6.11 Trustees Prohibited from Invading Trust Corpus

361.       On March 9, 1978, WPLSr signed his Last Will and Testament in which he specified and instructed that all property passing there under to be added to the property held in the LFT and administered and disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions of said trust instrument, as they existed at the time of his death. Exhibit 2.

 

"The property passing hereunder shall be added to the property held in trust by said Trustees and shall become a part thereof, and administered and disposed of in accordance with the terms and conditions of said trust instrument as they exist at the time of my death."

WPLSr Last Will and Testament, Section II

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 2

 

362.       On March 9, 1978, WPLSr and MOL entered into the LFT.  At the decease of WPLSr, the property of WPLSr and the one half of the property and funds belonging to WPLSr became "irrevocable" and were to be administered subject to a division of the trust estate to outright, income and remaindermen beneficiaries of the LFT. Exhibit 3, LFT, article FIFTH. 

363.       Subject to the limitations of the LFT agreement and law, the LFT outright and remaindermen beneficiaries are entitled to the principal and capital of the LFT, the income beneficiaries are entitled only to the "net income" of the LFT.  Exhibit 3, LFT, article FOURTH & FIFTH.

364.       There is nothing in the Last Will and Testament of WPLSr and/or the LFT that would allow or give the authority to Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, DTC, TUCKER, Grant Thornton, CR&R and/or REESE, or this Court to ignore and evade the Last Will and Testament of WPLSr or to invade trust corpus and principle of the LFT.  

 

The language used by the testator or other creator for the trust in setting forth the provision for the life beneficiary is of course an important consideration in construing the trust instrument to determine whether it implies a right in the life beneficiary to have the trust corpus invaded for his benefit .... In the following cases, the fact that the trustor's direct expression of the life benefit provided that the life beneficiary was to be paid or receive the net trust income, or a certain share thereof, has been an important factor in the court's construction of the instrument as not implying any right or authority to invade the trust corpus for the benefit of the life beneficiary ... [long list of cases omitted by this Petitioner] .... The last cited cases indicate that where the will or other trust instrument provides that a beneficiary is to be paid or receive periodically for life the net income of the trust, or a share of such income, the usual meaning of such provision, considered alone, is that the life beneficiary is to have only the specified net trust income or the designated share thereof; and that such a provision weighs against the existence of an implied power of invasion of the corpus."

31 ALR3d 309, 318-319 "Right to Invade Trust Principal"

[Emphasis added]

365.       Under the LFT, "net income" is defined as:

 

"FOURTH: (a) The Trustees shall pay or reserve sufficient trust funds to pay all expenses of management and administration of the trust estate; including, compensation of the Trustees.  The remaining income shall be and is hereinafter referred to as "net income."

LFT, article FOURTH (a)

Exhibit 3

 

366.       The LFT has six outright beneficiaries, Mary-Louise Ellenberger, Joy Surbey, Moya Tstatsos, Jill Lear, Jacqueline Poticha, and Allison Lear, who are collectively entitled to a twenty-eight percent (28%) share of the assets of the LFT. LFT, article, FIFTH (a)(6), (7) & (8).  Exhibit 3, LFT, article FIFTH(a)(6), (7) & (8).

367.       WPLSr divided the remaining 72% of the LFT into five (5) sub-trusts, whose income beneficiaries are David Richard Lear, Valentina Moya Lear, Shanda Lear Bertelli (a.k.a. Shanda Lear-Baylor), William P. Lear, Jr. and Shirley Patricia Lopez-Pereira (a.k.a Patricia Lear). Exhibit 3, LFT, article FIFTH(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) & (5).

368.       LFT income beneficiaries David Richard Lear, Valentina Moya Lear, Shanda Lear Bertelli (a.k.a. Shanda Lear-Baylor), William P. Lear, Jr. and Shirley Patricia Lopez-Pereira (a.k.a Patricia Lear) are only entitled to the "net income" as allocated to their respective trusts. LFT, article FIFTH(b).  Upon the death of an income beneficiary, the principal and undistributed net income of his or her sub-trust benefit and share is to be distributed to his or her lawful issue, in equal shares and distributions:

 

"FIFTH (b): The net income of the Richard Lear Trust, Valentina Lear Trust, Shanda Lear Bertelli Trust, William P. Lear, Jr. Trust and Patricia Lopez-Pereira Trust, described above shall be paid to the respective primary beneficiary thereof during his or her lifetime.  Upon the death of a primary beneficiary, the principal and undistributed net income of his or her trust shall be paid to his or her lawful issue, in equal shares, or if there be no such issue then living, to grantors' then lawful issue, except John Olsen Lear, distribution in either case to be made in accordance with the principle of representation.

LFT, article FIFTH (b)

Exhibit 3

 

369.       The LFT's spendthrift provision under Article SEVENTH prohibits the transfer, alienation or hypothecation of any beneficiary's interest in the principal or income of the LFT in any manner, including attachment, execution or other process of law. 

 

"The interest of any beneficiary in the principal or income of this trust shall not be subject to claims of his or her creditors, or others, or liable to attachment, execution or other process of law, and no beneficiary shall have any right to encumber, hypothecate or alienate his or her interest in this trust in any manner, except as provided for elsewhere herein." 

