CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #15

[Cubby]

And at least in the depo, AH leads everyone to believe (rightfully or not) that he is getting treated unfairly by his aunts.

So is this a "spoiled grandchild" reaction? Or a justified anger?

Were his loans supposed to be forgiven? Obviously, Bob did not account for this in his will.

Given the supposed amount of the loans (in the hundreds of thousands IIRC between 250,000 and 700,000 dollars) that would be a sizable chunk of the estate and I can see why the aunts want it paid back.

---

It's not going to be paid back. There is some kind of super secret agreement between AH and the co-conservators in which the house was turned over to the trust and his arrears forgiven.

According to the depo, he paid appx 3 years into a 5% 40 year mortgage on a 725,000 loan. He certainly didn't pay much equity in first 3 years of a 40 year mortgage.

 

[shana]

I know Bob did not have dementia, but I wanted to mention - because it involves missing seniors - that a huge controversy has broken out in England today. A local authority is conducting a trial of putting GPS tags on 15 seniors with dementia. They say it will make it much easier and quicker to find them if they get lost and save huge amounts of police time and money. Seniors' organisations are saying it's a barbaric infringement of civil liberties.

From the comments of carers underneath the article, it looks like many think it's a good idea. I can't help thinking the quicker the very old and very young missing are brought home, the better. And, as we saw with Bob, cell phones don't sit well with a lot of seniors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-tracking-devices-save-police-time-money.html

{snipped w/ respect}

Thanks, zwiebel

This is reminiscent of the issue re placing suicide nets under such places as the Golden Gate Bridge. I can see both sides but haven't pondered them sufficiently to weigh-in.

~jmo~

ETA: I think Mr Harrod did indeed exhibit some signs of dementia despite the apparent fact that his doctor did not test him for it. I have seen this phenomenon in several elderly persons, and oftentimes the doctor is the last one to know (prior to testing).

 

[deca]

So, AH's house was put into the trust-
kind of a weird situation. So, the house could be sold and the $$ go into the trust (minus and real estate loss). But if they don't sell the house and AH continues to live in it, Bob's kids really don't benefit financially by it given they are surely not going to outlive AH.
Interesting. Why haven't they sold?
Probably not important to the case.

 

[zwiebel]

Thanks, zwiebel

This is reminiscent of the issue re placing suicide nets under such places as the Golden Gate Bridge. I can see both sides but haven't pondered them sufficiently to weigh-in.

~jmo~

ETA: I think Mr Harrod did indeed exhibit some signs of dementia despite the apparent fact that his doctor did not test him for it. I have seen this phenomenon in several elderly persons, and oftentimes the doctor is the last one to know (prior to testing).

Yes, it is a difficult issue. Though I think more of the concerns that it may be used as a substitute for personal care than I do of the civil liberties concerns. The right to get lost and come to harm before you're found doesn't seem to be a right worth having, to me.

Bob and the possibility of dementia can be endlessly debated I suppose. I think given his age, we can safely exclude sudden, early-onset forms. I do realise too, that even spouses can take time to realise something is wrong. Usually, I think the clues lie more in an 'oddness' of behaviour, rather than simple forgotfullness. So, for example, losing keys might not raise an alarm, but finding them in the refrigerator would. Or not just forgetting a telephone number, but insisting on using one from 30 years before.

The only thing that could settle it once and for all would be a medical test and diagnosis, but Bob would be needed for that. What we are left with seems to be two opposing views - Bob's doctor saying he didn't have symptoms and neighbour PE seeming to support that, and a family member saying he did (it seems to be mainly JuM but PB is possibly supporting that view when she mentions Bob's struggle with paperwork).

Interestingly, looking through media links, it looks like no-one ever asked Mrs Harrod outright if Bob had dementia or not. I wonder if that was an oversight, or simply journalists not wanting to offend her? I wish they had though. I think she could have taken it, and would have given them a straight answer.

 

[zwiebel]

So, AH's house was put into the trust-
kind of a weird situation. So, the house could be sold and the $$ go into the trust (minus and real estate loss). But if they don't sell the house and AH continues to live in it, Bob's kids really don't benefit financially by it given they are surely not going to outlive AH.
Interesting. Why haven't they sold?
Probably not important to the case.

I don't know if they are allowed to sell property in the trust, especially when daughters are just conservators. Maybe it could create a tax liability too?

AH isn't living there anymore. His Mom posted that he'd moved to a much better house, or area. Perhaps it is rented out and generating income now.

 

[TDW59]

Thanks for the correction, Cubby! bad memory on my part. I don't think I have dementia..just overload of info ....right beside gaping holes.

Deca, If I understand correctly...in the maintenance of the trust, no real estate can be sold. They would have to rent it out.

snipped:

Especially since the first time given for her father having gone missing (her community forum) was within 10 minutes of that 10:00am call, and then the given times move from there. Her 1:50pm post on the 28th of July, indicated her dad went missing about 9:50 am or "28 hours" ago.
:facepalm:

As far as debts being written off...PB did not presume that she would no longer owe rent, however she arranged for the rent to be paid out of her share of the trust. I wonder if the house will go to her free and clear when Bob is declared deceased? I think the wording was rent? However, in any case she did not think that her payments stopped and were forgiven.
There is no reason she or ARH stop payments because Bob's trust is to be managed as if he were alive and managing it. Legally, he is not deceased.

 

[TDW59]

posting at the same time Z!

 

[zwiebel]

posting at the same time Z!

Yes! Luckily, we didn't completely contradict each other - it's very embarrassing when that happens.

 

[shana]

Yes, it is a difficult issue. Though I think more of the concerns that it may be used as a substitute for personal care than I do of the civil liberties concerns. The right to get lost and come to harm before you're found doesn't seem to be a right worth having, to me.

Bob and the possibility of dementia can be endlessly debated I suppose. I think given his age, we can safely exclude sudden, early-onset forms. I do realise too, that even spouses can take time to realise something is wrong. Usually, I think the clues lie more in an 'oddness' of behaviour, rather than simple forgotfullness. So, for example, losing keys might not raise an alarm, but finding them in the refrigerator would. Or not just forgetting a telephone number, but insisting on using one from 30 years before.

The only thing that could settle it once and for all would be a medical test and diagnosis, but Bob would be needed for that. What we are left with seems to be two opposing views - Bob's doctor saying he didn't have symptoms and neighbour PE seeming to support that, and a family member saying he did (it seems to be mainly JuM but PB is possibly supporting that view when she mentions Bob's struggle with paperwork).

Interestingly, looking through media links, it looks like no-one ever asked Mrs Harrod outright if Bob had dementia or not. I wonder if that was an oversight, or simply journalists not wanting to offend her? I wish they had though. I think she could have taken it, and would have given them a straight answer.

As an aside, this issue also touches on implanting kids or their backpacks with GPS detectors.

As a second aside, someone close to me had been DXd with 'early Alzheimer's' aka greatly reduced mental capacity when she was not even 45 years of age. Her doctors treat her as if she suffers from older age onset Alzheimer's.

Back to case! <g> (gotta be an old-timer on these forums to know what that means, ha)

Fontelle may not have noticed her brand-new husband's mental decline in the flurry of the "love & marriage" joy that they experienced and in such a short time too. Children or others who had spent far greater time with him would have had a much better look. They had knowledge of how he was, and before Georgia died most particularly (traumatic event, quite possibly impactful). Bottom line: They had a benchmark.

In our family (mine and my husband's), we've seen various scenarios among our aging parents (all 4 of them). At first inkling of something amiss, removing the car keys is a good idea. (Just a piece of advice which pertained to what my FIL did. My own father gave-up his keys and more when he recognized his own inability to think so clearly due to his age.)

What Mr Harrod's mental acuity was is not for any of us to know, but I would put my bet on those who spent a lifetime with him to have a better clue.

~jmo~

 

[shana]

I don't know if they are allowed to sell property in the trust, especially when daughters are just conservators. Maybe it could create a tax liability too?

AH isn't living there anymore. His Mom posted that he'd moved to a much better house, or area. Perhaps it is rented out and generating income now.

Since none of us (presumably) has the Harrod Family Trust docs to examine, then the rest of us are left to just suppose what its terms permit.

Individual trusts are customized. Some if not most provide that the Trustee (including plural Successor Trustees, such as RB and PB) has a duty to preserve the corpus but is not required to enrich it. Without such protective provisions in-place, and plenty more, who would ever want to serve as a Trustee?

~jmo~

 

[zwiebel]

So would that mean they could, for example, legitimately allow someone to live in AH's old house rent-free now?

