MARY KATHERINE’S ESTATE
CASE TWO:
District Probate Case # 07-P-00090 ; Appeal to Circuit Court CASE # 15-XX-00005; Discretionary Review to the Court of Appeals Case #’s 2015-CA-001182-DR and 2015-CA-001174-DR
On April 17, 2012 — Judge Williams struck Chandler’s Equity Claim to retrieve his legal vested interest in the personal household content that remained in the Chandler family homestead, which the brother’s jointly inherited half.
One week after trial, I received a phone call from Chandler informing me that his cousins who lives by the family homestead, telephoned him and said that there were people taken things out of the house. I personally called the local Sheriff’s Office, and he ended up arresting two individuals, in the act of burglary.
On May 16, 2014, three weeks after the trial, to protect Chandler’s interest in the personal property of the Chandler Family home, I Petitioned the Court to Reopen the Probate Estate of his mother, Mary Katherine Chandler, in which he was given 50 % of all personal property contained within the residence and homestead, but it was never distributed. According to statute and Case Law he still maintains a legal interest in personal property. But you will come to discover Case law, or statute means little to nothing when it comes to these Court proceedings, throughout.
During the May 2014, Hearing, Megan Randolph and Steven Downey both proclaimed no interest in the case and were in fact quite annoyed that I served them in the first place. Likewise, they claimed to be completely uninvolved and had no knowledge of the individuals who were arrested for burglary of the Chandler homestead.
THERE WAS A CRIMINAL CASE: CONCERNING THE SAME PROPERTY IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ➡️I received a call from a Henderson County, Public Defender in December of 2014, requesting my client’s presence and permission to go into the family homestead, and help determine if and what items were missing. He stressed the importance of this for his client, since his client was a persistent felony offender, and was facing up to 20 years in prison. This Order and request were approved by Judge Rene Williams. That visit to the home never took place.
June 16, 2014 — Chandler’s Posttrial Motion and Memorandum to Reopen Probate Estate of Mary Katherine.
June 18, 2014, — Moore’s Response to Chandler wanting to reopen Mary Katherine’s Estate to protect his interest in the personal property of his mother’s estate. Despite such public protest, on June 18, 2014, Brucie’s assistant Megan, filed a Seventeen (17) page Memorandum in Opposition to Reopening Mother’s Estate, complete with a proposed Tendered Order for the Judge Daniel Heady to sign.
THE PLOT THICKENS — CUT OFF CHANDLER’S LEGAL INTEREST AT ALL COST
WITHIN THE WILL CONTEST CASE ON APPEAL: On December 9, 2014, over Nine months after trial, Judge Williams issued an Order, at the insistence of Downey, falsely setting out that neither probate cases were relevant to the will contest, and therefore could not be supplemented with the Record on Appeal.
On February 9, 2015, during the same week that I received a phone call from Zac Greenwell, saying that he was amending the charges against ********** to unlawful trespass, a misdemeanor charge, because nobody saw her walk out of the residence with anything.
February 9, 2015, on the same day, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DANIEL HEADY signed the Tendered Order prepared by Moore’s assistant, which DENIED Chandler’s Petition to Reopen his mother’s estate, on the grounds of Laches.
LACHES is an “doctrine serves to bar claims in circumstances where a party engages in unreasonable delay to the prejudice of others rendering it inequitable to allow that party to reverse a previous course of action.” Plaza Condominium Ass’s v. Wellinton Corp., 920 S.W.2d 51,54 (Ky.1996)
Since Laches is an Equity Defense. It CANNOT be invoked in favor of a party with a mere contingent interest, against someone with a superior legal vested interest.
As in saying, that Chandler waited too long to bring up the issue of not receiving his portion of all personal property in the home, to the point it is prejudicial to a kid, who never met the family, and had minimal contact with the deceased.
PRETRIAL
JUDGE DANIEL HEADY TELLS CHANDLER THAT IT WAS PREMATURE TO BRING UP THE ISSUE ABOUT THE UNDISTRIUPUTED PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROBATE COURT -two week after his brother died- INSTRUCTS HIM TO PRESENT HIS ISSUE WITHIN HIS CIRCUIT COURT CLAIM– regardless the instructions, it was the right course of action.