LFT, Article SEVENTH

Exhibit 3

 

370.       To deter, prevent, threaten and punish any LFT beneficiary who would attempt to modify the intent of WPLSr or to change the terms and conditions of the LFT, WPLSr included an in terrorem clause in the LFT, which states in pertinent part:

 

"Ninth:  In the event the beneficiary under this trust shall, singularly or in conjunction with any other person or persons, contest in any court the validity of this trust agreement or shall seek to obtain an adjudication in any proceeding in any court, that this trust agreement or any of its provisions is void, or seek otherwise to void, nullify or set aside this trust agreement, or any of its provisions, then the right of that person to take any interest given to him or her by this trust agreement shall be determined as it would have been determined had the person predeceased the execution of this trust agreement."

LFT, article NINTH

Exhibit 3

 

371.       The terms and condition of the LFT instrument do not allow and prohibit Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton and others to change the terms and conditions of the LFT and to alter the allocation or distribution provisions determined by LFT Settlor WPLSr. 

372.       LFT Trustees also had no authority to amend this Court's Orders dated August 13, 1982 and January 17, 1983 of their own volition or to ignore, evade or violate them.  Exhibits 8 & 10.  Said court Orders were final and conclusive as to the interpretation of the trust and to how the LFT was to be managed.

373.       On or about April 10, 1991, Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton stipulated to an agreement with the United States and elected and were granted by the United States, through the Internal Revenue Service, a favorable generation skipping transfer tax exemption under the generation skipping tax laws (GST laws) for the LFT. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94-455, §2006, 90 Stat. 1879-1890.  The GST provides for favorable tax treatment if the remaindermen beneficiaries are vested and the Trustees are prohibited from invading the corpus of the Trust.  The William P. Lear and Moya Olsen Family Trust Agreement complies with the requirements of the GST and every year, Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, and accountant MURPHY represent in their tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service that the LFT complies with the GST requirements thereby representing that the interests of remaindermen / grand-children are vested, subject to the LFT's Article SEVENTH, and that the corpus is for distribution solely to remaindermen.  The status of LFT remaindermen is perfectly reflected in the quote below of Comerica Bank v. U.S., infra:

 

 "Trust provision which states that trust corpus will be distributed to grandchildren, and which provides for distribution to others in event of death of grandchildren prior to receipt, qualifies for generation skipping transfer tax exemption since, under state law, interest of grandchildren is vested. Comerica Bank, N.A. v. U.S., 93 F.3d 25, 1996 FED App. 261P (6^th Cir. 1996)."

76 Am Jur 2d Supp Trusts, §273

 

6.12 Trustees Invaded Trust Corpus

6.12.1 Overview

374.       At all times relevant hereto, Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton knew or should have known that the LFT spendthrift provision under article SEVENTH confirms that the rights and interests of LFT beneficiaries under the LFT agreement, including Petitioner's, are vested and protected from any act of hypothecation, alienation, encumbrance, or other process of law and that Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton were not and are not now authorized and are precluded from individually or collectively, evading, changing, altering, or modifying the allocation or distribution provisions as determined by WPLSr.

375.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, do not permit or allow said Respondents to individually or collectively invade, erode, deplete, convert, transfer or damage the LFT's principal to and for the benefit of LFT income beneficiaries at the loss and expense of remaindermen beneficiaries.

376.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, do not permit or allow said Respondents to individually or collectively invade, erode, deplete, or damage the LFT's principal vested in and attributable to remaindermen beneficiaries and converting or transferring the remaindermen beneficiaries rights and interests to and for the benefit of LFT outright beneficiaries.

377.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, do not permit or allow said Respondents to individually or collectively invade, erode, deplete, or damage the LFT's principal vested in and attributable to remaindermen beneficiaries and converting or transferring the remaindermen beneficiaries rights and interests to and for the benefit of other parties including but not limited to Moya Olsen Lear.

378.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that they were not granted a general and unrestricted power over distribution of principal or income of the LFT.

379.       Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton knew or should have known that they were not authorized and did not possess any capricious power to distribute any sums beyond the conditions and exact proportions that WPLSr provided for under the LFT articles FOURTH and FIFTH.

 

FOURTH: (a) The Trustees shall pay or reserve sufficient trust funds to pay all expenses of management and administration of the trust estate; including, compensation of the Trustees.  The remaining income shall be and is hereinafter referred to as "net income".

....

FIFTH: (b) The net income ... described above shall be paid to the respective primary beneficiary thereof during his or her lifetime."

LFT, Articles FOURTH and FIFTH

Exhibit 3

 

380.       While knowing that they did not possess any capricious power to distribute sums from the LFT above and beyond the conditions and exact proportions that WPLSr provided for under the LFT and in his last Will and Testament, Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, and Grant Thornton invaded, eroded, depleted, converted, transferred or damaged the LFT's corpus capriciously and in disregard of WPLSr's intent.

381.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the LFT grants no power or authority to said Respondents to invade the trust corpus.  Exhibit 3.

382.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that on August 13, 1982, this Court entered an Order commanding LFT Trustees to manage and administer the LFT in accordance to NRS Chapters 163 and 164, which include the Uniform Principal and Income Act.  While knowing that this Court entered its Order commanding them to manage and administer the LFT in accordance with NRS Chapters 163 and 164, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE capriciously and willfully disregarded NRS Chapters 163 and 164 and more particularly any provision thereof specifying the policy and method of determining allocations of principal and income to the various classes of beneficiaries.

