omg omg omg 102
05-29-2011
, 02:30 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:30 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:35 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:41 PM
The background is that in addition to a construction company my grandpa owned a building that he leased to the Federal Government. His oldest son took over the construction company when he retired so that was basically his inheritance. The rest of the kids split up the estate and the trust which included the building.
My aunt P had worked at the building for something like 30 years so she was initially responsible for the management of the trust. That lasted for ~ a year before she got "fired" because she was becoming "hard to work with". Four of my moms sisters, including my aunt C basically called a meeting and said to her and my other uncle that they had enough votes to fire her and they were going to do it.
This basically caused my aunt P to become ostracized from the family and my aunt G took over the trust. The way she's handling the building has really pissed the rest of the family off. I tend to think a big part of it is that my aunt G is taking an extra $34k/year for managing the building which my aunt P didn't get because she already worked there and it was just considered part of the job she already had there. But she's also been basically being a ****ty owner for the tennants. For example she refused to supply hand sanitizer when they asked for it a couple years back when the H1N1 outbreak happened. Something my grandpa when he owned the building would have obviously supplied w/o thinking twice about it. Just stuff like that adding up over the years.
So ... they tried to fire her. But she won't be fired. They basically fired her the same way the fired P. They called a meeting took a vote and she was fired. BUT my aunt G isn't just bowing out like my aunt P did. She lawyer'd up and her position is that since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting it's not official. Incidentally my aunt C is the only one who is on my aunt G's side.
Since my aunt C lives ~2k miles away in California it's not exactly easy to schedule a meeting with her and since she's the only one who doesn't want my aunt G to be fired doesn't that basically give her veto power by just refusing to attend the meeting.
So question 1: Is that legit that everyone needs to be present at the meeting even if there are enough votes to make up a majority w/o everyone present?
Question 2: Since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting they fired my aunt P does that mean that my aunt P was never actually legally removed as executor of the trust and does that imply that my aunt G never could have been put in her place.
Question 3: Even though she really doesn't want to will it be necessary to lawyer up and take my aunt G to court to remove her?
The problem was that the dealer ****ed it up and they know it, there just isn't a procedure of how to proceed from there so they need to stick to the "she's a good counter" story.
My aunt P had worked at the building for something like 30 years so she was initially responsible for the management of the trust. That lasted for ~ a year before she got "fired" because she was becoming "hard to work with". Four of my moms sisters, including my aunt C basically called a meeting and said to her and my other uncle that they had enough votes to fire her and they were going to do it.
This basically caused my aunt P to become ostracized from the family and my aunt G took over the trust. The way she's handling the building has really pissed the rest of the family off. I tend to think a big part of it is that my aunt G is taking an extra $34k/year for managing the building which my aunt P didn't get because she already worked there and it was just considered part of the job she already had there. But she's also been basically being a ****ty owner for the tennants. For example she refused to supply hand sanitizer when they asked for it a couple years back when the H1N1 outbreak happened. Something my grandpa when he owned the building would have obviously supplied w/o thinking twice about it. Just stuff like that adding up over the years.
So ... they tried to fire her. But she won't be fired. They basically fired her the same way the fired P. They called a meeting took a vote and she was fired. BUT my aunt G isn't just bowing out like my aunt P did. She lawyer'd up and her position is that since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting it's not official. Incidentally my aunt C is the only one who is on my aunt G's side.
Since my aunt C lives ~2k miles away in California it's not exactly easy to schedule a meeting with her and since she's the only one who doesn't want my aunt G to be fired doesn't that basically give her veto power by just refusing to attend the meeting.
So question 1: Is that legit that everyone needs to be present at the meeting even if there are enough votes to make up a majority w/o everyone present?
Question 2: Since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting they fired my aunt P does that mean that my aunt P was never actually legally removed as executor of the trust and does that imply that my aunt G never could have been put in her place.
Question 3: Even though she really doesn't want to will it be necessary to lawyer up and take my aunt G to court to remove her?
The problem was that the dealer ****ed it up and they know it, there just isn't a procedure of how to proceed from there so they need to stick to the "she's a good counter" story.
05-29-2011
, 02:43 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:44 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:45 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:45 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:49 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:51 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:52 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:52 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:53 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:55 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:55 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:56 PM
Quote:
The background is that in addition to a construction company my grandpa owned a building that he leased to the Federal Government. His oldest son took over the construction company when he retired so that was basically his inheritance. The rest of the kids split up the estate and the trust which included the building.
