SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

Estate of K. Michael Goodall

-against-

James Raymond Hastings

and

Bank of America, N.A.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. PR 1100596

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER FILED BY BANK OF AMERICA and FURTHER SUPPORT OF
850 PETITION TO RECOVER ESTATE PROPERTY

Hearing Date: February 21, 2012
Time: 8:30
Department: H

Sam Sloan declares:
      1. Although I filed a Petition under California Probate Code
Section 850 to Recover Estate Property back in July 2011, seven months
ago, to this date I have received no opposition to my petition.
Instead, Bank of America has filed a Demurrer. In it, they claim that
this matter is already before the San Francisco Probate Court and thus
it cannot be brought here. However, their statements are not true and
this claim must fail, for several reasons. For one, I have named Mr.
James R. Hastings as a respondent here. When this matter was last
before this court on December 27, 2011, Mr. Hastings, who happened to
be in the courtroom on another matter, stated to Commissioner Randolph
E. Heubach, in open court, “This matter has nothing to do with me. I
am not involved in it at all”.
      2. However, that statement was not true and is one of the many
false statements Hastings has made in this case. This case has
everything to do with Mr. Hastings and for that reason he is named in
the caption to this petition. (See Above).
      3. I am advised that it is not proper or effective to file this
demurrer as a way of opposing an 850 Petition. There is nothing in the
California Practice Manuals about filing a demurrer as a way to defeat
an 850 petition. In addition, the papers filed by Bank of America ask
that this court grant that their motion “be sustained without leave to
amend”. This would be highly irregular if this court were to do such a
thing.
      4. The demurrer filed by Bank of America states that I have not
filed a verification. However, attached hereto as Exhibit A is my
verification of the 850 Petition.
      5. The motion filed by Bank of America states that my objection
is time barred because the statute of limitations has run. They state
that a notice to Michael Goodall giving him 120 days to object is
found in Exhibit B to Exhibit 1. However, there is no Exhibit B to
Exhibit 1. There is only Exhibit A. I have found what I believe to be
the document to which they refer. However, it merely gives Michael 120
days to object to the Trust dated September 12, 1990. Michael
certainly was not going to object to the trust dated September 12,
1990, because that Trust gives everything to Michael. Attached hereto
as Exhibit B is the relevant page of the September 12, 1990. As can
plainly be seen, that trust gives the entire Goodall Estate to
Michael.
      6. There are no documents that show that Michael was notified of
the August 24, 1994 Amendment to the trust and given 120 days to
object to that. He was only notified of the 1990 Trust. It can be
stated with certainty that if Michael had been so notified he would
have objected in view of the case he filed against Bank of America in
1999.
      7. I am specifically objecting to the validity of the August 24,
1994 Trust document. I am certain that this document is a forgery and
that the perpetrator of this crime is none other than James R.
Hastings. Facts that recently came to my attention demonstrate that
this is a forgery.
      8. The first fact is the declarations by James Hastings filed in
San Francisco Probate Court. They state among other things that
Kenneth Goodall had come to him in 1997 and said that he wanted to
change his will because he was unhappy that Michael had quit his job
and moved back into the family home. It is remarkable that Kenneth
Goodall said this in 1997, since he died in 1994. Next, Hastings says
that in August 1994, Kenneth and Rachel Goodall came to his office and
asked him to prepare new trust documents for them to sign taking all
powers out of the hands of their only son, Michael, and giving them to
Bank of America, of which Hastings was the manager of the Trust
Department. However, it is impossible for this to have happened
because Kenneth Goodall was on his death bed at the time and his wife
Rachel had always had difficulty walking and could not climb stairs
and was not capable of going anywhere without her husband's
assistance. The Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall which is annexed
hereto and marked Exhibit C states on line 113.
          “Was Operation performed for any condition in item 107 or
112? If yes, list type of operation and date.
           “Feeding Jejunostomy 07/25/1994”

