Checklist: Conflicts of a proposed administrator.

1.  Do they owe the estate money.

2.  Have they been using estate property for free.

3. Were they financially dependent on the person who died.

4.  Do they have family living on estate property without paying.

5.  Were they in charge of the person's care or finances before death.

6.  Do they stand to personally gain from their decisions as administrator. 

If a proposed administrator had a conflict of interest based on any of the points above, they should not have been appointed. So, why didn't the estate lawyer, the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), or the beneficiaries oppose the appointment. 

Most importantly, why didn't the proposed administrator withdraw?  

Administrators are supposed to be able to make decisions.  The caretaker, now administrator, couldn't even bring herself to tell the family of my brother's death.  My other brother found out about the death three months later.  And now, through stealth, she is the administrator, and she won't communicate with her family.  She hides behind her lawyer, who filters everything. And the lawyer is not very forthcoming with anything meaningful. She just grooms the administrator.

Lawyers have been known to rush the appointments of administrators.  The first to the post wants the Grant a.s.a.p.  Once the Grant is issued, the lawyer knows it becomes tough and expensive for a beneficiary to revoke it; many beneficiaries do not have the means or knowledge to pursue it, and even if they do, there is not much that you can do, as the administrator is already in place. This is known as "probate by fait accompli."  And lawyers say so what, we will wait until the passing of accounts, and in the interim, we don't have to disclose much, and let the looters loot until then. The more conflict at the passing of accounts, the more the fees are. Instead of making sure a conflicted applicant isn't an administrator from the get-go, do the dirty deed and worry about it later. 

Estate law is strict:  it cannot be compromised, as the dead person is dead. Strict fiduciary standards:  no conflict; no profit; undivided loyalty; full and proper accounting. At a passing of accounts, it is illegal to Art the Deal (Donald Trump).  There is no deal. Only duty to the dead.  

Heather Mathison was hired by the PGT to make the looting of my brother's estate legal.

In criminal law, stealing is called theft.

In estate law, looting is called a fiduciary failure; a breach of trust.  

The weird language of fiduciary law comes from King Henry VIII's language, with roots in English chancery law, which was used to disguise from the common folk what was really going on among the powerful and the privileged. 

Theft from an estate is sanitized by calling it self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of trust,where administrators help themselves to estate property. 

Stealth passing of accounts by trustee (committee of estate)

 

A few days ago, I received a disturbing email saying that I had no standing to voice my concerns about the passing of accounts (this is a requirement if a trustee decides she wants to be free of liabilities she administered).  This lady lawyer quoted me the legislation.  

Death of Patient. AGA 24(3) After the death of the patient, the committee must provide the committee's accounts to (a) the executor or administrator of the patient's estate. The committee is the trustee who controls the money. 

Sounds reasonable.  One person should deal with the passing of accounts, efficiency.  That person has to do the heavy lifting that is verifying that every expense is proper.  If she approves the expenses she relieves the committee of future liability for paying unnecessary expenses.  

The problem is that the administrator had conflicts.  Prior to the administrator's appointment, she was the Patient's committee of person/caregiver while he was alive.  Obvious conflict.  Even a whisper of a conflict should have nullified the administrator's appointment. She should never have been appointed the administrator in the first place.  But she was. Another story.

At this juncture, the committee wants distance from the estate, and the administrator is the only one who can test the committee's expenses.  However, why would the administrator test the expenses as the expenses were at her discretion.  She is not going to point out her self-dealing of estate assets.  Conflict.  All beneficiaries are excluded from the passing of accounts hearing. 

According to the committee, the administrator is happy with the accounts.  

And the only person who can sign off on the passing of accounts is the administrator. If she does not sign off/consent, then the court can.  But how can the court can, it does not have an audit department.

So what can a beneficiary do if she suspects the administrator was using estate assets for her personal benefit.  Nothing.  The beneficiary has no legal standing. 

The administrator consulted a multitude of lawyers, hired three.  Not one of the multiple lawyers told her she was in conflict. Extraordinary. The administrator because of her limited education did not know she was in a conflict.  But not telling her, then the trustee should shoulder 100% responsibility.