My aunt P had worked at the building for something like 30 years so she was initially responsible for the management of the trust. That lasted for ~ a year before she got "fired" because she was becoming "hard to work with". Four of my moms sisters, including my aunt C basically called a meeting and said to her and my other uncle that they had enough votes to fire her and they were going to do it.
This basically caused my aunt P to become ostracized from the family and my aunt G took over the trust. The way she's handling the building has really pissed the rest of the family off. I tend to think a big part of it is that my aunt G is taking an extra $34k/year for managing the building which my aunt P didn't get because she already worked there and it was just considered part of the job she already had there. But she's also been basically being a ****ty owner for the tennants. For example she refused to supply hand sanitizer when they asked for it a couple years back when the H1N1 outbreak happened. Something my grandpa when he owned the building would have obviously supplied w/o thinking twice about it. Just stuff like that adding up over the years.
So ... they tried to fire her. But she won't be fired. They basically fired her the same way the fired P. They called a meeting took a vote and she was fired. BUT my aunt G isn't just bowing out like my aunt P did. She lawyer'd up and her position is that since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting it's not official. Incidentally my aunt C is the only one who is on my aunt G's side.
Since my aunt C lives ~2k miles away in California it's not exactly easy to schedule a meeting with her and since she's the only one who doesn't want my aunt G to be fired doesn't that basically give her veto power by just refusing to attend the meeting.
So question 1: Is that legit that everyone needs to be present at the meeting even if there are enough votes to make up a majority w/o everyone present?
Question 2: Since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting they fired my aunt P does that mean that my aunt P was never actually legally removed as executor of the trust and does that imply that my aunt G never could have been put in her place.
Question 3: Even though she really doesn't want to will it be necessary to lawyer up and take my aunt G to court to remove her?
My aunt P had worked at the building for something like 30 years so she was initially responsible for the management of the trust. That lasted for ~ a year before she got "fired" because she was becoming "hard to work with". Four of my moms sisters, including my aunt C basically called a meeting and said to her and my other uncle that they had enough votes to fire her and they were going to do it.
This basically caused my aunt P to become ostracized from the family and my aunt G took over the trust. The way she's handling the building has really pissed the rest of the family off. I tend to think a big part of it is that my aunt G is taking an extra $34k/year for managing the building which my aunt P didn't get because she already worked there and it was just considered part of the job she already had there. But she's also been basically being a ****ty owner for the tennants. For example she refused to supply hand sanitizer when they asked for it a couple years back when the H1N1 outbreak happened. Something my grandpa when he owned the building would have obviously supplied w/o thinking twice about it. Just stuff like that adding up over the years.
So ... they tried to fire her. But she won't be fired. They basically fired her the same way the fired P. They called a meeting took a vote and she was fired. BUT my aunt G isn't just bowing out like my aunt P did. She lawyer'd up and her position is that since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting it's not official. Incidentally my aunt C is the only one who is on my aunt G's side.
Since my aunt C lives ~2k miles away in California it's not exactly easy to schedule a meeting with her and since she's the only one who doesn't want my aunt G to be fired doesn't that basically give her veto power by just refusing to attend the meeting.
So question 1: Is that legit that everyone needs to be present at the meeting even if there are enough votes to make up a majority w/o everyone present?
Question 2: Since my aunt C wasn't at the meeting they fired my aunt P does that mean that my aunt P was never actually legally removed as executor of the trust and does that imply that my aunt G never could have been put in her place.
Question 3: Even though she really doesn't want to will it be necessary to lawyer up and take my aunt G to court to remove her?
It would be highly unlikely that a 100% in person participation is required by any state law, but I have no idea what the relevant documents say.
If your Aunt G is shown the relevant wording showing that her argument is legally invalid & she's just going to end up paying a lot of court costs, & probably legal fees for both sides due to the fact she knew or should have knew that she had no legal basis for what she was doing, I presume she would step down rather than risk that.
If not, then yes, depending on the way the documentation is worded, it might be necessary to take her to court.
As for question 2, it's kind of hypothetical & could be something one could plead in the alternative in court, but is probably a very fact-specific question.
Not in like 5 hours. Was completely sober.
05-29-2011
, 02:57 PM
05-29-2011
, 02:58 PM
Standard.
Not huge only ~45 ppl work there but specialized for what they do.
Not huge only ~45 ppl work there but specialized for what they do.
05-29-2011
, 03:06 PM