CARLTON, Minn. — A former Cloquet police officer accused of financially exploiting a vulnerable adult she met on the job is set to face a trial this fall.
Judge Amy Lukasavitz recently upheld three charges against Laci Marie Silgjord and denied her request to move the case out of Carlton County.
ADVERTISEMENT
Authorities allege that Silgjord, 36, Joan Arney, and gained control of her bank accounts before she died in October 2020.
Court documents also state that Silgjord failed to notify the woman’s estranged husband, Roger Arney, of her death, later threatened him with arrest, and attempted to inherit more than $150,000 from the estate.
Silgjord’s attorney has claimed in filings that there is no evidence the former officer did “anything improper” or personally benefited from the arrangement, which she said was based on “compassion” and not greed.
Officer sought more than $150,000
Court documents say Silgjord responded to a handful of calls from Arney starting in October 2019, including one related to a potential scam and another about a missing purse.
On Aug. 25, 2020, the officer again paid a visit after Arney mistakenly sent mail to the police station. Silgjord and her partner found the 78-year-old on the floor in “dire medical condition,” apparently having suffered a stroke four days earlier.
Arney was hospitalized at St. Luke’s in Duluth, where doctors indicated she was suffering from dementia and experiencing severe hallucinations and memory deficits.
The officer continued to visit Arney in the hospital and kept tabs on her Cloquet home. When a hospital attorney petitioned a court for emergency guardianship, Silgjord was named the “most suitable and best qualified among those available.”
ADVERTISEMENT
She also recorded several conversations on her phone that appeared to show her gaining the trust and affection of the elderly woman, whom she called “new grandma.” Prosecutors, however, have called those “opportunistic” clips from a victim who did not know the current year and could not identify herself in a photograph.
Authorities said Silgjord used the guardianship paperwork to dupe a credit union into giving her access to three accounts maintained by Arney containing a combined $43,120. She moved money among them and, at one point, paid a utility bill for Arney’s home.
Arney died Oct. 28, 2020, without a will and with no surviving children. Silgjord reportedly made arrangements to have her cremated without input from her family.
Only later did Roger Arney learn about his wife’s death from a newspaper obituary. The couple, who wed in 1976, had been living apart since 2013 but remained legally married.
Documents indicate Roger met with Silgjord but she falsely claimed to still “have guardianship and conservatorship” and refused to turn over keys to the house. The officer later encountered him at the property and called 911 to report he had taken a laptop — even though he was entitled to do so, according to prosecutors.
Silgjord’s role as a guardian had ended with Joan Arney’s death, and she was never appointed as a conservator.
Later, Silgjord petitioned a probate court to award her $158,213 — the entire financial value of the estate — claiming it was “in Joan’s best interest to donate the proceeds of her estate to build a dog park or community garden in her honor.”
ADVERTISEMENT
A judge denied that request, finding that Roger was the appropriate heir. The court also rejected Silgjord’s “unreasonable” request for fees, saying she was entitled to just $1,259 for her time and expenses as guardian.
Roger then filed a complaint with the Cloquet Police Department in April 2021. for making false accusations of a crime and falsely representing her legal authority over Joan’s possessions. She later in June 2022.
Defense denies wrongdoing
Defense attorney Rebecca Duren argued Silgjord’s actions did not constitute fraud. Rather, she contended the case was about a compassionate officer who stepped up to help an elderly citizen in need.
“All of Silgjord’s actions were authorized by law or were processed through the court system,” Duren said. “The only financial transactions Silgjord made were the sole benefit of Arney. Silgjord did not receive any financial benefit whatsoever that was not authorized.”
Duren wrote that Silgjord had a duty as guardian to “provide for the care, comfort, and maintenance” of Arney, and said it would have “breached” her duties not to pay the utility bill.
“There is no evidence of undue influence, harassment, duress and any other enticement,” the attorney argued.
But Assistant Minnesota Attorney General James Clark contended Silgjord crossed a clear line. He said the law makes clear that guardians cannot control an incapacitated person’s bank accounts, as statute requires the appointment of a conservator to do so.
ADVERTISEMENT
The prosecutor added that the evidence showed she misrepresented her status and that her role as a police officer was known to staff at the credit union.
“To accept (Silgjord’s) conduct,” Clark wrote, “would undoubtedly cause the relatives of the ill and infirm to become hesitant to call on the police or court system for help, for fear that guardians and police officers might swoop in during the final days of someone’s life, abuse their authority and try to seek personal financial gain.”
As for the alleged inheritance plot, Duren claimed her client was simply using the legal process.
“The judge is then left to decide the merit of each claim and determine which claims will be allowed,” the defense attorney said. “This is not a swindle; it is probate court process.”
Clark, on the other hand, contended it was an integral part of the scheme.
“In the context of attempting to swindle money from an estate, it would not at all be unusual for a defendant to take deceitful actions in probate court in furtherance of the swindle,” he wrote.
Court sets trial date
Judge Lukasavitz, who reviewed extensive briefs from both sides, declined to dismiss the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
She said the complaint makes sufficient allegations that Silgjord exceeded her authority and used a “scheme of deception and fraud” in a bid to obtain assets that rightfully belonged to Roger.
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the court determines that probable cause exists to show that (Silgjord) gained control or possession of Joan’s financial resources without legal authority to do so,” the judge wrote.
Lukasavitz said it must be left up to a jury to determine whether the defendant exerted “undue influence” and took a “substantial step” wrongfully obtaining property by swindle.
She scheduled a jury trial to begin Nov. 12 in Carlton, ruling there has not been extensive media coverage that would warrant moving the case to another jurisdiction.
Silgjord is charged with felony and gross misdemeanor financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult and felony attempted theft by swindle.
She now lives in Sartell, Minnesota, where her husband
The Trust Project
