A Mason County woman is alleging the last four sheriffs have played a role in cheating her out of a family inheritance.
Former sheriffs David Lee Anthony II, Scott Simms, Troy "Shorty" Huffman and Paul Ernie Watterson are named as co-defendants in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit filed by Gina M. Eads. In her complaint filed April 9 in Mason Circuit Court, Eads, 44, a Leon resident, alleges the four lawmen over the last quarter century mismanaged funds belonging to the estate of her grandmother, Grace M. Thornton, during their respective terms in office.
According to the suit, Thornton died on Oct. 8, 1986. In a holographic will dated Oct. 23, 1979, she directed that her entire estate, except for her home in Kenny Street in Point Pleasant, be liquidated and the proceeds placed in an interest bearing account with the interest paid monthly to her son, Richard D. Gaylor.
A holographic will is one that is his handwritten, and signed by the testator -- the person making it -- but not witnessed by someone else. Records show, the Mason County Clerk's Office accepted the will into probate a week following Thornton's death.
On an unspecified date following Thornton's death, the Sheriff's Office was appointed to serve as its administrator. Also, because of his incapacity, it was appointed to act as Gaylor's guardian and conservator.
The reason for Gaylor's incapacity is not stated.
According to the suit, Gaylor died in 2008. Pursuant to Thornton's will, Eads was to receive the residual of her estate following Gaylor's death.
However, Eads alleges during the last 24 years Watterson, Huffman, Simms, Anthony "and their fiduciary officers ... paid over to Mr. Gaylor sums of money to which he was not otherwise entitled to receive." Funds in Thornton's estate, Eads alleges, "have dwindled almost to the point of non-existence."
Specifically, Eads alleges at the time her suit was filed, she's lost at least $67,615.31.
Full Article and Source:
Woman Says Past Mason Sheriff Mismanaged Estate
2 comments:
Wow... this is going to be a case to watch.
Aren't we lookng at conflicts of interest here?
Post a Comment