383.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, contain no fixed sum that has to be distributed to the LFT's income beneficiaries.  While knowing that they were not authorized to distribute fixed sums to the LFT's income beneficiaries, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE invaded, eroded, depleted, converted, transferred or damaged the LFT's corpus for the purpose of creating and distributing fixed or greater sums than were allowed to be distributed to the LFT's income beneficiaries thereby compromising a class of beneficiaries with respect to the mismanagement of the LFT and to the prejudice of Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries.

384.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the sums to be distributed to the LFT's income beneficiaries is a direct variable component dependent upon actual income received by the LFT and as derived and separated from the LFT principal and capital, which is held for the benefit of LFT outright and remaindermen beneficiaries.

385.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, knew or should have known that they were required and reasonably expected to manage the LFT by prudently using the principal and capital, keeping costs and expenses low and maximizing returns to the LFT. 

386.       While knowing that they had a duty to prudently manage the LFT by keeping costs and expenses low and maximizing returns to the LFT, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE id not prudently manage and honestly account for the LFT, wantonly inflated the costs of management of the LFT and were negligent and imprudent in their investment and management of the LFT principal and capital.

387.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, does not contain any overriding clause or provision which would authorize Respondents to invade, unlawfully convert or transfer the principal corpus to or for their own benefit or for the benefit of any other person or persons not specified in the LFT. 

388.       While knowing that they were not authorized to invade, unlawfully convert or transfer the corpus to or for their own benefit or for the benefit of any other person or persons not specified in the LFT, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE did not properly manage and account for the invasion, unlawful conversion and transfer of LFT principal and corpus to and for their own benefit and to the benefit others not specified in the LFT.

389.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the terms and conditions of the LFT, as amended by Order of this Court of August 13, 1982, does not contain any clause, provision or directive for Respondents to use, convert or transfer LFT principal and/or capital to provide for the purely private ownership and interests of the individual LFT income beneficiaries.  While knowing that they were not authorized to use, convert or transfer LFT capital to provide for the purely private ownership and interests of the individual LFT income beneficiaries Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE did not properly manage and account for the invasion, conversion and transfer of LFT principal and corpus to and for the benefit of LFT income beneficiaries. 

390.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the LFT's spendthrift provision under article SEVENTH prohibits any invasion, alteration, amendment, or revocation of the trust for the benefit of any person other than the intended beneficiaries only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the LFT.

391.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that as a result of the LFT's terms and conditions and the vesting of rights and interests of the remaindermen beneficiaries and prohibiting the distribution of capital or corpus of the LFT to the LFT income beneficiaries, and while knowing that they were without power to amend, revoke, alter, nullify or adjudicate any change to the prohibition, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE elected and were granted by the United States, through the Internal Revenue Service, a favorable generation skipping transfer tax exemption under the generation skipping tax laws (GST laws) for the LFT. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub.L. 94-455, §2006, 90 Stat. 1879-1890.  Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that under the GST laws and as evidenced by the LFT's federal tax returns, IRS forms 1041 for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 as prepared by Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries are skip-persons and are vested under the LFT and that Respondents are prohibited from invading the LFT's corpus.

392.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that Respondents were prohibited from later changing any of the terms and conditions that resulted in their obtaining the more favorable tax treatment under the Generation Skipping Tax.

 

"A Florida law firm was sued because its estate plan for a double-generation skipping trust was flawed by the inclusion of the word "welfare" in the trustee's power to invade the trust corpus.  Under a treasury regulation, this created a general power of appointment, subjecting the trust to taxes on the life beneficiary's death."

Porter v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334 (11^th Cir.2001)

as cited in Legal Malpractice, 5^th Ed. By Ronald E. Mallen, Jeffrey M. Smith, (West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 2000) 2003 Pocket Part, Volume 4, Sections 27.1 to 32.10, page 125.

 

393.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the vested rights and interests of Petitioner and of the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries in and to the LFT, cannot be diminished, changed, altered or revoked by any process of State or Federal law, by the legislature or by the judiciary unless an LFT beneficiary violated article NINTH of the LFT which resulted in a breach of trust.  Exhibit 3, article NINTH.  NRS §163.203.

394.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that on August 13, 1982, this Court ordered the LFT to be managed and administered in accordance with NRS Chapters 163, NRS Chapter 164 and NRS §165.030 through §165.120.  While knowing that this Court had ordered the LFT managed in accordance with NRS Chapters 163, 164 and NRS §165.030 through §165.120, Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton, failed, neglected and refused to manage the LFT in accordance with this Court's Orders and instead managed the LFT in a manner that was not in the best interests of the trust and of the LFT beneficiaries.

395.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that LFT Trustees had no authority to amend this Court's Orders dated August 13, 1982 and January 17, 1983 of their own volition and that said Court Orders were final and conclusive as to the interpretation of the trust and to how the LFT was to be managed.  Exhibit 8 & 10.

396.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that on January 17, 1983, this Court entered an Order appointing and confirming DAYTON, MURPHY and ROWLEY as trustees of the LFT.  While knowing that the Order appointing Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, CR&R and/or REESE and Grant Thornton proceeded to manage the Trust in willful disregard for the order which appointed Respondents LFT Trustees as Trustees of the LFT.  Exhibit 10.

397.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that Petitioner has never made and delivered a written instrument to Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE or Grant Thornton, relieving said parties from any or all of the duties, restrictions and liabilities which would otherwise be imposed upon the trustees by NRS 163.010 to 163.200, inclusive. NRS §163.170.

