An open letter to my daughter Ruby: "Call your mom!"
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Unfortunately I did not receive your first e-mail, but am glad that you are representing Ruby. Perhaps with benefit of your legal expertise, we can find common ground regarding the settlement of this long-standing matter.
.jpeg)
With regard to
Ruby's claims as expressed in your e-mail of November 24, 2009, I will
need further time to gather documents and exhibits etc., but here are my
first thoughts on the subject:
Preliminarily, please note that we are also in receipt of additional correspondence bearing a postmark of “Santa Clarita…SAT 21 NOV 2009.” This was forwarded to us unopened, apparently after we advised you not to contact our client.
I did not receive your e-mail to this effect.
Be advised that further attempts to communicate with Ms. Ruby Stillwater will be returned to you unopened and, if it continues, deemed harassment worthy of obtaining a restraining order. Please communicate only with the undersigned.
Duly noted. I agree to communicate only through you.
Next, even the most cursory review of your allegations discloses them to be manifestly frivolous and untrue. You have stated that Mr. Joe Stillwater “has struggled to pay off” his college debts, yet Mr. Stillwater inherited, and has had the benefit of, over $100,000.
Joe did receive monies from his grandfather before he died. $100,000 would have been much appreciated but Joe never received anything from his grandfather even vaguely resembling that amount. Joe himself inherited nothing. Ruby did send Joe a check for approximately $4,000 after the death of my father, in repayment to Joe of money that his grandfather had given him but was left in an account entitled "Pourbus Family Trust". From what I understand, Ruby's name was not on that account but she was given access to it and wrote a check to Joe for that money in the amount of approximately $4,000 -- but that check bounced and Ruby never further reimbursed Joe for this amount.
More importantly, he has repeatedly stated he has no desire for any money from his sister Ruby and does not support your allegations – this is significant since his (and your daughter Ashley’s) depositions shall be the first ones noticed in this case. As a 30-year old adult, Mr. Joe Stillwater is certainly capable of handling his own affairs.
I agree. There is no need to involve either Joe or Ashley in this matter. This is purely a matter of breach of contract between myself and Ruby. However, if you plan to take Joe and Ashley's sworn depositions, then Ruby herself will be the person thus involving them. I have no plans to take their depositions.
Not being an attorney, you are not authorized to prosecute any legal action in his behalf, on behalf of Ashley Stillwater, nor on behalf of any other person. We assume that you are ignorant of this law.
I do realize that I can no longer represent either of them ad litem. They are both now adults. I do not claim to represent them.
Now being aware of it, however, any future attempt to do so by you will be dealt with as the misdemeanor that it is. See California Business and Professions Code section 6125 et seq. Finally, turning to the substance of what you wrote (such as it is), three things become very clear. First, Ruby Stillwater received nothing from her grandfather’s estate, although she did pay about $20,000 to your sister Ann Burns to persuade Ms. Burns to drop her suit against you.
Ruby received several Bank of America joint accounts upon the death of my father, totaling approximately $68,300. She also received an Oppenheimer account worth approximately $31,000. My father had placed these accounts jointly in his and Ruby's name, allegedly for the sole reason of avoiding probate. I have seen no proof that my father intended these monies to go solely to Ruby. According to his stated wishes before he died, my father planned for this money to go towards helping Joe and Ashley through college.
In addition to these jointly-held monies, my father's estate also received approximately $56,000 from other sources, which monies were held in trust by the Alameda County Public Administrator until probate was completed. The monies paid to both my sister and myself came out of this probate trust. Ruby was not at all involved in this transaction.
Further, I myself had planned to take my sister to trial regarding her demands on the estate, and apparently my sister only agreed to settle when faced with vigorous litigation from me that would have been costly and time-consuming to her.
Note that property jointly held passed directly to Ms. Ruby Stillwater upon her grandfather’s death.
I am aware that Ruby received approximately $100,000 from her grandfather under joint property considerations. I am not disputing this allegation. However, having received all these funds already, which my father had stated that he wanted to have included in his estate, it is unclear to me why Ruby also required my share of the estate as well.
These sums were paid at your instance and request to benefit you and extricate you from litigation regarding the highly suspicious circumstances regarding Ruby’s grandfather’s last will, unwitnessed by anyone but you, which purported to favor you over all other potential beneficiaries and which was found unworthy of consideration by the Court.
Untrue. The will was witnessed by Les and Ila Turner. The court questioned the will in only one regard -- that my father had used the word "property" instead of the words "real property". In all other aspects, my father's will was true and correct, and his obvious wishes were for me to be executor of his estate, as stated by Evelyn Purpus and Sam Dickson in sworn affidavits.
