CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - # 3

Please continue here:

Thread 1

Thread 2


Friendly reminder:

If you are going to discuss something from court documents, police reports or witness statements you must link the original document.

Any posts discussing information from any of the above without a link to the original document (with appropriate personal information redacted where possible) will be removed from view until a time when the documents are linked.

Thank you
Cubby

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 03-2009-00291267-PR-CE-LJC

It appears Bobs daughters were appointed co-conservators of Bobs estate only back in May 2010. I wonder if this means they can now offer that reward they were talking about not being able to offer when Bob first went missing.

Does anyone know if this co conservatorship means they can now do this? and if so, if they have been able to do this since their appointment in May why it has not yet been done?

tia

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 03-2009-00297798-PR-TR-LJC

In June 2010 Bobs daughters were appointed as successor co trustee for what I think is the family trust. Again, wondering why no reward is being offered - and does this mean the daughters now have access to funds to do so?

Someone help with the legal speak please.

tia

Cubby said:

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 03-2009-00291267-PR-CE-LJC

It appears Bobs daughters were appointed co-conservators of Bobs estate only back in May 2010. I wonder if this means they can now offer that reward they were talking about not being able to offer when Bob first went missing.

Does anyone know if this co conservatorship means they can now do this? and if so, if they have been able to do this since their appointment in May why it has not yet been done?

tia

Click to expand...

I have been wondering the same thing.

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 30-2008-00068771-PR-OP-LJC

"Harrod Safekeeping Will" - This was filed with the courts, why couldn't the daughters request this information from the courts?

Just trying to sort out the facts.

tia

What counties do the daughters live in?

Can someone post the county along with each DD's initials?

tia

Cubby said:

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 30-2008-00068771-PR-OP-LJC

"Harrod Safekeeping Will" - This was filed with the courts, why couldn't the daughters request this information from the courts?

Just trying to sort out the facts.

tia

Click to expand...

A will is public record once it is filed. You can view it at the courthouse of said deceased.

Cubby said:

What counties do the daughters live in?

Can someone post the county along with each DD's initials?

tia

Click to expand...

PB - Los Angeles County
RB - Los Angeles County
JM - San Bernardino County

Oh my heart just sank with that San Bernadino County... there are TONS and tons of UID's listed at NamUs and Doenetwork in that county. Lots of places to hide bodies there from what I read in the UID forum.

jmo

Bobs daughter posting at IS states the main reason they filed for emergency conservatorship was to provide for a substantial reward. She further indicates (paraphrased per tos) that all funds being used from are court ordered as first being approved by the courts to ensure transparancy and no fraudulant use of funds. I wonder then why no reward and if there are pending court hearings requesting permission to offer a reward.

In Session Message Boards - View Single Post - Bob Harrod, 81, the newlywed missing 7/2009


Per TOS and our not allowing bashing and being a victim friendly forum, I will refrain from commenting on the not so friendly comments about WS. I am asking others please respect our TOS and refrain from doing so as well. We have one main goal here and that is to find Bob.

Thank you
Cubby

Cubby said:

http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/

Probate cases - case number 03-2009-00297798-PR-TR-LJC

In June 2010 Bobs daughters were appointed as successor co trustee for what I think is the family trust. Again, wondering why no reward is being offered - and does this mean the daughters now have access to funds to do so?

Someone help with the legal speak please.

tia

Click to expand...

I think I previously posted June in error. In looking at again, it appears they were appointed co-conservators and co-trustees in both cases on May 5, 2010. So, over 3 months ago.

1. Title: Harrod - Conservatorship
Case Type: Conservatorship of Estate Only
5/5/2010 - RB, PB appointed as co-conservator of estate only of Robert Merle Harrod

2. Title: Harrod - Trust
Case Type: Trust Proceedings
5/5/2010 - RB, PB appointed as successor co-trustee of Robert Merle Harrod
https://ocapps.occourts.org/ProbPubv2/Home.do

Cloudajo, there seems to be two seperate court cases. One regarding Bobs estate and the other regarding the family trust. So two dates exist, both May and June. It is kind of easy to miss because at a quick glance they may look like a single case. And that is why I posted both as seperate posts. Of course I am still confused by exactly what that means.... but it would seem the daughters DO now have the ability to offer a reward.

hth

Whoops, I am confused about the additional June date and it's meaning then. Thanks!

cloudajo said:

I think I previously posted June in error. In looking at again, it appears they were appointed co-conservators and co-trustees in both cases on May 5, 2010. So, over 3 months ago.