398.       On November 20, 1991, Respondents LFT Trustees, CC&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton filed a Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instructions for the purpose of changing the terms and conditions of the LFT and to unlawfully invade the corpus in violation of this Petitioner's rights under the LFT, article SEVENTH and NINTH and in violation of Petitioner's rights secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

399.       On or about July 25, 1991, LFT Trustees issued a Report to Beneficiaries in which LFT Trustees discussed, among other things, the royalties owed by CANADAIR to the LFT and how the sums received from the principal royalties would be distributed to the LFT beneficiaries.

 

"As you know, there are two types of beneficiaries, those individuals with an interest in the distribution of principal (represents 28% of the Estate), and those individuals who receive a distribution of income earned by the remaining 72% of the Estate.

....

Since the issues are quite complex, we need time and advice to think over and work through what the procedures should be [sic] two types of beneficiaries.

....

In the meantime, if you have specific questions, concerns, or suggestions, please let us know at your earliest convenience so that we may incorporate them into this process.

Since each beneficiary and his/her heirs may have a different interest in how these matters are eventually settled, we believe this information will get the process started so that each may review their respective interests and position in the matter.  Your help in these deliberations would be appreciated.

Report to Beneficiaries, July 25, 1991, p.8, §3 and p.9 §1 & §2

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 19

 

400.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that by making misrepresentations and inducements to the LFT outright and income beneficiaries that said LFT beneficiaries had power and control over the allocation and distribution of CANADAIR (a.k.a. BOMBARDIER) royalties and could change the terms and conditions of the LFT, and while knowing that these representations

and inducements were false would 1) violate the intent of WPLSr, 2) violate article SEVENTH of the LFT, and 3) would compromise and subject these same LFT beneficiaries to disqualification and removal from the LFT under Article NINTH - which disqualifies any beneficiary who seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the LFT - thereby corruptly influencing and inducing their silence of LFT outright and income beneficiaries.

401.       On or about October 22, 1991, LFT Trustees along with Respondent Patricia Lear, Esq., and with the knowledge and consent of CR&R did covertly, secretly and arbitrarily determine that they would change the terms and conditions of the LFT and did willfully and knowingly neglect and refuse to give notice of any kind or nature to remaindermen beneficiaries of the LFT who had vested rights and interests in the principal and corpus of the LFT.  Exhibit 20.

402.       Respondents October 22, 1991 Report to Beneficiaries states, in pertinent part that:

 

"We have to deal with the CANADAIR royalties in a somewhat different manner than as described previously.  Nevada law generally provides that in situations where there is cash from a royalty situation, the trustees of an estate may designate a certain portion as income distributable to income beneficiaries.  In the absence of any specific instructions, the state sets forth a five (5%) percent income portion with the remaining 95% being considered principal."

Report to Beneficiaries, October 22, 1991, page 5, last paragraph

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 20, p. #127

 

403.       Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton and accountant MURPHY knew and recognized the requirements of NRS §164.310 and therefore knew or should have known that under Nevada State Law the CANADAIR-BOMBARDIER royalties were to be treated as 5% income and 95% as principal or corpus.  NRS §164.310.

404.       While knowing the requirements of the LFT and the laws of the State of Nevada, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE by false pretenses and influence, proposed and implemented a scheme whereby 20% of the CANADAIR royalties would be treated as income and 80% would be treated as principal and requested the written approval of the income beneficiaries for implementation of the scheme to defraud the remaindermen beneficiaries:

 

"Nevada law generally provides that in situations where there is cash from a royalty situation, the trustees of an estate may designate a certain portion as income distributable to income beneficiaries.  In the absence of any specific instructions, the state sets froth a five (5%) percent income portion with the remaining 95% being considered principal.  We propose that whenever CANADAIR checks are received, we will allocate 28% of them to the outright beneficiaries, with the remaining 72% allocated to the income beneficiaries.  Of the 72%, we plan to consider 20% as income, and eligible for distribution to the income beneficiaries, and the remaining 80% as principal, which will be reinvested on behalf of those beneficiaries.  We realize that this may be somewhat arbitrary, but the Trust Agreement permits the trustees the discretion to make such decisions.

....

For this reason, we are soliciting your comments at an early date, in as much as there is a fairly time-consuming process to go through the court system to close the Estate and have the assets distributed to the Trust, with further time involved in making distributions form the Trust.  In the interest of reducing the costs involved in doing all of this, we earnestly solicit you to contact your legal advisors as soon as possible.  If you agree with this plan of action, we would be most appreciative if you would so indicate by separate letter so that we may proceed at as rapid a pace as possible.  Should you not agree, we would also appreciate your opinion and procedures to follow for how we should proceed.

Report to Beneficiaries, October 22, 1991, pages 5 & 6

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 20, p. #127-128

 

405.       On October 28, 1991, in response to LFT Trustees October 22, 1991 Report to Beneficiaries, LFT income beneficiary Valentina Lear Jackson caused a written communication to be sent to LFT Trustees in which she stated, in pertinent part, a preference for a 40% income allocation of the CANADAIR royalties instead of the 20% arbitrary proposal by LFT Trustees:

 

"I have put our attorney here in Cody in charge of my interests in the Lear estate.  His name is Mr. Michael (mick) McCarty ... .  Mick has reviewed your 10-22-91 letter and sees no problem whatsoever with the proposed arrangements. 

