Statute of Uses and Conflict of Interest for Plenary Guardian Carolyn Toerpe

The following is an email that Atty Ken Ditkowsky agreed to post with some explanation of the facts to new readers:

Background (by JMD):

In 2005, Mary was taken by her daughter Carolyn to an attorney to change her Will and Power of Attorney which a Power of Attorney for Health Care and Property was granted to Carolyn. The other younger daughter, Gloria, did not know about this until after she and her mother returned from a vacation trip in 2010 and noticed that keys to their safe deposit box were missing, and the staff at the local bank informed them that Carolyn had the box drilled out, without permission, while both of them were gone. Now, since Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box, the bank should have required written permission from Gloria, but that was never done. Carolyn knew Gloria's name was on the safe deposit box. A trust document was created which purportedly transferred title from Mary Sykes to a Trust wherein Mary Sykes was the trustor, trustee AND beneficiary. There was an approximate $150,000 mortgage on Mary's home.

From Ken:

Let us go over the facts. The house owned by Mary had a mortgage on it that had a due on sale cause in the Chain of title. Carolyn to obtain a benefit for herself, induced her mother to sign a Deed in Trust that violated the due on sale clause. This document was intended to be deceptive in that in the early pages of the document that Mr. Stern provided, the Deed in Trust purports to divide the subject real estate equally, yet later on it attempts to portray the entire property being given to Carolyn.

Now add up the facts: 1) Mary with the aid of Court personnel prepared a petition for a protective order against Carolyn. 2) Carolyn obtained a power of attorney, but never filed the appropriate accountings even though she raided the Safety Deposit Box. 3) Carolyn took without authorization $4000.00 that she claimed that she was using to allegedly "create an IRA account" - this precipitated Mary going to the Courthouse.

4) The petition for an order of protection was sidetracked by the agreed order promulgated by the two guardian ad litem and the attorney for the plenary guardian. (I believe that at that point in time Schmiedel had replaced Waller). The document that Stern provided does not have a document number or time stamp. When did Carolyn file the Deed in Trust?

It is my opinion that the Deed in Trust violates the Statute of Uses and therefore transfers the property right back to Mary. The net is that Carolyn has no authority to institute the forcible entry and detainer action against Gloria. The net also is that this document (furnished by Stern) is strong evidence of misconduct on the part of the plenary guardian.

Stern's furnishing the document and correcting Schmiedel's misstatment as to the disposition of the petition for an order of protection is a positive. I understand he arranged one of the rare Christmas contacts for Mary's siblings. His complains about your blog however are a negative. There has been so little reported that is positive concerning Stern, it is a pleasure to be able to say something nice. It is possible by highly improbable that he is going to surprise us by revealing to the Court the fact that Carolyn has not been candid with the Court as to the assets of the disabled person's estate and she has a real conflict of interest - i.e. does she foster her own interests or that of the estate. The expectation the either Farenga or Stern would do anything that was not in the best interests of Carolyn is 'slim and none.' As a lawyer, Stern is supposed to be familiar with the Statute of Uses.

I copied Stern on this e-mail because I do not want him to suggest at some later date that it never occurred to him that the Statute of Uses would apply and that ****.

Ken Ditkowsky

www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Additional note from JMD: At the time the $4,000 was removed from Mary's account without permission, Carolyn claimed it was for an "IRA" or retirement fund for Mary. This is despite the fact that in 2009 Mary was 90 and ineligible for any retirement fund with any tax or other benefits.
Further, at the very last hearing, Gloria brought up the fact with Judge Stuart that Carolyn should not be guardian because she was the Respondent to an Order for Protection and that was against Illinois state law. Judge Stuart responded, "wasn't that heard earlier in this case" to which Mr. Stern admitted, "no it wasn't." Judge Stuart then indicated she would not entertain and was interested or concerned about the fact that Carolyn Toerpe was, and still is, the respondent to a Motion for a Protective Order! Certainly the court personnel helping Mary would not have filed the Petition if they felt Mary was incompetent or suffered from dementia, they would have brought it to the attention of the court.

The Curious Conduct of Mr. Lippman, an Illinois attorney and Chicago Volunteer Legal Services

Another burning question in this case is the curious conduct of Mr. Lippman, a senior attorney and volunteer at Chicago Volunteer Legal Services (CVLS).

Now no one wants to say anything bad about an attorney that regularly volunteers for the poor, and in this case the poor and elderly, but Mr. Lippman's behaviour became quite curious in the course of the proceedings involving the guardianship of Mary G. Sykes. And to be fair, no one really knows why all of this happened but it all appears to be a severe violation of Mary G's rights in this matter. And other than the fact Mr. Lippman did not show up in court--after being provided with a subpoena, the fault really lies with the court and not Mr. Lippman.

