|
PETER COULTER, interested party, pro se
<br />Case Number:
<br />161 Summer Street, #654
<br />2013PR56
<br />Morrison, Colorado 804659900
<br />Phone Number: 303 720 -1811 E- mail:AUDIONLY GMAIL.COM
<br />Division 11 Courtroom
<br />OBJECTION TO WILL
<br />COMES NOW, Peter Coulter, interested party and heir, pro se, with his OBJECTION TO the Will submitted by
<br />Paula Coulter and /or Ted Coulter in the above cited case as follows:
<br />A. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INVENTORY OF DECEDENTS ASSETS
<br />1. Paula Coulter was appointed receiver on March 6, 2013. In accordance with C.R.S. 15 -12 -706; Duties of Personal
<br />Representative, Ms. Coulter was to have filed a detailed inventory of Mrs. Coulter's assets by June 6, 2013. Prior to that
<br />time, Movant twice requested when said inventory was going to be presented with no response. Subsequent to June 6,
<br />2013, again requests were sent to Ms. Coulter's attorney, John Berman with no response. To date, Peter Coulter has
<br />made 8 requests for the inventory via E -mail to John Berman, Esq. with no response. The detailed requirements of this
<br />section for a valid inventory are mandatory. [ Meyer v. Milliken, 111 Colo. 113, 138 P.2d 276 (1943).] To date no detailed
<br />(emphasis added) inventory has been put forth to the Court which is a gross negligence of her fiduciary duties. ' It is
<br />impossible to ascertain what Paula Coulter has done with the assets and what funds she has distributed until such time as
<br />she delivers a detailed summary of Mrs. Coulter's assets. It will also be impossible to proceed to trial until such time as
<br />this statutorily mandated document is presented to all the heirs. One of Mrs. Coulter's largest assets has been missing
<br />from Paula Coulter's Conservator reports. It is 396 acres of ground valued in excess of $592,000, yet Ms. Coulter swears
<br />it does not exist. But at the same time, she and her attorney charged in excess of $40,000 to manage said property.
<br />Additionally, less than 20 days ago, Ms. Coulter made herself the registered agent for the company that holds the ground.
<br />[that Mrs. Coulter and Richard Vento allegedly own in partnership] Assets that again Ms. Coulter swears does not exist.
<br />The Movant believes Ms. Coulter has committed a Fraud on the Court which can only be demonstrated by Ms. Coulter
<br />submitting the inventory.
<br />B. LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
<br />2. Paula Coulter was appointed Conservator via an unlawful power of attorney2 in the Conservator's case. Further
<br />said Power of Attorney and Will were executed on June 21, 2006; occurring 3 years after 17 police reports [2002 -2005]
<br />clearly showed that Mrs. Coulter suffered from Dementia, [ i.e. "believing the neighbors were coming through the keyhole
<br />and stealing her food "; "believing the neighbors were coming through the attic fan and poisoning her cat "] a purely
<br />progressive disease and 3 years later lacked testamentary capacity to execute the Power of Attorney and Will. ( "C.J.I. ")
<br />3d § 34:9 provides that the testator, at the time he or she signed the Will, must understand all of the following: (i) that he
<br />or she is making a Will; (ii) the nature and extent of the property he or she owns; (iii) how that property will be distributed
<br />under the Will; (iv) that the Will distributes the property as he or she wishes; and (v) those persons are the natural ones to
<br />receive his or her property. C.J.I. 3d § 34:9. See also, Lehman v. Lindenmeyer, 48 Colo. 305, 109 P. 956 (1910);
<br />Cunningham v. Stender, 127 Colo. 293, 255 P.2d 977 (1953). The testator also must be free of an "insane delusion,"
<br />defined as a persistent belief in that which has no existence in fact,[emphasis added] which is adhered to against all
<br />evidence and which materially affects the dispositions in the Will in question. Breeden v. Stone, 992 P.2d 1167 (2000).
<br />There was a previous will prepared by Mrs. Coulter by William A. Powers, Esq., Mrs. Coulter's son in law and attorney of
<br />over 30 years. Said will was prepared before the police reports of Dementia and provided for a true testament to Mrs.
<br />Coulter's wishes when she passed away.
<br />C. UNDUE INFLUENCE
<br />3. From approximately 1980 until 2006, William A. Powers, Esq., son in law of Irene Coulter, was Mrs. Coulter's
<br />attorney and had prepared various legal documents, represented in Court where she was awarded close to $1,000,000
<br />and prepared her Will. Unknown to any parties (including Mr. Powers) Paula and Ted Coulter escorted Mrs. Coulter to a
<br />new attorney, JoAnn Goddard, Esq. 6 days after her closest daughter and best friend, Sheryl Powers was buried. Mrs.
<br />Coulter was unequivocally susceptible to undue influence. Said Will provided for the exclusion of Sheryl Powers and her
<br />heirs and Peter Coulter, and exclusively granted all assets to Paula and Ted Coulter. The obvious purpose of the unlawful
<br />power of attorney and Will was to fraudulently steal Mrs. Coulter's assets. The continued decimation and disappearance
<br />of Mrs. Coulter's assets is the direct result of these undue influences. In Re Kotches Estate, 136 .2d 673 (Colo. 1943). In
<br />Kotches Estate, the Colorado Supreme Court, Had it not been for these Frauds, Paula Coulter would not be named
<br />Executor and she continually fails to provide a detailed description of Mrs. Coulter's assets and the services she [Ms.
<br />Coulter] and her attorney John Berman provided.
<br />D. PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE.
<br />4. Colorado Courts have held that where beneficiaries are also fiduciaries or in a confidential relationship with the
<br />decedent the temptation for overreaching is great. Bohl v. Haney, 228 Colo. App. 55, 470 P.2d 603 (1970); Judkins v.
<br />Carpenter,189 Colo. 95, 537 P.2d 737 (1975); Meyer v. Schwartz, 638 P.2d 821 (Colo. App. 1981). The Colorado
<br />Supreme Court has held:
<br />It is not the mere relation [confidential or fiduciary] that necessarily induces or exerts an undue influence ... but because
<br />drawing a will presents an opportunity and a temptation, which, together with the personal friendship and confidence and
<br />influence of the relationship justify suspicion and the requirement from the legatee of satisfactory evidence that the
<br />opportunity was not embraced and the influence was not exerted. Gehm v. Brown, 245 P.2d 865, 868 (Colo. 1952).
<br />5. Colorado, like most other states, recognizes the rule that when a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists
<br />between the testator and a beneficiary (or the beneficiary's attorney) under the Will and the beneficiary or his or her
<br />attorney, either drafted or was actively involved in the drafting of the Will, a presumption of undue influence on the part of
<br />the beneficiary is raised. See Colorado Jury Instruction 3d § 34:14; Columbia Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Carpenter, 521
<br />z The last paragraph of said Power of Attorney had language that forbade Mrs. Coulter from relinquishing Ted and
<br />Paula Couter's P.of A. without their signature in violation of C.R.S.
<br />
|