Lawsuit Over Trust In Missouri

confusedok

New Member
Hi all,

Newb here. I'm in a big mess, and trying to gather information. I apologize in advance if this is too much detail, but I have no way of knowing what is important, and what is not.

I'm involved in a lawsuit over my mother's trust in Missouri. I live in another state. I've been completely estranged from everyone in my family for over 20 years.

My parents established a revocable trust in the early 90s, naming my three siblings and me as equal beneficiaries.

In the late 90s, my father passed away, and my parents' trust became irrevocable. As per the terms of their trust, it split into two separate, equal trusts. The "A" trust was for my mother, and was under her trusteeship. The "B" trust was for my siblings and me, to be held in trust for us until my mother passed on, under the trusteeship of another relative. I didn't learn any of this until two years ago, a fact I believe will be germane later.

Shortly after my father passed, my mother had an attorney draw up her own revocable trust, naming my siblings and me as equal beneficiaries, under my mother's trusteeship.

About 10 years ago, one of my siblings passed away. According to the terms of both my parents' joint trust, and my mother's trust, my niece, who was my sibling's only child, was elevated to the status of equal beneficiary in both trusts.

Approximately 5 years ago my mother named my niece as trustee of her trust.

I was unaware of any of this.

In November of 2012, I got a letter from a lawyer my siblings had hired telling me my mother had passed away that February, and her trust had become irrevocable. It said my niece, the trustee of my mother's trust, had not fulfilled her obligations regarding the distribution of the trust, that my siblings suspected my niece had misappropriated a sizable amount of money from the trust, and that they were therefore suing her. The letter went on to explain that Missouri law required all "interested parties" in a case to be joined, either as a plaintiff, or as a defendant, and they were therefore naming me as a defendant, as well.

There were no wills, or estates. At the time of their passing, all of my parents' assets became property of their trust(s).

Now, I need to establish that there is hostility between my siblings and myself. I don't want to go into a bunch of drama here, but I think anyone being asked to offer advice needs to understand the lack of any kind of relationship between us. We don't speak, and that's not going to change.

As I said earlier, I live in another state. I consulted an attorney I knew here. He contacted the plaintiffs' attorney and the (other) defendant's attorney, and said he felt this could be resolved amicably. Over the next 11 months, or so, both the defendant's and especially the plaintiffs' attorney began acting in bad faith, and my attorney felt I should hire a local Missouri attorney, and take a more aggressive stance. I did so.

At first, the Missouri attorney I'd hired was very impressive. Calls and emails were returned very quickly, and he presented me with a detailed plan of action, listing things he said he would need to do "immediately" in order to protect my interests.

I signed an agreement with him, and sent him a 3,000 retainer. All communication from him stopped. Of the bullet-pointed list of "critically important" things he'd said needed to be done "at once", the only one he followed through on was his filing his appearance on my behalf with the court, and that took three weeks, despite the fact that his offices are right across the street from the courthouse.

Over the next 3 months, I became increasing concerned over his lack of action on my behalf, and began calling and emailing him. Towards the end, I was leaving 3-5 messages per week for him, and an equal number of emails. He literally didn't respond to a single one of them. Finally, I sent him an email, cc by certified letter, re-listing his original bullet-pointed action plan, and gave him a week to get them done. He took no action, and never even bothered to respond. I fired him, and had to threaten to file a complaint with the Office of The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the state supreme court for inadequate communication and neglect of legal matters under the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct to get my retainer back.

Since then, I've interviewed 11 attorneys. I've only found one I was impressed with, but when he sent the agreement over, the structure of his compensation wasn't what we'd discussed. I called him, and we discussed it at length. That time, I took copious notes so I could be sure I was not mistaken, and re-stated the terms we'd agreed upon several times during the conversation. Again, the agreement he sent over was not what we'd discussed. I moved on.

