PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #12

[Saunterer]

A personal attorney would be subject to attorney client privilege. Perhaps a court order could cause that to be abridged, but in the case at hand, I do not believe has been issued.

RFG did not leave any notes of where he was going, that would be readily available, nor was he inform anyone on staff (including his girlfriend). He also, apparently, did not leave his phone on in Lewisburg. This isn't "deceptive," but it does indicate that he was not advertizing where he would be. Coupled with traveling through a rural area with no cell phone coverage, that would indicate that RFG was not worried about his safety.

Methinks you presume too much in your purely hypothetical scenario/theory. Understandable, of course.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

However, if LG (as joint account holder and trustee of RG) put those funds into the trust (assuming...logically I think...that a trust already existed), those assets disappear, at least from public view. JMOO.

First, and I think that was covered in the previously linked Goodall article, it might not have been legal.

Second, LG wouldn't be moving any of RFG's money in 2004, so that would not explain the low interest.

It would have been possible for RFG to have moved the money into an irrevocable trust no later than mid 2004. That would explain the low interest, but it would point to estate planning, as opposed to retirement planning.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Agreed.

I disagree as to LG. The whole point of the Ethics Law is to keep public officials/employees (RG in this case) honest.

LG, as trustee, still had a legal obligation to file. I certainly do not criticize her for fulfilling her legal duty.

I suspect you will come up empty. Also, statements more than five years old can be destroyed.

These statements were not, obviously.

Public officials/employees are required to file for the year after leaving office/employment (statute link previously provided).

The form, which covers the previous year, must be filed the year after leaving office. See page 4 of the form: http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/PDF/SEC1 Statement Of Financial Iterests Form Rev 01_131.pdf

I disagree, for the reasons previously stated.

I disagree, because as trustee, LG was required to file, which she did. It was yet another reason for her to seek trusteeship.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Methinks you presume too much in your purely hypothetical scenario/theory. Understandable, of course.

I am not sure what is hypothetical. RFG obviously didn't leave any record of where he was going.

As to attorney-client privilege, that is an ongoing consideration here. RFG could have such an arrangement with many people. There may be an ethical obligation not to speak.

 

[Saunterer]

First, and I think that was covered in the previously linked Goodall article, it might not have been legal.

Second, LG wouldn't be moving any of RFG's money in 2004, so that would not explain the low interest.

It would have been possible for RFG to have moved the money into an irrevocable trust no later than mid 2004. That would explain the low interest, but it would point to estate planning, as opposed to retirement planning.

As a joint account holder, I believe LG could have legally closed the account at any time by depositing the money in some other account.

 

[Saunterer]

LG, as trustee, still had a legal obligation to file. I certainly do not criticize her for fulfilling her legal duty.

These statements were not, obviously.

The form, which covers the previous year, must be filed the year after leaving office. See page 4 of the form: http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/PDF/SEC1 Statement Of Financial Iterests Form Rev 01_131.pdf

I disagree, because as trustee, LG was required to file, which she did. It was yet another reason for her to seek trusteeship.

I stand by my earlier assessment. In regard to the PA Ethics Act, LG had no obligation to file anything since she was neither a public official or public employee. That she filed a statement for RG for 2005 is really very curious, because failure to do so would be unactionable by the Ethics Commission...unless, of course, RG would have reappeared prior to the filing deadline.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

As a joint account holder, I believe LG could have legally closed the account at any time by depositing the money in some other account.

There have been some questions on that. I would note this from Goodall's website:

A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court casts doubt on this process. In the case, the husband and wife had prepared wills providing that, upon death of the first of them, the deceased's property would pass to the survivor, and on the second death, the property would pass ot the couple's four children equally.

After the husband's death, the wife did not change her will but placed the bulk of her property in join accounts with some, but not all, of the children. The holding of the case was that under the facts of the case, when a decedent has validly executed will and later places assets theoretically governed by the will in a joint account, the will controls if it is inconsistent with the property's title. So even though one child was named as a joint owner with her mother, all children would share in the account as provided in the will.

http://www.centrelaw.com/page.php?id=47

[I hope I can properly cite it here]

I would only note, with irony, that it was written by the attorney handling RFG's estate.

I believe this was the case in question:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1523062.html

 

[Saunterer]

I am not sure what is hypothetical. RFG obviously didn't leave any record of where he was going.

As to attorney-client privilege, that is an ongoing consideration here. RFG could have such an arrangement with many people. There may be an ethical obligation not to speak.

Hypothetical would be something theorized based on supposition.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I stand by my earlier assessment. In regard to the PA Ethics Act, LG had no obligation to file anything since she was neither a public official or public employee. That she filed a statement for RG for 2005 is really very curious, because failure to do so would be unactionable by the Ethics Commission.

They can levy a fine. I also feel that, as trustee, had LG the obligation to do so, which she did. That is part of being a trustee.

 

[Saunterer]

There have been some questions on that. I would note this from Goodall's website:

A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court casts doubt on this process. In the case, the husband and wife had prepared wills providing that, upon death of the first of them, the deceased's property would pass to the survivor, and on the second death, the property would pass ot the couple's four children equally.

