CA CA - Bob Harrod, 81, Orange County, 27 July 2009 - #13

[Cubby]

From the disappeared episode which aired in Australia linked upthread:

RB: "In the first couple of days after Dad disappeared we realized that Fontelle was not on any of Dad's accounts, so we talked to a family law attorney and we took a copy of the Trust to that attorney, and we were advised of what needed to be done, to free up money to help Fontelle out."

FH: "The three girls came to the house and they told me they had been to see an attorney and they told me that the attorney advised them to throw my out on the street. Now, mind you, I'm newlywed, left everything I had - gave up everything - to come out here to be married.
And they're going to throw my out on the street? And I don't even have a home to go back to anymore?

Now, the tune has changed some from the early days of the disappearance...wasnt the rush to the judge to gain control of the estate done in order to obtain reward money? :waitasec:

The law enforcement officer is Det Radomski. I think that solidifies for me that the angle of the show has the blessing of PPD.

Good on RB and PB for participating-RB doesnt suspect anyone from her family (many ways to take that statement of course...does she mean BIO family) but I guess PB's comments are somewhere else in the episode.

BBM. According to the interview RB gave the OC register back in October of 2009, it was.

From the OC Register, October 2009:

Bob Harrod and his three daughters had an argument over finances the Sunday before he vanished.

His daughter, Roberta, acknowledged the exchange, saying her father lost his temper. She said he had failed to provide copies of their mother's will, which he was obligated to do because of the financial mechanisms set up by the estate.

"It wasn't a heated meeting," she said in a phone interview. "Dad got heated. He's very selfish, very conditional. The day before he went missing in the afternoon, he was going to provide us copies of the will, and we went over to get the copies. He didn't have them."

<snip>
According to records from Orange County Probate Court, Brady and Borcher filed a petition for conservatorship to gain control of their father's assets Aug. 7.

<snip>

Brady said they brought the matter to court because they wanted to free up some of the money to offer a reward for information leading to Bob Harrod's whereabouts, as well as money to pay for bills and maintenance at the house.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-214111--.html

 

[zwiebel]

So, was it for a reward, or was it to help Fontelle? And how long after August 7th was the reward offered and the help for Fontelle given?

 

[Angelo]

Daughter RB posted the following Aug. 8, 2009:


Our family wanted to be charitible by allowing Fontelle to temporarily stay in our parents' home, until we know more. The home has to be maintained as a part of OUR parents' family trust. All our Dad's attorney confirmed is that Dad had NOT amended his half of the trust to include his new wife of less than a month. Eventhough we are not obligated to do so, our family has been working to petition the court to permit reimbursement of at least her documentable travel and shipping costs. Our hands are totally bound to mother's and father's documents and limitations of the law.

 

[Cubby]

Daughter RB posted the following Aug. 8, 2009:


Our family wanted to be charitible by allowing Fontelle to temporarily stay in our parents' home, until we know more. The home has to be maintained as a part of OUR parents' family trust. All our Dad's attorney confirmed is that Dad had NOT amended his half of the trust to include his new wife of less than a month. Eventhough we are not obligated to do so, our family has been working to petition the court to permit reimbursement of at least her documentable travel and shipping costs. Our hands are totally bound to mother's and father's documents and limitations of the law.

Interesting she mentions documentable travel and shipping costs. Which I am sure were far less of an expense than the undocumentable (per Bob's notes) forgiveness of the grandson's mortgage loan(s).

Oh yes, the "inner circle" Det. R mentions. Just with that short snippet it's becoming clearer and clearer. I do agree with him mentioning family and friends protecting each other. I'm so eager to see what else he has to say when we can view the full episode.

 

[Cubby]

Watch the eyes in the interviews - even without sound. The emotions show IMHO. Just these 5 minutes of the episode show sooooo much!

jmo, of course.

I agree. The eye movement speaks volumes. The emotions show tremendously. I think it is a must to view both ways, with and without sound.

 

[zwiebel]

I know it's not much compared to websleuths, but overnight bobharrodmissing.com went from 1 hit one day to 33, almost all from Australia, 30 from google.

So I have bumped the thread here to the front page of the website as breaking news, (re the program), to make sure everyone waking up in Oz in the morning and googling Bob Harrod knows where to find us. And where to find out about him.......and let us know what they know now.

