by Janet Phelan
Several years ago, all of the county’s probate and conservatorship cases were moved to the Redlands Courthouse, and most of these cases were subsequently heard by Judge James M. Welch. Welch at one point in time was the presiding judge of San Bernardino County. Welch was featured in an article in the Sentinel on June 12th of this year in a lengthy exposé regarding questionable business practices by Melodie Z. Scott, a professional fiduciary and conservator for the elderly. Scott is President of C.A.R.E., Inc., located at 25 E. State Street in Redlands, right around the corner from the courthouse.
Taking out large sums of money in the form of property loans and later paying them back is one method that a judge might employ to conceal the fact that he or she is being enriched from an outside source. When a judge’s income is inadequate to serve as the source of loan repayments, it is likely that the funds are coming from somewhere else.
Judges Involved in Multiple Property Reconveyances
JANET PHELAN, September 11, 2009
SAN BERNARDINO, CA — Several years ago, all of the county’s probate and conservatorship cases were moved to the Redlands Courthouse, and most of these cases were subsequently heard by Judge James M. Welch.
Recent documents obtained by the Sentinel point to suspicious financial activity by Welch, who at one point in time was the presiding judge of San Bernardino County. Welch was featured in an article in the Sentinel on June 12th of this year in a lengthy exposé regarding questionable business practices by Melodie Z. Scott, a professional fiduciary and conservator for the elderly. Scott is President of C.A.R.E., Inc., located at 25 E. State Street in Redlands, right around the corner from the courthouse.
Conservator Melodie Jo Scott under investigation A state agency denies a license for the former president of the industry group that represents professional guardians and says she made false claims on her application. She denies lying.
February 15, 2009|Jack Leonard and Evelyn Larrubia
One of California’s most prominent professional conservators has been denied a license by the state and is the focus of a grand jury investigation.
The decision to deny Melodie Jo Scott a license marks a significant shift in the oversight of professional conservators, who answered only to probate judges until a 2005 Times series highlighted abuse in the field and prompted a licensing requirement that took effect in January.
Until this year, conservators, who control the healthcare and finances of adults deemed in Probate Court to be incapable of looking after themselves, were less regulated than hairdressers and guide-dog trainers. The Times series described how some were able to gain control over the lives and finances of elderly adults without their knowledge or consent, neglect their wards, isolate them from relatives, run up fees and in some cases steal from their clients.
The state’s Department of Consumer Affairs alleges that Scott, a former president of the state industry group that represents professional guardians, falsely claimed on her license application she had never stepped down from any case — or settled a dispute — after a complaint had been filed against her in court. In denying Scott’s application, the agency cited three cases it said she should have disclosed.
Two of those cases were among dozens reported by The Times that examined allegations of abuse by professional conservators. The articles prompted lawmakers to enact sweeping reforms of the state’s conservatorship system and to create the licensing board that denied Scott’s application.
In an interview, Scott denied lying on her application. She accused state officials of singling her out for political reasons in the wake of the newspaper’s reports.
Scott, whose business is based in Redlands, has appealed the denial but said she will have to halt work temporarily. Riverside County’s Probate Court has scheduled hearings next month to determine whether she should be removed from several cases because she lacks a license.
“I’m done. I’m out,” Scott said. “When I get my license back, I can start again. But, hey, I’m 50.”
Scott’s licensing problems come as the San Bernardino County grand jury is examining many of her cases as well as others handled by a former associate, Lawrence A. Dean II.
Records show that Probate Court officials began delivering case files involving both conservators to the grand jury in October. They provided more files as recently as last month.
The activities by Scott cited by the Sentinel as questionable involved giving conservatee property to her own family members, overcharges on her clients’ accounts, missing monies from clients’ accounts, selling conservatee property at bargain basement rates only to have the property jump in value and resold the next year, withholding medical care from conservatees resulting in death, and allegations of possible undue influence on judges.
The documents uncovered relating to Judge Welch reveal that he has mortgaged his primary residence, located in the 300 block of La Colina in Redlands several times in recent years, encumbering it with loans which could not possibly be paid back on a judge’s salary in the brief turn-around time indicated by the reconveyances (repayment of loans). The document numbers and the size of the loans follow:
In 1998, Welch and his wife, Ginny, took out a loan for $217,200 on their La Colina residence, which was fully paid back in March of 2003. The reconveyance document number attached to this transaction is 2003-0173087.
In February of 2003, James and Ginny Welch took out another loan on their residence, this time for $234,000. This was fully paid back by June 10, 2004, as listed in document number 2004-0410928.
