The estate
was closed on the grounds that there was not a request for hearing – AGAIN and
AGAIN HOPPE LIES The Court HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY
MISINFORMED BY Mr. White that no notice of hearing on objections to the Petition
for Discharge was served within the time prescribed by Fla. Prob. R. 5.401 (d).
RULE 5.401. RULE
5.401. OBJECTIONS TO PETITION FOR DISCHARGE OR FINAL ACCOUNTING
24.
If in an alternative honest and fair universe the Personal Representative of the
deceased and the attorney for the estate after they were notified of objections
THEY would set a hearing. Instead this gang of thieves waited 90 days and come
to court with dirty hands and say “too bad the time ran out” and we get to keep
the stolen property and our hundreds of thousands in fees paid to pervert
Melanie’s intent and NOT taking care of their duties but seeing that the
brothers Peter and John were illegally disinherited. The Judge as always over the last four years, just signs orders written
by Mr. Hoppe without hearing or giving any consideration of the other side.
Filed at the time http://www.wiredbrain.net/probateclose.htm
IN THE
IN RE: ESTATE OF File
No. 2004-CP-0770 MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM Division A Deceased.
FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
PETITION FOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE’S FEE
MADE 6/26/2007
Here comes
Thomas Pflaum clearly has a conflict of interests as big as all outdoors. He can not fairly administer
the estate while at the same time claiming the whole amount. He is attacking
the other beneficiaries while he is required to look after their interests.
Thomas (PR) and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect
the estate, in fact, have stolen all the assets. Melanie Pflaum’s long time
residence in
Thomas Pflaum and Leanne lied about where Melanie lived,
(she had lived in Spain for 35 years, had many friends, paintings, property, and
paid utilities and taxes in Spain), but Thomas and Leanne claimed she lived
since 1989 in Micanopy where she had no friends, no property, had not even
visited for many years; they used DPA (power of attorney) put their names on
accounts that did not belong to them, lied to the IRS, (maybe under criminal
audit) and hired two more lawyers to attack the other beneficiaries - Mr. White
who claimed in 2004 to represent the estate but informed us on February 6,
2007, that he only represents Thomas as P. R., and Mr. Hoppe who we have
reason to believe has taken over the case.
Here comes Dr. Peter E. Pflaum with the claim that the
court has no discretion in removing the Personal Representative (PR), Thomas Pflaum for a gross conflict of interest.
He has not done anything to see that the Estate is managed according to law and
everything to take it all for himself and his wife. The bulk of the
estate was in an account with Merrill Lynch. It is the duty of the PR to see
this property of the deceased is included in the estate as it should be
according to law. At the same time Thomas claims it as his property. IT is
impossible that Thomas can act on both sides of this dispute and must be
removed according to law. Holding or acquiring conflicting or adverse interests
against the estate that will or may interfere with the administration of the
estate as a whole disqualifies the PR
33.504 Failure to account for the sale of property or to produce and exhibit
the assets of the estate when so required. (see below)
Thomas Pflaum signed a sworn statement notarized by
Mr. White that Melanie Pflaum lived (resided, domiciled) in
Thomas Pflaum must believe the POA Melanie signed and
he submitted as evidence of her domicile was valid and signed when Melanie was
competent. If she was competent the POA was unnecessary if she was not
competent then there should have been a conserver who would have had a clear
duty to protect Melanie’s assets. Thomas Pflaum on the other hand believes that
he has the legal right to take and hold all of the property resources including
bank accounts, tax refunds and other property.
After Melanie died on March 5th 2004 he
declared on March 27th that he and Leanne intended to take
everything and abuse the legal process to keep it with a crack legal team. [exhibit E page 32] This is
exactly what has happened with the guidance of Mr. White and the friendly help
of a Judge that bent in their direction. Mr. Hoppe’s role is to run along the
sidelines and throw sand in the face and try to trip the opposition. So far it
has been working but a great expense, pain and suffering, waste of resources
and abuse of the judicial process.
Northern Trust Checking Account
* CAM (CAJA) de Ahorros de Meditarraneo bank in Javea - $19,133.00
* Royal Bank of
* Income tax refund - $10,985.00
* Works of Art, page 10 - $19,230.00 (in Javea)
Total - $91,610.00
* Also, Bank of
The property in question is in a Merrill Lynch account
which was held jointly with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) and now claimed as
the sole property of my brother Thomas Pflaum. (Was 2.5 million in 2000) JTWROS
is not under some conditions a probate asset; the first and most important
issue is to ask the court to rule that it is included in the estate for the
reason of fraud given in this document. Probate has venue in Leon County
Florida because the money is in Merrill Lynch (M/L) (Broker Robert Hayward of a
Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship (JTWROS) account in
In 1985 or 1986 after Irving Pflaum, Melanie’s husband
of over 50 years and father of Peter and Thomas, died the initials JTWROS were
added to the account. M/L has no record of this transaction. In 2003, Melanie
is now 94 years old, Thomas sends to her in April and she signed in May a “Merrill
Lynch Client Relationship Agreement.” [exhibit A]
This document is of a legal size (or bigger) multi- page document with pages
with several carbon copies of a form – self cc. Thomas and Leanne signed this
document in November, of 2003, some six months after Melanie signed it. The
first copy goes to M/L and ends up in storage in
In July and August 2005 we subpoenaed the documents
and went to deposition in Tallahassee that established the account which existed at the
time of Melanie’s death (the one set up in November 2003 that added Leanne) If
Thomas and Leanne argue that the JTWROS was long standing (it appears to be
added to the account about the time of father’s death in 1985) they have to
overcome the fact there is no record that could show how it was set up and if
any of the legal requirements to override a last will and testament were followed.
Mr. Hayward testified that it was for convenience only (clearly if Melanie was injured or sick and needed
emergency funds, Thomas would be in a position to help after the death of his
father). Thomas NEVER made a single transaction on the account from 1985 to
2003. (Phone call to Mr. Hayward) It had no joint function except in case of
emergency and there was no emergency until late in 2003.
