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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT