ILNews

Attorney faces theft and forgery charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney and accountant has been charged with theft and forgery after an investigation revealed the attorney had misappropriated nearly $600,000 in funds from a guardianship account and a family trust account.

The Marion County Prosecutor’s Office says Stacy H. Sheedy, 51, made questionable withdrawals on the estate of an elderly woman who is in a nursing home diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Sheedy was appointed guardian of the woman’s estate in May 2010 and received funds from another guardian in December 2010. Sheedy allegedly did not deposit all of the money into the proper accounts and there were multiple questionable withdrawals. She was removed as guardian in April 2011 and ordered to repay $120,000.

During the course of the investigation into Sheedy’s conduct in the guardianship case, investigators discovered other suspicious transactions stemming from Sheedy’s role as trustee of a family trust. In November 2007, Sheedy became the trustee of a family trust valued at nearly $500,000; the trust now has a present value of $168. When family members questioned why they were no longer receiving brokerage statements from the account, Sheedy told them she had invested the funds in a bond fund. She provided them with statements from the “Wealth Council Indiana Small Cap Bond” fund, which does not exist.

Investigators found almost $597,000 in total withdrawals and unaccounted funds from the guardianship and trust.

Sheedy faces three counts of theft, two as Class C felonies and one as a Class D felony, as well as one count of Class C felony forgery.

“Stacy Sheedy failed not just her profession, she also failed the people for whom she had a fiduciary and ethical obligation to protect,” said Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry.  “This type of theft is unconscionable, and we simply will not tolerate it.  We look forward to vigorously prosecuting this case to its conclusion.”  
 
Sheedy was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1996, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. She was suspended from the practice of law in June 2011 for failing to cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation of a grievance filed against her. The Indiana Supreme Court reinstated her on July 26.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT