Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Estate of Mike Goodall - Opposition to Demurrer of Bank of America
8 views
Skip to first unread message
samsloan
Feb 6, 2012, 1:12:52 PM2/6/12
to
Samuel H. Sloan
Administrator with Will Attached of
Estate of K. Michael Goodall
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
415-419-5980
415-349-6116
samh...@gmail.com
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 two wills and the 1994 Trust. Thus, the
Health Care Directive gave him all the signatures he needed to create
the other documents, except for the signature of Kenneth Goodall, and
that was readily available on numerous documents in the possession of
Mr. Hastings. Hastings had plenty of signatures of Kenneth Goodall on
other documents, so the fact that Kenneth was dead created no barrier
to his creating a document signed by Kenneth.
17. Until January 2012, the Will of Kenneth Goodall was reported
to be lost or missing by the Clerk's Office. The Marin County Clerk's
Office including Stacy in the record room spent months in a frantic
search for this missing will. Finally, a few days ago, the will was
“found”. It is highly irregular and unusual for any document and
especially for a will to go missing in the court files like that.
Hastings of course knew that the Clerk's Office was searching for the
will and that the entire case depended on that will, so he most likely
slipped it back in, which is an easy thing to do for someone such as
Mr. Hastings who has been working for years with documents in this
Clerk's Office.
18. James R. Hastings has failed and refused to provide any
documents from his files, although these files are the subject of a
subpoena and court order. Hastings states that he has lost the entire
Estate Planning File for the Goodalls and his other files pertaining
to the Goodalls are not relevant and therefore he refuses to produce
them. Among the files that Mr. Hastings claims are not relevant are
presumably the Health Care Directive witnessed by Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz. If we had that document we could see if the signatures
on that document are identical to the signatures on the wills.
19. I have examined at the Marin County Superior Court the
recently discovered purported original of the purported Last Will of
Kenneth F. Goodall, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F,
and the purported Last Will of Rachel A Goodall, copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit G. These documents are on file at the Marin
County Superior Court. Kenneth Goodall’s will is number W001916 and
Rachel Goodall’s will is number W001919.
20. What is remarkable about these documents on file with the
Court is that they do not appear to be original documents; that is,
that the three signatures and the two dates which appear on each of
these documents at page 7 of each of these documents are not in blue
ink, and I can feel no depression on the back or front of these pages
to indicate that a pen was pressed on the paper to otherwise indicate
an original signature. The total of six signatures do not show any
variation in pressure or indentation in the paper. Thus, the documents
appear to be copies and are not originals. As to how they were created
I do not know but if I were creating them I would use Adobe Photoshop.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is the Declaration filed by
James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court after he was ordered
by that court to search for the files and produce them if he could
find them. As you can see from his declaration, he is not able to find
any of the Goodall files. It is at a minimum professional misconduct
for a lawyer to lose or misplace files vitally important to such an
important case involving millions of dollars.
22. Another document Hastings is unable or unwilling to produce
is the original power of attorney that Rachel Goodall gave to her son
Michael Goodall. We have been able to obtain a copy of this power of
attorney from USAA Management, where the Goodalls kept substantially
all of their money up until the death of Rachel Goodall in 1999.
However, their copy is not signed. Michael Goodall tried to obtain the
original signed document from Mr. Hastings but Hastings refused to
give it to him, just as Hastings is now refusing to give me any
documents from the Michael Goodall Files, although I am legally
entitled to them as I am the personal representative of K. Michael
Goodall and thus am entitled to my own files back.
23. As can be seen, this Power of Attorney gave Michael Goodall
the power to modify or vacate the Goodall Family Trust. Michael
Goodall tried to do exactly that and wrote numerous letters to USAA
Investment Management demanding changes in the accounts. These letters
were ineffective because Michael did not have the original signed
power of attorney. James Hastings had the original power of attorney
presumably in the same files that he now refuses to give us.
24. It could be argued and no doubt will be argued that Michael
could have taken other and further steps to obtain that Power of
Attorney, but it is clear that his efforts would have been futile
especially since we have been trying to obtain these same documents
from Hastings and have gotten nowhere.
1. 25. Kenneth Goodall left two notebooks in Round Ring Binders.
One has a green cover. The other has a blue cover. When Bank of
America broke into the Goodall Mansion on or about February 28, 2011
and took all the contents, they took these two binders. However, they
were returned by the bank on June 10, 2011 under threat of court
order. I do not know if any changes were made during the period when
Bank of America had them.
26. One page found in the green covered binder is marked Exhibit
I. It includes hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his
estate. It says the following:
"General Terms of the wills leave all property to the survivor of Ken
or Rachel, and then to Mike, our son."
Below that, it says:
"It is best that you have some time to think about the subjects
discussed at the first meeting, so try to defer any commitments until
the next meeting. I have never encountered a lawyer who did not leave
me feeling poluted afterwards. I despise them as a class and as
individuals."
27. In view of the above statement by Kenneth Goodall, “I have
never encountered a lawyer who did not leave me feeling poluted
afterwards. I despise them as a class and as individuals”, it is
inconceivable that on his death bed he would knowingly sign a document
that virtually took all rights away from his only child and gave them
to a lawyer, James R. Hastings.
28. The major differences between the 1990 Trust and the 1994
Trust is that the 1994 Trust names Bank of America as the back up
trustee whereas the 1990 Trust names Security Pacific Bank as the
backup trustee. James R. Hastings was the manager of the Trust
Department of Bank of America and this establishes his motivation for
this change. Secondly, and most importantly, the 1990 Trust gives the
estate directly to Michael Goodall and his heirs whereas Section 6.3
on Page 18 of the 1994 Trust consists of a convoluted and circular
paragraph which makes no sense at all but basically gives the estate
to the by-pass trust that in turn gives it to Michael. Thus, read
logically, Michael still gets the estate. That is the reason why
Hastings has filed statements that the intent of the trust was to give
the estate to Guide Dogs to the Blind regardless of whether Michael
died before or after his parents did. Hastings has not offered any
explanation as to why he did not draft the trust so as to do exactly
what he says was the intent of the trust. The standard Nolo Press book
on Living Trusts, available at almost any bookstore, provides a fill-
in-the-blanks form to do exactly what Hastings says was the intent of
the convoluted trust he drew up. Why did he not use the Nolo Press
form? Why does he have the right to say that the intent of the Trust
he drew up was different from what the trust actually says? Even
assuming that in Kenneth's weakened condition after just having
undergone surgery and having a feeding tube inserted in his abdomen
and awaiting his death that he knew would come soon, and even assuming
that Kenneth Goodall read and signed the documents, how does Hastings
and the Courts have the right to decide that the intent of the trust
is different from what is actually says, which is Guide Dogs for the
Blind gets the money if and only if Michael dies before his parents
do.
29. A third difference between the 1990 Trust and the 1994
purported Trust is that the 1994 Trust contains a no-contest clause.
This is in section 8.3 on page 33 of the 1994 document. There is no
“no-contest clause” in the 1990 document. James Hastings used this no
contest clause to frighten Mike into believing that he would lose
everything. In a pleading or paper filed in San Francisco Probate
Court in 2000, Hastings stated that the objection by Michael Goodall
to having Bank of America serve as Trustee constituted a challenge to
the trust and therefore Michael should lose everything. However, now
in this court Hastings reverses himself saying that Goodall did not
challenge the Trust and therefore is time barred from doing so.
30. A fourth difference between the 1990 document and the 1994
document is the 1990 Trust shows only the house as being in the trust.
There was no money in the trust. This is in accordance to the
statement in Exhibit I that says “No Trust Fund is Established”.
However, the 1994 purported trust says there is $10 plus the house in
this trust. While the ten dollars seems a trivial matter, it does
establish a trust fund.
31. Everything about this case tells us that Hastings is a
fraud, a liar and a scammer. He starts off by saying that Kenneth
Goodall told him something in 1997 when Kenneth Goodall actually died
in 1994. He has changed his story many times. He says that the
Goodalls came to his office in August 1994 when in reality Kenneth
Goodall was in bed being fed by a feeding tube and could not walk or
go anywhere at that time. James Hastings refuses to produce any files
on this matter including the original trust documents and says that he
lost or misplaced them. He cannot remember anything that either
Kenneth or Rachel Goodall said, yet he provides a declaration saying
what their intent was. On December 27, 2011, he 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”. This was a lie. Hastings
completely stonewalls at every step of the way.
1. 32. At the time of the death of Rachel Goodall in 1999 there
was no Goodall money in Bank of America. They did not even have a
regular checking account there. Substantially all their money was with
USAA Investment Management in Texas. Right after Rachel Goodall died,
Hastings started writing letters to the USAA Investment Management
demanding that the funds be transferred to Bank of America. As far as
we can determine, there was at least $610,000 in the USAA Investment
Management account at that time. There was no right and no legal basis
to this request by Hastings to transfer the money to Bank of America.
I have been informed by the Probate Examiner that the transfer of such
a large amount of money should have been done under the supervision of
the Probate Court. Instead, no probate proceeding was filed. As
result, we still do not know how much money was transferred or where
it came from. The estate documents show other Goodall accounts
including a trading account with Charles Schwab, a stock brokerage
firm. We do not know what happened to that money. We only know that it
disappeared and that Hastings was aggressively writing to everybody
who had had dealings with the Goodalls demanding that all Goodall
funds be handed over to Bank of America. Examples of some of the
letters Hastings wrote is annexed as Exhibit J.
33. We have received about 500 pages of documents from USAA
Investment Management. They have been co-operating fully as opposed to
Bank of America which has been completely stonewalling. Although some
of these USAA documents do refer to a Trust account, none of the
documents show how that account was set up. Neither the 1990 Trust nor
the 1994 Trust is included in the documents provided by USAA
Investment Management. We know that before Mr. Hastings arrived on the
scene, the Goodalls had an attorney named Robert W. Pendergrass. He
practiced law in Marin County for more than 50 years and died on March
24, 2009 at age 91 years. It is possible and indeed likely that he too
set up a trust account for the Goodalls that preceded the 1990 and
1994 documents. With both Bank of America and James R. Hastings
completely stonewalling and refusing to provide any documents or
information and with Hastings saying that he has lost or misplaces all
the files, there is no way for us to determine the truth of the
matter. I am calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of Mr.
Hastings, not to mention disbarment.
WHEREFORE the Demurrer filed by Bank of America should be denied and
the 850 motion filed by the administrator of the estate should be
granted.
2.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
Verification:
Sam Sloan declares:
I have read the Opposition to the Demurrer filed in this matter, and I
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DATED:
Sam Sloan
Exhibit A
Verification of the 850 Petition
Exhibit B
Relevant page of the Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C
Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall
Exhibit D
Declaration by Nancy Rodgers
Exhibit E
Transcript of the Deposition of James R. Hastings
Exhibit F
Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall
Exhibit G
Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall
Exhibit H
Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
Exhibit I
Hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his estate
Exhibit J
Letters by Hastings written after the death of Rachel Goodall
demanding that funds be transferred to Bank of America
Administrator with Will Attached of
Estate of K. Michael Goodall
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
415-419-5980
415-349-6116
samh...@gmail.com
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 two wills and the 1994 Trust. Thus, the
Health Care Directive gave him all the signatures he needed to create
the other documents, except for the signature of Kenneth Goodall, and
that was readily available on numerous documents in the possession of
Mr. Hastings. Hastings had plenty of signatures of Kenneth Goodall on
other documents, so the fact that Kenneth was dead created no barrier
to his creating a document signed by Kenneth.
17. Until January 2012, the Will of Kenneth Goodall was reported
to be lost or missing by the Clerk's Office. The Marin County Clerk's
Office including Stacy in the record room spent months in a frantic
search for this missing will. Finally, a few days ago, the will was
“found”. It is highly irregular and unusual for any document and
especially for a will to go missing in the court files like that.
Hastings of course knew that the Clerk's Office was searching for the
will and that the entire case depended on that will, so he most likely
slipped it back in, which is an easy thing to do for someone such as
Mr. Hastings who has been working for years with documents in this
Clerk's Office.
18. James R. Hastings has failed and refused to provide any
documents from his files, although these files are the subject of a
subpoena and court order. Hastings states that he has lost the entire
Estate Planning File for the Goodalls and his other files pertaining
to the Goodalls are not relevant and therefore he refuses to produce
them. Among the files that Mr. Hastings claims are not relevant are
presumably the Health Care Directive witnessed by Nancy Rodgers and
Barbara Dagitz. If we had that document we could see if the signatures
on that document are identical to the signatures on the wills.
19. I have examined at the Marin County Superior Court the
recently discovered purported original of the purported Last Will of
Kenneth F. Goodall, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F,
and the purported Last Will of Rachel A Goodall, copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit G. These documents are on file at the Marin
County Superior Court. Kenneth Goodall’s will is number W001916 and
Rachel Goodall’s will is number W001919.
20. What is remarkable about these documents on file with the
Court is that they do not appear to be original documents; that is,
that the three signatures and the two dates which appear on each of
these documents at page 7 of each of these documents are not in blue
ink, and I can feel no depression on the back or front of these pages
to indicate that a pen was pressed on the paper to otherwise indicate
an original signature. The total of six signatures do not show any
variation in pressure or indentation in the paper. Thus, the documents
appear to be copies and are not originals. As to how they were created
I do not know but if I were creating them I would use Adobe Photoshop.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is the Declaration filed by
James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court after he was ordered
by that court to search for the files and produce them if he could
find them. As you can see from his declaration, he is not able to find
any of the Goodall files. It is at a minimum professional misconduct
for a lawyer to lose or misplace files vitally important to such an
important case involving millions of dollars.
22. Another document Hastings is unable or unwilling to produce
is the original power of attorney that Rachel Goodall gave to her son
Michael Goodall. We have been able to obtain a copy of this power of
attorney from USAA Management, where the Goodalls kept substantially
all of their money up until the death of Rachel Goodall in 1999.
However, their copy is not signed. Michael Goodall tried to obtain the
original signed document from Mr. Hastings but Hastings refused to
give it to him, just as Hastings is now refusing to give me any
documents from the Michael Goodall Files, although I am legally
entitled to them as I am the personal representative of K. Michael
Goodall and thus am entitled to my own files back.
23. As can be seen, this Power of Attorney gave Michael Goodall
the power to modify or vacate the Goodall Family Trust. Michael
Goodall tried to do exactly that and wrote numerous letters to USAA
Investment Management demanding changes in the accounts. These letters
were ineffective because Michael did not have the original signed
power of attorney. James Hastings had the original power of attorney
presumably in the same files that he now refuses to give us.
24. It could be argued and no doubt will be argued that Michael
could have taken other and further steps to obtain that Power of
Attorney, but it is clear that his efforts would have been futile
especially since we have been trying to obtain these same documents
from Hastings and have gotten nowhere.
1. 25. Kenneth Goodall left two notebooks in Round Ring Binders.
One has a green cover. The other has a blue cover. When Bank of
America broke into the Goodall Mansion on or about February 28, 2011
and took all the contents, they took these two binders. However, they
were returned by the bank on June 10, 2011 under threat of court
order. I do not know if any changes were made during the period when
Bank of America had them.
26. One page found in the green covered binder is marked Exhibit
I. It includes hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his
estate. It says the following:
"General Terms of the wills leave all property to the survivor of Ken
or Rachel, and then to Mike, our son."
Below that, it says:
"It is best that you have some time to think about the subjects
discussed at the first meeting, so try to defer any commitments until
the next meeting. I have never encountered a lawyer who did not leave
me feeling poluted afterwards. I despise them as a class and as
individuals."
27. In view of the above statement by Kenneth Goodall, “I have
never encountered a lawyer who did not leave me feeling poluted
afterwards. I despise them as a class and as individuals”, it is
inconceivable that on his death bed he would knowingly sign a document
that virtually took all rights away from his only child and gave them
to a lawyer, James R. Hastings.
