Preview
AA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-17-2012 3:44 pm
Case Number: PTR-06-288755
Filing Date: Aug-17-2012 3:42
Filed by: GINA R. S. GONZALEZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03730000
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS
IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSIA L. HART REVOCABLE TRUST
001P03730000
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Dn vw Bw ND
- W
Andrew K. Schultz (State Bar No. 215917) Sar Frage ena Poe egy, D
WITHERSPOON & SIRACUSA
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 875 4
San Francisco, CA 94103 AUG 770i
Telephone (415) 552-1814 c OF T
Fax (415) 552-2158 ay: Le HE COUR
aschultz@witsir.com . Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Herb Thomas,
Successor Trustee
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
FILED BY FAK
Case No. PTR-06-288755
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS REGARD-
ING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
SETTLOR’S REAL PROPERTY AND FI-
)
)
THE ROSIA L. HART )
)
) NANCES
)
)
)
)
)
REVOCABLE TRUST
dated May 19, 2004
Cross Ref. Case No. PCN-06-288756
Conservatorship of Rosja
Dote 4fitfrr
|
Ob 0 7
Herb Thomas, as Successor Trustee of the Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust, and also as
Conservator of the Estate of Rosia L. Hart, the Settlor, presents his Petition for Instructions
Regarding the Management of the Settior’s Real Property and Finances, alleging:
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Petitioner is a private professional fiduciary licensed in the State of California.
On May 24, 2006, Petitioner was appointed temporary conservator of Rosia Hart's estate only.
On that same day, Mrs. Hart's trust, The Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust (the “Trust”), was
brought under the continuing supervision of his Court, and Petitioner was appointed temporary
successor trustee. On November 16, 2006, Petitioner was appointed probate conservator of
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS T CASE NO. PTR-06-288755Mrs. Hart’s estate and also Successor Trustee of the Trust. Thus, at all times relevant hereto,
Petitioner has been and remains the duly appointed and acting conservator of Mrs. Hart's
estate and Successor Trustee of the Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust.
2. Rosia Hart, the Settlor and Conservatee, is currently 93 years old. When Mrs.
Hart’s husband, David Hart, died on May 9, 1997, the couple owned interests in three
properties in San Francisco. The first, located at 706 DeHaro Street (the “DeHaro property”),
was the couple’s residence, which they had bought in 1954. From the public property records,
it appears the property had a very modest mortgage of $25,000 at the time of David Hart's
death, which the couple had obtained through refinancing just a couple of years earlier. In
1976, the couple purchased the commercial property located at 950 Newhall Street (the
“Newhall property”). Mr. Hart operated an automotive repair garage in one part of the building,
and Mrs. Hart operated a laundromat in another part. It is not known if the couple purchased
the building with any financing, but it was not encumbered at the time of David Hart's death.
The couple also owned an interest in a third building located at 32 Argonaut Street (the
“Argonaut property’). The couple purchased this property in 1987, and in 1991 deeded one-
third to Mr. Hart's daughter, Jessica Vance Hart, a minor at the time, ail as joint tenants. Upon
Mr. Hart's death, Mrs. Hart and Jessica Vance Hart each became owners of a 50% interest,
and the property was not encumbered.
3. Petitioner is informed and believes that, sometime after her husband's death,
Mrs. Hart began to rely almost exclusively on Gregory Wiggins, an unrelated man, who is
currently 52 years old, for personal and financial advice and that, due to the influence of Mr.
Wiggins, Mrs. Hart began a series of real estate and financial transactions that have ultimately
caused her immense financial harm. Mrs. Hart refinanced the DeHaro property for $404,000
in 2002, for an additional $75,000 in 2003, and finally sold it outright in July 2004 for a sales
price of $885,000. Some of the money from these transactions was used for down payments
to purchase two properties in the East Bay, the first at 3133 Crestline Court, Antioch, California
(the “Antioch property”) and the second at 1760 Dover Circle, Suisun City, California (the
“Suisun City property’).
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 2 Case No, PTR-06-2887554. The Antioch property became Mrs. Hart’s new residence, and she continues to
live there today. Crestline Court is a cul-de-sac, and Mr. Wiggins had purchased his own
home at 3101 Crestline Court in November 1995, which is directly across the street. As has
been previously documented in these proceedings, whenever Contra Costa Adult Protective
Services attempted to meet with Mrs. Hart, Mr. Wiggins or an adult female from his house
would approach and challenge them, and Adult Protective Services also believes that for some
time Mrs. Hart's phone conversations were monitored by Mr. Wiggins. It is suspected that Mr.
Wiggins used his influence to induce Mrs. Hart to purchase the house, and then used his
Proximity to her to keep surveillance over her and attempt to isolate her. After purchasing the
property, she placed it in the Trust, where it remains.
5. Mrs. Hart also purchased the Suisun City property, putting approximately
$100,000 down and obtaining a mortgage for approximately $391,000. Although it appears
that Mr. Wiggins made no contribution to the property, Mrs. Hart put him on title with her at the
time of purchase as a joint tenant. At the time of his appointment, Petitioner was told by Adult
Protective Services that they believed the property was occupied by an ex-girlfriend of Mr.
Wiggins and their child.
6. With respect to the Newhall property, Mrs. Hart undertook a number of
transactions, which Petitioner suspects were all at the behest of Mr. Wiggins. Petitioner just
recently learned that in late 2003 or early 2004, the Newhall property was listed for sale for
$895,000, but failed to attract a buyer. After executing the Trust in 2004, Mrs. Hart transferred
the Newhall property to it. In August 2005, Mrs. Hart created “Bayview Village, LLC,” a
California limited corporation with herself and Mr. Wiggins as members and Mr. Wiggins as
manager, and she transferred title to the Newhall Property from the Trust to the LLC. It was
reported to Petitioner that Mr. Wiggins had been attempting to convince Mrs. Hart to tear down
the Newhall property and redevelop it for at least two years, but that Mrs. Hart had been
resistant, at least until a fire in the property in November 2005 made renovation inescapable.
The San Francisco Fire Inspector later determined that the fire had been intentionally set at
multiple points and was therefore arson.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 3 Case No. PTR-06-288755an iw
Following his appointment, Petitioner learned that, in his efforts to redevelop the
Property, Mr. Wiggins met repeatedly with an architectural firm, Baum Thornley, as well as with
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and neighborhood groups in the Bayview,
sometimes with Mrs. Hart but often not, always holding himself out as the owner and Mrs. Hart
as his aunt, though they are no relation. Petitioner learned that Baum Thornley had completed
a design and received cost estimates to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a 16
unit, multifamily apartment building, approximately 25,000 square feet in size, with about 5,000
square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and underground parking for 16 vehicles.
Baum Thornley was paid approximately $168,000 from Mrs. Hart's funds for this work and
claims another $112,000 remains outstanding.
Petitioner was authorized by this Court to hire a development consulting firm to analyze
the feasibility of the proposed Newhall property redevelopment project, which, in summary, was
found to be impossible as planned. The total cost of the project was estimated to be over $12
million, but as planned wouid only qualify for a mortgage of slightly less than $6 million,
requiring an infusion of over $6 million in capital, which Mrs. Hart could certainly not perform.
Furthermore, the project did not have a developer, a contractor or a contract, no project
financing and no permits in hand. Based on this review, the Court authorized Petitioner to take
no action to preserve any aspect of the project. It is extremely unfortunate that so much of the
cash generated by the sale of Mrs. Hart's DeHaro property was wasted on a project that, as
proposed, never had any chance of financial viability.
7. Finally, at the time of Petitioner's initial appointment, Mrs. Hart also owned a
50% interest in the property located at 211 Tanager Way, Hercules (the “Hercules property’),
as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins. Based on the public chain of title, it appears that Mr. Wiggins
purchased the Hercules property as a single man in October 1988, financing $318,750 of the
purchase price with a mortgage. By quitclaim deed dated May 10, 2005, Mr. Wiggins gifted a
50% interest in the property to Mrs. Hart as joint tenant. Petitioner is informed and believes
that Mrs. Hart recently testified in the criminal proceedings for felony elder financial abuse
against Mr. Wiggins that Mr. Wiggins put her on title as consideration for making him a member
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 4 CASE No. PTR-06-288755,of Bayview Village LLC, On November 20, 2006, four days after Petitioner was appointed
probate conservator of her estate and six months after his initial appointment as temporary
conservator, Mrs. Hart executed a quitclaim deed returning her 50% interest in the property to
Mr. Wiggins, who refinanced the property in January 2007, increasing the mortgage to
$540,000. A few months later, in April 2007, Mr. Wiggins recorded an additional deed of trust
on the property for a bail bond.
8. Thus, at the time of Petitioner's appointment, Mrs. Hart’s Antioch and Argonaut
properties were held in the Trust, and she owned a 50% interest as joint tenant with Mr.
Wiggins in the Suisun City and Hercules properties. Title to the Newhall property was
putatively held by Bayview Village LLC, which was managed by Mr. Wiggins. She had almost
no cash in the bank, and she subsequently lost her interest in the Hercules property.
9. Petitioner brought an action for recovery against Mr. Wiggins, and on March 23,
2011, this Court issued an Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for
Recovery of Trust Property, for Cancellation of Instruments, for Damages, and for
Attorneys’ Fees (the “Order for Recovery’), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,
which did all of the following:
1) Canceled, set aside, and declared invalid the deed and any purported convey-
ance of Mrs. Hart's interest in the Hercules property. That is, she now once
again owns 50% as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins.
2) Canceled, set aside, and declared invalid the deed and any purported convey-
ance of Mrs. Hart's interest in 950 Newhall Street to Bayview Village LLC. That
is, the property was never transferred to Bayview Village LLC, and it has remain-
ed an asset of her Trust.
3) Declared and adjudged that Mr. Wiggins had no right, title or interest in the
Suisun City property. That is, Mrs. Hart now owns 100% of the property as her
sole and separate property; and
4) Awarded $1,620,000 in damages and $12,000 in attorneys’ fees against Mr.
Wiggins.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 5 CASE No. PTR-06-288755IY Dw Bw nHD
10. In July 2011, the Argonaut property was sold pursuant to a Settlement Agree-
ment governing the property. In June 2004, Mrs. Hart brought an action against Jessica Vance
Hart, who was stil! a minor at the time, and her parent and guardian, Selser Vance, seeking a
sale by partition and an accounting of expenses. Jessica Vance Hart counter-sued, alleging
intentional infliction of emotional! distress, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
accounting, conversion, breach of contract and constructive fraud. It appears that after a full
jury trial, Mrs. Hart prevailed on her petition for partition and accounting. Jessica Vance Hart
prevailed on only one cause of action in her cross-complaint, breach of contract, and even so,
she was awarded no damages. The verdict was appealed, but the parties reached a settle-
ment before arguing the appeal. Under that Settlement Agreement, Jessica Vance Hart was
given the right to occupy the property until July 6, 2010, after which time the property would be
sold by an independent referee. The property was subsequently sold in July 2011, but the
independent referee held the sale proceeds until the parties agreed on their division, which was
governed by a complicated formula under the Settlement Agreement. The parties reached an
agreement and signed a Stipulation in April 2012, at which time $115,708.62 was distributed to
the Trust. Much of these funds was immediately consumed by outstanding fees and liabilities.
11. Thus, at this time, Mrs. Hart’s assets, whether in her conservatorship or the
Trust, consist of the following: the Antioch property, her residence, which is held in the Trust;
the Newhall property, which is held in the Trust; the Suisun City property, of which she is now
the sole owner, which is in the conservatorship; 50% of the Hercules property, as joint tenant
with Mr. Wiggins, which is in the conservatorship; and approximately $3,000 cash, which is in a
Trust bank account.
12. In the Order Appointing Probate Conservator dated November 16, 2006, Mrs.
Hart was authorized to have a personal checking account, receive her monthly Social Security
and pension payments, and pay all of her own regular household bills and expenses, which she
continues to do.
13. Since obtaining the Order for Recovery, Petitioner has been working to secure
physicai and financial control of all the properties. Unfortunately, for almost the entire time
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 6 Case No. PTR-06-288755ao WD nw PB wWeN
wo
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
since his appointment as conservator and Trustee, more than 6 years now, Mrs. Hart has
refused to communicate with him or assist him in any way. She has refused to provide
information about her finances, properties or expenses or accept any assistance with her taxes.
Moreover, until recently, Mrs. Hart continued to rely almost exclusively on Mr. Wiggins, who
actively sought to oppose Petitioner's efforts to contro! the estate, For example, for more than
a year after Petitioner's appointment, Mr. Wiggins continued to try, sometimes successfully, to
divert the rental payments for the Argonaut property. When a pipe burst in the property in
November 2009, Mr. Wiggins visited the property and took photographs, contacted the San
Francisco Building Department claiming to be Mrs. Hart’s representative, and attempted to file
‘a insurance claim. As another example, Mrs. Hart would not provide Petitioner with any
information about the mortgage on her Antioch residence. When he went to the bank to obtain
the information, the bank refused to honor his authority, saying they had specific instructions to
speak only with Mrs. Hart or Mr. Wiggins. Petitioner obtained an Order of this Court directing
the bank to release information to him, which the bank ignored, only responding to a subse-
quent subpoena from Petitioner's attorneys. Petitioner knows that Mrs. Hart objects to the
conservatorship and trust proceedings and that she would prefer to manage her assets herself.
Moreover, Petitioner is informed and believes that for the many years that Mrs. Hart relied on
Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Wiggins constantly told her that Petitioner and all the attorneys involved were
in a conspiracy to defraud her of her assets, that he was her only protector, and that the efforts
for recovery directed against him were persecution. Petitioner's attorneys just recently heard
Mr. Wiggins continue to make similar allegations in apen court in the criminal proceedings
against him.
After the hearing on March 23, 2011 at which the Court granted the Order for Recovery,
Petitioner spoke directly with Mrs. Hart, who had attended the hearing. It appeared that she
had come to understand how badly Mr. Wiggins had taken advantage of her and that he was
no friend, and she expressed a willingness to meet with Petitioner. Petitioner wanted to meet
with her in order to explain the state of her finances, enlist her help in gaining control of her
estate again, and ask her her preferences regarding its management. Petitioner and his
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 7 Case No. PTR-06-288755an
oD woe ID
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorney were able to meet with Mrs. Hart, her court-appointed counsel, and her friend, Pastor
Andrew Smith, in early July 2011. Petitioner made efforts throughout the summer and fall to
meet with Mrs. Hart, but without success. She was either not available or would sometimes
cancel at the last minute because she felt unwell. Petitioner was able to meet with Mrs. Hart
and Pastor Smith once more in February 2012, but since that time, Mrs. Hart has adamantly
tefused to meet with Petitioner or provide him with any assistance or information. It may be
that after so many years of being told repeatedly to distrust Petitioner, Mrs. Hart now finds it
difficult to believe otherwise.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Hart's unwillingness to assist Petitioner, probably at the continual
instigation of Mr. Wiggins, who made his own vigorous efforts to oppose all of Petitioner's
efforts, have made the conservatorship and trust proceedings vastly more expensive than
might otherwise need be. One good example is the mortgage on Mrs. Hart’s Antioch resi-
dence, mentioned above. It might have taken only one conversation between Petitioner and
Mrs. Hart to provide all the necessary information regarding the mortgage, and then one visit by
Petitioner to the bank to take aver responsibility for paying the mortgage. Instead, Petitioner
made multiple trips to the bank. When they refused to honor his authority, his attorneys had to
prepare a petition and appear at a hearing to obtain an order directing the bank to give
Petitioner the information. Petitioner then made more trips and phone calls, ultimately to no
success. Finally Petitioner's attorneys had to subpoena the bank records, which involved calls
and correspondence with the bank and with Petitioner. What might have been a simple
process ultimately cost Mrs. Hart many thousands of dollars.
Petitioner wants to work directly with Mrs. Hart to manage her estate. He has sought
her participation to no avail, and when he has delayed taking action hoping she would partici-
pate, she has accused him of not managing her estate properly. When he takes action
unilaterally, however, it angers her. Moreover, without her cooperation, the process is
significantly more expensive, which makes her even more angry and suspicious that Petitioner
and his attorneys are taking advantage of her.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 8 Case No. PTR-06-288755For all these reasons, Petitioner brings this present petition. Now that title has been
returned to Mrs. Hart, and, following many months of effort, Petitioner is securing control of the
properties, the question arises as to how to manage the estate best for Mrs. Hart's benefit,
The answer is not completely clear, because it depends on future events that no one can
predict, such as whether Mrs. Hart might need more help at some point and when that might
be, and whether the real estate market will go up or down and when. Petitioner wants Mrs.
Hart to know that he has no personal interest in her financial affairs. His job is to manage her
finances for her benefit, according to law, and as directed by this Court, and he will obey the
directions given to him by this Court. He also wants Mrs. Hart to have the opportunity to tell
that Court her own desires for her property before the Court makes any decision.
Il. OUTLINE OF CURRENT FINANCES
14. Antioch Property: In February and March 2012, Petitioner obtained current
Property valuations for all of Mrs. Hart's properties. Unlike the market in San Francisco, which
benefits from its commute proximity to Silicon Valley and has seen a significant strengthening
since the beginning of the year, the markets in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, though
more positive, have not seen significant increases, so these valuations still provide a good
rough estimate of current values. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the valuation for the Antioch
Property, which suggests current market value of approximately $215,000, Based on the
mortgage records obtained by subpoena, Mrs. Hart currently has a variable rate home equity
line of credit on the property with a principal balance of $249,687.17. Under the terms of the
loan, she has a draw period of 10 years, during which she makes only interest payments, and
then a repayment period of 20 years. Because of the current low interest rates, she is currently
making interest-only payments during the draw period of approximately $520 per month, which
she has been making herself from the monthly income she receives. Thus, the property has
negative equity of approximately $35,000, and, because it is her residence, generates no
income.
15. Newhall Property: After attempting through the summer and fall of 2011 to
obtain Mrs. Hart's cooperation, Petitioner decided to act unilaterally to secure all her properties
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 9 CASE No. PTR-06-288755oO me NO Oh BR RY HY
BP NR Ye Ye Ye YY NR Ye Be Be Bw ew ewe De Be ek
eo aD HA BY YH = SoM AKA A RE GBH =
and their rents, The auto garage space is currently rented to Rony Calderon, who operates
Colofeli Auto Repair on the premises and pays $3,500 per month rent. While the Newhall
Property was putatively an asset of Bayview Village LLC, Mr. Calderon paid his rent to Gregory
Wiggins, as manager of the LLC. On January 2, 2012, Petitioner visited the garage and
personally spoke with Mr. Calderon, but Pastor Smith had already driven Mrs. Hart there that
morning to collect the rent. Petitioner explained his authority and the situation and demanded
future rent payments. In February, Mr. Calderon again paid his rent directly to Mrs. Hart. He
told Petitioner that he did not know him and he knew Mrs. Hart, and he intended to continue
paying her directly. Later in February, when Petitioner was able to meet personally with Mrs.
Hart, she agreed that Petitioner could collect the rent. Petitioner asked her if she had any
preferences regarding the property. At that time, she said that she did not want it used as a
laundromat or beauty shop again. Petitioner discussed the possibility of selling the property,
and Mrs. Hart seemed open to it. Although Petitioner cannot guarantee who the buyer might
be, a senior home across the street has expressed interest in buying the property in order to
build more senior housing, and Mrs. Hart seemed to be especially receptive to the idea. In
March, however, Mrs. Hart again collected the rent. Petitioner's landlord-tenant counsel, The
Law Offices of Daniel A. Conrad, then prepared and had personally served a formal notice for
payment of rent, which Mr. Calderon also ignored, again paying his rent in April directly to Mrs.
Hart. After Petitioner's attorneys had Mr. Calderon served with a 3-day notice to pay or quit, he
finally contacted an attorney, who contacted Petitioner's attorneys to resolve the matter, and
Mr. Calderon began paying his rent to Petitioner beginning with May 2012. He has been
consistent ever since.
Petitioner also drilled and changed the locks to the laundromat space, posting his
orders on the premises. It appears that someone, most likely Mr. Wiggins, has been using the
space as pied-a-terre all these years. Finally, Petitioner's attorneys have dissolved Bayview
Village LLC.
Petitioner also obtained an opinion letter from a realtor regarding the Newhall property,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The property, which is unencumbered, appears to have
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 10 Case No. PTR-06-288755a current value of less than $600,000, and the realtor has remarked that if listed, it may not
attract a buyer quickly. The property has been significantly neglected and now exhibits obvious
extensive wood rot. Additionally, the fact that it has been used as a auto repair lot for decades
raises the possibility of significant environmental liability.
The realtor also evaluated options for renting the current laundromat space, which could
also be challenging. One option would be to try to find a tenant willing to maintain or replace
the current laundry machines, but there may not be enough potential for income to attract such
a person. A second option would be for Mrs. Hart to pay for the upgrade and renovation
herself in order to attract a tenant, but again, the question is whether spending such a large
sum of money would be justified by the potential income. The final option considered is to
liquidate all the equipment and rent the space as a business or store front, but finding a tenant,
giving the property's condition and location and the current economic environment, might be
very difficult.
