Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Moore v. Campbell

Supreme Court brief1996

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

95-954 )

No.

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1995

ALBERT W. L. MOORE, JR.,

Petitioner,

Vv.

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et al.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The Missouri Court of Appeals

Western District

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Albert Wilson Luce Moore, Jr.

Counsel of Record

554 South Ash

Independence, Missouri 64053

Telephone: (816) 254-6070

December, 1995

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether it is consistent with the due

process of law required by the Fifth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the

states by Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment

thereto, for a state trial court to assign a cause to

another judge without notice to a party plaintiff when

such party thereby loses the opportunity to exercise

an absolute peremptory right to change the assignee

judge and otherwise object to the assignee judge’s

jurisdiction.

2. Whether it is consistent with the due

process of law required by the Fifth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the

states by Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment

thereto, for a state court of appeals to sustain a

decision rendered by the trial court in violation of

such due process.

3. Whether it is consistent with the due

process of law required by the Fifth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the

states by Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment

thereto, for a state court of appeals to review on the

merits a case decided by the trial court in violation of

such due process, when the jurisdiction of said court

of appeals is limited to appellate matters by the state

constitution.

LIST OF PARTIES

The petitioner (plaintiff) in the action below is Albert

Wilson Luce Moore, Jr., an attorney at law. Petitioner

represents Janice C. Campbell in a discovery of assets action

on behalf of the decedent’s esta’e of Joseph F. Campbell,

their late father, against her brothers Joseph E. Campbell and

Richard F. Campbell, co-personal representatives (co-

executors) of the decedent’s estate. Rebbecca Lake Overman

is administrator ad litem of the decedent’s estate.

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW i

LIST OF PARTIES ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED V

OPINION BELOW 2

JURISDICTION 2

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 5

1. The ruling below, that a state appellate

court may disregard the trial court’s denial of

constitutional due process is a sharp departure

from, and severely undercuts, the well-

established principle of the federal republic

that state courts must enforce the Constitution

and laws of the United States.

2. The ruling below, that a state appellate

court may decide on the merits an appeal from

a trial court dismissal entered in violation of

constitutional guaranties of due process of

law, encourages the widespread disregard of

such guaranties by affording a path of easy

evasion.

3. The ruling below, that a state appellate

court may act as a court of original

jurisdiction in deciding an unconstitutionally

dismissed case on the merits, notwithstanding

state constitutional limits on its jurisdiction,

sows the seeds of a widespread dilution of

constitutional due process.

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

Ackermann v.

United States

178 F.2d 983

(Cir.5 1949)

Alabama Public Service Commission v.

Mobile Gas Co.

104 So.538

213 Ala. 50

41 A.L.R. 872

Bluth v.

Laird

435 F.2d 1065

(C.A. Va.)

Bracey v.

Monsanto Company, Inc.

823 S.W.2d 946

(Mo.banc 1992)

Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust

& Savings Co. v. Hill

281 U.S. 673,

50 Sup.Ct. 451 (1930)

PAGES

5,9

5,6

In re LaMarre

494 F.2d 753

(U.S.App. 6th Cir.

1974) 6

Inland _V,

N.L.R.B.

CL.A. 7,

109 F.2d 236 6,7

Layton V.

Swapp

484 F.Supp. 958

(D.C. Utah) 5

Parkinson

398 F.Supp. 727

(D.C. Wis.) 5.6

Schweiker v.

McClure

456 U.S. 188

72 L.Ed.2d 1

102 Sup.Ct. 1665 6

Sliosberg v.

New York Life Ins. Co.

216 N.Y.S. 215,

217 App.Div. 67,

affirmed 155 N.E. 749,

244 N.Y. 482 and

155 N.E. 913, 244 N.Y. 599 5

Vil

Smith v.

Atty. Gen. of Maryland

415 A.2d 651

(Md. App. 1980) 10

State v

Williams

904 S.W.2d 103

(Mo.App.E.D. 1995) x

Steele v.

Gann

123 S.W.2d 520

197 Ark. 480 10

Thummel v.

King

570 S.W.2d 679

(Mo.banc 1978) 8

Union Pacific R. Co. v.

Syas

246 F. 561

(U.S.App. 8th Cir.) 6,7

United States ex rel.

Accardi v. hness

347 U.S. 260,

74 Sup.Ct. 409 6,9

Vill

Wilwording v.

Swenson

502 F.2d 844 9

Wolf-Lillie v.

Kenosha County Sheriff

504 F.Supp. 1 i

(D.C. Wis.) 6

STATUTES PAGES |

United States Code

28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a) 2

Constitution of the

United States of America

Fifth Amendment 2

Fourteenth Amendment,

Section 1 2

Constitution of the

State of Missouri 1945

Article 1, Section 10 2

Article 1, Section 14 2

OTHERS

16D C.J.S.

Constitutional Law

Section 1139

16D C.J.S.

Constitutional Law

Section 1168

PAGES

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1995

ALBERT W. L. MOORE, JR.,

Petitioner,

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et al.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The Missouri Court of Appeals

Western District

Albert Wilson Luce Moore, Jr., an attorney at law

("Petitioner") petitions for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, to review the

decision in Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. v. Janice C. Campbell,

et al., 904 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.W.D. 1995) affirming the

dismissal of two counts of a three-count petition for attorney

fees, foreclosure of attorney’s lien, and creditor’s bill.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District, is reported at 904 S.W.2d 378

(Mo.App.W.D. 1995) and is reproduced at Appendix page

A-198.

JURISDICTION

The opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals,

Western District, was entered on the twentieth day of June

1995 (Appendix page A-198). The Supreme Court of

Missouri denied Petitioner’s application to transfer on the

nineteenth day of September 1995 (Appendix page A-266).

This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 1257(a) (Appendix page A-2).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of the

United States of America are the Fifth Amendment thereto

and Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment thereto.

Their texts are set forth at Appendix page A-1.

The germane provisions of the Constitution of 1945

of the State of Missouri are Sections 10 and 14 of Article 1

thereof. Their texts are set forth at Appendix page A-2.

i ith bat ieee ae in Be he

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner filed an action to secure his right to

compensation for obtaining a judgment on behalf of the

decedent’s estate of Joseph F. Campbell. Defendants are the

late Joseph F. Campbell's two sons and daughter, who are

equal residuary beneficiaries of the estate, and the

administrator ad litem of the estate. The two sons are also

co-personal representatives of the decedent’s estate

(Appendix pages A-3 through A-10, A-112, A-1 13). On the

eighteenth of September 1995, a petition for writ of

certiorari, No. 95-452, was filed in this Court with respect

to that judgment. It is currently pending.

Petitioner filed his action in a court of general

jurisdiction (Appendix page A-116). Without notice to

Petitioner, the case was transferred to the probate judge who

was in charge of the decedent’s estate and the adversary

actions incident thereto, including the discovery of assets

action that engendered the petition for writ of certiorari, No.

95-452, referred to above (Appendix pages A-112 through A-

116). Although the Transfer Order dated the ninth of June

1994 (Appendix page A-105) showed Petitioner and Janice

C. Campbell as copy recipients, neither received a copy

when the transfer was made (Appendix pages A-116, A-117).

Petitioner’s first knowledge of the assignment of the

action to secure his compensation was the probate judge’s

order of the fourteenth of June 1994 purporting to dismiss

the administrator ad litem (Appendix pages A-106 through A-

109). Petitioner was thereby deprived of the crucial and

absolute right to a peremptory change of judge and the

opportunity to be heard on other issues before an order of

dismissal was entered (Appendix pages A-116, A-117). The

transferee judge on the fifteenth of December 1994 recused

4 3

himself from the decedent’s estate altogether upon being

challenged for bias (Appendix pages A-194 through A-197).

Nevertheless, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western

District, refused to address the constitutional issue of due

process raised by Petitioner (Appendix page A-213).

Moreover, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed in

part (Appendix pages A-198 through A-213) an order issued

without notice or opportunity to be heard on the crucial

matter of the judge who was to consider the same, a

significant right under Missouri law (Appendix pages A-116,

A-117).

Finally, the Missouri Court of Appeals proceeded

beyond its authority and jurisdiction under the Constitution

of Missouri and the United States Constitution by considering

the merits of the case brought to it on appeal, instead of the

unconstitutional conduct of the trial court, which rendered

the dismissal void (Appendix pages A-228, A-250, A-251).

The Supreme Court of Missouri refused to review the

opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals (Appendix page

266).

Petitioner has raised the constitutional issue at the

earliest opportunity and reaffirmed it at each stage of the

appellate process (Appendix pages A-125, A-126, A-214, A-

217, A-218, A-228, A-259).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

es The ruling below, that a state appellate court

may disregard the trial court’s denial of

constitutional due process is a sharp departure

from, and severely undercuts, the well-

established principle of the federal republic

that state courts must enforce the Constitution

and laws of the United States.

It is well established that state courts must enforce the

Constitution of the United States and are themselves subject

to its constraints against denial of due process (Brinkerhoff-

Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 50 Sup.Ct.

451 (1930) at page 454).

A right of action is property entitled to protection

against deprivation without due process of law (16D C.J.S.

Constitutional Law Section 1139 citing Sliosberg v. New

York Life Ins. Co., 216 N.Y.S. 215, 217 App.Div. 67,

affirmed 155 N.E. 749, 244 N.Y. 482 and 155 N.E. 913,

244 N.Y. 599).

In the instant case, Petitioner was deprived of

property without due process of law by the trial court’s

transfer of his cause without notice or the opportu nity to

effect a peremptory change of judge under Rule 51.05 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure (Appendix pages A-116, A-117).

What constitutes due process in a state court is

relatively clear. Due process does not include the disregard

of the state’s constitutional and statutory safeguards. The

sovereign must follow its own rules; failure to do so is a

denial of due process (Bluth v. Laird, 435 F.2d 1065 (C.A.

Va.); Layton v. Swapp, 484 F.Supp. 958 (D.C. Utah; Myers

>. |

v. Parkinson, 398 F.Supp. 727 (D.C. Wis.); Wolf-Lillie v.

Kenosha County Sheriff, 504 F.Supp. 1 (D.C. Wis.), vacated

‘on other grounds, 699 F.2d 864 (C.A.); United States ex.

rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 Sup.Ct. 409

at pages 503 - 504).

The record shows the transferee judge was not merely

biased, but passionately so (Appendix pages A-112 through

A-126 and petition for writ of certiorari No. 95-452). An

unbiased tribunal is fundamental to due process (Schweiker

v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 72 L.Ed.2d 1, 102 Sup.Ct.

1665).

The trial court’s denial of due process to Petitioner

conflicts with this Court’s opinion in Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust

& Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 50 Sup.Ct. 451

(1930). The destruction of Petitioner’s rights of action

without notice or trial is at odds with In re LaMarre, 494

F.2d 753 (U.S.App. 6th Cir. 1974) and Union Pacific R.

Co. v. Syas, 246 F. 561 (U.S.App. 8th Cir.).

The trial court in the instant case has evaded the

protection afforded by Rule 51.05 by transferring a case to

a biased judge without jurisdiction (Appendix pages ) without

notice to the party plaintiff (Appendix pages A-112 through

A-118, A-194 through A-196, A-258 through A-262).

The opinion below tries to justify the trial court’s

conduct on the merits. However, a judgment arrived at in

violation of due process is void, even if it can be justified on

the merits (16D C.J.S. Constitutional Law Section 1168,

citing Inland Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B., C.C.A. 7, 109 F.2d

236, affirmed 71 Sup.Ct. 209, 340 U.S. 193, 95 L.Ed. 207).

No "judgment is just if not obtained by due process of law;

otherwise, courts could enter judgments without trial" (Union

Pacific R. Co. v. Syas, 246 F. 561 (U.S.App. 8th Cir.) at

page 568).

The instant case offers this Court the opportunity to

reaffirm the fundamental precept that state courts cannot

simply disregard the constitutional constraints of the United

States and their respective member states, then strike the

posture that the constitutional issue was not reached. As

noted, a decision reached in violation of due process is a

nullity; hence it must be treated as void. Allowing the

contrary is a license to the courts to defy their subordination

to the rule of law in the conduct of judicial functions.

2. The ruling below, that a state appellate court

may decide on the merits an appeal from a

trial court dismissal entered in violation of

constitutional guaranties of due process of

law, encourages the widespread disregard of

such guaranties by affording a path of easy

evasion.

The opinion below has accepted as an ordinary appeal

the fruit of the poisonous tree, viz., the trial court’s denial of

due process. The opinion thereby encourages the trial courts

to engage in violations of constitutional guaranties and

breaches its own constitutional obligation to supervise the

inferior courts.

The instant case affords this Court the opportunity to

make it clear that the trial courts must deal with the products

of their own breach of constitutional safeguards by the

reversal of decisions wrongly arrived at, and remand to the

trial level, rather than leaving such matters to the appellate

courts to deal with (improperly; see 3 below) as courts of

original jurisdiction.

3. The ruling below, that a state appellate court

may act as a court of original jurisdiction in

deciding an unconstitutionally dismissed case

on the merits, notwithstanding _ state

constitutional limits on its jurisdiction, sows

the seeds of a widespread dilution of

constitutional due process.

The Missouri Court of Appeals is a court of appellate

jurisdiction, which is not to take matters of original

jurisdiction (Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.banc

1978). Moreover, the Missouri Court of Appeals is

constitutionally bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme

Court of Missouri (State _v. Williams, 904 S.W.2d 103

(Mo.App.E.D. 1995), which it has failed and refused to do

in the instant case. Specifically, it has disregarded Bracey v.

Monsanto Company, Inc., 823 S.W.2d 946 (Mo.banc 1992),

which requires that a dismissal be reversed when the petition

sets forth any theory supporting relief. Bracey does not call

for extended consideration of the erroneous dismissal below,

much less taking it on as a matter of original jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding this constitutional structure of

Missouri’s judicial system and the appellate court’s position

in it, the Missouri Court of Appeals has handled the instant

case, before it on the happenstance of the trial court’s denial

of due process, as a court of original jurisdiction. Hence

Petitioner is denied the right to contend at all levels in accord

with the forms of law.

The right of a litigant to a trial in accordance

with the forms of law, and with an

opportunity to present his claim or defense, if

he desires to do so, is a vital part of due

process.

Ackermann v. United States, 178 F.2d 983 (Cir.5 1949). It

is submitted that toleration of arbitrary, precipitate and

uninformed decisions on the merits by appellate courts will

corrode constitutional restraints in judicial proceedings and

promote arbitrary decisions by rash and inadequately

apprised appellate courts that cannot resist the temptation to

make final disposition of cases that fall into their hands.

Such conduct would be a perceived administrative shortcut.

It will, however, expose individuals to the arbitrary and

capricious resolution of disputes. The protection of

individuals against arbitrary state action is the great purpose

of constitutional due process (Wilwording Vv. Swenson, 502

F.2d 844, cert.den. 95 S.Ct. 835, 420 U.S. 912, 42 L.Ed.

843, on remand 405 F.Supp. 447, affirmed 538 F.2d 332).

The Missouri Court of Appeals is under constitutional

injunctions to refrain from the exercise of original

jurisdiction and to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court

of Missouri. Its ultra vires conduct flies in the face of this

Court’s decision in United States ex. rel. Accardi_v.

Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 74 Sup.Ct. 409 and the Sixth

Circuit’s decision in Bluth v. Laird, 435 F.2d 1065, both to

the effect that it is a breach of due process for a sovereign to

act in violation of the limits it sets on itself.

The opinion below is also in conflict with due process

decisions of state courts of last resort other than Missouri's.

See Smith v. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, 415 A.2d 651

(Md.App.1980); Alabama Public Service Commission v.

Mobile Gas Co., 104 So. 538, 213 Ala. 50, 41 A.L.R. 872;

and Steele v. Gann, 123 S.W.2¢ 520, 197 Ark. 480, 120

A.L.R. 754.

The instant case affords this Court the opportunity to

counter the erosion of fundamental principles of judicial fair

dealing by setting forth criteria for the state courts’

adherence to constitutional limitations on their conduct.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the requested writ of

certiorari should issue.

Albert Wilson Luce Moore, Jr.

554 South Ash

Independence, Missouri 64053

Telephone: (816) 254-6070

Counsel of Record Pro Se

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1995

ALBERT W. L. MOORE, JR..,

Petitioner,

Vv.

