HELP!!any atty not afraid to fight in g'boro?

I have an inlaw or step inlaw that has illegally gained possession of my mother's estate. i need an attorney that is not afraid to dig and fight for the rights of an incompetent lady's last wishes.

My mother was forced to sign a P.O.A. by her husband when she really was incompetent. she was not happy about and told several people about this action. Her husband granted everythingto his children and disinherited her children. he passed before her so doesn't that make his will invalid? can he grant the right to direct where everything goes upon her deathsince she was incompetent? at his death everything went to her but she was unable to make a will, or change the one she was forced to sign.

My late husbands will read as did mine--everything went to the surviving spouse. I am not sure how married parties legally leave jointly owned property to someone else OTHER than the surviving spouse. In other words, Had my husband and I owned property together at the time of his death ( we did not---it was all in his name by design ) he could have willed the house to someone other than me. But, he did not. So, I was under no obligation to keep the house that was in his name ( hence the sale of the "Victorian House"). Many times when a family member is suddenly and tragically lost in a violent death, it is difficult to remain in a house in which they lived---the memories are too painful. Hence, I was free to dispose of his property without any legal reflection on my credit or my ability to "start over" with my record, credit and otherwise untarnished since it was solely HIS property, although as his wife, it was my OPTION to keep it OR dispose of it.

So, in your situation, POA dies with the person. I had power of attorney for an elderly woman--when she died, the POA ended. This also doesn't mean that I am the executor of her estate---I am not and was not. But while she was ALIVE , I had POA.

Basically, if they were married and HE dies, everything JOINTLY OWNED should go to his wife. Why an attorney would allow this is beyond me. I think your mother should go to court with her attorney and state the facts as they are. The Power of Attorney HE had over her STOPPED when he died.

I don't understand, however, your say he left everything to his children, then the last sentence says "everything he had went to her".

She is deceased now as well? Does HER will leave everything to him? If HE dies first, and her will was never changed and then SHE dies, obviously, the items in question cannot go to HIM since he DIED before they came into his possession and if there is no instruction to the contrary, the court can determine to whom the assets should be dispersed, not unlike they do when someone dies intestate.

You need to clarify your question----it is confusing. Rewrite it and give a timeline---it is important who/what happened first.

It is kind of confusing, what happened, that is why I was having such a hard time researching it. Yes, my stepfather passed first, however; before he passed he comitted fraud to get my mother's name off of all the property they owned jointly so that he could give it to his children and to disinherit any of her family members. Yes, she passed recently also however; the question remained "did the community property law come into effect," or since the original will left everything to her with his son-in-law in charge did his children have a right to act on his will and eliminate her heirs? She had been incompetent, and he really thought he would outlive her, but it didn't happen that way.
IF she did have a will on file it was made under coercion and she informed several family members of this act by her husband and his son-in-law (who happens to be an attorney). Between the two of them they thought they had come up with this elaborate plan to grant everything to the attorney's family (his daughter and her husband). However no will has been filed in her name as of yet, it was probably thrown away. The son-in-law is the one that drew up the original wills prior to her incompetency. The son-in-law was her POA.

This is why I had A hard time knowing what my rights were.

While I sympathize with your situation, your allegations of fraud and coersion are just that---allegations. If fraud ( a crime ) was committed, why did no one step forward at the time and press charges?

Since none of your accusations were proven or even made before either party died, I have no idea how you can prove to a court that fraud and coersion took place. If there is no will ( again, the allegations or very existance of one is irrelevant in terms of wrong doing---someone got rid of it, etc ---is not able to be proven) if there is no will, the estate will go through probate intestate and will be the decisions will be made by a judge.

Be advised, though, that probably half the estates that are handled have issues just like yours--family members always accuse the "other side" of fraud, coersions, etc. Realize to the judge, your case will be just another case of fighting relatives---although, obviously, to you, it is so much more.

Hire an attorney----but I cannot see how any of the allegations you are making are provable in a court of law.

The allegations are ture. Have hired an attorney and he has or is taking care of the matter. They know they have committed a crime, the question now is what they are going to do about it. Lose law license or act fairly?