16. | Suisun City Property: The property is currently occupied, but the identity of the
occupants and whether they have a written lease or pay rent is unknown. At the beginning of
this year, one of Petitioner's staff visited the property and spoke with the tenant, but she
refused to provide her name or any other information. Petitioner sent a follow-up letter with
copies of his Court documents but received no response, and Petitioner's attorneys also wrote
but received no response. Because the existence or terms of a lease are unknown, it was
necessary to establish the terms of tenancy in order to demand compliance. Accordingly,
Petitioner's landlord-tenant counsel prepared and sent a 60-day Notice of Change of Terms of
Tenancy setting the rent at $1,800 per month, which they are informed is fair market rent for
the property, along with other rental terms, such as payment of utilities, to the occupants. The
60-day period recently expired, and a 3-day notice to pay or quit has been prepared. If there is
still no response, it will be necessary to prepare and bring an unlawful detainer action to evict
the tenants and take control of the property. if the tenants of the property are, in fact, the
family or acquaintances of Mr. Wiggins, it may explain their hostility, and an unlawful detainer
action may be unavoidable, with the attendant expense.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS I Case No. PTR-06-288755a uA WwW oN
Attached hereto as Exhibit D is the valuation for the Suisun City property, which
suggests a current market value of approximately $250,000. Based on the mortgage records
obtained by subpoena, Mrs. Hart currently has a 30-year mortgage on the property which was
fixed until January 2010, at which time it became adjustable. The principal balance as of
January 4, 2012 was $370,030.51, so the property has negative equity of approximately
$120,000. Although the interest rate is now adjustable, the most recent known payment in
February 2012 was for approximately $2,216. The mortgage payments include impound
amounts for both property taxes and insurance. It is unknown if the property is generating
income, but, as stated above, it is believed that it could be rented for approximately $1,800 per
month. Thus, not factoring in other property expenses such as maintenance and upkeep, and
assuming the interest rates do not rise, the property has a negative income flow of at least
$400 per month.
17. Hercules Property: Petitioner made personal contact with the current tenant,
Vanessa Bowman, and both he and his attorneys wrote to her. Petitioner's attorneys were
subsequently contacted by Joe Goldstein-Breyer, an Alameda County Public Defender, and
then by his father, Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California, both of whom
made it clear that they were calling in their personal capacities because Vanessa Bowman's
mother had worked for them for many years and was a family friend. Judge Breyer explained
that Ms. Bowman pays $2,000 per month rent, but, given that both owners were demanding the
rent, felt caught in the middle. Petitioner's attorney told Judge Breyer that they would seek the
instructions of this Court.
Attached hereto as Exhibit E is the valuation for the Hercules property, which suggests
a current market value around $328,000. Based on the mortgage records obtained by
subpoena, the property has a 30-year “pick-a-payment” mortgage, that is, the interest is fixed
for one-year periods but adjusts each March. The estimated principal balance as of March
2011 was $589,690.46, so the property has negative equity of approximately $262,000. The
monthly payment for the annual period beginning March 1, 2011 was $2,647.52, to which was
added an additional $508.40 per month for property taxes and insurance, for a total monthly
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 12 CASE No. PTR-06-288755OD OG 2 A wD
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
payment of $3,155.92. The mortgage records show, however, that Mr. Wiggins applied for and
obtained a forbearance at the end of 2011 because of unemployment. At the usual amount,
however, it appears that the property has a negative income flow of at least $1,135 per month.
For convenience, the financial information discussed above is summarized below:
Newhall
$600,000
Antioch
$215,000
Suisun City Hercules
$250,000 $328,000
Current market
value
$370,030
Mortgage bal- $589,690
ance
Approx. net eq- -$120,000 -$262,000
uity
Monthly mort-
gage payment
Monthly income
Net income
18. Judgment Against Mr. Wiggins: The Order dated March 23, 2011 awarded
damages totaling $1,620,000 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,000 against Gregory
Wiggins. Petitioner's attorneys have obtained and recorded Abstracts of Judgment in the San
Francisco, Contra Costa and Solano counties. They obtained a Writ of Execution and had the
San Francisco Sheriff serve a Earnings Withholding Order (Wage Garnishment) on Mr.
Wiggins’s last-known employer, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, but learned that
Mr. Wiggins had retired. They did a preliminary search and discovered real property owned by
Mr. Wiggins, but all have mortgages greater than their current market value and no positive
equity. Petitioner’s attorneys have served Mr. Wiggins with a notice of a debtor's examination
in order to ask him directly and under oath about any possible income or assets, such as a
pension, and then pursue collection if any are discovered, but frankly, there does not seem be
much likelihood of any recovery from him.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 13 Case No. PTR-06-288755NY Dw BB win
The financial damage Petitioner believes has been caused by Mr. Wiggins bears
summarizing. Under his influence, Mrs. Hart refinanced and ultimately sold her long-time San
Francisco home for $885,000. Of that amount, some was used to buy her East Bay properties;
$168,000 was paid to architects for a redevelopment project that was never financially feasible;
and a large chunk has never been possible to trace, but presumably went to Mr. Wiggins. The
properties that were bought with the proceeds of the sale of the San Francisco house are now
all under water. Title to the properties has been restored to Mrs. Hart, and a large judgment
obtained against Mr. Wiggins, but obtaining that result has cost many thousands of dollars in
attorneys’ fees, and the judgment will likely be mostly or entirely uncollectible. Mrs. Hart has, in
effect, lost of all of the proceeds from the sale of her San Francisco house, and it is unlikely
she will ever recover them. To make matters worse, her former home on DeHaro has sold
several times since she herself sold it, most recently in May 2011 for $1,437,500.
Ill. REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS
19. The question now presented is how to manage Mrs. Hart's estate as it presently
stands, and Petitioner seeks the Courts instructions accordingly. Despite what Petitioner
believes were her earlier statements, Petitioner is informed and believes that Mrs. Hart now
states that she wishes to hold all the remaining properties because they are all she has
remaining to show for the hard work she and her husband did for so many decades. It is
possible that someday, as the mortgages are paid down and when property values rise
sufficiently, the properties will have positive equity again. It is difficult to know, however, when
the market will recover sufficiently. Moreover, when Mrs. Hart dies, all of her properties will
have to be liquidated to distribute her estate under the terms of her trust. If she dies before the
property values rise, she will have been making mortgage payments for all that time with no
benefit to show for it. Additionally, Mrs. Hart is 93 years old and has only $33,000 in cash
savings. By her great good fortune, she has been extremely healthy and has not required any
paid personal assistance until now, but that may change at any time, and if it does, she does
not presently have the cash to pay for it for very long. Thus, Petitioner seeks the Court’s
instructions as follows.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 14 Case No. PTR-06-288755co MN DW PB WHY
DA vA PB Ww NY =|
17
20. Antioch Property: The Antioch property is Mrs. Hart’s home. Although it has
negative equity, it is only $35,000, and may recover positive equity sooner than her other
Properties with negative equity. At present, the monthly mortgage payment is only approxi-
mately $520 per month, which Mrs. Hart has apparently been able to pay out of her own regular
monthly income. Petitioner seeks this Court’s instructions whether he should leave the current
financial arrangements for this property in place or make any changes.
21. Newhall Property: The Newhall property is both the only property with available
equity and the only property with positive income flow. Petitioner requests this Courts instruc-
tions as follows:
1) Should Petitioner attempt to sell the property or hold and manage the property?
If the Court instructs Petitioner to sell the property, Petitioner requests authority to list and sell
the Newhall property subject to the confirmation of this Court, and he seeks authority to enter
into an exclusive listing agreement for the Newhall property with Andrew deVries of Prudential
California Realty. A copy of the proposed listing agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
The listing is for an initial period of 90 days, with the option to renew for a further 90 days, and
with a total sales commission of 5%.
2) If Petitioner is instructed to sell the property, should some of the proceeds be
used to pay off the mortgage on Mrs. Hart’s Antioch residence, or should all of the proceeds be
held as a cash reserve for her care and expenses?
3) Mrs. Hart has stated that she would like to control all or some of the rent
generated by the Newhall property. If Petitioner is instructed to hold and manage the property,
should he contrat all of the rent, using it to pay property expenses, trust and conservatorship
expenses, and saving for Mrs. Hart’s possible care needs, or should he provide some portion to
Mrs. Hart to augment her monthly income? Thus far, it appears that Mrs. Hart’s personal
income which she controls has been sufficient for her needs, but Mrs. Hart is, of course, always
welcome to present a proposed personal budget to the Court to support her request for
additional funds.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 15 Case No. PTR-06-28875522. Suisun City: Should Petitioner hold and manage the Suisun City property, or will
the Court authorize him to make no payments and allow it to go into foreclosure? The Suisun
City property has a negative monthly cash flow. Holding it is draining funds that might be saved
for Mrs. Hart's care needs. If the value recovers sufficiently before she dies, it may provide
some value to her heirs, but if not, all the mortgage payments made in the intervening time are
simply lost. If instructed by the Court, Petitioner will bring a petition for authority to list and sell
and attempt a short sale, but the negative equity is so great, and banks are proving so unwilling
to participate in short sales versus simply foreclosing on properties, that it appears highly
unlikely that a short sale will close successfully.
If the Court instructs Petitioner to hold the property, does the Court authorize him, as
conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim deed transferring the property to
the Trust?
Petitioner believes that, for the last few months, Mrs. Hart has been making the
mortgage payments on the Suisun City property, presumably with the she rent collected from
the Newhall property, but she will not communicate with Petitioner and confirm this. Petitioner's
attorneys have recorded a Request for Copy of Notice of Default on the property so they will be
alerted if a default occurs.
23. Hercules Property: Should Petitioner hold and manage the Hercules property,
or will the Court authorize him, as conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim
deed returning Mrs. Hart's interest in the property to Mr. Wiggins? The analysis regarding
equity, market value and cash flow is the same as the Suisun City property, except that the
Hercules property has a much greater negative equity and a much greater negative cash flow.
In a general sense, Petitioner believes that Mrs. Hart should have no further financial connec-
tion with Mr. Wiggins. As a joint owner, Mr. Wiggins has an equal right to collect the rent for
the property, and based on past experience, Petitioner believes that he will attempt to do so
vigorously. In that case, the remedy left to Petitioner will be to sue him for an accounting and
rents, which will involve more attorneys fees, and, even if a judgment is obtained, it will only
add to the existing judgment, which it appears likely Petitioner will not be able to collect. Mrs.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 16 Case No. PTR-06-288755.Hart has contributed no capital in this property, and Petitioner believes that all of the debt
incurred has been for the benefit of Mr. Wiggins and none for Mrs. Hart. Mrs. Hart testified that
she was given an interest in the property as compensation for Bayview Village LLC, but as a
result of the Order for Recovery, no assets were ever transferred to Bayview Village LLC, and
Petitioner has now dissolved it. Moreover, as long as Mrs. Hart remains on title, she remains
potentially liable for any events at the property. lif Mrs. Hart returns her interest to Mr. Wiggins,
however, and the value of the property ever improves enough so that it has positive equity, the
Judgment against Mr. Wiggins can be enforced with regard to that equity.