That brings me to my first question:

How do I find an attorney? I've looked on a number of sites that rate lawyers, have reviews, etc., but very few attorneys in this county in Missouri have more than one, or two ratings, or reviews. There was one guy who had 6 peer reviews, but a closer look revealed they were all from his partners, and they only gave him 3.5 stars out of 5. I didn't think that was a good sign. I ended up culling a list from those sites, and the listings on the county bar association page, but to me it feels just like pulling out the yellow pages, closing my eyes, jabbing my finger on the page, and calling the one it lands on. Hiring a lawyer to help me through this process is probably going to be the most momentous decision of my life; financially, if not emotionally and psychologically as well. I've pretty much failed utterly at it so far. I have to find a better way.

As I go through that process, I would like to increase my understanding of what I'm in the middle of. Here are my other questions:

Do I have standing in this case? By that, I mean are my siblings and my niece free to reach an agreement in this case without my approval? I would think they could, and the only way I could get some leverage in this would be to file a suit of my own, essentially mirroring the lawsuit my siblings filed against my niece. Is that correct?

Is the professional trustee required to be responsive to me? For example, if I want an accounting of trust assets, or copies of documents, do I need a court order to get them, or must the trustee provide them? Nearly two years ago, plaintiff's attorney petitioned the court to compel the defendant to provide bank statements, etc. The court ordered it done, giving defendant 30 days to produce them. To date, she has only partially complied. Now that the professional trustee is in control of the trust, can I get those documents from her?

What criminal charges might my niece face? Could she be trying to wait out statutes of limitations? From what I've been able to find out, criminal prosecutions are apparently pretty rare in cases like this, aren't they?

If she doesn't face criminal charges, what leverage do I have over her? I understand my siblings and I can sue her to recover misappropriated funds and assets, but isn't all that would lead to is a judgement? I'm pretty sure she couldn't just declare bankruptcy and discharge a judgement, but if she has no assets, all you could do is petition for wage garnishment, right?

Please understand, I'm not looking for ways to hurt my niece, despite what she has done. I'm about as sure as I could be that she's already taken significantly more than her share of the trust, but she has children, and a life ahead of her. I don't want to harm her, or saddle her with a judgement. What I would most like to do is find a way to compel her to come clean, renounce any claim on the remainder of the trust, and let us all move on. To achieve that, I need some kind of leverage.

How are non-cash investment assets disbursed? The single biggest trust asset is an investment account. Some of the investments are municipal bonds with maturity dates far into the future. How do you split those up?

Any answers to my questions / advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
There's no way a stranger unfamiliar with the minutiae of your legal matter could even begin to address your laundry list.

To protect your privacy and interests, don't share any of the necessary detail on the forum or the internet.

You hire an attorney by interviewing him or her in person. Don't try it over the telephone. You need to sit across the desk looking the attorney in her or his eyes. That's where it starts, it's a personal relationship, too. Your personalities must be compatible. You are a very detailed oriented person and want to direct your attorney. Most attorneys don't work we'll in such a model.

All I can suggest is that you seek recommendations about attorneys from those you know and trust.
Once you do retain an attorney for a $3,000 returner, don't expect daily updates. If you want Mr Big Stuff status, you'll have to drop about fifty large, maybe even one hundred large as a retainer, and left to be billed for those daily updates.

If I were representing you, I charge in 15 minute increments for telephone calls, with a quarter hour minimum for each call. My hourly rate ran about $800 an hour when I was actively practicing. These days, when I do accept a pro bono case my caveat is unless its an emergency, I won't call you, you don't call me.

I wish you well. Happy Easter holiday weekend.
 
Last edited:
You've got a huge number of fact specific issues that obviously need the attention of an expert. I'll deal with the legal malpractice issue.

If the attorney hasn't had the decency just to respond to you and your reasonable notice sent by certified mail, then perhaps you may need to do what you have to do in order to get your retainer back. If he can't even give you status of the case and going forward steps, then it's difficult for him to complain about consequences, absent some very good reason. He may have committed legal malpractice, I don't know.