I dont understand your ultimatums, nor your use of the word "they". They know they have committed a crime---who? the attorney knows the deceased did? What are they going to do about it? What is your attorney going to do? Act fairly or lose a law license? Why would your attorney lose his license?
Also, I never said the allegations weren't true. Proving them untrue is an entirely different matter. Furthermore, if they ARE untrue ( as being ruled as being so by a court of law, not your or your attorneys opinion) why aren't they in jail or at least, a criminal case being opened?I also don't think it is within the realm of your or your attorneys ability to make the ultimatum---be fair ( what is the legal definition of fair--fair NEVER means the same thing to opposing parties ) or lose their license?

I am interested in your definition of fraud---what did he do that constitutes the legal definition of fraud? Also, you admit she was incompetent. How can you coerse someone who isn't competent ( ie. has no authority to conduct their own affairs?) I can see suggesting whomever had POA wasnt acting in her best interest, but you can't coerse someone who isnt making any decisions on their own behalf, can you?

The fact that your mother's husband died first does indeed bring the spousal portion of the estate back to your mother. Depending on the state... and your attorney knows which state... it would be all of the estate or at least a portion of the estate. Since your mother stood to inherit the estate or a portion of it, any will must be probated. Your lawyer can find it but her inlaw might have filed it in a different county or ignored it entirely. If it was probated improperly as though she were dead, it would be a matter of fraud and the lawyer/inlaw would probably lose his license, so it would be best to go straight to him for an accounting. Then go to the state attorney registration and disciplinary committee with a complaint. I'm sure the inlaw knew of your existence and of the rules of inheritance and of probate.

Good luck.

Point out a single error in legal advice in this thread.

Go ahead, I will wait.

I answered the original question--QUOTE: "Basically, if they were married and HE dies, everything JOINTLY OWNED should go to his wife. Why an attorney would allow this is beyond me. I think your mother should go to court with her attorney and state the facts as they are. The Power of Attorney HE had over her STOPPED when he died.... if there is no will, the estate will go through probate intestate and will be the decisions will be made by a judge."


However, if you will look, SHE asked ANOTHER question after I answered that one: "They know they have committed a crime, the question now is what they are going to do about it. Lose law license or act fairly?" NOTE: Here is her first posting and while YOU state she "answered all my questions in the first posting", if you read it, you will NOT see a mention of suing the attorney for fraud: "

I have an inlaw or step inlaw that has illegally gained possession of my mother's estate. i need an attorney that is not afraid to dig and fight for the rights of an incompetent lady's last wishes.

My mother was forced to sign a P.O.A. by her husband when she really was incompetent. she was not happy about and told several people about this action. Her husband granted everythingto his children and disinherited her children. he passed before her so doesn't that make his will invalid? can he grant the right to direct where everything goes upon her deathsince she was incompetent? at his death everything went to her but she was unable to make a will, or change the one she was forced to sign."


Would you high light the part that states her explanation of why the attorney should be charged with fraud? Again, your once-in-a-courtroom-eyes have seen something everyone else missed! Do share.

As the casual intelligent observer can see, the "attorney lawsuit" question has nothing to do with the original PROBATE question. So, I asked for clarification of where she felt wrongdoing happened---because I don't see it. That is another thing a good attorney does--doesn't ASSume. ASK, instead of jumping to ASSumptions, the result of which is imprecision. TAKING the TIME to ASK questions instead of spouting off incorrect and misleading information sends a critical message---DETAILS MATTER. The only person who objects to being asked questions is he who cannot and does not fully understand his position and is, therefore, unable to explain and defend it. Also, ASKING someone to explain what they mean often times results in them figuring out for themselves what the correct answer is. The exercise of putting thoughts into words can often result in someone coming to a better understanding on their own of what is correct, instead of having someone else just slap the answer down in front of them.

It would seem you know as little about teaching and learning as you do the law.

You criticize me, yet you are passing out legal advice and admit you have never been in a COURT ROOM? (not to mention answering postings from a YEAR ago telling a guy who just lost a 100K to 'get to it'??) And I am "graceless"?