Should the Court instruct Petitioner to hold the property, however, does the Court
authorize him, as conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim deed transfer-
ting Mrs. Hart's property to the Trust, and thereby breaking the joint tenancy?
24. Petitioner reiterates that he would very much like to work directly with Mrs. Hart
so that he knows her thoughts and can keep her fully informed about all of her assets, but that,
because she currently will not speak with him, he brings this petition so that she will have the
Opportunity to speak to the Court and express her desires, and that Petitioner will obey the
instructions he respectfully requests from this Court.
IV. NOTICE
26. During her lifetime, Mrs. Hart is the sole beneficiary of the Trust. Upon her
death, the Trust provides for specific gifts to family members Adeline Reed, Gayle R. Reed,
Rosalind D. Reed, Henry Gaines, and also Gregory Wiggins, who is also the sole residual
beneficiary. The names and addresses of the beneficiaries, all of whom are adults, are:
Rosia Lee Hart
3133 Crestline Court
Antioch, CA 94531
Adeline Reed
306 Portland Avenue
Oakland, CA 94606
Gayle R. Reed
2389 Flatley Circle
Fairfield, CA 94533
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 17 CASE No. PTR-06-288755Sw ny Hw
Rosalind Reed Williams
4766 Stonewood Drive
Fairfield, CA 94531
Pastor Henry Gaines
1490 Kennedy Avenue
Weed, CA 96094
Gregory Wiggins
3101 Crestline Court
Antioch, CA 94531
26. Because Gregory Wiggins has financially abused Mrs. Hart and is currently
facing criminal charges for felony elder financial abuse regarding his actions towards her, and
because this petition discuss efforts to collect a judgment against him, Petitioner will submit an
ex parte petition requesting that the requirement of notice of this petition to Gregory Wiggins be
waived.
27. Because the Court may instruct Petitioner to act by substituted judgment for Mrs.
Hart, Petitioner will also provide notice of this petition as required under Probate Code Section
2581. Mrs. Hart is a widow with no issue. She is represented in both the conservatorship and
trust matters by court-appointed counsel, Bruce Feder. Her only surviving relative within the
second degree is her brother Pastor Henry Gaines, who, were she to die immediately, would be
her heir-at-law under the laws of intestate succession. Thus, there are no additional parties
which require notice under Probate Code Section 2580.
28. By ex parte Order dated October 11, 2006, a request by Baum Thornley
Architects for special notice herein was granted, and notice will be provided through their
attorneys, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, One Ferry Building, Suite 200, San Francisco,
CA 94111-4213.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests an Order of this Court that:
1. No further notice of this Petition be required;
2. The Court instruct Petitioner with regards to Mrs. Hart’s real properties and the
management of her finances as requested herein; and
3. Such further or other relief be granted as the Court deems appropriate in the
circumstances.
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 1 Case No. PTR-06-288755| declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed at Alameda, California on the
date stated below.
S { cy [ \ \
Date: _4\ uo © iq 2012 MA bee
x Herb Thomas, Petitioner,
~ Successor Trustee of The Rosia L. Hart
Revocable Trust
PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS Case No. PTR-08-288755&
5
E
wb
as
ue
eo
a3
3
z
3
&
g
é
Z
&
e
=
E
2
0
a
a
°
x
@
ui
z
z
5
a
a
Zz
Z
g
=
38
5
ze
o8
g:
3
3
8
3
gia
Bee
,
PE
2
a
27
28
| of the estate And temporary successor trustee
Facsimile: (415) 552-2158 sae Coury Spor: Gout Superior Coir
BY _ om t
Edward A. Koplowitz, Esq. (SBN: 45458) MAR 23 20 !
Estate of
| VILLAGE LLC; and DOES 1 ~ 10, inclusive,
THE ANNEXED INSTREIMES 4
GORRECT COPY OF Tr tak.
Andrew K. Schultz, Esq. (SBN: 215917)ON FILE IN My oF.”
Witherspoon & Siracusa
Arrest! CERT
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 875
San Francisco, California 94103-4879 DEC 06 2011 F T L E
Telephone: (415) 552-1815 San Franctsco County D
Macinnis, Donner & Koplowitz
465 California Street, Suite 222
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 434-2400
Facsimile: (415) 433-1917
CLE
ax yf OFT! oh COURT
tity Clan
Attorneys for Herb Thomas, Temporary conservator
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
In re the Conservatorship of the Case Nos.: PTR-06-288755
ROSIA LEE HART, {P SED] ORDER GRANTING
ENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL
Conservatee. PETITION FOR RECOVERY OF
TRUST PROPERTY, FOR
CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS,
FOR DAMAGES, AND FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
THE ROSIA L. HART REVOCABLE
TRUST DATED MAY 19, 2004 Date: March 23, 2011
Time: 3:00 p.m.
HERB THOMAS, as temporary conservator of Dept.: 501 |
the estate of Rosia Lee Hart, conservatee and as Judge: Honorable Ronald E. Quidachay
temporary successor trustee, 1
Petitioner,
vs.
GREGORY K. WIGGINS, individually and as
trustee of the Gregory K. Wiggins Trust; BAY
Respondents.
Mit
L
Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.
exisit ACA 94104
‘SUITE 222
465 CALIFORNIA STREET
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Q
z
é
c
Zz
&
a
MacINNIS, DONNER & KOPLOWITZ
This matter came on regularly for “prove-up” hearing, after entry of default, before the
undersigned on the Amended and Supplemental Petition of Herb Thomas, conservator of the estate
and successor trustee, for Recovery of Trust Property, for Cancellation of Instruments, and for
Damages, Including for Elder Abuse, this 23rd day of March 2011.
Edward A. Koplowitz and Andrew K, Schultz appeared for petitioner Herb Thomas. There
was no appearance by respondents Gregory K. Wiggins and Bay Village LLC cither personally or
through counsel, their defaults having been taken.
The court, having reviewed the Amended and Supplemental Petition, having reviewed the file
and prior proceedings of the court in the matter, having taken evidence, including by judicial notice,
and having entertained oral argument, does hereby GRANT the Amended and Supplemental Petition
as follows:
1 The court finds that due, proper, and timely notice of the Amended and Supplemental
Petition was given to respondents.
2. Petitioner has demonstrated that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought, as follows.
A. The court hereby cancels, sets aside, and declares invalid the deed and any
purported conveyance of conservatee’s interest in 211 Tanager Way, Hercules, California, to
respondent Gregory K. Wiggins, together with the purported deed or any subsequent conveyance
from respondent Gregory K. Wiggins to the Gregory J. Wiggins Trust. The legal description of such
property is: Lot 23, map of Subdivision 6505, filed December 30, 1986 in Book 310 of Maps, page
29, Contra Costa County Records, being APN # 360-653-006.
B. The court hereby cancels, sets aside, and declares invalid the deed and any
purported conveyance of conservatee’s interest in 950 Newhall Street in San Francisco, California,
as trustee to respondent Bayview Village LLC. The legal description of such property is:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE
..NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND THE
\ NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF NEWHALL STREET; RUNNING THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF REDWOOD AVENUE 75
| FEET; THENCE AT A RIGHT ANGLE NORTHEASTERLY 100 FEET:
' THENCE AT A RIGHT ANGLE SOUTHEASTERLY 75 FEET TO THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF NEWHALL STREET, THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF NEWHALL STREET 100
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING LOTS 25, 26 AND 27, IN
BLOCK 210, O’NEIL AND HALEY TRACT
2.
Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.MaciINNIS, DONNER & KOPLOWITZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 222
485 CAUFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94108
TELEPHONE: (415) 424-2400
FAX: (41S) 493-1917
27
28
weet ate ee a ets naman aa ainen niger nan eanpmerertee tn
BLOCK 5279, LOT 4
COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 850 NEWHALL STREET, SAN FRANCISCO,
C. It is declared and adjudged that neither Gregory K. Wiggins individually nor
as trustee has any right, title or interest in 32 Argonaut Avenue in San Francisco, California, being \
APN 6358-024.
D. Is declared and adjudged that neither Gregory K. Wiggins individually nor as |
| crustee has any right, title or interest in 1760 Dover Circle, Suisun City, Califomia, being APN
174393-07, and legally described as:
Lot 210 as shown on that certain map entitled "Final
Map of Peterson Ranch, unit No. 3” in the City of Suisun '
City, County of Solano, State of California, filed
in the office of county record of said county on May 14, 2003
in book 75 of maps, page 92.
E. That respondent forthwith deliver all such invalidated instruments to the clerk
of this court for cancellation. In the event respondents fail or refuse to execute, acknowledge and
‘deliver such document or documents as may be necessary or desirable to effectuate this Order, then
the undersigned, the Clerk of this court, or the designee of either, is hereby authorized and
directed to affix the name of Gregory K. Wiggins, whether individually or as trustee, and/or Bay
‘Village LLC, to such documents as the act and deed of the person or entity in whose name it is taken.
KF For damages against Respondent Gregory K. Wiggins in the sum of
$1,620,000.00, which represents (i) the sum of $540,000.00 which Respondent Wiggins wrongfully
borrowed against the real property known as 211 Tanager Way, Hercules, California., and (ii) which
is doubled pursuant to Probate Code §859 by reason of Mr. Wiggins’ intentional, wrongful, and bad
faith actions.
H. For attomeys' fees of $12,000 for financial elder abuse, under
Institutions Code §15657.5(a).
if
\“/
/
i
3. |
Order Granting, Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.538
as,
ere
«ot
aMOre
8$08S
geese
5
cecwg
wiazz~
Eog
fkE
ws fe
oz 4
sid
oP
MacINNIS. DONNER & KOPLOWITZ
ATYORNEYS AT LAW
3. Judgment shall be entered on and consistent with the above Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/23 ly
‘L——__—>
Hon. Ronald Quidachay
Judge of the Superior Court
DAData\Data\APPS'SOFTSOLIDOCS\2006 docs\2006-38\Order Granting Petition to Recover Trust
Property.03.22.11.wpd
END OF DOCUMENT
4.
Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.Realist Page | of 3
Comparable Sales For
3133 Crestline Ct, Antioch, CA 94531-6640
Projected Values Calculated by:
Sq Footage
$215,670.04
ln
Comparable Statistics:
Subject Property High Low Median ‘Average
‘Sq Footage ° 2,181 2,385, 2,181 2,252 2,273
Sale Price $360,000.00 _.., $240,000.00 $215,000.00 $219,000.00 $224 666.67
Price/Sq Footage $165.06 $100.83 $95.47 $100.41 $98.84:
Summary
, ip Recording Sale_Price Per Sq Bullding Sq Total Year —_Dist.
Address City State Zip Date Price Ft Ft Bedrooms Bathe Bult (miles)
1.3008 Terrace View AveAntioch CA 94531 02/14/2012 $219,000 $100.41 2,181 4 3 1991 118546
Pw 2.2417 Carpinteria Dr = Antioch CA 94531 10/12/2011 $215,000 (
Preview
AA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Aug-17-2012 3:44 pm Case Number: PTR-06-288755 Filing Date: Aug-17-2012 3:42 Filed by: GINA R. S. GONZALEZ Juke Box: 001 Image: 03730000 PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE ROSIA L. HART REVOCABLE TRUST 001P03730000 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Dn vw Bw ND - W Andrew K. Schultz (State Bar No. 215917) Sar Frage ena Poe egy, D WITHERSPOON & SIRACUSA 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 875 4 San Francisco, CA 94103 AUG 770i Telephone (415) 552-1814 c OF T Fax (415) 552-2158 ay: Le HE COUR aschultz@witsir.com . Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Herb Thomas, Successor Trustee SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FILED BY FAK Case No. PTR-06-288755 PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS REGARD- ING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SETTLOR’S REAL PROPERTY AND FI- ) ) THE ROSIA L. HART ) ) ) NANCES ) ) ) ) ) REVOCABLE TRUST dated May 19, 2004 Cross Ref. Case No. PCN-06-288756 Conservatorship of Rosja Dote 4fitfrr | Ob 0 7 Herb Thomas, as Successor Trustee of the Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust, and also as Conservator of the Estate of Rosia L. Hart, the Settlor, presents his Petition for Instructions Regarding the Management of the Settior’s Real Property and Finances, alleging: 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. Petitioner is a private professional fiduciary licensed in the State of California. On May 24, 2006, Petitioner was appointed temporary conservator of Rosia Hart's estate only. On that same day, Mrs. Hart's trust, The Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust (the “Trust”), was brought under the continuing supervision of his Court, and Petitioner was appointed temporary successor trustee. On November 16, 2006, Petitioner was appointed probate conservator of PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS T CASE NO. PTR-06-288755Mrs. Hart’s estate and also Successor Trustee of the Trust. Thus, at all times relevant hereto, Petitioner has been and remains the duly appointed and acting conservator of Mrs. Hart's estate and Successor Trustee of the Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust. 2. Rosia Hart, the Settlor and Conservatee, is currently 93 years old. When Mrs. Hart’s husband, David Hart, died on May 9, 1997, the couple owned interests in three properties in San Francisco. The first, located at 706 DeHaro Street (the “DeHaro property”), was the couple’s residence, which they had bought in 1954. From the public property records, it appears the property had a very modest mortgage of $25,000 at the time of David Hart's death, which the couple had obtained through refinancing just a couple of years earlier. In 1976, the couple purchased the commercial property located at 950 Newhall Street (the “Newhall property”). Mr. Hart operated an automotive repair garage in one part of the building, and Mrs. Hart operated a laundromat in another part. It is not known if the couple purchased the building with any financing, but it was not encumbered at the time of David Hart's death. The couple also owned an interest in a third building located at 32 Argonaut Street (the “Argonaut property’). The couple purchased this property in 1987, and in 1991 deeded one- third to Mr. Hart's daughter, Jessica Vance Hart, a minor at the time, ail as joint tenants. Upon Mr. Hart's death, Mrs. Hart and Jessica Vance Hart each became owners of a 50% interest, and the property was not encumbered. 3. Petitioner is informed and believes that, sometime after her husband's death, Mrs. Hart began to rely almost exclusively on Gregory Wiggins, an unrelated man, who is currently 52 years old, for personal and financial advice and that, due to the influence of Mr. Wiggins, Mrs. Hart began a series of real estate and financial transactions that have ultimately caused her immense financial harm. Mrs. Hart refinanced the DeHaro property for $404,000 in 2002, for an additional $75,000 in 2003, and finally sold it outright in July 2004 for a sales price of $885,000. Some of the money from these transactions was used for down payments to purchase two properties in the East Bay, the first at 3133 Crestline Court, Antioch, California (the “Antioch property”) and the second at 1760 Dover Circle, Suisun City, California (the “Suisun City property’). PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 2 Case No, PTR-06-2887554. The Antioch property became Mrs. Hart’s new residence, and she continues to live there today. Crestline Court is a cul-de-sac, and Mr. Wiggins had purchased his own home at 3101 Crestline Court in November 1995, which is directly across the street. As has been previously documented in these proceedings, whenever Contra Costa Adult Protective Services attempted to meet with Mrs. Hart, Mr. Wiggins or an adult female from his house would approach and challenge them, and Adult Protective Services also believes that for some time Mrs. Hart's phone conversations were monitored by Mr. Wiggins. It is suspected that Mr. Wiggins used his influence to induce Mrs. Hart to purchase the house, and then used his Proximity to her to keep surveillance over her and attempt to isolate her. After purchasing the property, she placed it in the Trust, where it remains. 5. Mrs. Hart also purchased the Suisun City property, putting approximately $100,000 down and obtaining a mortgage for approximately $391,000. Although it appears that Mr. Wiggins made no contribution to the property, Mrs. Hart put him on title with her at the time of purchase as a joint tenant. At the time of his appointment, Petitioner was told by Adult Protective Services that they believed the property was occupied by an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Wiggins and their child. 6. With respect to the Newhall property, Mrs. Hart undertook a number of transactions, which Petitioner suspects were all at the behest of Mr. Wiggins. Petitioner just recently learned that in late 2003 or early 2004, the Newhall property was listed for sale for $895,000, but failed to attract a buyer. After executing the Trust in 2004, Mrs. Hart transferred the Newhall property to it. In August 2005, Mrs. Hart created “Bayview Village, LLC,” a California limited corporation with herself and Mr. Wiggins as members and Mr. Wiggins as manager, and she transferred title to the Newhall Property from the Trust to the LLC. It was reported to Petitioner that Mr. Wiggins had been attempting to convince Mrs. Hart to tear down the Newhall property and redevelop it for at least two years, but that Mrs. Hart had been resistant, at least until a fire in the property in November 2005 made renovation inescapable. The San Francisco Fire Inspector later determined that the fire had been intentionally set at multiple points and was therefore arson. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 3 Case No. PTR-06-288755an iw Following his appointment, Petitioner learned that, in his efforts to redevelop the Property, Mr. Wiggins met repeatedly with an architectural firm, Baum Thornley, as well as with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and neighborhood groups in the Bayview, sometimes with Mrs. Hart but often not, always holding himself out as the owner and Mrs. Hart as his aunt, though they are no relation. Petitioner learned that Baum Thornley had completed a design and received cost estimates to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a 16 unit, multifamily apartment building, approximately 25,000 square feet in size, with about 5,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and underground parking for 16 vehicles. Baum Thornley was paid approximately $168,000 from Mrs. Hart's funds for this work and claims another $112,000 remains outstanding. Petitioner was authorized by this Court to hire a development consulting firm to analyze the feasibility of the proposed Newhall property redevelopment project, which, in summary, was found to be impossible as planned. The total cost of the project was estimated to be over $12 million, but as planned wouid only qualify for a mortgage of slightly less than $6 million, requiring an infusion of over $6 million in capital, which Mrs. Hart could certainly not perform. Furthermore, the project did not have a developer, a contractor or a contract, no project financing and no permits in hand. Based on this review, the Court authorized Petitioner to take no action to preserve any aspect of the project. It is extremely unfortunate that so much of the cash generated by the sale of Mrs. Hart's DeHaro property was wasted on a project that, as proposed, never had any chance of financial viability. 7. Finally, at the time of Petitioner's initial appointment, Mrs. Hart also owned a 50% interest in the property located at 211 Tanager Way, Hercules (the “Hercules property’), as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins. Based on the public chain of title, it appears that Mr. Wiggins purchased the Hercules property as a single man in October 1988, financing $318,750 of the purchase price with a mortgage. By quitclaim deed dated May 10, 2005, Mr. Wiggins gifted a 50% interest in the property to Mrs. Hart as joint tenant. Petitioner is informed and believes that Mrs. Hart recently testified in the criminal proceedings for felony elder financial abuse against Mr. Wiggins that Mr. Wiggins put her on title as consideration for making him a member PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 4 CASE No. PTR-06-288755,of Bayview Village LLC, On November 20, 2006, four days after Petitioner was appointed probate conservator of her estate and six months after his initial appointment as temporary conservator, Mrs. Hart executed a quitclaim deed returning her 50% interest in the property to Mr. Wiggins, who refinanced the property in January 2007, increasing the mortgage to $540,000. A few months later, in April 2007, Mr. Wiggins recorded an additional deed of trust on the property for a bail bond. 8. Thus, at the time of Petitioner's appointment, Mrs. Hart’s Antioch and Argonaut properties were held in the Trust, and she owned a 50% interest as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins in the Suisun City and Hercules properties. Title to the Newhall property was putatively held by Bayview Village LLC, which was managed by Mr. Wiggins. She had almost no cash in the bank, and she subsequently lost her interest in the Hercules property. 9. Petitioner brought an action for recovery against Mr. Wiggins, and on March 23, 2011, this Court issued an Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, for Cancellation of Instruments, for Damages, and for Attorneys’ Fees (the “Order for Recovery’), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which did all of the following: 1) Canceled, set aside, and declared invalid the deed and any purported convey- ance of Mrs. Hart's interest in the Hercules property. That is, she now once again owns 50% as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins. 2) Canceled, set aside, and declared invalid the deed and any purported convey- ance of Mrs. Hart's interest in 950 Newhall Street to Bayview Village LLC. That is, the property was never transferred to Bayview Village LLC, and it has remain- ed an asset of her Trust. 3) Declared and adjudged that Mr. Wiggins had no right, title or interest in the Suisun City property. That is, Mrs. Hart now owns 100% of the property as her sole and separate property; and 4) Awarded $1,620,000 in damages and $12,000 in attorneys’ fees against Mr. Wiggins. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 5 CASE No. PTR-06-288755IY Dw Bw nHD 10. In July 2011, the Argonaut property was sold pursuant to a Settlement Agree- ment governing the property. In June 2004, Mrs. Hart brought an action against Jessica Vance Hart, who was stil! a minor at the time, and her parent and guardian, Selser Vance, seeking a sale by partition and an accounting of expenses. Jessica Vance Hart counter-sued, alleging intentional infliction of emotional! distress, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, accounting, conversion, breach of contract and constructive fraud. It appears that after a full jury trial, Mrs. Hart prevailed on her petition for partition and accounting. Jessica Vance Hart prevailed on only one cause of action in her cross-complaint, breach of contract, and even so, she was awarded no damages. The verdict was appealed, but the parties reached a settle- ment before arguing the appeal. Under that Settlement Agreement, Jessica Vance Hart was given the right to occupy the property until July 6, 2010, after which time the property would be sold by an independent referee. The property was subsequently sold in July 2011, but the independent referee held the sale proceeds until the parties agreed on their division, which was governed by a complicated formula under the Settlement Agreement. The parties reached an agreement and signed a Stipulation in April 2012, at which time $115,708.62 was distributed to the Trust. Much of these funds was immediately consumed by outstanding fees and liabilities. 11. Thus, at this time, Mrs. Hart’s assets, whether in her conservatorship or the Trust, consist of the following: the Antioch property, her residence, which is held in the Trust; the Newhall property, which is held in the Trust; the Suisun City property, of which she is now the sole owner, which is in the conservatorship; 50% of the Hercules property, as joint tenant with Mr. Wiggins, which is in the conservatorship; and approximately $3,000 cash, which is in a Trust bank account. 12. In the Order Appointing Probate Conservator dated November 16, 2006, Mrs. Hart was authorized to have a personal checking account, receive her monthly Social Security and pension payments, and pay all of her own regular household bills and expenses, which she continues to do. 13. Since obtaining the Order for Recovery, Petitioner has been working to secure physicai and financial control of all the properties. Unfortunately, for almost the entire time PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 6 Case No. PTR-06-288755ao WD nw PB wWeN wo 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 since his appointment as conservator and Trustee, more than 6 years now, Mrs. Hart has refused to communicate with him or assist him in any way. She has refused to provide information about her finances, properties or expenses or accept any assistance with her taxes. Moreover, until recently, Mrs. Hart continued to rely almost exclusively on Mr. Wiggins, who actively sought to oppose Petitioner's efforts to contro! the estate, For example, for more than a year after Petitioner's appointment, Mr. Wiggins continued to try, sometimes successfully, to divert the rental payments for the Argonaut property. When a pipe burst in the property in November 2009, Mr. Wiggins visited the property and took photographs, contacted the San Francisco Building Department claiming to be Mrs. Hart’s representative, and attempted to file ‘a insurance claim. As another example, Mrs. Hart would not provide Petitioner with any information about the mortgage on her Antioch residence. When he went to the bank to obtain the information, the bank refused to honor his authority, saying they had specific instructions to speak only with Mrs. Hart or Mr. Wiggins. Petitioner obtained an Order of this Court directing the bank to release information to him, which the bank ignored, only responding to a subse- quent subpoena from Petitioner's attorneys. Petitioner knows that Mrs. Hart objects to the conservatorship and trust proceedings and that she would prefer to manage her assets herself. Moreover, Petitioner is informed and believes that for the many years that Mrs. Hart relied on Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Wiggins constantly told her that Petitioner and all the attorneys involved were in a conspiracy to defraud her of her assets, that he was her only protector, and that the efforts for recovery directed against him were persecution. Petitioner's attorneys just recently heard Mr. Wiggins continue to make similar allegations in apen court in the criminal proceedings against him. After the hearing on March 23, 2011 at which the Court granted the Order for Recovery, Petitioner spoke directly with Mrs. Hart, who had attended the hearing. It appeared that she had come to understand how badly Mr. Wiggins had taken advantage of her and that he was no friend, and she expressed a willingness to meet with Petitioner. Petitioner wanted to meet with her in order to explain the state of her finances, enlist her help in gaining control of her estate again, and ask her her preferences regarding its management. Petitioner and his PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 7 Case No. PTR-06-288755an oD woe ID 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney were able to meet with Mrs. Hart, her court-appointed counsel, and her friend, Pastor Andrew Smith, in early July 2011. Petitioner made efforts throughout the summer and fall to meet with Mrs. Hart, but without success. She was either not available or would sometimes cancel at the last minute because she felt unwell. Petitioner was able to meet with Mrs. Hart and Pastor Smith once more in February 2012, but since that time, Mrs. Hart has adamantly tefused to meet with Petitioner or provide him with any assistance or information. It may be that after so many years of being told repeatedly to distrust Petitioner, Mrs. Hart now finds it difficult to believe otherwise. Unfortunately, Mrs. Hart's unwillingness to assist Petitioner, probably at the continual instigation of Mr. Wiggins, who made his own vigorous efforts to oppose all of Petitioner's efforts, have made the conservatorship and trust proceedings vastly more expensive than might otherwise need be. One good example is the mortgage on Mrs. Hart’s Antioch resi- dence, mentioned above. It might have taken only one conversation between Petitioner and Mrs. Hart to provide all the necessary information regarding the mortgage, and then one visit by Petitioner to the bank to take aver responsibility for paying the mortgage. Instead, Petitioner made multiple trips to the bank. When they refused to honor his authority, his attorneys had to prepare a petition and appear at a hearing to obtain an order directing the bank to give Petitioner the information. Petitioner then made more trips and phone calls, ultimately to no success. Finally Petitioner's attorneys had to subpoena the bank records, which involved calls and correspondence with the bank and with Petitioner. What might have been a simple process ultimately cost Mrs. Hart many thousands of dollars. Petitioner wants to work directly with Mrs. Hart to manage her estate. He has sought her participation to no avail, and when he has delayed taking action hoping she would partici- pate, she has accused him of not managing her estate properly. When he takes action unilaterally, however, it angers her. Moreover, without her cooperation, the process is significantly more expensive, which makes her even more angry and suspicious that Petitioner and his attorneys are taking advantage of her. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 8 Case No. PTR-06-288755For all these reasons, Petitioner brings this present petition. Now that title has been returned to Mrs. Hart, and, following many months of effort, Petitioner is securing control of the properties, the question arises as to how to manage the estate best for Mrs. Hart's benefit, The answer is not completely clear, because it depends on future events that no one can predict, such as whether Mrs. Hart might need more help at some point and when that might be, and whether the real estate market will go up or down and when. Petitioner wants Mrs. Hart to know that he has no personal interest in her financial affairs. His job is to manage her finances for her benefit, according to law, and as directed by this Court, and he will obey the directions given to him by this Court. He also wants Mrs. Hart to have the opportunity to tell that Court her own desires for her property before the Court makes any decision. Il. OUTLINE OF CURRENT FINANCES 14. Antioch Property: In February and March 2012, Petitioner obtained current Property valuations for all of Mrs. Hart's properties. Unlike the market in San Francisco, which benefits from its commute proximity to Silicon Valley and has seen a significant strengthening since the beginning of the year, the markets in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, though more positive, have not seen significant increases, so these valuations still provide a good rough estimate of current values. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the valuation for the Antioch Property, which suggests current market value of approximately $215,000, Based on the mortgage records obtained by subpoena, Mrs. Hart currently has a variable rate home equity line of credit on the property with a principal balance of $249,687.17. Under the terms of the loan, she has a draw period of 10 years, during which she makes only interest payments, and then a repayment period of 20 years. Because of the current low interest rates, she is currently making interest-only payments during the draw period of approximately $520 per month, which she has been making herself from the monthly income she receives. Thus, the property has negative equity of approximately $35,000, and, because it is her residence, generates no income. 15. Newhall Property: After attempting through the summer and fall of 2011 to obtain Mrs. Hart's cooperation, Petitioner decided to act unilaterally to secure all her properties PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 9 CASE No. PTR-06-288755oO me NO Oh BR RY HY BP NR Ye Ye Ye YY NR Ye Be Be Bw ew ewe De Be ek eo aD HA BY YH = SoM AKA A RE GBH = and their rents, The auto garage space is currently rented to Rony Calderon, who operates Colofeli Auto Repair on the premises and pays $3,500 per month rent. While the Newhall Property was putatively an asset of Bayview Village LLC, Mr. Calderon paid his rent to Gregory Wiggins, as manager of the LLC. On January 2, 2012, Petitioner visited the garage and personally spoke with Mr. Calderon, but Pastor Smith had already driven Mrs. Hart there that morning to collect the rent. Petitioner explained his authority and the situation and demanded future rent payments. In February, Mr. Calderon again paid his rent directly to Mrs. Hart. He told Petitioner that he did not know him and he knew Mrs. Hart, and he intended to continue paying her directly. Later in February, when Petitioner was able to meet personally with Mrs. Hart, she agreed that Petitioner could collect the rent. Petitioner asked her if she had any preferences regarding the property. At that time, she said that she did not want it used as a laundromat or beauty shop again. Petitioner discussed the possibility of selling the property, and Mrs. Hart seemed open to it. Although Petitioner cannot guarantee who the buyer might be, a senior home across the street has expressed interest in buying the property in order to build more senior housing, and Mrs. Hart seemed to be especially receptive to the idea. In March, however, Mrs. Hart again collected the rent. Petitioner's landlord-tenant counsel, The Law Offices of Daniel A. Conrad, then prepared and had personally served a formal notice for payment of rent, which Mr. Calderon also ignored, again paying his rent in April directly to Mrs. Hart. After Petitioner's attorneys had Mr. Calderon served with a 3-day notice to pay or quit, he finally contacted an attorney, who contacted Petitioner's attorneys to resolve the matter, and Mr. Calderon began paying his rent to Petitioner beginning with May 2012. He has been consistent ever since. Petitioner also drilled and changed the locks to the laundromat space, posting his orders on the premises. It appears that someone, most likely Mr. Wiggins, has been using the space as pied-a-terre all these years. Finally, Petitioner's attorneys have dissolved Bayview Village LLC. Petitioner also obtained an opinion letter from a realtor regarding the Newhall property, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The property, which is unencumbered, appears to have PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 10 Case No. PTR-06-288755a current value of less than $600,000, and the realtor has remarked that if listed, it may not attract a buyer quickly. The property has been significantly neglected and now exhibits obvious extensive wood rot. Additionally, the fact that it has been used as a auto repair lot for decades raises the possibility of significant environmental liability. The realtor also evaluated options for renting the current laundromat space, which could also be challenging. One option would be to try to find a tenant willing to maintain or replace the current laundry machines, but there may not be enough potential for income to attract such a person. A second option would be for Mrs. Hart to pay for the upgrade and renovation herself in order to attract a tenant, but again, the question is whether spending such a large sum of money would be justified by the potential income. The final option considered is to liquidate all the equipment and rent the space as a business or store front, but finding a tenant, giving the property's condition and location and the current economic environment, might be very difficult. 