Unfortunately I find more people than I'd like to believe are dishonest. Some attorneys exhibit a tendency to believe in the Captain Jack Sparrow method as if having leverage made things right. But that isn't always the case. There isn't an easy answer except to continue what you're doing. Understand that at some point you may need to do some of the work yourself if you can't find someone willing to take upon the work. This is the difficult question if part of your case is on a contingency basis -- is your case worth my time on contingency? I'm guessing that this is partially at play here. You DESERVE justice but what will it take in attorney hours to get that done? How about the risk that the return may be barely enough to cover those fees that an attorney wants to make just as a base without risk?

Attorney ratings on websites are highly overinflated. I usually read negative ones for any general website just to determine if there are any serious caveats or common complaints of which I should be aware. I also try to detect similarities for both positive and negative to see whether someone is astroturfing or trying to willfully damage the reputation of another person or party.

You could try to bring the matter to the attention of the district attorney's office but there is no guarantee that they will prosecute. And that judgment call is theirs to make.

Wishing you the best of luck. If we can be of assistance, we'd be glad to help you with finding another attorney. Army judge gives some very good advice about trusting your instincts regarding an attorney. I'm just very sorry to hear how many you've had to wade through. Hopefully can at least enjoy the holiday break that most have in this country and good luck with your case.
 
Thank you for your responses, army judge and the law professor.

To clarify, I'm not focused on the attorney I hired, and then fired in Missouri. I got all of my retainer and case documents back. Yeah, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but on a normal day, whenever someone is out of my way, I just move on. Right now, with all the grief and drama my siblings and niece are making for me, there's no way I'd waste the time, or emotional energy going after that attorney. If his inaction had caused actual harm to me, it'd be another matter.

I posted about this on another forum awhile back, and the only responses I seemed to get were "you need to get a lawyer". I went into the detail about my experiences trying to get a lawyer simply to demonstrate that I WANT a lawyer, I'm just failing miserably at it.

Also, army judge, I guess I gave you the impression I was all over that attorney like some kind of "clientzilla". That wasn't the case. Before engaging him, I laid out the facts for him, provided him all the documents I had, and HE laid out the action plan. It was the attorney who said there were a number of things he needed to do on my behalf immediately. I heartily agreed with him, but the urgency was his, not mine.

I waited 6 weeks. There was no action. Remember, he'd said it was urgent that he perform those tasks "immediately". I called and left a voicemail asking for an update. No response. A week later, I called again, asking the same, and followed through with an email. No response. The next week, another call, another email. No response. I hired him in December. By the first of April, having heard nothing from him, and having gotten no response to any of my emails and calls, I increased the frequency. By the end of April, I'd fired him. Honestly, I don't think my expectations for diligence and communication were unreasonable.

thelawprofessor, I've learned how billing works. I know that's the industry standard, and I accept it. In my experience with the attorney I fired, though, there's a funny story attached.

When I finally got the attorney on the phone (only after telling the assistant who'd tried to once again put me to voicemail that I was calling to fire him), I told him all I needed at this point were my case materials and retainer back. He told me not only was the retainer burned up, but I owed him several hundred dollars, and sent me an accounting.

He'd charged me a quarter-hour for every 5 second "please call me" voicemail I'd left him, even though he'd never once called me back.

He'd charged me a quarter-hour for each one-sentence email I'd sent him asking the same, even though he'd never responded to one of them.

He'd charged me an hour to read the one-page email I'd sent him re-stating the bullet points of the "immediate action plan" he'd prepared nearly four months previously, and giving him a week to perform on, even though he took no action, and gave me no response.

He'd charged me three hours to file his appearance in the case.

He'd charged me between 1 and 3 hours, each to draft the six motions he'd proposed in his initial action plan, even though he never filed one of them.

