 |
| Darryl Millet, credit: Albuquerque Journal |
The Journal recently published a series of front-page articles on guardianship, using the story of Blair Darnell as the central focus.
The
reporter who wrote the story was not able to obtain detailed
information from the people with inside knowledge of the true facts of
the Darnell case, due to the sequestration (privacy) rule that makes it
impossible for those insiders to speak about the case. Instead, the
reporter relied primarily on the biased reports of some family members
for the critical details of the story of Blair Darnell’s last few years
of life.
The reporter got the Blair Darnell story wrong
in many significant ways. The family was given ample opportunity to
participate in the court process and was represented by multiple
attorneys who were able to get the family’s point of view heard by the
judge. Many hours were devoted to court hearings over the six-plus years
the Darnell case was active.
The Journal article also
overstates the value of the Darnell estate, including the value of the
farm property sold. The article doesn’t mention that the family
interfered with the first prospective sale until the buyer withdrew his
offer. The article doesn’t tell you that the next-door neighbor said he
was no longer interested in buying the property once the first buyer
walked away. Most importantly, the article doesn’t tell you that Blair
Darnell was on the verge of running out of money to buy food or to pay
for her 24/7 caregivers, and that the sale of the farm property was
essential to keeping her fed and cared for.
The Journal
article doesn’t explain that the fence around the acre containing Blair
Darnell’s home was put there to make it safe for her to remain in her
home and sit outside without wandering away, due to her advanced
dementia, rather than having her moved to a secure nursing home and away
from the farm that she loved so dearly. The article doesn’t tell you
that Blair Darnell was able to peacefully die in her own home, with her
family at her side, despite the sale of the property over a year
earlier.
The deal struck by the conservator included a life estate,
so that Blair Darnell could remain in her home until her death. That
life estate significantly reduced the value of the property to the
buyer, because it prevented him from beneficial use of the property for
as long as Blair lived. The price he paid reflected that. Her family
history suggested she might live well into her mid-90s, although sadly
she died at 85 years of age.
The Journal article also
fails to tell you that the sale of the Darnell farm was consistent with
the appraisal of the property done just prior to the sale. The article
implies that the property was sold by the conservator without the
assistance of a real estate broker. However, there was a listing agent, a
separate buyer’s agent, and a completely arms-length transaction by
parties who did not know each other. The buyer spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars improving the run-down property before he resold
it, and the real estate market was much stronger by the time the
property was resold.
The court has given me permission to
provide this information to correct the record. It was my great honor
to help Blair Darnell live out her final years contentedly at her farm.
Fortunately, due to advanced Alzheimer’s disease, Blair was mostly
oblivious to the family turmoil that occurred around her during her
final years.
Full Article & Source:
Articles on guardianship left out many critical facts
See Also:
Who Guards the Guardians?
4 comments:
You're not a bit convincing, Darryl Millet.
Who is he kidding? He didn't give a hoot about Blair Darnell. He only cares about himself. That's evident in his writing.
Hate to have this guy for my lawyer.
I'd sure like to see a written approval from the judge authorizing Millet to speak. It's ironic the law thinks Millet has a right to speak up but families don't.
Post a Comment