BUT THEN
JUDGE WILLIAMS DENIED CHANDLER’S THE ABILITY TO PRESENT HIS EQUITY CLAIM WITHIN HIS WILL CONTEST and HIS REQUEST TO CREATE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST TO PRESERVE HIS LEGAL INTEREST IN THE FAMILY’S PERSONAL MEMORIALBIA.
AND AFTER TRIAL
JUDGE HEADY ELIMINATED CHANDLER’S LEGAL INTEREST TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT HE RIGHTLY INHERITED BY HIS MOTHER’S Will — USING THE EQUITABLE DEFENSE OF LATCHES, despite Chandler waiting less than two weeks, after his brother passed less than three weeks, post-trial.
The stupidity of this ruling has to be noted.
First, Chandler asserted his interest less than two weeks after his brother’s death, and before William Robinson was appointed official Executor of the Estate, and less than three weeks post-trial, and even before NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed.
The Notice of appeal and Superseded bond paid, should have precluded rulings in District Court case, and it would have, but not for Judge Williams issuing an Order on December 9, 2014, affirmatively stating that the Probate Estate of Harold Keith Chandler, or Mary Katherine Chandler, were not properly submitted and considered by herself, because she didn’t consider them to be relevant, they cannot be included in Chandler’s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal.
Second, Chandler was told by Probate Judge Daniel Heady, that he had to take the issue up in Circuit Court, which he did less than two months later, as an Equity argument, specifically requesting a constructive trust for the property.
- Brucie Moore got Judge Williams to strike the information from Complaint
- Steven Downey, two weeks before trial got a Motion in Limine Order excluding any mention of said property during trial, based on the same improper Motion to Strike, and as you will come to learn, He attempted to falsely pad his tendered limine Order with an alleged agreement, reached between the parties, in exchange for dismissal of the Counterclaim, Chandler and all his witnesses agree to not reference anything having to do with the undistributed property of Mary Katherine’s Estate. Which I directly called him out on this during the April 14, 2014, telephonic pretrial hearing. This was yet another piece of information submitted within Chandler’s Brief, and in Response to the flagrant Kentucky Bar Association charges against me. It’s on page 18 of the attached Limine Order.
I also filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Williams from this Appeal, since she has previous knowledge and has made prior rulings on this matter, and is currently on appeal for exact same issue. (Failure to recognize Chandler’s legal vested interest.)
I repeatedly informed the Appellate Court that the two probate cases, which makes up Chandler’s case on appeal, were being used by Judge Williams, Moore and Downey to divest Chandler of any legal standing to not only continue his cause of action on appeal, but also his ability to hold Downey, Moore and Defendants liable for misappropriation of funds and conversion from the estate.
Brucie’s little lackey, Megan, filed a ten (10) page Counterstatement of Appeal, disputing that the Plaintiff has any interest at all in the personal property of the family home, and further states that: “Appellant, perpetually tilting at windmills, is now appealing that order to the Crittenden Circuit Court.”
“that the Appellees believe that Keith did divide Mary Katherine’s Personal property, and that Steve Chandler received his 50%, and Keith is not alive to defend and confirm the matter.”
I did not respond to Counterstatement of Appeal, because I don’t believe that Judge Williams should be making any rulings on this case, and since I filed a Motion to Recuse, a Reply could have been arguable seen as a waiver.
Will of Mary Katherine – Redacted
March 3, 2015 — Notice of Appeal to Daniel Heady’s Latches Ruling
March 3, 2015 — Motion to Recuse Judge Williams from the Appeal from District Court
March 12, 2015 — Statement of Appeal against Latches Ruling
March 26, 2015 — Brucie Moore’s Counterstatement of Appeal
July 8, 2015 — Judge Williams issued a single Order, Affirming ruling of Latches on an inapplicable 4th Amendment Search & Seizure case, and Denying Motion to Recuse.
July 27, 2015 —July 30, 2015 – Allison’s Emergency motion to Williams bias prejudicial rulings in MK’s estate, — Emergency Motion to the Court of Appeals, filed by a colleague, due to the unexpected death of my mother on the morning of July 27, 2015, to extend time to file Discretionary Review to Judge Williams Affirming, Judge Heady’s Laches Ruling. As well as a separate Motion to Appeal, Judge William’s DENIAL of Motion to Recuse.
July 27, 2015 — Motion to extend time to file Discretionary Review from Judge Williams affirming Judge Heady’s Latches Ruling.