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et al.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDIX

Table of Contents

DESCRIPTION

Fifth Amendment,

United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment,

United States Constitution

28 U.S.C. Section 1257

Article 1, Section 10

Missouri Constitution 1945

Article 1, Section 14

Missouri Constitution 1945

Petition, March 17, 1994

Transfer order, signed June 9, 1994

Dismissal, filed June 14, 1994

Motion to set aside dismissal,

filed July 14, 1994

Suggestions in support

of motion to set aside dismissal,

filed July 14, 1994

Transcript, Overman fee hearing,

December 15, 1994

A-112

A-194

a: tai

ee ee Se a ee co ee Cie ea i i

ER EM AE EI ic lhl Hea Rie! an trike

Opinion, Missouri Court of Appeals,

June 20, 1995

Motion for rehearing or transfer,

July 5, 1995

Suggestions in support

of rehearing or transfer,

July 5, 1995

Denial of rehearing or transfer,

August 1, 1995

Application for transfer,

August 11, 1995

Suggestions in support

of transfer

Denial of transfer,

September 19, 1995

A-198

A-214

A-217

A-224

A-225

A-258

A-266

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the

land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service

in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be

subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of

life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to

be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law; nor shall private

property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A-1

28 U.S.C. Section 1257

(a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest

court of a State in which a decision could be hade, may be

reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where

the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is

drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any

state is drawn in question on the ground of its being

repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United

States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is

specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the

treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority

exercised under, the United States. -

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "highest

court of a State" includes the District of Columbia Court of

Appeals.

Article 1, Section 10, Missouri Constitution 1945

That no person shell be deprived of life, liberty or

property without due process of law.

Article 1, Section 14, Missouri Constitution 1945

That the courts of justice shall be open to every

person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to

person, property or character, and that right and justice shall

be administered without sale denial or delay.

A-2

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI, AT INDEPENDENCE

ALBERT W. L. MOORE, JR.

554 South Ash

Independence, Missouri 64053

Plaintiff

Vv.

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

7065 East Calle Betelgeux

Tucson, Arizona 85710

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL

1509 50th Street North

Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

RICHARD F. CAMPBELL

18819 East 5th Street North

Independence, Missouri 64056

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL as

Co-personal Representative of

the decedent’s estate of Joseph

F. Campbell, Decedent's Estate

No. 30836, Jackson County,

Missouri

serve at 1509 50th Street North

Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

A-3

)

Case No. CV94-5667

RICHARD F. CAMPBELL as

Co-personal Representative of

the decedent’s estate of Joseph

F. Campbell, Decedent’s Estate

No. 30836, Jackson County,

Missouri

serve at 1509 50th Street North

Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

and

REBBECCA LAKE OVERMAN

Administrator ad Litem in the

decedent’s estate of Joseph

F. Campbell, Decedent’s Estate

No. 30836, Jackson County,

Missouri

serve at 221 West Lexington

Independence, Missouri 64050

i ee ae ae a ae a ee a a Le a a Le La a a ee a

Defendants.

COUNT I: PETITION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEE

COMES NOW Plaintiff and for his first cause of

action against Defendants herein, for attorney’s fee, states

and shows the Court as follows:

A-4

1. Plaintiff is engaged in the practice of law in the

State Missouri and in said capacity was employed by

Defendant Janice C. Campbell to advise and consult with her

in connection with legal matters in which said Defendant was

involved, and in the general course of said Defendant’s

affairs. Such employment commenced on or about the

twenty-first day of September 1992, and has continued until

the present day; during said time, Plaintiff has represented

said defendant as her attorney in a discovery of assets action

on behalf of the decedent’s estate of Joseph F. Campbell,

Estate No. 30836 currently under probate in the Probate

Division of this court ("the estate") as set forth in Exhibit 1

attached hereto and by this reference made part hereof and,

while Defendant Janice C. Campbell has paid to Plaintiff

amounts on account from time to time, said Defendant has

failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to pay

Plaintiff’s complete billing as established by the services

rendered according to the Exhibit 1 referred to in this

paragraph.

2. Plaintiff maintains offices in Eastern Jackson

County. Defendants live, work or may be found in Eastern

Jackson County. The estate is being probated in Eastern

Jackson County.

3. Asa direct result of Plaintiff's representation of

Defendant Janice C. Campbell on behalf of the estate, the

Probate Division on the second day of March 1994 entered

a judgment in favor of Defendant Rebbecca Lake Overmati

as administrator ad litem of the estate in an amount in excess

of $200,000.00. A photocopy of said judgment is attached

as Exhibit 2 hereto.

4. The balance of fees and disbursements owed to

Plaintiff as of the twenty-eighth day of February 1994 is in

the amount of Sixty-one Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty

Dollars and Twenty-eight Cents ($61,830.28); said sum

represents a reasonable fee for services so rendered by

Plaintiff as set forth herein.

5. Plaintiff has made demand for payment of the

balance due for said representation, and Defendants have

failed and refused and still fail and refuse to pay the same.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against

Defendant Janice C. Campbell and against Defendants Joseph

E. Campbell, Richard F. Campbell and Rebbecca Lake

Overman in their capacity as representatives of the estate of

Joseph F. Campbell, deceased, Decedent’s Estate No. 30836

in the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson

County, Missouri, at Independence, in the amount of Sixty-

one Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Dollars and Twenty-

eight Cents ($61,830.28) with interest thereon at the rate of

nine per cent (9%) from the fifteenth day of March 1994,

fees and disbursements since the twenty-eighth day of

February 1994, and Plaintiff's costs herein expended.

COUNT Il: FORECLOSURE OF LIEN

COMES NOW Plaintiff and for his second cause of

action against Defendants herein, for the foreclosure of

attorney’s lien, states and shows the Court as follows:

6. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 5 above

and repeats and repleads the same as if fully set forth herein.

7. During and pursuant to Plaintiff’s representation

of Defendant Janice C. Campbell against Defendants Joseph

A-6

E. Campbell and Richard F. Campbell, in a discovery of

assets proceeding for and on behalf of the estate, the Probate

Division of this Court entered a judgment for and on behaif

of the administrator ad litem of said estate. Defendants

Janice C. Campbell, Joseph E. Campbell and Richard F.

Campbell are judgment debtors and equal beneficiaries of the

said estate.

8. By notice, a photocopy of which is attached as

Exhibit 3 hereto, a lien was impressed upon the recovery by

the estate and payments to be made therefrom.

9. Notwithstanding such notice, no Defendant herein

has made any payment to Plaintiff since the judgment date.

10. By their conduct and said judgment, Defendants

have deforced said lien and become liable therefor to the

extent of said deforcement.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter an

order foreclosing the interests of Defendants Joseph E.

Campbell and Richard F. Campbell in their capacity as Co-

personal Representatives and Rebbecca Lake Overman as

administrator ad litem of the estate, enter judgment against

Defendants Janice C. Campbell, Joseph E. Campbell and

Richard F. Campbell personally for deforcement of the lien,

and direct that the proceeds of judgment and the current

assets in the hands of the Probate Division be paid to

Plaintiff until Plaintiff has been paid Sixty-one Thousand

Eight Hundred Thirty Dollars and Twenty-eight Cents

($61,830.28) with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent

per annum from the fifteenth day of March 1994 and accrued

fees and disbursements since the twenty-eighth day of

February 1994, together with his costs herein expended, until

Plaintiff has been fully paid.

A-7

NT Ill: :

COMES NOW Plaintiff and for his third cause of

action against Defendants, for creditor’s bill, states and

shows the Court as follows:

11. Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 1 through 5 and 7

through 10 above and repeats and repleads the same as if

fully set forth herein.

12. Defendants Joseph E. Campbell, Richard F.

Campbell and Rebbecca Lake Overman have submitted to the

Probate Division of the Court, and the Probate Division has

unlawfully entered as a judgment without the signature of

Janice C. Campbell required by Section 473.085 of the

Revised Statutes of Missouri, a purported compromise

settlement. The said Section 473.085 requires any such

settlement to be reduced to "an agreement in writing ...

executed by all competent persons ... having beneficial

interests ....". Said judgment is therefore void. The

purported judgment is also void for being entered in violation

of the constitutional rights of Defendant Janice C. Campbell

to a jury trial and due process of law. Said void judgment

purports to set off mutual obligations to the prejudice of

Plaintiff's equitable interests, after notice of said interests to

the Probate Division and all parties and counsel.

13. Defendant Rebbecca Lake Overman proposes to

eviscerate the fund now in custodia legis by selling its most

valuable and productive asset and dissipating the proceeds by

the payment of claims as yet unspecified in nature and

amount, and to this end she has petitioned the Probate

Division for leave to sell said asset.

A-8

14. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Assets

in custodia legis are not subject to levy. The purported

judgment of the second of March 1994 would largely

preclude actual collection of the judgment by inequitable

offsets for distributive shares, which offsets would

themselves consist largely of the judgment debt. The

Defendant administrator ad litem has not allowed the

payment of Plaintiff from assets that are purportedly in her

custody. Attempts to collect from the individual Defendants

would multiply litigation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter an

order:

a. enjoining Defendants Joseph E. Campbell, Richard

F. Campbell and Rebbecca Lake Overman in their Capacities

as personal representatives of the estate from any and all

sales of assets thereof and all- expenditures for claims,

expenses or distributions until a final settlement has been

prepared for the estate and approved by this Court, and then

only in accordance with said final probate settlement;

b. directing Joseph E. Campbell, Richard F.

Campbell and Rebbecca Lake Overman in their Capacities as

personal representatives of the estate to allow as part of said

final settlement the payment to Plaintiff of Sixty-one

Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Dollars and Twenty-eight

Cents ($61,830.28) and fees and disbursements accrued

thereafter, with interest and the costs of this action, in

discharge of his lien and recovery for the deforcement

thereof, collecting to the extent necessary the judgment

rendered on the second of March 1994. pending the

resolution of Petitioner’s appeal from said judgment;

c. enjoining Defendants Joseph E. Campbell, Richard

F. Campbell and Janice C. Campbell from selling,

transferring, or interfering with the property, debts, choses

in action and equitable interests described in the purported

A-9

judgment of the second of March 1994 or successor thereto

or currently under their control in the decedent's estate;

d. enjoining Defendants from making any assignment

or confessing any judgment to enable creditors or persons

other than Plaintiff to obtain a preference over Plaintiff or

take any portion of property that could be applied to the

purported judgment of the second of March 1994 or

successor thereto or Count I of this petition;

€. appointing a receiver of all the amounts due and

to become due under the purported judgment of the second

of March 1994 or successor thereto and applying the same to

the costs of this action and the judgment under Count I above

and after the same shall have been fully paid any excess to

the estate; and

f. directing Defendants Joseph E. Campbell, Richard

F. Campbell and Rebbecca Lake Overman, as personal

representatives of the estate, to pay to the said receiver all

payments to which any Defendant is or may become entitled

until Plaintiff be fully paid.

Respectfully submitted,

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. #18921

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

PRO SE

A-10

3 February

5 February

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

TIME EXPENSE

Preparation of objections

to settlement proposal,

research and analysis,

telephone conferences with

Wayne Julian and

Ashenfelter incident thereto 2.7

Preparation of objections;

telephone conference

with Kurt Ashenfelter 4

Conference outside office,

Wayne Julian and Kurt Ashenfelter

re financial exhibits,

travel time 1.0

Preparation of objections to

proposed settlement,

conference outside office

with Kurt Ashenfelter

re financial exhibits 1.9

Preparation of objections

to settlement proposal 4.5

Preparation of objections

to settlement proposal 4.0

Exhibit 1

A-11

6 February

7 February

8 February

Preparation of motion for

mistrial, suggestions in support,

proposed order, objections to

proposed settlement 4.0

Preparation of objections

to proposed settlement,

including conference in office

with Kurt Ashenfelter 3.5

Preparation of objections,

including conference in office,

Kurt Ashenfelter, conference

outside office, Wayne Julian,

conference outside office,

Probate Clerk re filing of

motion for mistrial 4.0

Mailing expenses

Preparation of objections,

including telephone conferences

with Julian and Kurt Ashenfelter,

conference outside office

with same 4.0

Preparation of objections

to proposed settlement 4.0

Exhibit indexes

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk, filed objections

to proposed settlement,

allocated travel time 4

A-12

$5.00

$12.75

8 February

9 February

16 February

18 February

21 February

Postage

Telephone conferences,

Kurt Ashenfelter, petition

to sell shares, misc. J

Preparation of response

to petition, research and

analysis incident thereto 2.0

Preparation of response

to petition, research and

analysis incident thereto 8

Preparation of response

to petition to sell stock,

claim by Janice C. Campbell

for legal expenses,

research and analysis

incident to foregoing 4.2

Preparation of response

to petition to sell shares,

research and analysis and

telephone conference with

Kurtis Ashenfelter

incident thereto 2.0

C.A.S.E. service of subpoenas

Preparation of response

to petition for order to

sell Ford stock a

A-13

$11.80

$200.00

22 February Preparation for conference

in office with Janice C. Campbell

and Kurt Ashenfelter, |

response to petition, claim 2.8 |

22 February Conference in office,

Kurt Ashenfelter |

re response to |

petition, claim ‘i

22 February Conference in office,

Janice C. Campbell;

conference outside office,

filed response to petition,

travel time 3S

Trust deposit due,

31 January 1994 $54,952.73

47.8 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $7,648.00

Total expense $229.55

Total deposit required,

28 February 1994 $62,830.28

A-14

DATE

1994

1 January

3 January

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

TIME EXPENSE

Telephone tolls:

$ 2.68

$ 1.84

$ 6.73

$13.32

$ 7.88

$ 2.64

$ .63

$ 1.67

$ 4.50

$12.39

$ 1.34

$52.56 $108.18

Allocated travel time,

telephone conference with

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

and Janice C. Campbell

re status 2

Conference outside office,

filing of interim submission

of Arizona court file;

allocated travel time e

A-15

5 January

6 January

10 January

Preparation for trial,

request for clarification,

response to order

to testify, misc.

Preparation for trial,

including telephone

conference with

Janice C. Campbell,

preparation of

response to order

to testify

Preparation for trial,

Janice C. Campbell

affidavit

Preparation for trial,

Janice C. Campbell

affidavit

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response to Court’s

order of 16 December 1993

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993

A-16

2.0

3.0

12 January

13 January

a ck all ie

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993 1.0

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993 Ae

Conference outside office,

Harris re subpoenas |

20 miles to court house

and return @ $.28/mile $5.60

Parking $1.00

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response to Court’s

order of 16 December 1993 1.5

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993 I

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s order

of 16 December 1993,

research and analysis

incident thereto 1.0

A-17

15 January _‘ Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response, telephone

conferences with

Kurt Ashenfelter,

transmission of

draft affidavit 7.8

16 January _‘— Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response to Court’s

order to testify 1.0

16 January _ Preparation for trial, ;

including preparation

of response to Court’s

order to testify 6.0

17 January _‘~ Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of response to Court’s

order to testify 1.5

16 January _‘ Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

response to Court’s

order to testify 2.6

17 January _‘ Preparation for trial,

including telephone conference

with Kurt Ashenfelter 3.2

17 January _— Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas 1.6

A-18

18 January

19 January

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas, telephone

conferences re service of

second amended petition 3.7

Preparation for trial,

including telephone conference

with Kurt Ashenfelter on

status, telephone conference

on service of subpoenas,

preparation of subpoenas,

conference outside office,

filed response to order

to testify Ce

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas, motion

for continuance 1.4

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas and

motion for continuance 2.8

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas and motion;

conference outside office,

filed motion, allocated

travel time ty

A-19

20 January

21 January

22 January

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

subpoenas, conference with

process-server 4.0

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas 3.9

Service fees, subpoenas

Preparation for trial,

including preparation

of subpoenas 2.7

79 photocopies

@ $.15

Preparation for trial,

including telephone

conference with

Kurt Ashenfelter 4.0

Service fees, subpoenas

Preparation for trial av

Preparation for trial,

including telephone conferences

with Mitchells, Kurt Ashenfelter,

preparation of letter to

Mitchells, returns of service

on Joseph E. Campbell 3.0

A-20

$225.00

$11.85

$200.00

22 January

23 January

24 January

Service of subpoenas

Preparation for trial,

research and analysis incident

thereto, drafting instructions,

Ping questions y Ge

Preparation for trial,

including drafting of

jury instructions,

research and analysis

incident thereto 3.5

Preparation for trial,

including drafting of

jury instructions,

research and analysis

incident thereto 3.0

Preparation for trial,

including conferences

in office with Kurt Ashenfelter

and Janice C. Campbell a

Conference outside office,

Court Reporter;

appearance and trial;

preparation for following

day of trial 12.0

20 miles to courthouse

and back @ $.28

Parking

A-21

$75.00

$5.60

$4.50

25 January

26 January

27 January

28 January

Trial appearance and

trial preparation 14.0

20 miles to and from

courthouse @ $.28

Parking

Appearance, preparation

for trial, trial 13.0

Parking

20 miles @ $.28

Appearance for trial,

preparation therefor 8.0

Parking

20 miles @ $.28

Conference in office,

Kurt Ashenfelter re status 3

Conference outside office,

Kurt Ashenfelter and

Janice C. Campbell re status,

evidence, next moves n/c 3.0

A-22

$5.60

$4.50

$5.60

$5.50

$5.60

30 January

31 January

Preparation of petition

for writ of mandamus,

notice, suggestions in support,

motion to waive

5-day period 2:5

Preparation of petition,

suggestions, notice and

motion to waive

5-day period 1.0

Preparation of petition,

suggestions, notice and motion

to waive 5-day notice,

research and analysis

incident thereto;

conference in office

with Kurt Ashenfelter 4.0

Preparation to file

petition and suggestions,

telephone conference

with court clerk : 1.7

Parking

20 miles to and from

court house @ $.28

A-23

$1.00

$5.60

Trust deposit due,

31 December 1993

Received on account,

3 January 1994

Received on account,

18 January 1994

Received on account,

25 January 1994

156.8 hours

@ $160.00 per hour

Total expense

Total deposit required,

31 January 1994

$30,490.10

($500.00)

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

DATE TIME EXPENSE

1993

2 December Ibarra consultation $75.00

13 December Preparation of responses

to requests for production

and motion for protective

order, research and

analysis incident thereto;

telephone conferences

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis Ashenfelter re facts 3.0

15 December Preparation of motion for

protective order, suggestions

in support thereof and

proposed order, including

research and analysis and

telephone conference

with Kurtis Ashenfelter 4.0

15 December Photocopies of divorce records $16.00

16 December Photocopies of

bank statements $.54

16 December Photocopies of

divorce records $17.00

A-25

16 December Certified conservatorship file $43.75

16 December Preparation, service and

filing of motion, suggestions

and proposed order 3.0

17 December Telephone conference,

Kurtis Ashenfelter re

status of documents;

research and analysis

on public record h-./

17 December 11 photocopies

@ $.15 $1.65

17 December Telephone conference,

Kurtis Ashenfelter

re status 1

19 December Review and analysis

of documents

from Kurtis Ashenfelter 5

20 December Preparation for telephone

conference with Janice C. Campbell

and Kurtis Ashenfelter,

preparation of interim

submission of redacted

Arizona court file to

Missouri Court, further

review and analysis incident

thereto; telephone conference

with Kurtis Ashenfelt

and Janice Campbell 4.2

A-26

23 December Review and analysis of

CFR sections; preparation

of letter to new Independence

Police Chief 2.6

24 December Correction and revision

of letter to Independence

Police Chief and interim

submission of redacted

Arizona Superior Court file;

preparation of letter to

Kurtis Ashenfelter Pe

27 December Prezaration for trial and

response to Court’s order

on motions 2.3

27 December Preparation for trial and

response to Court’s order

sustaining in part motion

for sanctions 1.7

27 December Preparation for trial

and response to order,

including telephone

conference with

Kurtis Ashenfelter and

Janice C. Campbell 2.0

A-27

i i fii

Trust deposit due

vember 1993 $26,525.45

Received on account,

16 December 1993 _ ($77.29)

24.3 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $3,888.00

Total expense $153.94

Total deposit required,

31 December 1993 30,490.10

A-28

1 November

2 November

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

TIMEEXPENSE

Conference in office,

Kurtis Ashenfelter,

preparation of motion,

suggestions in support,

proposed order to take

charge of realty, telephone

conferences with Light

office and Overman 2.5

Preparation of motion to

take charge of estate,

suggestions in support,

corrections and revisions

thereof, research and analysis

incident thereto

Preparation for production

of documents, preparation of

motion to take charge of real

estate, corrections and

revisions thereof, conference

in office with Janice C. Campbell

re motion, etc. 1.2

Production of documents

by Joseph E. Campbell 2.3

A-29

2 November

3 November

4 November

6 November

7 November

8 November

638 photocopies @ $.15

Telephone conference,

Peg, re viewing

of property a

Production of documents;

travel time 2:5

780 photocopies

@ $.04 plus tax

Telephone conferences,

Hoffman and Kurtis Ashenfelter

re house inspection a

Preparation for house inspection,

research and analysis

incident thereto 4

Viewed property, travel time,

conferences later with

Kurtis Ashenfelter and

Janice C. Campbell 2.0

Preparation for trial,

including research and analysis,

dementia, factual investigation

and analysis, bank records 1.3

Preparation for trial

including review and analysis

of financial records 8

A-30

$95.70

$33.06

a ee ee a ae ee eee ee eee Pee

8 November Office Max, 579 photocopies $24.54

8 November Production of documents,

Joseph E. Campbell,

allocated travel time 2.0

10 November Preparation of motion

for protective order,

suggestions in support,

proposed order,

research and analysis

incident thereto 1.4

10 November Conference outside office,

Court Administrator,

filed motion for protective order,

Joseph E. Campbell, production

of documents,

allocated travel time 2.0

10 November Office Max, 189 photocopies $8.01

10 November Telephone conferences,

Les Wight re Kurtis Ashenfelter,

Respondents’ production 1

10 November Telephone conference,

Kurtis Ashenfelter re

status and discovery ey

11 November Research and analysis,

champerty and maintenance .6

A-31

11 November Review and analysis

of documents 3.0

13 November Conference in office,

Janice C. Campbell and

Jack Gann re testimony 1.0

17 November Conference in office,

Kurtis Ashenfelter

re status 5

18 November Transcript of Janice C. Campbell $230.00

18 November Conference in office, |

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter |

and Janice C. Campbell |

re discovery, status, |

priorities 2.8

18 November Photocopies $15.89

22 November Conference in office,

Kurtis Ashenfelter re

discovery, houses

and Respondents’

latest filings 2.0

26 November Conference in office,

Kurtis Ashenfelter re :

jre-trial discovery |

27 November Preparation for trial,

including responses to |

16 November 1993 filings

by Respondents 2

A-32

27 November

28 November

29 November

Preparation for trial,

including preparation of

motion to amend suggestions

in support, proposed order,

letter to Janice C. Campbell 2.8.

Preparation for trial,

including responses

to Respondents’

latest pleadings 7.0

Photocopies $30.68

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk, filed motion

to amend and suggestions,

suggestions against conservator,

sanctions, amended suggestions

for protective order 3

Conference outside office,

City of Independence re

utilities bills,

travel time a

City of Independence,

copies of utilities bills $15.00

Postage $10.62

A-33

Trust deposit due,

31 October 1993 $19,881.84

Received on account,

1 November 1993 ($70.00)

Received on account,

18 November 1993 ($15.89)

Received on account,

19 November 1993 ($230.00)

40.6 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $6,496.00

Total expense $463.50

Trust deposit required,

30 November 1993 $26,525.45

A-34

DATE

1993

3 October

4 October

5 October

STATEMENT

Janice C. Campbell

Preparation, suggestions

in support of motion to

enforce discovery

Telephone conference,

Wight re

possible settlement

Formulation of

possible counteroffer

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter and

Janice C. Campbell

re settlement

Preparation of motion for

enforcement of discovery;

telephone conference with

Judge Borron and Les Wight

re scheduling of discovery

hearing and trial

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

settlement, strategy

and status

A-35

3.0

es)

5 October

6 October

7 October

Preparation, suggestions in

support of motion for —

enforcement of discovery,

suggestions in opposition

to continuance, suggestions

in Opposition to

scheduling order |

247 photocopies @ $.15

Postage

Preparation for

Richard F. Campbell

deposition 9

Preparation for

Richard F. Campbell

deposition, deposition 3.5

Preparation, letter to Wight,

telephone conference with

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter and

Janice re Richard F.

testimony, evidence,

settlement proposal 2-3

Exhibit indexes

Conference outside office,

Dr. Ibarra re expert

testimony, allocated

travel time a

A-36

$37.05

$5.80

$8.00

7 October

8 October

11 October

12 October

20 miles to and from

conference outside

office @ $.26

Parking

Deposition of

Joseph E. Campbell and

preparation therefor

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

travel plans, view of

property, other pre-trial

discovery

Preparation for

discovery hearing, trial

Preparation for

discovery hearing,

including preparation

of subpoenas, telephone

conferences with

Judge’s chambers

Preparation for discovery

hearing, including

preparation of subpoenas

Telephone conferences,

court reporter re transcript

A-37

6.0

)

$5.20

$1.50

12 October

13 October

15 October

16 October

17 October

Telephone conference,

private investigator re

service of subpoenas

Service fees

Preparation for

18 October 93

Preparation for hearing,

including review and

analysis of Respondents’

motion for sanctions,

preparation of

letter to Wight

Preparation for

18 October 93 hearing

Preparation for

18 October 93 hearing

Preparation for

18 October 93 hearing

on enforcement

of discovery

Preparation for

18 October 93 hearing

A-38

1.5

2.0

3.0

$75.00

17 October

18 October

19 October

20 October

Preparation for

18 October 93 hearing,

including telephone

conference with

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter 2.5

Hearing, preparation therefor,

including conference outside

office with C.A.S.E. re

service on Richard F. Campbell

and Joseph E. Campbell,

travel time, conference

outside office and telephone

conference re

deposition schedule, etc. 4.0

Conference in office with

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter,

preparation therefor 2.5

60 photocopies @ $.15

Conference in office,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter and

Janice C. Campbell re

evidence and witnesses 2.5

Preparation for

Janice C. Campbell

deposition br

A-39

$9.00

20 October

21 October

22 October

24 October

25 October

26 October

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter;

status and plans for action 5

Conference in office,

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

evidence; preparation of

letters to Overman and

Glenna Campbell 3.0

Preparation for

conference in office

with Janice C. Campbell

and Kurtis B. Ashenfelter 8

Review and analysis

of Paden Welch file 1.5

Conference in office,

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter;

telephone conferences,

Townsquare Management and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

evidence and management of

real estate a

Preparation for conference

in office with

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

and Janice C. Campbell 1.2

A-40

—e ian en

26 October

27 October

30 October

Conferences with

Janice C. Campbell and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter 5.0

Preparation for

Janice C. Campbell deposition,

including research

and analysis 1.2

Preparation for

Janice C. Campbell

deposition, including

research and analysis 1.0

Conferences outside office

and deposition of

Janice C. Campbell,

travel time 6.0

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re events, status iS

Preparation of letter to

Overman and Wight re

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter’s status

as a non-party a

Conference in office,

Gary White, re Campbell

brothers and conduct

in respect of

decedent’s property 9

A-41

31 October Preparation, letters and

enclosures to Wight,

Overman, IRS

Trust deposit due,

30 September 1993

Received on account,

14 October 1993

70.8 hours

@ $160 per hour

Total expense

Trust deposit required,

31 October 1993

A-42

1.5

$8,912.29

($500.00)

$11,328.00

$141.55

19 881.84

STATEMENT

Janice C. Campbell

DATE TIME EXPENSE

1993

1 September Pre-trial discovery,

including review of

letter from Warr 1

2 September Pre-trial discovery,

including telephone

conference with Independence

Regional Health Center

counsel, preparation of

letter to her, affidavit

under uniform business

records as evidence act 2.0

2 September Preparation for depositions

and trial, pre-trial discovery,

including telephone conference

with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter .6

2 September Preparation for deposition,

including research and

analysis of law on survival

of attorney-client privilege;

returned call from Les D. Wight;

left word 1.7

A-43

3 September

4 September

——

6 September

Review and analysis of

letter from Julian

re deposition a

Initial review and analysis

of Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

letter and enclosures,

and Respondents’ motion

to quash subpoenas, and

motion for counterclaim 3

Review and analysis of

motion to quash;

preparation of suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to quash and motion to

order respondents to

authorize disclosure of

legal and accounting records,

suggestions in support thereof

and proposed order,

research and analysis

incident thereto 4d

Preparation of suggestions

in Opposition to motion to

quash; corrections and

revisions thereof, research

and analysis incident thereto;

preparation for

Warr deposition 4.0

A-44

7 September

8 September

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk, Warr, Wight,

Overman, re depositions,

filing of suggestions in

Opposition to motion to quash,

motion for order to authorize

disclosure of legal and

accounting, telephone

conferences re scheduling 2.5

Telephone conference,

Julian re scheduling of

depositions; preparation

of letters re scheduling,

telephone conferences

re scheduling con =

Parking

Telepho1. conference,

Overman re scheduling,

preparation of letters

in light of Warr position

on release, cover letter to

Overman re case, preparation

for depositions te .

Postage

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re status 3

A-45

$3.00

$2.00

8 September Preparation, letter to

Overman, corrections

and revisions thereof

9 September Preparation of letters to

Judge Borron and

Respondents’ counsel

10 September Telephone corferences,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re status,

Feutz-Harters’s office re

Medical Center records

11 September Court reporter

11 September Preparation of suggestions

in Opposition to motion to

allow counterclaim

12 September Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion,

letters to Borron

and Overman

A-46

$120.00

2.7

4. Ts

® Bein 5 tale

13 September Preparation of letters to

administrator ad litem and

counsel for Respondents,

telephone conferences with

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter and

Judge Borron’s chambers,

preparation for conference

with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter;

conference in office with

Ashenfelter, conference outside

office with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

and Health Center

medical records 3.5

13 September Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion for

leave to file counter-claim,

research and analysis

incident thereto 1.1

14 September Copies from Independence Regional

Health Center $77.50

14 September Preparation for conference

in office with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter,

review of letter from Wight,

preparation of letter to

Overman, corrections and

revisions of suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to file counter-claim,

preparation for depositions,

possible settlement conference

and trial, research and analysis

incident to foregoing 2.0

A-47

14 September 95 photocopies @ $.15 $14.25

14 September 352 photocopies @ $.15 $52.80

15 September Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re possible meetings;

telephone call to Overman

office, left word m |

15 September Preparation for trial,

including initiation of

review and analysis of

Independence Regional

Health Center records, |

telephone conference re

possible expert 7

15 September Conference outside office,

served and filed suggestions

in Opposition to motion for

counter-claim,

allocated travel time is

15 September Postage $1.96

15 September Parking $1.25

15 September 20 miles to and from

court house @ $.26 $5.20

A-48

15 September Preparation for depositions

and trial, including research

and analysis, review of hospital

and land records, telephone

conference with

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter &

15 September Conference outside office,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re evidence 4

16 September Conference in office,

Kurtis B: Ashenfelter

re status,

financial analysis 1.2

16 September Conference in office,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

status, financial analysis 4

16 September Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

record of 27 Aprii 1992

proceeding J

17 September Preparation for conference

outside office with

Judge Borron and Wight,

including conference in office

with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter .5

A-49

17 September

20 September

21 September

22 September

Preparation for cunference

outside office with Borron

and Wight, depositions, trial;

conference outside office,

Borron and Wight, travel time;

preparation of lette.’s to

Judge Borron and

Janice C. Campbell 5.0

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

status, course of

conference outside office

with Wight and Borron 1.0

Preparation for depositions,

including letters to Overman,

Wight, Warr and Julian,

telephone conference

with reporter 1.7

Preparation for depositions,

telephone conferences and

letters to reschedule; research

and analysis, privilege 2.6

Research and analysis,

privileged communications;

preparation of letter to

Tilling; preparation for

Warr deposition 1.9

Preparation for depositions .5

A-50

22 September Telephone conferences re

new date and time for

Warr deposition;

preparation of letter

to Warr re new date

and time ‘3

22 September Preparation for depositions,

including research and analysis,

privileged communications .4

23 September Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk re subpoenas,

travel time ‘a

23 September Reviewed letter from Warr;

preparation, responses 3

23 September 37 photocopies @ $.15 $5.55

23 September Research and analysis

re claim of privilege by

fiduciary in action by

beneficiary re the trust 1.1

24 September Telephone confevences,

Overman and Wight offices

re scheduling of depositions;

preparation, motion for

protective order, research

and analysis incident thereto;

preparation of letter to Warr

re scheduling of deposition 3.5

A-51

24 September Preparation of motion

for protective order and

suggestions in support 1.2

24 September Preparation of suggestions

in support of motion for

protective order, research

and analysis

incident thereto -

24 September Preparation, proposed

protective order 2

24 September Telephone conferences,

Cross and Tilling re

deposition; corrections and

revisions of suggestions 4

24 September Corrections and revisions

of motion for protective order,

suggestions in support and

proposed order, telephone call

to Janice C. Campbell,

left word 1.5

25 September Preparation of depositions

and letter to Wight

re pre-trial discovery 2.5

26 September Preparation for

Tilling deposition 7

A-52

26 September Preparation for depositions,

research and analysis incident

thereto, telephone conference

with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re status, telephone conference

with Ninfa Redmond re expert

witness on Joseph F. Campbell's

competency ie

26 September 40 photocopies @ $.15

27 September Preparation for Tilling

deposition; conference outside

office, Probate Clerk’s

office, filed motion for

protective order; Tilling

deposition, travel time 3.5

27 September 20 miles @ $.26

27 September Preparation for Julian

deposition, research and

analysis incident thereto;

telephone conferences to

offices of potential expert

witnesses; Julian deposition,

travel time incident thereto 3.0

27 September Telephone conference,

Dr. Kapf re

expert witnesses 1

A-53

$6.00

$5.20

27 September

28 September

29 September

Preparation for

Richard F. Campbell

deposition 3.0

Preparation for

Richard F. Campbell deposition,

waiting for him, telephone

conferences with Court Reporter

and Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re form of subpoena,

addresses for service,

preparation of motion

to enforce discovery,

telephone call to

Judge Borron’s chambers

re hearing date 2.7

Preparation of suggestions

in support of motion for

enforcement of discovery,

research and analysis incident

thereto; initial review and

analysis of Respondents’

motion for scheduling order

and suggestions in

Opposition to motion for

protective order 1.4

Telephone conference,

Dr. Ibarra’s office re

consulting; research and

analysis re scope of

desired testimony 6

A-54

eee is

Pee Sr ees

29 September Telephone conference

Dr. Ibarra re consulting 3

30 September Preparation, reply to

answer to motion for

protective order, suggestions

in Opposition to motion for

discovery scheduling order,

suggestions in opposition

to motion for continuance 2.0

30 September Preparation, reply to answer

to motion for protective order,

suggestions in opposition to

motion for discovery scheduling

order, suggestions in opposition

to motion for continuance 2.0

30 September Court Reporter, Tilling and

Julian depositions $206.80

A-55

88.5 hours

@ $160.00 per hour

Total expenses

Previous retainer balance

Received on account,

September 10, 1993

Received on account,

13 September 1993

Favored client discount

Remaining retainer

Trust deposit needed to

restore retainer to

$1,000.00 level

($7,912.29 + $1,000.00)

A-56

$14,160.00

$501.51

$361.71

($1,000.00)

($77.50)

($5,310.00)

($7,912.29)

7 August

17 August

18 August

STATEMENT

Janice C. Campbell

Telephone conference, :

Rhonda, Les Wight’s :

office, re scheduling

of deposition

of Janice Campbell 1

Preparation, letter

to Respondents’ counsel

re discovery, compliance

with Court orders ia

Review and analysis of

documents produced and

responses to interrogatories;

preparation, letter

to Les Wight 3

Preparation, letters to

Les Wight, Janice C. Campbell,

affidavit mS

Preparation of motion for

partial distribution,

including correction and

revision of draft affidavit 9

A-57

18 August

19 August

22 August

23 August

24 August

Preparation, motion for

partial distribution,

especially exhibits

Preparation, motion for

partial distribution,

corrections and revisions

of first draft nt

Telephone conference,

Respondents’ counsel

re deposition, other

pending matters

Telefax message

Review and analysis of

letters from counsel for

Respondents; preparation,

letter to counsel

Exhibit indexes

Telephone conference,

Janice C. Campbell re

telephone conference

on 24 August 1993

Telephone conference,

Janice C. Campbell

and Kurt Ashenfelter

re pre-trial discovery

A-58

$4.00

$5.96

25 August

27 August

29 August.

Preparation for deposition,

including preparation

of letter to

Respondents’ counsel 4

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

date correction

in affidavit n/c A

Preparation for depositions

and trial, pre-trial discovery,

including affidavit, subpoenas,

letters, telephone call to

Independence Regional Health

Center counsel 1.6

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk, filed motion

for partial distribution,

allocated travel time 5

Telephone conference,

reporter re service

of subpoenas,

notices, telefacsimile e

199 photocopies @ $.15 $29.85

Preparation of letter to

Janice C. Campbell

re discovery mI

A-59

30 August Telephone conference,

Rebbecca Overman re

scheduling of depositions;

preparation, letters

to deponents ry

31 August Postage $4.10

5.9 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $944.00

Total expense $43.91

Previous retainer balance $349.62

Payment on account

24 August 1993 ($1,000.00)

Remaining retainer $361.71

Trust deposit needed to

restore retainer to

agreed $1,000.00 level

($1,000.00 - $361.71) $638.29

A-60

DATE

EXPENSES

1993

1 July

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

TIME

Telephone conference,

Court Administrator’s

office re photocopies si

Court Administrator, photocopies

Preparation of lis pendens 2

Conferences outside office,

Recorder’s office re

Joseph E. Campbell

ownership of Lot 8,

Sandalwood, Blue Springs,

filing of lis pendens,

Court Administrator’s

office re copies,

computer - aided legal

search, misc., travel time 9

139 photocopies @ $.15

County Recorder, lis pendens filing

Reviewed Dr. Sosa-Roche’s

statements |

A-61

$69.50

$20.85

$12.00

fa el

2 July

5 July

6 July

Review and analysis of

photocopies from

Joseph E. Campbell

divorce file 6

Postage

Review and analysis

of Wight letter; preparation

of letter to Borron 4

Preparation of

first interrogatories 5

Preparation of

first interrogatories 4

Preparation of

first interrogatories

and first set of

requests for production

of documents 1.5

Preparation of first

interrogatories and

requests for production

of documents 5

Preparation of first

interrogatories and

requests of production 4

A-62

$2.90

9 July

10 July

12 July

Review and analysis of

eight orders of 7 July 1993;

preparation of letter to

Kurt B. Ashenfelter ‘2

51 photocopies @ $.15

Postage

Preparation of letter

to Kurtis B. Ashenfelter a

Postage

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

Borron orders, status of

motion for appointment

of guardian/conservator,

pre-trial discovery,

Status as temporary conservator,

possible partial distribution 5

A-63

$1.21

5.4 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $864.00

Total expense $116.25

Previous retainer balance ($1,170.13)

Retainer deposit,

30 July 1993 $2,500.00

Remaining retainer $349.62

Trust deposit needed

to restore retainer

to agreed $1,000.00

level ($1,000.00 - $349.62) _ $650.38

A-64

1 June

9 June

10 June

STATEMENT

Janice C. Campbell

TIME EXPENSE

Conference outside office,

Probate re proof of service,

allocated travel time 2

Photocopies, probate $4.00

Preparation, letter to

Respondents’ counsel

re discovery depositions J

Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to appoint guardian/conservator

ad litem, including factual

investigation, research and

analysis, travel time

incident thereto 1.5

Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to appoint guardian/conservator

ad litem, including research

and analysis 2

Preparation of

interrogatories 5

A-65

10 June Preparation of interrogatories

and telephone conference

with Kurtis B. Ashenfelter 1.5

10 June Preparation of letter to

Respondents’ counsel

re discovery 2

10 June Preparation, motion to

strike; research and

analysis incident thereto 3

10 June Telephone conference,

Probate Clerk re setting

for hearing 1

10 June Preparation, motion

to strike 2

11 June Preparation, motion to strike,

suggestions in support, proposed

order, research and analysis

incident thereto 7

11 June Telefax message $4.00

14 June Preparation of

interrogatories. 5

14 June 17 photocopies @ $.15 $2.55

16 June Preparation of suggestions

in Opposition, corrections

and revisions thereof 5

A-66

16 June Preparation of suggestions

in Opposition, corrections

and revisions, research and

analysis served and filed same, ~

travel time 1.5

16 June 110 photocopies @ $.15 $16.50

18 June Telephone conference,

Probate Clerk re

hearing record 1

18 June Telephone conference,

Probate Clerk re

review of record 1

18 June Telefax messages $7.00

18 June Review of hearing

tape, travel time 3

19 June Reviewed letter from

Respondents’ counsel 1

21 June Preparation, letter to

Respondents’ counsel

to consent to release

of medical records,

scheduling of depositions Se

A-67

23 June

24 June

30 June

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter re

depositions, status of matter .1

Review of letter from

Respondents’ counsel to

Judge Borron, preparation

of letter to Judge Borron,

telephone conference with

Kurtis B. Ashenfeiter 8

Reviewed telephone message

from Kurtis B. Ashenfelter,

preparation of letterto him .1

Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion

for hearing on all

motions and letter

to Kurtis B. Ashenfelter 8

Conferences, Tax Assessor’s

office, County Recorder’s

office re 3939 Linden Lane,

computer search and conference

outside office with Court

Administrator’s office re

Joseph E. Campbell divorce,

travel time iy

County Recorder, photocopies $6.00

A-68

30 June Conferences outside office,

Probate Clerk re filing

suggestions in opposition,

Tax Assessor re Lot 8,

Sandalwood, travel time 2

30 June Tax Assessor print-outs $3.00

12.2 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $1,952.00

Total expense $43.05

Previous retainer balance $824.92

Remaining retainer ($1,170.13)

Trust deposit needed

to restore retainer

to agreed $1,000.00 level

($1,170.13 + $1,000.00) _$2,170.13

A-69

DATE

1993

8 April

13 April

16 April

20 April

STATEMENT

Janice C. Campbell

Telephone conference,

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

re manifold ramifications

of current situation

Telephone conference,

Judge’s chambers re

service of petition

Preparation, petition

to suspend authority,

research and analysis

incident thereto

Preparation, motion to

suspend co-personal

representative authority

and proposed order, letter

to Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

Telephone conference,

Judge’s chambers re

service of petition

to discover assets

A-70

TIME EXPENSE

23 April

26 April

27 April

4 May

17 May

Telephone conference,

Judge’s chambers re

service of petition

to discover assets

Review and analysis

of letter from

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

Review and analysis of

documents from

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

Telephone conference,

Helen Westbrook re

service, issuance of

summonses confirmed

Conference outside office,

filed motion for

successor administrator

Preparation, report to

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter

Telephone conference,

deputy re evasion

of service

by Joseph F. Campbell

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk re status of

service, allocated

travel time

A-71

1.3

19 May

25 May

26 May

Telephone conference,

Judge’s chambers re service

on Joseph E. Campbell

Telephone conference,

Probate Clerk’s office

re service of petition

for discovery of assets

and petition to

suspend authority

Preparation, first set of

requests for production

of documents

Preparation, first set of

requests for production,

certificates of service,

first set of interrogatories

Preparation, first set of

interrogatories

A-72

6.1 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $976.00

Previous retainer balance $800.92

Received trust deposit,

28 May 1993 $1,000.00

Remaining retainer $824.92

Trust deposit needed

to restore retainer

to $1,000.00 level $175.00

A-73

1 March

2 March

4 March

8 March

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

TIME EXPENSE

Preparation of first

amended petition,

research and analysis;

preparation of letter

to Wight 6

63 photocopies @ $.15 $9.45

Telephone conference,

Wight re Richard F. Campbell

call to Janice, counsel of

record, etc., preparation of

letter to Thomas O’Brien 2

Court reporter, subpoenas,

service, etc. $76.00

Preparation for deposition

of Medical Center of

Independence Custodian of

records, including conference

outside office with court reporter

and telephone conferences with

the court reporter and the

custodian of records a

A-74

9 March Deposition, Medical Center of

Independence, preparation

therefor, travel time 3

9 March Photocopies, medical

records, Medical Center

of Independence $857.50

9 March Review and analysis of

letter from Judge Borron,

telephone conference with

Cross Reporting, preparation

of letters to Independence

Manor, Tilling, Wight and

Kurtis B. Ashenfelter +”

9 March Telephone calls, Court re

hearing cassette and

reviewing file J

10 March Research and analysis re

possible dismissal and

re-filing of action to

discover assets, action

for money had and received,

Statute of limitations im

10 March Research and analysis,

action for money had and

received, fraud, civil

conspiracy, accrual of

cause of action, saving

statute in connection

with possible dismissal

and refiling Be

A-75

10 March

11 March

12 March

15 March

19 March

Telephone conference,

court reporter re

Medical Center of

Independence records 1

Conferences outside

office, probate clerk

and Division 108 clerk

re matters in file,

hearing cassette on last

year’s proceeding,

allocated travel time 2

Probate, photocopies $3.00

Telephone conference,

Thomas J. O’Brien office

re withdrawal; left word i

Cross, subpoena prenar@t:zus,

services and witness fees $124.10

Corporate abstracts,

Independence Regional Health

Center and Medical Center

of Independence $10.00

Conference outside office,

Secretary of State’s office,

allocated travel time 2

Cross Reporting Service, deposition $107.00

Telefacsimile messages $13.00

A-76

19 March Factual investigation,

review and analysis of

Borron letter, preparation

of reply, research and analysis

incident thereto 2

19 March Telephone conference,

O’Brien re withdrawal 1

19 March Review and analysis of

MCI medical records,

preparation of chronology 7

22 March Review and analysis of

MCI medical records,

preparation of chronology;

telephone conferences

with Morgan County Recorder’s

office, tithe Company,

Ruzicka office re land sale .4

22 March Correction and revision of

letter to Judge Borron,

telephone call to Quick

and Reilly, research and analysis

incident thereto 2

22 March Preparation of petition,

research and analysis

incident thereto,

documents to eliminate

O’Brien representation 7

A-77

23 March

26 March

27 March

29 March

Preparation of dismissal,

suggestions in support,

proposed order

Preparation of report

to Ashenfelter

Postage (Express Mail)

18 photocopies @ $.15

Certified copy of deed,

Morgan County Recorder

Reviewed message from

Ashenfelter, called

Post Office re status

of express mail;

further telephone

conferences with

Post Office after

Ashenfelter call to Peggy

Review and analysis of

letter and documents

from Ashenfelter

Preparation of letter to

O’Brien re withdrawal

Telephone conference,

Ruzicka re land sale

17 photocopies @ $.15

A-78

$9.95

$2.70

$2.00

$2.55

6 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $960.00

Total expense $1,217.25

$2,177.25

Previous retainer balance ($2,021.83)

Retainer deposit,

16 March 1993 $1,000.00

Retainer deposit,

19 April 1993 $4,000.00

Remaining retainer $800.92

Trust deposit needed

to restore retainer

to $1,000.00 level __ $199.08

A-79

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

DATE TIME

1992 |

3 November Conference outside office,

Tax Assessor re valuation

of real estate, allocated

travel time 2 |

3 November Tax Assessor, print-outs $3.00

28 November Telephone tolls $23.60

1993

8 February Review and analysis |

of motion to dismiss Jl

8 February Telephone call to

Wight office, left word;

preparation of letter to

Ashenfelter, review and

analysis incident thereto 3

8 February Preparation of draft

consent to withdraw,

motion and suggestions,

and proposed order

and withdrawal n/c

A-80

8 February

11 February

12 February

13 February

15 February

16 February

Preparation, consent to

withdrawal, telephone

conference, Probate Clerk n/c

Research and analysis

on doctrine

of advancement 1

Research and analysis

on final settlement,

objections, right to

hearing (court’s discretion)

and preparation of suggestions

iN Opposition to motion

to dismiss and letter

to Ashenfelter *

Postage

Preparation, letter to Judge

Borron, suggestions in

Opposition to motion to

dismiss, research and

analysis incident thereto 9

Review and analysis of

court file, allocated

travel time 6

20 miles to and from

Kansas City @ $.26

Photocopies

A-81

$2.65

$5.20

$7.00

16 February

17 February

18 February

Parking $2.00

Telephone conference,

Ashenfelter and

Janice Campbell re

status, evidence, etc. i

Preparation of suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to dismiss including

telephone conference

with Lois Bush;

preparation of

subpoenas duces

tecum to Tilling,

Independence Regional

Health Care Center,

Independence Manor,

Richard F. and

Joseph E. Campbell 1.3

Preparation of suggestions,

including telephone conferences

with Janice C. Campbell

and Kurt Ashenfelter,

preparation of affidavits,

research and analysis 1.2

Preparation of suggestions,

telefax message to Ashenfelter;

research and analysis on gift

and due process 1.4

A-82

18 February

19 February

23 February

24 February

Telephone calls,

Lois Bush re affidavit

and Les Wight re suggestions

in Opposition; preparation

of suggestions, reviewed

documents from Ashenfelter;

conference in office,

Lois Bush re affidavit;

telephone conference,

Jack Gann 1.1

103 photocopies @ $.15 $15.45

Telephone conference,

Jack Gann re

Joseph F. Campbell

condition in 1985 1

Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk re

Janice C. Campbell

affidavit, allocated

travel time 3

Preparation of depositions,

including review of

documents from Ashenfelter,

telephone conferences

with Cross a

Preparation of letter to Borron;

preparation for depositions .2

Preparation for depositions .3

A-83

i pusiale cae."

