For years families bogged down in Harris County probate courts have accused judges of bleeding estates of tens of thousands of dollars to pay high-priced lawyers for unnecessary work.
A Houston appeals court ruled that probate Judge Mike Wood improperly awarded what may turn out to be more than $2 million in fees to a trustee and his lawyers over the objections of a wealthy father who set up three trusts for his sons.
According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, the appeals court was brutal in its 46-page opinion. It ruled for a variety of reasons that Wood was wrong to grant a judgment of $1.9 million against Alpert while ordering the trusts to pay about $500,000 in fees to Crain Caton for representing Riley.
Among the errors:
•Wood was wrong to rule as a matter of law that Riley was actually the trustee of three trusts Alpert set up for his sons. Riley clearly was not the trustee of one of them, the court ruled. In the other two, the question should have been put to a jury because some evidence was against Riley.
•Wood was wrong to rule that Alpert had breached his duty to the trust. As the person who put the money into the trust, the court said, he owed no duty as to how the trust was managed. This is a widely acknowledged principle of trusts. Donors put money into a trust and give up control of it partly so they will not be liable for how it is handled.
•Riley accused Alpert of selling some stock in one of his companies to the trust to take a tax loss, but thereby caused a tax liability to the trust. The appeals court ruled, however, that the law doesn't even allow Riley to bring the claim. The reason is that only Riley, not Alpert, had the power to buy the stock from Alpert, and "the trustee alone is responsible as a fiduciary if he allows (Alpert) to mismanage trust property to the detriment of the trust."
This, again, is something a probate judge should know.
•The appeals court ruled that Judge Wood also erred in overruling the jury's finding that Riley had violated his duties to the trust and the two sons in a variety of ways. In other words the judge, not the jury, "convicted" the wrong man.
•The appeals court ruled Judge Wood awarded Riley tens of thousands of dollars in fees from the trusts in clear violation of language in them saying the trustee would earn no fees.
•The appeals court said the lower court should, based on its ruling, consider making Riley pay the legal fees for Alpert and his sons.
•The court ruled that even if a jury decides Riley was the legitimate trustee for two of the trusts, a new state law that went into effect in 2005 prohibits a trustee from pressing any lawsuit over the objections of the beneficiaries.
"All in all, the decision, without specifically saying so, describes Judge Wood as brazenly ignoring the law while liberally doling out the trusts' money to high-paid lawyers."
Source:
Judge Wood slapped again
See also:
Probate Showdown
A Houston appeals court ruled that probate Judge Mike Wood improperly awarded what may turn out to be more than $2 million in fees to a trustee and his lawyers over the objections of a wealthy father who set up three trusts for his sons.
According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, the appeals court was brutal in its 46-page opinion. It ruled for a variety of reasons that Wood was wrong to grant a judgment of $1.9 million against Alpert while ordering the trusts to pay about $500,000 in fees to Crain Caton for representing Riley.
Among the errors:
•Wood was wrong to rule as a matter of law that Riley was actually the trustee of three trusts Alpert set up for his sons. Riley clearly was not the trustee of one of them, the court ruled. In the other two, the question should have been put to a jury because some evidence was against Riley.
•Wood was wrong to rule that Alpert had breached his duty to the trust. As the person who put the money into the trust, the court said, he owed no duty as to how the trust was managed. This is a widely acknowledged principle of trusts. Donors put money into a trust and give up control of it partly so they will not be liable for how it is handled.
•Riley accused Alpert of selling some stock in one of his companies to the trust to take a tax loss, but thereby caused a tax liability to the trust. The appeals court ruled, however, that the law doesn't even allow Riley to bring the claim. The reason is that only Riley, not Alpert, had the power to buy the stock from Alpert, and "the trustee alone is responsible as a fiduciary if he allows (Alpert) to mismanage trust property to the detriment of the trust."
This, again, is something a probate judge should know.
•The appeals court ruled that Judge Wood also erred in overruling the jury's finding that Riley had violated his duties to the trust and the two sons in a variety of ways. In other words the judge, not the jury, "convicted" the wrong man.
•The appeals court ruled Judge Wood awarded Riley tens of thousands of dollars in fees from the trusts in clear violation of language in them saying the trustee would earn no fees.
•The appeals court said the lower court should, based on its ruling, consider making Riley pay the legal fees for Alpert and his sons.
•The court ruled that even if a jury decides Riley was the legitimate trustee for two of the trusts, a new state law that went into effect in 2005 prohibits a trustee from pressing any lawsuit over the objections of the beneficiaries.
"All in all, the decision, without specifically saying so, describes Judge Wood as brazenly ignoring the law while liberally doling out the trusts' money to high-paid lawyers."
Source:
Judge Wood slapped again
See also:
Probate Showdown
Judge Mike Wood and Harris County Probate Court #2 is registered with the National Guardianship Association
