Source: http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/rtc_memo_021206.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:17:13+00:00

Document:
Scientology's lawyers are attempting to convince a probate judge that they should be able to take over the McPherson case because it is an asset of the estate. This is to satisfy their final Texas judgments totaling $548,010.87, after the Lisa McPherson Estate was ruled of having breached a contract it had made with Scientology FSO. This is known as "breach case #2" and is now on appeal, oral argument 6-2-03.
The contract that was supposedly breached entailed that Scientology wouldn't "do a Wollersheim"' by stripping its assets in return for the Estate not adding Scientology corporations and its officers or employees. The Sea Org and David Miscavige were not mentioned in the contract.
McPherson Estate later tried to add Miscavige as a defendant to the civll case in the Fifth Amended Complaint - but he evades service of process and was dismissed of the death suit. This attempt was the reason a different Scientology corporation, Religious Technology Center or RTC, filed the aforementioned suit in Texas because they said it had paid the attoney fees for Miscavige.
Epilog: On 22 July 2003, the 5th circuit court of appeals in Texas, vacated the Texas judgments of the district court and the case was remanded.
First. Contrary to Liebreich’s unsupported allegation that RTC‘s judgments won against the estate in the Texas federal court are Class 8 priorities, RTC’s judgments are Class 1 priorities. That is the holding of Teague v. Estate of Hoskins, 709 So.2d 1373, 1374 (Fla. 1998), in which the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that legal liabilities of an estate incurred by the affirmative acts of the personal representative create Class 1, rather than Class 8, priorities, because they constitute an expense of administering the estate. As such, RTC is at the top of the list of creditors of the estate, along with the personal representative’s compensation and attorneys’ fees, and ahead of the beneficiaries of the estate. Section 733.707(a); league v. Estate of Hoskins, at 1374.
Second. Levying on the wrongful death chose of action does not impair any right of the estate of Fannie McPherson, the sole beneficiary of this estate, because.of the nature of this particular wrongful death claim.
Under the Wrongful Death Act, the personal representative is the party who seeks recovery of all damages caused by the injury resulting in death for the benefit of the decedent’s estate and for the survivors [see §768.20, Fla. Stat.; Continental National Bank v. Brill, 636 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3rd DCA- 1994)]. The personal representative must bring a single action to recover damages. Damages are then apportioned between the survivors and the estate according to statutory criteria [see §76821].
3 T. THOMAS & D.SMITH FLORIDA ESTATES PRACTICE GUIDE, §43.05[c], at p. 43-17.
1 The judgments identified as Class 8 priorities in section 733.707(h) are those “rendered against the decedent during his lifetime.” The causes of action upon which RTC judgments are based did not arise until nearly four years after Lisa McPherson’s death, and then because of the acts of the personal representative.
be auctioned to the highest bidder, with those proceeds then going to the estate to satisfy claims, including RTC’s. The levy process does not displace a cause of action, it merely accelerates the receipt of funds by the estate with which to meet its obligations.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy hereof has been furnished by hand delivery to Kennan G. Dandar, Esq., Dandar & Dandar, P.A., 1715 N. Westshore Blvd.,. Suite 750, Tampa, FL 33607 and Anthony Battaglia, Esq., Battaglia, Ross, et al., 980 Tyrone Blvd., t. Petersburg, FL 33743; and by regular U.S. mail to William Rambaum, Esq., 28960 U.S. Hwy. 19 North, Suite 100, Clearwater, FL 33761-2403, this ___ day of December, 2002.
2 Had there been survivors’ damages available under §7682 1, any proceeds from the wrongful death claim owed to the survivors would be the property of the survivors, separate from the decedent’s loss, and such proceeds would not be subject to estate claims.
3 T. THOMAS & D. SMITH, FLORIDA ESTATES PRACTICE GUIDE, §43.05[c], at p. 43-17. However, as the proceeds of net accumulations damages are the property of the estate, they are subject to estate claims, such as RTC’s Class 1 priority judgments against the Estate.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §768
 v. 
 §76821
 §43
 §7682
 §43