The records provided by M/L could not be read – were poor fax copies
reduced more that 100% and repeated requests (starting at the deposition on Aug
2nd 2005) to provide legible copies got no response. Finally
in Sept 2005,
The case presented by
The taking of 1.4 million from Merrill Lynch was
illegal in allowing or creating a nothing more than a clerical error Thomas
Pflaum and Robert Hayward arranged to make Melanie Pflaum’s account to appear
with the label JTWROS and changed to the names on the account to Thomas and
Leanne Pflaum. This allowed Thomas and Leanne to claim the whole amount (1.4
million) based on the label alone. There has been sufficient evidence
that this transaction was done incorrectly with great carelessness and
indifference to the necessary formalities so as to be in fact null and void.
Thomas Pflaum failed to check the box to even apply for JTWROS; they had
Melanie Pflaum sign in May when they submitted the agreement in November 2003
in a careless manner, forging her address as in Micanopy. These actions caused
great harm, great legal costs, great pain and suffering, all started by either
a plot to defraud or gross neglect and incompetence. Merrill Lynch
response to subpoena and disposition was misleading and incomplete in that they
never provided the critical document “Merrill Lynch Client Relationship
Agreement” in a form that could be read.
Petitioner, THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM, as Personal
Representative of this estate, alleges:
1. Petitioner was appointed Personal Representative of
this estate by order of this Court dated
June 9, 2004. Letters of administration were issued on June 9. 2004.
2. Petitioner has furnished services to the estate.
The nature and extent of those services will
be detailed in an affidavit in advance of a hearing on this petition.
3.
4. Inasmuch as the probate
assets were insufficient to pay any personal representative’s fees, all the impact of personal representative’s fees
will be borne by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to this petition. If
there had been additional probate assets, the impact of personal representative’s fees would be borne by the
residuary beneficiaries named below.
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
JOHN H. PFLAUM 2400 E Bradford Ave, Apt 905
PETER PFLAUM
3. The requests that an order be entered authorizing
and directing the payment of the sum of
$200,000 to Petitioner for services rendered by the Petitioner as Personal
Representative of the estate be denied.
FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
March 5, 2004 through February 27, 2007
The Petitioner objects to this
accounting in every detail – mainly the estate is $100.00 is absurd. $400,000
has been spent on a estate of no value. DO YOU HAVE EYES, can you see, DO
YOU HAVE EARS, can you hear, DO YOU HAVE A VOICE, can you speak? The Estate is
close to two million dollars and includes a substantial property in
The notice does NOT TELL THE
TRUTH or acquaint all interested persons with the transactions that have occurred during the period covered by the
accounting and the assets that remain on hand. It consists of a SUMMARY sheet and Schedule A showing all Receipts,
Schedule B showing all Disbursements,
Schedule C showing all Distributions, Schedule D showing all Capital
Transactions and Adjustments (the
effect of which are also reflected in other schedules, if appropriate),
and Schedule E showing assets on
hand at the end of the accounting period. It is a tissue of lies.
It is important that this accounting be carefully
examined. Requests for additional information and any questions should be
addressed to the personal representative or the attorneys for the personal
representative, the names and addresses of whom are set forth below.
When under penalties of perjury, the undersigned
personal representative commits perjury when he declares that I have read and
examined this accounting and that the facts and figures set forth in the
Summary and the attached Schedules are
true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that it is a complete report of
all cash and property transactions and of all receipts and disbursements by me
as personal representative of the estate of
MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM, deceased, from March 5, 2004, through February 27, 2007.
RE:
ESTATE OF LETTIE V. COMBEE, Deceased. LINDA RAE FARMER, et al. ,
Petitioners, vs. IRMA A.
Chase Fed. In a subsequent Sav. & Loan Ass’n v.
Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 (
Survivorship Rights in Joint Accounts, 24 U.
Richard e. Warner, Joint Accounts and Decedent’s
Estates—An Update,
Estate of Gainer, 466 So. 2d 1055 (
Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N. Y. 458, 464 (1928)
Davison v. Feurerherd, 391 So. 2d 799 (
Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (
Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be signed by the
attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required by these
rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of form
impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of jurisdictional
facts actually existing renders any proceeding void.
1DCA On the court’s own MOTIONS , the
complaint/petition filed June 13, 2006 is hereby treated as a petition
for writ of prohibition. See
PROHIBITION, WRIT OF - The name of a writ issued by a
superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit in an inferior
court, commanding them to cease from the prosecution of the same, upon a
suggestion that the cause originally, or some collateral matter arising
therein, does not belong to that jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other
court.
The writ of prohibition may also be issued when, having jurisdiction, the court
has attempted to proceed by rules differing from those which ought to be
observed, or when, by the exercise of its jurisdiction, the inferior court
would defeat a legal right.
see writofprohibition.htm
Last year the 1DCA 6618 (FSC05-2330) suggested to the
8th Circuit that they should be able to settle the case - After more
than a year nothing has been settled. The District Court of Appeal sent to the 8th Circuit
a mandate:
YOU
ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings, if required, be had in accordance
with said opinion, the rules of Court, and the laws of the State of
WITNESS the Honorable CHARLES J. KAHN, JR. , Chief Judge of the District
Court of Appeal of
The FSC (FSC05-2330) said last year ”The petition for writ of mandamus is
hereby transferred, pursuant to Harvard v. Singletary, 733 So. 2d 1020 (
Petitioner PETITIONS AND
MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF $861,000 FOR
THE Petitioner FROM THE Petitioners The Petitioners report on the PROCESS IN
THE LOWER COURTS: the course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the
lower tribunal.
Before Referee - Circuit Court Judge Philip Bloom
SUPREME COURT THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. DIANE S. SEGAL,
Petitioner
REPORT OF THE REFEREE The Petitioner was charged with
Violation of Rule 4-3. 3(a)(l) in that a lawyer shall not knowingly make
a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and Violation of Rule
4-3. 3(d) in that in an ex parte proceeding a lawyer shall inform the
tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the
tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
The context of the charges is that Petitioner as an
attorney, thereafter ex-parte, that an estate in which Petitioners are a
principal beneficiary and personal representative.
In conclusion, this Bar matter came
about as a result of the Petitioners obsessive, personal vendetta. The Estate
of Melanie Pflaum was not a difficult Estate to administer; Mrs. Melanie
Pflaum’s Last Will & Testament was clear, simple, and
straightforward. However, Mr. Thomas Pflaum, personal representative,
refused to carry out the testator’s intent and refused to comply with the
explicit provisions of a Will he himself had drafted at his law firm (Paul and
Thomson) in
Mr. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum’s actions
forced the Petitioner as to seek his removal as personal representative in 2005
inasmuch as it was apparent that he would not receive any income or property
distributions as long as Thomas was involved. It was Mr. Thomas Pflaum who
chose to turn Peter’s resistance into a prolonged litigation.
Thomas could have made distributions or
he could have resigned and the matter would have ended there, but he didn’t.
Mr. Thomas Pflaum engaged Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe and the protracted litigation
and pleadings began. The only possible explanation for Mr. and Mrs.. Thomas
Pflaum’s behavior is obsessive greed on the part of the Petitioners and,
subsequently, their attorneys, Mr. White and Mr. Hoppe” (at p 1)
The conflicts of Interests led to violations by the
Petitioners of Rules 4-8. 4©, (conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice) and 4-8. 4(d), (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation).
It is now absurd for the Petitioner to charge the
Petitioner with causing delay. The whole effort of the Petitioner has been
delay and harassment. The cases listed
in the appendix are all inactive and demonstrate a desperate effort to find
some court somewhere that will actually hear the case on its’ merits and apply
the facts and the law in a reasonable and fair manner. There is one best way to
know who is wrong and who is right in this dispute and that is to actually hear
the case. The trial judge has not, the 1DCA has not, nor has any other court. The facts and the law cry out for justice!
The Uniform Probate Code the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved
the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) in 1969. This was intended to facilitate
uniformity in probate codes throughout the
In
the face of widespread criticism of the present American probate institution,
the adoption of a uniform, and in most cases, less expensive system of settling
a decedent’s estate is deemed desirable. The UPC is based on the major premise
that the probate court’s appropriate role is to be available to assist in the
settlement of an estate when assistance is requested or required rather than to
impose its unsolicited supervision to enforce every detailed formality upon
completely non-contentious Probate Takes Time- It can take up to two years. The
beneficiaries generally get nothing in the intervening period unless the judge
Okays an allowance for the family.
There is a lot more to this case than serious and
grave faults of procedures – The
Petitioner and his family are being injured every day by the lack of a family
allowance of $2000 a month they received for decades. They have been damaged
for over three years by this unfair legal process and the acts of the
Petitioner, Thomas Pflaum Esq., (the greedy brother), Leanne Pflaum, (who put
her name on the money that is not hers) Mr. White (Thomas’ probate lawyer who
has not done his duty) and Mr. Hoppe (Thomas’ attack lawyer who is paid
to harass the Petitioner and his family). This joint enterprise has over the last
three years systematically refused to carry out the testator’s intent and abused
the legal system for unjustifiable and illegal financial gain. The Petitioners
have completely failed in their responsibilities to the law, the
“Second, please be clear in
understanding that I represent the personal representative of the estate.
I do not represent Tom individually, which is a large part of the reason Tom
retained Mr. Hoppe in connection with the Florida Bar complaint you filed
against him. In my capacity as the attorney for the personal representative,
(Mr. White wrote in 10/12/2004) it is my responsibility to guide the personal
representative in making sure that all of the estate’s obligations are
discharged, in particular that all estate taxes that may be due are paid, that
all estate assets are marshaled and properly accounted for, and that proper
distribution is made to the beneficiaries as required by the will which has
been admitted to probate in Florida. I intend to fulfill that responsibility.
However, I do not represent Tom, any more than I represent either of you.
”
IF only he had done what he knew and said he was
expected to do and is required to do by law, then many years of pain,
suffering, legal waste; would have been avoided and we all would not be where
we are today. In reality Mr. White only represents Thomas and Leanne in their
nefarious schemes and only attacks the other beneficiaries, he is says he is
required to protect. Since he days he is my representative and attorney I can
claim malpractice and fraud since he has clearly been dishonest in supporting
my claims.
The core of Peter’s argument is that Thomas’s
strategy is to avoid a final judgment and just keep the money by fraud, making
appeal difficult. Peter, therefore appeals on the grounds of lack of
judgments rather than appeal any final judgments, since there are none. Peter
argues that no court at anytime has heard the case on its merits and no judge
has made any judgment on the money issues in dispute.
The FSC may review any order or judgment of a trial
court certified by the district court of appeal in which an appeal is pending
to be of great public importance, or to have a great effect on the proper
administration of justice throughout the state, and certified to require
immediate resolution by the supreme court. The court may issue writs of
prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of its
jurisdiction.
The case for jurisdiction is protecting the integrity
of the Judicial System in the State of
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. The Petitioner
appealed the lower courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s
estate. The Petitioner is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing
on the merits of the case, a chance to present the facts and the law about the
dispute to an impartial court. Over the last three years, there has been
a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on the critical issues.
The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The Petitioner claims
this is equal to having his complaints dismissed without a hearing. For
years the Petitioners and the trial courts have refused to respond to the
Petitioner’s pleas, petitions, and Motions and have not presented any
affirmative replies or actions to settle the dispute or move the courts to make
any findings on the issues in dispute. There is no sign that there will
ever be a final judgment in the trial court or in 1DCA. There has been no
progress in making an inventory of the estate. The Petitioners have shown
a clear intent to obtain by fraud all the property in the estate by perverting
the course of justice.
The case is not fundamentally about who did what to
whom in the process of litigation, or the faults of the Petitioner in seeking justice,
but only the failure of the personal representative (PR), because of greed and
a gross conflict of interests, to faithfully carry out the wishes of the deceased.
who in not being represented to see the testator’s intent is honored since
the PR refuses to comply with the explicit provisions of her Will.
The history of the law, civil courts and judicial
administrative code was largely based on inheritance. From ancient
All the issues raised in the Petitioner’s response
are only blue smoke and mirrors trying to hide the basic reality, i.e. the
Petitioner and his wife taking all three shares of the estate for themselves.