Allrighty, then.

In your field ( whatever that may be) imprecision and inaccuracy may not be paramount. In this field, it is.

For the record, conversion is an intentional tort to personal property. Theft is not necessarily synonymous with conversion. It is synonymous with larceny. (A little too much Law and Order??)

Copy and paste my sentence that said the poster should take the MOTHER to COURT. ________________________ Paste it right there.

Done? Oh, you can't find that sentence? Neither can I. GOING to court with your attorney is NOT the same as "taking" someone else to court. And since in the first posting, she doesn't say whether the mom is dead or alive ( still waiting on you to copy and paste that sentence, too) I gave several different possibilities, one of which was the mom GOING to court with her attorney (i.e. challenging the validity of the will). But, since she later clarified that the mom had passed, that obviously, isn't a possibility. Note: At no time did I say the kids should take the mom to court. (implying legal action AGAINST her). I don't guess and fill in the blanks. I ask questions to be sure what I am saying is accurate.

Now.........

Listen and learn.

She states the mom was incompetent. The father had legal power of attorney. Power of attorney gives HIM the right to speak FOR her. Got it? HE HAS the right to speak FOR the incompetent wife, and ACT as HER in legal transactions. Now, if HE decides to give the belongings they have acquired during their marriage to one of the kids upon his death and she agreed to it ( obviously, HE agreed FOR her since she was incompetent), nothing fraudulent was done. Was it morally right? Probably not. Was it illegal? No.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MISREPRESENTING THE STATUS OF THE MARRIAGE? You are interjecting things the poster did not say. You cannot "fill in the blanks" when it comes to law. You ask questions, you attempt to understand, THEN you proceed. No one said anything about misrepresenting the status of the marriage. What does that mean, anyway? Either you are married or you aren't. Who misrepresented that? Try to focus and answer that question. (twenty bucks says you cant).

Bottom line--if the husband had authority to speak for her in legal matter ( POA ) and he decided on both of their behalf through POA to leave his estate to his kids ( and not hers) then nothing fraudulent has been done. Obviously, the man took advantage of this woman, but fraud? Nope. And, the court recognized what you did not---and that it isn't fraudulent when someone who has POA ( poster admits mom was incompetent) does something everyone else in the family doesn't like.


I am not saying the father wasn't dishonorable. I am saying he didn't commit FRAUD. Nor did his attorneys. Her sentence says "They know they did something wrong." Asking her to articulate, think out, and put into words why she considers that fraud is called REASONING. I could just spout out the answer, but encouraging the poster to come to the right conclusion on her own means she will understand better each step along that path.

Try it sometime.

Another thought---if the mom was competent enough to object to what the father wrote in his will regarding her compliance (agreement, acceptance) of those terms, why didn't someone in the family acknowledge her concerns and address them while she was alive? Too little, too late.

IF he had legal POA, he had the RIGHT to act AS her in legal transactions. Did he represent HER wishes? Who knows. She was incompetent and now she is, sadly, deceased, so all we can do is speculate as to what she wanted. Its all about what you can PROVE. Remember, OJ is ( was ) a free man. How can they prove the mom would have wanted a portion of the estate to go to her kids, too, and why didn't they attempt to establish that fact while she was alive? (weighty pause)

The court sees what I see, and what you do not--and that is, simply, no fraud was committed when the man had legal POA to act on her behalf. And his act was to leave their estate to his children and not hers. Pretty crappy thing to do. (Whoa, dude, wonder what color HIS soul is, yanno? <nudge nudge> ) Speculating on what she wanted, or what she would have done if she had not been incompetent is just that---speculation. And that is not enforceable in any court of law. Period.

Now, define FRAUD and state in succinct sentences what the attorney did that meets the legal standard for fraud. You insist fraud was committed. I have explained how it has not.

Explain how the specific act you choose meets the legal definition of fraud---and not just based on your opinion. Right now, your comments are based on emotion and your feeling that this was a crappy thing to do to an old lady. And you are probably right. Your opinion and a quarter might get you a senior citizens coffee at McDonalds on a Wednesday.

Here, it gets you nothing.