"MATTER CONTINUED" - THE SAVAGING OF ELDER'S ASSETS

An appeal by the defendants is still pending, therefore the Trust asset(s) should not have been sold or placed on the market in the first place.

Instead of the home in Compton being sold for $100,000.00 below fair market value, okay $50,000.00 below fair market value for the sake of argument… The proceeds from the collection of rent could have gone toward paying the attorney fees accumulated by Steven A. Fuller in the legal pursuit suit against his father.

Not only that but, Steven could have made an agreement with the Successor Trustee and could have borrowed against the Trust asset er, Edwina’s portion [50% of the asset] being that the real estate was free and clear.  Rented the property at fair market value and repaid the loan in order to pay the attorneys.

The Trust real estate asset in Inglewood is exclusively the property of the Trust, thus all of the beneficiaries of the Trust.

Hm?

Now, the Successor Trustee and his attorney quit after a complaint was filed against them with the Bar. Which is why Steven is running around like a chicken with his head cut off looking for another flunky to be put in as Successor Trustee in order to complete his sinister designs on the selling of the Trust assets against everyone's wishes and before the appeal is heard.

Enter -- B241450
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=2

The Successor Trustee was doing the bidding of Steven A. Fuller. The Trust and how it could benefit ALL of the Trust beneficiaries was never his concern.

Yep, and the defendant's appeal is still pending before the appeals court... they were granted all Trust assets but, lost at trial. The only thing they admit is their debt to the estate of Edwina Fuller - $107,692.30.

Selling of the Trust asset below fair market value is considered financial elder abuse by Adult Protective Services, three of the Trust beneficiaries are over 70-years-old.

That said, consider that the attorneys representing either side during the PC 850 had every opportunity over 15 months to place Mr. Thelsey Leo Fuller, who's assets are the center of these various court cases, on the witness stand.

The plaintiff did not place Mr. Thelsey Leo Fuller on the witness stand.

The defendants did not place Mr. Thelsey Leo Fuller on the witness stand.

We believe that had Thelsey been placed on the witness stand he would have had the opportunity to express what he wanted.

It is fairly obvious as to why Mr. Thelsey Leo Fuller was not placed on the witness stand by either party during the PC 850 trial to determine ownership of the Inglewood property.

More likely than not, Steven would have been disinherited and Thelsey would have stated that his assets were to be divided equally amongst his other children.

“THIS AIN’T NO GAME SHOW!”

More to come!