24 February

25 February

26 February

Preparation for depositions,

including telephone calls

to custodian, court,

court reporter and

lawyers, research

and analysis re

status of court

reporter as officer

of court and use of

subpoena duces tecum 1.0

Preparation for depositions,

including research and

analysis on privilege,

preparation of letter

to Health Center counsel 8

Postage

Factual investigation,

County Recorder records

re sale of Blue Springs a.

allocated travel time

Photocopies, County Recorder

Review and analysis

of letter from Health

Center counsel, motion

to quash; preparation,

suggestions in opposition

to motion; telephone

conference, reporter re

deferral and form 7

A-84

$3.38

$4.00

26 February Preparation, letters to

deponents, suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to quash, motion to amend

with suggestions in support

and first amended petition

and proposed order, motion

for order to produce medical

records, telephone conference

with Ashenfelter 2.1

26 February Preparation, letters to Baucom,

Feutz-Harter, motion to amend

with suggestions, first amended

petition and proposed order,

motion for order to produce

medical records 8

27 February Preparation, first amended

petition, factual investigation,

research and analysis

incident thereto 9

27 February Preparation, first amended

petition, motion, suggestions

and order to authorize

preduction of medical

records, research and

analysis incident thereto 1.4

A-85

28 February

Preparation, suggestions

in Opposition to motion

to quash, motion to produce,

order to produce, first

amended petition, corrections

and revisions thereof |

Preparation, motion to

amend, first amended petition,

suggestions in support,

proposed order, nidtion to

produce, suggestions in support,

proposed order, suggestions in

Opposition to motion to quash,

letter to Independence Regional

Health Center counsel,

research and analysis

incident thereto Pe

20 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $3,200.00

Total expense $66.28

$3,266.28

Previous retainer balance $244.45

Retainer deposit,

19 February 1993 $1,000.00

$1,244.45

Remaining retainer 21.83

A-86

STATEMENT

JANICE C,. CAMPBELL

DATE TIME EXPENSE

6 October _‘ Preparation of entry of

appearance, response to

motion to appoint guardian

or conservator, and letter

to Ashenfelter 8

6 October Corrections and revisions,

entry of appearance,

suggestions in opposition,

letter to Ashenfelter 2

8 October Conference, Probate Clerk’s

office, filed entry of

appearance and response

to motion; allocated

travel time J

10 October Telephone calls,

Judge Borron’s chambers

re conference outside

office with Borron

and Wight J

A-87

26 October Preparation for conference

outside office with Judge

Borron and Wight,

research and analysis

incident thereto 6

27 October Conference outside office

with Borron and Wight,

allocated travel time 5

27 October Parking $1.35

27 October 20 miles to and from

Kansas City court house

@ $.26 $5.20

27 October Preparation, letter to Wight .2

2.5 hours

@ $160.00 per hour $400.00

Total expense 6.55

$406.55

Previous retainer balance $651.00

Remaining retainer $244 45

A-88

STATEMENT

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

DATE TIME EXPENSE

992

3 September Telephone conference,

Ashenfelter re

background of case n/c hy

—vy

7 September Factual investigation,

review and analysis of

documents, research and

analysis in re action

to discover assets n/c 4.3

10 September Telephone conference,

Ashenfelter re status,

evidence, etc. n/c iZ

12 September Review of

materials sent n/c :3

14 September Factual investigation,

including telephone

conferences with Luric,

Lotven, Probate Clerk’s

office, O’Brien n/c a

14 September Conference outside office

with Probate Clerk’s office,

reviewed court file,

travel time n/c Lo

A-89

14 September 20 miles to and from

court house in

Kansas City @ $.26 $5.20

14 September Parking $1.35

14 September Telephone conference,

Ashenfelter re facts,

status, next moves 6

18 September Preparation letter to Borron .4

18 September Preparation, engagement

letter n/c 7

27 September Review of letter from Judge _ Borron,

documents on Standard Bank,

Independence Manor and Medical

Center of Independence my

30 September Conference outside office,

Probate Clerk re photocopies

from court file,

allocated travel time 2

30 September Parking $1.25

30 September 20 miles to and from

Kansas City Court house @ $.26 $5.20

30 September Photocopies, Probate Court $16.00

A-90

2 hours

@ $160.00 per hour

Total expense

Original retainer

Remaining retainer

A-91

$320.00

$29.00

$349.00

$1,000.00

$651.00

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

PROBATE DIVISION AT INDEPENDENCE

JANICE C. CAMPBELL,

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. PR89-030836-01

) Estate No. 30836

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, )

et al., ) ;

Respondents, )

)

In the Estate of )

Joseph F. Campbell, )

) i

JUDGMENT ENTRY |

On the 27th day of January, 1994, this Court took up

the oral motion of Rebbecca Lake Overman, administrator ad

litem, to compromise and settle the claims arising from i

Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition to Discover Assets and

Defendants’ Cross-Petition to Discover Assets; and having

heard the evidence and being advised in the premises the

Court took this matter under advisement pending the

furnishing of a judgment entry.

Now on this 2 day March, 1994, this Court again

takes up the Administrator ad Litem’s motion and makes the

following findings of fact:

Exhibit 2

A-92

Between August 1, 1983 and October 21,

1987 the decedent, Joseph F. Campbell,

transferred certain assets into the names of

one or more of the parties.

There exists an issue of fact as to whether the

decedent was totally incapacitated as a result

of Alzheimer’s disease and unable to make

decisions regarding disposition of his asset#

from his entry into a nursing home in 1983

until his death on October 21, 1987.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of his

incapacity, the decedent with assistance from

the Defendants sold 654 shares of stock in

Ford Motor Co. Inc. and used the proceeds

from said sale to have a home built on Lot 8,

SANDLEWOOD [sic] ADDITION in Blue

Springs, Missouri for the purpose of providing

a residence for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Campbell asserts that the 654 shares

of Ford Motor Company stock should not

have been sold and that had said stock not

been sold, the estate would be entitled to the

appreciation in the value of the stock due to

stock splits and an increased market value and

the dividends that would have been paid from

the date of sale to the date of trial.

A-93

“€)?

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of the

decedent’s incapacity the plaintiff received

$16,800.00 in rental income from the

decedent’s real property at 1928 1/2 Ash

Street in Independence, Missouri.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of his

incapacity the decedent with assistance from

the Defendants transferred three certificates of

deposit totalling $30,000 into the name of

defendant, Richard Campbell.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of his

incapacity the decedent with assistance from

the Defendants transferred two certificates of

deposit into the name of defendant, Joe E.

Campbell.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of his

incapacity the decedent with assistance from

the Defendants transferred one certificate of

deposit into the name of plaintiff, Janice

Campbell.

A-94

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of the

decedent’s incapacity the defendant's [sic]

paid to themselves or others for their

exclusive benefit certain monies from the

decedent’s checking account. Defendant,

Richard Campbell received $2,244.26 and

defendam, Joe E. Campbell received

$1,777.21 from said account.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the pericd of the

decedent's incapacity the plaintiff took

possession of a 1967 Motorcycle, a 1968

seventeen foot Silvereagle trailer, a 1967

Mark Twain 120 horsepower boat, and a

homemade frame trailer.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of the

decedent's incapacity, the defendant, Richard

Campbell took possession and title to a 1973

Jeep CJS and a homemade trailer.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that during the period of the

decedent’s incapacity, the defendant, Joe E.

Campbell took possession and title to a 1970

Ford wagon engine.

A-95

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that following the death of the

decedent, defendant, Richard Campbell

received $1,813.00 in proceeds from certain

dividends from Ford Motor Co. Inc. which

were in the decedent’s name alone.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that following the death of the

decedent, defendant, Joe E. Campbell

received $5,537.00 in proceeds from certain

dividends from Ford Motor Co. Inc. which

were in the decedent’s name alone.

The Administrator ad Litem reasonably

believes that further litigation of the disputed

issues is not likely to result in any additional

advantage to the estate and is not

economically feasible.

The Administrator ad Litem recommends that

the following assets be found to be assets of

the Estate of Joseph F. Campbell:

Lot 8, SANDLEWOOD [sic]

Addition, a subdivision in Blue

Springs, Jackson County,

Missouri.

Refund from Richard Campbell

in the sum of $4,244.26 to

Standard State Checking

Account # 2002434.

A-96

Refund from Joe E. Campbell

in the sum of $1,777.21 to

Standard State Checking

Account # 2002434.

Refund from Richard Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $5,037.50 for prior

distribution of C. D. #890076

at Standard State Bank.

Refund from Richard Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $6,337.50 for prior

distribution of C. D. #13443 at

Standard State Bank.

Refund from Richard Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $4,820.83 for prior

distribution of C. D. #10859 at

Standard State Bank.

Refund from Joe E. Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $5,200.00 for prior

distribution of C. D. #12825 at

Standard State Bank.

A-97

Refund from Joe E. Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $5,416.66 for prior

distribution of C. D. #10510 at

Standard State Bank.

Refund from Janice Campbell

in the sum of $10,000.00 plus

interest at the rate of 6.5% in

the sum of $6,012.50 for prior

distribution of C. D. #10881 at

Standard State Bank.

Return from Janice Campbell

of 1967 Motorcycle valued at

$100.00, a 1968 17 foot

Silvereagle trailer valued at

$150.00, a 1967 Mark Twain

120 horsepower boat valued at

$150.00, and a homemade

frame trailer valued at

$200.00.

Return from Joe E. Campbell a

1970 Ford Wagon engine

valued at $200.00.

Refund from Janice Campbell

of $750.00 from proceeds from

sale of household goods.

A-98

eA rhoe, a... sueeichy diet beet on CA aa ee Ce ee

Refund from Richard Campbell

of $175.00 for value of

household goods previously

distributed to him.

Refund from Joe E. Campbell

of $75.00 for value of

household goods previously

distributed to him.

Refund from Richard Campbell

of $1,813.00 for proceeds from

Ford Motor Co. Inc. stock

dividends plus interest accrued

at the rate of 3% in the sum of

$108.00.

Refund from Joe E. Campbell

of $5,537.00 for proceeds from

Ford Motor Co. Inc. stock

dividends plus interest accrued

at the rate of 3% in the sum of

$332.22.

Refund from Janice Campbell

of $16,800.00 for proceeds of

rental income from _ real

property located a [sic] 1928

1/2 Ash Street, Independence,

Missouri plus interest at the

rate of 6.5% in the sum of ~

$4,290.45.

A-99

The settlement proposed by the Administrator

ad Litem appears to fairly affect the rights of

all parties, is a reasonable compromise of the

controversy, and is in the best interest of the

estate.

The Defendants have consented to the

settlement offered by the Administrator ad

Litem.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the settlement offered

by the Administrator ad Litem be and it is hereby accepted

as a fair and reasonable compromise of the controversy

raised in Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition to Discover

Assets and the Defendants’ Cross-Petition to Discover

Assets.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rebbecca Lake

Overman, in her capacity as Administrator ad Litem for the

Estate of Joseph F. Campbell have and recover from Joe E.

Campbell certain real property legally described as Lot 8,

SANDLEWOOD [sic] ADDITION, a subdivision in Blue

Springs, Jackson County, Missouri, the 1970 Ford Wagon

engine and the sum of $38,338.09, or attribute the fair

market value of said property as a set off to Joe E.

Campbell’s distributive share of the estate, and in default

thereof let execution issue.

A-100

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rebbecca Lake

Overman, in her capacity as Administrator ad Litem for the

Estate of Joseph F. Campbell have and recover from Richard

Campbell the sum of $50,536.09, the 1973 Jeep CJ5

automobile, and the 1954 homemade trailer, or attribute the

fair market value of said property as a set off to Richard

Campbell’s distributive share of the estate, and in default

thereof let execution issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rebbecca Lake

Overman, in her capacity as Administrator ad Litem for the

Estate of Joseph F. Campbe!! have and recover from Janice

Campbell the sum of $37,852.95, the 1967 motorcycle, the

1968 17 foot Silvereagle trailer, the 1967 Mark Twain 120

horsepower boat and the homemade trailer frame [sic], or

attribute the fair market value of said property as a set off to

Janice C. Campbell’s distributive share of the estate, and in

default thereof let execution issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party will

bear their [sic] own costs of the action.

HONORABLE JOHN A. BORRON, JR.

A-101

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

PROBATE DIVISION

AT INDEPENDENCE

Joseph F. Campbell

JANICE C. CAMPBELL )

)

Petitioner )

)

vs. )

)

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, etal. )

) No. PR89-030836-01

Respondents ) Estate No. 30836

)

In the Estate of )

)

Deceased

NOTICE OF ATTORNEY’S LIEN

COMES NOW Albert W.L. Moore, Jr., and gives

notice that he has been acting as attorney for Janice C.

Campbell in her above-entitled discovery of assets action

brought on behalf of the above-entitled decedent’s estate and

that there is a balance of $54,452.73 due and owing for his

services and disbursements on behalf of Petitioner Janice C.

Campbell and the said estate as of the thirty-first day of

January 1994. This amount and such further amounts as may

accrue constitute a lien on recovery by the said estate and by

Janice C. Campbell under Sections 484.130 of the Revised

Statutes of Missouri, which lien is not affected by any

Exhibit 3

A-102

‘

z -

settlement among the parties. Payment or transfer after

notice renders any paying party liable to the undersigned

attorney for said lien and said lien follows the payment or

transfer into the hands of the recipient thereof. This notice

is without prejudice to Janice C. Campbell’s objection to the

settlement proposed by the Administrator ad Litem in the

above-entitled adversary action; it is without prejudice to

Janice C. Campbell’s right to jury trial, which she continues

to demand as her constitutional right, and it is without

prejudice to her rights generally except as they may be

specifically affected by the operation of said lien.

Albert W.L. Moore, Jr. #18921

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

A-103

ERTI

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of

attorney’s lien was mailed on this 21st day of February 1994

to Les D. Wight, Esq., 530 East 23rd Street, Independence,

Missouri 64055, Attorney for Respondents, to Rebbecca

Lake Overman, Esq., 221 West Lexington, Independence,

Missouri 64050, Administrator ad Litem, and to Janice C.

Campbell, 7065 East Calle Betelgeux, Tucson, Arizona

85710, Petitioner.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner

A-104

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

AT INDEPENDENCE

ALBERT W.L. MOORE, JR..,

Plaintiff, CV94-5667

Division Two

VS. Docket O

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendant.

TRANSFE RDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above captioned

cause be transferred to Probate Division 19. Plaintiff has a

pending probate matter in Division 19.

WILLIAM W. ELY, JUDGE, DIVISION TWO

Dated: June 9, 1994

Copies to:

Civil Data 1

Civil Data 2

Civil Filing

Albert W.L. Moore

Les D. Wight

Rebbecca Lake Overman

Janice C. Campbell

A-105

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

PROBATE DIVISION

AT INDEPENDENCE

Albert W.L. Moore, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CV94-5667

Janice C. Campbell, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Now on this date, the court takes up for disposition

the motion of defendant, Rebbecca L. Overman,

administrator ad litem of the Estate of Joseph F. Campbell,

Deceased, No. 30836, to dismiss plaintiff's petition to

recover attorneys fees.

Count I of plaintiff's petition alleges that as a direct

result of his efforts, the court entered judgment in favor of

the administrator ad litem in an amount in excess of

$200,000. He seeks judgment against all defendants for the

services he rendered to Janice C. Campbell in connection

with a discovery of assets action filed by him on her behalf

against her two brothers who were serving as co-personal

representatives of their father’s estate.

Count II of plaintiff's petition seeks to foreclose the

alleged lien which he asserts by reason of § 484.130 RSMo.

A-106

ect he Abi deea anton a ne a at eer ear

Count III of plaintiff's petition is described as a

creditor’s bill. In said count, he seeks to enjoin defendants,

Overman and Joseph E. Campbell and Richard F. Campbell

from any and all sales of assets and all expenditures for

claims, expenses or distributions until a final probate

settlement has been prepared for the estate and "approved by

this Court, and then only in accordance with said final

probate settlement." Plaintiff further seeks an order of the

civil trial division directing defendants, Overman and Joseph

E. and Richard F. Campbell to allow as part of the final

settlement, plaintiff's attorneys fees. Plaintiff also seeks

other equitable relief. The basis for Count III also rests

upon the alleged attorney’s lien, § 484.130 RSMo.

This action arose out of a discovery of assets action

filed by Janice C. Campbell, decedent’s daughter, against

Joseph E. and Richard F. Campbell, her brothers and

decedent’s sons, as co-personal representatives of their

father’s estate. Plaintiff, Janice C. Campbell, in the

discovery of assets action, asserted that her brothers were

withholding assets of her father’s from the estate. Because

the defendants in the discovery of assets action were the co-

personal representatives; because any recovery made by the

plaintiff in that action would be in favor of the estate

pursuant to § 473.340 RSMo and because the personal

representative is an indispensable party to such an action, it

became necessary for the probate division to appoint an

administrator ad litem to insulate the interests of all persons

interested in the estate from the conflict of interest created by

plaintiff, Janice C. Campbell’s action. Rebbecca L.

Overman was appointed administrator ad litem to represent

the interests of the estate in the discovery of assets action.

As administrator ad litem, Ms. Overman represents the

interests of all persons who have an interest in the estate

including heirs, devisees and creditors. Kahmann v. Buck,

A-107 .

446 S.W.2d 457 (Mo. App. 1969). Ms. Overman, in her

capacity as administrator ad litem, participated in the trial of

the discovery of assets action. During the course of the trial,

she worked out a settlement of the action with the defendant

sons which settlement was approved by the probate division

and which settlement resulted in the recovery of assets for

the estate in value in excess of $200,000.

All three counts in plaintiff's petition are predicated

upon an alleged attorney’s lien pursuant to § 484.130 RSMo

for plaintiff's services to Janice C. Campbell as plaintiff in

the discovery of assets action. The first question to be

resolved is whether or not plaintiff, in fact, has an attorney's

lien under § 484.130 RSMo.

