Legacy in Limbo The
late rapper’s multimillion-dollar estate—valued at $11 million and
growing—is at the center of a contentious legal dispute involving his
daughter Emani’s inheritance.
Family Ties or Legal Lines? Nipsey’s
brother Sam plays a vital role in Emani’s life—one the court appears to
respect—but legal wrangling over guardianship and attorney compensation
continues to cloud the estate proceedings.
A Mother’s Claim, a Guardian’s Objection Court-appointed
counsel for Emani insists her inheritance should not be tapped to cover
fees for her mother’s legal team, calling the move inequitable and
adversarial.
By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald
[CALIFORNIA] – The fight over Nipsey
Hussle’s 16-year-old daughter, Emani Asghedom, has now reached a new
level of intensity, with court filings revealing bitter disputes over
legal fees and the use of her inheritance to fund opposing counsel.
At the
heart of the legal battle is a critical question with vast implications
for probate law, family custody arrangements, and minor’s estate
protections: Should a child’s inheritance be used to pay legal fees for
someone previously opposed to her in court?
Since
Nipsey Hussle’s tragic murder in 2019, his family—particularly his
brother Samiel “Blacc Sam” Asghedom—has played an active role in
safeguarding the legacy he left behind, including the welfare of his
daughter Emani. The court, recognizing Sam’s pivotal role in Emani’s
life, entrusted guardianship of the minor to Nipsey’s family, with Sam,
their sister Samantha, and their mother Angelique Smith stepping forward
to ensure Emani’s upbringing and protection.
Multiple sources, including previous court records, have affirmed the close and loving relationship Sam shared with Nipsey. “Sam is the man Nipsey would’ve wanted in his daughter’s life,” a legal analyst familiar with the probate case told USA Herald. “The court seems to honor that.”
Three months before passing
away, my father moved back with his girlfriend and made her power of
attorney so she could sell his house, pay bills and make medical
decisions.
She cleaned out his bank accounts and she sold his
house. He had stage 4 cancer and was not physically able to handle his
business. As power of attorney, she put her name on his bank account,
changed his beneficiaries and stopped communicating with his family. How
can I find out she was added to the bank account and changed his
beneficiaries?
She flipped the title on his car, sold all his furniture and told us
that our dad didn’t leave me or my sister anything. He was not married
and he had two daughters. His house sold five days before he died and
unless he has some other bank accounts, the money ($200,000) went into
the account she put her name on.
I am currently waiting for the
survivors’ department of the federal government to send me the packet
with a list of beneficiaries on his life insurance as well as his
retirement/pension. I am also waiting on his death certificate in order
to open probate to see what other assets he has. I appreciate any advice
you can give to help me navigate through this difficult situation.
Does
a POA have the authority to make these types of changes and cut his
direct heirs out of everything, and keep everything for herself?
Daughter of the Deceased
Dear Daughter,
From what you say, this woman should be prosecuted — not placated.
A
power of attorney who appropriates an elderly person’s assets using
undue influence and/or the intent to defraud can face criminal and civil
penalties. Larceny, the theft of someone’s property, is a felony in
most states, depending on the amount stolen. She is likely betting on
your legal inexperience and good nature to get away with it.
She
was not his wife, and as his on-again, off-again girlfriend, her actions
vastly overstepped her role as a power of attorney, who is in a
position of trust and has a fiduciary duty to act on behalf of the
principal and in their best interests. Clearly, she was acting in her
own best interests, selling his assets and putting them in newly created
joint bank accounts.
There is a statute of limitations on elder
financial abuse in most states, and you should treat this as such. It’s
not the Case of the Greedy Girlfriend, to paraphrase the alliterative
episode titles of Perry Mason; it’s more likely the Case of the Illegal
Interloper. You need to rethink your entire approach to this situation,
and hire an elder-law attorney.
I assume your father’s girlfriend
did not leave much, if anything. You need to stop waiting for
information to come through the mail, and stop treating this like an
unfortunate series of events. A power of attorney can, with the
cooperation of the principal — your father — add themselves as a joint
owner on a bank account, rather than just a co-signer.
Your father’s girlfriend did what this nursing home did to this reader’s elderly cousin.
She isolated him and took control over his bank accounts, manipulated
him into signing over his bank accounts rather than just signing over
the right to make withdrawals on those bank accounts, and abused her
role as power of attorney to help herself to his estate.
The
Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association, or Simfa, has a
checklist for financial abuse: “Numerous withdrawals of smaller
amounts.” Tick. “Changing power of attorney or the beneficiaries on
insurance or investment accounts.” Tick. She went one step further: She
liquidated the whole kit and caboodle.
As Simfa warns, she is
essentially a caregiver who becomes overly interested in your father’s
finances rather than his care. It recommends people in your position to
contact an Eldercare Locator
information specialist toll-free on 800-677-1116 weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Eastern time. It has both English- and Spanish-speaking
specialists.
Laws overseeing fiduciary relationships
Many
states have laws that protect against the abuse of fiduciary
relationships. “A beneficiary designation can also be contested for lack
of capacity if there is evidence the account holder was not of sound
mind when they signed the form,” according to Harrison Estate Law, a Gainesville, Fla.-based law firm.
“Many
financial institutions allow account holders to change their
beneficiary designations online,” the law firm adds. “This creates a
greater chance for undue influence or fraud, but it can also make it
harder to win a beneficiary-designation challenge. It also motivates
banks and financial institutions to defend beneficiary-designation
challenges.”
Let this give you the momentum to proceed with legal action. Harrison Estate Law cites a case
where a Florida appeals court ruled that a pay-on-death designation in
favor of the deceased’s caretaker should be invalidated due to undue
influence. The caretaker had used her personal relationship with the
deceased to change the beneficiary designation.
The court said
that since payable-on-death and transfer-on-death accounts are
substitutes for a will, they “are subject to challenge on grounds such
as undue influence, fraud, duress and overreaching.” Challenging such
designations require bank records, and other paperwork; an experienced
attorney can help you with the heavy lifting.
Power of attorney is
a powerful legal document, but their responsibilities last only while
the person is alive. The executor of the will — if one exists — or
administrator of the estate should take over the accounting of the
remaining assets and debts. You can petition the court to remove your
father’s girlfriend, if she is the executor/administrator.
