CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #10

[cloudajo]

JuM and JeM had a yard sale a few weeks ago. I wonder if they sold any of the "memorabilia" from Bob and Georgia's house.

 

[cloudajo]

When asked on another forum why JeM didn’t return to Bob’s house the day after Bob went missing, RB responded that JeM was taking care of the dogs and didn’t want to take them over to Bob’s or leave them alone somewhere.

Yet JuM posted on Aug 30, 2012 on her community forum that in 2008 when they got the call her mom was sick, JuM and JeM “had the dogs packed and out the door so quick it was amazing, dropped the dogs off with the grandkids and we both were at my moms side.”

Both were critical situations – but they couldn’t get anyone to watch the dogs or drop them at their son’s house when Bob went missing? I thought JeM was like a son to Georgia and Bob? He never returned to Bob’s house? I mean, really?

http://forums.rimoftheworld.net/showthread.php?44-Crestline-Regulars/page448&highlight=horrific+storm

 

[GrainneDhu]

JuM and JeM had a yard sale a few weeks ago. I wonder if they sold any of the "memorabilia" from Bob and Georgia's house.

Surely not! Isn't the point of memorabilia to remind one of something? Selling something at a yard sale would be, um, the opposite of remembering someone.

After all, those bed sheets must have held such precious memories for JuM.

 

[believe09]

Cloud, it looks to me like housekeeping. Now that the request for the rent was properly filed, there will be a trial.

Money well spent. Again. Pursue your step mother for rent in the marital residence, but let your nephew walk on 735K. Got it.

OK, not really. I wonder if there is a time that the court will view all of this stuff as plain malicious?

and what is going on with Windflower? Is it rented and turning a substantial profit? How are those funds being allocated? Just throwing that into the universe...

 

[believe09]

Now, I wonder about that hearing for the suppression of the secret agreement...I think that is in there too-perhaps that is what the December trial is about?

 

[Cubby]

I find myself wondering if there is some hesitancy on the part of the co-conservators with regards to filing the super secret agreement. If it hasn't been filed, is that because they know it might implicate them in some underhanded possibly illegal activity with either the trust or AH's ability to secure a mortgage?

As for efforts to try and have the court order Mrs. Harrod pay rent to live in the marital home? Well, clearly part of the don't look here and the cumulative efforts to stop anyone interested in taking a closer look at dad's disappearance. I am sure LE hasn't missed those cumulative efforts.

 

[shefner]

Has anyone moved to have Bob legally declared deceased? Doesn't that take quite a few years?
Why isn't the court firmly behind Mrs. Harrod?

 

[Cubby]

IIRC it is 5 years in CA to have a missing person declared deceased.

Also, as far as the courts and the civil matter. Gitana added some links sometime back to demonstrate how inept the state of CA is with regards to protecting those like Bob in the courts. Not sure how to explain it, perhaps someone else can. It read like a free for all for the co-conservators with zero repercussion. At least that is how I interpreted those links.

When I have some more time later this evening I'll try to find and bump them or carry them over from the last thread. They were quite a read.

 

[believe09]

Has anyone moved to have Bob legally declared deceased? Doesn't that take quite a few years?
Why isn't the court firmly behind Mrs. Harrod?

I think on the last thread, gitana pointed us to a series that was done by the LA Times called Guardians for Profit. If you didnt get to read the series, and you have some time, your question might be answered some. There are several parts to the series.

It was reproduced on several blogs concerning the subject-you can find them all at this link here:

http://www.no-probate.com/Guardians_for_profit.htm

 

[believe09]

Cubby, get out of my head lol.

 

[shefner]

I guess I am thinking....could (in CA) my biological children with my hubby charge me rent on our own property if he were to disappear? That's insane!

ETA: I know that Bob and Fontelle did not have children together and had not been married long before he disappeared, but my mind can't wrap around any laws that would allow grown children to charge the legal spouse rent in her own home that she shared with her husband!

 

[believe09]

I guess I am thinking....could (in CA) my biological children with my hubby charge me rent on our own property if he were to disappear? That's insane!

ETA: I know that Bob and Fontelle did not have children together and had not been married long before he disappeared, but my mind can't wrap around any laws that would allow grown children to charge the legal spouse rent in her own home that she shared with her husband!

There arent any. I mean every snowbird in the country would lose their claim to their home. Every graduate student. Every business person who has been temporarily relocated.

"Stuff and Nonsense"

 

[GrainneDhu]

I guess I am thinking....could (in CA) my biological children with my hubby charge me rent on our own property if he were to disappear? That's insane!

ETA: I know that Bob and Fontelle did not have children together and had not been married long before he disappeared, but my mind can't wrap around any laws that would allow grown children to charge the legal spouse rent in her own home that she shared with her husband!

If your children can convince a court to grant them a conservatorship (a very low bar, according to Gitana's articles), then they will be able to do anything they darn well please.

For example, your children as conservators could decide that you can no longer live independently and could hire a caretaker for you. The caretaker would have the power to decide everything about your every day life, such as what you eat and whether you get to go outside that day. Your conservator(s) could then pay themselves a handsome salary for "supervising" the caretaker.

If you lived in a home that had greatly increased in value over the years since you bought it, the conservator(s) could decide you need to be in a nursing home and force you into one. Then they sell your house and give themselves a big commission for doing so (over and way above what a realtor charges).

In a few years, your conservator(s) could spend down your estate until you were eligible for Medicaid due to lack of assets.

