Opinion ID: 2451811
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Suddock's hearing and initial ruling from the bench

Text: PGSC petitioned for approval of its final accounting, and the case came before Superior Court Judge John Suddock, who conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing in February 2008. At the close of the hearing, Judge Suddock ruled from the bench, extensively addressing each of Foster's points. Regarding PGSC's inventory, which listed only two cars and not Davis's smaller items, the court stated that it would have been prudent for PGSC to create a better inventory, and that such an inventory was normally and appropriately done by conservators. But there was no harm, because the court found that Foster had taken the items important to her while going through the house. The court also indicated that PGSC had a good reason not to inventory: PGSC's reasonable belief that Foster had gotten what she thought was important to keep. Regarding PGSC's use of paid storage for Davis's household items, the court held storage to be a reasonable expense during Davis's life, particularly in light of the contentious situation in the family. But the court found it unreasonable to pay for storage once Foster had been appointed personal representative, after Davis's death. The cost of unnecessary storage may have been up to $500. Regarding PGSC's failure to quickly correct the federal government's cessation of Davis's pension payments, the court postponed decision on the matter to see if PGSC could still obtain the funds or if the parties could work out an agreement. Regarding the sale of the house to a third party, and not to Sandra, the court found PGSC's actions not to be a breach of PGSC's fiduciary duty. Specifically, the court indicated it was reasonable for PGSC to assume that its letter to Mendel, containing a written offer, would be communicated to Sandra. The court also noted that past transactions with Sandra had failed, and that it would have been reasonable for PGSC to conclude that Sandra was not a serious business partner. Regarding attorney's fees, the court found that it was reasonable for PGSC to retain counsel to defend its actions. In addition, although Foster prevailed on a few issues, the court indicated those were rather insignificant and that [PGSC] has overwhelmingly prevailed on the global attack on [its] handling of the matter.