Her
actions should also be reported to the local police or sheriff’s office
and your District Attorney. “It is important to note that the
principal’s financial assets are always considered to belong to the
principal, not the agent,” according to the McAndrews Law Offices, which has branches in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia.
Your
father’s case illustrates that you can’t always rely on banks or
lawyers to be on the lookout for elder financial abuse and suspicious
behavior. You have to be the watchful one because, as I told this woman who feared her father was being isolated from the rest of the family, early intervention is ideal. And so is a prompt response when the damage is done.
This
happened within the last three months of his life. Don’t allow your
inheritance to slip away. You, your sister and your father deserve
justice.
A Florida woman has left a sizable inheritance for her seven Persian cats to be cared for following her death.
The
adoption requests are pouring in for the six remaining cats, Sherry
Silk, executive director of the Humane Society of Tampa Bay, told Fox
News Digital.
"She did
leave a six-figure estate for their care, which is feeding, grooming,
medical supplies, toys, treats — whatever people want to do," she said.
"We are going to reimburse people up to that."
The total amount for the seven cats is just over US$300,000 (AU$450,000), which is a lot of money."
Nancy Saupa died at the age of 84 in Tampa, Florida, in November.
Her
only son predeceased her, and she will asked for her seven cats –
Midnight, Snowball, Goldfinger, Leo, Squeaky, Cleopatra and Napoleon –
to be cared for in the house.
However,
eight months after her death, a probate judge determined the caretakers
charged with their care could not fulfil their duties, and the Humane
Society was asked to step in.
"They were not cared for like they should have been," Silk said.
"I'm sure Nancy would never, ever have allowed that or wanted that for her cats. So they weren't in the best shape.
"But
they're good now. We have a shelter vet here — they've been on
antibiotics, and they got their baths. They've been groomed. They're in
great shape now."
A profoundly disabled Upper East Side woman is about to run out of
cash she needs for life-saving medications and aides — as a more than $1
million inheritance has been allegedly mishandled by a former home
health aide during an eight-year court battle, records show.
Multiple scleroris has left Meryn Klabouch, 74, a quadriplegic,
forcing her to burn through $20,000 to $30,000 in monthly medical costs,
legal filings show.
She’s survived off a $1 million bequest from her father, Francis, who
died in 2015, and was due another hefty payout when her aunt, Mutual of
America Insurance Co. CEO Dolores Morrissey, died in 2016 at age 88.
But the money hasn’t materialized.
Morrissey’s estate included cash, stocks, and a 1-bedroom, 1.5-bath
Yorkville co-op, itself once valued at $1 million, according to
Manhattan Surrogate Court documents.
Her aunt’s former home health aide — Janina Lewandowska — was named
executor of the roughly $2 million-plus estate, but has let costs pile
up, failed to dole out any of the cash and allowed Morrissey’s home to
languish for nearly a decade before finally selling it in July for
$825,000, Klabouch has charged.
Meryn Klabouch needs $20,000 to $30,000 a month to pay for medications and aides. Helayne Seidman
With funds from her father’s bequest running out, Klabouch says the court battle is now a matter of life or death.
“If Meryn does not receive a distribution from the estate she will
end up dead, with no money to pay for her medication, caretakers,
therapists and doctor,” her attorney wrote in court filings.
“This is truly an emergency which we beg the court address itself to,
as there is plenty of money for Meryn’s care and the estate is being
wasted each day.”
Meryn Klabouch, 74, gets help from her home health aide Joy, in her Upper East Side apartment.Helayne Seidman
Dolores Morrissey was CEO of Mutual of America Insurance company.Helayne Seidman
“I’ll be put in a nursing home,” Klabouch told The Post. “They’d probably kill me.”
Morrissey left modest amounts to about a dozen other relatives, none of whom have received the money.
Klabouch, in addition to $1 million cash, is supposed to receive half
of whatever is left of her aunt’s estate after the co-op is sold and
the other bequests are completed.
She recently got a measly $80,000 payout — but fears nothing else is
left after Lewandowska — who blamed the co-op for delaying the
apartment’s sale, told the court in December only $161,000 remained.
Francis Klabouch, left, and his wife Madeleine, left an
inheritance to care for their disabled daughter as did Madeleine’s
sister, Dolores Morrissey (center). Helayne Seidman
Klabouch said she’s tried to find out what happened to Morrissey’s
money, but that Lewandowska has flouted court directives and hasn’t
shared any financial information.
“One can only guess the reason she refuses to provide the information
is that it will evidence the breach of her fiduciary duty,” Klabouch
contended in court papers.
Lewandowska, who moved to Florida without telling the court, also got
Morrissey’s cat, Timmy, and has allegedly refused to give Klabouch
jewelry from her mother, Morrisey’s sister.
The executor of Morrissey’s estate, Janina Lewandowska,
left, seen here in an undated photo with Morrissey. Lewandowska was once
Morrissey’s home health aide. Helayne Seidman
It took executor Janina Lewandowska nearly eight years to sell Morrissey’s East End Avenue co-op.Helayne Seidman
“We do not know if the estate is still in existence or if the executor
has wasted it all,” according to court documents filed by Klabouch’s
attorney, who added, “I believe that the executor always thought my
client would die, and the executor … would keep …the money.”
Cheryl Shega never was “right,” her family members say.
The
oldest of three children, she “functioned at a much lower level” than
her two siblings, her brother, Greg Shega, said in a court affidavit.
She
held down an auto parts clerk job for only a few years in the 1970s and
didn’t cook, clean, do laundry or wash dishes. Rather, she relied on
her mother for all that, until her mom died unexpectedly in 2015. She
continued to live with her father until he, too, passed away two years
later.
Refusing
her siblings’ help, Cheryl lived alone in her parents’ Hibbing,
Minnesota home where somewhere along the line she came into contact
online with a woman from Peyton she believed to be her long-lost cousin.
Over
a period of years, that woman and her husband, Laura and Stephen Craig,
gained Cheryl’s confidence and persuaded her to, without authority,
name Laura as beneficiary of certificates of deposit held in a trust her
parents had established years earlier for the benefit of their
children, Cheryl’s brother and sister say in a lawsuit against the
Craigs filed in Minnesota in July. The certificates of deposit (CDs)
were valued at about $250,000.
Cheryl died on May 27,
2019, at age 67 at the hospital she was taken to after she was found
unconscious in her squalid home, which was crammed with unwashed
clothing and mountains of trash.
