Judge begins to unwind conflicts in Ventura County conservatorship cases

by Byrhonda Lyons

David Esquibias is an attorney who owns Townsgate In-Home Services, which received $2.7 million from his wife’s clients. Photo by David Buchan

For years, a fiduciary in Ventura County has been directing her clients’ money to her husband’s law firm and health care company, all with the court’s approval. A newly appointed judge has begun to unwind the arrangements weeks after a CalMatters’ investigation exposed the conflicts of interest. 

Ventura County Probate Judge Gilbert Romero ruled that Angelique Friend violated court rules in three cases when she hired her husband, David Esquibias, as her attorney, and her clients paid the bill. The judge ordered her to stop hiring Esquibias as her attorney and Townsgate In-Home Services, Esquibias’ company. Romero blocked Esquibias from collecting attorney’s fees in the three cases.

“Here, the conservator hiring her spouse as her attorney and paying his fees from the estate reasonably could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and be perceived as self-serving,” Romero wrote in a ruling.

The judge also suspended Friend as the trustee in a fourth case after beneficiaries of the Mettler Trust argued that she breached her fiduciary duties by paying Townsgate $1.1 million from the trust from 2021 to 2025. They are asking the court to force Friend to reimburse the estate. 

Friend argued that she disclosed her connection to Townsgate and that she has no ownership interest in the company. A hearing for the case is scheduled for July.

Romero started a March 23 hearing by establishing a timeline of Friend and Esquibias’ relationship and when it was formally disclosed. The more questions he asked, the more testy Esquibias became. The attorney called the judge’s line of questioning “rather sickening.” 

“I am helpless to protect her,” Esquibias said of his wife. “I should tell the court, ‘Do not question my client.’”

Romero responded, “Doesn’t that go to the conflict?”

In one case, Friend became the conservator over Brenna Clark’s estate in 2014, court records show, and Esquibias represented Friend before they married. They never formally disclosed their dating relationship on the record, only orally, Esquibias told the court. 

Romero said that was a problem, even though the previous judge allowed it. That judge, Roger Lund, was reassigned last fall, weeks after CalMatters began asking questions about the arrangement.

“As soon as you and Mrs. Friend started a dating relationship, that was a violation of the rule of court,” Romero said. “I think your services should have been terminated at that point.”

Esquibias expressed shock that his work relationship with Friend had now become an issue after years of the court’s approval.

“It was something that was actually celebrated in this very courtroom by colleagues … who attended my wedding,” Esquibias said. Indeed, retired Judge Glen M. Reiser signed their marriage license in 2019.

The judge also considered disallowing Townsgate’s payments in one case, but he gave Friend a chance to show that Townsgate’s hiring was in the best interest of her client. The judge is scheduled to rehear that case on May 4.  

The CalMatters investigation found that Lund approved Friend and Esquibias’s arrangement for years, even as family members complained. Court records show the couple brought in about $3 million from 2019 to 2025 from clients in the six cases CalMatters reviewed; $2.7 million went to Townsgate, even though court rules and the California Professional Fiduciary Bureau’s code of conduct generally prohibit such conflicts.

Nearly three weeks after the story ran, in a rare move, Romero brought his own motion to reconsider the attorney’s fees and Townsgate costs he’d recently approved. Romero noted that he could only review approvals that he’d signed, and he couldn’t do anything about the years of approvals that came before him. 

“I have an obligation to correct myself,” Romero said.

In an email, Friend said “these relationships were disclosed from the outset, repeatedly presented to the court, and previously approved.”

“While I respect the new judge’s ruling and have taken immediate steps to comply going forward, including retaining new counsel and replacing the care provider company,” she wrote, “I disagree with applying that new view retroactively to arrangements that were fully disclosed and previously approved.”

She said they are “evaluating the next legal steps to formally dispute the retroactive rulings.” 

Full Article & Source:
Judge begins to unwind conflicts in Ventura County conservatorship cases 

See Also:
She directed $2.7 million from her elderly clients to her husband’s company. The judge approved every penny

California Fiduciary Accused of Stealing from Alzheimer's Patient's Trust

She directed $2.7 million from her elderly clients to her husband’s company. The judge approved every penny

California lawmakers created the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau to monitor self-dealing in the industry. Twenty years later, the bureau’s inaction in one case shows how conflicts of interest can continue for years with little consequence.  

by Byrhonda Lyons 

It was a successful year for Angelique Friend. The entrepreneur was at the pinnacle of her profession in Ventura County. State records show she was overseeing $20 million of her clients’ assets and directing a sizable chunk of that money back into her own household.

As the 2022 holiday season approached, Friend celebrated in style and shared the snapshots on her company’s Facebook page. 

She smiled for a photo with Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner at a star-studded fundraiser. She stood in front of a white Christmas tree, adorned with white ornaments and bright white lights, shoulder-to-shoulder in matching sleepwear with Kathy Hilton as the socialite launched a holiday pajama line.

It was like a scene from “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” But Friend is not reality TV royalty. She made a name for herself in a less glamorous corner of California: Ventura County Probate Court.

Deep within the drab courthouse across from Oxnard’s agricultural fields, Friend is one of the county’s main private fiduciaries, chosen frequently by a probate judge to handle the financial and personal interests of elderly people deemed too ill to care for themselves.

Friend operated a unique system. Besides being paid for her services, she often chose her husband, David Esquibias, to be her lawyer. Then, when her clients needed in-home support, she hired Townsgate In-Home Services to provide their care. Friend knew Townsgate well: Esquibias founded it the year they married. 

Friend’s elderly clients often footed the bill for all three services, at least until they could no longer afford or use in-home health care. Then, with the court’s approval, Friend moved them to less-expensive care facilities and sold their homes, court records show. For years, Friend and Esquibias often disclosed their connections to the court, and Judge Roger Lund approved the payments, even though court rules and the California Professional Fiduciary Bureau’s code of conduct generally prohibit such conflicts.

Court records show the couple brought in about $3 million from 2019 to 2025 from clients in the six cases CalMatters reviewed; $2.7 million went to Townsgate. Friend has other clients whose cases don’t require public accounting in court and are not similarly reviewable by the public. 

The arrangement was so brazen that court staffers whispered about it, and other attorneys found it troubling. 

“Being able to have your own little referral source coming out of the court system. Wow. That should not be allowed,” said Lisa MacCarley, a Los Angeles-area probate attorney who was a prominent advocate for reform during Britney Spears’s conservatorship battle.

Friend wouldn’t agree to an interview for this story. Esquibias did not respond to CalMatters’ questions involving Townsgate.

In a letter to CalMatters, Friend said that she fully complied with state laws that require her to disclose her connection to Townsgate, get court approval and make sure the services are in the best interest of her clients. 

“I approach every conservatorship with heightened diligence, careful oversight, and full transparency,” Friend wrote in her letter. “My work is designed to withstand scrutiny and ensure the highest standards of care, as consistently confirmed by the Court and the Bureau.”

But state licensing records indicate she was more involved with Townsgate than she represented to the court. And CalMatters found at least two instances in which she did not disclose to the court that her husband owned Townsgate, at least three cases where Judge Lund called her out for hiring the company without prior court approval, and one case, records show, where she hired Townsgate months before the company was even licensed to provide in-home health care services.

By their nature, the cases that reach conservatorship are often complex and messy. Some people end up there because they’ve been taken advantage of by family, friends or previous caregivers. Others fight their children’s attempts to make decisions for them, or have needs too great for their family members to bear. Some have no children and no one else to take care of them. So the court steps in. 

With a judge’s approval, conservators exert vast control over their clients’ lives. They decide who provides them health care and where. They choose how their money is spent. They sell their clients’ assets to pay bills. They can control visitation and communication with family members, setting up the potential for high-stakes and high-emotion confrontations and amplifying the importance of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

The state agency created 20 years ago to monitor self-dealing in the industry, the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, does not report taking any action against Friend for the conflicts. 

California lawmakers formed the bureau after a Los Angeles Times investigation exposed self-dealing by conservators and a failure of judges to stop it. Friend’s ability to send millions of dollars in business to her husband’s company highlights how the system continues to rely on individual judges and, even with the bureau in place, conflicts of interest can continue for years with little consequence.

Part of the Department of Consumer Affairs, the bureau forbids real or perceived conflicts of interest explicitly in its rules, saying that fiduciaries must “not engage in any activity where there is the reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest … or reasonably could be perceived as self-serving.”

Friend said she disclosed the connection to the bureau. “The Bureau has renewed my license every year without restriction and has never found that I violated fiduciary ethical standards or any governing law,” Friend wrote.

When CalMatters requested Friend’s reports from the bureau, it provided documents thick with black redaction lines. In 2023, the state Legislature significantly restricted what information the bureau can share with the public. 

CalMatters attempted to speak with officials at the bureau for a year. However, they would only respond to emailed questions. The bureau spokesperson, Monica Vargas, declined to say whether Friend complied with its conflict-of-interest rules. 

“The court is in a better position to ascertain the performance of the fiduciary and determine whether the various services are in the best interest of the conserved person,” Vargas wrote.

Separate from state regulations, California court rules forbid conflicts broadly, saying that a conservator “must not engage his or her family members to provide services to the conservatee for a profit or fee when other alternatives are reasonably available.” However, the rules allow judges to approve such arrangements if they determine that it’s in the best interest of the conservatee and it’s disclosed.

In tentative rulings, Judge Lund at times expressed concerns about Friend’s conflict of interest. However, those rulings are not final and only show what the judge is thinking. It’s unclear what happened in court because Ventura County stopped requiring transcripts for probate court in 2022.

Lund’s final court orders never mention Townsgate or demand that Friend stop using the company. All of the orders approved their payments. Without official transcripts, it’s impossible to know whether or how Lund addressed the conflicts in court.

The court record doesn’t reflect any of the conservatees’ attorneys objecting to the conflict of interest. 

One court transcript from 2022 obtained by CalMatters details what happened when one family challenged Friend’s conflict. “The representation to the Court as I recall is that they … tend to price themselves at or slightly below the market to avoid any problems,” Lund said. “And that is sufficient for the Court.”

Lund and court leaders declined to comment for this story. Weeks after CalMatters sent court officials questions about the approvals, the presiding judge for Ventura County Superior Court announced that he was reassigning Lund, moving him to family court. The move came as a shock to many in the local legal community. In a February hearing, the new judge, Gilbert Romero, expressed skepticism that he could approve Friend’s arrangements with her husband. He told her that “the rule of court says very clearly” that a conservator should avoid “any conflicts or any appearance of conflict.”

Before that, families of the conservatees often raised their concerns with the court and filed complaints with the bureau, to no avail. 

“She’s making a lot of money, her and her husband,” said Poppy Helgren. Friend cared for Helgren’s father, Lester Moore, for years. After Friend moved him to a residential care facility, Moore died from extreme constipation that was deemed the result of inadequate care, records show. 

Carole Herman, a leading eldercare advocate, is one of the first people Californians call when they have a problem with a court-appointed fiduciary. In 2023, she filed a complaint with the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau about Friend’s connection to Townsgate. 

The bureau hasn’t reported any response to the complaint, and Vargas would not discuss any pending complaints or investigations, calling them confidential. 

“I am totally disappointed and devastated because I worked really hard to get that bureau started, and they have no teeth,” Herman said. 

The six cases 

Lester Moore joined the U.S. Navy at age 17. After he was discharged, Moore moved to California, where he went on to work in the airline industry. Moore grew up during the Great Depression, and over his lifetime, he and his wife amassed more than 450 acres of land in his home state of Arkansas, more than a quarter of a million dollars in company stock, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and savings. 

Moore ended up in a court-mandated conservatorship after he was diagnosed with dementia and his attorney was accused of professional misconduct. Friend was appointed the conservator in 2012. 

For years, Friend relied on a local company to provide Moore’s caregiving services. She ended that relationship and put Townsgate in charge in April 2019, according to court filings. At that point, Townsgate didn’t have a license to provide in-home health care services, according to state records. Home care organizations that operate without a license can be fined $900 a day. 

Later that year, Friend married Esquibias, according to her marriage license. 

In 2019 and 2020, Moore paid Townsgate $145,000 for care, documents filed with the court show, but the records do not show that Friend disclosed her connection to Townsgate. 

Then, in February 2020, Friend moved Moore to residential care and sold his home a few months later. Helgren was immediately concerned about her father’s care at the facility.

“I had put in complaints everywhere about them,” Helgren said. 

A year later, Moore died from septic shock from bowel obstruction and fecal impaction. A state investigation found Moore’s death was due to the facility not following Moore’s physician’s orders and its “failure to monitor” Moore’s condition, according to the state report. The facility has since closed.

CalMatters reviewed Friend’s publicly available cases and found six in which she used Townsgate for in-home services. She hired Esquibias to represent her in four of those cases, for which he was paid from conservatees’ funds.

Some of the others: 

• Grace and Joseph Brown lived off Joseph Brown’s U.S. Navy retirement pay for years, with little debt. The court appointed Friend as Grace Brown’s conservator after she was diagnosed with dementia. At that time, Grace had $1.1 million in assets, according to the accounting Friend filed with the court.
  
  From 2020 to 2023, Friend paid Townsgate $873,000 from Brown’s account for caregiving services, nearly 80% of her assets, according to the accounting that Friend filed with the court. At least $583,000 was paid “without prior Court approval, thereby severely depleting [Brown’s] funds,” according to a tentative ruling Lund issued in January 2024. He said he wanted to discuss forcing Friend to reimburse Brown. However, after the hearing, the judge approved the charges, calling them “settled, allowed, and approved” in his final order. His order does not mention Friend reimbursing Brown, and there is no transcript of the hearing. The judge also approved Friend’s charges totaling $46,000 for conservator fees. 
  
  James Brown, Grace’s stepson, thinks Grace was treated like “a cash cow.” He said Friend rarely responds to his questions about Grace, who is still under Friend’s care.

•  
  
  
  Esperanza M. Moorewas born in 1939 in the Philippines. She traveled the world before she met and married her husband, a physicist at the U.S. naval base in Port Hueneme. Moore owned two properties.
•  
• Ventura County officials asked the court to place Moore in a conservatorship after growing concerned that she was a victim of elder financial abuse. 
• 
  Within a month of becoming Moore’s court-appointed conservator, Friend brought on Townsgate In-Home Services for her care, without “prior Court approval,” as required by court rules, according to notes from Judge Lund. Still, he later approved the payments. 
  
  Friend paid her husband’s company $64,000 from Moore’s funds over roughly three months in 2022. Then, Friend placed her in a less-expensive assisted-living home and sold her properties. 
  
  Friend was paid $76,000 for her fiduciary services from November 2021 to December 2024; Esquibias received another $68,000 in attorney fees for his work from December 2021 to March 2025 to represent Friend as she tried to recover money that had been taken from Moore by her previous caregiver. 
  
  In conservatorships, there are two attorneys who are typically paid from the conservatee’s money — one for the person in the conservatorship and another for the licensed fiduciary.
  
  Friend was still Moore’s conservator as of this month, according to the court’s website. 

• Friend paid Townsgate nearly $680,000 from Molly Cooper’s account from September 2020 to March 2023, court records show. Her son, who asked that he not be named, said he was happy that his mother lived out her last days in her home rather than a nursing home. He said he had no idea about the connection when his mother was alive. Friend and Esquibias did not disclose their ties to Townsgate until after Cooper died, court records show.  
• 
  In addition to Townsgate’s costs, Friend billed Cooper $94,000 for her fiduciary services; Esquibias received $26,000 from Cooper’s estate in attorney fees, court records show

• 
  
  James Baker Mabry retired after a career as an electrical contractor. During his free time, Mabry enjoyed scuba diving and volunteered with the county water rescue team. “He was always in the water,” said his daughter, Kristin Tranquada. But as he aged, he was diagnosed with dementia, and his daughter petitioned the court to be his conservator. Her dad became angry and threatened her.
  
  Tranquada decided to step aside and let the court appoint a professional.
  
  Tranquada was grateful that Friend got her father to cooperate with caregivers. But as time went on, she and her sister began to question Friend’s professionalism. Tranquada said Friend hadn’t taken the necessary steps to transfer all of her father’s bills. Plus, Friend had allowed Mabry to get a puppy, which eventually lived with one of Friend’s employees. Then the sisters found out about Townsgate.
  
  Friend paid Townsgate $550,000 from Mabry’s funds over three years, and the court approved the payments. Lund approved a total of $128,000 in conservator fees for Friend in 2022 and 2024. He also approved $22,000 for attorney fees to Esquibias. Friend eventually moved Mabry into a care home and sold his home with the court’s approval.
  
  “This conservator’s husband received a great deal of money that my father needs for his care,” Tranquada said.

Robert Baskin, an attorney whose law firm represented at least two of Friend’s clients who paid Townsgate, said he didn’t see anything wrong with the arrangement as long as it was disclosed and approved by the court. 

“I don’t think that it is a conflict for a conservator to hire an affiliated agency like Townsgate,” Baskin said. “They did an outstanding job at a reduced hourly rate.” 

He said conservatorships can naturally pit fiduciaries against family members. “You get a lot of people complaining because they are looking at their ultimate inheritance,” Baskin said. 

He also had his own financial connection to Friend, property records show. In 2018, his family trust lent her $1 million. The repayment terms of the agreement were not included. Baskin declined to comment on the loan. “I’m not going to comment on my own business dealings. I’ve loaned many people money.” 

In her letter, Friend told CalMatters that her “personal finances are entirely appropriate and, apart from what is a matter of public record, private.”

Friend’s previous run-in with the bureau 

Before becoming a licensed fiduciary, Angelique Friend worked as a business analyst for Countrywide Financial, according to her LinkedIn profile. She got her fiduciary license in 2009 and built her business.

Licensed fiduciaries such as Friend manage affairs for seniors, people with disabilities and children. Fiduciaries can also be appointed by courts to administer estates when someone dies. 

In 2017, an appeals court criticized Friend for her role in delivering an inheritance to two brothers who had been disinherited in their mother’s will. Friend argued that because the beneficiary, her grandson, was already dead when his grandmother died, the assets should be distributed as if she died without a will.

The Court of Appeal noted that the woman did have a will; she expressly disinherited her two sons and awarded all the assets to her grandchild. 

Full Article & Source:
She directed $2.7 million from her elderly clients to her husband’s company. The judge approved every penny

Guardianship: For Far Too Many, It’s a Nightmare

EDITOR’S CORNER

Elderly man falls, hits head, goes to hospital with severe concussion. His memory is fuzzy. By the time this daughter finds out, he’s at assisted living. She wants to bring him home. 

But, no. A woman explains she’s been appointed by a probate court as his guardian. He can’t go home with his daughter, she says. He can’t leave the facility. He can’t do anything without the guardian’s permission. He can’t make his own healthcare decisions. He can’t spend his own money. His daughter does her best to fight the system and free her dad, but meanwhile, he gets put on more and more drugs.

That’s the basic plot for “The Bad Guardian,” a new film now streaming on Lifetime that aims to encapsulate all that can go wrong with guardianship — a system that strips individuals of their money, their rights, their freedom to make any decisions affecting any corner of their life.

Here on Mad in The Family and Mad in America, none of this is surprising. We’ve read first-person accounts by family members recounting such nightmare scenarios — including Marian Kornicki’s story from 2022 and Poppy Helgren’s from December of last year. Most recently, Duane Farrant described losing his mother to conservatorship and all the horrors that followed. And former MITF editor Miranda Spencer has written extensively about Britney Spears and the #FreeBritney movement that rallied for her release. 

Spears, who was freed from conservatorship in November 2021, has received the most attention in mainstream coverage of such issues, although other celebrities occasionally bubble up into the public consciousness. But by and large, besides the #FreeBritney campaign, most people outside the MIA/MITF community have barely an inkling of the outrages that can occur under guardianship and conservatorship. 