Now think how much easier it would be if you had disappeared and had no idea of what your conservator(s) were doing. In a couple years, a multi-million dollar estate could be looted down to nothing.

 

[shefner]

Well someone needs to work on changing those ludicrous laws.....these co-conservators had every motive in the world to murder, wouldn't we agree? Gee...it's obvious to me.

 

[shana]

Just ONE such link, for starters:

http://conservatorshiplaw.com/

Sure wish gitana1 would return to this thread; after all, she is a California lawyer and knows all of this stuff. Perhaps she can be summoned again to participate?

~jmo~

 

[shana]

Re family members/spouses paying rent:

I know it may be hard for some of you to believe, but what the heck...

A couple had a wonderful marriage exceeding 50 years. The husband gave his wife an expensive piece of jewelry and was required to pay a gift tax on it. I am not sure what changes the law has taken in such an instance today, plus the case particulars would be highly relevant no matter when.

Where is Robert Harrod, and why are his family members not considered victims on this victim-friendly site?

~jmo~

 

[GrainneDhu]

Re family members/spouses paying rent:

I know it may be hard for some of you to believe, but what the heck...

A couple had a wonderful marriage exceeding 50 years. The husband gave his wife an expensive piece of jewelry and was required to pay a gift tax on it. I am not sure what changes the law has taken in such an instance today, plus the case particulars would be highly relevant no matter when.

Where is Robert Harrod, and why are his family members not considered victims on this victim-friendly site?

~jmo~

Because Bob Harrod's daughters have repeatedly posted things to the world wide web denigrating the one person we know for sure is a victim: Bob Harrod.

Because their stories keep changing and changing and changing; if you are able to come up with a time line for JeM's visit to Bob's house the day Bob disappeared, you're a better sleuth than anyone posting to these threads.

Because the co-conservators have repeatedly accused the one single person cleared in Bob's disappearance by LE, both before and after that person was cleared. They took her to court to recover a so-called debt and the judge ruled that they had not proven a single element of their case.

Because they have repeatedly denigrated the one person who has been doing all she can to keep Bob's case active.

Because the co-conservators took a woman to court over a bogus claim (see above) but allowed Bob's grandson to walk away scot-free from a $700+K loan from Bob without a peep. Allegedly the loan was to be forgiven on Bob's death but there is absolutely no documentation found to date to support that claim. And Bob demonstrably documented everything regarding his financial affairs.

And those are just off the top of my head.

There are other cases on this board where a family member is the *only* suspect. See Sky Metalwala or Ayla Reynolds for examples.

 

[believe09]

Re family members/spouses paying rent:

I know it may be hard for some of you to believe, but what the heck...

A couple had a wonderful marriage exceeding 50 years. The husband gave his wife an expensive piece of jewelry and was required to pay a gift tax on it. I am not sure what changes the law has taken in such an instance today, plus the case particulars would be highly relevant no matter when.

Where is Robert Harrod, and why are his family members not considered victims on this victim-friendly site?

~jmo~

I am sorry-I am missing the correlation between gift tax and charging a spouse rent to reside in the marital residence.

I feel fairly certain that there has to be some kind of objective fair play built in to the conservatorship. That the co conservators cant decide to treat one asset and one person one way and someone else another. They are supposed to be objective.

They agreed to provide a stipend. That was the mediation agreement they signed. They want to amend it now, and it looks pretty flat out malicious from here but that is jmo.

The family knows he is dead-they made sworn statements to that fact. They knew he was dead right away-at least Andrew did. His sworn statement was that his debt was to be forgiven upon the death of his grandfather, and he stopped paying his mortgage immediately.

Was Andrew the only one who drew that conclusion? Again, pointing to his deposition, he had many conversations with his family members. He even called Mrs. Harrod's attorney looking for a referral to a criminal attorney and stating he picked the wrong side in this battle. IMVHO he was shopping for the best deal-he stated in his deposition his phone calls were in reference to what he believed his grandfather intended upon his death. Bob's death. Andrew wanted his monstrous debt forgiven.

I like to think that in those moments, in those phone calls, he was reflecting upon what might have happened, who might have knowledge of it and what to do about it.

There will be justice some day for Bob. We have seen that PPD never gives up.

 

[shefner]

I think the victims in this case are Mr. Bob Harrod and Mrs. Fontelle Harrod.

My heart would out to the other family but I'll be honest....they only seem interested in the money. Its sad to say that but looking from the outside in, its a glaring flaw.

No one's obligation to his children extends beyond the young years leading up to 18 years of age and perhaps 21, if a child is pursuing education or trying to work and save up for a move on their own. Bob's "children" were fully grown people. He had no obligation to their upkeep. He had no possessions that they were due. Even their mother's items were their mother's to give. Since she was deceased, they belonged to Bob...they were his to give or keep as he saw fit. That may sound tough but that's the cold, hard truth.

In spite of the way Bob was treated, he went above and beyond in demonstrating his care for his family. He provided generously to his family but apparently, they wanted it all.

Words to the wise: Be careful what you wish for.

 

[believe09]

I think one of the things I look forward to the most when Disappeared airs is watching the timelines and stories change to retro fit what the the players state when interviewed.

You know it is going to happen. I cant imagine the pressure once the story becomes national-"Isnt your father/grandfather the one who disappeared...?"

I hope, frankly, it sparks some memory in someone who saw something that they dont even know might be important.