaintiff that she was to have no friendships outside the ashram because they might distract her spirituality. Plaintiff was told that she could only associate with "enlightened sages" at the ashram.

Defendant also took possession of and sold Plaintiff's gold jewelry, which Plaintiff had intended for her children. Plaintiff never saw any of the proceeds from the sale of this jewelry and the Court was not informed as to its value or selling price.

Also of great interest, is the control Defendant exercised over Plaintiff's artwork. It was clear from the testimony presented at trial that a large part of Plaintiff's personal identity and self-worth was tied into her artwork. Prior to Plaintiff's return to the ashram in 1989, Defendant indicated that an art studio could be set up for Plaintiff at the ashram, so that Plaintiff could engage in the artwork which she loved. However, once Plaintiff returned to the ashram that never transpired. Instead, Defendant ordered that Plaintiff's artwork and equipment be stored in a trailer, and eventually ordered it to be sold. When the pieces of artwork did not sell, as it does not appear that Defendant had access to the proper market, Defendant destroyed Plaintiff's artwork. Again, the Court was not informed as to its value.

Defendant additionally ordered Plaintiff not to engage in further artwork, stating that Plaintiff's "ego" was caught up in it and that it was a hindrance to Plaintiff's religious pursuits. Defendant testified at trial that she simply did not like how Plaintiff acted when engaged in an art project. Defendant testified that Plaintiff became "snobbish" and spoke in an "affected" manner....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT