Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-23-12 (2)
uioa •~op~ njs.~az.~oda.~~.~noa xp,{5850-8SZ-LIL • LS95-8SZ-LIL • LS9£~-598-008 saaT~.ras ~ur~~oda~ ~~n©~ ~TU~~~~suua~ T~~~.ua~ o?rand ~.z~~oN .za~.zoda~ ~.zno0 ' z ~?.z3 • ~ ~~ ~zu~nT~suuad 'aTsTT.z~O u1oo~ bu?.z~aH .zooT3 u~3?3 asnou~.zno0 ~~uno0 pu~Tzac{u~nS ; 30~-I'Id 'gy'p OZ=6 'ZTOZ '8Z ~.z~n.zc{a,3 ;3ZKQ .zoo?pn~ '3QKHS '3 3N~KM ~323033g LL_ ~) U_~ "" _...m. Q. ~ ~_ -- <t-_s ~ . - ONI23K3H S ~ 230ZIQf1K _ ~~_ -~- ~ ~^ SONIQ33002Id 30 ZdI230SI~K23Z _ ~ v ,~_~ ~~ -- ,'~ T L ~' bSLO-b66Z-TZ 'OBI ~ ~sn.zZ - dIS~ I~OISInIQ Z2If100 , SNKHd2I0 ~ pas~aoaQ ' •~r FIIi~Kl17~SI~~I'3d '~ZNf100 QNFI`I233gWI10 ~ 'I~OXIQ '3 3023030 30 SK37d NOWW00 30 Z2If100 3HZ III ~ 30 3ZFIZS3 ~ H23 ICI 9890-LO-TZ 'OBI I~OISInIQ Z23II00 , SI~KHd230 ~ pas~aoaQ KII~Kl1'IT~SNN3d '~ZNf100 QI~K7233gWf]0 ~ 'NOXIQ ~l~I 3IZZ0`I 30 S`d3'Id I~OWWOO 30 Z23f100 3HZ ICI ~ 30 3ZKZS3 ~ 323 ICI T sz ~z ~z zz Tz oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST bT ~T 'T IT )T ?3NKg Z'3L~I - 2303 323II1~S3 'MFIHSQ~Ig ' Q ?32IKL~I ~ ~g L 3'37 ~ SI~I3n3s S c NoxIQ ~nI 3lssoz 30 3ZKZS3 3HZ 30 23021103X3 - 203 c_ 323I11~S3 ''IZII~I30 ' Z I~I373H ~ ~g OZZ '?30I2IIlI~i ~' 30FZ7'IFIM S33NOI~I ~, S230Z03Pg0 - 2303 S 32III1~S3 '2I3NH3?3 'r NIn3?3 ~ ~g d'I'I ''I3ddIH ~ 773M~Y1 'N~y~g323 '233~F~L~I233g0 z 5303~23FI3ddFZ T z 80/OT/OT PAP bST 9z o~~0 'I ~o~~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~Z 38 80/L/OT PAP SST 9Z ubn~TTn~ •3 ~oz~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~7 QS 80/9z/6 P~Q ~8T 9z o~~0 'I ~o~~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~Z OS 80/9T/6 PAP aPpuS SST 9z •M ~o~~ ubn~TTn~ •3 0~ ~~Z gS 80/z/6 PAP ubnpTTn~ bST 9z •3 ~o~~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~Z K8 s~ua~nooQ SST zz as~aTa~/uoT~~zzzou~nX paubTS Oz 80/zz/~ PAP ubn~TTn~ bST zz •3 ~o~~ TTaMx~~ •x o~ ~~Z gz suoT~~zT~ou~n~ bST ZZ pug szanT~M ~o saTdo0 ~z aozonul ~o ~doo u~TM buoT~ ubn~TTn~ bST 6T •3 ~o~~ 0~~0 •I o~ o~a~ OT 0~~0 'I SST 6T pug ubn~TTn~ •3 uaaM~aq sTT~~-3 QT LO/L/6 P~Q bST 6I o~~0 'I ~o~~ ubn~TTn~ •3 0~ ~~Z KT ~ Q3ZZI~QX Q3x~XL~I NOIZdI~OS3Q 'ON f SZIgIHX3 ~osn~~x~ -- LTT zOT g SS0~03~ Z03~IQ3~ SS0~0 Z03~IQ ~HOWIZS3Z OZ X3QNI euuoTo0 •~ ~T~ac~uTx 8 3Z~ZS3 X03 Z T gz sz ~z sz zz Tz oz 6T 8T LI 9T sT bT ZT ?T IT )T 3 S sao-ronu-r AZT Z6 buTTT~~ap ~aausp~azds Taox~ ST SST L8 saoTOnuT bT bST 8L ~uauza~~~S ~unooo~ ST anT~n SST 9L ~unooo~ ab~zaxozq auk ~o ~sT7 zT SST dig Looz 'aunt-b66T MoT3 uspa s,uoxTQ ~pu~0 gTT bST ~g LOOz 'aunr-b66T MoT3 us~0 s,uoxzQ ~pu~~ FZTT •uzays buT.z~au-a.zd T~~uauzaTddnS ~ S T zS s , .zo~oa Cqp o~ uinpuapp~ O T usnpue zouzaYl buT~z~au-a~zd bST 6b T~~uauzaTddnS s,zo~oaCg0 6 ~ S T ~ ~ uznpu~ zouiaLl buT.z~aH-a zd s , .zo~oa Cq0 g sanssT SST T6 ~.zanooszQ uo ~zoda~ s,zo~zpn~ L bST SS anT~oazTQ g 60/SZ/z pip bST SS ubn~TTnY~I •~ u~oz~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~Z OS 60/OZ/z PAP bST SS o~~0 • I uzoz~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~Z S5 60/TT/Z pip , bST SS ap~uS 'M uzoz~ 0~~0 ' I o~ TTeuz-~ KS < 80/SZ/TT p~P ap~uS _ bST TE •M uzoz~ ubn~TTnys •~ o~ Tz~uz-~ gb ~ 80/SZ/TT pip ~ SST TS ubn~TTnys •~ u~oz~ ap~uS •M o~ ~~'I FZb Q~ZZII~IQFZ Q~?I~IFIY~I i~IOIZdI230S~Q 'ON (panuT~uo0) S,LIgIHX3 2IOZf10~X~ Z T gz sz ~z zz zz TZ oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST bT ST ?T LT )T 3 b •op o~ ~dd~u a.z,aM uoTuM 'saa~ s~au.zo~~.~ .zoo uoT~our auk uo aouapTna .zno ~uasazd pug p~au~ ob ~snC pTnous aM 3T .zo ~szz~ ~~u~ u~zM Trap o~ axTT p,no~ 'ap~uS •~~ '~T Moue{ ~,uop I puy •uoT~oui ~~u~ axzz~s o~ uoz~ouz ~ uaaq sou azau~ ~~u~ Moux I pub •as~o sTu~ uT ~onpuoo snoT~~xan pug a~~znpgo '~.zo~~TTp auk zoo uoT~ou~s ~ s~ saa~ ,s~auzo~~~ zoo uoT~ouz s,.zo~noax~ auk uo A~po~ a.zau a.z~ aM :'I`IILIL~I~J ' SYS • noA xu2uy • a znS : 230ZIQIIX ~HZ •~T an~u nod ~~u~ os nod o~ do pu~u TT~I uozuM aou~.z~add~ ~o ~z~u~ auk ~o ~doo ~ an~u I pug 'zo~noaxa auk .zoo Tasunoo s~ '.zo~noaxa s~ buTU.zouz sTu~ aou~.z~add~ Buz pa~za~ua an2u I •A~po~ a~~oonp~ s~ buT~o~ pug ~~TO~d~o ~~u~ uz ~~po~ a.zau uz~ I oS •suoT~sanb auk ~Taszau xs~ osT~ pug saa~ auk o~ s~ ~~T~sa~ ~,u~o ~TsnoTngo aus '~o abpaTMOU~{ ~oa.zTp sou ~uuoTo0 sL~I ~pu~ saa~ , s~auzo~~~ buTxaas a~ze aM uoTuM uz ~~po~ uoz~.ouz sTu~ ~o a.zn~~u auk ~o asn~oag c •~uuoTo~ urz}I ~o zau~.z~d c ~ uz, I pug '~{oTZnN ~ ao~TT~M 'saaNoyl u~TM ~au.zo~~~ u~ uz~ I •TTTUZtua~ uaTaH uz~ I •~Tas~ui aonpoz~uz ~ TT ~ I ' ap~uS •.zy~ 'bLITLI.zOllI pooh : ZZIY~IInI~J ' SY1 C S O ICI I Q~~~ O 2~ d T Sz ~z ~z zz TZ oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST ~T ST zT TT ~T 3 S • L66T aouTS 'FI Z~auzo~~~ ~-ru~nT~suuad ~ s~ pa~~-ruip~ uaaq nod an~u buoT MoH • ~ .~~ I ,sad •~ ~~ZU~nTAsuuad ~o .z~g auk uz aoz~o~.zd o~ pa~~TUip~ .za~MeT ~ noA a.z~ •~ •~TU~nT~suuad 'b.zngsT.z.z~H '~aa.z~S auTd OOT ~~ ~{oT.znN ~ ao~TT~M 'saaNoy~ ~zo~ x.zoM I pug '~-u-u-o-T-o-S '~uuoTo~ ~T.zaquzT}1 sT auz~u Sys • sad •~ Zssa~zpp~ ssauTSnq pug auz~u .zno~ a~~~s as~aTd nod pTnoM •~ Z'IILIL~I~J ' SYS ~g 1~IO I Z~'I~I IL1KX ~ Z O ~2T I Q :sMOTTo~ s~ paz~T~sa~ pug pauTUi~xa s~M 'u.zoMS ~Tnp buTaq 'ssau~TM ~ s~ paTT~o 'FII~NO'IOO 'YZ ~'I2i~8I~II?i • ssau~zM ~ se ~uuoTo~ ~T.zaquzTx TT~o o~ paaoo~zd TTTM aM uaus • nod ~[u~uz : `IZIL1Ti~I~~ ' SLS c -~uasazd nod ~~u~ aouapzna auk ~o ~xa~uoo auk c uT a~z~z~ s o~ uoT~ouz auk ~o sanssT auk Lj~TM Trap TTTM I ~ pug 'u~zo~ os pine 'T~T.z~ ~.znC ~ you s~~I -aauapzna auk ~ ~uasa.zd pug p~au~ ob sT op o~ paau aM ~euM ~~u~ ~[uTu~ ~ ~TT~a~ I -- ~~u~ ~{u?u~ I 'TTaM ~~OZIQIIFZ ~H,L T sz ~z ~z zz TZ oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST bT ~T ?T IT )T 9 auk ~o uOT~P~~STUTLlIp~ auk uT ~sTSS~ o~ ~o~noax~ auk ~q pauT~~a~ s~M xaT~nN ~ ao~TT~M 'saaNo~ •sa~ •~ ~buzp~~ba~ ~~po~ a~au a~~ aM ~~u~ suoT~oaCgo auk 'as~o ~uasa~d auk uT uaaq sou ~ua~anTonuT ~no~ ~PuM uT~Tdxa nod pTno~ •~ '666T uT ~~T~ auk pauTOC I aouTs •y ~aoT~oe~d~ uOT~2bT~TT uT pabebua nod an~u buoT MoH •~ •~~a~ao~a 'saT~TS~anTUn 'sabaTToo 'sToouos buTTasunoo sanTonuT u~TuM dnoz~ aoT~o~~d pug uoz~~onp~ s,~~T~ auk ~o ~T~uo auk osT~ ~,I '~~no~ ,su~ud~~ uT uoT~~bT~TT ~~~TOnpT~ pug sa~~~sa buTpnTouz '~TT~~~T~d 'uoT~~bT~T7 •~ ~aoT~oe~d nod op s~a~~ ~~uM uT pub '~ •pu~Tsl apou~ uz ~~no~ T~~apa3 auk uz dTusx~aTo ~~a~-oM~ ~ ~a~~~ ~~z~ auk pauTOC I '666T ~o TT~~ auk aouTs •~ ~saaNo~ u~TM buzoz~o~~d uaaq nod an~u buoT MoH •~ •~aq~a~ ~ ~Tas~~ c TTpo o~ abu~~~s s~aas ~T ubnou~T~ 'sad •~ ~ ~~ZZ u~ sT ~? asn~oaq ~aq~a~ ~ a~,no~ pub •~ ~ '~77 'xoT~nN ~ ao~TT~M ~ 'saaNo~ ~o '~aq~a~ ~o '~au~~~d 2 ~,T •sa~ •~ ~ ~~~T~ MST ~ u~TM pa~~TTT~~~ nod a~~ •~ 1 sz ~z ~z zz TZ oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST ~T ~T zT TT ~T 3 L ~ui.zT~ za~~uzzaq~ auk 30 3T~uaq uo pa.z~add~ ouM azaM s~auzo~~~ auk ouM Moue{ nod op pub •~ •szau~ozg auk zoo aou~~z~add~ u~ pa.za~ua uzzT~ .za~~uizaq~ auk 'OTOZ ~o ~zenu~r uT puX •600z ~o ~zaquiaoaQ ~Ta~a ubno.zu~ do szau~o.zg auk ~o uoT~e~uasa~zda.z s~T panuz~uoo uizT~ ~~u~ p~ 'TTaMx~y~ aT~~x pug ~ozTT~ ~.zagnH '0~~0 onT azaM panTonuT s~auzo~~~ auk ~TTZ~uiTZd •aTsTT.z~~ uT a.zau uzo.z~ ui.zz3 MLrj uos~~z~y~ auk s~M ~T 'Tasunoa s.zau~o.zg auk uzo~z~ panTaoa~z s~M za~~aT ~szz~ auk uauM LOOZ ~o .zaquza~das uzo~z~ 'buTUUZbaq auk ~~ •~ Zas~o sTu~ uz s~zau~ozg auk .zoo Tasunoa s~ pan.zas sou ouM •~ •zo~noax~ auk ~o s.zau~ozq auk az~ ~auz • uoxTQ p~z~uoT~ pug uoxTQ ab zoa~ a.z~ s.zau~ o.zg auk 'pzooa.z auk zoo ~.ng •as~o sTu~ uz auiT~ autos a~Tnb .zoo szau~ozg auk uiau~ buTTT~o uaaq an,aM •sa~, •~ ~o~ buTZ.za~a.z nod a.z~ ouM 's.zau~ozg auk ~2s nod uauM •szau~o~zg auk o~ pa~z.za~a.z nod •~ •~uTOd ~~u~ ~~ panTonuT auzooaq o~ auz pa~{s~ aus pug ' za~~~uz sTu~ uz uoz~~bz~zT aq c ~ubzuz azau~ ~~u~ pa~sabbns ~~u~ za~~aT ~ ~uas s~zau~o.zg j auk zoo Tasunoo 'u~baq aus za~~~ ~T~~ouS f •~{zoM ~~u~ buzop u~baq ouM uos.zad auk s~M 'ubn~TTny1 ~ u~ag2zTT~ 'uz.zT~ auk ~~ anb~aTToo Buz pub •a~~~sa 1 sz ~z zz zz Tz oz 6T 8T LT 9T 5T 6T ~T zT TT ~T 3 8 •pTp I 'sad, •~ ~snoT~~xan pug a~~anpgo '~.zo~~TTp s~M buTpua~uoo sT zo~noax~ auk ~pu~ Tasunoo .zTau~ pug s.zau~ozg auk ~o ~onpuoo auk. pu~u~szT~ an.zasgo noA pTp 'suoT~oaCc{o auk ~o uoT~~bz~zT auk Lj~TM uoT~oauuoo uT .zo~noax~ auk. ~zo~ Tasunoo se 'MON •~ •SOSZ uoz~oaS '•~'S'S ~d zb .zapun saa~ ~o A.zanooaz auk ~zo~ pz~pu~~s auk sT uoTuM snoz~~xan pug a~~znpgo '~.zo~~TTp s~M ~~u~ ~onpuoo uT pab~bua Tasunoo .zTau~ pug s.zau~o~zg auk ~~t-I~ s~.zass~ uoT~ouz auz •~ •~uouiT~sa~ .znoA a.zn~on.z~s ~o puzx o~ ~~u~ asn TT , aM ~uoz~ouz ~pu~ ~zo~ szs~q auk sT ~~uM '~.z~ununs uI •~ 'pTp I 'sad •~ ~za~~~u~ sTu~ uz uoT~ou~s ~ s~ suoT~oaCgo auk buT~~bT~TT uT paz.znouz au saa~ ,s~auzo~~~ auk .zoo pasznquzzaz aq zo~noax~ auk ~~u~ buT~sanba.z uoT~oui ~ aTT~ nod pzp '~zo~noax~ auk ~zo~ Tasunoo s2 'MON •~ • sa~I 'os anazTaq I 'F~ ~~oa.z.zoo ~~u~ sI '~ ~ u~zM zax~.z~S sz ~zax~z~S ~~u~ pu~Z '~ ~ • ~~po~ uzoo~z~.znoo auk j uz azau sT ouM 'zauuax uTnax pug uauo~ za~T~M :.za~{~z~S f ~uzN :z-~-u-T-a-H sT uoTuM xuTu~ I 'z~uzaH Tn~d azaM ~ panTonuT a.zaM ~~u~ sAau.zo~~~ auk anaTTaq I •~ ~ Sz ~z zz zz TZ OZ 6T 8T LT 9T ST bT ST ZT TT ~T J 3 6 as~~uda~ noA u~~ •~~~o 'TTaM ~~OZIQnK ~HZ •a~~ suoT~oaCgo auk ~~uM ~uo~T~sa~ ou uaaq s,a~agZ •buTp~a7 :~~NH~x •~~ zszs~g :~oslQn~ CHs •uoT~oaCgO :~~NH~x '~~ '~~TaMaC pug A~~ado~d T~uos~ad auk ~o anT~n auk o~ ap~~ s~au~o~g auk ~~u~ uoz~oaCgo auk u~TM ~s~z~ ~~~~s o~ ~u~M I •uoT~o~ szq~ uT ~gbnozq ~T~adozd you azaM pua~uoo nod ~~u~ suoT~oaCgo auk 3o qo~a ubno~u~ buzob ~q ~~~~s o~ ~u~M I •~ •~a~ o~d zo~~~~szuz~p~ u~ ~uTOdd~ o~ ~~no0 auk buTxs~ Aq ~~a~ ~ u~u~ a~o~ ~o~ uT pab~bua p~u ~aq~ ~~u~ ssaoo~d ~zpn~ auk ~o ~Tnsa~ pua auk pzon~ o~ paT~~ szau~o~g auk 'buT~~au aq~ a~o3aq ~ubT~ pua auk p~~MO~ pT~X •pa~aTd~oo p~u ~au~ ~~u~ ~~anoosTp auk ~q pa~aoddnsun a~aM ~~u~ as~o aq~ ~o saT~oau~ snoTonz~~ pa~~ass2 ~aqs •~~anoosTp ~o ~onpuoo aq~ uT ~~o~eTTp a~aM ~au~ '~Tsno~obTn pans~nd ~aq~ ~pu~ uoT~oaCgo auo aqz •szs~q T~baT ~o T~n~o~~ ou p~u ~~u~ suoz~oaCgo pa~~ass~ saaq~o~g auk '~TT~~auab ~~an •sa~ •~ 1 •~~u~ ~o sTz~~ap aq~ o~uT dab TT,aM uaq~ ~ pub Zs~M ~onpuoo ~~u~ ~~uM TT~~ano agz~osap nod u~o ~ 'sa~o~~s p~o~q a~os ~snC u~TM ~s~z~ buz~~~~s •~ ~ sz ~z 8Z zz Tz oz 6T 8T LT 9T ST ~T 8T ZT TT ~T 3 OT 11 1 l: l~ l; l~ l~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 BY MS. GEMMILL: 2 4. Let's begin with the objections. What was 3 the first objection that you'd like to talk about today 4 that you believe was not properly pursued by the 5 Brothers? 6 A. The brothers asserted an objection that the 7 personal, that the value that the Executor had assigned 8 to Mrs. Dixon's personal property and jewelry was, I a believe they said, grossly understated. ~ 4. And why was that objection a problem or not - properly asserted? ' A. Well, there were a couple of things. First of all, the Brothers, that that personal property and jewelry was not bequeathed to the Brothers, nor was it bequeathed to the QTIP trust for which they served as cotrustees, nor was it bequeathed to the revocable trust for which they served as cotrustees. So they had no standing to pursue the issue. When it came down to the end, regardless of what the evidence was on that objection, it would not change how the estate assets were distributed, which is the entire point of the audit process. Another concern was that here the Executor retained an independent well-established appraisal company to appraise that property. The Brothers never 12 1 expressed any basis to disagree with that appraisal ? and, frankly, they never conducted their own appraisal 3 either even though they said that they would. ~ THE AUDITOR: Who was that appraisal THE WITNESS: I don't recall sitting here c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 right now. THE AUDITOR: Okay. Proceed. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. What eventually happened to this objection with respect to the personal property and jewelry? A. It was finally withdrawn by the Brothers in February of 2010. I would say within the two weeks of the hearing date. Q. Ms. Colonna, do you know if the appraisal company that was used to appraise the personal assets was the same company that the Brothers used to appraise the QTIP trust assets? A. Yes, it was. THE AUDITOR: Used to appraise what assets? MS. GEMMILL: The assets of the QTIP. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q• Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Were there other objections made by the 13 1 Brothers that the Estate contends were wrongfully asserted? F c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 A. Yes. The second objection that was a ~ concern was one that the Brothers asserted that claimed ~ that the allocation of the unified tax credit was > improperly done by the Estate. And I'll point out that that objection was made by the Brothers solely, M&T Bank did not join in that objection whatsoever. Q. Now, did the Brothers ever explain a legal or a factual basis for objecting to the calculation of the unified tax credit? A. No, they did not. We asked them in discovery, and the response we got was a mathematical calculation, but there was no explanation of fact or law. 4. And how was the unified tax credit calculated? A. Well, to make sure, it was calculated as it was required to be calculated and allocated under federal and state law. To be a little more detailed, Mrs. Dixon's will, consistent with federal and state law -- and I'll say that she could have overridden some lof those provisions by making her will say something different. 14 1 But what her will said was that the tax that 2 was incurred because of the QTIP should be paid from 3 the QTIP trust. F c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ So essentially she was saying that the > Estate, without the QTIP, should pay the taxes that i would have been paid had the QTIP not been part of the Estate. So if you do that calculation, the only way to do it is to allocate the unified tax credit to the non-QTIP assets. And that's what was done, and that's what Mrs. Dixon's will indicated should be done. Q. What happened to this objection? A. It was also withdrawn in February of 2010. Q. Did this objection increase the Executor's attorneys' fees in this proceeding? A. Yes, it did. I know that it was discussed many times between counsel because our firm kept asking the Brothers' counsel to please explain what was their basis, what did they believe had been done improperly. And the Brothers' counsel was never able to verbalize a response to that. We also took discovery and asked the same question. And in response, we got some calculations, apparently how the Brothers believed the tax should have been paid; but, again, no explanation of why they 15 c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 felt their position was correct or why they felt that ? our position was incorrect. 3 We also addressed the issue in prehearing ~ conferences and in prehearing memoranda, and I ~ specifically remember that at one point it took us > about, more than three pages to go through the relevant law and explanation of how this relatively complex calculation was applied. Q. Let me go back just a moment to the objection for the personal property and jewelry. Did that objection also increase the fees that the Executor incurred? A. Yes, it did. In a similar way, we took discovery on that, we requested that the Brothers attend to that issue and advise us what discovery they were going to take. We addressed the issue in our prehearing memoranda, all of which were due before the objection was withdrawn in February 2010. Q. What is the next objection that the Executor contends was improperly brought and pursued in this 21 ~ action? 22 23 24 25 A. The Brothers objected to the Estate's retention of a portion of the federal estate tax refund. So the background on that is that when Mrs. Dixon died, the QTIP trust owed to Mrs. Dixon more 16 F c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 than $140,000 in income. The brothers, who were two of the three cotrustees, refused to pay that money into 3 the estate where it belonged. } And there were lots of communications about > that and demands for that payment to be made. And, in fact, that payment was necessary because the estate did not have a lot of liquid assets, and those funds would have been useful in administering the estate. But the refusal was consistent. Later the Estate received an estate tax refund, a portion of which was attributable to the QTIP, to an overpayment of taxes on the QTIP assets, essentially. And when that refund came into the estate, we set off the amount that the QTIP owed to the estate against the amount of the refund that should have gone back to the QTIP. The Brothers objected to that in their objections to the estate account. Q. Did the Brothers ever provide any legal or factual basis for why the setoff of the federal estate refund was improper? A. No, they did not. And, again, we were flummoxed, frankly, as to what their basis was. We believe that the law is very clear that we had the right to set off. We believe that the law was very 17 1 clear that the income was owed from the QTIP to the estate and the Brothers had no basis to withhold it. 3 4. Was this objection ever withdrawn by the 1 ~ Brothers? c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did this objection also increase the Executor's attorneys' fees in this action? A. Yes, it did. There was substantial correspondence between the Brothers and the other cotrustee counsel on the matter. And, again, we sought discovery on it, we addressed it at prehearing conferences, we addressed it in our written prehearing memoranda, all of which were before the objection was withdrawn in February of 2010. Q. Were there other objections asserted by the Brothers that the Estate contends were vexatious and obdurate? A. In terms of magnitude, those three are the big ones. Now, the Brothers did also assert an objection to the Executor's commission and to the attorneys' fees that were charged to the estate for administration. They never pursued those objections, they never sought discovery on those objections and those 18 c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 objections were ultimately withdrawn. The Executor's ? counsel, my firm, did invest some time to address those 3 issues in prehearing proceedings as well. } Q. I want to turn then to the final objection > that the Brothers made that the Estate contends was dilatory, obdurate and vexatious. Can you explain what that final objection was? A. Yes. The brothers objected to the Estate account and asserted that there was substantial assets that should have been included in the estate that were not accounted for, and that was the objection that the Brothers pursued in the case that was clearly the focus of their discovery and their actions generally in the case. Q. I want to start with the background for this objection, this contention that there were assets that were not accounted for. And I want to also focus on the time period as we went through with this matter. When did the Brothers first request information that would support that objection? A. That would have been the letter that I referenced earlier, in September of 2007. So just to give you a time frame, Mrs. Dixon died in late June of 2007; so it was a couple of months later, three months later that we got a letter from the Brothers' counsel 19 1 suggesting, I believe, that there was a paucity of assets in the estate. 3 (Executor Exhibits Nos. lA, 1B and 1C were marked.) ~ ~ BY MS . GEMMILL : c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Q• And I want to hand to you what we premarked ' as a group exhibit as Exhibit lA, 1B and 1C. THE AUDITOR: What's the point of labeling that way rather than 1, 2 and 3? MS. GEMMILL: Because these are three exhibits that are all together, so the original correspondence, the response and a response. So they're really -- I'm trying to group together the types of correspondence back and forth so you have all three things in one exhibit. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Ms. Colonna, can you first tell me what Exhibit lA is? A. Yes. This is a letter that the Martson firm sent to McNees, Wallace & Nurick indicating that they represent the Brothers, George and Richard, and indicating that the Brothers were surprised by the paucity of assets in the estate and requesting financial information from Mrs. Dixon. So there's a list here, but essentially they're requesting bank 20 1( 11 lc 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 statements, tax returns and brokerage statements. 2 Q. And they characterize this in this letter as 3 seeking informal discovery? This is before the 4 objection has actually been filed? 5 A. Yes. This is very early. I believe this is ~ before the account was filed. ~ Q. And if you turn to, a cou le p pages back in 3 Exhibit 1B, can you tell us what Exhibit 1B is? > A. Yes. This is just an email chain back and ~ forth between Ms. Mullaugh and the Brothers' counsel. Essentially she advises him, if you go to the very end of the email so the oldest email in the chain, she essentially says, we have a lot of documents but they're not complete, we're happy to provide them to you. There's a discussion about copying costs, who's going to bear the copying costs. And then you'll see in the further exhibit that the Brothers' counsel says, yes, please have those documents copied, which Ms. Mullaugh did. 4. You said the further exhibit. You meant the further emails in that chain? A. Yes; I'm sorry. The further emails, so the Q. And then turn to Exhibit 1C. A. Right. And 1C is just the cover memorandum 21 1 that my colleague at the firm sent with the documents 2 showing the cost of copying and the cost of mailing. 3 And I should be clear, we're not seeking these costs; 4 the Brothers' counsel paid these before. 5 But the point here is sim 1 p y that by 6 September the 26th of 2007, the Executor had provided 7 the Brothers with all of the financial information that 8 was available in Mrs. Dixon's home when she passed. 9 Q• And we see the invoice for the co eying cost. 10 Do you know how many pages of documents were provided? 11 A. Yeah. I actually looked at that, and it was 12 over 1,700; 1,705, I believe. 13 4• Now, I want you to flip back to Exhibit 1B 14 again, and you talked about the email from Ms. Mullaugh 15 at the bottom of the second page of Exhibit 1B. 16 Did Ms. Mullaugh make any indication with 17 respect to what documents that the Estate may not have 18 had in its possession and what could be done with 19 respect to those? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. KEHNER: I'll object for the record 22 because obviously Ms. Mullaugh is not here to 23 authenticate an email that she may have sent. 24 THE AUDITOR: Well, it seems to me that 25 that's a business record, and I would think that 22 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L Ms. Colonna would have sufficient access to that record and knowledge of that record to be able to et g past the 3 hearsay objection. So that's overruled. ~ THE WITNESS: So at the bottom of the second page of 1B in Ms. Mullaugh's first email chain where she indicates that we have a lot of -- well, she says the records are voluminous but not complete. Then she says, if you want records we do not have, you can request them from third parties and Marshall Dixon, the Executor, will sign an authorization in that regard if you wish to prepare one. And then right above that the Brothers' counsel says -- I'm sorry. It's not right above that; it's on the first page. On September 24th, the Brothers' counsel says, I will prepare and submit an authorization for the third-party records for your review. So that was near the end of September of '07. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Now, September '07 we have this letter here, this email exchange back and forth. When did the Brothers next contact McNees, counsel for the Estate, with respect to proceeding regarding any more records? A. May of 2008, eight months later. 