ILNews

Justices adopt repayment plan in UPL case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted a repayment plan for an Indianapolis company it found engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, ordering officials to reimburse the state bar association and former clients during the next six years.

An order came Jan. 20 in State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Association v. United Financial Systems Corp., et al., No. 94S00-0810-MS-551, the latest, and possibly final, court action in a case that has been ongoing for more than three years. The justices found nearly two years ago that United Financial Systems Corp. engaged in UPL through an estate planning “trust mill” by how it sold wills and estate planning services. The justices ordered past customers be refunded, but that didn’t happen and former Monroe Circuit Judge Viola Taliaferro was appointed to preside over the case.

She submitted a 61-page report to the justices in December that outlined the repayment plan. The report found the company still owed nearly $2.4 million and that the Office of the Indiana Attorney General should be allowed to disburse half of the refunds immediately and the other half when the money’s available over the course of several years.

In July 2011, she found the officials at United Financial Systems hadn’t complied with the Supreme Court’s order in April 2010 to repay past estate planning customers. But she held off on finding the company and its officials — Richard Follett, Jayne Follett, Richard Follett II and Beau Follett — in contempt in the December 2011 order. The Supreme Court agreed that the United Financial leaders wouldn’t be held in contempt if they complied with the repayment plan.

Finding that the Folletts asserted “frivolous, unreasonable and groundless arguments in an effort to delay issuing refunds,” Taliaferro decided that the ISBA is entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the Supreme Court’s original April 2010 order.

In Taliaferro’s December 2011 order, she determined the Folletts owe $2,391,808.17. The ISBA is still owed $115,000 as of Dec. 14. The justices on Jan. 13 ordered United Financial pay the Indiana Supreme Court $16,002.95 for the costs of the proceeding against it. Specifically, the order calculated the costs to entail $14,978.45 for the commissioner fees and expenses and $1,024.50 for court reporter and related court costs.

Some payments have already begun under the payment plan’s terms, and United Financial must now pay the ISBA $5,000 per month through November 2013. The order also details specific payments that must be made through 2018 when the final payments are supposed to be made to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General. If Richard and Jayne Follett sell their former Boone County home that’s listed for sale, the net proceeds are to be made as part of the payments toward the remaining refund amount.

 

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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT