Complaint,Petition: Matter of THE WILFRED W. AND IMOGENE J. FOREMAN FAMILY TRUST Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                ORIGINAL

       Linda Roberts-Ross (SBN 212773)
       Law Office of Linda Roberts-Ross
                                                                                   F LE  l        D
                                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
      35141 Yucaipa Blvd.                                                COUNTY OF SAN GERNARDINO
                                                                          SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
      Yucaipa,   CA 92399
      (951) 682-8886 Tele.                                                         OCT       3 0 2023
      (951) 682~8889 Fax.

      Attorney for Respondents,                                         BY:
                                                                              3'
                                                                                   Je‘fi' egaldana. Deputy
      Samuel and Andrea Eakin




                        SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIOFORNIA

 10                                        COUNTYDF SAN BERNARDINO
 11


 12
      IN   RE MATTER OF                                        Case   No.:     TRUSBZ100051
 13
                                                                                                                          A8
14
                                                               RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO
15                                                             PETITIONER’S PETITIONFOR
              IMOGENE FOREMAN                                  DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ACT                               XVd
16
                                                               OF ATTORNEY IN FACT IS PROPER
17                                                             AND FOR ACCOUNTING
18                                                              DATE:              DECEMBER             2023
                                                                                                  11,
                                                                TIME:              1:30 P.M.
19                                                              DEPT:              F-3
                                                                JUDGE:             HON. MICHELLE GILLEECE
20

21           TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
22           PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:                 Respondents, Samuel Eakin and Andrea Eakin, by
23
      and through   their    attomey of record, Linda Roberts-Ross, hereby provide                      their
24
      Response, Objection and Oppositiori            to Plaintiff’s Petition for Determination of               Whether
25

      Act of Attorney   in   fact   is   Proper and for Accounting.
26

27
                                                           1

         RESPONDENTS. SAMUEL AND ANDREA EAKINS RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR
28
       DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ACT OF ATTORNEY IN FACT IS PROPER AND FOR ACCOUNTING
               Petitioners respond        as follows:

               Paragraph       1:   Respondents are without information to be able                     to   confirm or deny

     the truthfulness of where Petitioner             lives,   and on that basis, denies. Respondents

     confirm     that   on or about October          15.   2020   Petitioner did execute         a Durable Power of

     Attorney appointing Respondent. Samuel Eakin as her agent, and Andrea Eakin as a

     successor agent          in   the event that    Samuel Eakin          failed to act.


               Paragraph       2:   Confirm as   to   appointment of Respondents. Respondents no

     longer reside      in   San Bernadine County,          but did at the time of the alleged events recited
10

     herein.
ll


12             Paragraph       3:   Respondents are unable            to   confirm or deny whether the referenced

i3   document     is   a true and correct copy, as Respondents did not receive a copy of the
l4
     referenced document from Petitioner with the instant Petition, despite Petitioner’s
15
     assertion that     it   was attached    to Petitioner’s pleading.
16

               Paragraph      4:    Respondent denies          that   Andrea Eakin      is   Petitionefs niece.     Her
l?


18   true relationship to Petitioner is that of a great-niece.                  Andrea Eakin      is   marn'ed to Samuel

19   Eakin and on that basis confirms.

20
               Paragraph       5:   Respondents deny the allegation of the               first   sentence of this
21
     paragraph. Respondents confirm that Petitioner did execute documents as alleged.
22
               Paragraph       6:   Respondents deny the allegations contained                   in   Paragraph 6    in
23

24   their entirety.    The    true facts are as follows:

25             Petitioner sought out her Iong-term family attorney of nearly                      15 years that had
26
            prepared her prior estate plan documents, Car!                       J.   Skaja, located at 960
27
                                                                  2
        RESPONDENTS. SAMUEL AND ANDREA EAKINS RESPONSE TO PE] [IEONER‘S PETITION FOR
28    DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ACT OF ATTORNEY 1N FACT IS PROPER AND FOR ACCOUNTING