      9. Kenneth Goodall died on September 10, 1994. During the time
between the operation on July 25, 1994 in which a feeding tube was
inserted into his abdomen and his death on September 10, 1994, he was
entirely bedridden. He was either in the hospital or in his home in a
hospital bed. He never went to the office of James R. Hastings or
anywhere else for that matter. Thus, the claim by Hastings that he
came to the office of James R. Hastings and asked for his will and his
trust documents to be changed only 17 days before his death is simply
a lie.
      10. In addition to the purported Trust document dated August 24,
1994, there are two other documents bearing the same date. These are
new wills signed by Kenneth and his wife Rachel Goodall. These are
“pour over wills”. They provide that the assets of Kenneth and Rachel
be poured into the Trust. Without these wills the trust has no money.
However, both wills bear the purported signature of Nancy Rodgers, who
was a close friend of Rachel Goodall and lived across the street at
470 Peachstone Terrace. Nancy Rodgers states that although the
signatures look like hers, they are not hers and she never signed
these documents. She says that she never witnessed any wills signed by
either Kenneth or Rachel Goodall. She is certain of this. However, she
does remember signing quite a different document after Kenneth had
died. She states that after the death of Kenneth, Rachel, who was her
best friend, called her and another neighbor, Barbara Dagitz, who
lived next door at 455 Peachstone Terrace, to come over and sign a
health directive. She states that when she and Barbara Dagitz arrived
in the house of Rachel Goodall, only a lawyer plus Rachel were
present. Michael was not there and Kenneth had already died. She says
that was surprised that she was being asked to witness a health
directive as she did not see any need for a witness to sign such a
document. Nevertheless, she signed it. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is
a declaration by Nancy Rodgers stating these facts.
      11. Nancy Rodgers and her husband William Rodgers state that
shortly before the death of Kenneth Goodall, they received a call from
Rachel Goodall, asking them to come over, stating that if they wanted
to see Kenneth they should come over now as Kenneth would not be with
us much longer. At first, her husband, William Rodgers, did not want
to go, but finally he agreed to go, as they had not seen Kenneth in a
long time. They found Kenneth Goodall sitting up in bed with his arms
folded trying to look as normal as possible. He was being fed through
a feeding tube. The Rodgers expressed surprise that Rachel Goodall was
able to handle this situation.
      12. That was the last time they ever saw Kenneth. Both Nancy
Rodgers and her husband William Rodgers are certain that neither of
them signed any documents as witnesses for Kenneth Goodall on that
date or at any other time.
      13. Compare their statements with the statements made by James
Hastings at a deposition we took of him on November 14, 2011.  The
transcript of the Deposition is annexed as Exhibit E. On page 49, he
is asked if he can recall anything with regard to Mr. Goodall's health
at the time. He answers “No”. He is asked several other questions
about the health or physical condition of Mr. or Mrs. Goodall at that
time. In each case, Hastings says he can recall nothing about their
health condition or what they specifically said to him at this or at
any other time.
      14. Surely any lawyer when asking a client to sign a will and
other documents drastically changing and revoking his prior estate
plans would inquire and would notice that the man signing the will was
in a hospital bed and was being fed through a feeding tube, especially
when he died only 17 days later.
      15. From this we can infer what really happened: James Hastings
never really saw Kenneth or Rachel Goodall in the months before the
death of Kenneth Goodall in September 1994. However, after Kenneth
Goodall had died and been buried, Hastings had Rachel Goodall ask her
two best friends, Nancy Rodgers and Barbara Dagitz, witness a Health
Care Directive. In the Goodall Estate Planning binder, there is a
document entitled “Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care” signed
by Kenneth and a space for a similar document signed by Rachel, except
that the document signed by Rachel is missing. This document signed by
Kenneth checks the box for “I have obtained the signatures of two
witnesses who personally know me”. This explains why Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz were called.
      16.  What clearly happened is that this missing document is the
document signed by Rachel Goodall and witnessed by Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz after Kenneth had died. James R. Hastings then took
this document and, by using Adobe Photoshop or similar means,
transposed the signatures of Rachel Goodall and Nancy Rodgers onto
other documents including the ...

read more »

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

Estate of K. Michael Goodall

-against-

James Raymond Hastings

and

Bank of America, N.A.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. PR 1100596

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER FILED BY BANK OF AMERICA and FURTHER SUPPORT OF
850 PETITION TO RECOVER ESTATE PROPERTY

