That didn’t take long. A week ago, Tom Hazelrigg III (we call him “TRIII”) filed blank bankrutpcy schedules, claiming that answering them would expose him to criminal liability. The US Trustee has responded with a Motion to Compel Hazelrigg to file the schedules. The hearing is set for May 18, one day after the day that Hazelrigg is scheduled to attend the Rule 341 Meeting of Creditors.
Linda Mastro attorney Michael Gossler filed what looks like a hastily prepared appellate brief. No pun intended, but it’s pretty brief – touching on community property law, prenuptial agreements, estate planning and appellate review standards, all very complex subjects, without a whole lot of analysis. (We suspect this is good evidence Gossler is not getting paid and is making his best argument with little to go on).
Recall that the trial court ruled that the jewelry was not her separate property and thus subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Linda Mastro’s brief argues the trial court erred in this respect – and that all the evidence shows that the jewelry was her separate property.
As for the judgments against Linda Mastro related to missing property, like the rings, gold bars, and money from an LLC, she argues that was error too. She argues there was no evidence presented at trial that she had any control or even had knowledge about any of these transactions, and that the signatures related to these transactions, which purported ot be hers, were not actually hers, but Mike Mastro signing for her.
As it stands now, Linda Mastro remains on the lam, assumedly (but not necessarily) with Mike. Also we assumed she has possession of the jewelry (or sold it, and has the cash), which the trial court ruled is not hers.
We can’t wait to read the Trustee’s responsive briefing.
We’re not very artsy either.
All that said, it’s a great honor to see we’ve been garnering some reliable hits from the Seattle branding firm, Wexley School for Girls.
Check ‘em out at www.wexley.com. Thanks for the attention guys!
This is interesting – and we surmise not too amusing to Judge Dore. On April 9, TRIII filed his bankruptcy schedules and Chapter 7 Statement of Current Income and Means Test. Here are the Schedules. Here is the Statement of Current Income/Means Test. They’re both blank. Hazelrigg is refusing to disclose anything, stating that doing so could incriminate him, and thus his refusal is protected under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This is interesting because TRIII asked the Court for more time to file the Schedules and the Court allowed it. In asking, Hazelrigg told the Court he needed more time because he could not find all the information needed to complete the schedules. If he intended to “take the Fifth,” we’re not sure what he was waiting for.
Pleading the Fifth is not new to the Hazelrigg clan. TRIII’s son, Aaron, did it in the Centurion Properties bankruptcy in Spokane. Here’s more detail on that.
We wonder if TRIII has waived his Fifth Amendment privileges by going so far into detail about his financial transactions in the Centurion Properties case, here and here. We’ll be interested to see how the trustee responds.
Also, save the date! The Meeting of Creditors is set for May 17, 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. Courthouse in Seattle, Room 8206. Here’s the Official Notice. If you are a creditor and know of any assets that aren’t on TRIII’s Schedules, here’s an excellent opportunity to show up and ask! But we betcha the response will be the same: “I Plead the Fifth!”
In re Estate of Wilma Rodman, (Division II January 24, 2012)
Sandra Mitchell, et al. v. Estate of Rose P. Sowder, et al., (Division II January 24, 2012)
I represent wife of deceased husband. Wife and husband had numerous joint accounts. The accounts were all joint accounts (right of survivorship). The total assets are in the approximate amount of two million dollars. Wife wants to disclaim the sum of one million dollars in order to use deceased husband’s one million dollar Oregon exemption. I recently learned that wife placed the joint accounts solely in her name shortly after husbands death. Other than placing the accounts solely in her name I do not believe that she has taken any other activity as to the accounts. We are still well within nine months from date of death.
Here are the thoughtful (unattributed) responses :
1. Too late. She accepted the survivorship interest by exercising dominion and control over the accounts when she transferred the funds. Great example of why disclaimer trust planning is very risky and should be avoided whenever feasible.
2. Right on, …. Does Oregon have a counterpart to the Washington Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (TEDRA) RCW 11.96A? We use this to create a court order to overcome many errors, like make irrevocable trusts revocable, defog ambiguities, etc….quite remarkable, in fact….both a judicial and non-judicial (stipulation) methods….please advise, not that I would use one in Oregon due to the garlic wreath I have around my neck when it comes to court… Continue reading