# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Moore v. Campbell > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1397%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1996 - **Citation:** 516 U.S. 1076 ## 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 i 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. ii 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. iv 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 10 Vv 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 10 5,9 5,6 vi 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 a 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 ix 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, v. 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. 2 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 3 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). 5 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 >. | 6 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 8 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. 9 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. 10 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 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 OF 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 OF 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, s/ Albert W. L. Moore, Jr. #18921 554 South Ash Post Office Box 7800 Independence, Missouri 64053 (816) 254-6070 PRO SE A-10 se 3 February 3 February 3 February 3 February 5 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 6 February 7 February 7 February 7 February 7 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 21 February 21 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 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 5 January 6 January 6 January 10 January 10 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 a7 3.0 Bn 12 January 12 January 13 January 13 January 13 January 13 January 13 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 18 January 18 January 19 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 20 January 20 January 21 January 21 January 21 January 21 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 22 January 22 January 23 January 23 January 24 January 24 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 25 January 25 January 26 January 26 January 26 January 27 January 27 January 27 January 28 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 $4.50 $5.60 $5.50 $5.60 30 January 30 January 30 January 31 January 31 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 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 4 November 4 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 29 November 29 November 29 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 4 October 4 October 5 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 5 October 5 October 5 October 6 October 6 October 7 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 7 October 8 October 11 October 12 October 12 October 12 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 15 October 16 October 16 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 x 3.0 3.0 $75.00 17 October 18 October 18 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 26 October 27 October 27 October 27 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 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 7 September 7 September 7 September 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, i 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 17 September 20 September 21 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 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 18 August STATEMENT Janice C. Campbell E < es 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 18 August 19 August 19 August 22 August 23 August 23 August eC 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 25 August 25 August 27 August 27 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 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 July 1 July 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 2 July 2 July 5 July 5 July 5 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 9 July 9 July 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 9 June 10 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 24 June 30 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 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 23 April 23 April 26 April 27 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 19 May 25 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 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 11 March 11 March 12 March 15 March 15 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 23 March 23 March 23 March 26 March 26 March 27 March 29 March 29 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 2 pe $9.95 $2.70 $2.00 2 1 $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 16 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 16 February 17 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 18 February 18 February 19 February 23 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 25 February 25 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 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 yf “€)? 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. s/ 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 ‘ 2 a z - $ Fs § t : ¢ - H * f =, £ 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. s/ 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. s/ 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. s/ 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 s/ 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. s/ 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. s/ 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 judgme [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1397%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.