Hearing Date: February 21, 2012
Time: 8:30
Department: H

Sam Sloan declares:
      1. Although I filed a Petition under California Probate Code
Section 850 to Recover Estate Property back in July 2011, seven months
ago, to this date I have received no opposition to my petition.
Instead, Bank of America has filed a Demurrer. In it, they claim that
this matter is already before the San Francisco Probate Court and thus
it cannot be brought here. However, their statements are not true and
this claim must fail, for several reasons. For one, I have named Mr.
James R. Hastings as a respondent here. When this matter was last
before this court on December 27, 2011, Mr. Hastings, who happened to
be in the courtroom on another matter, stated to Commissioner Randolph
E. Heubach, in open court, “This matter has nothing to do with me. I
am not involved in it at all”.
      2. However, that statement was not true and is one of the many
false statements Hastings has made in this case. This case has
everything to do with Mr. Hastings and for that reason he is named in
the caption to this petition. (See Above).
      3. I am advised that it is not proper or effective to file this
demurrer as a way of opposing an 850 Petition. There is nothing in the
California Practice Manuals about filing a demurrer as a way to defeat
an 850 petition. In addition, the papers filed by Bank of America ask
that this court grant that their motion “be sustained without leave to
amend”. This would be highly irregular if this court were to do such a
thing.
      4. The demurrer filed by Bank of America states that I have not
filed a verification. However, attached hereto as Exhibit A is my
verification of the 850 Petition.
      5. The motion filed by Bank of America states that my objection
is time barred because the statute of limitations has run. They state
that a notice to Michael Goodall giving him 120 days to object is
found in Exhibit B to Exhibit 1. However, there is no Exhibit B to
Exhibit 1. There is only Exhibit A. I have found what I believe to be
the document to which they refer. However, it merely gives Michael 120
days to object to the Trust dated September 12, 1990. Michael
certainly was not going to object to the trust dated September 12,
1990, because that Trust gives everything to Michael. Attached hereto
as Exhibit B is the relevant page of the September 12, 1990 trust. As
can plainly be seen, that trust gives the entire Goodall Estate to
Michael.
      6. There are no documents that show that Michael was notified of
the August 24, 1994 Amendment to the trust and given 120 days to
object to that. He was only notified of the 1990 Trust. It can be
stated with certainty that if Michael had been so notified he would
have objected in view of the case he filed against Bank of America in
1999.
      7. I am specifically objecting to the validity of the August 24,
1994 Trust document. I am certain that this document is a forgery and
that the perpetrator of this crime is none other than James R.
Hastings. Facts that recently came to my attention demonstrate that
this is a forgery.
      8. The first fact is the declarations by James Hastings filed in
San Francisco Probate Court. They state among other things that
Kenneth Goodall had come to him in 1997 and said that he wanted to
change his will because he was unhappy that Michael had quit his job
and moved back into the family home. It is remarkable that Kenneth
Goodall said this in 1997, since he died in 1994. Next, Hastings says
that in August 1994, Kenneth and Rachel Goodall came to his office and
asked him to prepare new trust documents for them to sign taking all
powers out of the hands of their only son, Michael, and giving them to
Bank of America, of which Hastings was the manager of the Trust
Department. However, it is impossible for this to have happened
because Kenneth Goodall was on his death bed at the time and his wife
Rachel had always had difficulty walking and could not climb stairs
and was not capable of going anywhere without her husband's
assistance. The Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall which is annexed
hereto and marked Exhibit C states on line 113.
          “Was Operation performed for any condition in item 107 or
112? If yes, list type of operation and date.
           “Feeding Jejunostomy 07/25/1994”

