Just so all of you know, Miriam Solo’s real name is Miriam Soloveichik. She is reported on “most wanted” of NASGA, so I think she is already an official miscreant. And this does not come from me, it comes from a well respected web site in the world of probate watchers.
Now from Ken Ditkowsky, a summary of more antics in Probate court.
Writing about the Schwartz case is SOP.
For instance you could write something along the lines of.
Another unusual case has raised its head on the 18th Floor of the Daley Center.
Miriam Solo filed an very unusual citation that she refers to as Citation to Recover; however, the petition that she is prosecuting is interesting in that it lacks specificity and most of the required factual averments. The proof in support of the petition appears to be most interesting in that it consists of:
1) testimony from the executor that she claims to have no knowledge
2) affidavits and April 13, 2011 transcript in which the respondent denies each allegation of petition
3) documents that point out that the issues that were previously raised in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida and decided adversely to the Estate
4) A copy of an affidavit allegedly sworn to by the decedent that now has two versions. one version was allegedly filed in Florida and a second version was filed in Cook County.
[can you get us those two versions of filed affidavits that are different? that should be an entertaining read]
The uniqueness of the proceeding is compounded by the fact that the attorney for Mr. Schwartz requested of Ms. Solo a copy of the petition that she was proceeding upon. The Court did not grant the motion and Ms. Solo refused to provide a copy. Apparently, respondent’s counsel was expected to be Clairvoyant. The usual scenario did not stop at this point: the respondent was required to either admit a bunch of documents that were not served on him. When he objected the Court ruled that the documents were admitted. The Court barred the respondent from putting on a defense to complete the trifecta.
Yes, this does sound like some of the proceedings that Gloria Sykes, Bev Cooper, et al report; however, Ms. Solo appears to have decided to level the playing field (or she forgot what side she was on). The executor’s exhibit 4 memoralized the testimony under oath of the respondent and issue by issue refutes every implication of the Citation petition. Ms. Solo guides the respondent in this endeavor. Exhibit 8 and 10 emasculate anything that is left of the allegations and Ms. Solo’s client’s testimony that she has no knowledge drives in the last coffin nail. The Court denied a motion for a finding and required each of the parties to provide their final arguments in writing by December 21, 2012. The Court will rule on January 23, 2013.
The executor’s presentation is very dramatic in that by the exhibits that she presents she informs the Court that Mr. Schwartz was the attorney in fact for the only beneficiary of the Estate and that he acted in her stead. Thus, the executor after producing only exculpatory evidence favoring the respondent goes the extra mile to inform the Court that what is being attempted herein is to recover in collateral proceedings the very assets that a Florida Court ruled the decedent had unlawfully acquired.
Ms. Solo must be commended for the ‘defense’ that she put on for the respondent. If I were to grade the attorney’s Ms. Solo performance It would get an A. The defense that she put on for the respondent steamrolled the executor and demonstrated exactly why the Attorney for the executor and the executor ought to be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 137. The attorney of record for the respondent would rate a C-. All he did was allow Ms. Solo to take the laboring oar and destroy the executor’s case.
The only fly in the ointment is that Ms. Solo filed here appearance for the executor; however, this is the 18th floor of the Daley Center and as the Blogs have pointed out – up is down, down is up, right is wrong and wrong is right.