Appeals Court: Widow left penniless by probate got a fair trial

Appeals Court: Widow left penniless by probate got a fair trial


After a year and a half of waiting, the Arizona Court of Appeals has at long last taken up the request to do right by a 90-year-old lady who was “protected” right into the poorhouse.

The court ruled that a probate court commissioner and the attorney whose law firms wound up with much of the elderly widow’s money engaged in conduct that was “highly inappropriate” and “unacceptable.”

It called the court-sanctioned siphoning of her life savings “inexcusable.”

Then the appellate judges put their stamp of approval on the entire shameful episode, saying there’s no evidence that Marie Long was unfairly treated. They advised Marie and her sisters to, in essence, to move on.

“The parties in this case have had more than their day in court,” wrote Lawrence Winthrop, chief judge of the Court of Appeals.

Of course, it’s hard to move on when you’re 90 and your teeth are rotting and you can’t afford to do anything about it because the system designed to protect you fundamentally failed.

It’s hard to move on when the ruling is released as probate judges slog away at some cushy conference at a Tucson resort while you…you are left to wonder how what happened here can possibly be OK.

Before moving on, as Winthrop advises, it seems appropriate to take one final stroll down memory lane. To 2005, when Marie suffered a stroke and came under the protection of Superior Court’s probate division. To 2009, when her life savings -- $1.3 million -- was gone, much of it sucked up by attorneys and fiduciaries under the not-so-watchful eye of probate’s famed commissioner, Lindsay Ellis.

To March 2010, when Ellis ruled that they were justified in helping themselves to $840,000 from Marie’s trust for work done through 2008. In a scathing ruling, Ellis roasted Marie’s lawyers (who for years have been working for free), saying their “venomous” attacks forced the other side to defend themselves.

With Marie’s money, of course.

To May 2010, when the first of the e-mails came to light – the ones showing that Ellis had her assistant slip an advance copy of her ruling to attorney Brenda Church and three other lawyers who together with their clients collected the lion’s share of Marie’s money.

E-mails between a judge and one side in a contested case are called “ex parte” communications and they are a big no-no in legal circles. Supposedly anyway.

Superior Court Judge Robert Budoff was assigned to consider whether Marie got a fair shake from Ellis, given the remarkable revelation.

She did, he concluded.

Ellis, he wrote, acted unethically and violated the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct. But just because she was communicating with one side – the side that wound up with all of the Marie’s money – doesn’t prove she was biased.

Not when she refused to hear Marie’s petitions to stop the bleeding even as she ruled on motions submitted by the other side. Not when she allowed the now-defunct Sun Valley Group to both act both as Marie’s guardian and her for-profit care provider, despite rules which prohibit such conduct.

Marie’s attorneys appealed and on Thursday the Court of Appeals agreed with Budoff.

“We do not condone the highly inappropriate conduct of Commissioner Ellis and the attorneys with whom she, through her judicial assistant, engaged in ex parte communications,” wrote Winthrop, on behalf of a three-judge panel. “Further, we agree that the dissipation of the Long Trust’s assets, due in large part to the contentious and acrimonious nature of the proceedings, is inexcusable.

Nevertheless, the superior court did not err in deciding that the improper ex parte conduct did not prejudice (Marie and her sisters) or violate their right to receive a fair trial.”

Translation: what went on here was bad. Just not bad enough to do anything for the old woman left penniless and dependent on taxpayers for support.

Marie's attorneys haven’t yet decided whether to appeal.

While the Appeals Court was releasing its ruling last week, the National College of Probate Judges was holding its spring conference at Loews Ventana Canyon. Among the topics: The Arizona Experience: How the Legislature and the Courts Responded to Public Criticism of Probate Courts.

It’s a shame they didn’t invite me to come down. I’d have brought Marie along and we’d have had a high old time, maybe take up a collection to get her teeth fixed.

-

Editor's note: Roberts' sister, Court of Appeals Judge Ann Timmer, chaired a committee to review Probate Court practices. She was a speaker at last week’s conference. She was not a part of the three-judge panel that decided this case.

(Column published May 8, 2012, The Arizona Republic)



Monday, May 7, 2012 at 05:53 PM


http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/161604

Editor's note:  Why does this case remind this Shark of the Alice R. Gore estate case in the Probate Court of Cook County?

Alice R. Gore Estate value about 1 million dollars: Alice R. Gore, deceased, a disabled 99 year old ward of the Probate Court of Cook County, Judge Kawamoto’s courtroom was hours away from ending up in the Cook County Morgue. Alice's estate was depleted by probate court parasites and there were reportedly no funds to bury her. Her loving family paid for the burial expenses so that Alice would not have to suffer the indignity of being stacked like an Auschwitz inmate in the Cook County morgue. The judge allowed an easily manipulated mentally disabled granddaughter to be appointed as Alice’s guardian and yet no sanctions were instituted against the judge or court officers for this blatant infraction of the law.


Strangely, 16 of Alice’s annuity checks, two of which show forged endorsements, disappeared. Alice’s daughter has a copy of a check with her signature possibly forged. The daughter’s attorney has been trying to obtain copies of the 16 other annuity checks for two years without success. Even more puzzling is a $150,000 life insurance policy owned by Alice and not inventoried into the estate by the court. The Probate Court of Cook of Cook County refuses to investigate these blatant infractions of the law. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com

KawamotoDragon.com