An old Contra Costa family property fight is putting fresh pressure on a sitting California lawmaker’s record after court records showed doctors concluded her mother did not have dementia. The case ended years ago, but it now carries obvious political weight because Assemblymember Anamarie Ávila Farías sits on the committee responsible for aging and long-term care and is running for another term.
A report by Times of San Diego details a 2018 conservatorship petition involving Ávila Farías’ 76-year-old mother, AnaMaria Ávila Bugarin. The petition followed a bitter dispute over several family properties and came after Bugarin obtained a temporary restraining order against her daughter.
Ávila Farías, a Democrat from Martinez, represents Assembly District 15, which the California State Assembly lists in Contra Costa County. The chamber also lists her as a member of its Aging and Long-Term Care Committee, making the records especially relevant to public scrutiny.
How A Property Dispute Became A Conservatorship Fight
According to court records reviewed by CalMatters, the dispute involved three properties transferred to Bugarin in 2008, followed by a $2.3 million business loan that Ávila Farías and her husband later defaulted on. The couple’s real estate company filed for bankruptcy in 2011, and the family’s arguments over ownership eventually moved from property records into restraining-order and probate proceedings.
In February 2018, Bugarin alleged in a court filing that her daughter entered her apartment, took her phone and struck her wrist. Ávila Farías denied hitting her and said her mother slapped her instead, while a judge granted a temporary restraining order that remained in place for about a year.
After Bugarin sought to evict her daughter from the home, Ávila Farías petitioned to place both her mother and sister under conservatorship, arguing that Bugarin could not act in her own rational self-interest. The court initially imposed temporary conservatorships, but two medical doctors and a neuropsychologist later concluded that Bugarin had no significant cognitive deficits limiting her ability to make medical, legal or financial decisions, CalMatters reported.
The case did not end when the experts found that Bugarin retained decision-making capacity. About a year after the petition, Bugarin agreed to transfer two disputed properties valued at roughly $1.8 million, while she and her daughter agreed to sell their jointly owned family home; proceeds later covered more than $186,000 in legal and conservatorship-related bills, with $116,000 going to Bugarin.
What The Records Show — And What They Do Not
Ávila Farías declined to discuss details, citing a confidentiality agreement tied to the settlement. Her spokesperson, Roger Salazar, told Times of San Diego that there has never been a judicial finding that she engaged in wrongdoing and that her later appointment as conservator for another family member reflected a court’s independent determination that she met the legal standard.
Another part of the paper trail involves how the property was described to different authorities. In a 2014 advice letter, the Fair Political Practices Commission said Ávila Farías had no reportable interest in her mother’s rental property and no disqualifying conflict under the facts presented, while later court filings described her mother’s financial contributions and ownership in sharply different terms.
Why The Case Matters Politically
Ávila Farías has said she plans to introduce legislation addressing conservatorship issues, possibly next year, although she has not provided details. The Assembly’s official profile confirms that she remains a member of the committee overseeing aging and long-term care while serving her first term in Sacramento.
The records do not establish a criminal conviction or a judicial finding of wrongdoing. They do, however, show a court temporarily taking away an elderly woman’s control over her affairs, experts finding that she could make her own decisions, and a property settlement that followed; for Martinez-area voters, that sequence is likely to matter as they assess the lawmaker’s judgment and credibility.