The Petitioners have actively prevented the lower court from making a final
judgment, which would be subject to appeal. The case should have been closed in
the fall of 2005 or assigned to a impartial PR. The Petitioner, positive in the
belief in his cause, the facts and the law, became aware of this “in his face”
strategy of the Petitioner to delay, harassment, threats and use sanctions to
advance his intention of never coming to a final judgment. The tactics of the
Petitioners have the clear intent of taking property and using legal tricks to
keep what does not belong to them. The Petitioner has appealed and looked for
Justice PRO SE to the best of his ability. The Petitioner had no choice to
seeking appeals or cases in other jurisdictions since there was no chance of a
fair hearing in the lower court in
The Petitioner and his attorneys have taken the low
road of attacking the Petitioner. It’s the old adage that in any argument
if the facts are on your side you argue the facts, if the law is on your side,
you argue the law. If neither the law nor facts are on your side, you blame the
Petitioner. It’s very easy to do and the best part is you actually get some
people to believe you. It can even hide your own crimes and incompetence.
The counter claim include false arrest in the case of
the report to DCF which was raised as part of this case IN THE CIRCUIT COURT,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA
-vs- PETER EDWARD PFLAUM PRO SE Division: 3 Judge: GLANT, DAVID A State Filed
Case Number: 01-2005-CF-002238-A A pretrial Intervention was wrongly used here
as blackmail against the Petitioner, when it was offered by the State Attorney
(Mr. Colaw) acting for the Petitioner offering to drop criminal charges in
exchange for a default judgment in their favor in the probate case.
They have not made any respond in an adversarial
probate case:
And Petitioners have refused for three years to make
any affirmative case on the legal and factual ground for their stated belief
thet the whole of the Estate belongs to Thomas and Leanne. Since they
don’t have a legitimate case in law and the facts are painfully simple and
clearly against them, they attack the Petitioner. [1]The
central issue is a monumental act of betrayal where Thomas, acting as the PR
for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other beneficiaries
who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s
death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a Petitioner) also an attorney, were
taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves. Thomas stated in the same
e-mail that they were hiring “really mean lawyers” to support the illegal
ownership of the entire estate and to attack his brothers. The Petitioner
is clearly in a really big conflict of interest.
RULE
5.020. PLEADINGS; VERIFICATION; Forms of Pleading. Pleadings shall be
signed by the attorney of record, (OR PRO SE) and by the pleader when required
by these rules. All technical forms of pleadings are abolished. No defect of
form impairs substantial rights, and no defect in the statement of
jurisdictional facts actually existing renders any proceeding void.
The Petitioner moves the records be included as correspondence because
almost everything put in evidence is in the record and does not need to be
copied.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true
copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail this Friday, December 07,
2007 to Richard M. White, Jr., White and Crouch, P.A.,
Certificate of Compliance This brief was prepared
in Times New Roman 14-point font
Signed
______________________________________________________
Dr. Peter E. Pflaum, Appellant/Petitioner v. Thomas
and Leanne Pflaum, Appellee/Petitioners
Lower Tribunal No. 1 D06-6618 (Trial
court No: 2004-CP-0770)
(Trial court in
APPENDIX ONE: Specifics- The Petitioner
has done (and not done and left undone) the facts and the law.
Dr.
Peter E. Pflaum, PRO
225 Robinson Road
New
386 428 9609
·
APPENDIX ONE:
Specifics- The Petitioner has done (and not done and left undone) the facts and
the law.
The Petitioners not replied to several years of interrogatives,
discovery, petitions to coerce answers or petitions and Motions to have the PR
removed for cause, (gross conflict of interest) and the Petitioner has:
733.609
Improper exercise of power; breach of fiduciary duty.-
(1) A personal representative’s fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary
duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable
to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this
duty. In all actions for breach of fiduciary duty or challenging the exercise
of or failure to exercise a personal representative’s powers, the court shall
award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorney’s fees.
·
Motions denied
for the Judge to recuse himself, based on gross prejudice for the Petitioners
and bias against the Petitioner,
Motions
ignored for an inventory, for sale of real estate, for a progress report,
required by law in violation of RULE 5.150. ORDER
REQUIRING ACCOUNTING
·
Accountings
Required by Statute. When any personal representative or guardian fails to file
an accounting or return required by statute or rule, the court on its own
Motions or on the petition of an interested person shall order the personal
representative or guardian to file the accounting or return within 15 days from
the service on the personal representative or guardian of the order, or show
cause why he or she should not be compelled to do so.
·
Petitioner is In
violation of RULE 5.160. PRODUCTION OF ASSETS On the petition of an interested
person, or on its own Motions, the court may require any personal
representative or guardian to produce satisfactory evidence that the assets of
the estate are in the possession or under the control of the personal
representative or guardian and may order production of the assets in the manner
and for the purposes directed by the court.
·
Motions ignored
to enforce time limits (two years by law) and come to judgment and (g) a
statement of the approximate value and nature of the assets; in violation of
RULE 5.340. INVENTORY
·
Contents and
Filing. Unless an inventory has been previously filed, the personal
representative shall file an inventory of the estate within 60 days after
issuance of letters. (Mr. White files $100.00 for Petitioner)
·
The inventory did
not contain notice of the beneficiaries’ rights under subdivision (e), list the
estate with reasonable detail and include for each listed item (excluding real
property appearing to be protected homestead property) its estimated fair
market value at the date of the decedent’s death. Real property appearing to be
protected homestead property shall be listed and so designated. (b) Extension.
On petition the time for filing the inventory may be extended by the court for
cause shown without notice, except that the personal representative shall serve
copies of the petition and order on the persons described in subdivision.
·
Motions denied
for summary judgment, and accounting and violation of RULE 5.346. FIDUCIARY
ACCOUNTING (a) Contents. A fiduciary accounting shall include:
·
All cash and
property transactions since the date of the last accounting or, if none, from
the commencement of administration, and
·
a schedule of
assets at the end of the accounting period.
·
Accounting
Standards. The following standards are required for the accounting of all
transactions occurring on or after January 1, 1994: (1) Accountings shall be
stated in a manner that is understandable to persons who are not familiar with
practices and terminology peculiar to the administration of estates and trusts.
