Thursday, July 08, 2010

Bad Judges

The Cultures Wars ..
we lost

JMcD sent me this article titled Woman’s land will go to Akron mission.

Boned Jello
A preacher’s wife who died last year at age 95, Petry gifted her house and 21 acres of prime real estate to Haven of Rest, a rescue mission for the homeless in Akron.

Not only did she want Haven of Rest to get it, she added a few stipulations to the gift in her will: Family friend Jim Kirby could live in the house, if he chose, until he died, and the mission could only sell the property to someone who would use it for a religious purpose.

The clauses created a dilemma for those trying to administer her nearly $1 million estate, and for many organizations named as benefactors, who also stood to inherit some money.

So earlier this year, Valentine, the executrix of the estate, filed a complaint in court. In doing so, she basically asked Stark County Probate Judge Dixie Park for direction.

I'm reading this, wondering if there was a point to this story?  Yup.  There was.

According to court filings, retired Judge Dennis R. Clunk mediated this settlement: Haven of Rest will pay Kirby $30,000 to give up claim to the house; Haven of Rest will take possession of the house and property — and Petry’s caveat that the land be used for a religious purpose will be void.

Park said the religious purpose clause contained in the will didn’t have legal teeth. She said courts have consistently found such hand-tying language on future use to be discriminatory.

Let's say that Mrs. Petry had instead directed that the property could only be resold to the Communist Party, or Obama reelection campaign, or Muslims?  Is there one chance in a thousand that Judge Dixie Park would have voided it?  I think not, but that's beside the point.  Judge Park had no right to dissolve Mrs. Petry's covenant.  Period.

9 comments:

JMcD said...

And in the Helmsley and Posner cases, millions were left to maintain pets.......
"legal teeth"?
O tempora, o mores.

Anonymous said...

Ah, my hometown, that's actually Canton, Ohio. If you want it done right... .

Casca

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer... but it's my understanding that placing restrictions or conditions on property or people in a will is not legal.

There was a case maybe 20 years ago that a devout Jew had put in his will that his son could not inherit unless he married a Jewish woman. He married a non-Jew. A judge awarded the son the estate, saying the dead have no power to make the rules for the living.

The old sitcom saw that someone could only inherit a rich relative's estate if they spent the night in their spooky old house is a nice plot device, but has no basis in reality.

Wills can ONLY say who gets what. Anything else will be shot down by a court.

AWM

Bob Hawkins said...

Yeah, it amounts to saying "You own the house but you don't have the rights of ownership." Well, make up your mind or a judge will make it up for you.

Turing word: "connabli". The Latin word for shack-up?

molonlabe28 said...

This is a classic example of ad hoc decision-making by pathetic, agenda-driven judges passing for jurisprudence.

A man should be able to leave his property to whomever he pleases under whatever terms he selects.

Ditto for Ms. Petry.

The Constitution protects against governmental discrimination (as long as the judge likes whoever's ox is being gored).

It does not prohibit an individual from giving property to religious organizations.

Perhaps one day you can get Akron in the sights on the B-52.

I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will reverse this judge.

lip said...

The time is coming, the tree of liberty is hungry. How much longer will we accept this abuse of our freedom?

Anonymous said...

well, it all goes back to the differences between "fee simple absolute" and "fee simple defeasible" or "fee simple determinable"...

she really can't put that kind of final clause in there (the one about the mission could ONLY sell it to someone who would use it for ANY SPECIFIC purpose).. she was fine right to there, and then her lawyer let her jump the tracks.

{my own opinion, your mileage may vary}

RetRsvMike

Anonymous said...

I can literally see that house from mine. Wonder if this is the same Dennis R. Clunk that is the City Treasurer for the city of Alliance, Ohio... just east of Canton. He has a big ole "D" after his name. I'm shocked.

Kristophr said...

The dead do not have rights. Only the living.

Weird will provisions are shot down all the time in probate courts.

This is not unusual, new, or evil. It has been standard legal practice in this country for a very long time.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.