28. The major differences between the 1990 Trust and the 1994
Trust is that the 1994 Trust names Bank of America as the back up
trustee whereas the 1990 Trust names Security Pacific Bank as the
backup trustee. James R. Hastings was the manager of the Trust
Department of Bank of America and this establishes his motivation for
this change. Secondly, and most importantly, the 1990 Trust gives the
estate directly to Michael Goodall and his heirs whereas Section 6.3
on Page 18 of the 1994 Trust consists of a convoluted and circular
paragraph which makes no sense at all but basically gives the estate
to the by-pass trust that in turn gives it to Michael. Thus, read
logically, Michael still gets the estate. That is the reason why
Hastings has filed statements that the intent of the trust was to give
the estate to Guide Dogs to the Blind regardless of whether Michael
died before or after his parents did. Hastings has not offered any
explanation as to why he did not draft the trust so as to do exactly
what he says was the intent of the trust. The standard Nolo Press book
on Living Trusts, available at almost any bookstore, provides a fill-
in-the-blanks form to do exactly what Hastings says was the intent of
the convoluted trust he drew up. Why did he not use the Nolo Press
form? Why does he have the right to say that the intent of the Trust
he drew up was different from what the trust actually says? Even
assuming that in Kenneth's weakened condition after just having
undergone surgery and having a feeding tube inserted in his abdomen
and awaiting his death that he knew would come soon, and even assuming
that Kenneth Goodall read and signed the documents, how does Hastings
and the Courts have the right to decide that the intent of the trust
is different from what is actually says, which is Guide Dogs for the
Blind gets the money if and only if Michael dies before his parents
do.
29. A third difference between the 1990 Trust and the 1994
purported Trust is that the 1994 Trust contains a no-contest clause.
This is in section 8.3 on page 33 of the 1994 document. There is no
“no-contest clause” in the 1990 document. James Hastings used this no
contest clause to frighten Mike into believing that he would lose
everything. In a pleading or paper filed in San Francisco Probate
Court in 2000, Hastings stated that the objection by Michael Goodall
to having Bank of America serve as Trustee constituted a challenge to
the trust and therefore Michael should lose everything. However, now
in this court Hastings reverses himself saying that Goodall did not
challenge the Trust and therefore is time barred from doing so.
30. A fourth difference between the 1990 document and the 1994
document is the 1990 Trust shows only the house as being in the trust.
There was no money in the trust. This is in accordance to the
statement in Exhibit I that says “No Trust Fund is Established”.
However, the 1994 purported trust says there is $10 plus the house in
this trust. While the ten dollars seems a trivial matter, it does
establish a trust fund.
31. Everything about this case tells us that Hastings is a
fraud, a liar and a scammer. He starts off by saying that Kenneth
Goodall told him something in 1997 when Kenneth Goodall actually died
in 1994. He has changed his story many times. He says that the
Goodalls came to his office in August 1994 when in reality Kenneth
Goodall was in bed being fed by a feeding tube and could not walk or
go anywhere at that time. James Hastings refuses to produce any files
on this matter including the original trust documents and says that he
lost or misplaced them. He cannot remember anything that either
Kenneth or Rachel Goodall said, yet he provides a declaration saying
what their intent was. On December 27, 2011, he 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”. This was a lie. Hastings
completely stonewalls at every step of the way.
1. 32. At the time of the death of Rachel Goodall in 1999 there
was no Goodall money in Bank of America. They did not even have a
regular checking account there. Substantially all their money was with
USAA Investment Management in Texas. Right after Rachel Goodall died,
Hastings started writing letters to the USAA Investment Management
demanding that the funds be transferred to Bank of America. As far as
we can determine, there was at least $610,000 in the USAA Investment
Management account at that time. There was no right and no legal basis
to this request by Hastings to transfer the money to Bank of America.
I have been informed by the Probate Examiner that the transfer of such
a large amount of money should have been done under the supervision of
the Probate Court. Instead, no probate proceeding was filed. As
result, we still do not know how much money was transferred or where
it came from. The estate documents show other Goodall accounts
including a trading account with Charles Schwab, a stock brokerage
firm. We do not know what happened to that money. We only know that it
disappeared and that Hastings was aggressively writing to everybody
who had had dealings with the Goodalls demanding that all Goodall
funds be handed over to Bank of America. Examples of some of the
letters Hastings wrote is annexed as Exhibit J.
33. We have received about 500 pages of documents from USAA
Investment Management. They have been co-operating fully as opposed to
Bank of America which has been completely stonewalling. Although some
of these USAA documents do refer to a Trust account, none of the
documents show how that account was set up. Neither the 1990 Trust nor
the 1994 Trust is included in the documents provided by USAA
Investment Management. We know that before Mr. Hastings arrived on the
scene, the Goodalls had an attorney named Robert W. Pendergrass. He
practiced law in Marin County for more than 50 years and died on March
24, 2009 at age 91 years. It is possible and indeed likely that he too
set up a trust account for the Goodalls that preceded the 1990 and
1994 documents. With both Bank of America and James R. Hastings
completely stonewalling and refusing to provide any documents or
information and with Hastings saying that he has lost or misplaces all
the files, there is no way for us to determine the truth of the
matter. I am calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of Mr.