Her siblings, Greg of
Arizona and Nancy Weiser of Utah, were surprised to learn their frugal
parents, who appeared to own little, had squirreled away that much
money. They were more surprised to find Cheryl had designated Laura as
the sole beneficiary.
Within days of her death, her
siblings’ attorney, David Crosby, notified the American Bank of the
North to freeze the assets, because Cheryl was considered a “vulnerable
adult” under Minnesota law due to “long standing medical, physical and
emotional infirmities and dysfunctions,” Crosby said in a letter to the
bank.
Ignoring that, the bank transferred the assets less than a month later to Laura.
Greg
and Nancy doubt Laura has any relation to the family. They believe she
somehow became acquainted online with their emotionally needy and
unstable sister who searched relentlessly for the cousin who had
disappeared more than 40 years ago after joining a spiritual sect.
Cheryl Shega at the family home.
Courtesy Shega Family
The Indy has reported previously on cases of
guardians and conservators taking advantage of incapacitated persons
they are assigned to protect. Some pilfer millions of dollars from
estates in a system that lacks scrutiny and accountability. Yet,
prosecutions are rare.
Different from those cases,
Cheryl didn’t have a legally appointed guardian or conservator but was
persuaded by a relative stranger who gained her confidence to name her
as an heir to a good portion of the family trust assets.
“Financial
and contractual decisions that are completely inconsistent with
lifelong practices or written intentions often occur when in isolation,”
he says via email.
But the Craigs’ attorney, Charles
Shreffler of West St. Paul, Minnesota, says via email that Laura, 59,
who he says truly is Cheryl’s long-lost cousin, “did nothing to
influence Cheryl,” made no moves to hornswoggle her into naming her as a
beneficiary, and didn’t know she’d been named a beneficiary until after
Cheryl died.
Noting the beneficiary assignments
occurred over a period of 14 months, Shreffler says, “That length of
time demonstrates that Cheryl made these decisions deliberately, freely,
intentionally.”
No one ever examined Cheryl
Shega professionally to determine a diagnosis, but her sister-in-law,
Amy Shega, says she lived as a dependent until her parents died, was
difficult to deal with, especially if she didn’t get her way, and didn’t
seem to feel emotional attachments.
“She never saw reality,” she says. “You could not relate to her. You could never disagree with her.”
After
she died and the family went through the house, they discovered a book
hidden in their mother’s room about how to live with a child that’s
diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.
“They tried to hide that because they were embarrassed by it,” Amy says.
According
to the lawsuit, people acquainted with Cheryl knew she suffered from
mental illness. She was moody, childlike, hung doll clothes in her
closet, spent her time sleeping and watching soap operas and had no
social activities outside her home.
Cheryl
physically attacked her mother and brother on different occasions, Amy
says, but wasn’t placed in residential care, the siblings assumed,
because their parents couldn’t afford it.
In fact, over
the years Amy and her husband, Greg, paid to replace all the home’s
appliances for his parents, renovated the bathrooms, replaced the roof,
provided vehicle maintenance and built a new deck onto the house,
believing the couple was without financial means to do so, according to
court documents. Also, Greg’s sister, Nancy, pitched in to provide
maintenance on the house and planted and maintained gardens.
After
their mother, Charlene, died in 2015, the siblings worried about Cheryl
and their dad, Ed, but signs pointed to a stable situation.
Greg
and Nancy set up automatic pay for bills, drawn on a bank account
linked to the trust, which they believed contained about $25,000, though
Cheryl went to the bank and was told “there was a lot of money in a
savings account,” she told her sister. Both siblings took turns visiting
Cheryl and their dad every other month, Amy says.
Then,
Ed Shega became ill, and a dispute arose surrounding his care. Cheryl
insisted he not be placed in a skilled nursing facility because there
was no money to pay for it, a claim that, Greg and Nancy later came to
recognize, was out of character for a person who had never shown
interest in financial matters.
“There was a social worker working with the family,” Amy tells the Indy
by phone. “She was really afraid for Ed’s safety. Nancy and Greg
started the process of getting Ed moved.” That meant a court battle, but
they prepared for it. Five complaints had been filed by social workers
regarding Cheryl’s negligence in caring for her dad.
Cheryl Shega, right, with family members.
Courtesy Shega Family
Problem was, Amy says, “The courts didn’t move fast enough, and he died.”
After the family buried their father in May 2017, they visited Cheryl in the family home and found it in order.
“Everything was good,” Amy says. “The house was clean.”
Although
Cheryl had proven incapable of cooking and cleaning, the siblings
decided to allow her to live alone. “We would never, ever, ever have put
Cheryl in a [care] home,” she says. “One, she was volatile. She would
have been a danger to be around if she was confined. She was happy if
she was able to live the rest of her life in her home. It would have
been more cruel to force her into a facility.”
Despite
periodic visits and lots of phone calls from her siblings — sometimes
multiple calls a week — two years later, things fell apart.
On May 16, 2019, Nancy
didn’t get an answer when she called Cheryl, so she phoned a member of
the church Cheryl had once attended, who agreed to check on her.
The friend arrived about the same time as police, whom Nancy had called when Cheryl didn’t answer her phone.
They
found Cheryl collapsed on the floor. She was conscious but said she
couldn’t walk. An ambulance took her to a hospital where she lived for
12 days. The death certificate lists cause of death as severe
malnutrition, catatonia and bowel obstruction.
They
also found the house filthy, the windows draped with blankets, dead mice
and rats throughout, cat feces, piles of trash that indicated she’d
been living on cake mix, ice cream, Dr Pepper, Eggo waffles and Little
Debbie snacks, stacks of dirty clothing on all the beds and bags of junk
mail she’d saved. (She had a practice of leaving money for neighbors
who dropped off food on her porch.)
“In two years’
time, some of the doors to the rooms, you couldn’t open them,” Amy says.
“She still hadn’t learned to use the washing machine.” Amy reports
Nancy and Greg during their visits had left sticky notes everywhere with
their phone numbers and instructions on how to do certain tasks.
Amy
says Greg and Nancy hadn’t visited Cheryl for about 18 months but were
in touch with her weekly by phone. “They had no idea that she had gotten
that bad,” Amy tells the Indy via email. “Nancy was in
communication with members of the church and they too had no idea Cheryl
had gotten that bad. Cheryl wouldn’t let anyone in the house so that
prevented everyone from seeing the reality of it.”
Though
contact between Cheryl and Laura had dropped off, Laura phoned Cheryl
24 times from May 8 to May 28 without reaching her. But Laura never
contacted authorities for a welfare check, the lawsuit says.
When
Cheryl was admitted to the hospital that day, caregivers described her
as “totally disoriented” and having a “loss of touch with reality,
expressing paranoid thoughts,” while “refusing to eat, spitting out oral
medications and not communicating verbally.”
On May
20, Laura called the hospital and suggested Cheryl suffered from a
simple sinus infection and was an active and independent person. She
also advised the staff to keep Cheryl away from her siblings, because
they were only interested in the money, the lawsuit says.
“She
[Laura] explained that Cheryl has had a lifetime of animosity with her
siblings, Nancy and Greg,” the medical record states. “She also
explained that Cheryl has lived in fear of Nancy sticking her in a
nursing home and cashing out the house and the trust to receive the
financial benefits.”
Upon her death, Nancy and Greg
went to the bank to find out how much money was available for her final
arrangements and were astonished to learn the bank held assets valued at
about $250,000.
The lawsuit notes that Ed and Charlene
Shega established a trust in 2009 in which they placed all their
assets, including their home. They named Cheryl the primary beneficiary
and the other two children, Greg and Nancy, as successor beneficiaries,
meaning they would inherit any assets remaining after Cheryl’s death.
The
lawsuit claims Cheryl didn’t have authority to change beneficiaries.
But even as Cheryl asserted there was no money for her father’s nursing
care, she had assigned Laura Craig as beneficiary of four CDs.
Ed Shega, Cheryl’s father, at a nursing facility.
Courtesy Shega Family
The first CD was assigned to Laura in August 2016 before
Cheryl’s father died. The other three were assigned in September and
October 2017, after her father died. The lawsuit says that two weeks
after one of the CDs had been signed over to Laura that September, Laura
called Cheryl on Oct. 11, 2017. They spoke for 13 minutes, the lawsuit
says. On that same date, Cheryl changed the beneficiary to Laura on
another CD. Thirteen days later, Cheryl changed the beneficiary on the
last CD.
Given her limitations and disinterest in
financial matters, those actions were out of character for Cheryl, the
lawsuit contends. American Bank employee Geri Chapman helped her make
those beneficiary changes without contacting the other siblings, the
lawsuit contends. Amy Shega says American Bank claimed it didn’t know
the trust existed, though she says the bank had helped Charlene and Ed
Shega set it up.
After Cheryl died,
Greg and Nancy discovered she had been searching for lost relatives for
years via the internet, including sending emails to people in Slovenia
and Croatia. In 2012, she’d sent a message to Laura Craig, whom she
believed was her cousin, Laura Johnson, who left Minnesota some 40 years
before. In it, she asked, “Are you my cousin?”
Craig responded and quizzed Cheryl about their families, asking for photos and telling her to keep their communications secret.
In
a Feb. 19, 2012, email to Laura, Cheryl wrote, “You don’t have to
worry. I respect your privacy and will never tell anyone where you are
or that I am in contact with you.”
On Aug. 13, 2012,
Cheryl wrote to Laura, telling her that her father, Cheryl’s uncle, had
died. She closed the message saying, “I am so thrilled to be a part of
your life. Don’t worry, if anyone wants to find you, they will have to
do their research just like I did.”
Laura responded on
Sept. 9, 2012, thanking her for the family news, noting the two had
spoken on the phone and asking her how old she was.
In another message, dated March 12, 2018, Laura wrote of her Christian faith and said, “You are so much a part of our family!”
The
lawsuit casts doubt on whether Laura Craig truly is Laura Johnson, and
there appears to be no evidence Laura and Cheryl met in person after
making contact.
After Cheryl’s mom died in 2015, her online dialogue with Craig became more frequent, the lawsuit says.
It
also came to light later, through caregivers, that when her father was
failing, Cheryl spoke frequently to a relative from Colorado by phone.
“What we do not know however,” the lawsuit says, “is what Laura was telling Cheryl during their phone calls.”
Emails
discovered after Cheryl’s death showed that, during the time she
resisted placing her father in a nursing facility, she frequently
communicated with Laura via emails.
Cheryl also threw a
temper tantrum and threatened to kill herself when her brother asked
his dad if he could see a copy of the trust.
Inside the Shega home as it was found after Cheryl died in May 2019.
Courtesy Shega Family
“In hindsight,” the lawsuit says, “it has become evident
that Laura, with the assistance of her alleged husband, Stephen, were
the driving force behind Cheryl’s new focus on finances and attempts at
conserving money.”
As previously noted, Greg and Nancy
didn’t know their parents had accumulated significant funds. Besides the
CDs, assets were held by other institutions. Those institutions obliged
the family’s request, through an attorney, to not pay out any sums to
Laura.
But despite two such notices, American Bank paid
$247,188 from the CDs to Laura after she hired a lawyer who wrote to
the bank asking for the money, the lawsuit says.
The
lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages alleging undue influence,
exploitation of a vulnerable adult, unjust enrichment, tortious
interference with the estate, deception/fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, negligence and aiding and abetting the exploitation
of a vulnerable adult.
“How could the bank do that
[change beneficiaries] and not know she was mentally incompetent? That
money was there for her [Cheryl] to use to live on, but the trust
clearly states that she cannot change the beneficiaries,” Amy tells the Indy by phone.
Moreover,
the trust designated all three children as having powers of attorney
over their parents’ health care and assets, she says.
Laura
and Stephen Craig have filed a motion to dismiss, contending the court
lacks jurisdiction over them and “the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted against these defendants because ...
the complaint fails to allege any facts or plead a cause of action under
the Multiparty Accounts Act....”
Likewise, the bank is
seeking dismissal, alleging bank officials didn’t know the assets were
part of a trust. In its answer to the lawsuit, American Bank states,
“Any actions taken by Defendants were based on legitimate business
consideration and were done without the intent to injure or harm
Plaintiff” and that Cheryl’s estate contributed to any damages sustained
by the estate by its own actions or inactions. The bank and its
employees declined to provide the Indy with a response.
A family photo of Ed and Charlene Shega, seated, and their children, from left, Cheryl, Greg and Nancy Weiser.
Courtesy Shega Family
The estate countered there’s ample evidence to prove the
lawsuit’s claims, citing as an example the “13-minute phone call ...
when Cheryl made Laura a beneficiary of one of the certificates of
deposit.”
A decision on the motions to dismiss is due in January.
In a five-page response to Indy questions, the Craigs’ attorney, Shreffler, alleged the lawsuit is “filled with innuendos.
“What
facts are there to support the claim that either Laura or Stephen
influenced Cheryl?” he adds. “The Complaint alleges that Cheryl had been
close to her family until she reconnected with Laura, and that the only
possible explanation for Cheryl’s difficulties with her siblings is
Laura’s undue influence through telephone calls. That theory is
undermined by actual facts...”
Among those, the Craigs claim:
•Laura
knew nothing about being named beneficiary on the CDs until contacted
by the Shega trust’s attorney in June 2019. She did know she was made
beneficiary on another investment, however, according to text messages
between Cheryl and Laura.
•There was tension between
Cheryl and her siblings. Now, Shreffler says, “she [Nancy] wants you to
believe that Cheryl was vulnerable and that they had a close
relationship.... The essence of being a ‘vulnerable adult’ is not being
able to take care of one’s activities of daily living. Nancy’s comments
in the medical records reveal that she knew Cheryl had been taking care
of herself.”
•In a handwritten 2016 Christmas letter,
Cheryl sent Laura a copy of a stock statement, saying, “As you can see
you are the beneficiary.... Keep this safe it tells you how to contact
Allete [Inc.].” Shreffler considers this “more evidence Cheryl made
these decisions on her own.” Laura is unaware of what became of that
stock after Cheryl’s death.
•Asked if Laura truly is
Cheryl’s cousin, Shreffler notes when Laura called Nancy when Cheryl was
hospitalized, Nancy never said, “Who are you?” Rather, “She knew she
was talking to her cousin Laura,” he says. Also, Laura filed an
affidavit with the court in August 2020 stating she is, in fact,
Cheryl’s cousin and possesses a birth certificate to prove it.
•Asked
about the 13-minute phone call, Shreffler says Laura “doesn’t remember
what she and Cheryl talked about.” But he adds the span of time — from
August 2016 to October 2017 — during which Cheryl changed beneficiaries
on the CDs “demonstrates that Cheryl made these decisions deliberately,
freely, intentionally.”
Ed and Charlene Shega on their wedding day.
Courtesy Shega Family
•Cheryl
told Laura there was a “lifetime of animosity” between her and her
siblings and that Laura “did not try to isolate Cheryl from her
siblings.”
Moreover, Shreffler notes, “There is no
evidence that Cheryl lacked capacity” and that Cheryl couldn’t be
considered “vulnerable.”
To underscore Laura’s
innocence of any attempts to unduly influence Cheryl, Shreffler notes
that while Cheryl told Laura about the stock investment, she didn’t tell
her about the CDs.
“Whether it was right or fair that
Cheryl picked her cousin over her siblings as her beneficiary is
nobody’s business except Cheryl’s,” he wrote. “The evidence shows that
Cheryl made those decisions freely, and provides some insight into why
she made those decisions. The Craig’s [sic] have done nothing wrong.”
According to Nolo.com, an Internet
legal website, it’s up to a complaining relative to prove that a will
or other instrument was written under undue influence. To do that, they
must show:
•Property is left to a person in a way that
defies normal circumstances, such as close family members being left out
in favor of others, without an obvious explanation.
•The
benefactor was particularly dependent on, or trusted, the person who
exerted influence. (This is sometimes called a “confidential
relationship” between them.)
•Illness or frailty made the benefactor susceptible to undue influence.
•The influencer took advantage of the benefactor and benefited from the change.
In
a North Dakota case, an elderly woman changed her will to name a friend
as beneficiary to 35 percent of her estate, unlike her previous will.
Witnesses testified in the 2011 case that the friend controlled the
woman’s visitors and tried to ostracize family members from the woman,
who suffered from dementia. In that case, the court ruled the friend had
exerted undue influence and invalidated the will in question.
Amy Mason, an attorney representing the Shega siblings, tells the Indy
by phone that Cheryl’s case is unusual, because it involves alleged
undue influence across state lines. Normally, she says, the influencer
and the vulnerable person see one another frequently. In Cheryl’s case,
she never met with Laura during her seven years of contacts by emails,
letters, texts and phone calls.
Cheryl was susceptible, Mason says, because, “Cheryl was very isolated. She didn’t have any friends.”
In
a 1984 case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that undue influence
is normally shown through circumstantial evidence that supports a theory
that opportunity existed, the influencer participated in the
preparation of the will of the vulnerable person, development of a
confidential relationship, disinheritance of those whom the decedent
probably would have remembered in a will otherwise and exercise of
influence or persuasion.
Such cases, Mason acknowledges, are “tough” to win.
“From
an outsider looking in, you don’t see all that’s happening,” she says.
“Someone needs to understand how someone like Cheryl would be influenced
compared to the average individual. She was a loner and lived in a
fantasy world.”
Mason likened the situation to dating
site scams that persuade lonely elderly women to transfer thousands of
dollars to a stranger, because they wrongly think they’re in a
relationship.
“If not for Laura misguiding her, if not
for Laura and her husband trying to convince her she was all alone and
they were the only ones who loved her and cared for her, she [Cheryl]
would not have made these changes,” Mason says. “I believe that Laura
was very calculated and knew exactly what she was doing.”
Just because you're set to inherit money soon doesn't mean you get to take it before your loved one dies.
DuPage County Judge John Kinsella made that
clear Thursday when he sentenced Sharon Cermak of Villa Park to 120 days
in jail and three years of probation for stealing more than $100,000
from her 85-year-old uncle's bank account.
"You took it upon yourself to determine,
'Well, he's not going to live that long,' and spent his money -- that's
wrong," Kinsella told Cermak.
Cermak, 63, obtained power of
attorney to oversee the care and finances of her uncle in June 2013.
DuPage County Adult Protective Services began investigating her three
years later.
She was arrested in January 2017,
two weeks after her uncle's death, on charges of bank fraud and
financial exploitation of a person older than 80. The exploitation
charge was dropped when Cermak pleaded guilty to bank fraud in August.
Authorities said she took more
than $250,000 from her uncle, with Assistant DuPage County State's
Attorney Diane Michalak saying Cermak treated his money like a "newfound
piggy bank."
