It’s been over 30 days since the petition for guardianship over Dorothy was dismissed.  In fact, it’s closer to 60 days.  As a result of the dismissal, Dorothy was to be given all of her personal assets back.

She still didn’t have her car as of mid May.  But she does have a bill for the storage of her car, to the tune of $1200.00

Here’s a quick recap of what has happened to Dorothy:

• Dorothy, in a hospital in the midwest, signed a Power of Attorney engaging Kristyan Calhoun as POA.  Dorothy had no legal representation at this time.
• Within one month, Kristyan Calhoun of Senior Avenues sold Dorothy’s assets for pennies on the dollar.  These were rental properties with a proven, long-term rental history and were paid off.
• Dorothy, learning of this, attempted to revoke the POA and instead assign her brother as POA.  She also sought to sue Kristyan for selling Dorothy’s properties.
• Kristyan then filed a petition for guardianship and an injunction preventing Dorothy from being able to sue anyone.  She also retained full control over all of Dorothy’s income and assets, including her monthly Social Security check.  She falsely stated in her petition that Dorothy had been diagnosed with dementia, which in fact Dorothy has never been diagnosed with dementia.
• Kristyan charged Dorothy for the services of two of her “staff” to hand-deliver a portion of the Social Security check — a gratuitous abuse of churning fees.
• One of Dorothy’s properties that was sold was struck by a tornado, obliterating it.  The insurance payout on the property (which had been sold for $28,000 to Kristyan’s friend Tom Parker, and which he’d made no improvements to nor even changed renters or rent) was $92,000.  This went to Tom Parker.
• In one attempt at mediation: “Petitioner [Calhoun] and Ms. Helm entered into mediation with Yakima attorney Paul Larson in May 2018 in an attempt to resolve the guardianship petition and the issues regarding petitioner’s sales of Ms. Helm’s properties at far less than fair market value. Further negotiations continued through early November 2018. Petitioner was willing to dismiss the guardianship proceedings against Ms. Helm, with certain conditions which Ms. Helm was willing to agree to, but not unless Ms. Helm would completely release petitioner from all liability for her actions taken under the power of attorney. Ms. Helm was not willing to release petitioner’s personal liability without fair compensation for her losses. But petitioner refused to compensate Ms. Helm. “
• Dorothy continued to fight the Guardianship and attempt to regain her rights and assets, as anything else would clearly leave her destitute.
• Calhoun, upon hearing of this website, filed a motion to dismiss the guardianship.
• She (and her attorneys) filed a judgement against Dorothy for an additional amount of fees not previously awarded in court.   “This court approved the fees of Ms. Helm’s attorney through December 31, 2018 in the amount of $60,635.4 She incurred additional fees in the amount of $52,525 from January 1, 2019 to the present. 5th Sup. Young Dec., ¶ 8, Ex. C. The total fees of her attorney are $112,000. Id. None of these fees has been paid. Id. “
• This is in addition to over $27,000 in fees incurred by Calhoun for “managing” Dorothy’s estate, and an already paid $25,000 in fees paid to Calhoun’s attorneys.
• At the time of Calhoun taking over Dorothy’s estate, Dorothy had two rentals earning over $1800 a month, a car, and a small Social Security income.  Estimated values of Dorothy’s assets were around $300,000: “The Rhapsody Drive property sold for $28,000 on February 13, 2017, and the assessed value at the time was $64,704. The Zillow range of value was $106,761 to $139,550. Ms. Helm had purchased this property in 2005 for $117,000. The Feigley Road property sold on June 19, 2017 for $116,000. The Zillow range of value was $115,346 to $333,188. Ms. Helm had purchased the property in 2005 for $177,500.”

We attended the hearing for the judgement.  Judge McCarthy again demonstrated his clear bias, stating repeatedly that he was confident Calhoun had filed the petition in good faith (though, that wasn’t the actual case before him, so it’s unclear why he felt he needed to continue to state that.  Certainly, Dorothy’s attorney was even reprimanded for bringing up the prior case.)

McCarthy also reprimanded Dorothy and her attorney for not only fighting the original petition for guardianship, but also for appealing the decisions.  THE JUDGE even stated that it was Dorothy and her attorney’s fault that the legal fees had accumulated to such a high amount.  In fact, Calhoun’s legal team dragged out the case, filed multiple motions (twice as many as Dorothy) and, once her estate was wiped out, filed a motion to dismiss the petition.

And followed up with a judgement.

Part of their argument hinges on the notion that because Calhoun filed a petition for a third party guardianship and didn’t specify herself, she clearly brought it in good faith and wasn’t trying to insert herself as guardian.

However, the problem with this argument is the deeply unsettling pattern of conflict of interest and a very suspicious relationship between Calhoun and Guardian ad Litem (the person who recommends a guardian) Amy Clark.

A review of court records shows that Clark consistently recommends Calhoun as the third party guardian any time she performs her duties.  The courts are supposed to randomly select from a list of GALs to perform interviews and assessments of the Alleged Incapacitated Person.  Instead, Amy Clark is assigned.  When confronted with that information in court, Calhoun stated it was because there were no other GALs available.  In fact, no list was maintained nor even presented, but there were at least 4 other GALs registered and available for that work.

The other issue is that on that list of GALs, two of them are attorneys that represent Calhoun.  (And who filed judgements against Dorothy.)

It’s an incestuous problem with Yakima, the guardianship assignment.

Our original lawyer in our own case was representing Calhoun in 9 other cases THAT YEAR, unbeknownst to us.  Ultimately, when we learned Calhoun bounced checks and let insurances lapse and we sought his counsel, he informed us that due to conflict of interest we needed to find other counsel.  (That was after about $10,000 in legal fees, with no resolution for our own case.)

We’ll share our story soon.