Hastings, not to mention disbarment.
WHEREFORE the Demurrer filed by Bank of America should be denied and
the 850 motion filed by the administrator of the estate should be
granted.
2.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
Verification:
Sam Sloan declares:
I have read the Opposition to the Demurrer filed in this matter, and I
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DATED:
Sam Sloan
Exhibit A
Verification of the 850 Petition
Exhibit B
Relevant page of the Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C
Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall
Exhibit D
Declaration by Nancy Rodgers
Exhibit E
Transcript of the Deposition of James R. Hastings
Exhibit F
Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall
Exhibit G
Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall
Exhibit H
Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
Exhibit I
Hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his estate
Exhibit J
Letters by Hastings written after the death of Rachel Goodall
demanding that funds be transferred to Bank of America
None
Feb 6, 2012, 1:26:50 PM2/6/12
to
On Feb 6, 1:12 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Samuel H. Sloan
> Administrator with Will Attached of
> Estate of K. Michael Goodall
> 461 Peachstone Terrace
> San Rafael CA 94903415-419-5980begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 415-419-5980 end_of_the_skype_highlighting415-349-6116begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 415-349-6116 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> Samuel H. Sloan
> Administrator with Will Attached of
> Estate of K. Michael Goodall
> 461 Peachstone Terrace
> samhsl...@gmail.com
>
> SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the last 20 years have you ever prevailed in one of your frivilous
> SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
actions?
samsloan
Feb 7, 2012, 9:25:32 AM2/7/12
to
the unsigned Power of Attorney as provided to us by USAA Investment
Management is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit I.
24. It could be argued and no doubt will be argued that Michael
could have taken other and further steps to obtain that Power of
Attorney, but it is clear that his efforts would have been futile
especially since we have been trying to obtain these same documents
from Hastings and have gotten nowhere.
could have taken other and further steps to obtain that Power of
Attorney, but it is clear that his efforts would have been futile
especially since we have been trying to obtain these same documents
from Hastings and have gotten nowhere.
25. Kenneth Goodall left two notebooks in Round Ring Binders.
One has a green cover. The other has a blue cover. When Bank of
America broke into the Goodall Mansion on or about February 28, 2011
and took all the contents, they took these two binders. However, they
were returned by the bank on June 10, 2011 under threat of court
order. I do not know if any changes were made during the period when
Bank of America had them.
26. One page found in the green covered binder is marked Exhibit
J. It includes hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his
One has a green cover. The other has a blue cover. When Bank of
America broke into the Goodall Mansion on or about February 28, 2011
and took all the contents, they took these two binders. However, they
were returned by the bank on June 10, 2011 under threat of court
order. I do not know if any changes were made during the period when
Bank of America had them.
26. One page found in the green covered binder is marked Exhibit
house and the money. However, now in this court Hastings reverses
himself saying that Goodall did not challenge the Trust and therefore
is time barred from doing so.
30. A fourth difference between the 1990 document and the 1994
document is the 1990 Trust shows only the house as being in the trust.
There was no money in the trust. This is in accordance to the
statement in Exhibit J that says “No Trust Fund is Established”.
is time barred from doing so.
30. A fourth difference between the 1990 document and the 1994
document is the 1990 Trust shows only the house as being in the trust.
There was no money in the trust. This is in accordance to the
However, the 1994 purported trust says there is $10 plus the house in
this trust. While the ten dollars seems a trivial matter, it does
establish a trust fund.
31. Everything about this case tells us that Hastings is a
fraud, a liar and a scammer. He starts off by saying that Kenneth
Goodall told him something in 1997 when Kenneth Goodall actually died
in 1994. He has changed his story many times. He says that the
Goodalls came to his office in August 1994 when in reality Kenneth
Goodall was in bed being fed by a feeding tube and could not walk or
go anywhere at that time. James Hastings refuses to produce any files
on this matter including the original trust documents and says that he
lost or misplaced them. He cannot remember anything that either
Kenneth or Rachel Goodall said, yet he provides a declaration saying
what their intent was. On December 27, 2011, he 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”. This was a lie. Hastings
completely stonewalls at every step of the way.
this trust. While the ten dollars seems a trivial matter, it does
establish a trust fund.
