Squaring off in Rockingham Superior Court before Judge Peter Hurd were Portsmouth attorney James Ritzo and Hampton attorney Gary Holmes. Both lawyers met in Probate Court, where each argued their side of the accusations involving the local woman and her relationship to local detective Aaron Goodwin. The woman, who will be 94 in December and whose competency is being disputed, has an estate that includes an $805,000 waterfront home, according to Portsmouth assessing records.
Goodwin, who denies any wrongdoing, is named as a beneficiary of her new trust, which was filed in June with the county probate court.
During the roughly 40-minute proceedings, Ritzo argued Goodwin provided companionship to the elderly woman so he'd "inherit the entire estate."
Ritzo told the court the woman was his client the past 25 years and during the last 10 years has suffered "increasingly" from dementia, Alzheimer's disease and failing eyesight. He told the court he drafted several wills for the woman, most recently in 2009, and that they remained fairly consistent over the years.
That changed, according to Ritzo, shortly after Goodwin met the woman in November 2010, when she called police about a prowler. "She called me up two weeks after that and said 'I want to change my will because I'm in love with Mr. Goodwin and I want to leave my entire estate to him,'" Ritzo said.
Full Article and Source:
Woman's Competency Debated in Estate Battle Involving City Detective
Full Article and Source:
Woman's Competency Debated in Estate Battle Involving City Detective
This article is sad...in short, 2 attorneys and an accused cop battling over the estate of the 93 yoa woman, while billing her estate... and the judge's solution is to assign an emergency guardian to investigate the matter, while billing the estate...all billing routinely approved by the judge.
ReplyDeleteWith my practical experience I wonder why wouldn't the judge request:
1. Someone from the law enforcement side testify to the criminal investigation...if one occurred?
2. Medical records?.. "even outdated records?"
3. Why no competency exam by the courts?
In all fairness, these things may have occurred, but I wouldn't be surprised otherwise.
Undue influence.
ReplyDeleteJoecitizen, I think it's easier for the judge to bring in an emergency guardian. That's their standard practice.
ReplyDeleteThese hearings aren't about the bet interest of the ward but all about legal maneuvering.
Anonymous, how about a (government paid) court monitor to validate "factual" claims by both sides, with a time limit? (Salary normally comes from annual fees taken from county guardians.) This would allow emergency guardian to see strictly to short term safety of ward. Judges always have that option when their circuit has such a position.
ReplyDeleteThe basic problem lies with the courts; you can't blame the lawyers if the judges let them do what they will.
ReplyDeleteJoecitizen, I want in on your conversation.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the court should get to the bottom of it. Judges don't want to get in the middle, find out what's really going on and then deal with it. They'd rather move on to the next case, so they bring in a guardian and then move on to the next case (another new guardianship).
But, I'm not liking that investigator to be related to the court in anyway. I'm afraid the same attitude the judge has would be passed along with a court monitor.
And, I also think the AIP's assets should not be frozen or a temporary g'ship begun in cases like this. Firt, if the assets are frozen, the AIP won't be able to hire counsel to protect him/her against the permanent guardianship which nearly always follows the temporary guardianship. And second is more of the first...emergency guardianships almost always go permanent. And then the ship has sailed and the AIP is left permanently in a guardianship.
I would rather see a judge put a temporary restraining order on the alleged perp until the case is litigated. If the AIP would give the perp $10K, for instance, the perp would have to turn it down and report it to the court or theft charges would be filed --- and those charges could be determined quickly.
I think he's guilty. Little old ladies are easy prey.
ReplyDeleteBen,... I like ALL of your comments and I agree.... and Betty, you're right, the cop is guilty. I have investigated cops for the same thing. In my opinion over 90 % of cops do the right thing but not this time...abuse of his position, it's that simple.
ReplyDelete