26 ~ I 23 ~ (Executor Exhibits Nos. 2A, 2B and 2C were marked.) F 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. I want to hand to you a group of exhibits that we've marked 2A through 2C. Can you begin by identifying what Exhibit 2A is? A. Yes. Exhibit 2A is a letter that the Brothers' counsel sent on May the 21st, 2008 to McNees, Wallace & Nurick enclosing waivers and authorizations that they were requesting the executor to sign so that the Brothers could obtain directly the financial records from the financial institutions that Mrs. Dixon had dealt with during her life. Q. So this letter is eight months after the prior communications about this. In the meantime in that eight-month period, had there been any more communications between the Brothers' counsel and the Estate's counsel? A. I actually don't recall any, and I was involved in the case at the time. If anything, it was communications about, to the effect of, you know, where's this going, you know, how can we get this thing Ito proceed. Q. But there were no formal requests for 25 24 1 A. No. ~ 4. Let me ask you then to turn to Exhibit 2B, 3 which is the next piece of correspondence. Tell me l what Exhibit 2B is. F E c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. Right. Well, this is a letter from my colleague, Elizabeth Mullaugh. I actually helped in the drafting of this letter and the enclosures that are referenced. So we received the Brothers' counsel's letter on May the 22nd, and there's a receive date on that page. And on that very same day we responded to the Brothers' counsel and provided authorization forms that we believed were appropriate. Q. What was the issue with respect to the authorization forms that the Brothers' counsel had provided? A. Right. The Brothers' counsel not only wanted to be able to request the documents from the financial institutions, but they wanted to be able to essentially interview the people at the financial institutions. And we felt that if that was going to happen, all counsel should be involved, maybe it would have to be formalized, you know, for example, as in a 24 deposition. 25 And so we said we're happy to authorize you 25 1 to get all the records but we do not think it's appropriate to authorize you to have communications 3 with the banks. So we provided revised authorization l I forms . c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. They were. Q. And we haven't attached them here because if you turn to 2C, what is Exhibit 2C? A. Well, 2C -- so between May 22nd and June 5, we communicated with the Brothers' counsel, and they agreed to our form of authorization. We got the Executor to sign the authorization forms; and on June the 5th, we mailed those to the Brothers' counsel. Q. And are those the authorization forms that are attached in Exhibit 2C? A. Yes. Q. Okay. This takes us now to May 2008, actually June 2008 when the authorization forms are signed. What's the next thing that happened in this case? A. I believe this is around the time when the estate account was filed, the Brothers filed their objections and then in August of 2008, the Court appointed Mr. Shade as auditor to hear those 26 1 objections. ~ Q. Now, was there then discussions back and 3 forth to establish a time line for discovery in this l action? F c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, there was. Shortly after we received the Order appointing Mr. Shade, we reached out to him and requested that a time line of some kind be established. I think we even noted that Mrs. Dixon had died 14 months earlier and it made sense to keep this matter moving forward. (Executor Exhibits Nos. 3A-3E were marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. I have a group of exhibits that relate to the discovery-setting schedule, a time line. We've got those marked as 3A through 3E. MR. KEHNER: I'd still like to state for the record that this is the first time I'm seeing lots of these documents. I'm not saying it's McNees' fault, but our file that we received from the Martson firm doesn't have some of this stuff. And we're being put at an unfair disadvantage and just, you know, today despite the fact that I extended Request for Production at least 20 some days ago. 27 E c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L THE AUDITOR: Well, I don't see how you can visit the failure of, either the failure of the Martson 3 office to fully provide you with all files or the ! failure of your office to see to it that the Martson > office did provide you with all files upon the Estate in this situation. Keeping in mind that up to, we're reaching the point now where I have been involved in this, and I know what's going on here. And it would seem to me that it would -- I think that the Estate would have a right to believe that you would have gotten the complete file from the former counsel for your client. So I would say I don't see the basis for an objection at this point, but I do have some question in my mind about, I thought I saw something within the last couple of months here about some discovery. What discovery has taken place in the last six weeks or two months, or whatever have you here? MS. GEMMILL: Mr. Shade, this hearing has been scheduled much more than 30 days out, as you know. THE AUDITOR: Right. MS. GEMMILL: Approximately 20 days ago we finally had gotten some written discovery requests from the Brothers saying provide us these documents. Now, they did not serve those discovery 28 F c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 requests in time that our Answer was due prior to this hearing, and so we've taken the position that if they 3 wanted to see these documents beforehand, they should 1 have served timely discovery and then we would have ~ provided these documents in time. > But they failed to do that. And if this is the first time they're seeing these documents, well, so be it, but we think we did everything we had to do. THE AUDITOR: And I agree with that. And, like I say, I also -- so there's really the two reasons then; the reason you just indicated and the reason that I indicated, that certainly it would seem to me that it would be incumbent upon the Brothers to get the complete file from the former counsel. So you can proceed. MS. GEMMILL: Thank you. ~BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Now, I also don't want to belabor this too much because we have reached the point where Mr. Shade has now been appointed as auditor and is familiar with this. But because we do need to make a record in this proceeding, Ms. Colonna, can you start with Exhibit 3A and then tell us what that Exhibit 3A is, 25 land then I'll proceed. 29 c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 A. Yes. You know, in the interest of moving 2 this forward promptly, Exhibit 3A is our letter to 3 Mr. Shade, and we're essentially requesting that a time ~ line be set for, I think for discovery and for this ~ process to be wrapped up. > Q. And what is the date of that letter? ' A. September 2, 2008. Q. And put this in a time frame as to when Mrs. Dixon died. A. Right. So this is about 15, 14 or 15 months after Mrs. Dixon died in 2007. Mr. Shade responds to that letter, and that's Exhibit 3B. He writes back to my colleague, Elizabeth, and indicates a few things, that, one, that he's asking the Brothers' counsel, within ten days, to indicate what discovery will be pursued and how much time will be needed. He also says that the Estate should cooperate with the Brothers' appraisals of the jewelry and personal property. And then the rest of the letter is essentially a list of items that the Auditor says he'll be expecting to receive in the prehearing memorandum from the Brothers. So then if you, just to kind of walk through these, Exhibit 3C is the Brothers' counsel's response to Mr. Shade. So ten days later they did write back, 30 L L c E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and they indicated that they were able to secure a good deal of information through the Executor's cooperation, that they have all of the M&T Bank accounts, which was Mrs. Dixon's only checking account, and all the canceled checks associated with that account. And then they indicate that they're expecting to soon receive additional information from the brokerage company that she dealt with. So the time line they give is that they expect to be done with, what I would say, written discovery by the end of the year, so the end of 2008, and they indicate that they'll want to depose Mr. Dixon in January of 2008. Q. Did they also indicate that they wanted some additional documents from the Executor with respect to his personal funds? A. Yes. So in September of 2008 for the first time we were hearing that the Brothers' counsel wanted to not only investigate Mrs. Dixon's finances, but investigate the Executor's personal finances. Q. Turn, please, to Exhibit 3D. A. 3D is Elizabeth Mullaugh's letter back to the Auditor, and essentially she is taking issue with the Brothers' proposal that they will seek personal financial information from the Executor. And her suggestion is simply that if the Brothers are going to 31 r c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 do that, they be required to show a basis for doing it. ~ Q. And then the final exhibit in this pack, 3 Exhibit 3E, what is that? ~ A. This is the Martson firm's response to the i letter we just looked at. And essentially I believe i that what the Brothers said was that they would, they ' would be able to show cause for seeking the Executor's personal account information, and I think they indicate that they will provide that to the Auditor. (Executor Exhibits Nos. 4A and 4B were marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. We have two more of these group exhibits, so let me first hand you what we've marked as Exhibits 4A and 4B. THE AUDITOR: Excuse me. You're, I guess, giving the original-labeled exhibits to the Court Reporter? MS. GEMMILL: Yes. The ones that Ms. Colonna is looking at right now will then end up in the Court Reporter's possession, and we will make sure that the Court Reporter has all of them when Ms. Colonna leaves the stand. THE AUDITOR: Thank you. 25 32 L I Q. Ms. Colonna, can you tell us what Exhibit 4A is? E c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 A. Yes. This is a letter that Elizabeth wrote l in November of 2008. And the context of this is that ~ the Brothers indicated they would complete their written discovery by December and here it is the end of November and we had not received any written discovery requests from the Brothers; so knowing that there's 30 days to respond, we were suggesting that some action should be taken. So we wrote to the Auditor and said, you know, this has been dragging on, we don't know that there's been any progress in the Brothers' investigation so, again, we ask for a firm time line. Q. And what is Exhibit 4B? A. Exhibit 4B is the Auditor's response which essentially indicates that in the prior communications from September, the Auditor had essentially approved the Brothers' time line of completing discovery by year end and deposition in January. And so the Auditor says, you know, I'm waiting for the Brothers to submit their prehearing memorandum in January based on the communications, that's what I understand is going to happen. I'm roughly paraphrasing, but that's what the Auditor's 33 L E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 response was. (Executor Exhibits Nos. 5A, 5B and 5C were marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. And now let's go with our last group exhibits, Exhibit 5A through 5C. So we left this with Mr. Shade's email of November 25th, 2008, Exhibit 4B, saying I'm expecting to have things by the end of January. What's our next communication, Exhibit 5A? A. Yes. In early February, February 11th, Mr. Shade writes to counsel and says, I was expecting to receive the Brothers' prehearing memo by the end of January of 2009, we haven't received it, kind of let us know the status. Q. And if you could turn to Exhibit 5B and identify what that exhibit is. A. Yes. This is the Brothers' response of February the 20th corresponding to the Auditor, copied to Elizabeth at McNees. And they point out to the Auditor that the QTIP trust has filed an account -- I believe that was filed in January of 2009 -- and they seem to suggest that it's likely that there will be objections to that QTIP account and that those will also be assigned to Mr. Shade and that the matters are inextricably bound 34 c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 to the matters that have been ongoing to that point. ~ Q. So here we are now February 20th, 2009. Was 3 the discovery deadline eventually set? ~ A. Yes, it was. Do you want me to identify 5C? ~ Q. I'm sorry. Yes, please do. ~ A. Just to kind of close out the correspondence at this point. So on February 25th, we responded again that we didn't see any progress in the Brothers' investigation and we, again, suggested that a time line be set. So to answer your question, yes, a discovery deadline was eventually set. I believe there was a conference with the Auditor, or maybe an email exchange, where the Auditor indicated that he did not feel he had the authority to set a discovery deadline. We could not find any law to support the concept that he did have that authority. So in, I believe, early April of 2009, we, as counsel for the Executor, filed a motion with the Court, and we asked for a discovery schedule. And we also asked that the two sets of objections, the estate account objections and the QTIP trust objections, be consolidated. Q. And did the Auditor prepare a directive with respect to discovery that was submitted to the Court? 35 L E i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '- A. Yeah. I think it was focused on the '. deadlines for the exchange of prehearing memoranda. And that was submitted to the Court, and I believe the Court reviewed all of that because the Order that eventually came out addressed our request for a discovery deadline and the Auditor's directive. Q. And so, I'm sorry, you said the Court did eventually set a discovery deadline? A. Yes. Actually what I think happened was we requested discovery cutoff the end of July 2009, the Brothers and M&T responded and requested the end of August and the Court accepted the end-of-August deadline that had been proposed. And that was the deadline set by the Court. Q. I want to move then to the Auditor's directive of June 12th, 2009. We'll make this an exhibit as well. (Executor Exhibit No. 6 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Although I've said what Exhibit 6 is, could you say what this is for the record? A. Yes. This is the Auditor's directive. And just to be clear, the Court's Order setting the discovery deadline said that all further proceedings in the case would be pursuant to this directive. 36 1 4. And in the Auditor's directive, although 2 obviously we can read it here, just generally was it 3 repeating some of the things that the Auditor had 4 previously asked the Brothers to do in this case? 5 A. Yes. So, I mean, reall y just focussing on 6 the first page, the Auditor directed that the Brothers 7 submit a prehearing memorandum by September the 21st, 3 2009. 1~ l: l~ 1~ 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a And essentially the Auditor lists the things ~ that are expected to be included in that, and they're very similar to the things that the Auditor identified a year earlier in his September 2008 correspondence. Q. Now, after we had the Auditor's directive and moving this matter forward, did the Brothers finally take any discovery? A. Yes. They issued written discovery requests to the Executor in, I think it was June 17th, but around the middle of June. 4. Was there response to that discovery from the Executor? A. Yes. We filed timely responses. We did include some objections to matters that we felt were objectionable, but we provided those responses within the required 30 days. Q. Was there any communication from the 37 G E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Brothers afterwards with respect to the adequacy of the responses by the Executor? A. The Brothers never, the Brothers and their counsel never communicated to us that they felt that the responses were inadequate or that the objections were inappropriate. Q. Was there any request made for additional information? A. No. Q. Now, did the Executor issue discovery requests to the Brothers? A. Yes, we did. We issued discovery in the middle of July, and I've already talked about it, but essentially asking the Brothers for the basis of their objections. Q. Did the Brothers timely respond? A. No. We did not receive timely responses. And from reviewing this file, I believe that it took three communications with the Brothers' counsel to finally get written discovery responses to the discovery we issued, and I think they were close to a month late. Q. Did discovery conclude by the August 31st, A. No. There was a little hitch there. M&T, 38 E 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 who up to that point had been represented by the Rhoads & Sinon firm, had to obtain new counsel. Rhoads & 3 Sinon indicated that there was a dormant conflict of E some kind that had arisen, and new counsel for M&T was promptly retained. And that's the Stevens & Lee law firm, Mr. Bradshaw primarily. And so at that point, everybody agreed that -- when that transition of counsel was happening, it was a few days before the Executor's deposition was scheduled, so everyone agreed it made sense to push all the deadlines back by 30 days so that M&T's counsel could get up to speed before that deposition occurred. Q. Did the Executor's deposition go forward then in September of 2009? A. Yes. Q. And at that deposition, did the Executor answer all the questions that were posed? A. Yes. There was not a single question that we directed the Executor not to answer. Q. What happened next in this proceeding? A. Well, what happened next is that the discovery deadline ended at the end of September, and that was the extent of the 30-day extension of the discovery deadline that we all agreed to. And then a week or two later the Brothers' 39 1C 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 counsel filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline 2 for an unlimited, unidentified period of time. 3 4. So here we are in October 2009 seeking more 4 extensions, and we began with Exhibit lA with the September 7th request for informal discovery. So by ~ this time that they're asking for extension of 7 discovery, how much time has elapsed when they've been taking discovery? 3 A. Well, informally they started their investigation more than two years earlier in September of '07, so we opposed the Brothers' motion to extend the discovery deadline, and we did so on the grounds that they had two years to investigate the allegation that there were assets missing. A big concern that the Brothers raised in their motion was that they needed more information about the checks that had been written from Mrs. Dixon's M&T Bank account, but they acknowledged in 2008 that they had those checks. So they had those checks for more than a year and apparently did not follow up on them during the discovery deadline. 4. And that acknowledgment, that was their October 10th, 2008 letter that's Exhibit 3E? A. I will just confirm that. (Perusing 25 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do the Brothers also make any further contentions in their motion to extend the discovery? A. They did. They contended that they had recently become aware of a memorandum that indicated that Mrs. Dixon had a brokerage account worth about a half a million dollars in the early part of 2003. That memorandum was part of the Rhoads & Sinon's file for their work in assisting Mrs. Dixon in her estate planning, and that file had been made available to the Brothers' counsel in 2008. But a year later they were saying that they had recently become aware of it, and they asked the Auditor to require the Executor to produce his personal brokerage account statements because they believed that that $500,000 brokerage account was somehow transferred Ito the Executor. Q. Was the Brothers' motion to extend the discovery deadline granted? A. No. Q. Tell me what happened with respect to that (motion. A. We had a discovery conference with the .,Auditor, and the Auditor recommended that the motion be denied because the Brothers hadn't explained why they did not do the investigation during the discovery 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 period. But he also recommended that the Executor be required to produce his brokerage account statements for the last four or five years of Mrs. Dixon's life. And when that recommendation went to the Courts, the Court entered an Order saying the motion was denied without prejudice to be renewed if the Executor did not provide his personal brokerage account statements. Q. And what did the Executor do with respect to those personal statements? A. He produced all of his personal brokerage account statements, and none of them showed that $500,000 or anything near that sum was transferred to his account from Mrs. Dixon's account. Q. And did the Auditor also prepare a report on discovery? A. Yes. The Auditor prepared a report, most of which summarized the substance of the discovery conference that was held on October 11. MS. GEMMILL: We will put that Auditor's report into evidence as Exhibit 7. (Executor Exhibit No. 7 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Is Exhibit 7 that I've handed you the 25 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, it is. Q. Did the Brothers' delay in taking discovery increase the fees incurred by the Executor in this proceeding? A. Yes. We had to correspond multiple times to try to get this matter on some kind of a time line. When those correspondences failed to get a time line, we then had to request an Order of Court setting a discovery deadline. And then when the Brothers filed their motion to extend the discovery period, we responded to that in writing; we attended the prehearing conference on that. And so all of those things resulted in ladditional fees to the Executor. Q. Besides the delay in pursuing the discovery to support this objection that there were assets missing, was there other conduct of the Brothers in pursuit of that objection that you contend served as a basis for the Executor's seeking of a recovery of attorneys' fees? A. Yes. I think -- the Brothers seemed to change their legal theories multiple times throughout the course of the case, including after discovery was closed and after their first prehearing memorandum was I filed. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And they also asserted new theories of the case that were completely unsupported by the evidence that they had obtained through the discovery process. And, of course, the Executor had to respond to those things; research issues, respond in writing, raise objections to the things that were not done properly. Q. Can you give me a concrete example of that? A. Yes. From the start of the case through all the communications with counsel and the conferences with the Auditor, the Brothers' counsel, the argument that assets were missing was focussed on the M&T bank laccount. And the Brothers essentially asserted that there was about $200,000 from that account that were either reimbursements to the Executor for things he purchased for his mother or were gifts to the Executor. And so a lot of the discovery was focused on were these amounts reimbursement or gifts. And that is actually reflected in the directive that the Auditor issued on the 7th; he indicates that the Brothers, the Brothers contend that if those payments were gifts to the Executor, then the cumulative amount is relevant to the allocation of death taxes. So that was the issue that the Brothers (pursued. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And that's Exhibit 7 you're referring to? A. Yes, that is Exhibit 7. And that's the same (position that the Brothers took in their first prehearing memorandum where they were required to set forth the legal theory upon which their objection was based. MS. GEMMILL: Let's go ahead and mark that prehearing memorandum as Executor Exhibit 8. (Executor Exhibit No. 8 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. You were referring to the Brothers' assertion that these were gifts. Looking at Exhibit 8, can you tell me where that is? A. Yes. If you go to the fifth page, there's a heading called Additional Discovery. Q. And if you'd give us a moment to get there, the pages are not numbered. A. Sorry. Q. (Pause.) Yes. Please proceed. A. So this memorandum was filed at about the same time as the discovery issue was being dealt with. And the Brothers indicate at the bottom of page 5 that the Objectors now believe that in order to fully appreciate how much money in gifts Marshall was receiving from his mother, they will need access to 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Marshall's financial records. And then they go on to say what they need. But the point really is that, again, the allegation here, the theory was that there were gifts to the Executor that needed to be accounted for in some Q. And then that theory then changed over time? A. It changed dramatically. Q. Well, let's -- before we kind of get to that -- I may be getting ahead of myself. Let's talk first about this prehearing memo, this Exhibit 8. Did this prehearing memo comply with the Auditor's directive that we had looked at on Exhibit 6 with respect to all the things that they were supposed to provide with respect to their objections? A. No, it did not. The key point from the Executor's perspective was that the Auditor's directive required an itemized statement of assets that the Objectors contend were not included in the estate that should have been included, the reasons why they should have been included with any supporting rational and legal authority, the value of the assets and how the Objectors assess the value. So we were expecting to receive that when we received this prehearing memorandum. And there is no 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 itemized list whatsoever, no identification of what assets the Brothers believed were missing from the estate or their value. There's no legal theory other than the concept that there were gifts that need to be accounted for, and there is no legal authority. Q. Did the Brothers have a second prehearing memorandum that was due? A. Yes. The Auditor's directive required a second prehearing memorandum to be filed on November the 5th. And, of course -- Q. I'm sorry. You said November the 5th? A. Yes. Well, it was originally November the 5th. Because we all agreed to a 30-day push-back, it became September the 5th. And that prehearing memorandum was to provide a witness and an exhibit list. Q. And did the Brothers file that on December 15th? A. No. Q. What happened next? A. I think it was the next week, December 10th or 11th, the Brothers' counsel, the Martson firm, communicated that a conflict had arisen between their firm and the Brothers and that they were going to be 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 filing a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel, and they requested that the parties express their position with regard to consent to that petition. I' Q. Did the Executor express its position? A. Yes. We reluctantly agreed that we would consent to the petition. However, our agreement was -- and this was all discussed at a conference with the Auditor. Our agreement was conditioned upon a firm new hearing date being set so that we were not in limbo with regard to when this matter would be heard. And that's what happened. The Court granted the !,petition and established February 24 through 26, 2010 'as the new hearing date. Q. Did the Brothers obtain new counsel? A. They did. They were required to obtain new counsel within 30 days of the Court's Order. I don't know whether that happened, but I know that new counsel entered their appearance a couple of weeks after that deadline, I believe on January the 25th. Q. Were you contacted by their new counsel? A. Yes. Elizabeth Mullaugh and I had a call with Paul Heintz on January the 28th, and Mr. Heintz expressed that the reason for his call was to request copies of the McNees invoices that reflected the 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorneys' fees billed to the estate. And I said to Mr. Heintz that we would try to cooperate with him but because that objection had never been pursued because discovery was closed, we had concerns about how he intended to use those matters at the hearing. And I also said to him that we were still waiting to receive the exhibit and witness list, which at that point was more than a month and a half overdue. And Mr. Heintz said that he had not yet been fully familiar with the file but he would review the file and call us early the next week. Q. So these attorneys' fees that he was asking for were with respect to the estate administration, not with respect to this litigation, correct? A. Yes. I think that's what he was asking for, Yes . Q. And that was one of the objections that had been asserted? A. Yes. Q. I'm sorry. You said he said he was going to call you back the following week? A. Yes. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. In fact, we didn't hear anything from anyone at the Obermayer firm until February the 9th when we received a supplemental prehearing memorandum from the Obermayer attorneys. MS. GEMMILL: Let's go ahead and mark (Executor Exhibit No. 9 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Can you identify Exhibit 9 for us? A. Yes. This is the Objectors' supplemental prehearing memorandum that was filed by the Obermayer firm. And when I say filed, that's probably inaccurate. I know that it was submitted; I don't know that it was actually filed. But it was submitted on February the 9th. And I'm not trying to point fingers about that. I'm not sure prehearing memoranda were to be filed, but they were certainly to be submitted. Q. And you had talked earlier about the dramatic change in legal theory from what we discussed before with respect to the gifts. Is that reflected in this memorandum or this Exhibit 9? A. Yes. If you go to page 3 of Exhibit 9, .you'll see there's a heading called Assets that were not included in the Estate. And the second paragraph 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alleges for the very first time that the Executor defrauded Mrs. Dixon out of at least $1.5 million. And it says further in that paragraph that he used Mrs. Dixon's funds without her knowledge or permission and that he procured gifts using undue influence. And this was all very surprising. This was a brand new theory in the case contradicting the position that the Brothers had taken in their first prehearing memorandum. And also these allegations were made after the close of discovery; and, to our knowledge, there was no evidence to support these allegations whatsoever that was disclosed in the discovery period. Q. So we have these allegations of fraud and dissipation of 1.5 million in assets. Does the prehearing memorandum indicate what witnesses and exhibits they intend to use at the hearing later that month to support these allegations? A. Well, if you turn to page 6, there is a heading for Proposed Witnesses, and the Brothers' counsel indicate that they will have no witnesses. And there's a heading for Proposed Exhibits, and the Brothers' counsel indicate that they will have no exhibits. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, you know, from the perspective of the Executor's counsel, it's now February 9th, this hearing is, I don't know, 15 days off, 14 or 15 days off and we don't have the exhibit and witness list that was due more than two months earlier and we have brand new theories of the case which we cannot begin to fathom how they are supported by the discovery that was taken in the matter. It was surprising. Q. What happened after that? A. There was actually, the final prehearing conference was scheduled for February the 12th, so we all went down and met with the Auditor on February the 12th. And at that point, the Auditor indicated to the Obermayer firm that the Brothers' prior counsel had waived the argument about undue influence. And I don't really want to belabor this; but if you look at the Auditor's report on discovery issues, which is Exhibit Number 7, you'll actually see that the Auditor references that and says that the Brothers concede that they can't show -- it's actually on page 2 about the middle of the page -- the Brothers do not suggest that they will be able to prove that Lottie was subject to incapacity or undue influence during her lifetime. And then it goes on to reference the 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $220,000 in checks that we believe weren't issued. Q. After the prehearing pretrial conference on February 12th, did the Brothers submit another filing with respect to their prehearing memorandum? A. Yes. February the 12th was a Friday, and I believe about 5:00 on Saturday the 13th the Brothers' counsel, new counsel, the Obermayer firm, emailed an addendum to the supplemental prehearing memorandum with a cover letter requesting that the Auditor accept that nunc pro tune. MS. GEMMILL: Let me mark Exhibit 10. (Executor Exhibit No. 10 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Could you identify Exhibit 10? A. Yes. This is the addendum that I was just referencing that was emailed on Saturday, February the 13th. Q. And did this addendum continue to make allegations with respect to the defrauding Mrs. Dixon of 1.5 million? I A. Yes, it did. If you look on page 2, you'll see that allegation: Objectors aver that during the last 13 years of Decedent's life from 1994 to 2007, Marshall may have defrauded the Decedent of $1.5 million. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They do not pursue the undue influence allegation in this addendum. They removed that allegation, I think, consistent with what the Auditor advised the day before. And then they assert that the Executor procured gifts through theft, deception, fraud and misrepresentation. I think theft and deception were new theories to us. And, again, we questioned how the Brothers could establish those allegations. They had completed discovery, and we were not aware of any information that would support these allegations. Q. Did the Brothers, in this addendum, Exhibit X10, provide any exhibits? A. Yes, they did. They did provide a proposed witness list, and they provided a proposed exhibit list. The other thing they did was for the very first time 12 days before the hearing, they finally gave the itemized list of assets, or maybe I should say they gave an itemized list of assets. Now, that was due October the 21st, and we received it on February the -- the first time I saw it was February the 15th on Monday. Q. And is that Exhibit 1 to what we've marked as Exhibit 10? 