Presumably your real question was whether, under the particular circumstances of your case, it was legally proper for the judge to require this waiver.
The answer to that question is that I haven't the slightest idea. Nor will anyone here have the slightest idea. Why? Because none of the people who post here are (to the best of my knowledge) attorneys admitted in Wisconsin (much less Wisconsin attorneys who specialize in probate law), and because none of us have any more than scant information about a case that "has been going on in some incantation since 2010."
To add to what "Tax_Counsel" wrote (which, to be clear, is only an educated guess), the estate needs money to fund litigation. If the final distribution occurs, then the estate will have no money. If you win, what happens? Someone's going to have to try and recover all the distributions that have made (to you and your 8 siblings)? What if none of them have the money anymore? It's not like the court is going to let you have your money but not any of the others.
Thanks, this is another good answer that helps me in my pursuit of justice. First, although I am new to this sight, I trust there are likely people here, like yourself, who have good instincts and opinions. I hope perhaps someone who is familiar with Wisconsin Law or other similar state laws may happen up this thread and be able to provide an insight as did you.
I believe you are 100% correct whereas you identified the problem the estate and its lawyers now have as well as one of their arguments.
The estate distributed all the assets of the estate to the other heirs, but mine was withheld because I would not waive my rights to appeal non-monetary matters or the final judgment itself. Again, this is for historical reasons in the matter that are irrelevant to my instant point.
The estate now argues, as you suggest, that the Court must rule that my share of the estate can be used to pay their fees whereas that is the only money that remains undistributed. The estate reasons that if my distribution is not available, they will have to "claw back" the others shares to pay their fees. They note that at that point, I will again be able to litigate the matter because I am an heir to the estate.
However, Wisconsin law does not permit attorneys fees from a subset of the estate, (a distributive share) but rather only from the whole of the estate.
The purpose of the "bias" Judge, who colluded with the estate attorney, (as a matter of and in the record) was to make distributions to the other heirs while withholding "my sums" because an appeal from "Richard" from such an order would be inevitable.So see, you are correct.
So if the Judge knowingly withheld my share for purposes of attorney's fees to the estate, should I appeal, I would likely need to appeal to get my lawful distribution and preserve my right to appeal.
The distribution has already been adjudicated to be mine. The estate distributed all assets which included any fund set aside for legal fees. Questionably not a very good move on the part of the estate attorneys, the personal representative or the Court.
Incidentally, the estate attorney submitted an ex parte Order to the Court which the Court adopted prior to my input or awareness of the proposed order.
Yup, I go back to my original but clarified query. Can a judge, make a final order, that distributes all the shares and "funds" of the estate available for legal fees, and then hold the share of one of the distributees for legal fees to the opposing party. It seems bias laden and lacks impartiality on its face and produces cause for a non-frivolous appeal...or so I would think.
You asked, "What if none of them have the money anymore? It's not like the court is going to let you have your money but not any of the others."
Clearly if the Judge distributed the shares to the other heirs, they already have their shares. What they did with such funds is a concern of theirs should an attempt at "clawback" occur. Historically, the obvious intention of the Judge was to provide them their shares, prevent my appeal by coercing me to take my share thus waiving my statutory right to appeal, and should I appeal, use my share as compensation for the estate attorneys as was suggested in the collusion discussion at the final hearing....well, the first of the final hearings...lol.
Thanks again for your perspective.