To be clear, not all guardians are abusive; as author Diane Dimond explained in We’re Here To Help: When Guardianship Goes Wrong, family members often fill the role with loving responsibility. But as she made clear in both the book and in my MIA podcast interview with her last year, others exploit and abuse those in their care. As she said during our conversation: 

“Every year in this country, state courts hear guardianship cases. The targeted person is declared an incapacitated ward of the court. They are stripped of their civil rights. In most states, the vast majority of states, they can’t even hire a lawyer to defend themselves because they’re incapacitated. These state courts then confiscate the money, property, investments of all the wards and put it in the name of the guardian. . . . It’s just a playground for predators. That is what it’s become.”

And that, in essence, is the message of “The Bad Guardian,” which was inspired not by one specific story but by the experiences of countless people. Playing the daughter, Melissa Joan Hart embodies the bafflement and frustration of those who, trying to advocate for their loved ones, bump up against a system purportedly designed to aid people but routinely dehumanizes and hurts them. 

As executive producer Elizabeth Stephens told an investigative reporter at a ABC Action News in Tampa Bay: “Every single turn of events is true. It’s all real. And, you know, it’s shocking. . . .  What happens is they get into the system, and then, as you know, it’s almost impossible to get out.”

That could well be the biggest horror of all — the legal cage that traps the vulnerable. In his recent piece for MITF, Farrant unspooled a gut-wrenching story of his “stolen” mother’s own cage. While trapped inside the system, she lost her health. Her teeth. Her ability to make any decisions. Her liberty in every sense. And he could not get her out. 

“People in this system of ‘care’ lied, cheated, and stole, ignoring my mother’s health, desires, and well-being until it killed her,” he wrote. “This is what happens—not just to her, but to many.” 

Far too many. 

—Amy Biancolli, Family Editor 

Full Article & Source:
Guardianship: For Far Too Many, It’s a Nightmare

Golden Years, Golden Hearts: Navigating Alzheimer's with Dignity

By: Babyboomers.com Staff  

Some of our loved ones may discover themselves on a different route, one that is illuminated by the warmth of treasured memories and golden hearts, as the sun sets on the horizon of life. Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative brain ailment, can have a negative impact on these later years, but with the correct support, planning, and attitude, enduring this difficult journey can be a chance to maintain dignity and honor the contributions of individuals we cherish.

Key Takeaways: Although Alzheimer's disease brings difficulties, people and families may preserve dignity and quality of life throughout the process with the correct strategy and support.

A Look Inside the Mind: Alzheimer's Disease Understanding

• The mysterious dance of the brain: Alzheimer's disease is like a jigsaw where the parts slowly disappear. Cognitive ability, emotions, and behavioral patterns are all impacted when the brain, that marvelous command center, begins to unravel its memories and functions.
• The Power of Resilience: Despite the difficulties caused by Alzheimer's, resilience is essential. Despite the memory loss fog, many people nevertheless retain their positive attitudes, enjoyment of music, and appreciation for life's basic joys.

Care Strategies for the Golden Years: Shining a Light

• Beyond Words: Although Alzheimer's disease can make meaningful connections more difficult, they are nevertheless achievable. Nonverbal cues, such as a tender touch or a sincere smile, may frequently close the communication gap better than words.
• Embracing Familiarity: Having familiar sights, sounds, and smells around us may bring back fond memories and soothe us. A baked apple pie's scent or their favorite song's music may open doors to long-forgotten eras.
• The Magic of Creativity: Taking part in creative pursuits, such as painting, creating, or even gardening, may make you happier and give you more self-confidence. The process is more important than the final product, and it's a great way to spend time with others.

Golden Laughter: The Function of Humor in Coping

• Finding Lightness in the Dark: Laughter can be a very effective Alzheimer's treatment. Laughter and connection may be experienced while exchanging humorous tales, watching timeless comedies, or taking part in playful activities.
• Caregivers, who are frequently family members, require comic relief to help them deal with the obstacles they face. A necessary respite might be given by laughing together or seeking consolation in hilarious publications.

Probate: Making Future Plans

• Facing the Legal Maze: It's important to address the legal aspects of planning as the trip progresses, particularly when it comes to decisions on property, assets, and medical care. Probate provides a structure for administering estates that guarantees desires are honored.
• Legal Guardianship: As Alzheimer's disease worsens, sufferers may lose the ability to make their own decisions. The best interests of the individual are protected when a formal guardianship is established via Arizona probate.

Golden Legacy: Creating Heartprints

• Sharing Life Stories: It's a great way to respect a loved one's legacy and preserve their recollections. Make a scrapbook, write down their tales, or organize a "life celebration" gathering where loved ones may share their most treasured recollections.
• Acts of Kindness: Being nice doesn't require extravagant displays. Small deeds like volunteering or making a donation to Alzheimer's research can have a big influence on other people's lives.

Navigating Emotional Waters: The Feelings' Rollercoaster

• Riding the Emotional Waves: Alzheimer's is an emotional rollercoaster for families and caregivers, not simply a mental difficulty. Moments of delight and connection can coexist with feelings of loss, anger, and powerlessness.
• Honoring Your Emotions: It's important to express your emotions and allow yourself freedom to lament the changes brought on by Alzheimer's disease. Speak with friends, therapists, or support groups who can offer a sympathetic ear.
• Celebrating successes: In the midst of the challenges, there will be successes—small accomplishments that serve as a reminder of our loved ones' and our own resilience. Honor these victories and cling to the hope they inspire.
• Finding Balance: It's important to balance self-care with the emotional cost. Take part in enjoyable activities, whether they be a leisurely walk, reading, or practicing mindfulness. Keep in mind that your health matters as well.

Final Thoughts

It's vital to keep in mind that every step, no matter how difficult, is a tribute to the eternal power of love and connection as we make our way through the complex maze of Alzheimer's. The shadows of the golden years may be there, but they are also brightened by the warm glow of beloved memories, laughter, and unshakable support. We respect the lives of people impacted by Alzheimer's and leave a compassionate legacy that will touch the hearts of future generations by tackling the disease with dignity, imagination, and empathy. Together, let's set out on this journey with love and compassion, making each moment a brilliant example of the goodness of the human spirit.

About the Author

Sofia West, a 26-year-old life coach living abroad, holds a profound understanding of human psychology, leveraging her academic background in psychology to make a positive impact on people's lives. She's worked in Arizona probate for a long time. Her passion for assisting others extends beyond her professional pursuits, as she dedicates her spare time to crafting compelling writings that encompass lifestyle, health, and empowerment, with a particular focus on championing women's progress.

Full Article & Source:
Golden Years, Golden Hearts: Navigating Alzheimer's with Dignity

Superior Court remembers Judge Ralph W. Wyatt for his kindness, thirst for knowledge

by The Bakersfield Californian

Former Kern County Superior Court Ralph W. Wyatt was appointed to his position by former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Contributed photo

Kern County Superior Court recalled Judge Ralph W. Wyatt, who died last month, as a man who inspired people and whose proudest achievement was securing public access to local bodies of water.