I have had conversations with David and with Patti regarding the CANADAIR royalties and the proposed 20/80 split of the 72% that would go to the income beneficiaries. ... b) a 40/60 split would be preferable to a 20/80 split."

October 28, 1991 letter from Valentina Lear to Trustees, p.1, §1 and §2

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 21, p. #130

 

406.       On October 29, 1991, Patricia Lear, Esq. drafted a document for her own use and for the use of other income beneficiaries in the LFT, which was signed and submitted to LFT Trustees for the purpose of (1) changing the terms and conditions of the management of the LFT, and (2) changing the allocations and distributions made there under, including but not limited to treating the CANADAIR-BOMBARDIER royalties as 40% income. Exhibit 22.

407.       On November 6, 1991, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, filed a Petition for Instructions in the Second Judicial District Court for approval of the change of the terms and conditions of the LFT as proposed by Patricia Lear, Esq. and the LFT Trustees without the knowledge or written consent of Petitioner and without serving Court process on Petitioner. Exhibit 23.  Petitioner has reason to believe that this was done without the knowledge and written consent of any LFT remaindermen beneficiaries.

408.       On November 20, 1991, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE filed a Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instruction, without citing any authority under the LFT or Nevada State law and to further effect the "arbitrary" change of terms and conditions of the management of the LFT as proposed by LFT Trustees in their October 22, 1991 report to beneficiaries and by Patricia Lear, Esq. in her October 29, 1991 written communication to the Trustees, substantially increasing the percentage of LFT funds payable to Patricia Lear, Esq. and to other beneficiaries similarly situated, at the loss

to and expense of LFT remaindermen beneficiaries, without the knowledge or written consent of said LFT remaindermen beneficiaries and in violation of Petitioner's rights to due process and to equal protection of the law. Exhibits 20, 21, 22 & 24. NRS §163.170.

409.       In their Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instructions, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE made further misrepresentations to and with the intent to deceive this Court for the purpose of obtaining a confirmation of the arbitrary change in the terms and conditions of the LFT and did seek and obtain approval of this Court to modify and nullify parts or all of articles FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH and NINTH of the LFT, while knowing that their acts and omissions substantially altered and abrogated the intent and last wishes of WPLSr as expressed in his Last Will and Testament and in the LFT, without the notice, consent and to the detriment and damage of Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries who were defrauded by the Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE and Patricia Lear, Esq.  Exhibit 3. 

410.       Judicial Notice will be taken of the adjudicatory fact that like all other pleadings and notices filed between August 24, 1983 and February 27, 2004, neither the docket of Second Judicial District Court case #78-2800 nor the actual file of the case contain any certificates of mailing by Respondents which cover notice to this Petitioner.    

411.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE in their Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instruction, dated November 20, 1991, also requested confirmation of Respondents' arbitrary and unauthorized change in the distributions of sums to income beneficiaries and to treat 40% (forty percent) of certain capital assets, in the form of BOMBARDIER (formerly CANADAIR) royalties as income for the purpose of wrongfully distributing and misallocating LFT principal and capital while knowing that their acts and omissions would defraud Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries of their rights and interests in and to LFT principal and capital. 

412.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that on November 26, 1991, this Court entered its Order Approving Fourth and Final Account and Report of Executor, Petition for Final Distribution, And For Approval of Attorneys' Fees.  Said Order states, in pertinent part:

 

"5. The Petitioner is authorized and directed to transfer all property of the Decedent and of the Estate now or hereafter discovered to the Trustees of the Lear Family Trust B to be administered in accordance with Decedent's Last Will, and in accordance with the Order of this Court."

Order, November 26, 1991, page 4, lines 13.5 - 16.5

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 25, p. 150

 

413.       On December 2, 1991, Patricia Lear, Esq. caused her approval to the change in the terms and conditions of the LFT to be filed in the Second Judicial District Court.  Said consent by Patricia Lear, Esq. was filed with the knowledge and consent of Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE for the purpose of deceiving and influencing the Court into believing that the arbitrary changes had the consent and written permission of the beneficiaries while knowing that the remaindermen beneficiaries had not been given information in this regard, had not been served with legal process, and had not given their written consent, and while knowing that the remaindermen beneficiaries were being defrauded.  Exhibit 26.

414.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that when this Court granted their Petition for Instructions and in Supplement to Trustees' Petition for Instruction dated November 6, 1991 and November 20, 1991, respectively, without notice to or the knowledge or written consent of Petitioner, the resulting Court Order would not only violate this Petitioner's rights to due process and equal protection of the law but would defraud and alienate this Petitioner from property in violation of the LFT's Article SEVENTH.  Exhibits 23 & 24, respectively.

415.       On December 2, 1991, the Second Judicial District Court entered its Order Interpreting Trust Instrument and Instructing Trustees while having been deceitfully influenced by Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE and income beneficiary Patricia Lear, Esq. and did thereby approve the arbitrary and fraudulent acts and omissions of Respondents.  Exhibit 27.

416.       Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY knew or should have known that the foregoing acts, omissions and corrupting influence would be used to institute and further a systematic scheme to continually defraud remaindermen beneficiaries without their knowledge and consent and that the annual accounts would be vaguely and deceptively drawn to continually cover-up and conceal the nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance of the Respondents.

