CAVEAT: Even though a lot of details are public record, the names and relevant identifying details of all persons, as well as some of the facts, in this post have been altered in order to maintain any potential attorney-client privilege.
Once I had a client named Susan. She was a real piece of work. Don't cry for her. She totally doesn't deserve it.
Once I had a client named Susan. She was a real piece of work. Don't cry for her. She totally doesn't deserve it.
Susan came to see me about her ex-husband, Joe. She was trying make arrangements for Joe’s
funeral, and claimed that a "floozy" bartender named Melanie was trying to take
control. Why did Susan care? Susan had a young daughter, Tami. Susan's ex-husband, Joe, was Tami's adoptive father. Susan and Joe were
married and divorced two times. Tami
came along in between the first and second marriage, and Joe adopted Tami when
she was about 5. No one had the authority to dispose of Joe's remains: he wasn't married, had no living relatives
other than Tami, and Tami was not 18.
At first, Susan presented very sympathetically. Joe was a drunk, horrible person. The second divorce came about because Joe had
molested Tami. Susan just wanted to
protect Tami's interests, and Melanie at the dive bar down the street from his
home was trying to steal Joe's estate from his young child. Melanie claimed to have a will, but she would
not provide a copy to Susan or to me.
Because Melanie had a will (she did show it to the funeral home) and
because Susan was also claiming the right to dispose of Joe's remains as Tami's
parent, the funeral home literally put Joe on ice and told Melanie and Susan to
come back with a court order.
The first thing I did was file a Caveat for Susan on behalf
of Tami in the probate court records on Joe's estate. The Caveat insured that no one could do
anything in Joe's estate without first giving Susan a 20 day notice. Sure enough, Melanie filed a petition to
administer Joe's estate just a few days later, and had to serve Susan. I filed a motion to dismiss the petition, as
well as an answer and counter-petition to invalidate the proffered will as the product of undue influence.
In other words, I filed a will contest on Susan's behalf. Last, I filed
a petition to appoint Susan personal representative of Joe's intestate estate.
The only assets of any value belonging to Joe were a half
interest as a co-tenant in his home, the contents of the home, and a
Cadillac. Susan owned the other half of
the home, which was purchased by them during the second marriage. By the time we got all of the initial motions
and such before the court both Susan and Melanie had gone into the home and
taken items of personal property and Melanie had taken possession of the
Cadillac and was driving it (presumably with no insurance). Of course, Susan
did not tell me before the hearing that she had taken things out of the
home. By contrast, I had heard
extensively in person, on the phone, and in writing about Melanie having that
Cadillac.
A side note about Susan:
she was a heavy smoker. We had to
schedule her appointments so that no other clients were present so I could
leave the door to my office open while meeting with her. Imagine the worst dive
bar you've ever been in, multiply by 100, and then imagine that stink on one
person. That will give you an idea of
how bad she smelled. She was like Pigpen
from Charlie Brown, with a haze of smoke, nicotine and tar buzzing around her
at all times like an evil, migraine inducing force field. Susan was a letter writer. She would call me or come in, and then
immediately follow up with a ten page letter which was nothing but a ramble and
regurgitation of the conversation.
Invariably, the letter was trying to get me to agree with whatever
harebrained idea she had hatched to get the Cadillac from Melanie. Also invariably, the letter would smell so
bad we would have to open it, and HANG IT IN THE OUTBUILDING BEHIND OUR OFFICE
to air it out. It would still stink
afterwards, but it would be bearable. The letter would arrive, and the funk
would precede it by 10 feet, minimum. I
never saw Susan when she didn't reek, have a tissue in hand, and she had at
least one horrifying coughing fit per visit.
She was also actively sick every single time I saw her. She even came to court while she had the
flu. I don't think I'll ever forget this
aspect of the case. Susan was a one woman walking anti-smoking campaign.
Back to the hearing.
The court refused to appoint either party as personal representative and
entered an order that the proceeding was adversary. The court also entered an order prohibiting
either party from removing things from Joe's home, and enjoining Melanie from
driving the Cadillac (but allowing her to maintain custody of it for the time
being). After the hearing, we filed a petition to determine homestead as to
Joe's half interest as a cotenant in the home.
Because Tami was under 18, Joe could not leave his home to anyone else
under the homestead provisions of the Florida Constitution. Opposing counsel (who claimed to be a probate
attorney) thought that Joe's will leaving everything to Melanie trumped Tami's
homestead rights, which could not have been more wrong.