WHAT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE… IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL’s HAD NO PROBLEM FILING AND ACCEPTING AN EMERGENCY MOTION SUBMITTED ON MY BEHALF IN THESE TWO FILINGS. BUT RETURNED THE EMERGENCY MOTION FILED WITHIN CHANDLER’S APPEAL CASE, IN A HANDWRITTEN ENVELOPE – AND A POST-IT NOTE! POST APPEAL FILING PAGE
August 2015 — Courtnet Docket Sheet of HKC – Judge Heady clearly recognized that all of these cases were related. (page 6)
September 1, 2015 — Motion for Discretionary Review on Latches Ruling.
September 1, 2015 — Notice of Appeal on Judge Rene Williams Denial of Chandler’s Motion to Recuse.
September 10, 2015 — Entry of Appearance of Steven Downey on the Discretionary Review and Appeal, filed with the Court of Appeals
February 16, 2016 — Order of the Court of Appeals – consolidating the two cases filed on September 1, 2015, on MK’s Estate.
CHIEF JUSTICE/ JUDGE VANMETER, JUSTICE/JUDGE Christopher Shea NICKELL, and JUDGE James LAMBERT –
Signed by JUDGE VANMETER–Keep this in mind because it was Chief Justice Vanmeter, former Court of Appeals Judge, who signed the Order of the Kentucky Supreme Court Suspending me from the practice of law on October 26, 2023. Along with Justice Nickell, Debra Lambert and Kelly Thompson, all former Court of Appeal Judges who actively participated in the Chandler Proceedings.
Moreover, Judge Vanmeter would have also been on the Kentucky Supreme Court, when I submitted Chandler’s Motion for Discretionary Review along with Justice Keller, in January 2018.
SIX OF THE FOURTEEN COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES ULTIMATELY RECUSED THEMSELVES FROM THE CHANDLER PROCEEDINGS... after I filed Chandler’s Petition for Rehearing.
MOST LIKELY, THIS CASE HAD THE MOST STRICKEN MATERIAL EVER, THROUGHOUT KENTUCKY’S JUDICIARY – SELF-GOVERNING ENTERPRISE.
I AM ALSO WILLING TO BET THAT I PROVIDED THE KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION WITH FAR MORE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, THAN ANY OTHER ATTORNEY HAS IN THE PAST.
BUT IF JUDGE WAS PERMITTED TO CHERRYPICK THE PURPORTED TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, WHICH SHE WILL DEEM ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, BEFORE MAKING HER LONG TIME PERSONAL FRIEND FILE AN ANSWER, WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF EVEN HAVING A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT ALL?
March 11, 2016 — Downey and Moore’s Response to Consolidated Discretionary Review
July 6, 2016 — Order of the Court of Appeals – Denying Discretionary Review, and ULTIMATELY cutting off Chandler’s legal interest in his family’s legacy.
Judge Combs, Judge Jones and Justice Debra Lambert served on the above panel, that Denied Discretionary Review on Mary Katherine’s Estate… which ultimately cut off Steve Chandler’s legal interest in obtaining the personal property that he inherited from his mother. Despite having already served on a panel that cut off Chandler’s legal interest in his family legacy, Judge Debra Lambert REFUSED to Recuse herself from Chandler’s Appeal. But ultimately misconstrued the facts and the outcome, within the Court of Appeals Order.
Steve also states, without citation to the record, that he asserted an
“equity argument within his complaint for his legal interest in 50% of undistributed property of[their mother’s estate]” that remained in Keith’s house following Keith’s passing; that the circuit court struck from his complaint the allegations that comprised his “equity argument”; and “[t]o make sure that regardless of the outcome of the case, Steve’s interest in family heirlooms was preserved, immediately following trial, Steve filed a petition to reopen his mother’s probate simply to preserve his claim in the personal property.”
This appears to be a contention that the circuit court erred by striking a claim from Steve’s complaint and effectively dismissing it without adjudicating its merits (i.e., without prejudice). To that extent, it is Steve’s burden to demonstrate the circuit court abused its discretion in doing so.Steve cites no authority in support of that proposition, nor does he explain how the circuit court’s decision not to adjudicate the merits of his “equity argument” amounted to more than harmless error. See CR 61.01. Thus, it is unnecessary to discuss this point further.
REALY…. HARMLESS ERROR!!! THAT COST CHANDLER HIS FAMILY’S LEGACY
Book Cover of MK’s Estate sent to the Kentucky Bar Association