Carter v. Stendeback, 482 S.W.2d 534 (Mo. App.

1972) involved an action against a beneficiary of an estate

and the personal representative to recover under a contingent

fee contract for legal services provided to the beneficiary in

connection with her claim against the estate. The trial court

entered judgment in favor of the attorney and against both

the beneficiary in connection with her claim against the

estate. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the

attorney and against both the beneficiary and the personal

representative and declared the judgment to be a lien upon

the beneficiary’s distributive share in the estate. The

appellate court held that it was error to enter judgment

against the personal representative and to impose an

attorney’s lien against the undistributed assets of the

decedent’s estate. The appellate court affirmed the judgment

awarding attorneys fees against the beneficiary.

Carter v. Stendeback thus stands for the proposition

that plaintiff carimot assert an attorney's lien against the

undistributed assets of the Campbell estate nor against the co-

personal representatives in their fiduciary capacity nor

against the administrator ad litem. Thus, the motion to

dismiss as to defendant, Overman must be sustained. Since

neither the defendant co-personal representatives nor Janice

C. Campbell joined in said motion, this court’s ruling does

not affect their status as defendants in this action. It is,

therefore,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

defendant,Overman’s motion to dismiss as to herself as

administrator ad litem of the Estate of Joseph F. Campbell,

Deceased is sustained.

Dated: 6/14/94

Judge

cc: Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Les D. Wight

Rebbecca L. Overman

Janice C. Campbell

A-109

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

AT INDEPENDENCE

ALBERT W.L. MOORE, JR)

Plaintiff

Case No. CV94-5667

Docket O

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et pl.

ee Se ee ae a a ee

Defendants

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

COMES NOW Plaintiff and moves that the order of

dismissal of Rebbecca Lake Overman, administrator ad litem,

as party defendant to this action, dated the fourteenth day of

June 1994, be set aside and held for naught, for the reasons

stated in the suggestions in support of this motion filed here-

with and by this reference incorporated herein and made part

hereof.

Albert W.L. Moore, Jr. #18921

554 South Ash

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

PRO SE

A-110

SEI AO ER LPR OO TIINE Rg eget

F; a

FICATE Vv

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion

to set aside was mailed on this fourteenth day of July 1994

io Joseph E. Campbell, 1509 50th Street North, Blue

Springs, Missouri 64015, and Richard F. Campbell, 18819

East Sth Street North, Independence, Missouri 64056,

Defendants, to Les D. Wight, Esq., 530 East 23rd Street,

Independence, Missouri 64055, Attorney for Joseph E.

Campbell and Richard F. Campbell, to Rebbecca Lake

Overman, Esq., 221 West Lexington, Independence,

Missouri 64050, Administrator ad Litem, and to Janice C.

Campbell, 7065 East Calle Betelgeux, Tucson, Arizona

85710, Defendant.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Pro Se

A-111

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

AT INDEPENDENCE

ALBERT W.L. MOORE, JR)

Plaintiff

)

) Case No. CV94-5667

) Docket O

)

JANICE C. CAMPBELL, et il.

)

Defendants )

T T OF TION

TO SET D

COMES NOW Plaintiff and for his suggestions in

support of his motion to set aside the dismissal of Rebbecca

Lake Overman, administrator ad litem, states and shows the

court as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff's client Janice C. Campbell, a resident of

Arizona, filed a discovery of assets action in her father’s

estate against her brothers, Missouri residents and personal

representatives of the estate, on the ninth day of May 1989

(PR89-030836-01). The brotiiers Campbell had caused loss

and damage to their father’s estate while he was alive and

incompetent, and after his death. (Exhibit I hereto, Janice

C. Campbell’s second amended petition for discovery of

assets, PR89-030836-01). The brothers did not apply for

A-112

letters testamentary until the thirteenth of September 1988,

nearly a year after decedent passed away on the twenty-first

of October 1987. After the estate was opened, they

continued to appropriate estate money and property. A

proper inventory was never made. In nearly six years, no

annual or final settlement has been approved. The brothers

Campbell have yet to account for dividend checks on

decedent’s Ford Motor Company stock exceeding $15,000.00

in value (Exhibit 3, paragraph 12, Exhibit 4, paragraph 2).

Although Janice C. Campbell applied to the probate division

for the correction and redemption of gross irregularities in

her brothers’ conduct of the estate, nothing was done.

2. After Plaintiff was retained on or about the

twenty-first day of September 1992, the discovery of assets

action was prosecuted. Plaintiff spent considerable time

dealing with frivolous motions and objections by respondents

in the discovery of assets action. Plaintiff sought relief from

the probate division, but little was done. Plaintiff, by motion

and suggestions filed the twenty-seventh day of April 1993,

sought suspension of the brothers as personal representatives

of the estate pending resolution of the discovery of assets

action, in accordance with well-established law. On page

229 of 3 Missouri Practice, John A. Borron, Jr., states,

"When an action is filed against the personal representative

of the estate pursuant to Section 473.340, the authority of the

personal representative must be suspended. Matter of Estate

of Stickler, 551 S.W. 2d 944 (Mo. App. 1977)." The

probate division appointed an administrator ad litem on the

seventh of July 1993, but never suspended the brothers.

A-113

3. As the case was coming to trial, Plaintiff sought

more time to prepare. A long continuance was previously

given to respondents, but none was allowed Plaintiff. When

Plaintiff moved to dismiss without prejudice, the probate

division threatened, on utterly false and specious grounds, to

dismiss with prejudice. On the day trial commenced, the

probate division purported to strike from Janice C.

Campbell’s second amended petition for discovery of assets

those portions pertaining to punitive damages, on the pretext

that respondents lacked notice of the language. The utter

cynicism of this action is highlighted by two facts: (1) the

entire second amended petition was appended to the motion

to amend when it was served on the Campbell brothers’

counsel on the twenty-eighth day of November 1993, nearly

two months before trial, and (2) the hearing and order to

strike were over within two minutes after Janice C.

Campbell’s counsel was served with the motion in chambers.

These partisan actions set the tone for the trial, in which the

probate division judge repeatedly sought to discredit and

humiliate Plaintiff and Janice C. Campbell before the jury.

The administrator ad litem, a mere stake-holder, was allowed

to participate in the trial as a de facto adjunct counsel for the

respondent brothers and conducted herself antagonistically to

Janice C. Campbell and adversely to recovery by the estate.

After two and one-half days of trial before a jury, the

probate division, in clear violation of Janice C. Campbell’s

right to trial by jury under Section 473.340.2 of the Revised

Statutes of Missouri and the requirement of a written

settlement agreement signed by all competent parties in

interest under Section 473.085, discharged the jury. On the

second day of March 1994, some five weeks later, after

Janice C. Campbell’s motion for mistrial (Exhibit 2) pointed

out that denial of her right to jury trial was reversible error,

and after Janice C. Campbell’s objections to the proposed

settlement pointed out the statutory prerequisite of a written

A-114

settlement agreement (Exhibit 3, paragraph 1), the probate

division cheerily filed a judgment without the slightest

vestige of lawful authority (Exhibit 5). Plaintiff's timely

motion for new trial (Exhibit 8) was ignored. Exhibits 2, 3

and 8 stand unanswered on the record.

4. While the initial draft of the judgment had no

offsets of distributive shares against the judgment, the offsets

appear in the final draft and in the judgment as filed (Exhibit

5). By rejecting the much larger recovery from the brothers

Campbell warranted by the evidence (Exhibit 3, paragraph

22), and by offsetting the distributive shares against the

judgment amounts, the probate division intends to leave the

Campbell brothers with all that they have taken from a

helpless old man and his estate, and to leave Janice C.

Campbell without any viable means to collect her one-third

residuary bequest (Exhibit 4, paragraphs 3 and 4; Exhibit 9,

paragraph 2 of the suggestions in support). In furtherance of

this scheme, the administrator ad litem is failing and refusing

to enforce the judgment filed in the discovery of assets action

and is proceeding to liquidate and dissipate the estate.

Exhibits 4, 9 and 10 also stand unanswered on the record.

5. On the eighth of February 1994, the administrator

ad litem served her motion for an order to sell the estate’s

remaining Ford stock (PR94-030836-05). The probate

division conducted a thoroughly improper hearing on the

seventeenth of March 1994, and ordered the stock sold.

Twenty-nine days later, Ford announced a two-for-one split.

When the assets now in the probate division’s hands have

been dissipated, without collecting on the discovery of assets

judgment, which only the administrator ad litem can enforce,

there will be nothing in the hands of the probate division but

an unsecured judgment from which Janice C. Campbell must

collect her share of the estate and Plaintiff must collect his

A-115

compensation and expenses - if possible. By then, of course,

the brothers Campbell will have long since dissipated,

transformed or transferred their assets, or taken bankruptcy,

or otherwise thrown up hindrances to the collection of a

judgment debt. This is hardly an equitable or even-handed

way to administer an estate.

6. On the fifteenth day of March 1994, Janice C.

Campbell filed a claim for legal expenses incurred in the

discovery of assets action. Needless to say, it has not been

allowed and the record shows no reason to expect the

administrator ad litem or the probate division to do so.

7. The unlawful judgment filed in the discovery of

assets action (PR89-030836-01) was appealed as WD49245.

The unlawful order to sell the estate’s Ford stock (PR94-

030836-05) was appealed as WD49312. Appeal WD49312

has been consolidated under WD49245.

8. Plaintiff filed the instant action in the civil trial

division, a court of general jurisdiction. It was assigned to

active civil docket O, the Hon. William W. Ely (Exhibit 12).

The administrator ad litem filed a motion to dismiss, on the

absurd ground that the action was the same as the one in

probate. Plaintiff's suggestions in opposition pointed out the

differences. None of the points in the administrator ad

litem’s motion is reflected in the purported order of

dismissal. That order came not from division 2, where it

was filed, but from the probate division; it was signed by the

self-same judge who had committed the atrocities set out

above. Plaintiff had received in the interim no notice of any

motion to transfer, and no notice of transfer of this case to

any other division, much less to a division with no

jurisdiction to hear and decide it (see the discussion of

jurisdiction below). In his review of the Court file on CV94-

A-116

5667 on the fifth of July 1994, Plaintiff found six or seven

photocopies of a "Transfer Order" dated the ninth of June

1994, on the left side of the file folder. Plaintiff was listed

as a recipient of a copy. But Plaintiff in fact received no

copy until he bought one from the probate division on the

fifth of July 1994. Plaintiff called Janice C. Campbell on the

sixth of July 1994; she, like Plaintiff, had received a copy of

the probate division order of the fourteenth of June 1994, but

had never received a copy of the "Transfer Order" or any

other notice of a transfer of the case. It appears, therefore,

that copies of the "Transfer Order" were retained in the

Court file and not distributed. Plaintiff has thereby been

denied his absolute right under Rule 51.05, to change from

the probate division judge, or to move for a change of judge

for cause, before the said probate division judge issued his

capricious, groundless and fatuous order on a matter outside

his competence and jurisdiction.

DICTION

9. The probate division’s order of the fourteenth of

June 1994 is void for lack of jurisdiction. The order is

signed by the probate division judge and bears "PROBATE

DIVISION" in its caption. The probate division does not

cite any authority or other support for its jurisdiction to hear

and to rule on the matters taken up by it in the order.

Further, there is no showing that the court of general

jurisdiction in which the case was filed lacked jurisdiction to

hear it. The jurisdiction of the civil trial division over the

case has not been seriously challenged. There is no

provision in Rule 6 of the Local Rules for the transfer of

Cases to the probate division. The very transfer of this case

to the probate division was unauthorized and improper.

A-117

10. The probate division’s jurisdiction is limited by

statute to "probate business" and "probate matters" (Sections

472.020 and 472.030, Revised Statutes of Missouri):

"Matters of probate business, as commonly

understood and under all the authorities,

pertain to the proving of wills, the

appointment of guardians and curators, and

the administration and settlement of estates of

decedents, incompetents and the like. 3

Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., p. 203; 26

Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., p. 750; 34

Words and Phrases, Per.Ed., p.59."

(State v. Arnold, 356 Mo. 661, 204 S.W.2d 254 (Mo.Banc

1947) at page 257, quoting from Downey v. Schrader, 353

Mo. 40, 44(4), 182 S.W.2d 320, 323(7)). The probate

division is not a court of general jurisdiction (Webb v. First

National Bank and Trust Company of Joplin, 602 S.W.2d

780 (Mo.App.S.D. 1980) at page 782). The probate

division’s jurisdiction does not even extend to an action on

a probate administrator’s bond (Matter of Estate of

Woodrum, 859 S.W.2d 259 (Mo.App.S.D. 1993) at pages

261-2). The enforcement of equitable and statutory liens to

protect compensation for professional services is, if anything,

less of a probate matter than an action on a probate

administrator’s bond. The probate division in rendering the

instant order is acting ultra vires. It is trying to go beyond

its limited jurisdiction in purporting to dismiss an action for

attorney’s fee filed in a court of general jurisdiction.

A-118

ERRORS OF LAW AND FACT

Even if the probate division had jurisdiction, its

order tocar be erroneous. It is rife with factual and legal

error.

12. The order erroneously states that Plaintiff's entire

petition rests upon an attorney’s lien under Section 484.130.

This is false, as a reading of Plaintiff's petition will readily

show. Plaintiff's petition rests as well on a running account

and, with specific reference to the administrator ad litem, on

principles of equitable lien and restitution.

13. The order recites, and does not deny, that

Plaintiff's efforts resulted directly in a judgment in favor of

the administrator ad litem in an amount in excess of

$200,000. There is a feeble effort in the order to throw

some credit for the recovery to the administrator ad litem,

but she in fact worked against recovery by the estate, and

there is no doubt the recovery would not have occurred but

for the fact that Plaintiff brought the case to trial. Plaintiff's

client Janice C. Campbell was authorized to bring the action

on behalf of the decedent’s estate (Section 473.340.1,

Revised Statutes of Missouri). A necessary concomitant of

that authority is the right to hire counsel to prosecute the

action. The action found Plaintiff; he was not an officious

intermeddler. The probate division and administrator ad

litem are contriving to deny Plaintiff his compensation while

denying Janice C. Campbell reimbursement for her payments

and obligations to Plaintiff necessarily incurred by her to

recover assets and damages from her brothers for the estate.

The actions of the probate division and administrator ad litem

conduce to such a result. One is presumed to intend the

natural results of one’s actions. Their actions, consistent

with such a scheme, have not been explained by any other

A-119

reasonable hypothesis, despite ample opportunity to address

the issue (Exhibit 6, paragraphs 4 and 5, Exhibit 9, para-

graph 2 of the suggestions, Exhibit 10, paragraph 3 of the

suggestions). Action should be taken to stop the tawdry

abuses of official position in this matter. The appropriate

action by the probate division would be to allow Janice C.

Campbell’s claim, submitted the fifteenth of March 1994, ‘or

legal expenses as a cost of administration. Payment would

moot this case pro tanto.

14. In light of the foregoing paragraph, it is apparent

that the order fails to state the whole truth when it says that

Plaintiff's services were rendered to Janice C. Campbell. In

a discovery of assets action, as the order itself points out on

the second page (Exhibit 5), the judgment is in favor of the

administrator ad litem, who in turn (if she performs her

function) collects it and distributes it to the beneficiaries. As

the duly retained advocate for recovery by the estate,

Plaintiff rendered valuable services to all named Defendants.

One of those Defendants, moreover, the administrator ad

litem, purported to settle with the respondents in the

discovery of assets action, a classic case of deforcing the

attorney’s lien, which renders both sides of the purported

settlement liable to the proponent’s counsel (Downs v. Hodge

(App. W.D. 1967) 413 S.W.2d 519).

15. In a vain effort to avoid the effect of the

statutory lien, the probate division’s order erroneously cites

Carter v. Stendeback, 482 S.W.2d 534 (Mo. App. 1972).

Thereby the author of the order displays inattention or error

in analysis, if not bias. Counsel in Carter represented a

beneficiary against the estate. Plaintiff herein effected

recovery for the estate. Counsel in Carter was found entitled

to recover from the receiving party that which the party

received by counsel’s efforts. That is precisely Plaintiff's

A-120

ate os PLANET ACI: AER YON Rs

prayer. Plaintiff has used his time and talents to recover for

the estate, and the estate has received benefits from

Plaintiff's efforts. But Plaintiff does more, for he must deal

with the fact that his ability to satisfy his rights against assets

in custodia legis are limited, particularly when those having

custody are bent upon denying him his fee and disburse-

ments. The wild assertion in the last paragraph of the

probate division’s order that Carter stands for the proposition

that Plaintiff cannot assert an attorney’s lien against the

Campbell estate, its personal representatives or administrator

ad litem - a conclusion wholly unwarranted by the Carter

facts or opinion - as well as the order’s apparently deliberate

disregard of the Plaintiff's equitable lien, are compelling

evidence that the author of the order was determined to reach

a specific conclusion, whatever the relevant facts or

applicable law.