31. Everything about this case tells us that Hastings is a
fraud, a liar and a scammer. He starts off by saying that Kenneth
Goodall told him something in 1997 when Kenneth Goodall actually died
in 1994. He has changed his story many times. He says that the
Goodalls came to his office in August 1994 when in reality Kenneth
Goodall was in bed being fed by a feeding tube and could not walk or
go anywhere at that time. James Hastings refuses to produce any files
on this matter including the original trust documents and says that he
lost or misplaced them. He cannot remember anything that either
Kenneth or Rachel Goodall said, yet he provides a declaration saying
what their intent was. On December 27, 2011, he 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”. This was a lie. Hastings
completely stonewalls at every step of the way.
32. At the time of the death of Rachel Goodall in 1999 there was
no Goodall money in Bank of America. They did not even have a regular
checking account there. Substantially all their money was with USAA
Investment Management in Texas. Right after Rachel Goodall died,
Hastings started writing letters to the USAA Investment Management
demanding that the funds be transferred to Bank of America. As far as
we can determine, there was at least $610,000 in the USAA Investment
Management account at that time. There was no right and no legal basis
to this request by Hastings to transfer this money to Bank of America.
no Goodall money in Bank of America. They did not even have a regular
checking account there. Substantially all their money was with USAA
Investment Management in Texas. Right after Rachel Goodall died,
Hastings started writing letters to the USAA Investment Management
demanding that the funds be transferred to Bank of America. As far as
we can determine, there was at least $610,000 in the USAA Investment
Management account at that time. There was no right and no legal basis
If the Goodalls wanted the money transferred, they would have done it
while they were alive. Hastings states on pages 58-59 of the
transcript that it is normal not to transfer the cash assets from one
financial institution to another until after the person has died. This
is obviously nonsense. I have been informed by the Probate Examiner
that the transfer of such a large amount of money as over $600,000
should have been done under the supervision of the Probate Court.
Instead, no probate proceeding was filed. As a result, we still do not
know how much money was transferred or where it came from. The estate
documents show other Goodall accounts including a trading account with
Charles Schwab, a stock brokerage firm. We do not know what happened
to that money. We only know that it disappeared and that Hastings was
aggressively writing to everybody who had had dealings with the
Goodalls demanding that all Goodall funds be handed over to Bank of
America. Examples of some of the letters Hastings wrote is annexed as
Exhibit K.
documents show other Goodall accounts including a trading account with
Charles Schwab, a stock brokerage firm. We do not know what happened
to that money. We only know that it disappeared and that Hastings was
aggressively writing to everybody who had had dealings with the
Goodalls demanding that all Goodall funds be handed over to Bank of
America. Examples of some of the letters Hastings wrote is annexed as
33. We have received about 500 pages of documents from USAA
Investment Management. They have been co-operating fully as opposed to
Bank of America which has been completely stonewalling. Although some
of these USAA documents do refer to a Trust account, none of the
documents show how that account was set up. Neither the 1990 Trust nor
the 1994 Trust is included in the documents provided by USAA
Investment Management. We know that before Mr. Hastings arrived on the
scene, the Goodalls had an attorney named Robert W. Pendergrass. He
practiced law in Marin County for more than 50 years and died on March
24, 2009 at age 91 years. It is possible and indeed likely that he too
set up a trust account for the Goodalls that preceded the 1990 and
1994 documents. With both Bank of America and James R. Hastings
completely stonewalling and refusing to provide any documents or
information and with Hastings saying that he has lost or misplaced all
Investment Management. They have been co-operating fully as opposed to
Bank of America which has been completely stonewalling. Although some
of these USAA documents do refer to a Trust account, none of the
documents show how that account was set up. Neither the 1990 Trust nor
the 1994 Trust is included in the documents provided by USAA
Investment Management. We know that before Mr. Hastings arrived on the
scene, the Goodalls had an attorney named Robert W. Pendergrass. He
practiced law in Marin County for more than 50 years and died on March
24, 2009 at age 91 years. It is possible and indeed likely that he too
set up a trust account for the Goodalls that preceded the 1990 and
1994 documents. With both Bank of America and James R. Hastings
completely stonewalling and refusing to provide any documents or
the files, there is no way for us to determine the truth of the
matter. I am calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of Mr.
