CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #12

[shefner]

Why can't the court see through these people?!

 

[zwiebel]

Don't forget, believe09, that in that play, we meet King Lear as he says;

'Meantime, we shall express our darker purpose.....know that we have divided in three our kingdom'

That was his downfall there, dividing up his fortune between his three daughters before he was dead, and telling them so.

A couple of them took great, and deadly, advantage.

 

[zwiebel]

Why can't the court see through these people?!

I think they probably can. But they are hampered by the trust Bob set up.

For the people he loved, and thought he could trust.

 

[believe09]

when I was first sucked into Bob's case, I went back and re read King Lear. The similarities are something to behold.

For a while I wondered if any of the case as actually patterned off of the play, but that takes a certain level of, well, of something I havent quite found so far.

 

[zwiebel]

I don't think they've read King Lear.

Think one of them probably should though. Before this case gets to the final act.

Poor Cordelia. She ended up paying the ultimate price, even though she was totally innocent.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I've seen something by P E and something by a daughter mentioning the long illness of GH - in fact I think PE mentioned the 'years' of Bob taking care of her and Sassy, the dog. That's another thing to take into account too; sick animals can't be left alone for long either. They may need medication, to be let out at regular intervals, etc.

From what PE said Bob didn't go out visiting friends much or socialising, and I do get the impression Bob just pottered around at home, most of the time. However, I do wonder where his doctor might have been located. That's one place PE said he had gone recently. I wonder if Bob had kept his old doctor from before he moved to Placentia, and if that might have worked out to be a 100 mile journey?

Am trying to work out where I'd end up if I tried driving 2000 miles from here: West,. I'd end up in the middle of the Atlantic somewhere after crossing two or three countries; East, some very remote part of Russia, I think. Not in winter, thank you very much......

My impression was that Sassy wasn't chronically sick, it was just that she was 15 years old. Which is a good long life for a Pomeranian. She probably started to be geriatric in the sense of noticeably slowing down and needing extra care somewhere around 12 years old.

Monrovia to Placentia is only about 35 miles.

Those remote parts of Russia sound very interesting. In the summer.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I was in court today for the hearing. The court did not issue a ruling today but the parties presented their cases and argued their sides. The court is going to take the matter under submission and issue a ruling later. I hope that occurs before Christmas.

I will write much more later but right now I have an appointment and I am very tired. I don't think much of the argument to charge Mrs. Harrod rent but I am worried that the argument to, in the alternative, lower support, was a strong one.

<swoon> Will you marry me, Gitana? It's legal in my state and I'm sure my husband would understand.

 

[believe09]

:floorlaugh:

Thanks GrainneDhu-I needed that. I almost spit coffee everywhere.

 

[Oriah]

Lol Grainne!


Thank you, Gitana for taking the time to go to the hearing. It's frustrating to not have resolution of even these most transparent of issues. Mrs. Harrod must be beside herself.

I just had a conversation with a friend (currently going through a divorce- fighting with spouse over the house that his parents gave them as a gift when they got married) and it made me really think about money, and what it can do to families.
I mean, if someone is out for money- it's easy enough to steal. It seems to mean more when someone wants revenge along with the money.

Made me think of a couple of cases where there's just...over-the-top violence associated with a crime. Overkill is overkill; even if it's only financially based.

Why on earth would they want Mrs. Harrod to have to pay rent? Forget whether or not it is legally her right to continue to reside in the marital residence... why?

 

[zwiebel]

<swoon> Will you marry me, Gitana? It's legal in my state and I'm sure my husband would understand.

Nice one Grainne. Bet Mr Grainne pointed out that two stares of doom crossing paths could result in a very long stalemate.........

 

[zwiebel]

Lol Grainne!


Thank you, Gitana for taking the time to go to the hearing. It's frustrating to not have resolution of even these most transparent of issues. Mrs. Harrod must be beside herself.

I just had a conversation with a friend (currently going through a divorce- fighting with spouse over the house that his parents gave them as a gift when they got married) and it made me really think about money, and what it can do to families.
I mean, if someone is out for money- it's easy enough to steal. It seems to mean more when someone wants revenge along with the money.

Made me think of a couple of cases where there's just...over-the-top violence associated with a crime. Overkill is overkill; even if it's only financially based.

Why on earth would they want Mrs. Harrod to have to pay rent? Forget whether or not it is legally her right to continue to reside in the marital residence... why?

Possessiveness, in my opinion, rather than just money. Look how fast they tried to get her out of there, just after Bob went missing. And look at the BL. That court case had to be a loss-making exercise and I'm sure the risk was pointed out in advance. But the pursuit of what they regarded as 'theirs' (even though it was Bob's) was evidentally worth the risk.

There are some strange, contradictory emotions whirling all round this case.

 

[zwiebel]

I've been thinking about the will and trust again. I've heard about wills that can be made when a man and wife can combine their fortunes in a tax-efficient trust, that passes to the children, then rolls along to the grandchildren etc if there's anything left. But I think that, over here at least, the man or wife can add a sort of codicil so that, in the event of their death before their partner, they can safeguard their share of the assets.

By that I mean, make sure their money still goes to the children, even if their partner remarries or changes his/her mind about beneficeries/trustees. That would make more sense of the desperation to see Georgia's will. Maybe it wasn't just the will, but an attempt to see what her share of the trust was, and if it was under their father's control or not?

 

[mikkismom]

IIRC, Bob was the trustee of both trusts. Georgia's 'portion' of the trust went to Bob. I'm not that familiar with these.

jmo

 

[Seajay]

I think usually with h/w shared assets, the wills will be set up to whoever passes first, their share goes to the surviving spouse. At that point the surviving spouses will is prevalent and whatever the survivors will says will be the final word.

