believe09
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 28,093
- Reaction score
- 757
For those who joined this discussion in the last year or two, there was a trial on October 31, 2011. It was during that trial that the letter written by RB dated 7/17/2009 was entered into evidence. The letter can be found on Bob's court docs thread here at WS. The trial took place because Mrs Harrod was requesting a neutral third party be appointed to manage the Survivors trust because of breach of fiduciary responsibility.
It was during that trial that the super secret settlement agreement between AH and his aunts was revealed-the existence of it.
The judge who presided over that trial found for the trustees-he found that there were mistakes made in the accounting done by the co conservators, but that they didnt rise to the level of gross negligence.
Of course, they totaled tens of thousands of dollars, but I guess when you are talking about an estate this size that doesnt rise to the level of "gross." To refresh some of you, monies for things like dog grooming and gardeners for the daughters were paid for out of the Survivors Trust.
I was going back over the sworn testimony in that trial today and a few things really struck me.
Over all, when you take the testimony in it's entirety (and I mean on both sides) AH was kind of thrown under the bus here.
Let me give you a few examples: (PB is testifying, Fontelle's atty is questioning her)
And all her clients got out of this conflict was the memorabilia.
It was during that trial that the super secret settlement agreement between AH and his aunts was revealed-the existence of it.
The judge who presided over that trial found for the trustees-he found that there were mistakes made in the accounting done by the co conservators, but that they didnt rise to the level of gross negligence.
Of course, they totaled tens of thousands of dollars, but I guess when you are talking about an estate this size that doesnt rise to the level of "gross." To refresh some of you, monies for things like dog grooming and gardeners for the daughters were paid for out of the Survivors Trust.
I was going back over the sworn testimony in that trial today and a few things really struck me.
Over all, when you take the testimony in it's entirety (and I mean on both sides) AH was kind of thrown under the bus here.
Let me give you a few examples: (PB is testifying, Fontelle's atty is questioning her)
During the end of the trial when the attorney's were summing their arguments up, RB/PB's atty referred to Mrs Harrod's testimony regarding the bad blood and the attempt to throw her out of the house on July 30. 2009.Q.) Regarding the note with A(H) that the trust has, what was the amount of that note?
A.) 726,000.00
Q.) And which trust holds that note?
A.) The ByPass Trust.
Q.) After you were appointed as the trustees, did you demand payment from Mr H?
A.) Yes.
Q.) And what was the result of that demand?
A.) No response.
Q.) Did Mr H--
A.) He did not want to make the payment as he was promised by his grandfather, my father, that they had an understanding, so to speak, that after his--that he was no longer here, that his house would be free and clear.
She goes on further to say:IS: "The other thing I would like to point out, which counsel indicated at the beginning of the case, was that there's bad blood. My clients have testified here, your honor, when they heard about their father getting remarried, there was no bad blood. That they were happy that he found somebody that he can share the rest of his life with. There was no bad blood. They have testified to that.
Mrs. Harrod has testified that if there were any comments made it was made by the grandson.
So AH walked out on 726K and he was the one who did all of the talking about getting rid of Fontelle.My clients had no demands except that the memorabilia and statements be returned. That's the only thing that they got out of that.
And all her clients got out of this conflict was the memorabilia.