I might not find that so funny if I'd had to fight to get my money back, but the moment I mentioned the complaint I'd file with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel if he didn't immediately return my retainer to me, he folded. I had a check from him the next day.

More than anything else, what I need help with now is advice on finding an attorney. army judge, what you said about sitting down with someone, versus making the decision after only speaking with them over the telephone makes perfect sense. My challenge comes before that in the process, though. As I said earlier, since firing the attorney I hired in Missouri, I've interviewed (by phone) 11 more. Checking my notes, I see I've actually called 25; 14 of them never called me back. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong here.

The other thing I'm really hoping for is to increase my understanding of the elements of the case.

Do I currently have standing, or since I'm simply named as a defendant, are my siblings and my niece free to come to a settlement without me? If I don't have standing, do I need to file my own lawsuit to get it?

What criminal charges might my niece face? Is it true that criminal charges are seldom filed?

What civil consequences might she face? If it is a judgement, and she owns nothing, what kind of a bite does that have?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Also, thelawprofessor, regarding compensating the attorney on a contingency, I'm coming to believe that is the best way to go, as it motivates them to take action.

There is enough there that a contingency is worthwhile. Especially in my case, I believe, as the hard work has already been done.

Of the 11 attorneys I interviewed, 10 of them had experience with the plaintiff's attorney. They unanimously agreed he is a capable attorney, but also a terrible footdragger. There is only one judge in that county who handles these matters, and they all said that judge is tolerant of slow attorneys. They all said plaintiff's attorney had already done all the heavy lifting in this case, and that their role would be primarily to check that work, and to stay on him to get things done.

That being the case, I'd think a contingency would encourage them to get this resolved quickly, as there is no upside in billable hours if the case drags out.
 
We have no idea what your niece did and what she is accused of doing. Misappropriated - did she reasonably believe she could transfer money? I don't know. These cases are all fact specific and the details are of critical importance.

I don't know what area you're in. Some jurisdictions are much more difficult than others to find competent professionals. Not to make a joke out of it at all but finding an attorney in St. Louis is probably provide a much greater selection than in Ferguson, Missouri. The fact that 14 didn't call you back - don't know. They may have a full calendar. Hard to say. I also don't know the reasons why those you've spoken to didn't qualify or how the attorney could send you an agreement that clearly doesn't reflect what was agreed. Either they are trying to fool you or perhaps there is some misunderstanding as to what certain things mean - I don't know.
 
Also, thelawprofessor, regarding compensating the attorney on a contingency, I'm coming to believe that is the best way to go, as it motivates them to take action.

There is enough there that a contingency is worthwhile. Especially in my case, I believe, as the hard work has already been done.

That being the case, I'd think a contingency would encourage them to get this resolved quickly, as there is no upside in billable hours if the case drags out.
So.... what's the problem if you've got at least 8-10 willing to take the case on contingency?
 
We have no idea what your niece did and what she is accused of doing. Misappropriated - did she reasonably believe she could transfer money? I don't know. These cases are all fact specific and the details are of critical importance.

Without getting into a long laundry list of her supposed misdeeds, I'm really just wanting to understand, in general, what criminal charges might be associated with a trustee mishandling a trust. I've also read that unless it's millions of dollars flagrantly stolen, these matters normally aren't prosecuted. Is that correct?

I don't know what area you're in. Some jurisdictions are much more difficult than others to find competent professionals. Not to make a joke out of it at all but finding an attorney in St. Louis is probably provide a much greater selection than in Ferguson, Missouri. The fact that 14 didn't call you back - don't know. They may have a full calendar. Hard to say. I also don't know the reasons why those you've spoken to didn't qualify or how the attorney could send you an agreement that clearly doesn't reflect what was agreed. Either they are trying to fool you or perhaps there is some misunderstanding as to what certain things mean - I don't know.

Regarding a contingency. Can you help me understand what those agreements normally entail? How might one structure it to encourage the attorney to take action? Bonuses for quicker resolution?