(2) The accounting shall begin with a concise summary
of its purpose and content.
(3) The accounting shall contain sufficient
information to put interested persons on notice as to all significant
transactions affecting administration during the accounting period.
(4) The accounting shall contain 2 values in the
schedule of assets at the end of the accounting period, the asset acquisition
value or carrying value, and estimated current value.
·
pleas to stop ex
parte case management meeting have had no response,
·
Motions ignored
for rehearing and appeal of venue, and a claim of perjury in the affidavit of
domicile of the deceased in violation of RULE 5.200. PETITION FOR
ADMINISTRATION
·
The petition for
administration shall be verified by the Petitioner and shall contain:
(b) The name, last known address, social security
number, date and place of death of the decedent, and state and county of the
decedent’s domicile;
© so far as is known, the names and addresses of the
surviving spouse, if any, and the beneficiaries and their relationship to the
decedent and the date of birth of any who are minors;
(d) A statement showing venue;
(e) The priority, under the code, of the person whose
appointment as the personal representative is sought and a statement that the
person is qualified to serve under the laws of
(f) a statement whether domiciliary or principal
proceedings are pending in another state or country, if known, and the name and
address of the foreign personal representative and the court issuing letters;
RULE 5.200. PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATION
(g) a statement of the approximate value and nature of
the assets;
I CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS (HARASSMENT and JUDICIAL ABUSE) PROCESS IN THE
LOWER COURTS: the course of the proceedings, and the disposition in the lower
tribunal. The judge in the probate case made it clear to all, in September
2005, that the law or the facts did not apply in his court. He ordered in the
face of all reality that Petitioner Thomas Pflaum had no conflict of interest
and Melanie did live in Micanopy. The court allowed attacks on the Petitioner include a civil suit for defamation and extortion,
and having the Petitioner arrested on felony charges resulting from Thomas’s
false sworn police statement…………………………
II
Petitioner count ARGUMENT_2:___COUNT_2 CLAIMS OF BASIC RIGHTS
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. The Petitioner appealed the lower
courts denial of his claims as beneficiary to his mother’s estate. The Petitioner
is being denied justice by the lack of any hearing on the merits of the case, a
chance to present the facts and the law about the dispute. Over the last three
years, there has been a complete lack of any meaningful judicial decisions on
the critical issues. The lower courts have made no substantial decisions. The Petitioner
claims this is equal to having his complaints dismissed without a
hearing……………..…
III CONFLICT OF INTERESTS The Personal Representative. (PR) Thomas is who also
a beneficiary and Leanne Pflaum have failed to protect the estate and in fact
have stolen all the assets. The cause of the litigation is the failure of the
personal representative (PR), because of greed and a gross conflict
of interests, to faithfully carry
out the wishes of the deceased who cannot represent herself.
IV
ARGUMENT_4:_TORTIOUS_INTERFERENCE WITH INHERITANCE;
The central issue is a monumental act of betrayal where Thomas, acting as the
PR for his deceased mother and with responsibilities for the other
beneficiaries who are his brothers, announced in an e-mail days after Melanie’s
death, that he and his wife, Leanne, (a Petitioner) also an attorney, were
taking everything in Melanie’s estate for themselves. The grounds for tortious
interference with inheritance include the lack of possibility when a probate
proceeding does not have the potential to provide full redress of any damages
suffered by a Petitioner
V ILLEGAL USE OF
JTWROS IN MERRILL LYNCH ACCOUNT The
trial court has not reviewed or acted on uncontested evidence submitted proving
the Petitioner used a friendship with Mr. Hayward, the financial advisor at
Merrill Lynch, (M/L) to falsely put the Petitioners name on 1.5 million of
estate assets. M/L was guilty of gross neglect of duty in putting the JTWROS falsely on the account
Were
The Courts, Merrill Lynch and or Thomas doing their General fiduciary
duties? Benjamin Cardozo, while sitting on the Court of Appeals of
Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for those acting at arm’s
length, are forbidden to those bound by fiduciary ties. A trustee is held to
something stricter than the morals of the market place. Not honesty alone,
but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard of
behavior. In its essence this case makes a distinction between form and
substance. Generally, the law recognizes three major fiduciary
duties:
1. duty of loyalty, i. e. a fiduciary must not place his own
interests ahead of the departed and the beneficiary’s interest;
2. duty of care, i. e. a fiduciary must exercise an amount of
care appropriate to manage the beneficiary’s interest; and
3. duty of disclosure, i. e. a fiduciary must disclose
certain information to the beneficiary.
Fiduciary law is particularly relevant to the law of trusts, partnerships,
agency, and corporate officers and directors. Fiduciary duties are always particularized
to the actual relationships they occur in, and often they can be modified (or
even waived) by contract.
The
Petitioner (Dr.
PETER E. PFLAUM, Petitioner
vs, THOMAS PFLAUM, as Personal Representative of Melanie Sophia Pflaum,
deceased, Petitioner
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR
SANCTIONS
The following is just wrong. The Petitioner is innocent of the charges and
never had a hearing. There is no record of violations and the forgery charge is
based on only one side of the case. This order is an extreme example of the
bias of the trial court.
1.
This cause came
before the Court on the personal representative’s MOTIONS for sanctions,
including dismissal of claims. Upon review of the evidence proffered, and after
a review of the court file, including the submissions of
1. The subject MOTIONS for sanctions is hereby granted as more
specifically set forth below.
2.
3. All claims, Illations, and other pleadings or papers filed herein by
said
4. Except appropriate appellate filings pertaining to this order, no further
pleadings, Motions or papers may be filed herein by said
Leanne Pflaum pending review by the 1DCA case Appellant / Petitioner(s),
Dr. Peter E. Pflaum v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum
CASE
NO.: 1 DO6-6618
The appeal of this case is part of an ongoing enterprise to deprive the
defendant,
Peter claims that the Trial Court has failed to
inventory and distribute the property of his mother’s estate since June, 2004.
Peter claims that his brother, Thomas Pflaum and sister-in-law Leanne Pflaum,
of
The heart of Peter’s case is that Thomas, Leanne and
his legal team (Mr. White, for the PR and Mr. Hoppe as a personal attorney) are
abusing the legal process by endless delays, diversions including a civil case
for defamation and extortion.
b. The conditions where the defendants were denied the basic rights to defend
themselves was dated Jan 30th received on Feb 1st says
THIS MATTER came before the Court on January 23, 2007, for pretrial
conference. Bill Hoppe, Esq., appeared as attorney for plaintiffs Thomas
M. Pflaum and Leanne J. Pflaum. Defendant John Pflaum appeared by telephone pro
se. Defendants
(IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 8™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY , FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 2005-CA-2363 DIV. K THOMAS M. PFLAUM and LEANNE J. PFLAUM, Petitioners,
vs. PETER PFLAUM, MARY ANNE PFLAUM, and JOHN PFLAUM, Petitioners) went to trial
February 5th and 6th 2007, without any judgment by the
court as of Friday, June 15, 2007. Referred to as Civil Case; Mr. Hoppe
has filed this completely worthless suits designed only to harass Peter and his
wife Mary Anne that the court should not have allowed in the same COURT AT THE
SAME TIME. He has continually lied to the court on matters of great importance
with the clear intent to subvert justice.
2. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (without the trouble
of hearing the case from both sides) done Jan 30th and received Feb
1st TALK ABOUT EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW?
a. Counsel and all pro se parties shall appear in person on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5,
2007, AT 9:00 A.M. ready to commence trial. Two (2) days have been reserved.
The parties shall contact the undersigned’s judicial assistant on the Friday
before trial to verify who the presiding judge will be and in which courtroom
the trial will take place.
b. The matters for jury trial include:
i. Plaintiff’s claim for defamation against all defendants;
ii. Plaintiffs claim for civil extortion against all defendants. Plaintiffs’
claims against the defendants are not only for their individual acts, but also
as joint venturers. Plaintiffs have withdrawn any claim for lost wages or
inability to earn money in the future and seek only recovery for intangible
losses herein. The cross claim and counterclaim filed by Defendant John Pflaum
is hereby stricken, said Defendant not having obtained leave of court to file
same.
c. As to Defendants
d. Without objection, there shall be six (6) peremptory challenges per
side. The six challenges for the Plaintiffs shall be exercised jointly,
and each peremptory challenges for the Defendants may be exercised jointly or,
at their discretion, maybe exercised separately by dividing the total number of
Defendant’s challenges equally. In the event that the Defendants all fail lo
appear for trial, Plaintiffs shall have three peremptory challenges. In the
event that only one Defendant appears for trial, the parties shall have three
peremptory challenges per side. In the event that only two Defendants
appear for trial, there will be six (6) peremptory challenges per side which
may be exercised jointly or separately (divided equally).
e. The Defendants having failed to comply (not true but papers filed were
ignored) with this Court’s order requiring pretrial exhibit lists and witness
lists, the Defendants shall not be permitted to call any witness or use any
exhibit other than those listed on Plaintiffs witness and exhibit lists.
f. The Defendants having failed to comply with this Court’s pretrial order
regarding submission of jury instructions, no jury instructions will be used
other than those proposed by Plaintiff, subject to the Court’s ruling on
objections, if any, to said instructions.
3.
TRIAL ON FEBRUARY
5 AND 6 2007 WITHOUT JUDGMENT
The process has not been even close to fair and equal. The court has shown a
clear preference and favor for Thomas and his team and strong prejudice against
Peter. The Judge should have rescued himself more than a year ago.
4.
As to Defendants
Further harassment is a worthless criminal case
CASE
THREE: CRIMINAL FALSE REPORT TO DCF
(STATE OF FLORIDA -vs- PETER EDWARD PFLAUM Division: 3
Judge: GLANT, DAVID A. for making an alleged false report to Department of
Children and Families (DCF) State Filed Case Number: 01-2005-CF-002238-A) which
is still in case management after an alleged incident of two years ago.
Referred to as Criminal Case after two years still in case management
SEVENTH CIRCUIT: Judge Robert K. Rouse, Jr. Division
Case Number: 2005 20356 CINS Category:
Other Circuit Civil Case Type: Circuit Civil Filing
Date: 10/19/2005 Case Status: Closed Related Cases: NO
Venue Information - 02 - Robert K. Rouse, Jr. Processing Location: New
Smyrna Beach Annex Court Location: New Smyrna Beach Annex
Disposition closed Information - Other Disposition Date: 04/06/2006 Jury
Trial: NO dismissed on jurisdiction
APPEAL to 5th DCA withdrawn Fifth
district court of Appeals Case Number 5D06-787 Fifth District Court of Appeals
The Clerk of the Court 300 South Beach Street Daytona Beach, FL., 32114
CASE SIX: THE CLERK OF THE COURT FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL Mr. Jon S. Wheeler 301 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850 Peter E. Pflaum, Pro Se Appellant/Petitioner
v. Thomas and Leanne Pflaum, Appellee/Petitioners Case No. 1 DCA06-6618
(Trial court No : 2004-CP-0770 Defamation Lower Tribunal No. 1
D06-6618) Former CASE NO. 1DCA06-3240, 1D06-2762, and 1DCA05-5830,
DCA05-5212, 2005-CA-2363
CASE SEVEN: CASE NO: SC07-655 Supreme Court of
CASE EIGHT: (and nine) dismissed;
Arthur B. Briskman United States Bankruptcy Judge The Central
District of Florida, Bankruptcy filed Feb. 28th 2006 dismiss for
lack of credit counseling
Case Number 6:06-bk-00358-ABB Bankruptcy Trustee Gene
T. Chambers Post Office Box 533987 Orlando, FL 32853 Telephone number:
407-872-7575
Federal court central district of Florida (Orlando)
because of international jurisdiction letter sent Feb 26th 2006 Case
Number 6:06-cv-244-Orl-28KRS Case 6:06-cv-00244-JA-KRS filed 3/24/2006
George C. Young U.S. Courthouse & Federal Building 80 North Hughey Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801 407-835-4200 John Antoon II Judge The Honorable Patricia
C. Fawsett Chief United States District Judge Sheryl L. Loesch Clerk of Court
Here comes the PETITIONER, Dr. Peter E. Pflaum
PhD (PRO SE) at the age of 70 years, a retired professor of Public
Administration and government. The Petitioner has never before been involved in
litigation and has been PRO SE from necessity only. Melanie Pflaum, her
son Peter and his wife Mary Anne trusted Thomas, as a son, a brother, and as an
attorney to do the right thing as administrator of the estate. He was
completely trusted by his mother to carry out her wishes when she died. It came
as a great shock, after months of taking care of his 94 year old dying mother,
Peter returned from Spain in March of 2004 (Melanie) to be informed (March 27,
2004) by his brother (Thomas) and his sister-in-law, Leanne (both attorneys)
that the Petitioners were going to take for themselves, everything in the
estate. They said they would “play for the whole deck” and hire at great
expense “really mean lawyers” to attack Petitioner’s rights to an equal share
of the property their mother left to her three sons in her will. This is
exactly what has happened, Thomas and Leanne have kept two million in assets,
and three years later no progress
has been made in the probate of the estate.
IN THE
PETITION FOR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE'S FEE
Petitioner, THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM, as Personal
Representative of this estate, al lieges:
1. Petitioner was appointed Personal
Representative of this estate by order of this Court dated June 9, 2004.
Letters of administration were issued on June 9. 2004.
2. Petitioner has furnished services to the
estate. The nature and extent of those services will be detailed in an
affidavit in advance of a hearing on this petition.
3. As a result of the performance of the
duties described, petitioner is entitled to reasonable compensation, and
petitioner believes that a reasonable compensation is in the amount of
$200,000.
4. Inasmuch as the probate assets were insufficient
to pay any personal representative's fees, all the impact of personal
representative's fees will be borne by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to
this petition. If there had been additional probate assets, the impact of
personal representative's fees would be borne by the residuary beneficiaries
named below.
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, FE 32667
JOHN H. PFLAUM 2400 E Bradford Ave, Apt 905
PETER PFLAUM P. O. Box 2176 New
3. Petitioner requests that an order be
entered authorizing and directing the payment of the sum of $200,000 to
petitioner for services rendered by the petitioner as Personal Representative
of the estate.
IN THE
FileNo.2004-CP-0770 Division A IN RE: ESTATE OF MELAN1E SOPHIA PFLAUM
Deceased.
NOTICE OF FINAL ACCOUNTING AND PETITION FOR
DISCHARGE
TO:
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM JOHN H. PFLAUM PETER PFLAUM
17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
New
YOU ARE NOTIFIED that a Final Accounting and
a Petition for Discharge have been filed in this Court by THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM,
the Personal Representative of the estate of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM, deceased,
true copies of which accompany this notice. You are required to file with the
clerk of the above Court not later than 30 days after the date of service of
this notice upon you any objections to the Petition for Discharge, to the Final
Accounting, to the compensation paid or proposed to be paid, or to the proposed
distribution of assets, and to serve a copy thereof on petitioner's attorney,
whose name and address are set forth below, and on all other interested
persons. Any objections must be in writing and must state with particularity
the item or items to which the objections are directed and must state the
grounds on which the objections are based. If a notice of hearing on the
objections is not served within 90 days of filing the objections, the
objections shall be deemed abandoned and the Personal Representative may
distribute the estate according to the plan set forth in the Petition for
Discharge and judgment may be entered in due course upon the petition.
Form No. HA-5.0410 Effective January 1,2006
IN THE
PETITION FOR DISCHARGE
(Single personal representative)
Petitioner, THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM, as Personal
Representative of the above estate, alleges:
1. The decedent, MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM, a
resident of
2. Petitioner files herewith either a Final
Accounting containing a complete report of all cash and property transactions
and of all receipts and disbursements since the commencement of administration
of this estate, or since the date of the last accounting filed herein, if any,
or waivers signed by all interested persons, other than petitioner, waiving the
filing of a final accounting.
3. Petitioner has fully administered this
estate by making payment, settlement, or other disposition of all claims and
debts that were presented, and by paying or making provision for the payment of
all taxes and expenses of administration.
4. Petitioner has filed all required estate
tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service and with the Department of
Revenue of the State of
5. The amount of compensation paid or to be
paid to the Personal Representative, attorneys, accountants, appraisers, or
other agents employed by the Personal Representative, and the manner of
determining that compensation, is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
6. Petitioner has made or proposes to make
distribution of the assets of this estate as reflected in the plan of
distribution set forth in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. Petitioner has filed receipts signed by
Larissa Ellen Pilaum and Melanie Ann Pflaum acknowledging receipt of the
decedent's tangible personal property. The only remaining persons, other than
the petitioner, having an interest in this proceeding and their respective
addresses are:
Form No. PA-5.0400 infective January 1, 2006
Beneficiaries Address
JOHN II. PFLAUM
PETER PFLAUM
P. O.Box2176 New
8. Any objections to the Petition for
Discharge, the Final Accounting, the compensation paid or proposed to be paid,
or the proposed distribution of assets, must be filed and served within 30 days
from the date of service of the last of the Petition for Discharge or Final
Accounting. Within 90 days after filing of the objection, a notice of hearing
thereon must be served, or the objection is abandoned.
9. Objections, if any, shall be in writing
and shall state with particularity the item or items to which the objection is
directed and the grounds on which the objection is based.
Petitioner requests that, after satisfactory
proof has been presented that distribution has been made in accordance with the
schedule of distribution and that claims of creditors have been paid or
otherwise disposed of, an order be entered discharging petitioner as Personal
Representative of this estate and releasing the surety on any bond which
petitioner may have posted in this proceeding from any further liability on it.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I
have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Signed on June
2007.
Richard M. Wfiite, Jr. Attorney for
Petitioner
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM Petitioner
Form No. PA-5.0400 Effective January 1, 2006
Payee
White & Crouch, PA Kevin Mangum Thomas M.