 

[Angelo]

Interesting she mentions documentable travel and shipping costs. Which I am sure were far less of an expense than the undocumentable (per Bob's notes) forgiveness of the grandson's mortgage loan(s).

Oh yes, the "inner circle" Det. R mentions. Just with that short snippet it's becoming clearer and clearer. I do agree with him mentioning family and friends protecting each other. I'm so eager to see what else he has to say when we can view the full episode.

BBM~~~~

Great point!

 

[zwiebel]

Daughter RB posted the following Aug. 8, 2009:


Our family wanted to be charitible by allowing Fontelle to temporarily stay in our parents' home, until we know more. The home has to be maintained as a part of OUR parents' family trust. All our Dad's attorney confirmed is that Dad had NOT amended his half of the trust to include his new wife of less than a month. Eventhough we are not obligated to do so, our family has been working to petition the court to permit reimbursement of at least her documentable travel and shipping costs. Our hands are totally bound to mother's and father's documents and limitations of the law.

So hang on, this is 12, twelve days after her father has gone missing, and RB is saying the family want to be charitable in allowing Mrs Harrod to stay in 'our parents' home?

It was Bob's home. What on earth could she have meant, that it was a 'charitable' act to 'allow' Bob's wife to stay in it? It was as per his wishes that his wife lived in his home with him.

Did his daughters think he was dead or something, less than two weeks after some/one of them had suggested he simply ran away?

 

[Cubby]

Daughter RB posted the following Aug. 8, 2009:


Our family wanted to be charitible by allowing Fontelle to temporarily stay in our parents' home, until we know more. The home has to be maintained as a part of OUR parents' family trust. All our Dad's attorney confirmed is that Dad had NOT amended his half of the trust to include his new wife of less than a month. Eventhough we are not obligated to do so, our family has been working to petition the court to permit reimbursement of at least her documentable travel and shipping costs. Our hands are totally bound to mother's and father's documents and limitations of the law.

BBM. His half? After Georgia passed it was ALL Bob's. Hmm...... Listen to Det. R , he thinks the answers lie in who is chasing the money.

 

[believe09]

So hang on, this is 12, twelve days after her father has gone missing, and RB is saying the family want to be charitable in allowing Mrs Harrod to stay in 'our parents' home?

It was Bob's home. What on earth could she have meant, that it was a 'charitable' act to 'allow' Bob's wife to stay in it? It was as per his wishes that his wife lived in his home with him.

Did his daughters think he was dead or something, less than two weeks after some/one of them had suggested he simply ran away?

Oh that post says it all-the spoken and the unspoken. You can read the venom. There is nothing, absolutely nothing charitable...in fact this is someone who would throw Bob's wife out on her .

Unspeakable.

Well, the court confirmed that clearly Bob would be providing for his wife to live in their marital residence. Court ruling from December 2012.

 

[zwiebel]

I think I'm beginning to get the picture. According to Bob's daughters, PB, RB, JUM and maybe her husband JeM and son AH;

They cannot discuss the time Bob disappeared or the events of that day (including with authorities, for some of them) because they have to let the authorities do their job. Ditto searches and vigils.

They cannot give Mrs Harrod any of Bob's money to help her because their hands are tied, but they can fight her tooth and nail in the courts, using Bob's money.

They cannot discuss their father's private and personal matters at all, because he always kept them private. But they can post all over the web about his eating, friendship, and spending habits, sparing no detail and no scorn.

They cannot discuss the settlement of the hundreds of thousand of dollars of debt Bob's grandson owed to Bob's estate, because it is a private agreement. But they can (and have) provided full details on the web of Mrs Harrod's income, and her living arrangements. Even how often she leaves Bob's house.

Daughters have not revealed their own fees they take as co-conservators of Bob's estate, or what legal fees they have paid.

Although their father was a very private person, daughter JuM (married to son-in-law who was working in the house the day Bob disappeared) felt completely free to let herself into his house and change his bedsheets. Later, she and her sisters felt completely free to come into his house and take items ranging from the teacups, to the hangings on the wall and a painting of Bob's beloved little dog. And the sheets Jum put on the freshly-made bed, the day after Bob disappeared.

 

[believe09]

The rest of the show must be pretty amazing, because the last 5 minutes which include the wrap up of the case and Det Radomski have us buzzing.