The agreement I reached with the attorney I settled on after interviewing 11 was for 15% of the first 100,000 of my net share of the trust, 12.5% of the next 100,000, and 10% of anything over that, with total compensation capping at 38,125 (I don't know how he arrived at that number). Originally, he proposed that I give him 1,000 up front for expenses, with any additional expenses to be paid by me on the back end. We eventually agreed there would be no up-front money, and all expenses would come out of his end once his compensation topped 20,000.

The agreement he sent me had me paying all expenses on the back end, and made no mention of the agreement we'd reached that he'd eat them once his end got to 20,000. He also had a clause in there stating he was due the full amount, even if he withdrew from the case. We'd never discussed that.

I called him, we discussed the miscommunication, and he sent me a revised agreement. In this one the cap had inexplicably gone from 38,125 to 48,125, and he hadn't taken out the withdrawal clause. I stopped communicating with him. He was either shady, or sloppy, and I didn't want either.
 
So.... what's the problem if you've got at least 8-10 willing to take the case on contingency?

That's not the case.

I talked to 11 lawyers.

One said he had never handled a case like this, he was just moving into this area of law. He didn't know either of the attorneys, and had never appeared before the judge. I decided I wanted more experience.

Talking to the others, I began to see something that concerned me. They talked about how slow plaintiff's attorney is (he is), and how tolerant the judge is of attorneys. One issue I mentioned to all of them is that the judge has ordered the defendant to produce bank statements, etc. twice, and she's either only partially complied, or ignored those court orders entirely. The judge hasn't done anything about it, and the plaintiff's attorney hasn't followed up. Among the things on the action plan of the attorney I'd fired was to petition the court to require the trustee to comply with those orders, or face consequences.

Almost all of the attorneys I spoke to were unwilling, or extremely reluctant to do that, saying things like "I practice in front of that judge all the time. I don't want to make him mad", or "I deal with (plaintiff's attorney) all the time. If I push him too hard, it'll make working with him in other cases harder".

The only attorney I found in those interviews who impressed me with his desire to mix it up was the one who proposed the contingency. I didn't decide to go further with him because I could get a contingency agreement, I felt he wasn't part of what I'd come to see as a "good old boy" environment.
 
Last edited:
Almost all of the attorneys I spoke to were unwilling, or extremely reluctant to do that, saying things like "I practice in front of that judge all the time. I don't want to make him mad", or "I deal with (plaintiff's attorney) all the time. If I push him too hard, it'll make working with him in other cases harder".

The only attorney I found in those interviews who impressed me with his desire to mix it up was the one who proposed the contingency. I didn't decide to go further with him because I could get a contingency agreement, I felt he wasn't part of what I'd come to see as a "good old boy" environment.
The attorneys are only telling you what you don't want to hear and accept, IMHO. If the judge doesn't want to sanction the other side, he/she won't. The attorney needs to make the appropriate objection and motion and see what the judge will do. If there is corruption rather than "cutting the attorney some slack" then that's a different story and the appropriate place is going to a judiciary committee.

I hate to say this but I was involved in an estate case against a woman who misappropriated land to the point where I suspected clear intent to embezzle, such as signing a deed of property to herself with an "X" - supposedly the signature of the deceased testator / conservatee. It was so disgusting that I had a difficulty dealing with the legal system after the case, which included a judge that required just what I am describing. The attorney in the case was a related party to the defendant in some way... really ridiculous. Long story short - you have to know when to push the buttons. If you trust the attorney to do the work, let him/her feel out when to request the judge to make sure that the other side complies with the program with some full court pressure. Until then, choose your battles wisely and save your guns for the appropriate time.
 