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. And it has multiple pieces. There's a couple of lists of checks, and then there's a longer, what I would say almost a spreadsheet full of that lists -- so all together, these list hundreds of checks and the transactions in the M&T checking account. Q. Did you review this list on that Monday then when you were in the office? A. I did. It seemed to me that this was the evidence that the Brothers were going to present at the (hearing and we needed to be able to defend it. So I actually spent a very substantial amount of time in the weeks, in the 12 days between receiving this and the hearing date, reviewing all these checks, reviewing the actual copies of checks, etcetera, and trying to prepare a defense to them. Q. And in reviewing these checks, what were you discovering about these checks generally? A. Well, the checks that are listed in here included checks that were written to the Brothers, themselves, George and Richard. They included checks that were written to Charlotte, who is the sister of these three brothers. They included checks that were written to pay the condo fees for Mrs. Dixon's condominiums in Florida. They included checks written to Mrs. Dixon's 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 medical care providers, Mrs. Dixon's handyman who helped with the upkeep at her 200-year old house. It included checks written to Mrs. Dixon's housekeeper, who came, I think, at least every week or every couple of weeks. They included her utilities for the house in Boiling Springs. So there were hundreds of checks listed in the Brothers' itemized list of assets that were allegedly missing that could not reasonably be purported to be missing. They were checks clearly written for Mrs. Dixon's own personal expenses. Q. Including checks written to the Brothers, A. Yes. Q. Did you also review the exhibit list of exhibits that they intended to present at the hearing, which is their Exhibit 2 to their addendum? A. Yes, I did. And other than a few things on the list, most of the things on the list are general enough that we didn't know with any clarity what the exhibits were going to be. So there's -- for example, number 3 says they're going to use checks from the M&T account of various dates. Well, we didn't know what checks, how many 25 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 similar issues with the others. So when I received this addendum, I responded to the Auditor and copied all counsel and essentially said if the Auditor was going to allow this document to be submitted nunc pro tune, then we believe that it was appropriate for, one, the Brothers' counsel to provide us with copies of their exhibits within, I think, 24 or 48 hours, a very short time line and, two, we believe that it was appropriate that if the Brothers pursued any of these new theories in the case; the fraud, the theft, the deception, that if they pursued that, that we should be given 60 days to prepare a defense to that because this was all such new information to us. And, again, when I saw this, the hearing was nine days off. Q. And when did you receive -- well, let me ask you first, what happened with your request that the hearing, to have more time be granted to you? A. Well, I think -- I mean, we all showed up for the hearing on the 24th, and I believe the Auditor's position was that if the Brothers pursued those new areas, then we could make a motion at that Itime and ask for a break so that we could have time to prepare a defense. Q. When did you receive the copies of the 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 exhibits that are listed on Exhibit 2 to what we've marked as Exhibit 10? A. At 3:00 on February the 23rd, so the afternoon, the day before the hearing. Q. And then what did you do once you got these exhibits? A. I stayed at the office a long time and tried to sort through exactly where these documents came from and what the Brothers intended to put on as evidence. And I will say that some of them were not produced to us in discovery, so some of them were brand new. Q. Documents you had never seen before? A. Yes. Q. Did the hearing proceed on February 24th? A. It did. Q. Tell us what happened at that hearing. A. Well, at the hearing -- from my perspective, the Brothers made yet another change in their theory of the case and essentially began to argue that the Executor was required to prove that the moneys that he received from Mrs. Dixon or the moneys that were allegedly missing from the M&T checking account were gifts. So essentially they came and asserted that the burden of proof was on the Executor. 25 ~ Q. Are these the same funds that they had 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previously argued were, in fact, gifts? MR. KEHNER: Objection. I don't know what you mean by same funds. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Was this a change from their prior argument with respect to gifts? A. Yes. We've looked at it. Their original prehearing memorandum agreed that these were gifts and only requested that the amount be calculated between g~.fts and reimbursement. Now suddenly the allegation was they weren't gifts and we were required to prove that they were. So to finish answering your question, the hearing proceeded. The Brothers called Mr. Dixon, the Executor, as their only witness. And when the Brothers were not able to satisfy the Auditor that there was relevance to the checks that they sought to introduce, they essentially rested without admitting any of their exhibits. Q. What evidence did the Brothers present at the hearing or offer to present that supported their allegation that $1.5 million in funds had been dissipated from the estate? A. They put on no evidence of that. Q. Did the Brothers' conduct in these 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prehearing matters that we've just been discussing, did that increase the Executor's attorneys' fees? A. Yes, very substantially. Again, any time a new theory was raised, we had to review that, analyze its validity, review case law on it, begin to prepare a defense on it. Certainly the fact that we received this itemized list that contained, like, 400 transactions, I spent hours going through that and checking the checks to see what those payments were for. It substantially increased the costs. THE AUDITOR: Incidently, you know, I certainly don't require the protocol of your standing. I mean, if you prefer to stand, that's fine. MS. GEMMILL: Thank you; I appreciate that. I'm only standing because I'm afraid I'll trip every time I get up to take an exhibit over to the witness. THE AUDITOR: Well, I certainly don't expect or require that by any means. MS. GEMMILL: I thank you for that courtesy. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. This conduct that we've discussed, this is the conduct that the Estate believes is dilatory, obdurate and vexatious? A. Yes. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Did the Brothers provide any factual support at any time for this objection to missing assets that they continued to pursue up until the time of the A. No. There was no evidence of assets missing. There was no evidence of fraud. There was no evidence of theft. There was no evidence of deception. There was just no evidence at all. Q. Were there other objections that were resolved that the Brothers had made? A. Oh. Yes. Actually at one of the final prehearing conferences -- and I know it was one of the ones that the Obermayer firm was at -- there was a really productive discussion, and several of the objections were withdrawn. Some of them were actually withdrawn by the Obermayer firm in the first prehearing memorandum it submitted. A couple of the others were resolved. And in resolving those, the Executor agreed to pay, I think around $14,000 back into the estate. And we also knew that there was another $5,000 that Charlotte Dixon would pay back into the estate. So, yeah, we did resolve some of the objections, and that resulted in about $19,000 going back into the estate. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. But those small objections that resolved, those were not the objections that generated the attorneys' fees in this case, were they? A. No, they were not. Q. Was there any other conduct of the Brothers that the Estate has taken the position was obdurate, vexatious and dilatory? MR. KEHNER: Objection. This witness is not I 'an expert on obdurate, vexatious and dilatory conduct, and it's an issue -- it's a conclusion that only the Auditor can reach. THE AUDITOR: Amy, would you please read the question. (The reporter read from the record.) THE AUDITOR: What's your response to the objection? MS. GEMMILL: I'm asking her to describe conduct that the Estate believes falls within that. So she will give factual testimony as to the conduct, and (then the Auditor will decide whether that conduct is obdurate, vexatious and dilatory. THE AUDITOR: Further response? MR. KEHNER: Well, I mean, the key is to describe the conduct, not to describe the conduct in terms of the conclusooy terms. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE AUDITOR: And my understanding is that the question is directed to the conduct. MS. GEMMILL: That is correct. THE AUDITOR: Okay. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. Additional conduct of the Brothers' counsel was that on February 9th, they filed a Petition for Appointment of Administrator Pro Tem. And essentially that petition asked the Court to appoint an independent administrator who would be paid from the estate assets to investigate the alleged missing assets, the same missing assets that the Brothers had been investigating for more than two years. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. And what were the allegations made in this (petition? I A. They were similar, to some degree, to the ,allegations made in their prehearing, in the recent prehearing -- I'm sorry -- in the February prehearing memorandum. They were that Mrs. Dixon had at least $300,000 of income annually and that $1.5 million was missing from the estate and that the Executor may have defrauded Mrs. Dixon out of that amount from the period of 1994 to the time of her death in June of 2007. I think that was the core basis for the petition. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, these allegations that were also part of the allegations made in terms of the dissipation of assets, were these allegations true or false? MR. KEHNER: Objection. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. In your opinion, based on the documents that you looked at. THE AUDITOR: Basis of the objection? MR. KEHNER: How can this witness possibly testify to whether allegations were true or false? THE AUDITOR: I'll sustain that objection and allow you an opportunity to establish the foundation for how the witness can say whether they were true or false. MS. GEMMILL: All right. I'll do it this way: BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Ms. Colonna, did you conduct an independent investigation, an analysis, to determine, to your satisfaction, whether these allegations were true or false? A. I did review the financial information that was obtained in discovery regarding Mrs. Dixon's assets. And based on that review, my conclusion was that it was mathematically impossible for the Executor 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to have defrauded Mrs. Dixon out of $1.5 million over that 13-and-a-half-year period. (Executor Exhibits Nos. 11A and 11B were marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. I want to hand to you -- we'll go through that analysis -- what we have marked Exhibits 11A and 11B together. First, can you tell me what is the document that is marked as Exhibit 11A? A. This document is called Candy Dixon's Cash Flow 1994 through June 2007. Candy was the nickname for Mrs. Dixon, for Lottie Ivy Dixon. This was one of the exhibits that the Brothers provided to me and was also one of the exhibits that was listed in their proposed exhibit list which they submitted in February to the Auditor. THE AUDITOR: Was this document introduced at the hearing? THE WITNESS: It was not. MR. KEHNER: I'll object because it's not in the record. It's not part of the record in the underlying case. THE AUDITOR: Response? MS. GEMMILL: Mr. Shade, this is the (document that they produced as supposedly to support 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 these allegations that they continue to make up until the time of the hearing. Now, they did not offer it into evidence, but we think we can go through this document and show that based upon this document, there was actually no factual basis whatsoever for these allegations that they continue to make. So it's using their own documents which we're going to go through and the correction of figures based upon their own documents to show that the brothers absolutely must have known that there was no way they could support this. THE AUDITOR: Seems relevant to me. Do you have any further response to that? MR. KEHNER: Well, yeah. I mean, unless Ms. Colonna is a forensic accountant, I don't know how we can go through this exercise. THE AUDITOR: Well, I think if it's a document that the Brothers introduced in this case through discovery -- MR. KEHNER: Well, it wasn't introduced. And discovery is -- THE AUDITOR: It was introduced through discovery. I didn't say it was introduced into evidence, but it was introduced into this case by 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 virtue of the fact that it was disclosed in discovery. Let me make that clear. I'm not saying it was introduced into evidence at any hearing, but it was introduced into this case. It was made part of this case because the Brothers brought it up. The Brothers Now, it seems to me that that is enough alone for the Estate to be able to introduce it now and to testify with respect to it. So the objection is overruled. IBY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Ms. Colonna, let me ask you first to turn to page 2 of Exhibit 11A. You see at the bottom, Missing Assets? Can you tell me what that is referring to? A. Yes. So essentially what this document is -- and, again, this is an exhibit the Brothers provided to me, is the top part of page 1 shows, allegedly shows Mrs. Dixon's income for that period '94 to June 2007. The bottom of page 1 and the top of the next page show her expenses. And then at the end of this calculation, the Brothers take the available assets over income and assets and they subtract her expenses, and they draw the conclusion that there is 1.59 plus in missing 25 I assets . 