417.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE and accountant MURPHY knew or should have known that by craftily drafting and filing their November 30, 1993 Trustees' Petition for Instructions they would further effect their systematic scheme to illegally change the intent and Last Will and Testament of WPLSr and the terms and conditions of the LFT and that the Petition for Instructions would further damage this Petitioner by depriving this Petitioner of his rights and interests in the LFT principal, capital and corpus.  Exhibit 31.

418.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE devised, deceitfully influenced and implemented the systematic scheme for the purpose of secretly converting, transferring, conveying, giving away, selling-off and liquidating LFT land and capital assets and distributing the proceeds to income and outright beneficiaries and others in excess of what they were allowed under the LFT, thereby willfully and knowingly defrauding this Petitioner and the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries who would be and were left with substantial losses and shortfalls. 

419.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE's November 30, 1993 Petition for Instructions stated in pertinent part:

 

"5. ... that the base price of $10,000.00 per acre for the Lewis Homes Project was negotiated in 1989 and the price escalates monthly based on an interest factor for holding the property off the market; that the amount received from Lewis Homes sales over the base price of $10,000.00 per acre will be treated as income; that on sales of the other real property the income beneficiaries will receive 6% per year on the value established as of December 31, 1991, and this amount can be adjusted from year to year.

6.  The Trustees further propose to treat the sales proceeds from the oil and gas properties and Capistrano Partnership in the same manner as the CANADAIR royalties; that all cash investments in Silver Lake Water Company have been treated as loans; that if and when that company is sold, the income beneficiaries will receive their percentage share of the interest earned as income and their percentage share of the principal amount of the loan will be split 60% principal and 40% income, the same as CANADAIR royalties, since it was CANADAIR royalties that were used to make the loans.

7.  That under the terms of the trust instrument the Trustees have complete discretion to determine what is principal or income of the trust estate and to apportion and allocate receipts and expenses and other charges between the two accounts; ...

WHEREFORE, the Trustees pray that the Trustees [sic] proposed allocation of principal and income as to the income beneficiaries as herein set forth be ratified and approved by the Court."

Petition for Instructions, November 30, 1993,

p.3 lines 19-28 and p.4 lines 1-4 & 9-11

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 31, p. #207-208

 

420.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that Exhibit "A" as attached to their November 30, 1993 Petition for Instructions, proposed to (1) exercise unrestricted authority to determine which class of beneficiaries would pay the taxes and other costs, without regards to Nevada State law or this Court's Order of August 13, 1982, (2) exercise arbitrary powers not granted to them by WPLSr, and (3) arbitrarily determine the allocation of principal and income to be distributed to the income beneficiaries while excluding and defrauding remaindermen beneficiaries:

 

"For the past two years their [income beneficiaries] share of funds received from property sales have been put into a special account for the income beneficiaries children, commonly referred to as remaindermen.  This situation does not appear to be fair or appropriate under the circumstances.

....

You will note that the principal beneficiaries [outright] are allocated 28% of everything [costs] except trust taxes which apply only to remaindermen.

....

Be sure to review the allocations closely, you will note that the major impact is on the remaindermen for costs associated with land development and improvement costs.

This memo will give you some idea of how we are considering changes in procedures.  We would like to make the adjustments retroactive to January 1, 1992.  We would appreciate any input you care to make. 

Memorandum to LFT (income and outright) beneficiaries, Nov. 1, 1993

Attached as Exhibit A to Petition for Instructions of November 30, 1993

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 30, p. #197

 

421.       The LFT remaindermen beneficiaries were not served with notices, accountings, or Court process and were never contacted with regards to Respondents proposed management and distribution changes at the time of their discussion and implementation and as such Petitioner first became aware of these arbitrary changes as a fait accompli in Respondents' March 10, 2004 letter to beneficiaries. Exhibit 59.

422.       Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that this Court was prohibited from granting the Trustees any power to change the terms and conditions of the LFT in violation of the LFT's spendthrift clause:

 

NRS 163.023  Powers of trustee.  A trustee has the powers provided in the trust instrument, expressed by law or granted by the court upon petition, as necessary or appropriate to accomplish a purpose of the trust, but the court may not grant a power expressly prohibited by the trust instrument.

 

423.       Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the December 15, 1993 Order Instructing Trustees was craftily and deceitfully influenced by Respondents and misrepresents in pertinent part that:

 

"The Trustees' proposed formula is set forth in the Trustees' petition and is explained in detail in a memorandum dated November 1, 1993, which is attached to the petition and was sent to all beneficiaries.

That the Trustees' proposed treatment of the undeveloped real property as "underproductive property" and the allocation between principle [sic] and income of the proceeds from the sale thereof treats the INCOME BENEFICIARIES and the remaindermen impartially and is fair and equitable to both.

That the Trustees' proposed allocation between principle [sic] and income of the sales proceeds from the oil and gas properties, the Capistrano Partnership and the eventual sale of Silver State [sic] Water Company treats the INCOME BENEFICIARIES and the remaindermen impartially and is fair and equitable to both.