16. The probate division order is wrong when it says

that Count II of Plaintiff's petition seeks to foreclose a lien

under Section 484.130 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.

Count II is broad enough to include both the statutory lien

and the equitable lien.

17. The statutory lien is cumulative; it does not

preclude other remedies (Downs v. Hodge (App.W.D. 1967)

413 S.W.2d 519). Plaintiff herein has an equitable iien as

well as the right to invoke the equitable principle of

marshaling assets to hold the administrator ad litem and

person representatives to an injunction and accounting under

a creditor’s bill.

A-121

18. As the administrator ad litem is failing and

refusing to enforce the discovery of assets judgment, while

wasting and dissipating the estate assets remaining in the

hands of the probate division, the equity chancellor's

intercession is urgently required to preserve those assets and

secure Plaintiff's right to compensation; hence Count III of

Plaintiff's petition prays for a creditor’s bill to protect

Plaintiff's equities.

19. Plaintiff's statutory and equitable liens may be

enforced by equitable means, as by following the proceeds of

judgment paid to another (Smoot v. Shy (1911) 139 S.W.

239, 159 Mo. App. 126). Upon a settlement, an attorney

may (1) follow the proceeds (2) recover from the defendant

or (3) enforce his lien against the judgment (Lawson v.

Missouri & Kansas Tel. Co. (1914) 164 S.W. 138, 178 Mo.

App. 124; Curtis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. (1906) 94 S.W.

762, 118 Mo. App. 341). By the set-offs in the probate

division judgment for discovery of assets, the administrator

ad litem effectively receives and distributes estate assets.

Under the law as stated above, Plaintiff may collect them

coming and going. The precise amount of the assets

distributed by this mechanism can be determined only by

final settlement. The record shows that the probate division

cannot be relied upon to protect the legitimate interests of

Plaintiff or Janice C. Campbell in this process. Hence the

intercession of the equity chancellor through the creditor's

bill (Count III of Plaintiff's petition) is necessary.

A-122

20. The statement in the order that Count III rests

upon Section 484.130 is false. The author of the order sets

up a straw man to try to knock down. Count III covers more

than the statutory lien. The petition points out that a benefit

was conferred on the estate by Plaintiff's authorized efforts,

and all parties were on notice of Plaintiff's interests (Exhibit

6). The creditor's bill is to alleviate the inadequacies of the

legal remedy under the circumstances.

21. The probate order is less than candid about the

discovery of assets action. Janice C. Campbell alleged not

only a withholding of assets by her brothers but also the

taking and dissipation of assets and grave damage to the

decedent’s estate by the imprudent sale, waste and gross

mismanagement of decedent’s assets while he was

incompetent and after his demise (Exhibit 1). The probate

division has unlawfully thwarted jury trial of these matters by

accepting without legal authority the administrator ad litem’s

oral motion for settlement in mid-trial, in flagrant violation

of Section 473.085 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri,

which makes "an agreement in writing ... executed by all

competent persons ... having beneficial interests ..." a clear,

absolute and unqualified prerequisite to judicial approval, and

in flagrant violation of Janice C. Campbell's right to a jury

trial of her cause (Exhibits 2, 3 and 8).

22. The probate order’s treatment of the appointment

and authority of the administrator ad litem, in the paragraph

concluding the first page of the order and continuing to the

second, warrants some comment. The paragraph says that

the administrator ad litem was appointed to insulate the

parties from conflicts of interest created by Janice C.

Campbell’s discovery of assets action. This betrays a

continuing bias against Janice C. Campbell and in favor of

her brothers. The brothers were defendants in their sister’s

A-123

action because they took, damaged, dissipated and destroyed

a large portion of their father’s estate while he was

incompetent or deceased. The law required their

replacement as personal representatives out of elemental

fairness to her. On page 229 of 3 Missouri Practice, John

A. Borron, Jr., states, "When an action is filed against the

personal representative of the estate pursuant to Section

473.340, the authority of the personal representative must be

suspended. Matter of Estate of Stickler, 551 S.W. 2d 944

(Mo. App. 1977)." In fact, the probate division never

suspended the brothers, and at least one of them continued to

deposit dividend checks on their father’s Ford stock in the

brother’s personal account. The brother has deposited estate

property in his personal account and submitted, as vouchers

substantiating claims against the estate, checks written against

the same account. As of the seventeenth day of March 1994,

the brothers had not accounted to the administrator ad litem

appointed on the seventh of July 1993. It should be noted

that the administrator ad litem’s conduct of her office was in

breach of her obligation to represent all legatees fairly and

even-handedly, in that she worked to reduce recovery to the

estate and against the interests of Janice C. Campbell, a one-

third beneficiary of the esiate. Since the administrator ad

litem’s appointment on the seventh day of July 1993, she has

filed no annual or final settlement. Whatever the authority

and obligations of the administrator ad litem, however, no

legal authority has been found by Plaintiff, or cited to him by

anybody, that gives the administrator ad litem the power,

with or without probate division approval, to deny Janice C.

Campbell’s duly demanded jury trial, or to disregard Section

473.085 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri in proposing a

settlement of an adversary action. The author of the probate

order has vainly sought to paper over his plain errors in the

discovery of assets action.

A-124

23. It is of course absurd to deem the administrator

ad litem the real party of interest, as the subject order tries

to do. The real parties in interest are the legatees. But even

if she were the real party in interest, whatever that term

might be intended to mean in this context, she would remain

subject to the constitutional and statutory requirements of

jury trial and written settlement agreements signed by all

parties having beneficial interests. Moreover, even if the

administrator ad litem has, as claimed by the probate

division, settled discovery of assets case, she is subject to the

_ Statutory and equitable consequences of her actions, including

liability to Plaintiff under Downs v. Hodge and other authori-

ties cited herein.

VIOLATI NST IONAL RIGHTS

24. The clandestine transfer of this case by division

2 and the subsequent filing of the order by the probate

division deprived Plaintiff of a hearing on the subject of

probate division jurisdiction, deprived Plaintiff of a hearing

by a judge with jurisdiction, deprived Plaintiff of his

unqualified right to a change of judge without cause,

deprived Plaintiff of notice of a purported transfer made

without authority, and subjected Plaintiff's interests, without

notice or opportunity to be heard, to a judge with interests in

the subject matter previously demonstrated to be adverse to

those of Plaintiff. Hence Plaintiff has been denied due

process of law under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to

the Constitution of the United States of America and Article

1, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution. The probate

division judge acted under color of and contrary to law and

outside his jurisdiction willfully to deprive Plaintiff of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

(15 Am. Jur. Civil Rights Section 16).

A-125

WHEREFOkKE, Plaintiff prays this Court set aside

and hold for naught the order of the probate division dated

the fourteenth of June 1994 purporting to dismiss Rebbecca

Lake Overman, administrator ad litem, from this action.

Albert W.L. Moore, Jr. #18921

554 South Ash

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing

suggestions in support of motion to set aside was mailed on

this fourteenth day of July 1994 to Joseph E. Campbell, 1509

50th Street North, Blue Springs, Missouri 64015, and

Richard F. Campbell, 18819 East Sth Street North,

Independence, Missouri 64056, Defendants, to Les D.

Wight, Esq., 530 East 23rd Street, Independence, Missouri

64055, Attorney for Joseph E. Campbell and Richard F.

Campbell, to Rebbecca Lake Overman, Esq., 221 West

Lexington, Independence, Missouri 64050, Administrator ad

Litem, and to Janice C. Campbell, 7065 East Calle

Betelgeux, Tucson, Arizona 85710, Defendant.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Pro Se

A-126

ee ee ee ey on hee”, bees te ee 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI

PROBATE DIVISION

AT INDEPENDENCE

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Post Office Box 13531

Tucson, Arizona 85732-3531

Petitioner

VS.

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, et al.

1509 50th Street North

Blue Springs, Missouri 64015

No. PR89-

030836-01

and

Estate No.

30836

RICHARD F. CAMPBELL

18819 East Sth Street North

Independence, Missouri 64056

Respondents

In the Estate of

Jcseph F. Campbell

Nee eee ee eee eee eee eee eae GS

Deceased

Exhibit 1

A-127

SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR

DISCOVERY OF ASSETS

COMES NOW Petitioner Janice C. Campbell by her

attorney Albert W.L. Moore, Jr., and for her second

amended petition for discovery of assets states and shows the

Court as follows:

1. Petitioner is one of the heirs of the Decedent

Joseph F. Campbell and a legatee under the terms of his will

in the above estate, in which letters testamentary were issued

on November 3, 1988.

2. Respondents are the co-personal representatives in

the above estate in this Court and legatees under said will.

3. From a point in time not later than 1983 until his

death on October 21, 1987, Decedent was of unsound mind

and was incapable of contracting or of managing his affairs

and lacked the mental capacity to give a gift or otherwise

perform an act having legal effect.

4. From a point in time not later than 1983 until his

death on October 21, 1987, Decedent was in feeble health,

mentally weak and infirm, and was subject to, and

susceptible to, being led by attention and was easily

influenced.

5. During the period of time described in paragraph

4 above, Respondents completely dominated Decedent and

ran his affairs.

A-128

Ee eT ee

i tien

6. From a point in time preceding the year 1983 until

Decedent’s death on October 21, 1987, Respondents enjoyed

a confidential and fiduciary relationship with Decedent, by

which Respondents set out to and did induce Decedent to

cooperate in one or more of the transactions set out below.

7. During one or more of the periods of time

described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above, Respondents

caused certain property of Decedent and interests in the

property of Decedent (more fully set out below) to be sold,

' or to be transferred without due consideration to one or both

of the Respondents herein.

8. When Decedent’s health deteriorated in 1983,

Respondents caused joint bank accounts to be opened in the

names of Decedent and one or both of Respondents.

9. During one or more of the periods of time

described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above, income, benefits

and other receipts accruing to Decedent were deposited into

the joint bank accounts described in paragraph 8 above and

disbursed by one or both of the Respondents.

10. On or about August 11, 1986, funds of Decedent

were used to purchase real estate described as Lot 8,

Sandalwood, a subdivision in Blue Springs, Jackson County,

Missouri, for Respondent Joseph E. Campbell.

11. During one or more of the periods of time

described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above, Respondents

caused the sale of real estate owned by Decedent situated on

the Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri, Cedar Point Lot No. 2,

and thereby injured the Decedent’s estate.

A-129

12. On or about March 18, 1986, Respondents sold

654 shares of Decedent’s Ford Motor Company common

stock and thereby injured the Decedent’s estate.

13. During one or more of the periods of time

described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above, Respondents used

Decedent’s funds to purchase motor vehicles for individuals

other than Decedent.

14. During one or more of the periods of time

described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above, Respondents took

property of Decedent for which they have made no

accounting, the exact description which is unknown to

Petitioner.

16. After Decedent’s death on October 21, 1987,

Respondents took property of Decedent properly a part of

Decedent’s probate estate for which they have made no

accounting, the exact description of which is unknown to

Petitioner.

17. Respondents’ actions in the premises were

outrageous because of their evil motive or reckless

indifference to the rights of others.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays ‘vat the Court |

discover the property belonging to Decedent, determine the

title and right of possession thereto, determine the persons

who have an interest in said property together with the nature

and extent of such interest and direct the delivery or transfer

of said property to an administrator de bonis non of the

estate of Joseph F. Campbell, deceased, appointed by the

Court and render judgment against Respondents and in favor

A-130

- I AEE PEPER SS eR YIM PIE YR NS RU SEI ME OR RRR Ye aAEN STUB Te

of said administrator de bonis non for all losses, expenses

and damages to the above-captioned estate, including punitive

damages and interest as provided by law, and for such other

relief as is just and prover.

Albert W.L. Moore, Jr. #18921

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

A-131

AFFIDAVIT OF JANICE C. CAMPBELL

STATE OF ARIZONA ) :

) SS.

COUNTY OF PIMA )

Affiant Janice C. Campbell, having first been duly

sworn, states that the foregoing is true to the best of her

knowledge.

Janice C. Campbell

Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of

January, 1994.

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

A-132

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,PROBATE DIVISION

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Petitioner

)

vs. ) Case No. PR89-030836-01

)

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, )

_ etal. )

)

Respondents )

)

) Estate No. 30836

)

In the Estate of

Joseph F. Campbell

Deceased

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL

COMES NOW Petitioner Janice C. Campbell and

moves for mistrial and an order of the Court that the above-

captioned cause be tried before a jury, for the reasons more

fully stated in the suggestions in support hereof filed

concurrently herewith and by this reference incorporated

herein.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Exhibit 2

A-133

CERTIFICATE OF

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion

for mistrial was mailed on this 6th day of February 1994 to

Les D. Wight, Esq., 530 East 23rd Street, Independence,

Missouri 64055, Attorney for Respondents, and to Rebbecca

Lake Overman, Esq., 221 West Lexington, Independence,

Missouri 64050, Administrator ad Litem.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner

OO eS eee eee? ER Hog

A-134

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PROBATE DIVISION

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Petitioner

vs. Case No. PR89-030836-01

)

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, )

. et al. )

)

Respondents )

)

In the Estate of Estate No. 30836

Joseph F. Campbell!

Deceased

SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MISTRIAL

COMES NOW Petitioner Janice C. Campbell and for

her suggestions in support of her motion for mistrial states

and shows the Court as follows:

1. The Court peremptorily discharged ‘the jury in the

midst of the Petitioner’s presentation of her case. Denying

a jury trial of this cause without Petitioner’s express consent

violates Article 1, Section 22(a) of the Constitution of the

State of Missouri, which guarantees trial by jury.

A-135

2. Section 473.340,2 of the Revised Statutes of

Missouri allows any party to demand a jury trial in an action

to discover assets. The only reasonable interpretation of the

right to demand a jury trial is that the demanding party

actually receive a jury trial. Petitioner demanded a jury trial

and in fact a jury trial proceeded for over two days before

the Court discharged the jury. In the interim, Petitioner had

established a prima facie case for the decedent's incapacity.

Petitioner has been denied her right to a jury’s determination

of incapacity and to present to the jury for its decision a

large body of evidence of transfers from the decedent’s estate

during the period of decedent’s incapacity.

3. It is reversible error for a trial court to deny a jury

trial demanded in a discovery of assets action (In re Estate of

Fugett, 564 S.W.2d 628 (Mo.App., Kansas City District,

1978).

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Court declare a

mistrial and order a new trial of this cause before a jury as

demanded by Petitioner.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

A-136

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing

suggestions in support of motion for mistrial was mailed on

this 6th day of February 1994 to Les D. Wight, Esq., 530

East 23rd Street, Independence, Missouri 64055, Attorney

for Respondents, and to Rebbecca Lake Overman, Esq., 221

West Lexington, Independence, Missouri 64050,

Administrator ad Litem.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner

A-137

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PROBATE DIVISION

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Petitioner

Case No. PR89-030836-01

VS.

)

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, )

et al. )

)

Respondents )

)

In the Estate of Estate No. 30836

Joseph F. Campbell

Deceased

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW Petitioner Janice C. Campbell by her

attorney Albert W. L. Moore, Jr., and for her objections to

the proposed settlement from the Administrator ad Litem

States and shows the Court as follows:

Exhibit 3

A-138

1. These objections are without prejudice to

Petitioner’s pending motion for mistrial in the above-

captioned case. The Court’s precipitate and appalling

discharge of the jury in the midst of Petitioner’s presentation

of her case denies her the jury trial duly demanded by her

under Section 473.340.2 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri

and guaranteed by Article 1, Section 22(a) of the Constitution

of the State of Missouri. The implementation of Section

473.085 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri requires "an

agreement in writing ... executed by all competent persons

_... having beneficial interests ...." Petitioner has not

executed any such agreement in writing, or concurred in any

agreement of any kind. Petitioner has not waived her tight

to a jury trial, and continues to demand and insist upon the

same. The purpose of these objections is simply to inform

the Court.

2. Petitioner objects to the making of any settlement

proposal by the Administrator ad Litem. The Administrator

ad Litem has never been joined as a party to the action;

hence she has no standing to participate in the trial or to

propose settlement.

3. The settlement proposal suppresses recovery by the

estate and discriminates against Petitioner; it is therefore

contrary to the fiduciary obligations of the Administrator ad

Litem to collect the entire estate and to treat all beneficiaries

fairly and impartially.

4. The Administrator ad Litem takes August 1983 as

the beginning date of decedent’s incapacity. The evidence

shows that decedent became incompetent at least as early as

the first of April 1983. Hence transfers from this date must

be returned to the estate.

A-139

5. Salient items of the Administrator ad Litem’s

proposal are analyzed below. The effective rates in the

proposal vary widely, to the benefit of the Respondents and

to the detriment of Petitioner and the estate. Here, as

throughout the trial, the Administrator ad Litem is

tantamount to co-counsel for Respondents. All calculations

in these objections are at 9% annum compounded monthly.