1. Title: Harrod - Conservatorship
Case Type: Conservatorship of Estate Only
5/5/2010 - RB, PB appointed as co-conservator of estate only of Robert Merle Harrod

2. Title: Harrod - Trust
Case Type: Trust Proceedings
5/5/2010 - RB, PB appointed as successor co-trustee of Robert Merle Harrod
https://ocapps.occourts.org/ProbPubv2/Home.do

Click to expand...

According to these case proceedings the daughters were appointed co-conservators on 5-5-2010..Fontelle has an attorney and it looks as if they have been fighting the conservatorship from the beginning. The daughters have been given what they have requested all along. Why doesn't Fontelle just graciously bow out? It looks as if the fight just continues for more than she is entitled to..(per court records)

DollyPardonMe said:

According to these case proceedings the daughters were appointed co-conservators on 5-5-2010..Fontelle has an attorney and it looks as if they have been fighting the conservatorship from the beginning. The daughters have been given what they have requested all along. Why doesn't Fontelle just graciously bow out? It looks as if the fight just continues for more than she is entitled to..(per court records)

Click to expand...

Respectfully I am sure Fontelle would like to know what happened to her husband. The money issues can be addressed by the attorneys. This thread is about Bob and finding Bob. Both Fontelle and Bobs children have the right to know what happened to him.

Why should Fontelle give up her right to find out what happened to her husband and to wait for confirmation on his death - either by finding his remains or having the courts declare him deceased. NEITHER of which have officially occured.

JMO

There has been some ongoing discussion regarding the hairdresser and her husband as possible persons of interests and suspects in Bobs disappearance.

Per the following media link dated October 8, 2009
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

The three daughters told police initially they suspected Bob Harrod's barber – a woman who attended their mother's funeral in 2008 – of some connection with the disappearance. Police have cleared the barber and her husband of any connection with the case.



Since this media report of October 2009, there has been no additional information from Law Enforcement or main stream media to indicate LE has changed their position clearing the barber and her husband of having any connection to this case. Unless and until NEW information indicates the barber and her husband are no longer cleared as being involved in Bobs disappearance accusations against them are unsupported rumor and a violation of TOS.


Cubby
-moderator

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/cafaq03

While this applies to divorce, this might give us a frame of reference regarding "Community Property." According to this link, community property is that which is accumulated during the marriage. Separate property is that which is accumulated prior to the marriage.

For example, Fontelle's proceeds of the sale of her house are community property unless there was a written agreement otherwise I believe. So is her SSI. Any pensions, interest, social security, net gain from sales of investments etc of Bob's is community property while Fontelle is married to him. FWIW, this seems small motive for her or her family being involved in the disappearance of Bob. Not that I thought they were, but I thought I would point it out.

When you view things with this lens, then it makes sense that Fontelle would indeed continue to fight the trustee/conservatorship of Bob's holdings while he is missing. She has the most to lose. From a financial perspective.

From a moral perspective, she has every right to continue to try and spearhead efforts to recover her husband which would be difficult to do from Missouri. JMVHO.

ETA: If there are in fact written notes in Bob's handwriting indicating that he intended to add Fontelle to his estate, it is very possible that this will be taken into consideration by the judge. Again JMVHO.

Cubby said:

There has been some ongoing discussion regarding the hairdresser and her husband as possible persons of interests and suspects in Bobs disappearance.

Per the following media link dated October 8, 2009
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

The three daughters told police initially they suspected Bob Harrod's barber – a woman who attended their mother's funeral in 2008 – of some connection with the disappearance. Police have cleared the barber and her husband of any connection with the case.



Since this media report of October 2009, there has been no additional information from Law Enforcement or main stream media to indicate LE has changed their position clearing the barber and her husband of having any connection to this case. Unless and until NEW information indicates the barber and her husband are no longer cleared as being involved in Bobs disappearance accusations against them are unsupported rumor and a violation of TOS.


Cubby
-moderator

Click to expand...

Cubby, somewhere on the last thread (sorry I can't find it now!) there is a recent article that states NO ONE has been cleared.