And the third final lawyer did an estate settlement agreement on the pretense that it would rush the probate, no mention of the proposed administrator having a conflict. The ESA said in exchange for the fast tracking the beneficiaries must forgo any occupation rent that the proposed administrator owed.  That was no small change, 1.5 years at that time. Under fiduciary law, you cannot buy an administrator with free rent. 

 In the proposed passing of accounts package no mention was made of any rents accounts receivable.  The committee (trustee) was responsible for collecting the market rents before probate.  What does that say, it says the committee (trustee) owes the estate 1.5 years of rent.  And if the court deems a "satisfactory accounting" as the administrator is happy with the accounts, the committee (trustee) is off the hook.   The administrator is also off the hook as she does not have to pay the estate the 1.5 years of rent that she owes. The occupation rent claim vanishes. No beneficiary can complain to the court as none have legal standing to do so.  Only the administrator has standing. The debt is wiped out. Neither the trustee has to reimburse the occupation rent to the estate, nor does the administrator have to pay it.  Under the colour of law, the dirty deed is covered up. 

Ghosted

 This is what I said in an affidavit January 10 2025.  

I told the beneficiaries that if they want to gift Jenny the rents due and owing to the estate they could do it  from their share of their inheritances  Again, I was ghosted.  For me this isn't only about the money, it is about the unethical stealth way, the probate was being done.  I expected honesty from the beneficiaries and due process from the lawyers.  What I got was uncertainty, stress, and betrayal, distrust of the legal process, and the lost of all hope of any meangful reunion with family members going forward.  

Note: The rent covered 2.5 years.  It was for a 4,000 square foot home on 20 acres of land outstide of Kamloops (Dallas), a ranch (with a pool) that would keep horses.  There was an estate settlement agreement and the estate lawyer wanted all the beneficiaries to sign off as there was some urgency, a red flag. The estate settlement agreement was designed so the administrator did not have to pay rent.  The beneficiaries who signed the agreement thought it was okay because they just wanted their inheritance, even at a steep discount. And they did not even inquire what the rent should have been.  Buyer beware. The estate was being looted in plain sight. And the beneficiaries were duped. 

Overwhelming Confusion

 I think I've overcome my overwhelming confusion. It is over lawyers and their hateful behaviour and how it negatively affects society when they use CBA to probate an estate. This is a pattern that most estate lawyers use, clients are profit centers.  They are not concerned that CBA erodes the rule of law.  It is evil. Money over fiduciary trust. To say it is efficient is a lie. In the longrun costs are higher. CBA is morally illegal.  And, it is becoming mainstream as clients are not even told by their lawyers that they are using CBA. Trust me you are told.  And when clients find out, if they ever find out, it is too late to say no. You are committed to an outrageous legal bill.  If you as a client have no want of honesty and no respect for the law, you cheer in the ignorance that you are getting an ill-sought benefit. Or you fall into the category that "there is a sucker born every minute."  meaning you.  Anger.  Horrorfic humilitation. Not what I signed up for.  Bottom line: CBA cuts procedural process.  Forget about challenging an unfit administtrator, we will wait until the passing of accounts, more legal fees.  There is no savings. There is no best practice.  If there is no due process, there is no law. 

CBA model, cost benefit analysis, a slow creep by estate lawyers since the 1980s.  

Fiduciary Law v Constitutional Law 2

  Like the Constitution, you do not mess with Fiduciary Law.  Both are sacrosanct.  Untouchable. So you would think.  

With Constitution Law anyone can police it (citizens, journalists, the courts).  With Fiduciary Law only an interested party can police it.  If you are not a beneficiary, you are out of luck. 

Using CBA for estates invites immediate rot. There is no honour only hallucinated cost benefit analysis, it is quick and dirty.  

CBA eats away at the rule of law.  

Fiduciary Law v. the Constitution

 Like the Constitution, you do not mess with Fiduciary Law.  Both are sacrosanct.  Untouchable. So you would think.  

With Constitution Law anyone can police it.  With Fiduciary Law only an interested party (a beneficiary) can police it.  

Enter CBA and the rule of law for Fiduciary Law is eroded.  There is no honour only hallucinated cost benefit analysis.