Hastings, not to mention disbarment.
WHEREFORE the Demurrer filed by Bank of America should be denied and
the 850 motion filed by the administrator of the estate should be
granted.
matter. I am calling for the arrest and criminal prosecution of Mr.
Hastings, not to mention disbarment.
WHEREFORE the Demurrer filed by Bank of America should be denied and
the 850 motion filed by the administrator of the estate should be
granted.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
Verification:
Sam Sloan declares:
I have read the Opposition to the Demurrer filed in this matter, and I
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
of California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
Verification:
Sam Sloan declares:
I have read the Opposition to the Demurrer filed in this matter, and I
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California and the contents thereof are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
DATED: February 6, 2012
Sam Sloan
Exhibit A
Verification of the 850 Petition
Exhibit B
Relevant page of the Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C
Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall
Exhibit D
Declaration by Nancy Rodgers
Exhibit E
Transcript of the Deposition of James R. Hastings
Exhibit F
Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall
Exhibit G
Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall
Exhibit H
Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
Exhibit I
Power of Attorney by Rachel Goodall given to Michael Goodall
Verification of the 850 Petition
Exhibit B
Relevant page of the Trust dated September 12, 1990
Exhibit C
Death Certificate of Kenneth Goodall
Exhibit D
Declaration by Nancy Rodgers
Exhibit E
Transcript of the Deposition of James R. Hastings
Exhibit F
Purported Last Will of Kenneth F. Goodall
Exhibit G
Purported Last Will of Rachel Goodall
Exhibit H
Declaration filed by James R. Hastings in San Francisco Probate Court
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Hand written notes regarding Kenneth's plans for his estate
Letters by Hastings written after the death of Rachel Goodall
demanding that funds be transferred to Bank of America
I hereby state that I am not a party, I am over 18 years of age and I
served a copy of this motion and the exhibits attached thereto to the
following:
James R. Hastings
1003 3rd Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Bank of America
1000 4th St.
San Rafael, CA 94901
Gary D. Rothstein
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco CA 94111
Roy Hoppe
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
Frank Thornally
San Rafael CA 94903
461 Peachstone Terrace
San Rafael CA 94903
Julia Bentley Lemons
San Rafael CA 94903
Apt. 308
12800 Marion Lane W
Minnetonka, MN 55305-1368
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall
Robert Bentley
Bradford Village #504
906 N Boulevard Street
Edmond, OK 73030
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall
Helen Beth Bentley Perry
7926 Praver Drive W
Jacksonville,FL 32217
Surviving Sibling of Rachel Goodall
Clenda Fern Bentley Zinar
4536 Chatman Street
The Colony, TX 75056
Beverly Gale Bentley Young
2316 Trenton
McKinney, TX 75070
Vickie Bentley Hankins
14580 NE 6th
Choctaw, OK 73020
Jeffrey Bentley
4701 N Douglas Boulevard
Spencer, OK 73084
Chad Everett Bentley
1609 Teepee Trail
Kingsland, TX 78639
Jeanette Goodall Phillips
152 S llth Street
Salina, Kansas 67401
Kristin Kane
University of California
Berkeley College of Engineering
College Relations
208 Mclaughlin Hall #1722
Berkeley, CA 9472A-1722
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Planned Potential Beneficiary
Giving Director
Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
350 Los Ranchitos Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
samsloan
Mar 9, 2012, 12:55:33 PM3/9/12
to
I do not agree that Bank of America has ever been the trustee, because
the document entitled “Second Amendment to Goodall Trust” and dated
January 19, 1999 made Mike Goodall and his mother Rachel joint
trustees, so when Rachel died, Mike was the sold surviving Trustee.
Hastings as agent for Bank of America simply usurped the position of
trustee.
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
the document entitled “Second Amendment to Goodall Trust” and dated
January 19, 1999 made Mike Goodall and his mother Rachel joint
trustees, so when Rachel died, Mike was the sold surviving Trustee.
Hastings as agent for Bank of America simply usurped the position of
trustee.
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
Taylor Kingston
Mar 9, 2012, 8:01:51 PM3/9/12
to
On Mar 9, 9:55 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
0 new messages