In an emotionally fraught and legally complex case, the Santa Barbara courtroom recently bore witness to a dramatic conclusion in what began as a seemingly benign act of generosity. Julie Westerfield, heiress to the Jergens hand‑cream dynasty, found herself at the center of a fierce legal battle after transferring valuable property to someone once presumed loyal—and now accused of manipulating her.
The Players & The Plot Unfold
Julie Westerfield, a long-standing member of an affluent family, enjoyed a courteous relationship with Jordana Snider, who had once been her babysitter. In an act that stunned some, Westerfield legally adopted Snider at age 51—and soon after, began transferring substantial funds to her.
Enter Christopher Westerfield, Julie’s son, then 37. Concerned by the sudden windfall, and specifically an approximately $2.2 million Ojai property gifted to Snider, he contacted attorney John Thyne III. Thyne filed a petition to rescind the transfer amid suspicions of undue influence.
The timeline is telling: in 2022, not long after Westerfield’s dementia diagnosis, she wrote a $300,000 check and another for $200,000—transactions flagged due to one being returned and the other exceeding bank limits—raising critical red flags in the legal proceedings.
Snider did not stand down. She countered, alleging that it was Christopher who exerted undue influence on his mother, even bringing jokes at Christopher’s expense—citing his mental‑health and substance‑abuse struggles—as part of her defense. “The case has been contentious, acrimonious at times,” noted Judge Thomas Anderle.
The Verdict & Judge’s Final Word
After more than three weeks of testimony, in a stunningly swift deliberation, the jury delivered a unanimous verdict on May 5: Snider’s actions constituted financial elder abuse, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The consequences were hefty: she must return the disputed property—now valued at up to $4 million—pay $150,000 in punitive damages, and cover roughly $320,000 in legal and conservator’s fees.
Snider’s legal team followed with motions for mistrial and to overturn the verdict. Yet Judge Anderle, who had described the trial as “exceptionally well lawyered,” firmly denied all such motions, affirming the verdict is hereby upheld.
Deeper Legal Context: When Influence Becomes Exploitation
The stakes in elder‑fraud cases rise sharply when cognitive impairment enters the equation. Courts scrutinize transfers made when the elder’s capacity is compromised. Late‑life adoptions, while rare, can mask attempts at exerting control over the elder’s assets—especially if the adopted beneficiary is a non‑relative, as in this case.
Undue influence is legally defined as excessive persuasion that overrides or substitutes another’s free will. It often features a confidential relationship, the elder’s vulnerability, and suspicious circumstances—like a dementia diagnosis paired with sudden, large financial transfers. Although the Independent’s report doesn’t delve into statutory definitions, this matches widely accepted legal standards.
When such “suspicious circumstances” are evident, the burden may shift onto the influencer—in this case, Snider—to prove the transfer was voluntary and free from coercion.
Why This Verdict Resonates
- Late-Life Adoptions Can Trigger Alarm Bells
While rare, they may serve as conduits for financial gain disguised under familial legitimacy. - Cognitive Decline Is a Legal Minefield
Dementia or mental incapacity can render acts—like large gifts—suspect, and subject to reversal. - Familiar Faces Carry Hidden Risk
Many elder-exploitation cases involve caregivers, adopted children, or trusted friends—not strangers—underscoring that proximity does not equal trust. - Penalties Extend Beyond Reversal
The verdict imposes punitive damages, restitution, and legal costs—not just the unwinding of the transfer, making it a cautionary tale for would-be exploiters.
What Families & Attorneys Should Watch For
- Timing & Context: Examine whether transfers or adoptions coincide with declining cognitive health.
- Unusual Financial Behavior: Rest returned checks, odd banking activity, or purchases inconsistent with past patterns.
- Isolation Tactics: Interfering with communication, encouraging unilateral transactions, or creating emotional dependency.
- Legal Safeguards: Conservatorships, power-of-attorney restrictions, or independent legal advice for the elder.
- Prepare for Litigation: In elder-fraud suits, documentation of capacity, witnesses, and expert testimony can prove decisive.
Conclusion: When Generosity Becomes Folly
The Westerfield–Snider saga underscores a painful reality: when trust becomes weaponized, the law must intervene. The verdict sends a clear message—that gifts made under diminished capacity and questionable influence will not stand up in court.
For those navigating elder-law issues—or concerned about potential exploitation—early intervention, transparency, and vigilance are crucial. If you suspect undue influence in your own family, seek out elder-law professionals immediately.