Sometime before that hearing date of December 7th, in fact many months before, Gloria took her mother to CVLS and asked for an attorney to help her fill out a Power of Attorney for Health Care and for Property. As with any good attorney, when a family member brings in an elderly senior, he wanted to talk with Mary G alone, determine that she was not under any undue duress or influence, and that she basically understood what the documents she was about to sign were there for. So he talked with Gloria for a short while, and then he privately discussed everything with Mary G and sent her happily on her way with the two required Illinois statutory forms, one for Property and One for health care. Mary filled them out with the assistance of another independent family member, and they were notarized by an independent party. The notary was available to testify in court, but the court did not want to hear that testimony, that the notary watched Mary G sign as indicated and there was no evidence of undue influence or duress. (Actually a notary only testifies that she knows the person signing the document was in fact the person before her--notaries do not ensure any other matters such as undue influence or even sound mind and memory, unless that is specifically stated so in the notary clause.)

But during the court hearing to appoint a guardianship, the court ignored all of these important facts, and even the most important document--the Power of Attorney and Health Care granted to Gloria which was the most recent and it should have been enforced UNLESS it was conclusively shown that Mary G was incompetent at the time of the signing--which would have been nearly impossible in a normal court because Mary G wrote specific wishes all over the document in her own handwriting!

The GAL's said Mary was just parroting instructions, which was absolutely ridiculous because the words and phrases were complex and the handwriting was excellent. Was the court merely following the theory that a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters typing a thousand years could write an award winning short story? Was that the reasoning for this.

The court SHOULD have required Mr. Lippman to testify and enforced the Subpoena that Gloria filed, the court SHOULD have listened to the testimony of the notary. And the court clearly should have questioned Mary about who she wanted to have her Power of Attorney and if she could identify her handwriting on the document.

Instead, the court railroaded Gloria and appointed Carolyn--a person who was the subject of a Protective Order where Mary G alleged Carolyn was wrongfully removing assets from her accounts!

Mary G deserved her own private attorney and not the GAL's who were ignoring her requests and her instructions.

She wanted to stay in her own home and have Gloria continue to care for her.

Those should have been the only goals of the Court and of the GAL's.

Now it gets very, very strange. Of course the court would want to see those documents. Perhaps the court wanted to talk with Mr. Lippman, JD, to determine that he followed proper and customary procedures (this would NOT require Mary G to divulge her attorney client privilege. Mr. Lippman would only discuss the procedure and NOT the substance of the conversations.

Instead, at the last minute, Mr. Lippman said he would not attend and that the director of CVLS told him not to unless there was a court order in place--ridiculous. Mr. Lippman has a duty--even as an ordinary citizen--to attend a court hearing out of a civil duty. In Illinois attorneys have the right to obtain a subpoena where ever there is due cause that the testimony may be helpful to the court or to their client. Mr. Lippman and CVLS ignored all of that!

Further, the hearing on December 7, 2010 when Carolyn was appointed was only to be on Gloria's care plan. Instead, the court railroaded Gloria and appointed Carolyn, even tho the matter should have been set for another day because there was no notice to anyone.

Why can't Mary G see her elderly relatives?

From Ken Ditkowsky, an Illinois licensed attorney:
On the eve of the Christmas Season, I would like to ask one main question.
l.) Why should any child or close relative be limited or barred from visiting with his/her sibling/parent etc? Or stated in a more specific manner – what possible rationalization exist for anyone to prevent Mary Sykes’ siblings (age 80 plus) and younger daughter (almost 60) from visiting with 92 + year old Mary Sykes on an unfettered basis? As noted in the Sykes case the effort put forth by the plenary guardian and the two guardian ad litem to isolate Mary Sykes from her family, friends, young daughter, and siblings is humongous. Hundreds of hours have been spent in preventing the younger daughter and younger sister from having contact with Mary Sykes! Hundreds of hours have been expended by Guardian ad litem Stern in an effort to prevent Mary Sykes from having legal representation!
The obscenity that the marshalled facts detailing the plenary guardian’s and the guardian’s ad litem actions in the Mary Sykes case presents is strong evidence of how far we as a society have progressed in our efforts to re live the National Socialist agenda. Just like the ‘brown shirts’ of the 30′s we are pious in our verbage, but, the Paterno Syndrome is alive and well! The ‘do not ask, do not tell mentality’ has led law enforcement and government to forget their function in society, i.e. serve and protect. It is easy to goose step along in benign neglect! However, the fact remains that what is happening is wrong and no matter what member of political elite might find herself/himself in the ‘dock’ should not be a consideration.
Mary Sykes is not protected by isolation, financial exploitation and elder abuse. She (Mary Sykes) is not protected by a society that can turn its back on her and allow a guardian who was named by Mary in an Petition for an order of Protection to be deprived of the love or her siblings and her younger daughter! Some activities are inherently wrong! They remain wrong even when approved by authority and/or the Courts. This isolation of Mary Sykes from her younger daughter and her siblings is inherently wrong. How does the Illinois State Police and the Naperville Police attorn to this situation. The National Socialists rounded up allegedly undesirable people in the 30′s, bundled them into rail cars and deprived them of oxygen and the world watched! As indicated by the number of guardianship abuse cases that have come forward we have temporarily substituted the allegedly disabled for the “undesirables” or Jews, blacks, disabled persons, homosexuals and Russians!
The very same ‘lame excuses’ and rationalizations presented with authority are now used to perpetuate the elder abuse (isolation) and financial exploitation and the lack of action on the part of authority. The Paterno syndrome is just as alive in Chicago, Illinois, Colorado, Indiana etc as it is at Penn State. Heavy clout obviates any meaningful investigation, prosecution, protection, or government function. Form is superior to substance and we hear:
1) a guardian ad litem tells the Court that Mary Sykes does not want legal representation – even though she has in her own hand written a plea for legal representation. Even though other family members have been passed notes by her and she has appealed to them to get an attorney and go home. How do the GAL’s and the court respond? To not bring up the subject because it will upset Mary G! Mary G knows her mind and she wants it to be respected. The Probate Code allows for the disabled person to make such decisions.
2) a lawyer telling a court that the isolation of Mary in a day care facility replete with sensory deprivation is ‘progress” (we know better – since when does a lawyers words substitute for common sense and reason?) Why is Mary being placed in senior day care, when Gloria can keep her at home and care for her?
3) police department response minimizing approximately 1/2 dozen emergency room trips by Mary and the December 2010 incident in which we was reported to have lost 10% of her body weight, and was neglected by the plenary guardian. (this is exactly what happened in the Paterno case – and exactly what the Tea Party, the Occupy group, and the majority of Americans are crying about, We are tired by same old excuses and blame game! – Coach Paterno did exactly what he was required to do, and Law enforcement minimized the serious child molestation. Indeed, had Paterno done more nothing more would have happened. Indeed, nothing more would have happened and did not happen because Coach Paterno was an icon and if an honest and full investigation had occurred the heads of many of the clout heavy would have been on the chopping block. Thus, Paterno is the victim that the media is felling sorry for! Hell with the victims!)
4) the failure of government to insist that the plenary guardian inventory the contents of a safety deposit box (and a mattress containing money). (The GALs, law enforcement and the Court that is supposed to supervise the disabled person’s estate watched extensive remodeling go one a the plenary guardians’ home while her husband was unemployed and the US was in a serious recession )
Once again – how does our society rationalize it attornment to the isolation of Mary Sykes (92) from her daughter and siblings! (80 +) The ‘box cars are on the track!’ You will not need your luggage – *****
Ken Ditkowsky
www.ditkowskylawoffice.com

Information from Gloria Sykes, her daughter

Mary Sykes, now aged 92 years old, during her lifetime was a feisty and active advocate of the virtues of honesty, family, and 'giving to the community.' She was active in her church, garden club and civic affairs. Her husband was a Chicago Policeman, and together they raised two daughters.

In approximately 2006 as Mary was getting Chronologically older, the daughters felt that they ought to step in a make life a little easier for mother. Unfortunately the good intentions quickly dissipated as the older daughter (Carolyn) took Mary to a lawyer. When Mary emerged from the lawyer's office the older daughter was the primary beneficiary of Mary's estate and trust. The older daughter was also the successor trustee on a trust prepared for Mary and possessed a power of attorney.

The younger daughter was busy with her career, and with fighting an insurance claim. The claim settled with a substantial win for the youngest daughter! In the meantime the older daughter was nickel and diming mother's estate and got caught! Mary noticed that $4000.00 was missing from her bank account. She made inquiry of the older daughter was informed by the older daughter that she had invested the money in an IRA account for mother.

Mary was outraged! No one in their right mind invests a 90 year old woman's money in an IRA - she does not qualify!. The prevarication, however, alerted Mary to the fact that something was wrong. She went to her safety deposit box and discovered that it had been cleaned out! All that left was the younger daughter's birth certificate torn and battered!. (This safety deposit box contained @300 gold coins, jewelry, and other valuables - worth almost a million dollars).

Horrified at what happened she requested of the lawyer and her older daughter copies of the documents she signed, and was rebuffed. Mary went to the local fire station to discuss her predicament and the Lieutenant directed her to the Court house. Mary sought an order of protection from her older daughter and sought help from the Illinois Department of Aging. In Court she prepared with the help of a court clerk a verified petition for a protective order. This petition was served on the older daughter.

The older daughter literally forced Mary to accompany her to her (daughter's) home in Naperville, Illinois. What happened in Naperville we do not know, but this act effectively vitiated the domestic violence proceedings. On July 20, 2009 the older daughter filed for a guardianship of her mother Mary. On July 21, 2009, it appears that the proceedings entered and were consolidated with the petition for guardianship.

The Guardianship proceedings were very strange. Two guardian ad litems were appointed, the proceedings were commenced without a 'doctor's certificate.' In fact as late as August 31, 2009 there was no certificate.