The Texas Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in the long-running battle for ownership of an aging Swiss Avenue mansion, once the crumbling centerpiece of former model Mary Ellen Bendtsen.
4949 Swiss Ave. remains the focal point of ongoing legal battles – including state felony charges of attempted theft against three men.
Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter and her attorneys said they hope the Supreme Court's refusal will be the impetus for closure in a sweeping saga that began long before Mrs. Bendtsen signed a controversial deathbed will.
The court's refusal effectively upholds previous court decisions that declared Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter the rightful heir and rejected a bid to block the home's sale. A Dallas probate court previously rejected a will that left Mrs. Bendtsen's stake in the house to Deep Ellum antique dealers Mark McCay and Justin Burgess, whom she befriended late in life.
Frances Ann Giron, Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter, called the legal drama that has ensued since her mother's 2005 death "unmitigated hell."
"I haven't had an opportunity to grieve my mother in three years."
Full Article and Source:
Texas Supreme Court won't hear appeal in case of Swiss Avenue mansion
See Also:
Mary Ellen's Will - The Battle For 4949 Swiss by Lee Hancock
4949 Swiss Ave. remains the focal point of ongoing legal battles – including state felony charges of attempted theft against three men.
Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter and her attorneys said they hope the Supreme Court's refusal will be the impetus for closure in a sweeping saga that began long before Mrs. Bendtsen signed a controversial deathbed will.
The court's refusal effectively upholds previous court decisions that declared Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter the rightful heir and rejected a bid to block the home's sale. A Dallas probate court previously rejected a will that left Mrs. Bendtsen's stake in the house to Deep Ellum antique dealers Mark McCay and Justin Burgess, whom she befriended late in life.
Frances Ann Giron, Mrs. Bendtsen's daughter, called the legal drama that has ensued since her mother's 2005 death "unmitigated hell."
"I haven't had an opportunity to grieve my mother in three years."
Full Article and Source:
Texas Supreme Court won't hear appeal in case of Swiss Avenue mansion
See Also:
Mary Ellen's Will - The Battle For 4949 Swiss by Lee Hancock
"Indicted"! Best part of the story!
ReplyDeleteDeathbed will changes must always be totally suspect.
"I haven't had the chance to grieve for my Mother in three years", says it all.
ReplyDeleteGuardianship abuse takes us away from our important work: taking care of our loved ones.
Hours, days, weeks, months of precious time is spent trying to protect our loved ones from the system instead of time spending time enjoying our loved one and making him/her comfortable and secure.
We must never waiver in our quest to stop the madness of guardianship.
Ah yes, "Indicted!" is priceless!
ReplyDeleteLet's hope the criminal indictments conclude with harsh prison sentences and full restitution.
ReplyDeleteLori writes "Deathbed will changes must always be totally SUSPECT." Surely Lori knows that they are, that the law PRESUMES such changes are not valid and places the burden of proof on those who assert the validity of the changes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the evidence which is linked online at http://members.aol.com/tvfields/dir.htm and http://members.aol.com/tvfields/ILF_Links/Frameset001.htm proves, it is not enough for our courts to simply SUSPECT changes or PRESUME them invalid. We need for there to be practical, reliable safeguards against negligence and abuse at the deathbed. Such safeguards would prevent abusers, including family members and their legal representatives, from badgering a patient who has repeatedly refused them what they want during the preceding months, weeks, days, hours and minutes. Such safeguards would result in the permanent disbarrment of attorneys who do not immediately report and take measures to protect a patient who tells them he has "extreme distrust" for someone, especially another attorney, who is trying to get him to sign legal and financial documents that he does not want to sign. Such safeguards would not leave patients alone with such opportunists. Such safeguards would ensure that all interested parties are promptly notified and provided an opportunity to protect the patient and themselves against the opportunists.
The need for such safeguards is obvious. Why then have lawmakers refused for many years to legislate any? The responsibility for this ultimately rests with the legal profession, whose lobbyists are pushing through changes to the laws of many states which further weakens the already feeble protections against opportunistists by, for example, eliminating the need for witnesses to actually see the patient sign the will ...