Demand for repayment forthwith of these sums which were advanced on your behalf is hereby made, and failure to tender them shall be dealt with as permitted by law.
This allegation cannot be proved in a court of law because it is based on the above misreading of the true situation.
Second, in 1999 you received – as you have repeatedly admitted and as the documents reflect -- $27,639.23 in a cash distribution plus some real property. We intend to obtain the government records that would indicate how you reported these sums as income and/or inheritance to the state and federal tax authorities, as well as to the authorities administering the low-income housing in which you live and any other agencies to which you have an obligation to report receiving tens of thousands of dollars.
I did not pay taxes on this amount because Ruby obtained this distribution with regard to using the monies to place a down-payment on a house in return for a promise to help pay for Joe and Ashley's college educations, in accordance with her grandfather's both spoken and written wishes. [Also, perhaps you knew this amount because Ruby cashed the check!]
Please provide proof that Ruby paid taxes on this received income -- if said taxes were required.
We believe that if your ridiculous claims of a “loan” to Ruby Stillwater were true, the government records you helped create through your tax and income reporting would reflect this.
No, it would be reported on Ruby's tax returns.
In addition, they would certainly reflect the tax payments you have made on the interest income the Internal Revenue Service would certainly attribute were there the arrangement you describe. The Citibank account in which you ordered checks bearing Ruby Stillwater's name without her knowledge will also reflect these and other transactions we trust you have reported to the authorities and which would certainly confirm your allegations, if true.
The interest amounts on the Citibank account were too minor to be taxed. In addition, Ruby and I opened said Citibank (formerly CalFed) account together, with her full knowledge and consent. By stating that I opened this account without her knowledge, Ruby is accusing me of forgery, fraud and other felonies. These accusations are actionable grounds for libel and/or slander against my personal and professional reputation.
Finally, it appears to us that Mr. Joe Stillwater and Ms. Ashley Stillwater are owed money, but not by their sister. The Estate’s records indicate that each was to receive $10,000 from their grandfather before his passing, which could have been used for education or other personal purposes. Instead, it appears that you squandered all of these sums on personal expenses for you, including trips to Tibet and elsewhere.
This allegation is also false. I did not receive or use any monies that belonged to either Joe or Ashley. However, whether it is true or false, this allegation has nothing to do with my father's estate and is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The matter at hand solely involves monies owed to me by Ruby.
In other words, you spent your own childrens’ college money on yourself, and the documents prove it.
This allegation is also false as well as being libelous and injurious. Please cease and desist with this allegation or face litigation. Further, even if my father had provided funds for Joe and Ashley's education before his death, this alleged act would not effect my father's dying wish that his estate's money go toward educating Joe and Ashley. Nor would it effect Ruby's promise to help pay for Joe and Ashley's education. This claim is without merit or foundation.
We doubt you reported this income either, but the records will disclose what they do and the consequences upon you will fall where they may.
With regard to my having not "reported" Joe and Ashley's "income", please familiarize yourself with HUD regulations with regard to excepting minors' and college students' incomes from HUD considerations.
By the way, please note that Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction over these matters, which exceed both the dollar amount and subject matter of its jurisdiction.
The Alameda County small claims court venue has an upward limitation of $7,500. I plan to file on Monday November 30, 2009 for that amount regarding the monies Ruby owes me for my repayment of Ashley's student loan.
Any attempt to proceed there will be treated as the abuse of process that it would be and will subject you to additional liability should Ms. Ruby Stillwater be forced to expend fees to defeat it.
Duly noted. And also please note that Ruby may be liable for court costs in this matter as well.
This office will proceed in the Superior Court, which is the correct forum, to obtain the repayment of the Burns sums from you.
The sum paid to Ann Purpus Burns was not paid from Ruby's funds, but rather was paid from a trust held by the Alameda County Public Administrator. You perhaps might consider taking legal action against the Public Administrator for mishandling of the estate's trust.
I am available to discuss your repayment of the Burns advance at any time.
Given the information I have just provided, no discussion is necessary regarding this repayment. However, if either you or Ruby would care to discuss the repayment of my loan to Ruby so as to avoid dragging this matter through small claims court, please feel free to contact me.
Larry, I myself have worked in a law office for over 15 years, have dealt with many attorneys during that time, and am pleasantly impressed with your aggressive representation of what you assume are your client's best interests. However, please be aware that your client apparently does not have a full grasp of the facts of this matter, and that her continued groundless attacks on my person represent a deep grievance to myself and will not be tolerated any longer.
In any case, congratulations on your recent nuptials, welcome to the family -- and happy Thanksgiving.