Another loan was taken out by the Welches on May 17, 2004, as listed in document number 2004-0353533. This loan was for $358,965.71.
Messages were left with Welch’s secretary, inquiring as to where the money was going and how he was paying these loans back. The possibility that Welch was taking out loans and investing the money, then paying back the loans with the proceeds was considered and discarded. For the last seven years, Welch has reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission on his form 700 financial disclosure statements that he has no investments.
A query was also left with Judge Welch’s secretary as to three property transactions recorded in neighboring Riverside County, attributed to a James Michael Welch, Trustee.
Judge Welch has declined to comment. Presiding judge Jim McGuire issued a terse letter on August 12th, 2009, in response to an inquiry from the Sentinel about the Welch loans and Riverside County transactions. McGuire stated:
Please be advised that I have received and reviewed your letter of August 11, 2009. Please be further advised that I am an administrative presiding judge and, therefore, my review jurisdiction is limited. Nothing contained in your letter is of a nature over which I would have review jurisdiction. Any request for review or investigation by me is, therefore, denied.
There has been no confirmation or denial from the court as to whether Welch’s exodus from his probate assignment in Redlands had any bearing on the recent media scrutiny given his actions as a judge or his apparent bias towards cases involving Melodie Scott, who recently launched a legal protest concerning the denial of her fiduciary license by the California Professional Fiduciary Bureau.
This practice of judges taking out large loans appears to be widespread and crosses county boundaries. Information gathered on Commissioner John McCoy and Judge Sharon Waters (both of Riverside County) has recently been turned over to a Riverside County district attorney investigator, Jeff Chebahtah. While Chebahtah has acknowledged receipt of the information on the Waters and McCoy loans, he has at press time refused to assign a complaint/case file number. The practice of accepting evidence and refusing to assign a tracking number has been previously explored by this reporter in an article entitled: “How the California Justice System covers up crimes against the elderly: A method to the madness” and appears to be deployed when either the matter is too trivial for the district attorney to take seriously or when there is a political agenda to keep the report out of the system and thus not to investigate at all.
Parenthetically, both McCoy and Waters were recently and consecutively removed from an active case in Riverside Superior Court, following a protest lodged that the loans smacked of pay-offs or bribes.
In San Bernardino County, Judge Steven Mapes ascended to the bench in 2007 and currently sits on Barstow court, following his tenure as an deputy district attorney in San Bernardino. Mapes has also been involved in the loan program, apparently going back to 1998, when he took out a loan on his home on Patricia Drive for over $155,000. He subsequently took out further loans on his property, including loans for $100,000 in 2001 and 2002, another loan for $307,500, also in 2001, one for $88,500 in 2002 and a loan in 2004 which was in excess of the value of the house, recorded at the tax assessor’s office as $427,528. This loan was taken out for a resounding $493,000.
More recently, in 2006, he again borrowed money against his property. Since 2001, Judge Steven Mapes has received seven different reconveyances on his loans.
Judge Mapes did not return calls from the Sentinel inquiring as to who was paying back these loans.
From: Janet Phelan, “Judges Involved in Multiple Property Reconveyances,” The San Bernardino County Sentinel, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, September 11, 2009. Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist. She can be contacted at janetclairephelan@yahoo.com. Reprinted in accordance with the “fair use” provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.
Conservancy Case Brings Judge’s Ruling Under ScrutinyJanet C. Phelan
November 12, 2010
San Bernardino County Sentinel
LINK
In two bold moves, akin to a chess strategy in which a player clears the board of his opponent´s pieces, probate attorney J.David Horspool has asserted his authority over a conservatee by removing him from his home and wife and then evicting the son of the conservatee from his residence. In this circumstance, the conservatee is Horspool´s own father, Raymond Horspool Sr. and the eviction was executed on Horspool´s younger brother, William Horspool, wife and three children.
According to Raymond´s wife of nine years, Winifred Horspool, she was neither consulted nor given prior warning that her husband was going to be taken from her. Winifred Horspool says her husband, who is ninety years old, was taken from their Grand Terrace home when she was out running errands.
In a recent email to his sister, Barbara Howard, attorney Horspool justifies his removing his father from home and spouse, claiming that Winifred was on the verge of divorcing Raymond. In an interview with Winifred Horspool last week, she firmly denies this.
“We were going to spend the rest of our lives together,” she said. She denied that caring for her husband, who suffers from memory loss, was a burden. She stated she is at a loss as to how to bring her husband home. “There is nothing I can do about this,” she said grimly.