After the husband's death, the wife did not change her will but placed the bulk of her property in join accounts with some, but not all, of the children. The holding of the case was that under the facts of the case, when a decedent has validly executed will and later places assets theoretically governed by the will in a joint account, the will controls if it is inconsistent with the property's title. So even though one child was named as a joint owner with her mother, all children would share in the account as provided in the will.

http://www.centrelaw.com/page.php?id=47

[I hope I can properly cite it here]

I would only note, with irony, that it was written by the attorney handling RFG's estate.

I believe this was the case in question:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-court/1523062.html

I would only point out that this appears to have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Hypothetical would be something theorized based on supposition.

There obviously is an attorney-client privilege. Whether or not that privilege has any bearing on the case is open to speculation; is certainly does not defy all credulity for an attorney to act on the wishes of his client, and for those wishes to be covered by attorney client privilege.

It might be interesting for a grand jury to be empaneled for the matter at hand.

 

[Saunterer]

They can levy a fine. I also feel that, as trustee, had LG the obligation to do so, which she did. That is part of being a trustee.

To sanction RG for a violation of the Ethics Act they would have to find him first, as it would/must be a sanction of the individual. LG had no obligation to file anything under the Ethics Act. Curious as to why she did for the year 2005, but not following through for the year 2006 (if she did not), as required of all public officials/employees leaving office.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I would only point out that this appears to have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

I think it may, since it would involve money in violation of a will, potentially.

That said, joint accounts do not enter probate, but are subject to inheritance tax. I would find it too unusual for RFG to hold most of his accounts jointly with LG, simply in case he got sick or was in an accident. There would be a tax advantage as well.

I would find it unusual that those accounts would generate less than $1300 per year in income considering the interest rates and RFG's income and known expenses.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

To sanction RG for a violation of the Ethics Act they would have to find him first, as it would/must be a sanction of the individual. LG had no obligation to file anything under the Ethics Act. Curious as to why she did for the year 2005, but not following through for the year 2006 (if she did not), as required of all public officials/employees leaving office.

As trustee, I think she would be required to file all of his forms, as she did with his law license. She obviously could not practice law, but she still had to file the proper forms.

 

[Saunterer]

I think it may, since it would involve money in violation of a will, potentially.

That said, joint accounts do not enter probate, but are subject to inheritance tax. I would find it too unusual for RFG to hold most of his accounts jointly with LG, simply in case he got sick or was in an accident. There would be a tax advantage as well.

I would find it unusual that those accounts would generate less than $1300 per year in income considering the interest rates and RFG's income and known expenses.

What will? Did the joint account(s) exist at the time of the court's declaration of death?

 

[Saunterer]

As trustee, I think she would be required to file all of his forms, as she did with his law license. She obviously could not practice law, but she still had to file the proper forms.

Under the Ethics Act, RG had an obligation to file statements of financial interest for the years 2005 and 2006. LG did not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What will? Did the joint account(s) exist at the time of the court's declaration of death?

I doubt that the trustee would have the authority to set up join accounts. Here is the statute on the authority of a trustee:

A trustee for an
absentee shall give such bond, shall be removed and discharged,
and, except as otherwise expressly provided, shall have the same
powers, duties and liabilities in the administration of the
absentee's real and personal estate as are provided in Chapter
51 (relating to minors), with respect to a guardian in the
administration of a minor's estate and, in addition, shall have
the right to pay premiums on policies of insurance insuring the
life of the absentee and, with the approval of the court, to pay
or expend and apply so much of the absentee's property or the
income therefrom, as may be necessary for the support of anyone
whom the absentee, if living, would be under a legal duty to
support, or for the education of his minor children. He shall
not have the power to sell or dispose of any asset of the estate
or to enter into any lease without prior court approval.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/decedents-estates-and-fiduciaries/00.057.002.000.html

The "duties" may include the filing of the Financial Disclosure Statement. I would not press the point and LG didn't either.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The main issue, however, is why is so little interest income being generated in 2004, prior to LG assuming trusteeship?

 

[Saunterer]

I doubt that the trustee would have the authority to set up join accounts. Here is the statute on the authority of a trustee:

A trustee for an
absentee shall give such bond, shall be removed and discharged,
and, except as otherwise expressly provided, shall have the same
powers, duties and liabilities in the administration of the
absentee's real and personal estate as are provided in Chapter
51 (relating to minors), with respect to a guardian in the
administration of a minor's estate and, in addition, shall have
the right to pay premiums on policies of insurance insuring the
life of the absentee and, with the approval of the court, to pay
or expend and apply so much of the absentee's property or the
income therefrom, as may be necessary for the support of anyone
whom the absentee, if living, would be under a legal duty to
support, or for the education of his minor children. He shall
not have the power to sell or dispose of any asset of the estate
or to enter into any lease without prior court approval.

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/decedents-estates-and-fiduciaries/00.057.002.000.html

The "duties" may include the filing of the Financial Disclosure Statement. I would not press the point and LG didn't either.

I would only note that this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, in that there is no evidence that LG (as trustee) set up any joint accounts.

 

[Saunterer]

The main issue, however, is why is so little interest income being generated in 2004, prior to LG assuming trusteeship?

Estate planning. Feel the wave. Trackergd found the compelling, though circumstantial, evidence. If I knew where to send trackergd a contribution toward the $24 expense, I would gladly do so!