16. | Suisun City Property: The property is currently occupied, but the identity of the occupants and whether they have a written lease or pay rent is unknown. At the beginning of this year, one of Petitioner's staff visited the property and spoke with the tenant, but she refused to provide her name or any other information. Petitioner sent a follow-up letter with copies of his Court documents but received no response, and Petitioner's attorneys also wrote but received no response. Because the existence or terms of a lease are unknown, it was necessary to establish the terms of tenancy in order to demand compliance. Accordingly, Petitioner's landlord-tenant counsel prepared and sent a 60-day Notice of Change of Terms of Tenancy setting the rent at $1,800 per month, which they are informed is fair market rent for the property, along with other rental terms, such as payment of utilities, to the occupants. The 60-day period recently expired, and a 3-day notice to pay or quit has been prepared. If there is still no response, it will be necessary to prepare and bring an unlawful detainer action to evict the tenants and take control of the property. if the tenants of the property are, in fact, the family or acquaintances of Mr. Wiggins, it may explain their hostility, and an unlawful detainer action may be unavoidable, with the attendant expense. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS I Case No. PTR-06-288755a uA WwW oN Attached hereto as Exhibit D is the valuation for the Suisun City property, which suggests a current market value of approximately $250,000. Based on the mortgage records obtained by subpoena, Mrs. Hart currently has a 30-year mortgage on the property which was fixed until January 2010, at which time it became adjustable. The principal balance as of January 4, 2012 was $370,030.51, so the property has negative equity of approximately $120,000. Although the interest rate is now adjustable, the most recent known payment in February 2012 was for approximately $2,216. The mortgage payments include impound amounts for both property taxes and insurance. It is unknown if the property is generating income, but, as stated above, it is believed that it could be rented for approximately $1,800 per month. Thus, not factoring in other property expenses such as maintenance and upkeep, and assuming the interest rates do not rise, the property has a negative income flow of at least $400 per month. 17. Hercules Property: Petitioner made personal contact with the current tenant, Vanessa Bowman, and both he and his attorneys wrote to her. Petitioner's attorneys were subsequently contacted by Joe Goldstein-Breyer, an Alameda County Public Defender, and then by his father, Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California, both of whom made it clear that they were calling in their personal capacities because Vanessa Bowman's mother had worked for them for many years and was a family friend. Judge Breyer explained that Ms. Bowman pays $2,000 per month rent, but, given that both owners were demanding the rent, felt caught in the middle. Petitioner's attorney told Judge Breyer that they would seek the instructions of this Court. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is the valuation for the Hercules property, which suggests a current market value around $328,000. Based on the mortgage records obtained by subpoena, the property has a 30-year “pick-a-payment” mortgage, that is, the interest is fixed for one-year periods but adjusts each March. The estimated principal balance as of March 2011 was $589,690.46, so the property has negative equity of approximately $262,000. The monthly payment for the annual period beginning March 1, 2011 was $2,647.52, to which was added an additional $508.40 per month for property taxes and insurance, for a total monthly PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 12 CASE No. PTR-06-288755OD OG 2 A wD 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 payment of $3,155.92. The mortgage records show, however, that Mr. Wiggins applied for and obtained a forbearance at the end of 2011 because of unemployment. At the usual amount, however, it appears that the property has a negative income flow of at least $1,135 per month. For convenience, the financial information discussed above is summarized below: Newhall $600,000 Antioch $215,000 Suisun City Hercules $250,000 $328,000 Current market value $370,030 Mortgage bal- $589,690 ance Approx. net eq- -$120,000 -$262,000 uity Monthly mort- gage payment Monthly income Net income 18. Judgment Against Mr. Wiggins: The Order dated March 23, 2011 awarded damages totaling $1,620,000 and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $12,000 against Gregory Wiggins. Petitioner's attorneys have obtained and recorded Abstracts of Judgment in the San Francisco, Contra Costa and Solano counties. They obtained a Writ of Execution and had the San Francisco Sheriff serve a Earnings Withholding Order (Wage Garnishment) on Mr. Wiggins’s last-known employer, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency, but learned that Mr. Wiggins had retired. They did a preliminary search and discovered real property owned by Mr. Wiggins, but all have mortgages greater than their current market value and no positive equity. Petitioner’s attorneys have served Mr. Wiggins with a notice of a debtor's examination in order to ask him directly and under oath about any possible income or assets, such as a pension, and then pursue collection if any are discovered, but frankly, there does not seem be much likelihood of any recovery from him. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 13 Case No. PTR-06-288755NY Dw BB win The financial damage Petitioner believes has been caused by Mr. Wiggins bears summarizing. Under his influence, Mrs. Hart refinanced and ultimately sold her long-time San Francisco home for $885,000. Of that amount, some was used to buy her East Bay properties; $168,000 was paid to architects for a redevelopment project that was never financially feasible; and a large chunk has never been possible to trace, but presumably went to Mr. Wiggins. The properties that were bought with the proceeds of the sale of the San Francisco house are now all under water. Title to the properties has been restored to Mrs. Hart, and a large judgment obtained against Mr. Wiggins, but obtaining that result has cost many thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees, and the judgment will likely be mostly or entirely uncollectible. Mrs. Hart has, in effect, lost of all of the proceeds from the sale of her San Francisco house, and it is unlikely she will ever recover them. To make matters worse, her former home on DeHaro has sold several times since she herself sold it, most recently in May 2011 for $1,437,500. Ill. REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS 19. The question now presented is how to manage Mrs. Hart's estate as it presently stands, and Petitioner seeks the Courts instructions accordingly. Despite what Petitioner believes were her earlier statements, Petitioner is informed and believes that Mrs. Hart now states that she wishes to hold all the remaining properties because they are all she has remaining to show for the hard work she and her husband did for so many decades. It is possible that someday, as the mortgages are paid down and when property values rise sufficiently, the properties will have positive equity again. It is difficult to know, however, when the market will recover sufficiently. Moreover, when Mrs. Hart dies, all of her properties will have to be liquidated to distribute her estate under the terms of her trust. If she dies before the property values rise, she will have been making mortgage payments for all that time with no benefit to show for it. Additionally, Mrs. Hart is 93 years old and has only $33,000 in cash savings. By her great good fortune, she has been extremely healthy and has not required any paid personal assistance until now, but that may change at any time, and if it does, she does not presently have the cash to pay for it for very long. Thus, Petitioner seeks the Court’s instructions as follows. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 14 Case No. PTR-06-288755co MN DW PB WHY DA vA PB Ww NY =| 17 20. Antioch Property: The Antioch property is Mrs. Hart’s home. Although it has negative equity, it is only $35,000, and may recover positive equity sooner than her other Properties with negative equity. At present, the monthly mortgage payment is only approxi- mately $520 per month, which Mrs. Hart has apparently been able to pay out of her own regular monthly income. Petitioner seeks this Court’s instructions whether he should leave the current financial arrangements for this property in place or make any changes. 21. Newhall Property: The Newhall property is both the only property with available equity and the only property with positive income flow. Petitioner requests this Courts instruc- tions as follows: 1) Should Petitioner attempt to sell the property or hold and manage the property? If the Court instructs Petitioner to sell the property, Petitioner requests authority to list and sell the Newhall property subject to the confirmation of this Court, and he seeks authority to enter into an exclusive listing agreement for the Newhall property with Andrew deVries of Prudential California Realty. A copy of the proposed listing agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The listing is for an initial period of 90 days, with the option to renew for a further 90 days, and with a total sales commission of 5%. 2) If Petitioner is instructed to sell the property, should some of the proceeds be used to pay off the mortgage on Mrs. Hart’s Antioch residence, or should all of the proceeds be held as a cash reserve for her care and expenses? 3) Mrs. Hart has stated that she would like to control all or some of the rent generated by the Newhall property. If Petitioner is instructed to hold and manage the property, should he contrat all of the rent, using it to pay property expenses, trust and conservatorship expenses, and saving for Mrs. Hart’s possible care needs, or should he provide some portion to Mrs. Hart to augment her monthly income? Thus far, it appears that Mrs. Hart’s personal income which she controls has been sufficient for her needs, but Mrs. Hart is, of course, always welcome to present a proposed personal budget to the Court to support her request for additional funds. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 15 Case No. PTR-06-28875522. Suisun City: Should Petitioner hold and manage the Suisun City property, or will the Court authorize him to make no payments and allow it to go into foreclosure? The Suisun City property has a negative monthly cash flow. Holding it is draining funds that might be saved for Mrs. Hart's care needs. If the value recovers sufficiently before she dies, it may provide some value to her heirs, but if not, all the mortgage payments made in the intervening time are simply lost. If instructed by the Court, Petitioner will bring a petition for authority to list and sell and attempt a short sale, but the negative equity is so great, and banks are proving so unwilling to participate in short sales versus simply foreclosing on properties, that it appears highly unlikely that a short sale will close successfully. If the Court instructs Petitioner to hold the property, does the Court authorize him, as conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim deed transferring the property to the Trust? Petitioner believes that, for the last few months, Mrs. Hart has been making the mortgage payments on the Suisun City property, presumably with the she rent collected from the Newhall property, but she will not communicate with Petitioner and confirm this. Petitioner's attorneys have recorded a Request for Copy of Notice of Default on the property so they will be alerted if a default occurs. 