Attorney J. David Horspool has been chief counsel for conservator Melodie Scott, whose fiduciary license was recently denied by the State of California.
The Horspool conservatorship first caught public attention back in 2006, when the Los Angeles Times published an article detailing the schism that had resulted in the once close Horspool family, due to the friction generated by the contested conservatorship. A bid by family members to end the conservatorship failed and the dispute then focused on a home, located on Barrett Road in Riverside, which the elder Horspool had granted to his son, William, back in 2003, prior to the initiation of the conservatorship.
However, in 2003 J. David Horspool had changed the terms of the Trust, removing his father as Trustee and appointing himself and a brother, Raymond Jr. as co-trustees. Barbara Howard alleges this was done without informing the other siblings and that David Horspool exercised undue influence upon the father. William Horspool has stated that the change in the legal documents was made to ensure that the property remained in David Horspool´s control.
David Horspool characterized his brother William, whom he referes to as “Billy” and his sister Barbara as “extremely disgruntled siblings who are in cahoots to defraud their father of his property.” He said that William “’borrowed’ over $100,000 from Dad to support his day-trading addiction [and] refused to pay rent to Dad when Dad asked him to do so while Dad was still competent. ” Billy and Barbara are a couple of bitter people who just don’t acknowledge their wrong-doing. Barbara perjured herself in an attempt to keep Billy in the house he stole from Dad. Billy continues to claim that everything in that house is his, even though our mother made some very specific gifts and Dad has always maintained that he would honor our mother’s requests. Barbara continues in her unreasonable and blind hatred of me, when she should be looking at Billy because of what he did to Dad. Billy refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing, and continues to blame everyone but himself. Their claims have no merit, and the stupidity of them is apparent to anyone with any knowledge of the law. So now he sits at home all day, day-trading, losing thousands of dollars in the process.”
David Horspool said that his brother was now allowed to visit their father “with a monitor approved by Dad’s court-appointed attorney.”
“With respect to the assertions that I changed the terms of the trust without telling anyone, that is not accurate.” David Horspool said. “Dad made the decision to resign as trustee and allow my brother Ray and I to deal with Billy regarding his purchase of Dad’s house. None of the other children were informed of the change as it was none of their business. I never tell the children of my clients when their parents change the terms of their living trust. If the parents want to do so, that is their business, but I don’t, as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege. So for Barbara and Billy to make that claim reveals the depth of their ignorance. Barbara doesn’t know what “undue influence” is. She makes the charge, but can’t back it up with any facts.”
In his communication with the Sentinel, David Horspool did not reassert his earlier suggestion that Winifed was intent on divorcing his father, but said that his brother William and sister Barbara were in no position to know Winifred’s true sentiments. He acknowledged that his father’s relationship with his stepmother was continuing. “First, neither Billy nor Barbara would know what Winifred was thinking six months ago, as neither of them were around,” David Horspool said. “ Second, Dad has not been cut off from Winifred; she goes to visit him every day, or almost every day, at his current residence. “
The eviction of William Horspool from the Barrett Road property, where he and his family had resided for eleven years, was originally ordered by Judge James Michael Welch, who sits on the probate bench in San Bernardino Superior Court. The eviction was appealed and a stay was granted. The case then returned to Welch. Judge Welch had previously issued a restraining order against William Horspool after he took photographs of his father, which allegedly reveal that the conservator had not properly cared for him.
Welch ordered the photos destroyed and in a highly unusual action, issued the permanent restraining order without ever having a hearing.
William Horspool has questioned the constitutionality of such an action by Welch. Efforts to have Welch removed from the case have not been successful. Barbara Howard alleges that Welch committed perjury in his answer to legal papers which were filed to have him recused, i.e., removed from hearing the case.
The declaration in support of the recusal alleges that Welch has had a personal association with Tom Dominick. Dominick is the attorney for trustee J. David Horspool and the elder Horspool´s conservator, his daughter, Margaret Updike.
In his formal answer to the motion to have him removed, Welch has denied this association with Dominick. However, Welch failed to disclose that Dominick sits as a judge pro tem in Welch´s own courtroom, which would de facto render them colleagues.
In addition, Welch stated in his answer that he had never ruled on a previous 170.6 (this is also a motion to recuse) and that Barbara Howard had not filed that motion. In fact, Barbara Howard had filed the 170.6 on April 16, 2009.
In a motion to set aside void judgment, filed on August 5, 2010, Chris Carter, attorney for Barbara Howard, declared the eviction order to be “void on its face,” as Welch had issued the order when the matter was under appeal. Judge Welch denied this motion.
William and Kelly Horspool and their three children, who are ages nine, seven and two years old, are now homeless.
When asked how she thought her husband was faring in the assisted living facility, Winifred Horspool chose her words carefully. “My visit with him was very short,” she said. “It was hard to tell.”
Concerns about Judge Welch´s financial dealings were revealed in a Sentinel article published in September of 2009. Welch has declined to answer questions concerning whether he or an undisclosed party is paying back his several home loans and also declined to answer questions about property transfers in Riverside County, which were tracked to a James Michael Welch Trust.
The Sentinel’s inquiry of Judge Welch at his courtroom was met by a referral to the presiding judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, Douglas Elwell. Elwell’s secretary, Aalvina Hollensbe, told the Sentinel Elwell would not be available for comment until November 16.
David Horspool, who frequently appears before Welch, leapt to the judge’s defense.
“Billy and Barbara’s problem is that they think the unfavorable rulings they have gotten from Judge Welch is evidence of bias on his part, instead of a total lack of facts to support their claims, and a total mischaracterization of the law. Attorney Carter has been wrong continually. He can make and has made a lot of wild charges against Judge Welch, none of which have been found to have any merit whatsoever. “
Horspool said Welch’s denial of having been previously subjected to a recusal motion by his sister was not a substantial issue.
“Judge Welch has done nothing wrong,” Horspool said. “He is familiar with the case, and we are not going to allow Billy or Barbara or their attorney to engage in “judge-shopping”, as they are now apparently attempting to do. Billy and Barbara would like a chance to con a judge unfamiliar with the case, but that isn’t going to happen. Very early on, we tried to sit down with Billy and Dianne [another Horspool sibling] and Barbara, but they were not interested in working within the family to do what was best for Dad. So after spending thousands of dollars on attorneys’ fees, we have what we have. We are not going to agree that Billy can go back into Dad’s house. He let it run down while he was living there. Billy continues to misuse the court system, continuing to make false claims in court filings. So no, I am not interested at this stage in turning the clock back. Billy is a liar and a con man. Unless he wants to admit his wrongdoing, there is nothing to say to him. Judge Welch has nothing to do with who sits as a temporary judge in his courtroom when he is gone. That decision is made by someone else. To try to parlay sitting as a temporary judge into a personal relationship with the judge once again reveals Attorney Carter’s ignorance. All of Attorney Carter’s attempts to knock Judge Welch off the case were rightfully denied.”
Conservator Melodie Jo Scott under investigation
LINK
A state agency denies a license for the former president of the industry group that represents professional guardians and says she made false claims on her application. She denies lying.
February 15, 2009|Jack Leonard and Evelyn Larrubia
One of California’s most prominent professional conservators has been denied a license by the state and is the focus of a grand jury investigation.
The decision to deny Melodie Jo Scott a license marks a significant shift in the oversight of professional conservators, who answered only to probate judges until a 2005 Times series highlighted abuse in the field and prompted a licensing requirement that took effect in January.
Until this year, conservators, who control the healthcare and finances of adults deemed in Probate Court to be incapable of looking after themselves, were less regulated than hairdressers and guide-dog trainers. The Times series described how some were able to gain control over the lives and finances of elderly adults without their knowledge or consent, neglect their wards, isolate them from relatives, run up fees and in some cases steal from their clients.
The state’s Department of Consumer Affairs alleges that Scott, a former president of the state industry group that represents professional guardians, falsely claimed on her license application she had never stepped down from any case — or settled a dispute — after a complaint had been filed against her in court. In denying Scott’s application, the agency cited three cases it said she should have disclosed.
Two of those cases were among dozens reported by The Times that examined allegations of abuse by professional conservators. The articles prompted lawmakers to enact sweeping reforms of the state’s conservatorship system and to create the licensing board that denied Scott’s application.
In an interview, Scott denied lying on her application. She accused state officials of singling her out for political reasons in the wake of the newspaper’s reports.
Scott, whose business is based in Redlands, has appealed the denial but said she will have to halt work temporarily. Riverside County’s Probate Court has scheduled hearings next month to determine whether she should be removed from several cases because she lacks a license.
“I’m done. I’m out,” Scott said. “When I get my license back, I can start again. But, hey, I’m 50.”
Scott’s licensing problems come as the San Bernardino County grand jury is examining many of her cases as well as others handled by a former associate, Lawrence A. Dean II.
Records show that Probate Court officials began delivering case files involving both conservators to the grand jury in October. They provided more files as recently as last month.
