Deceased First Name: Lee
Deceased Last Name: Malone
Deceased Date of Death: 08/02/51
Surrogate's Court County: Anne Arundel
Surrrogate's Court State: Md
Judges First Name: James
Judges Last Name: Cawood
Tell Your Story: In 1996 my two minor grandsons were the sole heirs of their estate. The brother (an atty) of the deceased reported that he had found a will, he was the Ex and the minors had inherited all. w/o the approval of the courts sold all assets below their values. His most monstrous act was selling the contents of the home w/o giving the minors an opportunity to select some items. To add insult to injury, noted that what he didn't sell was given to the junkman. When it became evident that he had his own agenda and the best interest of the minors was not a consideration, attys were retained who found that he had created a procedural nightmare(he had issued "unauthorized" checks to his mother in the amt of $32,000, paid his claim of approx $50,000 and immediately paid his fees as PR in the amt of $13,000) and soon learned that the Reg of Wills, nor the Orphans court would challenge his misdeeds, they, rather than report his conduct, withdrew. The court appt attys as "guardians" of the minors and during their tenure were unable to extract any monies for the immediate needs of the minors; a req for financial aid when one was hospitalized was ignored, a petition to the court was denied. Not only did the PR deny the minors anything from the estate but denied a legitimate claim for arrearages in child support which was substantiated by Domestic Relations. The court apptd attys did not intervene so the mother pursued this issue, the court knowing that in a two yr period no money was available for the minors, gave the PR three tries to withhold this money. The mother eventually did get this claim but ironically, the PR had hired an atty who was paid from the estate which was more than the award. How a court can justily having minors pay atty fees to withhold their legitimate claim is inexplicable. It was never explained just what the duties of the court appt were as they never took one action for the benefit of the minors. The fact that the inventory was incomplete (all of the decedents personal items, gun collection, paintings, etc) and that real estate 128 acres which sold in the previous years for $12,000 an acre was sold for $1,900 an acre. Because there isn't an atty in this co, that wants to get involved in this "aberration",the mother wrote letters and testified of the many infractions - because the mother had liens on all properties, money was held in escrow which never showed up in his acct, and practically begged the Judge to order the PR to return the children's personal property that was in the house. It went in one ear and out the other - never did the PR have to answer. There is no doubt that the adm of the estate was preordained. According to Md law you can dissipate an entire estate and the PR does not have to account for it. The estate was probably worth a million but the PR initial acctg showed approx $500.000 - all the minors got was the mandatory family allowance of $5,000. There was another issue of an insurance policy of $250,000 in which only one minor was the beneficiary. The judge felt it would be unjust enrichment if only one got it so it took him a year to decide who would be the "Guard of the Property" and low and behold because the estate was all gone, the attys fees of $21,000 was taken from the proceeds. The Grievance Commission was contacted who found no wrong doing on the part of the PR. Local politicians will not get involved. The mother had written to the Lt Gov who reported that her only option was to go to the court of appeals. I feel that justice would prevail that would solve part of the problem. My complaint goes further than the dissipation of an estate, it's the abuse of power by an officer of the court and a system that allowed this to happen. To show you how arrogantly confident the PR was that none of his misdeeds would be challenged presented an affidavit for his mothers claim which was dtd in 1995 which clearly stated that a Mr. Dixon was the executor. The PR presented a will dated in 1991. The adm of the estate was in the hands of the Judges of the Orphans Court who are not attorneys and although all of their rulings were appealed to the circuit court went along with their decisions. Had those three judges could deny any contribution to the needs of the minors and withhold the proceeds from the insurance which should have been made available immediately. The fact that they insisted that the policy was not accruing any interest shows how knowledgeable they were. A letter to the Insurance Commissioner, revealed that, by law, interest is paid. If questions can be answered, what steps should the mother take to get her childrens personal items back. According to Md law, a will isn't worth the paper it's written on. Can you fight city hall - I sure am going to try.
Your e-mail address: Norwood 102631512