Dec. 15, 1993, Order Instructing Trustees

page 2, lines 14-20; page 3, lines 11-21

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 32, p. #212-213

 

424.       While failing and refusing to serve any legal notices upon Petitioner and other remaindermen beneficiaries, Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE were assured and reasonably expected not to have any opposition to their scheme for defrauding the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries since there would be no objection in the proceedings before this Court.  Respondents LFT Trustees, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that by abusing process and deceitfully influencing this Court to rubberstamp their scheme to defraud the remaindermen beneficiaries they would continually compromise, bribe, influence and induce the silence of the LFT income beneficiaries who received unjust and unauthorized benefits from the systematic and arbitrary scheme. 

6.12.2 Specifically: Invasion, Transfer & Conversion

425.       On or about April 20, 2002, the LFT Trustees sold LFT's 50% interest in an 18.14 acre parcel of vacant land in Washoe County, Nevada.  The LFT principal asset was sold and conveyed to George Peek of ERGS, Inc., a Nevada corporation (PEEK PARCEL).

426.       On February 28, 2004, Respondents Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY and CR&R and REESE produced, filed and served upon the beneficiaries the LFT's Charge and Discharge statement and related schedules for the year 2002.  Respondents changed the accounting basis previously used by the LFT to a different basis used for federal income tax:

 

"The statement and related schedules have been prepared on the accounting basis used by the Trust for federal income tax, ..."

Grant Thornton December 30, 2003, Accountants' Compilation Report

Exhibit 58, p. #461

 

427.       Respondents Grant Thornton and accountant MURPHY prepared and produced the LFT's tax return for the year 2002, including but not limited to, IRS Forms 1041, related schedules and IRS forms K-1:

 

"The tax return is filed timely and completed prior to when the charge and discharge statement is prepared."

September 30, 2002 letter

by Grant Thornton re Tax Return Procedures

Exhibit 50, p. #413

 

428.       Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton and accountant MURPHY stated in a footnote appearing in the LFT's 2002 tax return Form 1041 that:

 

"The Trustee, James L. MURPHY, has sufficient knowledge [of the] affairs of the Lear Family Trust for whom the return is made to enable him to make the return and that the return is, the best of his knowledge and belief, true and correct."

LFT Form 1041 as filed with IRS, March 31, 2003

 

429.       On March 31, 2003, Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton and accountant MURPHY produced the LFT's 2002 form 1041 tax return and stated therein, under penalty of perjury, that the gross sales price on the PEEK PARCEL as $586,222 dollars, the total costs or other basis was $395,509 dollars and the capital gains received from the transaction were $190,713 dollars.

430.       On February 28, 2004, Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE produced, filed with this Court the LFT's 2002 Charge and Discharge Statement, under penalty of perjury, wherein Respondents show the gross sales price for the PEEK PARCEL as $530,546.60 dollars, the total costs or other basis as $394,508.74 dollars and the capital gains as $135,036.86 dollars. Exhibit 58, Schedule 2, p. #464.

431.       On February 28, 2004, when they filed with this Court and served upon the LFT's beneficiaries the LFT's 2002 Charge and Discharge Statement Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE and knew or should have known that the LFT's Charge and Discharge statement for the year 2002 as compared with the 2002 tax return Form 1041, understated the gross sales price received from the sale of the PEEK PARCEL by $56,676.40, understated the costs or other basis by $1,000.26 and understated the gain from the sale of the PEEK PARCEL by $56,676.14.  At least the sum of $56,676.00 is unaccounted for in the 2002 Charge and Discharge Statement.

432.       The owner of the remaining 50% of the PEEK PARCEL is Moya Olsen Lear (deceased), hereinafter MOL or the Moya Olsen Lear Trust or the Estate of Moya Olsen Lear.  Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Moya Olsen Lear Trust Trustee and Executor MURPHY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY prepared, produced and filed with this Court in case # PR-02-00065, the Moya Olsen Lear Estate and Trust Charge and Discharge statement and Accountant's Compilation Report, wherein Respondents show a gross sale price on the same PEEK PARCEL as $530,546 dollars. Exhibit 51, p. #419. 

 

 

433.       Respondents LFT Trustee MURPHY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE purposely attributed the annual property taxes and the majority of development costs on land parcels to LFT remaindermen beneficiaries while knowing that this was neither fair nor equitable and knew that the capital investments in land development [made with remaindermen funds] are net of any outright beneficiaries' share and were taken solely out of the remaindermen beneficiaries' fund:

 

"You will note that the principal [outright] beneficiaries are allocated 28% of everything except trust taxes which apply only to remaindermen. ... In the absence of any specific cost allocation such as property development cost most items were split on the 40% income - 60% remaindermen ratio used for the Canadair royalties.  ...  Be sure you review the allocations closely, you will note that the major impact is on the remaindermen for costs associated with land development or improvements costs."

Memorandum, November 1, 1993, page 5

[Emphasis added]

Exhibit 30, p. #200-201

 

Figure 8

PEEK 2002 land sale
(from LFT 2002 Charge and Discharge Stat. (C/D) & MOL Trust 12/01- 01/03 C/D)
ALLOCATIONS TO LFT BENEFICIARIES
Proceeds from Peek sale distributed to Outright beneficiaries (Exhibit 58)	$131,448.32
Percentage of net sales price distributed to Outright beneficiaries	45.73%	45.73%
Proceeds from Peek sale distributed to Income beneficiaries (Exhibit 58)	$79,677.57
Percentage of net sales price distributed to Income Beneficiaries	27.72%	27.72%
Proceeds from Peek sale to Remaindermen before payment of annual property taxes	$76,349.11
Percentage of net sales price allocated to Remaindermen	26.56%	26.56%
Total (net sales price to LFT)	$287,475.00	100.00%

 

434.       While knowing of the limitations placed upon them by WPLSr's Last Will and Testament, WPLSr's intent, the LFT, the laws of the State of Nevada and the Orders of this Court, Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, knew that development and improvement costs on the PEEK PARCEL, as sold on or about April 20, 2002, were incurred in the amount of $242,071.00 dollars and that the development costs were charged solely against the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries accounts and interests.  Respondents thereafter transferred and converted 50% of these same development and improvement sums or $121,035.50 dollars out of $242,071.00 dollars to the Estate of Moya Olsen Lear or the Moya Olsen Lear Trust.

