Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Judge Freezes Investment Account

Guardianship management questioned; hearing to be held

A Circuit Court judge has frozen an investment account of town chairman Jeff Long related to his guardianship of an estate, pending an evidentiary hearing into allegations of conflicts of interest and rendering undeserved economic benefits to family members, particularly to his sister Cheryl Long.

The petitioner, Kathleen Johnsen, who is also Long's ex-wife as well as a beneficiary in the estate, asserted in court papers that Long abused his power as the personal representative of the estate of the late Christabel Sarley.

She is seeking Long's removal as personal representative as well as reimbursement by Long of $378,761.13. Johnsen is also asking the court to direct Cheryl Long to reimburse Sarley's estate a substantial sum of money.

The discovery report maintains that over 14 years, without proper disclosure, Long favored a joint account Sarley had with his sister at the expense of Sarley's solely owned account.

Between July 1, 1992, and Sarley's death on Sept. 26, 2006, the report alleges, Sarley's account with Long's sister Cheryl grew in value by more than 295 percent, from $323,085 to $955,455, while Sarley's solely owned account plunged in value by 74percent, from $275,166 to $70,060.

After Sarley's death, the report asserts, about $378,761 of the $955,455 was transferred to an account in Jeff Long's sole name - it is that account Nielsen halted any further distribution from or contributions to pending the hearing - while the remaining assets, or $568,332.95, were transferred to an account in Cheryl Long's name.

The discovery report states that the net funds available for distribution to Sarley's heirs from her solely owned account totaled less than $51,000.

Full Article and Source:
Judge freezes account of Boulder Junction town chairman

1 comment:

  1. Thank you for posting the positive news. This is most unusual and very encourgaging to see the probate system work for the victim of abuse of power.

    I will be watching for future articles and hopefully a just consclusion to this case.

    ReplyDelete