- 27 -
Mr. Dornbrock and his estate in the closing of this case. If Mr.
Young had not pursued this course of action, which is explicitly
prescribed for such situations by prior decisions of this Court,
respondent would likely have properly filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of prosecution as to Mr. Dornbrock. Mr. Young had a
duty to represent Mr. Dornbrock to the best of his ability until
he was notified otherwise. Mr. Young's actions in this case
reflect a fulfillment of such duty rather than some type of
sinister attempt to deceive this Court.
Mrs. Dornbrock's assertions that she could not have
contacted Mr. Young regarding these matters because she had no
knowledge of the Pop Phonomasters program or of the handling of
any tax problems associated therewith carry very little weight
with the Court. The evidence shows that Mrs. Dornbrock knew of
the Pop Phonomasters program and was advised by her husband,
prior to his death, of a potential tax problem with the
investment. She was fully aware that Mr. Pasternak was the
contact person for further information regarding such matters,
and that any tax problem would be a joint liability of hers and
Mr. Dornbrock's. Mrs. Dornbrock telephoned Mr. Pasternak to
notify him of her husband's death. She had no other reason to
contact Mr. Pasternak except for her husband's investment in the
Pop Phonomasters program and to afford Mr. Pasternak the
opportunity to act accordingly with respect to that program as it
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011