435.       Respondents knew that both the Moya Olsen Lear Trust and the Estate of Moya Olsen Lear are controlled by LFT Trustees MURPHY, Grant Thornton and accountant MURPHY and that any transfer or conversion of LFT capital to either or both of these entities is in violation of the terms of the LFT and of the Constitution and laws of the State of Nevada.

436.       By the foregoing acts, Respondents defrauded LFT remaindermen of the sum of $121,035.50 dollars. Figure 9, see also Exhibits 58 & 51.

437.       While knowing of the limitations placed upon them by WPLSr's Last Will and Testament, WPLSr's intent, the LFT, the laws of the State of Nevada and the Orders of this Court, Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, knew that development and improvement costs on the PEEK PARCEL, as sold on or about April 20, 2002, were incurred in the amount of $242,071.00 dollars and that the development costs were charged solely against the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries accounts and interests.  Respondents thereafter distributed 28% of these same development and improvement sums or $67,779.88 dollars out of $242,071.00 dollars to the LFT's outright beneficiaries. See Figure 9.

438.       Respondents knew that any distribution of LFT remaindermen funds to LFT outright beneficiaries is in violation of the terms of the LFT.

439.       By the foregoing acts, Respondents defrauded LFT remaindermen of the sum of $67,779.88 dollars. Figure 9, see also Exhibits 58 & 51.

440.       While knowing of the limitations placed upon them by WPLSr's Last Will and Testament, WPLSr's intent, the LFT, the laws of the State of Nevada and the Orders of this Court, Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE, knew that development and improvement costs on the PEEK PARCEL, as sold on or about April 20, 2002, were incurred in the amount of $242,071.00 dollars and that the development costs were charged solely against the LFT remaindermen beneficiaries accounts and interests.  Respondents thereafter distributed 23% of these same development and improvement sums or $55,676.00 dollars out of $242,071.00 dollars to the LFT's income beneficiaries.

441.       Respondents knew that any allocation and distribution of LFT principal and capital to LFT income beneficiaries in violation of NRS §164.320 is a violation of the terms of the LFT.

442.       By the foregoing acts, Respondents defrauded LFT remaindermen of the sum of $55,676.00 dollars. Figure 9, see also Exhibits 58 & 51.

Figure 9

 

443.       Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew or should have known that the allocations and distributions of proceeds from the sale of the PEEK PARCEL were unjust, inequitable and made in furtherance of Respondents' scheme to corrupt and compromise LFT's outright and income beneficiaries at the expense of LFT remaindermen beneficiaries while Respondents knew that their scheme had deprived Petitioner of his rights to due process and equal protection of the law for a period exceeding twenty years.

444.       Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, and CR&R and/or REESE knew that their scheme would corrupt and compromise the LFT outright and income beneficiaries and made it known to these same beneficiaries that they had been corrupted and compromised and used and manipulated these same beneficiaries in furtherance of their scheme against Petitioner and other LFT remaindermen beneficiaries. Exhibits 61 & 83. 

6.12.3 Conclusion

445.       Respondents LFT Trustees, CR&R and/or REESE, Grant Thornton, knew or should have known that by exercising capricious powers to invade corpus or principal would have defeated and been in contravention to (1) WPLSr's Last Will and Testament that the LFT be administered under the terms and conditions existing at the time of his decease, (2) the spendthrift clause under the LFT article SEVENTH, (3) the LFT's article FOURTH defining "net income", (4) the LFT's article FIFTH (b) instructing Trustees to distribute the "net income" of the LFT to the income beneficiaries, (5) the LFT's in terrorem clause at article NINTH and (6) the reduced taxes obtained by representing to the IRS that remaindermen beneficiaries were vested and thereby that principal and corpus were not subject to distribution to income beneficiaries. 

446.       In their July 14, 2004 Points and Authorities in Support of Trustees' Petition for Instructions, Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE stated:

 

"A Trustee making payment to a person other than the beneficiary entitled to receive the money, is liable to the proper beneficiary to make restitution unless the payment was authorized by a proper court. National Academy of Sciences v. Cambridge Trust Co., 370 Mass 303, 346 NE.2d 879."

 

447.       Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE knew that said Respondents are liable for any wrongful allocations and distributions of LFT funds.

448.       Respondents LFT Trustees DAYTON, MURPHY, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and REESE knew that no valid Court Order exists which authorizes them to exceed the authority granted them under the LFT.

449.       Respondents LFT Trustees MURPHY, DAYTON, ROWLEY, Grant Thornton, accountant MURPHY, CR&R and/or REESE wrongfully and imprudently used LFT funds and assets and capital to the damage of LFT remaindermen beneficiaries including but not limited to this Petitioner.