At Susan and Melanie's subsequent depositions, I first
learned that during their second marriage, Joe had executed a will leaving
everything to Susan. The will also provided
that if Susan was dead (which is how she would be treated post-divorce), Susan's
sister was named as personal representative and trustee for Tami's benefit and
Tami was the sole beneficiary of Joe's estate.
Melanie claimed that Joe adopted Tami solely to increase his disability
benefits. According to Melanie, Tami had an ongoing relationship with her
biological father who agreed to the adoption because he would not have to pay
child support. I also learned that a
term of Susan and Joe's divorce was that Susan would deed her half interest in
Joe's home to him, an act which she had thus far failed to do. Melanie also testified that Susan routinely
allowed Joe unsupervised visitation with Tami after the second divorce.
Susan brushed off all of these facts: she admitted letting her daughter visit with Joe after the
divorce (she claimed he was "better"), she said Joe told her she didn't have to deed him that half
interest in his home, she didn't mention the will because she didn't like her
sister and did not want her sister to get control of Joe's estate. All Susan wanted to talk about, ad nauseum,
was that old Cadillac. I have often
wondered if the Cadillac had something valuable hidden in it, considering the
war Susan and Melanie waged over it.
Prior to his death, Joe had taken out a "title
loan" on the car which remained unpaid.
Susan and I discussed her options: she could buy the lien, and we could
file a replevin action and repossess the car to satisfy the lien. Susan listened and understood (her stinky
missives made the fact of her understanding very clear). Instead of buying the loan, Susan went to the
loan company and paid off the lien.
Thus, Susan got possession of the title which she then took to the DMV
and totally misrepresented her relationship to Joe. All she needed was a certified copy of Joe's
death certificate and the original will she didn't like in order to walk into
DMV with the car title and say she was still his wife in order to get the title
put into her name.
Susan showed up at my office and presented the new title as
a fait accompli, expecting a pat on the back for a job well done. This was the beginning of a very rapid end
for me and Susan: she was shocked that I
was not happy with her clever thinking, and I was appalled at her disregard for
my advice and the law. I refused to file
a replevin action for her and instructed her to that she had to immediately
transfer the title back to Joe's name (albeit subject to her lien for the
exonerated title loan). Susan refused to do so.
So, in due course, I terminated our relationship.
Susan went back to the attorney who prepared the
"lost" will (that she didn't like) and an Order Determining Homestead
was entered. Tami never received a
dime. Susan sold the home within about a
year of the order being entered to Tami's biological father. The deed was
signed by Susan showed Susan as a co-owner.
How did she pull off that trick? Melanie dropped out as soon as she
realized she was not getting the house. I was gone. Susan's new attorney did
not know about the divorce agreement and so it looked like Susan owned half and
Joe owned half. She even opened a guardianship for Tami, and represented that
Tami only owned half (and more importantly, failed to tell anyone about her
agreement to deed her half to Joe). Then
in the guardianship, Susan got all the proceeds from the sale (without telling
anyone how the buyer was related to her and Tami) because she claimed to have
been paying the mortgage and maintenance on the home (which was not the case
when I represented her).
What happened to the Cadillac? Well, Susan filed a small
claims action and repossessed the car from Melanie using the fraudulently
obtained car title. She also got a
judgment for costs which Melanie ultimately had to pay. Here again, she got away with this for most
of the same reasons she got away with the house. In addition, Melanie did not have an
attorney, and must not have understood how Susan could only have lied to get
the title.
Why didn't I intervene?
First, I didn't know about it until I went to look at the court records
to write this post. You fire a client
and move on. The last pleading I saw in the probate was the Order granting my
motion to withdraw. Susan sold the home and repossessed the car about a year
later. Second, even if I had known what Susan
was up to, most likely I would not have been able to disclose anything to
anyone in order to bring her lies and machinations to light. In Florida, with very few exceptions, an attorney
is obligated to keep the information obtained through representation of a
client confidential. Attorneys are expected to err in favor of nondisclosure
whenever there is even a question to disclose or not disclose. If I had known
about the misrepresentation in the guardianship about Tami's interests in the
home and the suit against Melanie to repossess the car, I would have at least called
the Bar to get some guidance on my obligations to Susan.
Like I said, Susan was a real piece of work. She has remarried twice in the intervening
years. I could not bear to be within ten feet of her, so I find this fact
particularly astounding. I looked Tami up on the internet recently, and it does
not look to me like Susan had a transformative experience and became an
exemplary parent. Poor Tami, she never had a fighting chance.
