- 31 -
relied on her husband for leadership and direction. Indeed, in
his affidavit attached to Mary Wheaton’s response, Frank Wheaton
states: “She [Mary Wheaton] has never been involved in any of my
many business ventures. She has very little, if any, knowledge
of any of these ventures, or of this proceeding.” We believe
that Mary Wheaton gave Frank Wheaton full authority to represent
her interests in these cases and to make decisions on her part.
That reflects the instruction that Mary Wheaton gave to Gilson
and Wodlinger, that they take their instructions from Frank
Wheaton. We find that Gilson and Wodlinger had authority to
enter into a settlement with respect to the docketed cases on
behalf of Mary Wheaton.
We have found that Gilson and Wodlinger obtained an informed
waiver from Mary Wheaton and had authority to enter into a joint
settlement. We also find that there was no showing of prejudice
to either Dorchester or Frank Wheaton on account of the
simultaneous representation of Mary Wheaton. Dorchester has not
favored us with a brief, so we have no idea what it might claim.
Frank Wheaton claims that his representation was materially
limited. He states that, in November 1995, he was totally
unaware that, if his wife claimed to be an innocent spouse, her
assets would not be available should they settle: He “depended
on their existence and availability should the parties settle.”
First, we do not believe that Frank Wheaton was unaware of the
innocent spouse defense. He is the one that stated to Gilson and
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011