"Her justification is: 'There was still money in his account when he died,'" Michalak said.
In court Thursday, Cermak
described using her uncle's money to buy a car but said she bought a
modest one instead of a Camaro and had intended to reimburse his
accounts. She insisted she planned to pay him back for other spending as
well, like money she used for a trip to Florida.
"I was not aware I was not supposed to use his money," Cermak said.
Kinsella didn't buy Cermak's explanation.
"I suspect this kind of thing goes on undetected and unreported all the time," the judge said.
Crime pays?
Despite her conviction, Cermak still might get her uncle's estate, which Michalak said could be worth $455,000.
She appears to be the only
specified heir left, and no other relatives were to receive anything
under the terms of amendments he made to his will in 2014.
But the DuPage County public
guardian is disputing those amendments, arguing in probate court that
the uncle was incapable of understanding what he was signing due to
dementia and that Cermak took advantage of him.
If Cermak had been convicted of financial exploitation, the state's
probate law could have prevented her from inheriting the estate. The
next court date for the probate case is Oct. 24.
The 9-year-old girl woke up early one morning in December 2009 and
found her mother facedown in a bathtub filled with bloody water inside
their Manhattan apartment. Above the tub, a cabinet door had been nearly
pulled off the hinges.
The girl’s father, who was estranged from
her mother and lived across the hall, said the panicked girl had called
him, and he had called 911. He told the police that he had tried to
revive his wife. Investigators initially determined that her death was
an accident. Within days, she was buried, without an autopsy, per the
wishes of her Orthodox Jewish family.
But on Wednesday, nine years
after the woman, Shele Danishefsky Covlin, 47, was discovered dead, a
jury found her husband, Roderick Covlin, 45, guilty of her murder.
The verdict came after a yearslong investigation and an eight-week trial
in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Prosecutors portrayed Mr. Covlin
as a heartless schemer who would stop at nothing to collect his wife’s
money, who used his children as pawns in his machinations and even took
steps to frame his daughter for the murder.
As the verdict was read, Mr. Covlin dropped his head and closed his
eyes. The victim’s siblings and their spouses, who had attended the
trial every day, embraced each other and wept.
“The wheels of
justice turn very slowly, and we always had confidence that ultimately
this day would come,” Ms. Danishefsky Covlin’s brother-in-law, Marc
Karstaedt, said. “Finally, after nine years, we have justice for our
beloved Shele.”
Mr. Covlin’s lawyer, Robert Gottlieb, said he would appeal the verdict.
The
trial turned largely on circumstantial evidence that pointed to Mr.
Covlin as the only person with a key to the apartment who had a motive
to kill Ms. Danishefsky Covlin, a wealthy finance executive. Prosecutors
said that Mr. Covlin strangled her to death because he wanted to
inherit her fortune, then staged the crime scene to look like an
accidental drowning. She had planned to cut him out of her will that
same day.
“His primary motive was pure, unadulterated greed,” the lead prosecutor, Matthew Bogdanos, told jurors in his opening statement.
Still,
jurors were challenged in determining what happened on New Year’s Eve
2009 inside Ms. Danishefsky Colvin’s apartment at the Dorchester Towers,
a luxury building on West 68th Street, a few blocks from Lincoln
Center.
The police, who initially thought it was an accidental
death, did not immediately dust for fingerprints, or collect DNA. Nor
did they secure items in the bathroom for evidence. They took no notes
and spoke to only a few neighbors. They never searched Mr. Covlin’s
apartment or the building’s common areas for evidence. They even allowed
the family’s rabbi to clean the bathroom with peroxide, eliminating any
evidence of blood.
Mr. Gottlieb said in closing arguments on Monday that
there was no way to determine who had murdered his client’s wife,
largely because detectives had botched the investigation.
“It is
impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt what happened to Shele
Covlin, how it happened and why it happened,” he said.
Because Ms.
Danishefsky Covlin was buried without an autopsy, the cause of death
was undetermined for several months. But as suspicions grew regarding
Mr. Covlin, the family had her body exhumed, and in April 2010, a
medical examiner determined that she had been strangled, her neck
squeezed with such force it fractured the hyoid bone, causing bleeding
in her right eye.
Still, it took five more years before prosecutors had enough evidence to arrest and charge Mr. Covlin, a self-proclaimed martial arts expert, with her murder.
Ms.
Danishefsky Covlin had been married to Mr. Covlin for 11 years, and
before her death had confided in family members and close friends about
his erratic and abusive behavior, according to testimony and evidence
presented at trial.
She wrote to her sister, Eve Karstaedt, in
January 2009 that she was “very scared that at some point in the future
all his anger and rage may result in something bad happening — he really
can’t control his temper.”
The children’s babysitter, Hyacinth
Reid, testified that one day Mr. Covlin was screaming at Ms. Danishefsky
Covlin so loudly inside their apartment that he could be heard in the
hallway. Later, Ms. Reid said, Ms. Danishefsky Covlin told her Mr.
Covlin had thrown her to the floor.
Ms. Danishefsky Covlin filed
for divorce in May 2009 and was planning to remove him from her will.
That angered Mr. Covlin, who prosecutors say was often unemployed, and
dependent on his wife and her family’s largess.
Prosecutors
described Mr. Covlin as an impecunious professional backgammon player
who risked losing his children and his lavish lifestyle if the divorce
was approved. He wanted his wife dead, Mr. Bogdanos said, because he was
set to receive about $5 million from her estate.
Ms. Danishefsky
Covlin met Mr. Covlin at a Jewish singles party at Le Bar Bat, a bar in
the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan in February 1998,
prosecutors said. They were engaged in a matter of weeks, despite an age
difference of 11 years. Two years later, they had their first child,
Anna.
Ms. Danishefsky Covlin was a senior vice president for
private wealth management at UBS, while Mr. Covlin was an unsuccessful
stockbroker who went to school, traveled for backgammon tournaments and
had tried his luck in a number of financial ventures that Ms.
Danishefsky Covlin helped fund, court records show. He also spent
countless hours pursuing women for sex, prosecutors said.
On their
10th anniversary, Mr. Covlin told Ms. Danishefsky Covlin that he wanted
an open marriage, and she objected, prosecutors said.
They
separated in April 2009. She rented the apartment directly across the
hall from hers for him because she did not want to disrupt the
children’s lives — they had a second child, a son, by then. She also
gave Mr. Covlin a set of keys to her apartment, a decision prosecutors
said cost her her life.
