Testing the Mettle of Rockford Probate Court

Testing the Mettle of Rockford Probate Court

by jmdenison



Dear Readers;

As you are aware, this blog is about helping others in probate court. Letting everyone know what works and what does not work. Pleadings, emails and other documents are published here and on other probate blogs (which I might or might not have control over) regarding better tactics to protect YOU and your beloved grandpas, grandmas and the disabled. These are often the poor of the poor, or they will be after probate court gets to them via a fee for this and a fee for that and often two or more attys churning the bill, liening the paid for family home, the savings that were never used on family trips and vacations and vacation homes, etc.-- then granny goes into a nursing home, isolated and never seeing the light of day again. You will note it is rare to see ANYONE from a nursing home going outside ever again. And the food isn't healthy by a long shot. Whole Foods is NOT doing the catering.

Getting back to Probate court in Rockford, after lengthy argument, the court did NOT decide in John Wyman's favor. Oh, the record was clear and the court even admitted notices were not served, but Judge Fabiano said during hearing (and we did have a private court reporter and I do have a record and transcript I will publish ASAP), 1) constructive notice is enough due process for the Wyman family; 2) the entire family knew of the proceeding and did not file anything soon after the fact; 3) laches applied (see my email to SRR below regarding THAT legal theory) and 4) Carol Wyman's injuries in the nursing home where she was severely beaten and sexually abused could not possibly have been the fault of poorly picking a Guardian that was an infamous abuser in his family and the local community (but she did not explain why that was, SRR and KMT said it was not the right time period, but it is my understanding she suffered at a horrid nursing home--one of the worst in Rockford during the July to Sept. 2009 time period and then she escaped.)

The moral of this story is: if you don't like your spouse and no longer have any need or want for them around the house, drug them, take them to a nursing home and get a temporary guardianship over them in court. When they "awake" from all the drugs and start protesting and want to go home, the nursing home will physically hold them down and shoot them up with Halodol (a drug NOT recommended for seniors due to stress on all the internal organs) and then you will never have to deal with your "spousal problem" again. And all with the blessings of the Rockford Probate court and 2 court appointed attorneys.

All this actually happened to Carol Wyman -- and more, get the book "Against Her Will" or just email John Wyman for a copy at johnhowardwyman.com. It's a 5 star book on Amazon you won't be able to put down.

So SRR is supposed to draft up an order for the court to sign on Monday. Because I have been involved in, or have heard of, most of the dirty tricks in probate, I was extremely well prepared and could shoot down just about every single dirty lie, trick, ruse -- you name it, I had the answer for the court.

Did not seem to do much good. SO emergency appeal, so as I get the order.

Take care all and read the email I sent to SRR below regarding what to put in the order for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

JoAnne

now for my email to Sharon Rudy:

Subject: Court yesterday In re Wyman 09 P 127

Date: Sep 29, 2012 1:04 PM

Dear Sharon;



Please make sure you put in the order tomorrow, the following findings by Judge Fabiano:



1) That the case, In re Steinfield held that notices could be excused if the movant had been significantly involved in the case post appointment of a plenary guardian (perhaps you can find the page cite for that holding, I could not)



2) that laches applies to defeat a finding of lack of jurisdiction under the Probate Act (I believe that would be new law because laches is an affirmative defense which is only pled as an Answer to a Claim--but maybe the Illinois App. Ct will change that centuries old law, what do I know?)



3) that the Probate Act allows for constructive notice to be served on all "close relatives". The notice need not be in writing and it need not be personally served or served by mail.

The sisters were served via phone call to one and that was adequate notice.



4) that John Wyman and William Wyman were represented by the OPG or Heckinger in early July and that excused notice. (Willaim Wyman was NOT represented by the OPG except early on in the case when the OPG was only defending him and did so successfully regarding the OOP. The OPG only filed an appearance for that issue and William Wyman will submit an affidavit to the court regarding that issue, but you can put in the order that it was a finding from the hearing because that's what happened).



5) that the sisters had constructive notice by phone or upon information and belief and statements from KTM that she remembers calling one sister sometime before the hearing.



Yes, I think that those were the most important points that both you and Judge Fabiano made yesterday.



As we discussed, my client is willing to post a supercedas bond pending appeal for half the estimate costs of appealing. Please send me a good faith estimate of those costs which may consist of: 1) utilities, taxes, insurance; 2) an estimate of the FMV of the personal property, which I believe is negligable looking at the inventory list.



If the judge is still interested in awarding sanctions, I would like the opportunity to brief that separate issue, so please put in the order a briefing schedule, ie, 1) when you will submit your motion for sanctions, 2) a 3 week response for me and 3) whatever you need for reply and then set it for hearing. You can just call me on my cell or text me for hearing dates and let me know what day and time you will be in court to set that. I believe that is a separate motion that must be in writing, properly served and the respondent is entitled to a briefing schedule.



Also, I did make the statement that the court appeared to making a ruling that "hearsay, innuendo and rumor" satisfied the Probate Court Act notice standards in accordance with Sodini/Steinfeld and you can put that in the order and I don't mind.



thanks



joanne

jmdenison
September 30, 2012 at 11:29 am
Categories: Uncategorized
URL: http://wp.me/p209wH-km