23. Hercules Property: Should Petitioner hold and manage the Hercules property, or will the Court authorize him, as conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim deed returning Mrs. Hart's interest in the property to Mr. Wiggins? The analysis regarding equity, market value and cash flow is the same as the Suisun City property, except that the Hercules property has a much greater negative equity and a much greater negative cash flow. In a general sense, Petitioner believes that Mrs. Hart should have no further financial connec- tion with Mr. Wiggins. As a joint owner, Mr. Wiggins has an equal right to collect the rent for the property, and based on past experience, Petitioner believes that he will attempt to do so vigorously. In that case, the remedy left to Petitioner will be to sue him for an accounting and rents, which will involve more attorneys fees, and, even if a judgment is obtained, it will only add to the existing judgment, which it appears likely Petitioner will not be able to collect. Mrs. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 16 Case No. PTR-06-288755.Hart has contributed no capital in this property, and Petitioner believes that all of the debt incurred has been for the benefit of Mr. Wiggins and none for Mrs. Hart. Mrs. Hart testified that she was given an interest in the property as compensation for Bayview Village LLC, but as a result of the Order for Recovery, no assets were ever transferred to Bayview Village LLC, and Petitioner has now dissolved it. Moreover, as long as Mrs. Hart remains on title, she remains potentially liable for any events at the property. lif Mrs. Hart returns her interest to Mr. Wiggins, however, and the value of the property ever improves enough so that it has positive equity, the Judgment against Mr. Wiggins can be enforced with regard to that equity. Should the Court instruct Petitioner to hold the property, however, does the Court authorize him, as conservator, by substituted judgment, to execute a quit claim deed transfer- ting Mrs. Hart's property to the Trust, and thereby breaking the joint tenancy? 24. Petitioner reiterates that he would very much like to work directly with Mrs. Hart so that he knows her thoughts and can keep her fully informed about all of her assets, but that, because she currently will not speak with him, he brings this petition so that she will have the Opportunity to speak to the Court and express her desires, and that Petitioner will obey the instructions he respectfully requests from this Court. IV. NOTICE 26. During her lifetime, Mrs. Hart is the sole beneficiary of the Trust. Upon her death, the Trust provides for specific gifts to family members Adeline Reed, Gayle R. Reed, Rosalind D. Reed, Henry Gaines, and also Gregory Wiggins, who is also the sole residual beneficiary. The names and addresses of the beneficiaries, all of whom are adults, are: Rosia Lee Hart 3133 Crestline Court Antioch, CA 94531 Adeline Reed 306 Portland Avenue Oakland, CA 94606 Gayle R. Reed 2389 Flatley Circle Fairfield, CA 94533 PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 17 CASE No. PTR-06-288755Sw ny Hw Rosalind Reed Williams 4766 Stonewood Drive Fairfield, CA 94531 Pastor Henry Gaines 1490 Kennedy Avenue Weed, CA 96094 Gregory Wiggins 3101 Crestline Court Antioch, CA 94531 26. Because Gregory Wiggins has financially abused Mrs. Hart and is currently facing criminal charges for felony elder financial abuse regarding his actions towards her, and because this petition discuss efforts to collect a judgment against him, Petitioner will submit an ex parte petition requesting that the requirement of notice of this petition to Gregory Wiggins be waived. 27. Because the Court may instruct Petitioner to act by substituted judgment for Mrs. Hart, Petitioner will also provide notice of this petition as required under Probate Code Section 2581. Mrs. Hart is a widow with no issue. She is represented in both the conservatorship and trust matters by court-appointed counsel, Bruce Feder. Her only surviving relative within the second degree is her brother Pastor Henry Gaines, who, were she to die immediately, would be her heir-at-law under the laws of intestate succession. Thus, there are no additional parties which require notice under Probate Code Section 2580. 28. By ex parte Order dated October 11, 2006, a request by Baum Thornley Architects for special notice herein was granted, and notice will be provided through their attorneys, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, One Ferry Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111-4213. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests an Order of this Court that: 1. No further notice of this Petition be required; 2. The Court instruct Petitioner with regards to Mrs. Hart’s real properties and the management of her finances as requested herein; and 3. Such further or other relief be granted as the Court deems appropriate in the circumstances. PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS 1 Case No. PTR-06-288755| declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was signed at Alameda, California on the date stated below. S { cy [ \ \ Date: _4\ uo © iq 2012 MA bee x Herb Thomas, Petitioner, ~ Successor Trustee of The Rosia L. Hart Revocable Trust PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS Case No. PTR-08-288755& 5 E wb as ue eo a3 3 z 3 & g é Z & e = E 2 0 a a ° x @ ui z z 5 a a Zz Z g = 38 5 ze o8 g: 3 3 8 3 gia Bee , PE 2 a 27 28 | of the estate And temporary successor trustee Facsimile: (415) 552-2158 sae Coury Spor: Gout Superior Coir BY _ om t Edward A. Koplowitz, Esq. (SBN: 45458) MAR 23 20 ! Estate of | VILLAGE LLC; and DOES 1 ~ 10, inclusive, THE ANNEXED INSTREIMES 4 GORRECT COPY OF Tr tak. Andrew K. Schultz, Esq. (SBN: 215917)ON FILE IN My oF.” Witherspoon & Siracusa Arrest! CERT 1550 Bryant Street, Suite 875 San Francisco, California 94103-4879 DEC 06 2011 F T L E Telephone: (415) 552-1815 San Franctsco County D Macinnis, Donner & Koplowitz 465 California Street, Suite 222 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-2400 Facsimile: (415) 433-1917 CLE ax yf OFT! oh COURT tity Clan Attorneys for Herb Thomas, Temporary conservator SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO In re the Conservatorship of the Case Nos.: PTR-06-288755 ROSIA LEE HART, {P SED] ORDER GRANTING ENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL Conservatee. PETITION FOR RECOVERY OF TRUST PROPERTY, FOR CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS, FOR DAMAGES, AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES THE ROSIA L. HART REVOCABLE TRUST DATED MAY 19, 2004 Date: March 23, 2011 Time: 3:00 p.m. HERB THOMAS, as temporary conservator of Dept.: 501 | the estate of Rosia Lee Hart, conservatee and as Judge: Honorable Ronald E. Quidachay temporary successor trustee, 1 Petitioner, vs. GREGORY K. WIGGINS, individually and as trustee of the Gregory K. Wiggins Trust; BAY Respondents. Mit L Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc. exisit ACA 94104 ‘SUITE 222 465 CALIFORNIA STREET ATTORNEYS AT LAW Q z é c Zz & a MacINNIS, DONNER & KOPLOWITZ This matter came on regularly for “prove-up” hearing, after entry of default, before the undersigned on the Amended and Supplemental Petition of Herb Thomas, conservator of the estate and successor trustee, for Recovery of Trust Property, for Cancellation of Instruments, and for Damages, Including for Elder Abuse, this 23rd day of March 2011. Edward A. Koplowitz and Andrew K, Schultz appeared for petitioner Herb Thomas. There was no appearance by respondents Gregory K. Wiggins and Bay Village LLC cither personally or through counsel, their defaults having been taken. The court, having reviewed the Amended and Supplemental Petition, having reviewed the file and prior proceedings of the court in the matter, having taken evidence, including by judicial notice, and having entertained oral argument, does hereby GRANT the Amended and Supplemental Petition as follows: 1 The court finds that due, proper, and timely notice of the Amended and Supplemental Petition was given to respondents. 2. Petitioner has demonstrated that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought, as follows. A. The court hereby cancels, sets aside, and declares invalid the deed and any purported conveyance of conservatee’s interest in 211 Tanager Way, Hercules, California, to respondent Gregory K. Wiggins, together with the purported deed or any subsequent conveyance from respondent Gregory K. Wiggins to the Gregory J. Wiggins Trust. The legal description of such property is: Lot 23, map of Subdivision 6505, filed December 30, 1986 in Book 310 of Maps, page 29, Contra Costa County Records, being APN # 360-653-006. B. The court hereby cancels, sets aside, and declares invalid the deed and any purported conveyance of conservatee’s interest in 950 Newhall Street in San Francisco, California, as trustee to respondent Bayview Village LLC. The legal description of such property is: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE ..NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND THE \ NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF NEWHALL STREET; RUNNING THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF REDWOOD AVENUE 75 | FEET; THENCE AT A RIGHT ANGLE NORTHEASTERLY 100 FEET: ' THENCE AT A RIGHT ANGLE SOUTHEASTERLY 75 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF NEWHALL STREET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF NEWHALL STREET 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEING LOTS 25, 26 AND 27, IN BLOCK 210, O’NEIL AND HALEY TRACT 2. Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.MaciINNIS, DONNER & KOPLOWITZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 222 485 CAUFORNIA STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94108 TELEPHONE: (415) 424-2400 FAX: (41S) 493-1917 27 28 weet ate ee a ets naman aa ainen niger nan eanpmerertee tn BLOCK 5279, LOT 4 COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 850 NEWHALL STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, C. It is declared and adjudged that neither Gregory K. Wiggins individually nor as trustee has any right, title or interest in 32 Argonaut Avenue in San Francisco, California, being \ APN 6358-024. D. Is declared and adjudged that neither Gregory K. Wiggins individually nor as | | crustee has any right, title or interest in 1760 Dover Circle, Suisun City, Califomia, being APN 174393-07, and legally described as: Lot 210 as shown on that certain map entitled "Final Map of Peterson Ranch, unit No. 3” in the City of Suisun ' City, County of Solano, State of California, filed in the office of county record of said county on May 14, 2003 in book 75 of maps, page 92. E. That respondent forthwith deliver all such invalidated instruments to the clerk of this court for cancellation. In the event respondents fail or refuse to execute, acknowledge and ‘deliver such document or documents as may be necessary or desirable to effectuate this Order, then the undersigned, the Clerk of this court, or the designee of either, is hereby authorized and directed to affix the name of Gregory K. Wiggins, whether individually or as trustee, and/or Bay ‘Village LLC, to such documents as the act and deed of the person or entity in whose name it is taken. KF For damages against Respondent Gregory K. Wiggins in the sum of $1,620,000.00, which represents (i) the sum of $540,000.00 which Respondent Wiggins wrongfully borrowed against the real property known as 211 Tanager Way, Hercules, California., and (ii) which is doubled pursuant to Probate Code §859 by reason of Mr. Wiggins’ intentional, wrongful, and bad faith actions. H. For attomeys' fees of $12,000 for financial elder abuse, under Institutions Code §15657.5(a). if \“/ / i 3. | Order Granting, Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.538 as, ere «ot aMOre 8$08S geese 5 cecwg wiazz~ Eog fkE ws fe oz 4 sid oP MacINNIS. DONNER & KOPLOWITZ ATYORNEYS AT LAW 3. Judgment shall be entered on and consistent with the above Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/23 ly ‘L——__—> Hon. Ronald Quidachay Judge of the Superior Court DAData\Data\APPS'SOFTSOLIDOCS\2006 docs\2006-38\Order Granting Petition to Recover Trust Property.03.22.11.wpd END OF DOCUMENT 4. Order Granting Amended and Supplemental Petition for Recovery of Trust Property, etc.Realist Page | of 3 Comparable Sales For 3133 Crestline Ct, Antioch, CA 94531-6640 Projected Values Calculated by: Sq Footage $215,670.04 ln Comparable Statistics: Subject Property High Low Median ‘Average ‘Sq Footage ° 2,181 2,385, 2,181 2,252 2,273 Sale Price $360,000.00 _.., $240,000.00 $215,000.00 $219,000.00 $224 666.67 Price/Sq Footage $165.06 $100.83 $95.47 $100.41 $98.84: Summary , ip Recording Sale_Price Per Sq Bullding Sq Total Year —_Dist. Address City State Zip Date Price Ft Ft Bedrooms Bathe Bult (miles) 1.3008 Terrace View AveAntioch CA 94531 02/14/2012 $219,000 $100.41 2,181 4 3 1991 118546 Pw 2.2417 Carpinteria Dr = Antioch CA 94531 10/12/2011 $215,000 (