For the rest of the year, the divorce and
custody battle became increasingly bitter. Mr. Covlin, who had lost his
job at Pragma Securities, a financial consulting firm, told a Family
Court judge that he could no longer afford to pay child support. In
response, the judge forbade him to spend money to attend backgammon
tournaments. “All of which led to his growing, obsessive, all-consuming
hatred of her,” Mr. Bogdanos said.
A month after they separated,
Mr. Covlin tried to sabotage his wife, according to court records,
telling her employer that she used drugs and had stolen money from their
joint account. Two months later, he coached their 3-year-old son,
Myles, to falsely accuse Ms. Danishefsky Covlin of sexual abuse,
prosecutors said.
Patricia Swenson, a woman Mr. Covlin met online,
testified that he had told her in August of that year that he wanted to
kill his wife or to have her die some other way.
Prosecutors say
that Mr. Covlin followed through on his word, but his attempts to obtain
his wife’s money after her death stalled after he became mired in a
legal battle with her brother, along with a custody dispute over the
children.
For Mr. Covlin, custody of the children meant access to
the millions of dollars his wife had left for them. In the end, however,
his parents, David and Carol Covlin, of Scarsdale, became the
children’s guardians.
Mr. Covlin, who moved in with his parents,
assaulted his mother in September 2011, slamming her headfirst into a
wall, and attacked his father two months later, according to court
records. He also took $84,000 from his children’s college fund.
By
the fall of 2012, Mr. Covlin had laid out several plans to kill his
parents but didn’t carry them out, according to testimony and court
records. “His anger and rage was uncontrollable,” another girlfriend,
Debra Oles, testified, saying Mr. Covlin had tried to recruit her to
help with his schemes.
In January 2013, Mr. Covlin instructed his
daughter, Anna, who was then 12, to accuse her grandfather of rape,
according to court records. But the girl balked.
Later that year,
Mr. Covlin plotted to kidnap Anna and take her to Mexico, where he would
pay someone $10,000 to marry her in order to emancipate her from her
grandparents, prosecutors said in court papers. That plan also never
came to pass.
While Mr. Covlin continued to concoct plans to get
his children back and to regain access to their inheritance, he was the
primary suspect in the ongoing murder investigation.
In one of his
final acts before being arrested, court papers say, Mr. Covlin devised a
plan to frame his daughter for Ms. Danishefsky Covlin’s murder. In June
2013, he composed a false murder confession in her email account as if
it were written by her.
“I lied,” Mr. Covlin wrote, pretending to be his daughter. “She didn’t just slip.”
I had a client come in this week who was the Social Security payee for her disabled daughter.
Her
daughter was on Social Security Disability, Medicare and Medicaid. The
father of her daughter recently passed away and was leaving a sizable
inheritance to daughter. Mom wanted to know about her daughter's options
for the inheritance.
After the consultation, I
said this would make a great topic for this week's column and mom
agreed. So today, we will be discussing the various options that special
needs individuals will have upon the receipt of inheritance from their
parents or other loved ones.
No planning.
If
the family did no planning, upon receipt of the inheritance, daughter
would be immediately disqualified for Medicaid because she had too many
assets. The inheritance generally would not affect daughter's Social
Security Disability since there are no asset limits with Social Security
Disability.
However, had daughter been on
Supplemental Security Income instead of Social Security Disability, the
inheritance would have disqualified her from Supplemental Security
Income since she would also have too many assets.
Once
off of Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income, daughter would have
to use up the inheritance on medical and other expenses until it is
spent down to the asset limits, typically $2,000. Once the inheritance
is spent down, daughter could then reapply for Medicaid and Supplemental
Security Income.
Financial power of attorney.
In
this case, daughter never had a guardian or conservator. Daughter was
not deemed mentally incapacitated, but didn't manage her own finances.
Between
mom as Social Security payee and daughter's abilities, all of
daughter's financial and medical needs have been met and decisions
made without the necessity of court approvals of a guardian or
conservator. And if daughter has enough capacity to understand who her
family is, what assets she owns, who she wanted to benefit, and that a
financial power of attorney allowed someone else to handle her finances,
she would be able to execute a financial power of attorney. This would
allow mom to handle daughter's finances, collect her income and pay her
bills.
However,
there are three big disadvantages to using a financial power of
attorney in this situation. First, it doesn't stop daughter from acting
as her own financial agent and accessing the accounts and spending the
funds. Since daughter lacked money management skills, this could be very
tempting.
Second, daughter can revoke the
financial power of attorney at any time. It lacks any type of permanent
protection; if daughter revokes it, she no longer has a financial agent
and is then in charge of her own finances which is what would offer a
little protection for daughter.
Last, just like
with no planning, daughter would be disqualified from Medicaid and
Supplemental Security Income until the assets were spent down to the
asset limit level and then she would have to reapply for Medicaid and
Supplemental Security Income.
Conservatorship.
Mom
could petition the probate court, with or without daughter's consent,
for a conservatorship to manage daughter's finances. This would have a
high likelihood of being granted because daughter lacks the ability to
manage her own finances, which would be dissipated if daughter took
control. Mom and the court would be in control.
Although
a conservatorship does offer great protections for the funds and
finances for daughter, the conservatorship also has more disadvantages
and more restrictions on the funds than most of the other options we are
discussing today.
First, the conservatorship
hearings and files are generally open to the public at the probate
court. Anyone can watch the hearing or review the file.
Second,
the conservatorship would generally be supervised by the probate court
for daughter's lifetime so long as there are still funds unspent. The
conservator must file annual accounting with the probate court for its
review. It is not uncommon for the probate court to place restrictions
on the amounts that the conservator may spend without court approval,
such as no more than $200 per month or $1,000 per year over and above
the normal monthly recurring expenses. If mom wanted to buy some new
appliances for daughter's home or fix daughter's roof, mom would have to
file a petition with probate court and ask the judge for permission for
those expenditures.
Last, just as with no planning
and a financial power of attorney, daughter would be disqualified from
Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income until the conservatorship
assets were spent down to the asset limit level and then she would have
to reapply for Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income.
First-party special needs trust.
Mom
could take some action before daughter receives the inheritance from
dad's estate. Mom could set up what is called a first-party special
needs trust. This is called a first-party special needs trust because it
uses a special needs beneficiary's own assets.