Wyatt died Tuesday. The cause of his death was not disclosed. His age was not immediately available.

“Judge Wyatt encouraged, inspired and counseled everyone who knew him,” the court stated in a news release.

He began working as a court commissioner in 2008, when he presided over probate, guardianship and conservatorship cases. Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Wyatt to become a judge after Judge Jon E. Stuebbe retired in 2014, and soon the new judge was presiding over jury trials.

“His exacting standards and high expectations earned him the nickname ‘The Technician’ from the attorneys who practiced in his courtroom,” according to a news release.

Wyatt earned his law degree from the California Western School of Law in 1974 and worked as an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of San Diego before moving to Kern County. He worked as a public defender from 1975 to 1981 and as an associate and partner at several law firms before he took the bench.

His greatest achievement was to secure public access to the Kern River from Lake Ming to the mouth of the canyon. That path was a walk he took nearly every day, a news release said.

But it was his personality that Superior Court remembered most: Wyatt loved sharing knowledge cultivated from a decades-long law career with young attorneys whose first stop may have included his courtroom, a news release said.

“His judicial colleagues remember him as a deep thinker with an incredible thirst for knowledge,” Superior Court continued in a news release. “Court staff remember the kindness, patience and respect he showed every day.”

Wyatt is survived by his wife, two sons and grandchildren.

Full Article & Source:
Superior Court remembers Judge Ralph W. Wyatt for his kindness, thirst for knowledge

Frequently Asked Legal Questions

• Do I need a Will?  If you do not have a Will, the laws of the State of Colorado determine who is entitled to your assets and they determine who has priority to be your personal representative (executor).
  
  
• How long is my Will good for?  Wills do not expire.  Unless you change or revoke a Will it remains in effect until you die.  Therefore, if your wishes change you must update your Will.
  
  
• Can I write my own Will?  Pursuant to Colorado Law, you may write your own Will.  It will be valid if it is signed by you and if all the material provisions of the document are in your handwriting.  There may be many problems with writing your own Will, because it may not be clear and it may not include all of the provisions that a Will should contain.

• Do I need to go through probate?  In Colorado, if you own any interest in real estate (a home), or if you own other assets which are valued at more than $80,000 your estate must be probated, whether you have a Will or not. 

• What is probate?  Probate is a court process whereby the court appoints a personal representative to administer your estate.  Probate is a process that includes filing an inventory of the estate assets, publishing a notice to creditors in a newspaper, accounting for estate income and expenses and disbursing the estate.

• What documents are included in a good estate plan?  A person should have a Last Will and Testament or a Revocable Living Trust, a health care power of attorney, a general durable power of attorney and a living will.

• I am the agent under a power of attorney, isn’t that all I need to take care of things?  A power of attorney will no longer be valid after the death of the principal.  In addition, it may not be valid once the principal becomes incapacitated unless it has the right language.  You must examine your power of attorney to see what powers it includes and under what conditions the agent may act. 

• What is a trust?  There are many types of trust.  A trust is generally a document which establishes an arrangement whereby property is transferred to a trust with the intention that it be administered by a trustee for someone’s benefit.  A trust may be established for your own benefit.  The biggest advantage for setting up a trust for your own benefit is to avoid probate. 

Tamra K. Waltemath

This article was written by Tamra K Waltemath of Tamra K. Waltemath, P.C.  This information is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  For specific questions, you should consult a qualified attorney. Tamra K. Waltemath is an elder law attorney focusing on wills, trusts, estate and trust administration, probate and non-probate transfers, guardianships and conservatorships. 

 

Full Article & Source:
Frequently Asked Legal Questions

Lewiston attorney suspended six months for lying and misconduct

Attorney Stephen Link was found to have been intentionally dishonest with one client and to have failed to follow through on representing another. 

 

By Matt Byrne

A Lewiston-based attorney has been suspended from practice for six months after being found to have lied to one client about filing a case on her behalf and failed to file a case for another client despite collecting a $1,500 fee.

Stephen J. Link was suspended Oct. 31 after the two clients filed complaints with the state Board of Overseers of the Bar, the professional licensing agency for attorneys in Maine.

Attorneys who are admitted to the bar agree to follow strict rules of professional conduct or risk losing their right to practice. Complaints against attorneys are investigated by the overseers. If a complaint is found to have merit, a recommendation for sanctions is often presented to a single justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, who decides what penalties are appropriate.

Link was admitted to the Maine bar in 2015. A listed phone number for his Lewiston office is disconnected, and he could not be reached for an interview Thursday. His corporation, Stephen J. Link, Attorney at Law, LLC, was dissolved in 2020 after he failed to file an annual report with the Maine Secretary of State’s Office as required by law.

Link filed an initial response to the bar complaints, but failed to participate in further proceedings and the findings of misconduct were entered as a default judgment, meaning the case presented by the bar board was heard unopposed.

In her Oct. 29 decision against him, District Court Judge E. Mary Kelly, who was designated to write the opinion, found that Link has no disciplinary history, was relatively new in practice and that some of his errors could have been unintentional. But she said that his failure to engage in the disciplinary process meant he was unable to discharge his duties as an attorney, and she highlighted his deception of one of the clients who complained.

“The Court cannot determine whether Attorney Link’s failure to participate in this process is the product of disdain or disability, but finds that in either event before Attorney Link returns to practice he must demonstrate his fitness to do so,” Kelly wrote.

The first case that resulted in a complaint began in late 2018, when Pamela Stowe hired Link to represent her in a probate matter, a contested will, and paid Link a $1,500 advance fee.

Two months later, Stowe instructed Link to file a lawsuit on her behalf, but Link never filed it. From January 2019 into that summer, Stowe attempted to contact Link but could not reach him.

He replied to her in August 2019, apologized and offered to refund the $1,500. By January 2020, Stowe still had not received repayment.

Link’s failure to file the lawsuit at the proper time means Stowe is now barred under law from pursuing the matter because of rules setting time limits on when certain claims must be made.

The second case began in 2019, when a woman engaged Link to represent her in another probate matter in which she sought to be named personal representative of a dead man’s estate, according to Kelly’s decision. Such filings are a routine aspect of settling a deceased person’s affairs.

The client, Jennifer Cutting, asked Link via email in late February 2019 to provide a progress report on the probate case. Link told her his pleadings were not accepted by the court because he needed the addresses of the heirs listed in the deceased man’s will, and Cutting provided the addresses the same day, Kelly’s decision said.

About a week later, Cutting again asked for a status report, and Link told her he expected to hear back from the court in about a week.

Cutting contacted him again more than a week later. When he did not reply, she called the court and learned that the matters Link had promised to pursue had not been filed, according to the decision. Thirteen days later, Link responded, telling Cutting that the probate matter was proceeding – but in reality, he waited another month to file it.