Poor Bob.

 

[believe09]

If you have any information whatsoever concerning the disappearance of Robert Harrod, please contact:

Detective David Radomski , Placentia Police Department-Homicide
714-993-8176

or contact the Homicide Hotline at 714-993-8166 (case number 09-3263).

 

[zwiebel]

Yes, poor, poor Bob. When I think of the family meeting - his three daughters, his son-in-law, and then an eighty-one year old man, having to argue for the ins and outs of his own, hard-earned money.

And then the next day.....it makes me stone-cold with anger. I think I'll call upon the Emerald Isle for a little help.


"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises; for, never intending to go beyond promises, it costs nothing."

Edmund Burke.

I'm not arguing with him. He was an Irishman. They've got a way with words...and seeing who's been kissing the blarney stone and who hasn't.

 

[believe09]

I am going to post the you tube video link again so everyone knows what we are dissecting:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3l6orCt3Y&feature=youtu.be

 

[Roselvr]

I'm just trying to answer questions....

So hang on, this is 12, twelve days after her father has gone missing, and RB is saying the family want to be charitable in allowing Mrs Harrod to stay in 'our parents' home?

It was Bob's home. What on earth could she have meant, that it was a 'charitable' act to 'allow' Bob's wife to stay in it? It was as per his wishes that his wife lived in his home with him.

The house is probably in a trust. It does not "belong" to Bob or his deceased wife. It belongs to the joint trust they made.

BBM. His half? After Georgia passed it was ALL Bob's. Hmm...... Listen to Det. R , he thinks the answers lie in who is chasing the money.

Yes; in the case of a trust; it would be Bob's 1/2.

Pretty sure I read that his deceased wife had money too. My guess is that when it was written; it was written to protect what they owned jointly to go to who they originally wanted it to which could be any combination of the daughters & any grand kids. Bob was smart with money & it's my opinion that he probably protected what he left to his daughters or grandson from being used as a marital asset in case of a divorce; so it was put in a trust with each child as beneficiary with it written that it is not to be considered as marital property if any of the daughters were to divorce. It would also protect the surviving spouse from marrying & divorcing & having that exspouse sue for their share.

Put yourself in Bob & G's shoes when they wrote it. For all we know it was done before G got sick. It could have been Bob that passed 1st. Bob may not have wanted the marital money going to anyone G remarried after he passed. For all we know; the 3 kids may not even get the same share. They could have set it up so that one got more because they were living closer & more involved in their lives. It's also possible that they get a set amount with the rest going to charity. If it was me doing something like this; I'd want to provide for my kids if there was anything left when I passed.

I'm pretty sure that once one of the joint writers of the will has passed; it can't be changed to remove people from the deceased person's will; but they may be able to change their own to add or remove people from their 1/2. It's so very complicated & depends on how it was done to begin with. Some make a joint will while some make their own that says the same thing.

My guess is that Bob adding F to his will means she would have her own trust set up or be added as another beneficiary of his 1/2 of the existing one. Without seeing his documents it's pretty hard to know.

 

[Roselvr]

I am going to post the you tube video link again so everyone knows what we are dissecting:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3l6orCt3Y&feature=youtu.be

Looks like a great episode. Hopefully it will be shown soon

 

[zwiebel]

I really hope some of our Australian friends can help us out some more tomorrow. "Good on you mate' was the favourite phrase of the last Australian who stayed at my house.
They'll get that back double from me if they drop in tomorrow.

Me and Mr Z have been agonising over whether we could phone our families there and wake them up in the wee hours to ask if they've seen Bob's program. We've decided against it. There is another well-known Australian response - and it isn't good on you and it's probably the one we would get if we woke them up at this time.

I can wait. There's people on this thread, and Mrs Harrod, who have been waiting patiently for a lot longer than I have.

 

[zwiebel]

Roselvr, there was a long discussion in a previous thread and if I recall correctly, there was some info that turned up that indicated that, contrary to our previous beliefs, Bob and his first wife had not set up that kind of trust. It looked like they had set up the kind of trust where the recipient of the bulk of the estate could be changed. Bob was also able to change who the co-conservators would be (daughter JuM is not a conservator).

It is complicated though, and without having the trust in front of us, and a trust lawyer, it's impossible to know for certain.

 

[zwiebel]

The clip has had 80 views already.