Opinion ID: 1481116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The court's appointment of a doctor to examine Ms. Jumper, and Mr. Anderson's response.

Text: On September 24, 2002, taking up Ms. Sloan's suggestion, the trial court appointed an Examiner, Dr. Lawrence Sack, to evaluate Ms. Jumper. The court wrote that an Examiner was necessary for two reasons. First, the court wrote that it had to know for purposes of the guardianship proceeding whether in her present condition Ms. Jumper had the capacity to make and communicate financial decisions and to manage her estate. Second, the court wished to understand whether Ms. Jumper had the mental capacity to execute the 2001 estate-planning documents. In the order appointing Dr. Sack, the court observed that although Mr. Anderson disputed the validity of the 2001 documents, Mr. Anderson had no objection to stipulation to [the] validity of the 2001 documents provided that Ms. Sloan was appointed Successor Trustee to the Sally Jumper Trust. After the trial court appointed Dr. Sack, Mr. Anderson wrote additional impassioned e-mails (again, to Mr. Rogers, Ms. Sloan, and others) expressing his concern that Col. Verfurth caused Mr. Anderson to lose out on his share of Ms. Jumper's estate:  On October 4, 2002, Mr. Anderson wrote that although he did not care whether the 2001 Trust or the 1995 Trust were deemed operative, he did not relish kissing goodbye to the 40% of her estate that Sal originally had for me in her earlier undoctored trust, before Verfurth cut me out. Would either of you, Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Rogers and Ms. Sloan, sit quietly by and let such a benefit to YOU vanish? ? Mr. Anderson lamented further: I could use that as part of the entrance fee to Riderwood Village retirement home. Given his interest in Ms. Jumper's money, and [i]rrespective of the outcome of the present mess, Mr. Anderson wrote that he want[ed] to challenge in some court, if not Judge Lopez [the judge presiding over the guardianship proceedings], then the aspect of the 2001 Trust that placed Mr. Anderson's share of Ms. Jumper's estate under the discretion of Col. Verfurth. Indeed, Mr. Anderson felt that he would be a simpleton if [he] were to let the 2001 papers go unchallenged.  On October 7, 2002, Mr. Anderson wrote: I would rather deal with Lucifer than Verfurth. Col. Verfurth, according to Mr. Anderson, was arrogant, conceited, opinionated and devious to the nth degree. Again disclaiming his desire to be guardian, Mr. Anderson wrote that he wished Ms. Sloan to assume that task.  In an October 8, 2002, e-mail, Mr. Anderson fumed, [t]his is really dealing with the devil and his female handmaidens. Mr. Anderson was frustrated that Ms. Sloan had asked him to make available Ms. Jumper's estate-planning documents to Ms. Ellison, Ms. Jumper's court-appointed attorney in the guardianship proceeding, and Ms. Kincaid, the attorney who represented Ms. Jumper in connection with the 2001 documents. Because Mr. Anderson felt that he had done all the hard work in tracking down those documents, he wrote that [t]elling [him] now to share the papers with Kincaid is like telling a police investigator to share his findings with the criminal he is pursuing.  On October 18, 2002, concerned about what sort of report the waffling Dr. Sack would produce, Mr. Anderson suggested that he and Mr. Rogers submit a competing report. Specifically, Mr. Anderson contemplated a document from Ms. Jumper's physician that would attest that Ms. Jumper had dementia as early as December 1998, which would give grounds for overturning the 2001 Trust. Mr. Anderson urged Mr. Rogers, I think we would be missing out on a golden opportunity if we do not take this initiative. . . . . we stand to lose a lot. (Ellipsis in original.)