      9. Kenneth Goodall died on September 10, 1994. During the time
between the operation on July 25, 1994 in which a feeding tube was
inserted into his abdomen and his death on September 10, 1994, he was
entirely bedridden. He was either in the hospital or in his home in a
hospital bed. He never went to the office of James R. Hastings or
anywhere else for that matter. Thus, the claim by Hastings that he
came to the office of James R. Hastings and asked for his will and his
trust documents to be changed only 17 days before his death is simply
a lie.
      10. In addition to the purported Trust document dated August 24,
1994, there are two other documents bearing the same date. These are
new wills signed by Kenneth and his wife Rachel Goodall. These are
“pour over wills”. They provide that the assets of Kenneth and Rachel
be poured into the Trust. Without these wills the trust has no money.
However, both wills bear the purported signature of Nancy Rodgers, who
was a close friend of Rachel Goodall and lived across the street at
470 Peachstone Terrace. Nancy Rodgers states that although the
signatures look like hers, they are not hers and she never signed
these documents. She says that she never witnessed any wills signed by
either Kenneth or Rachel Goodall. She is certain of this. However, she
does remember signing quite a different document after Kenneth had
died. She states that after the death of Kenneth, Rachel, who was her
best friend, called her and another neighbor, Barbara Dagitz, who
lived next door at 455 Peachstone Terrace, to come over and sign a
health directive. She states that when she and Barbara Dagitz arrived
in the house of Rachel Goodall, only a lawyer plus Rachel were
present. Michael was not there and Kenneth had already died. She says
that she was surprised that she was being asked to witness a health
directive as she did not see any need for a witness to sign such a
document. Nevertheless, she signed it. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is
a declaration by Nancy Rodgers stating these facts.
      11. Nancy Rodgers and her husband William Rodgers state that
shortly before the death of Kenneth Goodall, they received a call from
Rachel Goodall, asking them to come over, stating that if they wanted
to see Kenneth they should come over now as Kenneth would not be with
us much longer. At first, her husband, William Rodgers, did not want
to go, but finally he agreed to go, as they had not seen Kenneth in a
long time. They found Kenneth Goodall sitting up in bed with his arms
folded trying to look as normal as possible. He was being fed through
a feeding tube. The Rodgers expressed surprise that Rachel Goodall was
able to handle this situation.
      12. That was the last time they ever saw Kenneth. Both Nancy
Rodgers and her husband William Rodgers are certain that neither of
them signed any documents as witnesses for Kenneth Goodall on that
date or at any other time.
      13. Compare their statements with the statements made by James
Hastings at a deposition we took of him on November 14, 2011.  The
transcript of the Deposition is annexed as Exhibit E. On page 49, he
is asked if he can recall anything with regard to Mr. Goodall's health
at the time. He answers “No”. He is asked several other questions
about the health or physical condition of Mr. or Mrs. Goodall at that
time. In each case, Hastings says he can recall nothing about their
health condition or what they specifically said to him at this or at
any other time.
      14. Surely any lawyer when asking a client to sign a will and
other documents drastically changing and revoking his prior estate
plans would inquire and would notice that the man signing the will was
in a hospital bed and was being fed through a feeding tube, especially
when he died only 17 days later.
      15. From this we can infer what really happened: James Hastings
never really saw Kenneth or Rachel Goodall in the months before the
death of Kenneth Goodall in September 1994. However, after Kenneth
Goodall had died and been buried, Hastings had Rachel Goodall ask her
two best friends, Nancy Rodgers and Barbara Dagitz, witness a Health
Care Directive. In the Goodall Estate Planning binder, there is a
document entitled “Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care” signed
by Kenneth and a space for a similar document signed by Rachel, except
that the document signed by Rachel is missing. This document signed by
Kenneth checks the box for “I have obtained the signatures of two
witnesses who personally know me”. This explains why Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz were called.
      16.  What clearly happened is that this missing document is the
document signed by Rachel Goodall and witnessed by Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz after Kenneth had died. James R. Hastings then took
this document and, by using Adobe Photoshop or similar means,
transposed the signatures of Rachel Goodall and Nancy Rodgers onto
other documents ...

read more »

Putting that aside, I have my own apartment and I am paying rent
there. Thus, if I am to pay rent here too, I will be paying rent in
two different places. Thus, I am fully prepared to move out and let a
tenant move in. However, the reason I am here is, as I said in court,
is to guard the house from you and from Guide Dogs for the Blind, whom
Mike referred to as the "Blind Dogs".

Not only did Bank of America break into the house and take all the
contents on or about February 28, 2011 but, after most of the
furniture except for the beds and one of the paintings was returned in
June, on the afternoon of July 28, 2011 I came home and found two real
estate agent rummaging around in the back yard of the house at 461
Peachstone Terrace, San Rafael, California 94903. They said they had
been sent by Guide Dogs for the Blind who, they said, owned the
property. One of the real estate agents gave her name as Carol Chapman
of CRC Partners, San Anselmo CA 94979. The other, a man, had opened
the gate and I found him in the back yard of the house trying to get
into the house through a small back window. This same small back
window had been left unlocked by Bank of America when they were last
in the house on February 28. (I know that date because they had left
behind a copy of the New York Times bearing the date of February 27.)
Thus, the man trying to break into the house obviously had been told
by the Bank of America that that particular window had been left
unlocked.

So, since I have my own apartment, I am willing to move out and allow
a tenant to occupy the house but I need to have the assurance that
Bank of America and Guide Dogs for the Blind will not try to break in
again.

Sam Sloan

I do not agree that I have my own apartment and am paying rent. Thus,
if I am to be in two different places, I am fully prepared to break
into the house and take all the contents except for two real estate
agents.

They said Guide Dogs had opened the gate through a small back window.

Bank of America had been left unlocked. So, I am willing to try to
break in again.