Court Opinion

ID: 9588212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:31:29.058057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:14.297078
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*181PER CURIAM.
In our opinion, 262 Or 171, 493 P2d 1376 (1972), we agreed with the Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar and suspended the accused from the practice of law for a period of two years. The accused petitions this court for rehearing, contending that we “erred in this decision by imposing an extremely severe form of discipline,” and that it was “not warranted by the facts.” Three of the assignments warrant further expression by this court. The opinion stated:
“* * * In a deposition of Garnet taken on July 2, 1968, and received as an exhibit in the proceedings before the trial committee, she testified that she tried to get the accused to close the estates as early as the spring of 1962 and she could never find out why they were not closed # * *.”
The petition is correct in stating that the deposition, as an exhibit, was rejected by the trial committee. The statement “that she tried to get the accused to close the estates” could well have been omitted *182from the opinion. The record does disclose that at the time of the hearing, March 12, 1970, the estates of Robert G. Beach and Marion J. Beach were not closed. Letters of administration were issued to the accused on January 9, 1958.
The record also discloses that Richard Bryson, attorney at law, was called as a witness and testified :
“She [Garnet] came to me to consult about the estates of her parents and brothers. The Beach estates. There were four of them. She expressed some dissatisfaction with the way they had been handled and the length of time it had taken, and asked me to look into them and advise her.”
“Q. (By Mr. Joseph) Did Mrs. [sic] Beach [Garnet] express to you any concern over the estates?
“A. Yes, she — she expressed concern over the estates, particularly with reference to the length of time they had taken.
“Q. Did she express concern about any money being missing?
“A. She expressed concern at the lack of accountings.
“Q. Did she indicate to you that she had attempted to get information from Mr. Brown?
“A. Yes, she said that she had been unable to get an accounting from Mr. Brown * *
No objection was taken to this portion of the testimony. While this testimony relates to a time much later than the “spring of 1962,” it does indicate that Garnet tried to get the accused to close the estates.
Our opinion also stated that “the evidence reveals that the client, Garnet, did suffer a loss because of the conduct of the accused.” Petitioner contends that *183this finding is incorrect and “inconsistent with all of the evidence in the case.” We also stated:
“* * * The accused admits that some $20,000 of funds received by him belonging to the estate did not go through the estate banking accounts, but were deposited to his account or used by him in defraying expenses that he advanced on behalf of the estate. The exhibits and accountings filed by the accused are in such an unorganized and disarranged condition that we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence whether the funds were or were not used or diverted by the accused. There is evidence to indicate that the accused did not personally gain from these transactions * *
We have again reviewed the meager accountings filed with the court by the accused, acting as attorney and administrator of the four estates, together with the exhibits received by the trial committee and the transcript of testimony at the time of the trial. We are again impressed with the reason why this accused finds himself in such an embarrassing position. He attempted to continue the logging and sawmill operations of the deceased Robert and Marion Beach and to deal personally with the partnership and corporate ventures rather than as administrator of the assets of these estates, all without approval of the court.
In an effort to unravel the accused’s transaction as administrator, the certified public accountant firm of Lee, Coleman, Allen & Bedint was employed to secure an analysis of the financial transactions involving the estates of Robert Gr. Beach and Marion J. Beach. It was stipulated that the “analysis” be received in evidence as a joint exhibit. A summary from that accounting firm attached to the exhibit reads in part as follows:
“As you know, there was certain propérty listed *184in the two estates which took the form of corporate stock, or partnership interests. We were not furnished any financial information on these companies, and therefore, we are not able to state how these interests were disposed of. Obviously, some of the transactions contained in onr analysis represent the sales of certain properties which wore owned by these corporations and partnerships. However, we are unable to say whether this represents all of the property of these organizations, or only a part thereof.”
From onr review of the record we are met with the same problem expressed by the firm of accountants. The accused did not keep adequate records. A comparison of the inventory and appraisement filed in the estates with records of personal property disposed of shows that the records, as far as they disclose the estate assets and transactions, are not complete. The testimony discloses that the accused, without approval of the court, attempted to salvage the assets of a business previously operated by the deceaseds in northern California and that he used funds from the Oregon estates in this effort. This, by his own language, is apparently where he met his downfall. Mr. Brown gave the following testimony at the hearing before the trial committee:
“Q. Now, was the manner in which you handled this estate different or abnormal or unusual from the manner in which, yon approached other legal matters, including other estates ?
“A. Well, after a time I took an intense interest in trying to solve or salvage or do something aborit that — that horrible loss in California, I’m sure that it must have exceeded three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but it didn’t .work.”
The record is replete with testimony describing the attempt to salvage assets from the California oper*185ation. The record also discloses that the two principal estates were kept open for a period of twelve years and for a number of years the administrator bond was renewed at an annual cost of approximately $550. Subsequently, on petition, the amount of the bond was reduced until such time that he began to dispose of real property of the estates. We can see no reason for keeping these estates open for a period of twelve years. Undoubtedly the estates lost assets by the extension of the time for probate. The record also discloses interest and penalty charges on estate taxes.
One of the other charges against the accused was in connection with his borrowing $25,000 from Garnet, the sole heir of the estates. She, in turn, had borrowed this money from the bank on her personal notes, which were not paid. The accused was to pay the interest. However, he acknowledged that two of the interest payments, totaling $1,865.56, were made from assets of the estate.
From reviewing all of the evidence, we must conclude that Garnet, the sole heir of the estates, did suffer loss because of the conduct of the accused as administrator and attorney of the four estates.
Petitioner criticizes our stating that the assignment of the client-heir’s interest to the accused was wrongful.
The assignment was in settlement of the heir’s claims against petitioner and petitioner’s claims against the client. The settlement document states that the heir’s claim is settled for $20,000. The settlement was accomplished in part by paying petitioner’s obligation to the heir with estate funds. This, without further explanation, is obviously wrongful. The petitioner denies this occurred but had no explanation *186except that his attorney could explain. Petitioner’s attorney was called but he did not explain how it was proper to use moneys representing payments on a note which was an asset of the estate to pay petitioner’s obligation to the heir. This mode of settlement was apparently agreed to by the heir’s then attorney; however, he was not called to make any explanation.
On the basis of the evidence in the record, we adhere to our characterization of the assignment as “wrongful conduct,” having in mind that this arrangement and the assignments of the sole heir’s interest in the estates were not approved by the probate court.
The petition for rehearing is denied.