Unless Georgia specifically said in her will at the time of her death that her half of the assets will go to the kids and not Bob. That's the only way they are brought into Georgia's share.

Otherwise Bob's is the final word and as long as his is still "missing" and not "dead" the kids can't get anything, other than what Bob's normal household/operating expenses are/were. That's my understanding of it.

 

[Cubby]

I think usually with h/w shared assets, the wills will be set up to whoever passes first, their share goes to the surviving spouse. At that point the surviving spouses will is prevalent and whatever the survivors will says will be the final word.

Unless Georgia specifically said in her will at the time of her death that her half of the assets will go to the kids and not Bob. That's the only way they are brought into Georgia's share.

Otherwise Bob's is the final word and as long as his is still "missing" and not "dead" the kids can't get anything, other than what Bob's normal household/operating expenses are/were. That's my understanding of it.

:goodpost: :clap: :clap: :clap: I guess then the question is, Did Georgia bequest her half of the marital assets to her daughters in her will? Or not?

 

[believe09]

I think usually with h/w shared assets, the wills will be set up to whoever passes first, their share goes to the surviving spouse. At that point the surviving spouses will is prevalent and whatever the survivors will says will be the final word.

Unless Georgia specifically said in her will at the time of her death that her half of the assets will go to the kids and not Bob. That's the only way they are brought into Georgia's share.

Otherwise Bob's is the final word and as long as his is still "missing" and not "dead" the kids can't get anything, other than what Bob's normal household/operating expenses are/were. That's my understanding of it.

That pretty much sums it up. I believe that they didnt know or believe that Bob would retain control of the ByPass. I think they believed it was something that would be theirs upon their mother's passing. Imagine the frustration when it didnt.

AH doesnt figure into this equation at all with either iirc, so it amazes me that he has benefited the most from Bob's disappearance. That's actually pretty impressive.

 

[zwiebel]

I did notice that some of the houses seem to be in Bob's name alone, some in Bob and Georgia's. I'm wondering if that could have led to some false hopes amongst the beneficeries? In one of our legal documents I saw that one daughter, I think PB, has asked to stop paying rent, and have the sum owing deducted from her portion of the estate instead, when it pays out, I think.

AH was repaying about $3,800 a month, and if daughter paid the same - well, that's a fair chunk of income to be paying out every month isn't it? And I think that was the house owned in Georgia's name too. So maybe there were hopes initially that Georgia had bequested that house, or at least part of it, in her will. Which might have meant greatly reduced repayments - or maybe no repayments at all, if a lot had already been made?

Now of course, people are being paid to look after the fortune they'll eventually inherit. Makes sense to me. Not. Wouldn't you look after it anyway? And if you do have a duty of care, what happens if you decide to bring legal action (the BL) and lose? Or quitclaim a house? Does the money you've lost get deducted from your share of the fortune? It will be interesting to see, when all is said and done and divided, if JuM receives the same amount as her sisters, or if any debt that may have remained from AH is repaid that way.

Here's somebody who I bet would have the answers to all our questions. Might be some answers on the website in fact, but boy, it's a lot to get through;

http://calestateplanning.blogspot.de/2010/06/what-is-reasonable-compensation-for.html

 

[zwiebel]

Having said that, the info on there is really clearly written. I'm not saying lawyers can't write or anything, but sometimes, the actual meaning can get lost in the legalese. I think this site is excellent for the layman or woman.

They may have a bit of a rush on their hands at the moment - it says the current threshold for estate tax in CA is five something million, but unless it gets passed again, that will drop to one million next year and affect many people. I am not sure what the threshold was in 2009, but I don't think it necessarily gives a clue to how much Bob's estate was worth - he may just have planned ahead for any tax legislation he thought may have affected him in the future.

Well, all those millions sloshing around in California. *There must be gold in them thar hills..........

 

[zwiebel]

Seajay, I noticed those poor little missing Iowa girls have been discovered by a hunter on the last day of the season. Does California have a hunting season too? Or is the kind of terrain surrounding Placentia more suited to hiking only do you know?

Also, have just discovered that some very good friends of mine who now live in California and always put me and Mr Z to shame with their sensible attitude to finances - have gone absolutely stark raving bonkers there. They have done things with their house financing that I cannot believe. Cannot give details for fear of sleuthing them, but if you knew their background.......Not only is there something in them thar hills over there, there must be something in the air as well.

Here in staid old Germany, banks expect borrowers to have a deposit of about 60 per cent of the house price, and that's just for starters. Requests for 75 per cent aren't unusual. No surprise, over half of the population chooses to rent rather than buy. They'd rather have a nice, warm, rented apartment than own a freezing cold, crumbling old house. If my front door lock hadn't frozen shut, at this point I'd go out and find a nice, warm apartment myself...........

 

[GrainneDhu]

Having said that, the info on there is really clearly written. I'm not saying lawyers can't write or anything, but sometimes, the actual meaning can get lost in the legalese. I think this site is excellent for the layman or woman.

They may have a bit of a rush on their hands at the moment - it says the current threshold for estate tax in CA is five something million, but unless it gets passed again, that will drop to one million next year and affect many people. I am not sure what the threshold was in 2009, but I don't think it necessarily gives a clue to how much Bob's estate was worth - he may just have planned ahead for any tax legislation he thought may have affected him in the future.

Well, all those millions sloshing around in California. *There must be gold in them thar hills..........

BBM

In that case, they are going to be plumb out of luck. Which does not break my heart.

I am not a lawyer so I could easily be wrong; I think that in cases where someone disappears and is eventually declared dead, the date of death for tax purposes is the date upon which a judge agrees that the person is probably dead.

As has been noted before, the big winner so far is AH; I wonder if he will continue to be the top earner out of this sorry situation?