Without getting into a long laundry list of her supposed misdeeds, I'm really just wanting to understand, in general, what criminal charges might be associated with a trustee mishandling a trust. I've also read that unless it's millions of dollars flagrantly stolen, these matters normally aren't prosecuted. Is that correct?
There is also the issue of whether there was criminal intent. It's not always as simple as it seems. Sometimes the suspected person can claim that they were "given" the property by someone who should have been in a conservatorship - and even then the DA may decide that it's not worth the effort to prosecute what could be an old person. If there was a time to do that, it should have been done early in the case. Although if you have gone through discovery and have deposition testimony, that could be critical to a district attorney's decision whether to move forward. I don't know the circumstances and how sure a District Attorney may believe the chances of conviction are - or not.

Regarding a contingency. Can you help me understand what those agreements normally entail? How might one structure it to encourage the attorney to take action? Bonuses for quicker resolution?
The problem with this is that it may not get what you think it will. It's much dependent upon the judge and other factors including discovery. No attorney I know would want to make time be a material part of the case. And if it is contingency fee based, then what attorney wouldn't want to be paid as quickly as possible?

Regarding the other attorney who didn't understand the agreement, I would have dropped him too. Understand that an attorney who feels a client may be very difficult may not accept the case. The challenge is that the money may be long gone and unrecoverable, if what you imply is true. If I'm an attorney and I see that, I don't want to accept 15% of the first $100,000 of the net, knowing that months of my time and my staff's time may result in that - at best - when an hourly rate might put that at well under $100 given the work. I can't tell you. The difficulty is that clients feel like giving away 2/3 of "their money" to the attorney is giving away too much. But the attorney doesn't care how you feel -- they care about the work performed AND the risk taken of being stuck with a huge amount of expenses with no income for an extended period of time. You may need to accept that this is what an attorney you trust may demand, even if it makes you disgusted that your niece will have harmed you twice, the second time indirectly. I'm really sorry to hear about this but I'm thinking it through and speaking out loud.
 
The attorneys are only telling you what you don't want to hear and accept, IMHO. If the judge doesn't want to sanction the other side, he/she won't. The attorney needs to make the appropriate objection and motion and see what the judge will do. If there is corruption rather than "cutting the attorney some slack" then that's a different story and the appropriate place is going to a judiciary committee.

I hate to say this but I was involved in an estate case against a woman who misappropriated land to the point where I suspected clear intent to embezzle, such as signing a deed of property to herself with an "X" - supposedly the signature of the deceased testator / conservatee. It was so disgusting that I had a difficulty dealing with the legal system after the case, which included a judge that required just what I am describing. The attorney in the case was a related party to the defendant in some way... really ridiculous. Long story short - you have to know when to push the buttons. If you trust the attorney to do the work, let him/her feel out when to request the judge to make sure that the other side complies with the program with some full court pressure. Until then, choose your battles wisely and save your guns for the appropriate time.

First, thank you very much for your time, and advice.

I understand what the judge does is entirely up to the judge, and I don't believe any of this rises to the level of corruption, or judicial misconduct.

You said: "The attorney needs to make the appropriate objection and motion and see what the judge will do." That's exactly what I want. The judge will do what the judge will do, but when the judge gives the defendant 30 days to produce documents, for example, and they haven't shown up in over two years, I at least want my attorney filing a motion asking why.

Nearly two years ago, plaintiff's attorney petitioned the court to remove my niece as trustee, and to appoint a professional trustee. The court ordered it. Turns out, my niece was trustee of my mother's trust, but another relative was trustee of my parent's "B" trust, and the funds had never been separated. The professional trustee would not accept trusteeship until the relative of the "B" trust resigned, and the professional trustee could assume both trusts.

Plaintiff's attorney sent my relative a letter asking him for a declination letter, over and over stressing the immediacy and urgency of the situation. My relative provided that letter within 10 days. All that remained was for plaintiff's attorney to provide that letter to the court.

After a few months, my Tulsa attorney asked plaintiff's attorney about the declination letter. He said he would be filing it with the court "directly"

Three months later, I hired the attorney in Missouri that I eventually fired. He asked plaintiffs' attorney about the declination letter. He said he would be filing it "in a day, or two".

