Opinion ID: 2604440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The John Q. Johnson Estate Matter

Text: John Q. Johnson died testate in 1943. Sometime in 1944, Isabel Belk Creek, a daughter of the decedent, and other heirs, retained Mr. Reinmiller to represent them in the estate proceedings. A decree determining heirship was entered in 1948. Mrs. Creek died in 1951, leaving as her sole heir, her daughter, Nettie Creek Wells, a resident of Missouri. At Mr. Reinmiller's solicitation she became his client. Notwithstanding the previous orders referred to, an order of final distribution was not entered in the Johnson estate until June 2, 1952. This order revealed that $611.78 was the share of Isabel Belk Creek. Prior to that time no charge is made that Mr. Reinmiller was in any way responsible for undue delays, if any, between the date of Mr. Johnson's death and the entry of the final order. On June 7, 1952, the attorneys for the estate by letter advised Mr. Reinmiller that the Creek share was held until a probate of Mrs. Creek's estate could be had and that if application for payment was not made within three months the money would be paid over to the County Treasurer pursuant to ORS 117.310. No action having been taken by Mr. Reinmiller in the meantime, on November 13, 1952, the attorneys for the executor advised him that Mrs. Creek's share had been paid to the County Treasurer. After a lapse of one year, the money was, in turn, remitted to the State Land Board with the result that Mrs. Wells, as heir of Mrs. Creek, was confronted with a new delay and additional expense to recover this sum as provided by ORS 120.130. The Bar complaint charges: (1) that at no time since the death of Mrs. Creek in 1951 nor since the order of distribution of June 2, 1952, has the defendant taken the necessary steps to secure his client's distributive share; (2) that he has failed to communicate with his client; and (3) that he neglected and failed to communicate with the Oregon State Bar and its committees concerning this matter when requested so to do. And we add, as disclosed by the record, that when writing to his client he misrepresented the true status of the fund as of those times. On December 16, 1952, after being informed a month previously that Mrs. Creek's share had been deposited with the County Treasurer, he wrote to her daughter, Mrs. Wells, saying:  We have on hand to be distributed to the heirs of your mother, Mrs. Isabel Belk Creek    $611.76. (Emphasis ours.) He then asks for information for an order determining your mother's heirs. In his letter to Mrs. Wells, dated February 28, 1953, he again speaks of the money as being on hand. In a letter to her dated March 25, 1953, he tells her of efforts to get the money released without court proceedings, adding that In the meantime, the money is in the bank protected by the executor's bond. (Emphasis ours.) At that time and for four months prior, it was actually in the hands of the County Treasurer. As late as August 11, 1953, he continued his misrepresentation as to the custody of the funds and his activities to secure their recovery for her, this time telling Mrs. Wells: We are going forward with the termination [sic] of heirship, and it will still be a short time before the court will order the money sent to you. It is held in the court until that date, and I, nor anyone else, has access to it until the final Decree is entered. (Emphasis ours.) We are firm in the belief that neither Mrs. Wells nor any other person reading those letters could avoid the conclusion that Mr. Reinmiller was suffering her to believe that the proceedings he referred to were in the J.Q. Johnson estate, then long closed, and at a time when he knew that a new and separate proceeding was in order to legally obtain Mrs. Wells' money. This he had never begun. As late as February 1, 1954, he was writing to Mrs. Wells that he was working on the matter and would shortly send her copies of papers. Mrs. Wells, having no further word from Mr. Reinmiller, brought the matter to the attention of the Oregon State Bar on November 30, 1954. The defendant offers no evidence which contradicts these charges but instead claims he has no memory of the correspondence, and was at the time laboring under family problems and that he burdened himself too heavily with business and placed too much reliance on subordinates. We will later make particular reference to these claims of distracting family affairs and the burden of too much business. It appears in the brief that subsequent to the filing of the Bar complaint, the defendant remitted to Mrs. Wells from his own funds the $611.78, less the percentage of his agreed fee. 6. Our conclusion is that the charges laid by the Bar in the matter are true and that in addition he is guilty of misrepresenting to his client the true status of her affairs as a matter of law and fact.