I know how it looks, but I'm just not willing to drink that Koolaid - yet.

believe09 said:

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/cafaq03

While this applies to divorce, this might give us a frame of reference regarding "Community Property." According to this link, community property is that which is accumulated during the marriage. Separate property is that which is accumulated prior to the marriage.

For example, Fontelle's proceeds of the sale of her house are community property unless there was a written agreement otherwise I believe. So is her SSI. Any pensions, interest, social security, net gain from sales of investments etc of Bob's is community property while Fontelle is married to him. FWIW, this seems small motive for her or her family being involved in the disappearance of Bob. Not that I thought they were, but I thought I would point it out.

When you view things with this lens, then it makes sense that Fontelle would indeed continue to fight the trustee/conservatorship of Bob's holdings while he is missing. She has the most to lose. From a financial perspective.

From a moral perspective, she has every right to continue to try and spearhead efforts to recover her husband which would be difficult to do from Missouri. JMVHO.

ETA: If there are in fact written notes in Bob's handwriting indicating that he intended to add Fontelle to his estate, it is very possible that this will be taken into consideration by the judge. Again JMVHO.

Click to expand...

IIRC - Fontelle didn't have a "house." She was living in a trailer on the property of one of her children in MO.

I came across Bob Herrod's case one night when I had caught up on reading my regular ones. I obviously missed a lot because of the threads now closed.

My very first impression was that I was stunned this case was at such a standstill. It was not handled correctly to begin with, IMO. Bob is/was elderly. An all out ground search should have taken place immediately. Was Bob classified as a missing endangered person? I think any elderly person should be.

I am just giving an opinion here, but since Bob had called in the housekeeper and SIL to help get the house ready for Fontelle's arrival, could he have possibly called the barber to have his hair cut also? That would make sense to me.

Bob Harrod is the victim here. If we cannot speculate as we do in other missing person's cases, then our hands are effectively tied.

FWIW, I do not think the daughters had anything to do with the disappearance. I am very glad that they do have co-conservatorship of the estate. As for them now being able to offer a substantial reward in Bob's case, there are guidelines as to how any money can be spent from the estate. After all, Bob has not been declared dead as yet and all money and property is still in his name. I believe the daughters can pay bills, taxes, and upkeep of the home with money from Bob's estate, but are limited to necessary spending. JMO

I had dinner with a longtime friend who is a lawyer in our capitol city. We have dinner every couple of weeks or so. He says the laws in California are similiar to our state. We talked about Bob's case at length. If there was no co-mingling of Bob and Fontelle's money and there was such a short term living together as man and wife, then Fontelle would be entitled to very little as there is an existing family trust. She would most likely be entitled to live in the home as in survivorship, but it would remain in Bob's name until he either returns or is declared dead. If and when Bob is declared dead, then his will and the family trust would be followed.

My friend stated that without knowing the particulars, that was the best he could do. Now that is just my opinion and his. However; he did further state (and I agree) that he could not envision Fontelle even wanting to stay in California and the home in view of her age and it would seem that she would want to be near her own family. Of course she wants to know what happened to Bob, but she can do that from any other state.

Meanwhile, Bob is missing. What I intend to do is look at all missing, unidentified deceased elderly males that have been located in every state. If Bob is deceased, he deserves the dignity of a proper burial and a headstone with his name on it.

I have posted on missing person's cases and have speculated. I am careful not to violate TOS. WS means a lot to me and I would not want to be banned! I have never even had an infraction here. All of the above is JMO and MOO.

Cubby said:

There has been some ongoing discussion regarding the hairdresser and her husband as possible persons of interests and suspects in Bobs disappearance.

Per the following media link dated October 8, 2009
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

The three daughters told police initially they suspected Bob Harrod's barber – a woman who attended their mother's funeral in 2008 – of some connection with the disappearance. Police have cleared the barber and her husband of any connection with the case.




Since this media report of October 2009, there has been no additional information from Law Enforcement or main stream media to indicate LE has changed their position clearing the barber and her husband of having any connection to this case. Unless and until NEW information indicates the barber and her husband are no longer cleared as being involved in Bobs disappearance accusations against them are unsupported rumor and a violation of TOS.


Cubby
-moderator

Click to expand...

When I spoke with PPD Det. David Radomski on July 26 2010,
he said that NO ONE had been cleared.
Det Radomski is the detective in charge of Robert Harrod's missing person case.
fwiw: