Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1246632

Complaint Review: Robert S. Wright, Atty at Law - Fresno California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Kevin S. Campbell — Fresno California United States of America
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Robert S. Wright, Atty at Law 8365 N. Fresno St., Suite 110 Fresno, California USA

Robert S. Wright, Atty at Law Estate Lawyer Won't Fix His Own Mistake, Locks Beneficiary Out of Inheritance Fresno California

*Author of original report: New Address for Wright Lawyer

*Author of original report: The advising expert has responsibility.

*General Comment: Client...

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

The Problem:  Robert S. Wright was hired by Randy M. Doughty to draft a living trust filed in Fresno, CA in 2005.  The grantor died on March 29, 2015, but made an error in estate planning with Wright when he suggested a Special Needs Trust.  

Wright appears to have gone forward with too much here and, rather than doing his due diligence by meeting with the beneficiaries for planning, taxes, and clarity, he decided to type it all up and go to court to file a trust with an erroneous section claiming paranoia as a condition of her oldest son, hence the special needs trust.   

There is no diagnosis and he is not paranoid, at least not in the psychiactric sense, but even though he informed Wright of the issue, Wright refused to change the documents to an ordinary trust situation rather than a special needs trust.  If one were to research the SNT, they are dissolvable if it can be shown that it's no longer needed.  That would be a quick remedy to the situation if Wright would work together with the family, but he has refused to.  He is insisting that the grantor made the mistake and he was simply typing up what they stated.  This has made distributions from the estate difficult and changed the tax situation.

Originally, the trustee had agreed to split the SNT account with the oldest beneficiary.  Now he has changed his story and intends to deposit the rest of the split into the SNT and begin to distribute from it.  We are talking about more than one account here and the SNT account was the smallest.

The Solution:  Wright needs either to dissolve the SNT with some sort of document or court filing, or he can go before a judge to create what is called a constructive trust to manage the faulty or fraudulent one.

If you are reading this and are a probate judge or estate lawyer, please tell me if this is possible because I expected Wright to come up with it first.  The idea came from the following web posting:

The remedy for fraud is to strike those provisions that are the result of the fraud, or to even strike the whole will, if necessary, and to distribute the property as the court finds that the testator intended or would have intended if the testator knew all of the facts. If the fraud prevented the testator from revoking a will, then the courts, who will not create a new will, will give effect to the will, but will create a constructive trust on the beneficiaries of the fraud so that technically they receive it, but the property is, then, distributed according to the terms of the trust.

Is Wright guilty of fraud?  Is he guilty of legal malpractice?  I think this this is a complicated issue, but one thing is clear, Wright isn't really interested in correcting his work.  He is pushing the situation into a courtroom which takes extra time and money, instead of fixing the problem by putting in his own work.  Why pay two lawyers rather than just fix this himself?  This also raises consumer affairs questions, so there has been a complaint to Adult Protective Services regarding financial abuse.

Wright should do the right thing and work things out for the beneficiaries.

 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/05/2015 03:40 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/robert-s-wright-atty-at-law/fresno-california-93720-1548/robert-s-wright-atty-at-law-estate-lawyer-wont-fix-his-own-mistake-locks-beneficiary-1246632. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#3 Author of original report

New Address for Wright Lawyer

AUTHOR: - ()

POSTED: Thursday, June 22, 2017

Wright & Wright moved their office to 265 E River Park Circle Suite 260, Fresno, CA 93720-1578, Phone : (559) 228-8184, Fax : (559) 438-1733, Email : info@wrightlawfirm.com before this was published.  The address was taken from their business cards given to Randy before she died. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

The advising expert has responsibility.

AUTHOR: - ()

POSTED: Wednesday, August 26, 2015

The post states that Wright's position was to simply type up what the client thought was right.  That's not in question.  What the problem is, simply put, is that the attorney Wright was the advising expert and knows things about estate law that the client couldn't have.  So Wright should have done his due diligence and been more thorough about fact finding and then told the client that they can't do it before filing the document in California court.  His client wasn't a lawyer, so people have to understand to hold Wright accountable for his error in judgement.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 General Comment

Client...

AUTHOR: Tyg - (USA)

POSTED: Wednesday, August 26, 2015

 A lawyer is one of the few jobs that gets to speak for their DEAD CLIENTS!!! It is NOT his job to work with the benefitiaries!! It IS his job to speak to the wishes of his deceased client. Since YOU PERSONALLY were NOT part of the communication with the attorney, YOU have no idea WHAT was discussed!! YOU are making supposition as FACT and THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!!!Perhaps YOU should realize that as a lawyer he MUST follow the wishes of his client DESPITE what YOU want to happen.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now