- 9 -
On June 7, 1996, the probate court ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs, finding that Louise and Emile had breached their
fiduciary duty by failing to carry out the terms of John’s will,
and rescinded the 1961 transfer. By virtue of this ruling,
petitioner’s stock was thereafter owned as follows:
Voting Stock Nonvoting Stock
Shareholder Shares Percentage Shares Percentage
Louise 752 83.56 8 .22
Emile -0- -0- 450 12.50
Haff -0- -0- 450 12.50
Jolyne -0- -0- 450 12.50
JH -0- -0- 450 12.50
Susan -0- -0- 450 12.50
Richard -0- -0- 450 12.50
Emma’s Trust -0- -0- 300 8.33
John’s Trust 148 16.44 592 16.44
900 100.00 3,600 100.00
The probate court’s judgment also authorized John’s estate:
(1) To hire a certified public accountant (C.P.A.), at the
expense of Emile and Louise, to ascertain the “present value” of
the disputed shares, and (2) to distribute the disputed shares
directly to the grandchildren. The judgment also stated that
Emile and Louise were responsible for the attorney’s fees and
costs incurred by the plaintiffs.
In 1997, Robert Minasian (Minasian), the then administrator
of John’s estate,7 filed on behalf of the estate a separate
6(...continued)
back at their parents for imposing strict standards on the
plaintiffs’ upbringing.
7 On or about June 7, 1996, the probate court had removed
Emile as executor of John’s estate because he was unsuitable to
act in that capacity. His coexecutor, Louise, having died, the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011