Pflaum Purvis Gray & Co. Language Services, Inc. Don Quinn, Inc.. Claus
Kellenberger Ty Tyson Alejandro Koch
Exhibit A—Schedule of
Fees
Nature of Service Paid to Date
Legal fees' $173,145.98
Legal fees $
3,875.00
Personal Rep. Fees $ 16,860.00
Accounting Fees $ 30,000.00
Translation services $
525.00
Handwriting analysis $
1,625.00
Legal fees $
3,300.00
Appraisal fees $
100.00
Appraisal fees $
612.00
Additional Proposed $12,554.02
$0 $183,140.00
$0 $0 $0
'$300.00 per hour for Mr. White; $75-150/hour
for staff.
IN THE CIRCUIT
PROBATE DIVISION
File No. 2004-CP-0770 Division A
IN RC: ESTATE OF MELANIR SOPHIA PFLAUM
Deceased.
FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
March 5, 2004 through February 27, 2007
The purpose of this accounting is to acquaint
all interested persons with the transactions that have occurred during the
period covered by the accounting and the assets that remain on hand. It
consists of a SUMMARY sheet and Schedule A showing all Receipts, Schedule B
showing all Disbursements, Schedule C showing all Distributions, Schedule D
showing all Capital Transactions and Adjustments (the effect of which are also
reflected in other schedules, if appropriate), and Schedule E showing assets on
hand at the end of the accounting period.
It is important that this accounting be
carefully examined. Requests for additional information and any questions
should be addressed to the personal representative or the attorneys for the
personal representative, the names and addresses of whom are set forth below.
Under penalties of perjury, the undersigned
personal representative declares that I have read and examined this accounting
and that the facts and figures set forth in the Summary and the attached
Schedules are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that it is a
complete report of all cash and property transactions and of all receipts and
disbursements by me as personal representative of the estate of MELANIE SOPHIA
PFLAUM, deceased, from March 5, 2004, through February 27, 2007.
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
Form No. PA-5.0340 Effective January 1, 2006
FINAL ACCOUNTING OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
From March 5, 2004 through February 27, 2007
SUMMARY
Income
Totals 100.00
Starting Balance
Assets per Inventory or on Hand 0
at Close of Last Accounting Period 0
Receipts Schedule A: II.
0.00
$0.00
III.
Disbursements Schedule B:
0.00
$
IV. Distributions
Schedule C:
100.00
0.00
$
V. Capital
Transactions and Adjustments Schedule D: Net Gain or (Loss)
0.00
S
VI.
Assets on Hand at Close of Accounting Period Schedule E: Cash and Other Assets
Note:
Refer to Florida Probate Rule 5.330(b), 5.345, 5.346 aid 5.400.
Also see Accountings, Chapter 12 of
Practice Under Florida Probate Code, 2002.
Entries on Summary are to be taken from
totals on Schedules A, B, C, D and E.
The Summary and Schedules A, B, C. D and E
are to constitute Ihe full accounting. K very transaction occurring during the
accounting period should be reflected on the Schedules.
All purchases and sales, all adjustments to
the inventory or carrying value of any asset, and any other changes in the
assets (such as stock splits) should be described on Schedule D.
The amount in the "Total" column
for Hem VI must agree with the total inventory or adjusted carrying value of
all assets on hand al the close of the accounting period on Schedule H.
IN THE
PETITION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES
Petitioner, RICHARD M. WHITE, JR., alleges:
1. Petitioner is sole shareholder in the
professional association of White & Crouch, P. A. Petitioner is a board
certified attorney in the area of wills, trusts, and estates.
2. The decedent, Melanie Sophia Pflaum, a
resident of
3. On or about March 25, 2004, petitioner was
contacted, and subsequently retained, by Thomas Martin Pflaum, a son of the
decedent and named personal representative, to represent him
as personal representative in connection with
the administration of the decedent's estate. Thomas Martin Pflaum was appointed
personal representative of the estate on June 9, 2004.
4. Petitioner was employed by and rendered
ordinary and usual services to the personal representative, Thomas Martin
Pflaum, in the administration of this estate. Petitioner has also provided
extraordinary services to this estate, which Petitioner will detail in an
affidavit in advance of a hearing on this petition.
5. Petitioner's time records indicate that
the undersigned spent 542 hours on the file up to and including services
rendered through March 23, 2007. In addition, Petitioner's staff has expended
over 150 hours of time on the file. Petitioner believes a fee of not less than
$185,700 is appropriate for this work.
6.
All of the services were necessary to the proper administration of the
estate.
7. Petitioner has expended professional time
for the preparation and filing of this petition and will expend further
professional time and costs in this proceeding.
8. Inasmuch as the probate assets were
insufficient to pay any legal fees, all the impact of legal fees will be borne
by Thomas M. Pflaum, who does not object to this petition. If there had been
additional probate assets, the impact of legal fees would be borne by the
residuary beneficiaries named below. Because the legal fees are being paid by
Thomas M. Pflaum, individually, if assets come into the estate in the future,
the legal fees should be appropriately borne by the residuary beneficiaries and
paid from such estate assets.
9.
The only persons other than
petitioner having an interest in this proceeding and their respective addresses
are:
Thomas Martin Pflaum, Personal Representative
and residuary beneficiary 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace Micanopy, FL 32667
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for entry of an
order awarding attorney's fees to Petitioner for services rendered on behalf of
the estate.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I
have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
I hereby certify that a copy of this Petition
for Attorney's Fees was sent to the following interested parties:
THOMAS MARTIN PFLAUM 17306 S.W. 10th Terrace
JOHN H. PFLAUM PETER PFLAUM
BILL HOPPE, ESQ. by
2313NW7 Road
June 22, 2007.
Richard M. White, Jr., Petitioner
White & Crouch, P.A.
Telephone: (352) 372-1011; 372-1023
[1] To quote the Last Will of MELANIE SOPHIA PFLAUM who
died (Aged 94) March 5th 2004, in her long term home in Javea Spain
Article 4
I give all the residue of my estate, real and Personal, of whatever nature
and wherever located, which Peter own at the time of my death, including the
proceeds of insurance on my life which may be payable to my estate and Peter
hereby exercise any and all powers of appointment which Peter has under any
trust or otherwise and direct all property subject thereto shall also be
disposed, to my husband Irving
Melanie’s estate was in an uncontested formal will and
testament, drafted in