APPLETON — Bonds obtained by former Appleton guardian Jeffrey M. Schend to guard against theft would cover only half of the $500,000 he’s accused of stealing from his elderly and disabled clients, The Post-Crescent has learned.Outagamie County had an option in its contract with Schend to require additional protection, but didn’t exercise it.
“I think part of the issue is we’ve never had a problem with guardians in the past,” said Joe Guidote, lead attorney for Outagamie County. “Bonds are expensive and difficult to obtain at times.”
Outagamie County could recover up to $250,000 from Schend’s bonds if he’s convicted of theft charges. Schend, 45, was charged last year with six felony counts of theft and one misdemeanor theft count. His trial is set to begin Aug. 20.
Investigators have been unable to locate about $500,000 that should have been in the accounts of Schend’s clients. Court documents show one of Schend’s clients had net assets of more than $633,000 when he assumed guardianship in 2006.
During the course of the investigation, county officials spent $36,000 on the services of a forensic account to piece together Schend’s financial history.
Outagamie County required Schend’s business, JMS Guardianship Services, to obtain a minimum bond of $75,000 as protection against theft. Schend’s contract also allowed the county to ask for court orders for additional bonding when the value of estates showed a need for additional protections. Guidote said Schend’s bonds above the minimum weren’t the result of any such request.
Guidote said “anything over that was from Mr. Schend’s initiative.”
Sylvia Rudek, a director of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, said insufficient bonding hasn’t been a frequent concern brought to her organization. Still, she wasn’t sympathetic to the notion high bond prices could impact those working as professional guardians. It’s a cost of doing business, she said.
Elaine Renoire, president of the organization, said Outagamie County “dropped the ball” in the Schend case.
Full Article and Source:
Bonds in Jeffrey M. Schend's Appleton guardian case won't cover losses
See Also:
Jeffrey Schend, the Guardian Accused of Theft, Seeks Out of County Jury
9 comments:
Jeffrey Schend was entrusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars. It makes no sense to bond him at $75,000. When one buys a $250,000 house, does one insure it for $25,000?
Under-bonding IS a common, under-reported problem in the probate courts. Too many judges do not follow bonding guidelines proposed by their state laws. I.e., for a $500K estate in a state with lax laws and a renegade judge, a fiduciary might be required to post a mere $1,000 signature bond - an amount the court can ‘fine’ the fiduciary if s/he mismanages the estate. As to fiduciary insurance or a separate bond to cover the value of the estate, which the court ‘may’ order, we often find that nothing was ordered and nothing exists. Many interested parties are unfamiliar with bonding requirements and don’t inquire, until proposing to file a claim.
As Attorney Guidote stated, “bonds are expensive and difficult to obtain,” but - possibly for the same reasons that other forms of insurance are expensive – the prevalence of risk is very high. Failure to anticipate Schend's breach of duty sends clear messages to the probate courts: 1) Every fiduciary is a potential thief. 2) Tighten the bonding laws and follow them.
Excellent in-depth reporting of a very important matter that needs to addressed and presented to the Wisconsin state legislators for effective remedies with opportunity for uniformity within all the counties in Wisconsin.
The lawmakers need to respond to the facts. The elected legislators must address the problems that you continue to expose in order to keep up with the hidden crimes, the significant increase in the number of our elderly population finding themselves losing all their rights while at the mercy of a guardian or conservator with little to no meaningful oversight by the court and court watchers.
Does anyone know where and how many complaints have been submitted?
It's impossible for interested persons to review and audit case files, looking for problems, missing and false accounting and inventory.
Currently the system is operating under the ‘honor system’. With sealed files, it’s impossible to review for problems because all adult guardianship case files are sealed / closed mandated by current laws.
Who is being protected by the secrecy?
"For a $250,000 bond, costs were estimated at $1,250 to $3,750 — and from $7,500 to $15,000 for those deemed high risk, the companies estimated."
QUESTION: What would qualify a person or a professional guardian as 'high risk'?
Why would the court consider approving and appointing a 'high risk' guardian? Or would this determination be helpful to the court to consider appointing a person who is not high risk?
When it comes down to it, isn't it the judge's responsibility to be sure that Schend was properly bonded?
Would the victims who lost money to Schend have a case to sue the court?
I am so pleased with the news coverage on this story. I know it has already led to some changes in Outagamie County and I hope it will lead to major changes in Wisconsin!
Jeffrey Schend got away with so much theft and for such a long time because nobody's watching. We know the courts are not monatoring or giving any oversight to these cases, so that makes it really imparative that the files in Wisconsin be OPEN!
I wonder if Schend has any assets that could be sold to pay some of his victims.
There should be some accountability from the court for letting Jeffrey Schend sneak by with such low bonding.
Now, the question is: are they auditing all their guardianship files to be sure other fiduciary's bonds are raised?
I can't wait for Jeffrey Schend's hearing. I hope they send him up the river with nothing but the rest of his life in jail.
Post a Comment