The calculation herein may be stated at a different rate, but

the same should apply to all.

6. The first item of the Administrator ad Litem’s

proposal is the return to the estate of Lot 8, Sandalwood,

Blc2 Springs, Missouri. Some $61,000 of the decedent’s

money went into the purchase of that property in March of

1986. About $47,000 came from the sale of 654 shares of

decedent’s Ford Motor Company common stock; the

remaining $14,000 came from other funds of decedent.

Reverse amortization of these amounts at the 9% legal rate

of interest, compounded monthly, produces a present value

of $28,900.00 plus $97,021.53, or $125,921.53 (Tab 1). To

the extent sales proceeds from the realty fall short of the

$125,921.53 figure, Joseph E. Campbell should be

additionally charged with the difference as an injury to the

estate from his use of estate money to purchase realty.

A-140

7. The second item of the Administrator ad Litem’s

proposal is Standard State Bank Checking Accour.t 200 243

4. This account was apparentiy funded entirely with the

decedent’s money. Joseph E. Campbell wrote 788 checks

against this account from 1983 to decedent’s death on the

twenty-first of October 1987. Of the 788 checks, at least

527 are questionable. Photocopies of the 527 are at Tab 2.

In light of the checks shown at Tab 2, the amount of

$4,022.09 adduced by the Administrator ad Litem is

ludicrous. It can stem only from a strong bias in favor of

. Respondents. The annual sums of questionable checks shown

at Tab 2 follow:

YEAR TOTAL

1983 $13,529.92

1984 $19,203.15

1985 $13,979.24

1986 $5,234.39

1987 $4,390.44

To reach a present value, reverse amortizations were run on

each of the annual totals from the last day of each respective

year; the grand total is $125,876.13 (Tab 3). This is

conservative, as additional transfers from the account were

made after decedent’s death.

A-141

8. The proposal fails to consider checks drawn by

Respondent Joseph E. Campbell against Standard State Bank

Money Market Account 600 958 1. This account appears to

have been funded entirely by decedent’s money during the

period of his incapacity. The only signatory on the account

was Respondent Joseph E. Campbell. Checks drawn against

the account by Respondent Joseph E. Campbell include

number 101 dated the twenty-fifth of October 1985 to

Midland Bank (where Respondent Joseph E. Campbell

banked) for $6,222.75 in respect of commercial loan

#1022168, check number 102 for $1,650.00 dated the

eleventh of November 1985 and payable to Midland Bank,

check number 103 for $1,000.00 dated the twenty-ninth of

November 1985 and payable to Standard State Bank, check

number 104 for $1,000.00 dated the second of December

1985 and payable to Midland Bank, check number 105 for

$7,000.00 payable to Midland Bank and dated the thirteenth

day of March 1986, check number 106 dated the nineteenth

of March 1986 for $500.00 to Midland Bank, check number

107 for $300.00 dated the twenty-fourth of March 1986 and

payable to Midland Bank, check number 113 dated the

fourteenth of April 1986 to Jackson National Life in the

amount of $1,250.00 for an IRA contribution, check number

116 dated the sixteenth of March 1987 for $1,000.00 cash,

check number 117 for $500.00 payable to Midland Bank and

dated the twentieth of March 1987, check number 118 dated

the eleventh of April 1987 and payable to Jackson National

Life Insurance Co. for $2,250.00 for J. E. Campbell IRA

accounts, check number 119 to Midland Bank for $500.00

dated the twenty-third of April 1987, check number 120

dated the first of June 1987 for $3,500.00 to Altronic, Inc.

(Respondent Joseph E. Campbell’s company) for the

purchase of a Ford Bronco II (presumably the Ford Bronco

II currently driven by Joseph E. Campbell and excluded from

A-142

RN tery tH gern ny

the Administrator ad Litem’s proposal). Copies of these

checks were given to the Administrator ad Litem, but she

ignored them, as well as the items purchased by them, such

as the Ford Bronco II and the IRA accounts. This is further

evidence of her preferring the Respondents over ner fiduciary

obligations. The raw total of these checks comes to

$26,672.75. The total present value of these past transfers,

as shown by the reverse amortizations at Tab 4, is

. $54,185.82.

9. The proposal fails to take into account autos

transferred to Joseph E. Campbell of a value, by his own

admission, of $17,436.64 (1989 balance sheet from Roger J.

Tilling, Petitioner’s Exhibit 19, Tab 17 hereto). The present

value of $17,436.64 transferred on the thirt' *irst day of

December 1989 is about $25,716.13 (Tab 5).

10. With regard to Item 3 of the proposal, the present

value of the $10,000.00 certificate of deposit distributed to

Respondent Richard F. Campbell on the second day of May

1986, calculated under the uniform assumptions employed

herein, is $20,336.70 (Tab 6).

11. Item 7 of the proposal sets a value of $1,500.00

on the 1973 Jeep transferred to Richard F. Campbell.

Respondents, however, admit a value of $5,750.00 for

automobiles (sic) transferred to Richard F. Campbell (1989

balance sheet at Tab 17). The Administrator ad Litem fails

to add the considerable estate funds spent on the Jeep, which

are among the questionable checks at Tab 3, on the absurd

theory that the Jeep is coming back to the estate and without

regard to the fact that Respondent Richard F. Campbell has

enjoyed the use of the vehicle for many years. To the extent

A-143

proposal discriminates against Petitioner by charging her with

interest on the alleged value of the Dodge she received while

disregarding interest on the Jeep received by Respondent

Richard F. Campbell. At Tab 7 appears a reverse

amortization on the Jeep based on a conservative valuation of

$2,500.00, which results in a present value chargeable to

Respondent Richard F. Campbell in the amount of

$6,703.23.

12. Item’ 12 of the Administrator ad Litem’s proposal

fails to add an interest factor to the Ford Motor Company

dividend checks appropriated by Respondents to themselves.

It also fails to specify the dates of the dividends so

appropriated. This information is necessary to calculate the

present value of the dividends taken by Respondents. It is

also necessary to account for all of the approximately 45

Ford dividends paid since 1982, in order to confirm that the

amounts specified in item 12 are correct.

13. Item 13 of the Administrator ad Litem’s proposal,

on rent paid to Pc’ tioner, should be rejected. On no fewer

than three occasions, Respondents pointed out to the Court

that the rent was paid to Petitioner to compensate her for the

expenditure if estate funds purportedly on 1928 Ash (Tab 8).

The Administrator ad Litem’s proposal would charge

Petitioner for the rent, plus interest, without charging

Respondents for the countervailing expenditures or for -

interest on them. Moreover, the effective rate used to

calculate interest in item 13 of the proposal is nearly twice

that used to calculate interest on monies charged against

Respondents - further evidence of the Administrator ad

Litem’s bias in this matter. A proper calculation of interest,

on the uniform rz:nciples applied herein, appears at Tab 9.

A-144

Petitioner does not concede, however, that the rent should be

returned, given the Respondents’ representations in the

filings at Tab 8.

14. The calculation of interest on item 14 of the

proposal, on the uniform basis utilized herein, appears at Tab

10. The present value comes out to $21,428.70, chargeable

to Respondents.

15. It is erroneous to suggest that Petitioner received

- a $10,000.00 certificate of deposit, as the Administrator ad

Litem does in item 15 of her proposal. Both of Petitioner’s

certificates of deposit were turned in. Respondent Joseph E.

Campbell did obtain a Dodge for Petitioner, which he turned

over to her after driving it himself for two months. He

assigned a value to that vehicle of $6,929.69 on the 1989

balance sheet comprising part of Petitioner’s Exhibit 19, the

Tilling report (Tab 17). Taking the $10,000.00 now claimed

as the value of the Dodge, however, the present value as

calculated on the uniform basis used herein appears at Tab

11. It comes to $23,264.38

16. As to item 16 of the proposal, the present value

is $20,642.90, chargeable to Joseph FE Campbell; see Tab

12.

17. As to item 17 of the proposal, the present value

is $24,513.58, chargeable to Respondent Richard F.

Campbell; see Tab 13.

18. As to item 18 of the proposal, the present value

is $21,589.42, chargeable to Respondent Richard F.

Campbell; see Tab 14.

A-145

19. The Administrator ad Litem’s proposai fails to

include the great damage done to the estate by the sale of

654 shares of Ford Motor Company common stock in March

of 1986. A three-for-one [sic] stock split (or 50% stock

dividend) occurred on the second of June 1986; this would

have added 327 more shares. A two-for-one stock split

occurred on the twelfth of January 1988; this would have

added another 981 shares (654 + 327 = 981) for a total of

1,962 shares. These would have been in addition to the 980

shares in the estate stemming from the 327 shares not sold

(327 + 163 + 490 = 980). Had the 654 shares not been

sold, the estate would have had 2,942 shares (1,962 + 980

= 2,942) instead of the 980 shares currently held by the

Administrator ad Litem. At a market value of $65.00 per

share, the additional 1,962 shares would be worth $127,530.

Hence the estate has been damaged to the tune of $80,530.00

($127,530.00 - $47,000.00 proceeds of the sale of 654 shares

= $80,530.00). See Tab 15. Moreover, the estate lost the

dividends that would have been paid on the 1,962 shares.

See the calculation of the present value of lost dividends at

Tab 16. It amounts to $46,570.47. Hence the total damage

to the estate from the sale of the Ford stock is $127,100.47

($80,530.00 + $46,570.47 = $127,100.47). There is no

double counting of damages, for the $47,000.00 in proceeds

from the sale has been deducted in the foregoing

computations. The subsequent misappropriation of the

$47,000.00 is discussed in paragraph 6 above.

20. The settlement proposal fails to take into account

$2,000.00 in appreciation on the lake shore property sold in

1984. The proceeds of sale are traced into certificates of

deposit treated above.

A-146

21. The proposal fails to take into account some

$60,000.00 in legal expenses incurred by Petitioner to bring

Respondents to the point of a settlement proposal, however

flawed. Respondents’ tactics have been aimed at running up

Petitioner’s legal costs; Respondents, not Petitioner, should

bear the burden of such nonsense. Petitioner’s legal costs

incurred on behalf of the estate more than offset amount

allegedly chargeable to her.

22. In summary, the Respondents should return at

_ least the following to the estate:

Blue Springs realty $75,000.00

Excess of injury to the estate,

from expenditure of $61,000.00

on Blue Springs realty, over

current value of realty $50,921.53

Present value of questionable

checks drawn against Standard

State Bank Account 200 243 4 $125,876.13

Present value of questionable

checks drawn against Standard

State Bank Account 600 958 1 $54,185.82

Present value of automobiles |

transferred to Joseph E. Campbell $25,716.13

Present value of certificate of

deposit #890076 $20.336.70

Present value of Jeep assuming

a value of $2,500.00 $6,703.23

A-147

Present value of certificate of

deposit #10510 $21,428.70

Present value of certificate of

deposit #12825 $20,642.90

Present value of certificate of

deposit #13443 $24,513.58

Present value of certificate of

deposit #10859 $21,589.42

Present value of 1,962 shares

that should be in the estate,

less $47,000.00 proceeds of sale

of 654 shares $80,530.00

Present value of dividends lost

by. sale of 654 shares $46,570.47

Cash dividends appropriated

by Respondents $7,350.00

Appreciation of lake shore

property sold in 1984 __ $2,000.00

$583,364.61

The foregoing comments and objections are without prejudice

to Petitioner’s right to assign other and additional loss and

damage to the estate. In particular, the full extent of checks

written and the present value of cash dividends appropriated

by Respondents remain open.

A-148

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays this Court reject the

spurious proposal of the Administrator ad Litem and correct

its error in precipitately and unlawfully discharging the jury

by setting a date for the trial of this cause by a duly selected

jury.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

554 South Ash

Post Office Box 7800

Independence, Missouri 64053

(816) 254-6070

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing

objections to proposed settlement was mailed on this 8th day

of February 1994 io Les D. Wight, Esq., 530 East 23rd

Street, Independence, Missouri 64055, Attorney ‘or

Respondents, and to Rebbecca Lake Overman, Esq., 221

West Lexington, Independence, Missouri 64050,

Administrator ad Litem.

Albert W. L. Moore, Jr.

Attorney for Petitioner

A-149

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,

MISSOURI, PROBATE DIVISION AT INDEPENDENCE

JANICE C. CAMPBELL

Petitioner

vs.

JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL, et al.

No. PR94-030836-05

Respondents Estate No. 30836

In the Estate of

Juseph F. Campbell

Deceased

RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR ORDER TO SELL

PERSONAL PROPERTY

COMES NOW Petitioner Janice C. Campbell by her

attorney Albert W. L. Moore, Jr., and for her response to

the petition of the Administrator ad Litem for an order to sell

personal property states and shows the Court as follows:

1. The Administrator ad Litem is a mere stakeholder

who has never been joined as a party to the above entitled

adversary action, in which she now presumes to file a

petition. As neither a party nor disclosed attorney for any

party, she has no standing to file the petition in the said

action.

Exhibit 4

A-150

2. It is not in the interests of the estate to sell the

most valuable and productive asset currently in the hands of

the Administrator ad Litem. The Ash Street property has

cost the estate money. The Blue Springs property has

appreciated at less than 3% per year since 1986. The 327

shares of Ford stock worth some $23,500 in 1086, however,

have grown to 980 shares worth some $63,700, and in the

meantime the following dividends have been paid:

Div. Payable # of Amount

No. Date $/Share Shares Payable

116 1 March 86 .70 327 $228.90

117 2 June 86 .825 327 $269.77

118 2 Sept 86 Pe 490 $269.50

119 1 Dec 86 .65 490 $318.50

120 2 March 87 .65 490 $318.50

121 1 June 87 .75 490 $367.50

122 1 Sept 87 .75 490 $367.50

123. 1 Dec 87 1.00 490 $490.00

124 1 March 88 50 980 $490.00

125 1 June 88 .60 980 $588.00

126 = 1 Sept 88 .60 980 $588.00

127 1 Dec 88 .60 980 $588.00

128 1 March 89 ~~ .75 980 $735.00

1291 June 89 .75 980 $735.00

130 ~=—1 Sept 89 .75 980 $735.00

131 1 Dec 89 .75 et $735.00

132 1 March90 ~~ .75 980 $735.00

133. 1 June 90 .75 980 $735.00

134 —s 1 Sept 90 .75 980 $735.00

135. 1 Dec 90 ae 980 $735.00

136 ~=1 March 91 .75 980 $735.00

A-151

137 — 11 June 91 .40 980 $392.00

138 3 Sept 91 40 980 $392.00

139 2 Dec 91 40 980 $392.00

140 2 March 92 .40 980 $392.00

141 ~—1 June 92 .40 980 $392.00

142 1 Sept 92 40 980 $392.00

143 + 1 Dec 92 .40 980 $392.00

144s 1“ March 93 .40 980 $392.00

1451: June 93 .40 980 $392.00

146 1 Sept 93 40 980 $392.00

147 1 Dec 93 .40 980 __ $392.00

$15,811.17

(See Tab 15 of Petitioner’s objections to proposed

settlement.) From 327 shares that were themse!ves a stock

dividend, the estate has roughly $80,000 of market value and

cash dividends. If the present value of the dividends were

calculated, the total would be significantly greater.

Moreover, the price per share of Ford stock is approaching

the level at which it has previously split. Prospects seem

bright. Ford made two and a half billion dollars in 1993. A

dividend is expected in early March. Pending the appeal and

possible re-trial of the above-entitled adversary action,

dividends and stock appreciation could provide the only

practicable way to pay ongoing expenses of administration.

3. It is premature and inappropriate to sell the most

valuable and productive assets in the hands of the

Administrator ad Litem, for claims and expenses could

render the estate bankrupt and force a pro-rata payment of

claims. Until the entire estate is collected, no claim should

be paid.

A-152

4. Selling the stock to pay claims at this stage flies

in the face of the principle of marshaling assets.

In general usage, the term "to marshal" means

to arrange in order; and in the sense in which

it is used in courts of equity, it means to

arrange different funds under administration

so that all parties having equities thereon may

receive their due proportions.

(See 53 Am.Jur. Marshaling Assets Section 1.) As the

evidence submitted with Petitioner’s objections to proposed

settlement make clear, Respondents have already made off

with most of the estate. Most of what they have taken has

been further transferred or dissipated. Using the liquid assets

in the hands of the Administrator ad Litem to pay claims,

many of which will be made by Respondents and their ally

the Administrator ad Litem, would leave Petitioner as the

distributee of a predominantly unsecured judgment against

Respondents, who could then take bankruptcy. This would

effectively defeat decedent’s express testamentary intent to

divide his estate equally among the three children. Section

474.430 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri requires that all

courts and others concerned in the execution of last wills

shall have due regard to the true intent and meaning of the

testator in all matters brought before them. Claim

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.