By early May, Cutting still had not received the paperwork she expected, and attempted to contact Link again. Another week passed before Link told her on May 20 that there had been a mix-up with the death certificate but that it had been addressed.

In fact, Link did not file the death certificate until the next day, May 21. Finally, in June, Cutting directed Link to withdraw from the case, but he failed to file that paperwork, as well.

Full Article & Source:

Lewiston attorney suspended six months for lying and misconduct

Tuscola County judge talks about alleged stalking case

by Mary Drier 

 

Circuit Judge Amy Grace Gierhart

Although two Tuscola County judges were at Thursday’s commissioners’ meeting to explain the proposed purchase of an audio and video recording system for the courts, the discussion veered to a recent incident at the courthouse.

Circuit Judge Amy Grace Gierhart addressed the issue of Misty Leann Thompson’s arrest for the alleged stalking of key court personnel and having a loaded gun.

“I’m here to tell you … you might have been at funerals today," Gierhart said as her voice cracked with emotion. "That is how close it was. It was the closest call that we have ever had. It’s hard for me to talk about it. This has been a really scary time for us. You need to know that.

“The situation was as close as we are right here, and one in the chamber.”

When Gierhart said that she was standing at the podium in the board meeting room a few feet away from commissioners.

The judge was referring to the arrest of Thompson, 39, of Caro, on Aug. 5, by Tuscola County sheriff deputies in the courthouse parking lot.

Thompson is charged with five felony counts. She is charged with carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, carrying a concealed weapon, aggravated stalking and two counts of possession of a firearm while committing or attempting to commit a felony.

The first three counts carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison while the felony firearm counts which carry a maximum sentence of two years each.

Thompson is involved in a custody dispute in probate court, which is overseen by Judge Nancy Thane, and she has also had issues with court referee Tara Hofmeister, and attorney Lisa Blanton.

According to Gierhart, there is a lot more to the situation than what has been in area newspapers.

“We know more than that," she said. "We have been dealing with that situation for a month. (Thompson) left the building, sat in the back, and then left. She then came back at 4:30 p.m. We assembled the entire courthouse staff to walk out together with 10 deputies. Even with that she came in parked next to our cars. That is when she was arrested."

Thompson had been in and out of the courthouse several times over the last month.

“She has been harassing and threatening various individuals in the courthouse," said Tuscola County Prosecutor Mark Reene. "We are feeling very fortunate she was taken into custody at the time she was, and the loaded weapon she had was located. It could have resulted in an incalculable tragedy but was stopped.”

Besides having a loaded gun with a round in the chamber, according to court records Thompson also had binoculars, a telescope, a baseball bat, and knives in her vehicle.

“This situation could have been a big deal,” Gierhart noted. “I think what has happened lately is just the beginning of it. There have been a lot of them lately. I want you to know and be aware it was luck (that nothing happened).”

Gierhart said she could talk about the matter because courthouse staff are disqualified from dealing with the matter.

“The general public, let alone commissioners, don't get a lot of feedback so we don’t know the magnitude," said commission Chair Thom Bardwell. "There is always more than what is written. I don’t know what is going on in this county related to things like this. There is a high level of concern, and I hope residents begin to understand what you are going through, and what some of the potential issues are.”

Also, the judge pointed out that Thompson had been on the commissioners committee of the whole agenda.

“We each have a role," she said. "We are judicial, you role legislative. What concerns me about this recent situation is that people don’t understand the distinction and look to you (commissioners) for remedies in situations which are judicial in nature. When someone has an issue with a judicial decision, and that happens every day, there is a process for that. There is the appellate court.”

Thompson also took her issues to the county’s Controller-Administrator Clayette Zechmeister.

“She came into my office. I tried to make it clear to her that commissioners have no jurisdiction over judicial,” said Zechmeister, noting Thompson said she had concerns and documents regarding her issue with the county’s wanting to get equipment to do video and audio recordings of court proceedings. “The documents didn’t appear to have anything to do with that.”

Bardwell concurred Thompson had been on the agenda and was subsequently removed. She was arrested three days before the county meeting.

“I want to comment about her being on the agenda," Bardwell said. "We had discussions with our legal team. In the board rules, it has been a privilege to allow people to present to us, and we’ve had presentations that we didn’t need. The situation was very concerning to the point it was taken off the agenda. It also puts us on high alert because we are the most fluid here where people can just walk in. So we seriously understand your concerns.

“After reviewing her attachments (documents). It could have been a disaster. You know you have been through it."

“We were counseled on what to do and what not to do,” Bardwell added.

The situation is having commissioners rethink how they conduct public business.

“I think there has been too much deference to it," Bardwell said. "So now no one will be on the agenda — just in public comment, which we can’t stop. Going forward, that is what we are doing here. We recognize that issue now. Even public comment could be risky. We have been rather loose when someone wants to address the board. We don’t have to do that — only in public comment. That is what we got from our legal counsel."

“This (situation) has set us back," Bardwell said. "There was a different intention than what was portrayed to be on the agenda. I read the documents just before the meeting. I knew what had happened. Your concerns are ringing with me. Think things will get worse and we need to work together."

Commissioner Dan Grimshaw said he understood the situation and has run into instances where some people fail to recognize legal authority and cannot be reasoned with discussion.

“It’s a movement that is out there that started in Huron County," Grimshaw said, referring to The Base, a white nationalist group that was attempting to establish itself in Bad Axe. "That has been the biggest area where it has come from. It is scary because their perception is they are not regulated by the laws of Michigan because they are free citizens, a separate nation unto themselves.

“I understand your fear judge.”

After that discussion, the original issue of purchasing a Justice Audio and Video System from Justice AV Solutions Inc., was addressed. The system would record both audio as well as video of court proceedings in circuit, district, probate, magistrate, as well as the referee hearing room on a DVD. The fee to obtain a DVD is expected to be $20, which is much cheaper that a traditional court transcript.

A traditional transcript of a two day hearing could cost $1,500 to $2,000, so it is advantageous for citizens. Gierhart also explained the DVD would be an official record.

The electronic system would replace the traditional court recorder position, which would save about $80,000 in wages. The system has been discussed at length over the last couple of county meetings. After another disunion of the advantages of the DVD recording system, commissioners approved the $294,619 with 50% being paid over two budget years in payments of $147,310, and to use American Rescue Plan Act funds it is possible to fund the purchase.

Full Article & Source:

Tuscola County judge talks about alleged stalking case

A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders

By: Tiffany Bentley & Ann Hetherwick Cahill

Welcome to the story of the Smiths and the Alexanders — made-up people with a wild accumulation of fictional (but factual) circumstances that raise all kinds of probate and fiduciary litigation issues. What potential problems do you spot here? What are the arguments to be made on all of these contentious issues? Stay tuned to Beyond the Will throughout November and December as we dig deep into this family’s saga.