Six months later, I was discussing the case with the attorney I was negotiating the contingency deal with. With my permission, he'd called the other attorneys involved to discuss the case. He'd asked plaintiff's attorney about the declination letter. He said he'd be filing it "tomorrow".

In fact, it was more than four months later that plaintiff's attorney took the declination letter he'd been in possession of for more than a year to the court, and the professional trustee assumed control of the trust assets. During that year, even though she'd been removed as trustee, those assets remained under my nieces control.

What I would expect from the attorney I hire in a situation like this would be to make a call to plaintiff's attorney to have him file the letter. If plaintiff's attorney breaks his commitment, I'd want a letter written to plaintiff's attorney, giving him a specific date to file the letter by. if that date passes without that letter being filed, I'd want my attorney in court filing a motion to compel him to do so. What the judge does from there is out of anyone's control, but I wasn't about to hire an attorney who was so apprehensive over rocking the boat that he wouldn't even try.

Is that an unrealistic, or unreasonable expectation on my part? The Missouri Rules of Professonal Conduct are pretty specific on diligence, and to my layman's eye, the expectations I've described above seem well within the scope of those rules.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...1729a06a76272ea086256ca6005211e7?OpenDocument
 
Last edited:
The problem with this is that it may not get what you think it will. It's much dependent upon the judge and other factors including discovery. No attorney I know would want to make time be a material part of the case. And if it is contingency fee based, then what attorney wouldn't want to be paid as quickly as possible?

Regarding the other attorney who didn't understand the agreement, I would have dropped him too. Understand that an attorney who feels a client may be very difficult may not accept the case. The challenge is that the money may be long gone and unrecoverable, if what you imply is true. If I'm an attorney and I see that, I don't want to accept 15% of the first $100,000 of the net, knowing that months of my time and my staff's time may result in that - at best - when an hourly rate might put that at well under $100 given the work. I can't tell you. The difficulty is that clients feel like giving away 2/3 of "their money" to the attorney is giving away too much. But the attorney doesn't care how you feel -- they care about the work performed AND the risk taken of being stuck with a huge amount of expenses with no income for an extended period of time. You may need to accept that this is what an attorney you trust may demand, even if it makes you disgusted that your niece will have harmed you twice, the second time indirectly. I'm really sorry to hear about this but I'm thinking it through and speaking out loud.

The single largest asset of the trust is an investment account worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000. It is in the hands of the professional trustee. There were other stocks and investments, worth somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000. Again, they are in the hands of the professional trustee. I believe the professional trustee was to have liquidated those assets.

My mother had not filed her taxes in a number of years, which caused the IRS to seize her bank accounts shortly after her death. The preliminary tax returns prepared by the defendants attorney (who had also been my mother's attorney, accountant, tax advisor, author of my parent's joint trust, author of my mother's trust, and compensated successor trustee to my mother's trust), showed there was no tax liability, and in fact, there were refunds due for each year. Setting aside how utterly inappropriate I feel it is for the trustee's defense attorney to be preparing my mother's tax returns at this point, or even for my mother's attorney, and compensated successor trustee to represent the trustee in this matter, one of my points of contention here is that every April 15th that passes, another year's tax refund is lost, due totally to the inattention to and neglect of legal matters of the plaintiff's attorney, and the defendant's refusal to comply with orders from the court.

My mother had no debt, other than a credit card, which has been long settled.

The trust will be split either four, or three ways, depending on how much my niece, the trustee/beneficiary, has already taken for herself. From the documentation she has already provided, it appears she has already gotten her share. It's the documents she has refused to provide that will tell the story, I think.

There are supposed to be other trust assets; proceeds from the sale of my mother's house several years prior to her death, missing possessions, etc., but I don't think the issue here is whether the attorney will be paid, or whether that compensation will be worth his, or her while.
 
Back
Top