Although
this trust can be set up directly by certain relatives, we usually use
the probate court to set up these trusts in order to get court approval
and give notice to the world that we are seeking this type of
protection.
Once set up and funds deposited, mom as
trustee and her co-trustees, if any, are the only ones who are
authorized to handle the trust funds for the benefit of daughter.
Daughter has no power to revoke the trust without petitioning the
probate court.
In most instances once the trust is
set up, there's no longer any court supervision. However, annual
accountings are still needed to be provided to at least the beneficiary.
In addition there annual trust tax returns because it is considered a
separate tax-paying entity. The trustee or trustees have full access to
the funds to be used for the benefit of the beneficiary.
The
biggest advantage of a first-party special needs trust is that the
assets in the trust do not disqualify daughter from Medicaid,
Supplemental Security Income or most other governmental benefits that
have an income or asset test.
There is, however,
one big downside of a first-party special needs trust, if there's
anything left in the trust after the death of daughter, it must be paid
back to the governmental entities providing Medicaid or other
governmental benefits. This is why this first-party special needs trust
is sometimes referred to as a Medicaid pay-back trust.
Pre-planning for gifts and inheritances with a third-party special needs trust.
If
mom wants to make a current gift or leave an inheritance to daughter
she could have her cake and eat it too. Mom can make a gift or leave an
inheritance to daughter in a third–party special needs trust without
disqualifying daughter from Medicaid, or other income or asset-based
governmental benefits such as Supplemental Security Income. This is
called a third-party special needs trust because it uses a third-party's
assets, not the special needs beneficiary's own assets.
A
third-party special needs trust has all the benefits of a first-party
special needs trust. Once set up, mom as trustee and her co-trustees, if
any, are the only ones who are authorized to handle the trust funds for
the benefit of daughter. Daughter has no power to revoke the trust
without petitioning the probate court. There's no court supervision. The
assets in the trust do not disqualify daughter from Medicaid,
Supplemental Security Income or most other governmental benefits that
have an income or asset test.
The biggest benefit
of a third-party special needs trust is that if there's anything left in
the trust after the death of daughter, it does not have to be paid back
to the governmental entities providing Medicaid and or other
governmental benefits. Mom can leave it to anyone she wants.
What to do?
In
most instances, the best protection for your special needs loved one is
a stand-alone first-party or third-party special needs trust that only
provides for your special needs loved one. This stand-alone special
needs trust should not be included within your revocable living trust
and would have only the minimum provisions required to prevent the trust
assets from being considered for any income or asset-based governmental
benefits, but still provide for your special needs loved one.
With
a special needs trust, you can have a happier special needs loved one,
enrich his or her life and make it more enjoyable and fulfilled.
Matthew
M. Wallace is an attorney and CPA with the Wallace Law Firm, PC in Port
Huron and can be reached at 810-985-4320, matt@happylaw.com or
www.happylaw.com.
Full Article & Source: Protecting special needs inheritances
A Lowcountry family is furious because their bank account was
drained, and they were told they had to ask permission to spend their
money.
When the courts take control of your finances it's called a
conservatorship. They are usually established for the protection of
an incapacitated person's finances.
The Bennett family contests court intervention isn't necessary, but they've been stuck in the system for nearly a year.
New reports from court appointed doctors show Benjamin Bennett is not incapacitated.
"This thing has me going crazy," Bennett told News 2's Rebecca Collett during a follow up interview with the family.
His
daughter, Melissa, called News 2 after her father's now former doctor
recommended the conservatorship for protection. Mr. Bennett recently
came into a large inheritance. According to the original doctor's
report, Bennett showed signs of dementia and had voiced concerns about
having so much money in the bank
"Since this thing has been going on, I just ain't how I used to be," Mr. Bennett explained, trying to keep his frustration calm.
Last
November, the courts called for an emergency hearing, citing concerns
Mr. Bennett was unable to handle his money. The court drained his bank
account of roughly $500,000 and appointed Family Services to oversee the
family finances. The court appointed health experts examined Mr.
Bennett. They also interviewed the family. According to the new mental
health records released to News 2 by the family, both exams found Mr.
Bennett is not incapacitated; should be able to handle his own financial
affairs; and showed normal signs of aging. They also found the family
to be supportive.
The family believes the court should not have
taken control until after the capacity tests. The initial
recommendation came during a time when Mr. Bennett was experiencing an
infection that caused confusion.
At this point, Mr. Bennett is so
frustrated with the court control over his money, he didn't finish one
of the tests. It's possible the courts and attorneys won't accept the
findings until he finishes. The reports contained notes citing concerns
for Bennett's future as he aged, though the family was noted as being
helpful to Benjamin and his wife.
Melissa says the tests on her
80-year-old father are taking their toll on Mr. Bennett's health. Health
records show he's losing weight.
"What he has lost is more than
the money now," she explained. Melissa said he's been depressed and
unable to participate in his normal activities.
Mr. Bennett's wife
of 60 years, Ida, is his court appointed guardian, but even she can't
freely access their money. The water company notified her this month
the bills aren't getting paid.
The court appointed conservator, Family Services, said they weren't aware of the water bill because it was in Ida's name.
The Bennetts need permission to access any of their money for everything from dentures to AC repairs.
Mrs.
Bennett said the couple had plans to take a cruise and enjoy their
retirement, but their situation has made that impossible.
A
hearing was planned for October 23, but it was pushed back. In court
records Mr. Bennett's attorney cited concerns about the tests. Though
the family agreed to the delay, they are frustrated that after nearly a
year, they still don't have resolution.
The longer the family is under the conservatorship, the more it costs them in fees for attorneys, doctors, and Family Services.
The
family expects to meet with their court appointed attorneys next week,
but Mr. Bennett is losing hope he will ever have control over his life
again.
"If I can't handle this, the good master will handle them," he said.
Getting
out of a conservatorship is a long shot. Fewer than one percent of
cases are dissolved by the court each year in Charleston County. The
typical case that is dissolved is an accident case where the person
is in intensive care then regains capacity. That means 99% of cases are
dissolved only after a ward dies.
News 2 was originally granted
access to the court files related to Mr. Bennett's case, but following
our initial report, a court appointed attorney for Mr. Bennett objected
to our access to the files. Bennett's wife, who is also his legal
guardian, approved our access to the file, but we were still denied
access to the court records.