---

Johnny Smith and Jocelyn Smith were married in 1983 in Massachusetts. They had two children, Randall Smith (born January 1, 1985) and Twyla Smith (born March 3, 1987). Unfortunately, Jocelyn died in a tragic car accident in 1995 with no estate plan in place.

At the time of her death, Jocelyn had a gross estate of approximately $5,000,000 consisting primarily of individually held investments that she had inherited from her parents. She also had a few minor accounts held jointly with Johnny but no retirement accounts or life insurance policies.

Johnny began dating Moira Alexander in 2000. Moira had two children of her own, Alexis Alexander (born February 5, 1985) and David Alexander (born October 8, 1989).

In 2005, Moira, Alexis, and David moved into the Smith home with Johnny, Randall, and Twyla. They appeared to have minimal issues as far as blended families go. Their children got along and each accepted the other adult as a parental figure. As the children graduated and moved out of the family home, they remained in frequent contact with both Moira and Johnny and returned home for holiday and birthday celebrations.

Moira and Johnny met with an estate planning attorney, Attorney Mullens, in March of 2013 in order to have estate planning documents prepared including wills, revocable trusts, health care proxies, durable powers of attorney, and HIPPA waivers. Moira and Johnny were planning on eloping the following month and thus told Attorney Mullens that they were already married.

Attorney Mullens prepared estate planning documents for each of Johnny and Moira. Each will stated that the testator was married and left tangible items to the surviving spouse and otherwise to the surviving children in equal shares. Children under both wills were defined to include Randall, Twyla, Alexis, and David. The residue under Johnny’s will poured over to The Johnny Smith Trust. The residue under Moira’s will poured over to The Moira Alexander Trust. Moira was named as Personal Representative under Johnny’s will followed by Randall as a successor. Johnny was named as Personal Representative under Moira’s will with Alexis named as successor. Through Johnny’s will, he exercised a limited power of appointment that had been granted to him in a Family Trust established by his parents, directing that income from that trust be paid to his spouse, Moira, for her lifetime. That trust, by its terms, would terminate upon the last to die of Johnny and his four siblings, at which time the remaining principal would distribute outright to the issue of Johnny and his siblings by right of representation.

Johnny was the Donor and Trustee of The Johnny Smith Trust. Johnny was the beneficiary of The Johnny Smith Trust during his lifetime. After his passing, the Trust was structured to minimize potential Massachusetts and Federal estate tax while providing for Moira’s sole benefit during her lifetime. After Moira’s death, any remaining assets would divide into equal shares and would be distributed outright to each of Randall, Twyla, Alexis, and David. Moira and Attorney Mullens would serve as successor Trustees after Johnny’s death. After Moira’s death Attorney Mullens (or another attorney from his firm) would serve as sole Trustee.

The provisions of The Moira Alexander Trust mirrored those of Johnny’s Trust. Moira was the Donor and Trustee of her Trust and the beneficiary during her lifetime. After her passing, the Trust would minimize potential estate taxes while providing for Johnny during his lifetime (if Johnny survived) and otherwise the assets would be divided into equal shares and distributed outright to all four of the children. If Johnny survived, he would serve as a Trustee along with Attorney Mullens (or another attorney from the law firm).

Finally, Moira was named as agent under Johnny’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney, followed by Randall. Johnny was named as agent under Moira’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney, followed by Alexis.

Moira and Johnny signed their wills and trusts in early April of 2013. Although Attorney Mullens encouraged them to sign all of their documents, Johnny and Moira neglected to sign their health care proxies and durable powers of attorney. They wanted to give more consideration as to whether they wanted a child to serve as a co-attorney-in-fact with the other spouse under the durable powers of attorney, and whether they wanted language concerning the life-sustaining treatment in their health care proxies.

Moira and Johnny postponed their plans to elope after Moira, a doctor, had worked long hours caring for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Unfortunately, Johnny began exhibiting signs of early-onset Alzheimer’s in late 2017. His health deteriorated rapidly and by mid-2018 Johnny was unable to function independently. Moira cared for Johnny to the extent possible at their home and hired an in-home nurse to assist as necessary.

That holiday season, Randall gave Twyla one of the newly-released ancestry testing kits hoping that it might shed some light on their father’s disease and their potential risks down the road. Twyla took and submitted the ancestry test, set up an online profile and ultimately forgot about it with everything else that was going on in her life.

In February of 2019, Twyla decided to surprise Moira and Johnny and made an unplanned visit to her childhood home while in town for a bridal shower. Twyla became concerned when she saw a brand new Mercedes SUV sitting in the driveway. Twyla inquired and Moira explained that it was a “gift” and not to ask so many questions. Twyla mentioned this to Randall who at the time was roommates with David. He noted that David, an avid baker, had recently come home with a brand new collection of Le Creuset cookware. Randall hadn’t given this much thought but after his conversation with Twyla wondered how David, a struggling artist, could afford to spend that much money on items that simply supported a hobby.

Randall and Twyla became more concerned with how they believed Moira was spending Johnny’s money. After Moira avoided their questions multiple times, Randall and Twyla sought the advice of their own attorney, Attorney Budd. Attorney Budd advised that they could petition the court to have an independent conservator appointed to handle Johnny’s finances. After filing a petition, and over Moira’s objection, the court-appointed an independent conservator and independent guardian for Johnny.

The relationship Randall and Twyla had with Moira and her children continued to deteriorate as their father’s health grew worse. After one particularly difficult evening in February of 2020, Johnny had to be rushed to the emergency room after he was completely unresponsive and had labored breathing. The doctors advised that he likely had only a few hours to live unless he was placed on life support. Moira believed that Johnny did not want life-sustaining treatment and advised the doctors to give him medicine to simply make him comfortable. When Randall arrived he demanded that the doctors put his father on life-support. Unfortunately, before any decision could be made, Johnny passed away.

Johnny died with a gross estate of $7,000,000 consisting of his Massachusetts residence and a variety of investment and bank accounts titled in his name, individually, a bank account with approximately $75,000 held jointly with Moira, a life insurance policy payable to his Trust with a death benefit of $500,000 and a 401k account in which Moira was named the primary beneficiary followed by the four children equally as contingent beneficiaries.

Moira turned to Attorney Mullens to probate Johnny’s estate and prepare any necessary tax filings. Attorney Mullens was shocked to discover that despite what he had been told and what was provided in their wills, Moira and Johnny had never actually married. Attorney Mullens filed a Petition in Probate Court to have Moira appointed Personal Representative of Johnny’s Estate. Both Randall and Twyla filed objections. In addition, Randall and Twyla engaged Attorney Budd to present an argument that all provisions for Moira under the will and trust should be disregarded given the fact that she was not actually their father’s spouse, that their father’s tangible items should be distributed in equal shares to them, and that the remainder of their father’s estate should pass outright to the two of them (to the exclusion of Alexis and David).