 

[TDW59]

I am not an attorney so....

I suppose they could but it would go against preserving the trust assets which is their duty.

In the document where the conservators move to lower payments to Fontelle based upon reduced income I don't recall that property being addressed, only that Bob's pension and social security income had ceased.

That property is handled thro the confidential settlement but I can't see it bringing in enough rent (original purchase price around $250,000) to cover the over $700,000 mortgage that it had at the time of the settlement - minus some unknown payment by ARH.

I do recall reading that there were to be no sales of real estate but trading in the stock market was allowable.

 

[believe09]

Regarding the dementia issue-I think that Paula's testimony in the civil trial which concerned BL needs to be taken into consideration. The judge references that testimony in the minute order which found for BL:

LINK HERE

In this trial, the only testimony came from the deposition testimony of (BL), who did not testify, and (PB). Plaintiff was hampered by the fact that the only two parties who could testify to the facts as to whether monies were a loan or a gift did not testify. Harrod has not been seen since he disappeared on July 27, 2009. (PB) testified that when she met her father 4 days before he disappeared he was of sound mind and alert. (PB) also testified that her father kept detailed records of all money owed to him, that he required a promissory note be signed even by relatives, that she found the promissory note signed by her and other relatives in her father's papers, but she found no promissory note or IOU pertaining to the money given by Harrod to (BL).

This was weeks after the show filmed. Why not continue the party line that Bob had dementia, was confused about his papers, couldnt answer questions about the trusts? Why not mention the last meeting one day before he disappeared where people were quick to temper and Bob was confused?

I think the difference between her on camera interview and her sworn testimony in a court of law are worth taking into consideration when answering this question.

 

[believe09]

PPD seems to have put it to rest. They dont believe dementia was a contributing factor, imo. They believe the battle for the money and the family covering for one another are contributing factors. We know this because Detective Radomski said so.

 

[tamild]

Thanks for the correction, Cubby! bad memory on my part. I don't think I have dementia..just overload of info ....right beside gaping holes.

Deca, If I understand correctly...in the maintenance of the trust, no real estate can be sold. They would have to rent it out.

snipped:

Especially since the first time given for her father having gone missing (her community forum) was within 10 minutes of that 10:00am call, and then the given times move from there. Her 1:50pm post on the 28th of July, indicated her dad went missing about 9:50 am or "28 hours" ago.
:facepalm:

As far as debts being written off...PB did not presume that she would no longer owe rent, however she arranged for the rent to be paid out of her share of the trust. I wonder if the house will go to her free and clear when Bob is declared deceased? I think the wording was rent? However, in any case she did not think that her payments stopped and were forgiven.
There is no reason she or ARH stop payments because Bob's trust is to be managed as if he were alive and managing it. Legally, he is not deceased.

BBM

This is one of those things that nag at me. Bob is presumed to be alive, so what would her "share" be? Is this from Georgia's part of the estate and, if so, did the other daughters get their share paid out to them also? I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

 

[Cubby]

This thread has the maximum tags. If someone wouldn't mind removing one that is no longer necessary, I'd like to see something about PB's contradiction #393 added.

I'd like to use some of these tags for quick reference to information such as what believe09 posted above in #393.

tia!

 

[tamild]

It's not going to be paid back. There is some kind of super secret agreement between AH and the co-conservators in which the house was turned over to the trust and his arrears forgiven.

According to the depo, he paid appx 3 years into a 5% 40 year mortgage on a 725,000 loan. He certainly didn't pay much equity in first 3 years of a 40 year mortgage.

I'm so glad you brought this up because I've been looking at the numbers on this. If payments were in fact paid on time every month, and assuming only the minimum was paid, AH would've paid 32 payments for a total of $113,412.80. $96,961.84 would have been interest with only $16,450.96 toward principal. There is also that $125,000 in there that may or may not have been paid out. AH says it wasn't, so take it as you will.

 

[tamild]

I've read mention of a "spendthrift clause" somewhere in the docs. Does anyone have any information about that? TIA

 

[believe09]

This thread has the maximum tags. If someone wouldn't mind removing one that is no longer necessary, I'd like to see something about PB's contradiction #393 added.

I'd like to use some of these tags for quick reference to information such as what believe09 posted above in #393.

tia!

All set.

 

[zwiebel]

I think this is the only thread on WS where the tags are filled to maximum capacity.