I had a short nap and upon waking, this was in my head: lawyers follow the law, they do not think the law. That is what they do they do not think the law, they do not think how it should be, they just follow what the past said. It is like they are on autopilot. It has been done like that for years or decades, and that is the law. But following the law, is only one part of the law, it has to be tempered with what the intent of the law is. For example, I was perplexed when I found out the form P2 was not served on me or any interested party containing the materials for the appointment of my sister to be the administrator of my brother's estate. A form P1 was served on the beneficiaries, but it was only a Notice saying my sister was wanting to be the applicant. At that time I really did not understand what was going on but it seemed to be that she jumped the line. And she did. What happened her lawyer filed the P2 without serving it on any of the beneficiaries, those that should know what is going on, and my sister became the administrator. The only problem with that was that she was heavily conflicted and she was totally uneducated to know what is expected of an administrator. Her conflict was that she owed at that time 1.5 years of rent to the estate, so she was a debtor to the estate. Now, she still owes 2.5 years of rent. How her lawyer got around this conflict was to send an estate settlement agreement to all the beneficiaries in the hope that the beneficiaaries would be stupid enough to sign an ESA that had no market value of the rent in it. That did not work and then her lawyer said it would be discussed at the passing of accounts. With "cost intimidation" hanging over the beneficiaries. Jenny will claim that she was the caretaker of the property and to go to court to have the court say it is nonsense would cost more legal fees, the beneficiaries would just sign off to make sure that they get what is their "sure" inheritance: the money that is in the bank. So she gets a windfall of 2.5 free rent plus her share of the estate. That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the beneficiaries. And it is not fair, and it is not legal under estate law. In addition to her share of the inheritence, free rent for 2.5 years, she also gets 5% remuneration for being the administrator. Jenny's prime goal was to communicate with the beneficiaries and as far as I can tell, she never communicated with anyone because she never communicated with me. Candace was running the estate. And Candace is making sure her fee includes every single paperclip she used. One of the disbursements she included in her invoice of October was $800 for photocopies. What photocopies, everything is done paperlessly. Maybe it was for legal research, researching what. Doing research is not necessary as that is her job to know how best to administer an esate. It is a simple estate, one piece of property, one vehicle, and a monies in a trust account.
The problem is when an unqualifed administrator gets the Grant to be administrator, it is extremely difficult to have that person removed unless that person resigns. But that is not going to happen when the lawyer for the adminisrator is looking at the long road, the continuous fee for creating a situation that should not have happened in the first place. Candace should have told Jenny that since there is a whisper of conflict that Jenny should resign. And an independent person who has no conflicts be appointed. Lawyers are not supposed to create litigation but she did.