This argument enraged Moira and she engaged a new estate planning attorney, Attorney Brewer, to prepare a new estate plan with the intent to disinherit Randall and Twyla. Moira’s new will provided for tangible items to be divided equally between her children, Alexis and David. Moira amended and restated The Moira Alexander Trust and provided that after her death, all assets would be divided into equal shares and distributed outright to Alexis and David.

Meanwhile, Attorney Mullens was working to prepare the Massachusetts Estate Tax Return for Johnny’s Estate. He wished to utilize the tax planning methods that had been provided for through Johnny’s will and trust and take advantage of the spousal deduction that could be taken on any assets that passed to Moira as the surviving spouse either outright or as held under Johnny’s trust for her benefit during her lifetime.

Around the same time, Stevie Jenkins, a young woman living in Colorado, contacted Twyla after her own ancestry test results indicated that she and Twyla could be half-sisters, sharing Johnny’s genetic profile. Twyla, although shocked at the discovery, was interested in getting to know Stevie but was concerned about whether Stevie might have any rights to Johnny’s assets under his own estate plan or under the Family Trust that Johnny’s parents had established.

Full Article & Source:

A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders 

Financial Exploitation and the Authority of a Conservator

Ann Hetherwick Cahill

To best enjoy this post, please be sure to first read A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders.

In this last discussion of the Smith and Alexander families, we examine financial exploitation, its impact on suitability in appointing a conservator, and steps that a conservator can take if there is evidence of prior financial exploitation. As background, Johnny developed Alzheimer’s, and Moira cared for Johnny at their home, with the help of an in-home nurse. When Randall and Twyla were concerned with how Moira was spending their father’s money, they appropriately filed for a conservatorship. Randall and Twyla asked for an independent conservator to be appointed over Johnny, to which the court agreed, despite Moira’s objection.

Moira likely objected because she wanted to be appointed as conservator over Johnny. Remember that Johnny and Moira never signed the health care proxies and durable power of attorneys prepared by Attorney Mullens (they did sign their Wills and Trust). Johnny’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney named Moira as the agent, followed by Randall. Had Johnny signed his durable power of attorney, Moira would have had top priority for consideration for the appointment as conservator under the governing statute. Otherwise, she lacks any priority for the appointment. Moira might still argue that the unsigned durable power of attorney evidences Johnny’s intent for her to serve as conservator. That would be a tough argument, though, given that Johnny never actually signed the durable power of attorney, and he was still thinking about whether he wanted to name one of his children to serve as co-attorney-in-fact with Moira.

Importantly, the court would likely not appoint Moira as conservator for Johnny because she is unsuitable to serve in such a fiduciary position. Based on the facts, it seems like the conservator need arose out of Moira’s lavish spending of Johnny’s money. The governing statute ensures that lack of qualification or lack of good cause overrides any person’s priority for the appointment. Here, with Moira’s history of using Johnny’s assets, there is a solid argument that she should not be appointed.

With a neutral conservator in place, the conservator is protecting Johnny from future exploitation and standing in Johnny’s shoes to pursue any necessary investigation and/or claim against Moira or any other wrongdoer. A conservator is explicitly empowered to “commence, prosecute or defend actions, claims, or proceedings in any jurisdiction for the protection of estate assets,” pursuant to M.G.L. c. 190B, § 5-423(c)(26). Once appointed, the conservator likely learned from Randall and Twyla of their concerns about Moira’s spending. Then the conservator has the power to review bank account statements, hire counsel, and file any claim to recover any assets if necessary. As shown by Moira, often, the fight over a person or estate stems from wanting to remain in control and to limit someone’s own potential liability for bad acts.

If you have concerns about the financial exploitation of a loved one, you should consult with a skilled attorney who specializes in this area of the law.

Until next time!
Hether

Full Article & Source:

Financial Exploitation and the Authority of a Conservator

Panel urges disbarment over conflict of interest

By Sarah Mansur

A Woodstock attorney who received nearly $400,000 from his mother’s assets after redrafting her will six years before she died should be disbarred, an Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission panel has found.

The ARDC hearing board decided Jeffrey J. Keck had a conflict of interest when he drafted a new will for his mother, naming himself as the sole beneficiary and disinheriting his sibling.

It also found Keck, a sole practitioner, made false statements while testifying in probate proceedings related to his mother’s estate.

Keck denied allegations of misconduct, but he did not participate in the disciplinary hearing before the board.

Keck prepared wills for both his parents in 1980, according to the ARDC hearing board report filed April 27.

His father’s will left his entire estate to Keck’s mother, Margaret. If Margaret predeceased her husband, the estate was to be divided between Keck and his only brother, William.

Margaret’s will was similar, according to the report.

In April 2004, Margaret executed a new will that named Keck as the sole beneficiary, the report states. The new will does not list an attorney, nor does it state Keck or his brother were present.

William testified he only became aware of the new will after his mother died in May 2010.

Shortly after her death, Keck submitted a claim to AIG as the sole beneficiary of his mother’s life insurance policy. In July 2010, AIG paid Keck $252,343.90, the entire amount under the policy.

In December 2010, William filed a petition for probate and proof of his mother’s will. Several months later, he contested her will in court.

Keck testified in a deposition for the probate matter in July 2011 that he didn’t know who drafted his mother’s 2004 will, according to the board report.

When the dispute over her will went to trial in January 2014, Keck testified he prepared a draft will for Margaret in 2004 and that the draft appeared to be the same will that was executed in 2004.

In February 2014, a Kane County judge set the will aside on the grounds of undue influence, according to the hearing board report.

The court also revoked Keck’s status as executor and appointed Patrick M. Kinnally as the administrator for the estate.

In November 2015, Kinnally’s accounting showed the estate assets totaled $115,014.84. After payment of fees and expenses, the net assets totaled $42,601.30, of which Keck and William each received $21,300.65.

The hearing board’s report states Keck also received $88,500 from Margaret’s checking account and more than $47,000 from the value of her stocks.

All told, Keck received at least $387,843.90 from his mother’s assets, while his brother netted roughly $21,300, according to the report.

“When we consider all of the foregoing evidence, we conclude that [Keck] abused his position of trust and influence with respect to Margaret to dishonestly convert funds from her during her lifetime and to obtain sole possession of the proceeds of her life insurance policy and other assets after her death. We also find that he engaged in dishonesty based upon his involvement in the presentation of false insurance beneficiary documents,” the hearing board report states.

The hearing board — which consisted of James B. Pritikin, Nancy Hablutzel and Audrey Hauser — recommended Keck be disbarred.

Keck was licensed to practice in Illinois in 1978. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Findings by the hearing and review boards are strictly recommendations. Any discipline is decided by the Illinois Supreme Court.

This case is In re Jeffrey Joseph Keck, 19PR0027.

Full Article & Source:
Panel urges disbarment over conflict of interest