A motion has been filed in Titus County to remove guardian in the case of Ann Walton James.
Records show the motion to remove guardian was filed on behalf of James’ great-niece, Barbara Ann Reynolds.
Last month, former Titus County Clerk
Dianne Norris Owens spoke at length about that guardianship case at the
county commission meeting.
Owens’ public comments on June 22
mirror statements set out in the motion to remove guardian filed on
behalf of Reynolds in Titus County June 25.
The motion filed on behalf of Reynolds
calls for the guardian that was appointed for James in 2013, James
Taylor - Family and Court Services Inc., to be removed as guardian and
assume all costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this removal.
Ann Walton James, 97, lives in a local assisted living facility.
Court records show that, in June,
2013, a local banking officer filed a letter with the court requesting
the court open a temporary guardianship application for the elderly
woman. According to the letter, the banking officer expressed concern
for James’ well-being after the banking officer had met with her. The
letter described James as “blind” and “quite vulnerable, both
financially and physically.”
In August, 2013, according to
statements in the motion filed last week on behalf of Reynolds, Taylor –
Family and Court Services, Inc. filed an application for guardianship
of Ann Walton James “alleging that no members of the Ward’s family could
be located, despite sending an email the very next day on August 27,
2013, informing the attorney ad litem in the case of his more than
two-year history with the ward and his knowledge of the existence of a
son and a grandson of the ward.”
The motion also reads that, “No notice
was given to the Ward’s family as to the filing of the guardianship,
and none of the family members were given the opportunity to participate
in the proceedings.”
The court appointed Family and Court
Services, Inc., James Taylor’s company, as the guardian of the elderly
woman’s estate on Dec. 23, 2013, according to statements made in the
motion filed last week.
The motion calls to question the
amount of bond put up by Taylor and his company, and states that Taylor
“has restricted” (the ward’s) family members from visiting with her; has
not filed an annual account or annual report; and alleges that the
guardian “has expended a substantial sum of money out of the ward’s
estate.”
The motion cites grounds for removal
of guardianship because the guardian has: failed to properly account
and properly report, and breached his fiduciary duty by failing to
adequately protect the assets of the estate by failing to post an
adequate bond and failing to enter a proper safekeeping agreement; and
has attempted to alienate the ward from her family; “is believed to have
misapplied, embezzled, or misused assets belonging to the ward”; and
“grossly mismanaged the Ward’s estate.”
The motion calls for the court to assign a statutory probate judge to hear the case.
Records show the certificate of
service of the motion filed last week was delivered to Taylor’s
attorney, William B. Harrell of Texarkana, and signed for Reynolds, the
movant, by Houston attorney Don Ford.
Ford was seated on the state of Texas
Judicial Branch Certification Commission, which oversees guardianship
matters, in September and continues to be listed as a commission member
on the commission website.
Ford has been serving as legal counsel
for another local case, representing Denise Reichert and her daughter
Maegan Reichert Hotaling in guardianship and probate matters regarding
the estate of the late Dr. Oscar Michael Reichert, who died May 4.
Denise Reichert is ex-wife of the late Reichert.
James Taylor is a party in that case as well.
In September, 2014, a complaint was
filed by Denise Reichert against Family and Court Services Inc. and
James Taylor with the State of Texas Judicial Branch Certification
Commission, concerning Taylor and his business’ appointment and action
as guardian ad litem of her (Denise Reichert’s) ex- husband’s estate.
Full Article & Source:
Motion seeks to remove guardian
1 comment:
They should be successful. The case stinks. But they probably won't be. The cards are stacked against them.
Post a Comment