Isabelle Jessich went to court Friday with two goals: to regain her liberty from a court-appointed guardian and to prevent him from selling her Edina home to pay $100,000 in fees for himself and seven lawyers.Jessich succeeded in getting control of everything but her money, but she now faces the prospect of being sent back to a nursing home while her 17-year-old daughter could be placed in foster care.
Jessich, 57, has been battling for 20 months to take control of her life from Joseph Vogel, a professional guardian and conservator appointed by a Hennepin County judge in December 2008 to make decisions for her. Last year, Jessich made major strides to overcome the eating disorder, neurological problems and alcoholism that had made her a ward of the court. But Vogel would not let her leave a Robbinsdale nursing home and rejoin her daughter Allison, who was left to fend for herself.
After the Star Tribune reported on Jessich's situation in August 2009, state inspectors investigated and cited Robbinsdale Rehab and Care Center for failing to release Jessich. She moved back home in December. Since then, Jessich testified Friday, she has continued with physical therapy and other recovery activities. She said she is leading a "normal life."
But her struggle with Vogel over her finances could bring chaos back into her life. Vogel said he's owed almost $25,000, and lawyers in the case -- whose fees must be paid by Jessich -- have racked up more than $80,000 in bills. Vogel can't get access to Jessich's sizable inheritance in Belgium, worth at least $200,000, because Belgian officials don't recognize his authority, Vogel said.
Full Article and Source:
Edina Woman Gets Control of Life, May Lose Home
See Also:
Isabelle Jessich, "My Sweet Home"
These people are like piranhas!
ReplyDeleteWhy don't they start suing each other and feed on themselves, for a change?
If anyone has past due debt - be it an electric bill, auto loan payments, attorney fees, excessive speeding or parking tickets with fines to the state, child support, what ever... generally these debts go into collections. One may even serve prison sentence.
ReplyDeleteWhat would give this "professional thief" the right to this victims house for payment? How could any ethical judge ever rule this to be proper? and ... who's best interest is being served??
Note: She has already served her prison sentece for the unpaid debt so, I say... leave her alone!!
Thank you for reading my mind, Anonymous 1.
ReplyDeleteI will pray for you, Isabelle, and I am so sorry for the injustice you have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of the system.
ReplyDeleteThey gave you back your "life" because they had accomplished what they wanted, which was getting all your money.
Just another Guardian who is only after whatever financial benefits he can obtain and could care less about the Ward or the Ward's family. I wonder how those involved can sleep at night- Oh I know, their nights are full of sweet dreams thinking about the money they will get by depleting the Ward's life savings. CORRUPT! One day these people will have to answer for what they have done.
ReplyDeleteIn 1968 Attorney Allan Derschowitz authored an article which appeared in Psychology Today entitled, "Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment -- The Sword That Cuts Both Ways", and this same principle is applicable to guardianship.
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as no one wants to be under guardianship as we see in this case and cases like Danny Tate, just being freed from the guardianship itself does not equate to the restoration of the ward's property. Accordingly, if the sword cuts both ways --- why seek to get out of the guardianship when the alternative of aggressively enforcing the guardianship shifts the burden to the guardian to do their job and protect the ward.
Stated otherwise, when someone is owed the legal duty of being protected .... why shed the protector and relieve them of their legal duty ..... when cramming that legal duty down their throat is a viable option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAn7baRbhx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWvKDSwvls
"Guardianship is for protection and benefit of ward, not guardian." -- In Re Guardianship of Goltry, 222 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 1966)
ReplyDeleteA MUST read for everyone
ReplyDeletehttp://supreme.justia.com/us/98/343/
Anyone disagree that this is getting worse, every minute of every hour of everyday?
ReplyDeleteVultures are everywhere and this is big easy money.
Nothing whatsoever to do with the ward - no, probate churns people into products to generate cash for probate players - big business that leaves the victim in WORSE CONDITION, impoverished, homelss, and in a state of no future, no hope.