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. All right. So I want to go through the numbers on this page using figures provided by the Brothers and go through these, and you can point out where the numbers on this summary sheet, where they come up with their 1.5, almost 1.6 in missing assets, are contradicted by the Brothers' own documents. Let's just go ahead and walk through this calculation so we can all see it together. Begin with the top line, Carlisle Pension. A. Sure. Carlisle Pension was the pension that Mrs. Dixon was receiving from Carlisle Corporation where her husband was a fairly senior executive. That number, 83,604, that's correct, and that's reflected in the M&T Bank account statements that the Brothers obtained in discovery. And then what they did was they took that 83,000 and multiplied it by 3.5 -- sorry -- 13.5, which is, you know, essentially the number of years from '94 to June 2007. So they did that multiplication, and they came up with a little over a million dollars which is shown in that right column. And that math is also (correct. The next row shows the Social Security that Mrs. Dixon received, and it's a little over $22,000, 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 almost 23,000. That number is also correct, and it's also reflected in the M&T Bank account statements. And, again, they took that number and multiplied it by 13.5 and reflected the income that she would have received from Social Security over 13.5 years. Q. Okay. Now, let's go to the next line, and tell me what that line states. A. This says QTIP average. And, again, because this is income, this is the Brothers indicating that Mrs. Dixon received an average of $240,000 per year income from the QTIP trust. And they multiplied that figure by 13.5, and they get 3.2 plus million dollars. Q. How would the Brothers know what the QTIP average income was that Mrs. Dixon received from the QTIP trust? A. Well, the Brothers were cotrustees of the (QTIP trust; so they were, first of all, charged with knowing. Second of all, they were involved in the distributions of income from that trust to Mrs. Dixon. And just to be clear, they were cotrustees during this entire period; and additionally, they filed an account of the QTIP trust. They filed that in January of 2009. And in that verified account, they also list 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all the distribution that Mrs. Dixon received during this period from -- so all the income she received from the QTIP for this period. Q. Ms. Colonna, have you compared the QTIP account of the trust that was filed with the Court with this figure that is listed on Exhibit 11A with the QTIP average? A. Yes, I have. Q. Let me hand to you -- and I'll have to show it to Mr. Kehner. I'm going to hand her -- we have not copied it because of the volume of it. But it is our binder of the QTIP trust accounting that was filed with the Court. THE AUDITOR: For the record, it would 'appear that the document must have over 400 pages. I 'say that from the thickness of it. MR. KEHNER: I think, it looks like it's 296. THE AUDITOR: Is that all? MR. KEHNER: There's some other things in here, I believe, Mr. Shade. THE AUDITOR: Well, a ream of paper is 500 pages, and that almost looks like the thickness of a ream to me. BY MS. GEMMILL: ~o 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Let me hand this binder to you, Ms. Colonna. Ms. Colonna, can you identify what the binder is that I .have handed to you? I~ A. Right. This is actually a -- this is kind of a McNees form of pleadings binder. This is a pleadings binder of the pleadings that were filed with regard to the QTIP accounts. So the first document in here is the QTIP account, itself. It does have numbered pages up to almost 300, and then there's the other pleadings that were filed in the case, the objections, the responses, letcetera. Q. So that exhibit, tab 1 at the bottom of that binder, is that the actual account that was filed with the Court, a copy of which was then provided to the IEstate? A. Yes. THE AUDITOR: Now, you just referred to that as an exhibit, but it's not marked as an exhibit. MS. GEMMILL: I'm sorry. I should not have referred to it as an exhibit. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. It's tab 1 in that binder? A. Yes. Tab 1 in this binder is the QTIP account that was submitted by the cotrustees in January 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lof 2009. Q. And how many pages, again, are in that account? A. Well, there's actually some introductory pages, and then there is a series of numbered pages that go up through 296; but there's, maybe, 20 pages on the top that aren't numbered. Q. From within those almost 300 pages, did you find within those pages a page that describes what the distribution of income was to the beneficiary, Mrs. Dixon, for the period of time between 1994 through June 2007? A. Yes. It actually appears on multiple pages, but it begins on page 284. And the heading on that page is Distributions of Income to Beneficiaries. And then it lists Lottie Ivy Dixon, and it shows distributions that were made. And they are not actually in chronological order completely because some of the distributions were ..actually made to a trust on behalf of Mrs. Dixon. But if you look through all of these pages -- Q. And tell me what pages are you looking at. Starting at 284, how far did you go? A. You go up to page 291. So if you look at all those pages, they each show -- there's a list of 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 distributions covering the period '94 to June of 2007. And if you add up all those distributions, which I did, you get the sum of $2,007,800. That is what was actually distributed from the QTIP accounts to Mrs. Dixon during the period that is covered on this cash flow charge. Q. So on Exhibit 11A where they say QTIP average and they have a total at the end, they say $3,240,000, but you have determined by adding up their own documents that that figure is only $2,007,800? MR. KEHNER: Well, I'll object to the reference to their own documents because this is not a document prepared by the Brothers. Obviously it's prepared, as far as we know, by M&T Bank. We don't even have that authenticated. THE AUDITOR: Sustained. Just rephrase the question, please. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Ms. Colonna, is the QTIP accounting in front of you, does that have a verification? A. Yes, it does. It actually has three verifications; one of them from M&T Bank's representative and one each from George Dixon and (Richard Dixon. They're the last pages of this QTIP account. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So they verified that this list is the accurate list of distributions of income from the QTIP. Q. Now, if we turn to Exhibit 11B, which is two pages back in this, tell me what that handwriting is, Il,now, on Exhibit 11B. ~! A. That's my handwriting. That's where III -- because I wanted to probe the theory that there '....,was $1.5 million missing in assets, I corrected the (lines that I believed were incorrect based on the financial documents that were produced in discovery. So if you look at the QTIP average, I've included at the very right column the $2,007,800 that is in the QTIP account. And then to get a yearly average for that, I divided by 13.5, and I got the figure that you see in the middle column, 148,726. So that is actually the average income that Mrs. Dixon was receiving. MR. KEHNER: Note my continuing objection to this witness testifying to forensic accounting matters. THE AUDITOR: I don't believe she -- I don't even think you need to respond to that. That's overruled. I don't believe she's testifying to forensic accounting. I think she's testifying to addition and subtraction, and that's how I take it. I 25 ado not accept her testimony as an expert accountant, 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and I don't think it's necessary. I think it's a factual issue as to what the addition in the unmarked exhibit is, and I think that the Brothers certainly have an opportunity to cross-examine her concerning the accuracy of her ability to add numbers. IBY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Now, you used the figures from the QTIP account that was filed in January 2009. Were the Brothers the trustees of that account prior to that time period? A. Yes. My -- I'm sure this is correct: The Brothers were the cotrustees from the time the QTIP was established which was at the time that Mr. Dixon passed away, and that was in late '93. So they were cotrustees during this entire period clear up through -- well, through now; they're still the cotrustees. Q. So this is not information that would have come to them as cotrustees for the first time in January of 2009 if it dates back to 1993? A. I believe that's correct, and I think the ,QTIP account makes that clear. MR. KEHNER: Now, we're talking about the line that says QTIP average? 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. GEMMILL: Yes. That's the line that we were on. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Let's go ahead and move to the next one. And, again, why don't we just stay on 11B. I believe it's the Exhibit 11A with your handwritten notes, but we can then see your handwritten notes. So the next line starting first with the typed text, what is that line? A. Right. This indicates that there was a III'million dollars in stocks and mutual funds that were producing income at 3 percent. And the Brothers indicate that that's $30,000 a year in income. And, i lagain, if you multiply by 13.5, you would get $405,000, which appears in the far right column. Q. So this line is premised on a representation on Exhibit 11A that there was $1 million in stocks and funds and then they do the math to come out with their number at the end? A. Correct. Q. Did you look at any documents to see whether or not that $1 million figure was correct? A. I did. I actually looked at two sets of documents. One set of documents is the brokerage account statements for Mrs. Dixon's brokerage account 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for the period of '93, the end of '93 to 2007. So I looked at her brokerage account statements for the period of this cash flow statement. (Executor Exhibit No. 12 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: (Exhibit 12 is? A. Yes. This is another exhibit that the Brothers provided in advance of the hearing in February 2010. And this is a list of the brokerage account value for Mrs. Dixon's brokerage account for each month from November 2003 through beyond her death in August of 2007. And there's also some indications here about payments going out of that brokerage account. And this ,the Brothers provided to me on February the 23rd as one of their exhibits for the hearing. Q. Is this the only brokerage account that Mrs. Dixon had? A. Yes. Q. So if we look at Exhibit 12 starting November '93, what is the value of that brokerage account? A. Right. In November of '93, it was 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 $460,894.80. Q. Can you look at that number again? I think you may have misread it. A. Sorry. $460,984.80. And then if you look at -- you know, if you look at each of the monthly balances, you see that the balance goes up somewhat. It ends up being a little over a half million dollars in November of '95, and from that period, it declines. And then if you look ahead to October of 2000, you'll see that the brokerage account balance was well below $100,000. At that point, it was 44,000 and change. And for the rest of Mrs. Dixon's life, the account never gets above $40,000 again. So it was $30,000 for the last seven years of her -- it was in the $30,000 range for the last seven years of her life. Q. So even though this account balance decreased over time beginning November of '93 until her death, June 2007, her death and then a few months after that, what did you do, going back to Exhibit 11B, to reflect what the actual value of her stocks and funds 23 I were? 24 25 A. Right. Well, again, you know, I was not trying to figure out to the dollar what Mrs. Dixon's 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 income and assets were over this period. What I was trying to do was simply probe the Brothers' contention that there was $1.5 million missing. And so I did that based on the records. And I should say that the Brothers received all of Mrs. Dixon's brokerage account statements in discovery or maybe even before discovery because that was one of the authorizations that we gave them. They actually produced copies of those brokerage account statements to us in discovery. MS. GEMMILL: Let me go ahead and mark those then as Exhibit 13. (Executor Exhibit No. 13 was marked.) BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. So our record is clear, what is Exhibit 13? A. Exhibit 13 are the December monthly statements for each year from December of 1993 through December of 2006. And let me explain that what I did because the full brokerage account statements is literally a 'box full and I didn't want to burden the record with that, I checked the brokerage account statements against this list that the Brothers had provided. Q. So you took Exhibit 13, which is the December statements, and you checked that against 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit 12, which was a monthly running balance? A. Right. So I pulled all the December statements, and I made sure that the Brothers had used the right figures on this chart. And they have. So if you look at December of '93, you'll see that the numbers match up. (Perusing document.) Yeah. So this statement, on the left-hand 'side, it shows this statement, and the value is 468,000 and change. And it's exactly the same figure on the Brothers' summary of the brokerage account statement. So I did that for each year; so I did it for '94, '95, '96, etcetera. Every one of them matched, I believe to the cents, the Brothers' chart. So I -- because, again, I'm just trying to probe their allegation. I used $460,000 in place of the 1 million that they use. Certainly there's no basis for the 1 million. I used 460 because that was essentially the starting balance. And even though it went up a little bit, for most of the time it was far, far less than 460. For five years, it was well under $50,000. But, again, I'm not trying to be a mathematician here; I'm just probing their calculation. So I used 460,000 -- Q. So we're looking back at your Exhibit 11B, 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your handwritten note. A. Yes. Thank you. I'm looking at the fourth row. I replaced 1 million with 460,000. I used their return rate of 3 percent, and you'll see that I get $13,800 a year in income instead of 30,000. Q. And then what do you do with that number? A. And I multiply that by 13.5, and that gives me the number in the far right-hand column that's handwritten, $186,300. So based on the brokerage account statements that the Brothers had, their million dollars was wrong, and 460,000 that I used was probably generous. Q. The next line on the exhibit for the income. A. Yes. This was a $340,000 IRA. I believe this actually became part of the revocable trust. I didn't mess with that. I didn't fuss with that number. I just accepted it as the Brothers had it on this exhibit. Q. Okay. Looking at Exhibit 11B, then did you do a new subtotal using a calculator, I presume? A. Yes. I like math, but not that much. I did; I just added up the numbers that I didn't change and the numbers that I, in my opinion, corrected, and I came to a subtotal of 3.7, almost 7, so almost 3.77 million; whereas, the Brothers' subtotal was 5.22 81 1 million. 2 Q• And then did you then perform another math 3 calculation? 4 A• Yes. The Brothers included $875,000 as a 5 deduction from the income, as a reduction in income 6 based on fees and professional services. And that 7 figure is probably pretty close because the QTIP did 8 have trustee fees and insurance and some things that 9 are paid out. So I left that number the same as well. 10 So, again, I just did the math; I took my 11 3.77, rounding, million, and subtracted that figure. 12 And I ended u p with total income for 13.5 years in the 13 amount of 2.894,388. 14 Q. And then the y have a heading called Assets 15 not disclosed to date. We'll accept that heading 16 because that's their assertion at this point even 17 though they've had these account statements. Did you 18 then make an adjustment there? 19 A. Yeah. I made essentially, the same 20 adjustment. So, you know, the top part of it is what 21 we've discussed is really what Mrs. Dixon's income was 22 during this period. So then the bottom part here is 23 what assets were available at the time of her death. 24 And, again, I just replaced their 1 million 25 with 460,000, which is a very high figure based on what 82 1 she actually had at the time of her death which was 2 about 33,000. But I'm not trying to quibble, so I just 3 used the same 460 that I used above. 4 Q• And then did you come up with an assets 5 available for expenses figure? 6 A. Yes. It's written there on the page. It's 7 $3,694,388. 8 Q• Let's drop down below the line to the 9 expense figure. What does the first line represent? 10 A. That represents income taxes on the income 11 that was listed above. So if you look at what was 12 written there before I changed it, you'll see that they 13 use the 35 percent tax rate, they multiply that by the 14 income that they had received in their calculation up 15 above, which was over 4.3. 16 Now, because I believe that her income was 17 far less based on the documentation, I used my income 18 figure from the records, and I still used the 35 19 percent tax rate. So where the had Y gotten taxes of 20 1.5 million, I got closer to 1 million in taxes. 21 Q. The other expenses that are listed here, did 22 you make any adjustments to those expenses on the 23 document that had been produced by the Brothers? 24 A. No, actually I did not. I did not make any 25 other adjustments other than those that were required 83 1 because of the addition or subtraction of figures that 2 I had corrected. 3 4- And then did you then get to a total expense 4 figure on the second page of Exhibit 11B~ 5 A. Yes. And it's written there. It's a li the 6 over 3.5 million. And that reflects a half a million 7 dollars less in income taxes that are on the first page 8 in my calculation. 9 Q. And then did you redo the calculation then 10 below the line after the expenses? 11 A. I did. So with the original Exhibit 11A 12 from the Brothers, I took their asset figure, I 13 subtracted their expense figure and got 1.59 million. 14 I used the asset figure that I believe is correct from 15 the documents and the expense figure that's corrected, 16 and I get missing assets of $189,852.20. l~ And, again, I'm not sitting here claiming 18 that that's an exact figure. In fact, I think it's 19 not. I think that whatever, quote/unquote, was missing 20 is far less because I was very generous in the stock 21 accounts number. 22 And I don't see anywhere on here where the 23 Brothers accounted for things like charitable 24 deductions which Mrs. Dixon made which the 25 Brothers -- 84 1 Q• Deductions or contributions? 2 A• I'm sorry; charitable contributions, which 3 the Brothers were aware of since they had her tax 4 returns. I don't see anything on here that really 5 includes real estate taxes on the Boiling Springs 6 property or the Florida condos, etcetera, etcetera. ~ So, again, m y point was not to be coming up 8 with an exact mathematical figure here; my point was 9 simply to probe whether the Brothers had any factual 10 support for the allegation that $1.5 million was 11 missing. 12 Q. And based upon the math and usin g the actual 13 figures, is there any way that that $1.5 million could 14 be mathematically supported? 15 A. No. 16 Q. And in terms of - - let me make sure we're 17 clear. This was all information that the Brothers had 18 in their possession? 19 A. Yes, absolutel Y. This was all information 20 that they either obtained during discovery or prior to 21 discovery. So they had all this information in their 22 hands by October of 2009 when the discovery period 23 ended. 24 So they had this information prior to the 25 time that the Brothers' counsel filed prehearing 85 l memoranda alleging 1.5 million in missing assets and 2 before they filed the Petition for Administrator Pro 3 Tem that made the same allegation and also alleged 4 $300, 000 in income, which again, if you look at this 5 chart, is simply not supported by the documents that 6 they obtained. ~ Q- And they also had documents that they did 8 not have to obtain which they had prior to October 9 2009. Isn't that correct? 10 A. Yes, because they were the QTIP cotrustees. 11 So they had all of the QTIP information available to 12 them, you know, I suppose at the moment that things 13 were occurring. 14 Q. Did the Brothers' conduct in continuing to 15 assert that there were $1.5 million in missing assets 16 as part of their objection and as part of their 17 Petition for Administrator Pro Tem, did that cause the 18 Executor to have increased attorneys' fees? 19 A. Yes. When I reviewed those documents and 20 received their proposed exhibits, including the cash 21 flow statement, I had to invest a significant amount of 22 time to review the documents and determine what defense 23 should be made to those allegations. 24 As far as the Petition for Administrator Pro 25 Tem, that matter required briefing at the court level. 86 1 When the petition was denied, the Brothers filed an 2 exception with the Court, so we had to brief the 3 exception. 4 Then the Brothers filed an a ppeal to the 5 Superior Court of the denial of that petition. 6 That appeal we had to deal with, there were kind of 7 preliminary procedural matters for the appeal, 8 reviewing the record that went up on appeal, what 9 documents were delivered to the Court, etcetera, y,7e 10 filed a brief on the merits, and we actually argued 11 that petition. 12 And I asked for argument on it because the 13 Brothers' position and our position were very diverse, 14 divergent. We didn't even agree on the standard of 15 review. So we argued that petition, and then the 16 Superior Court quashed the appeal saying that it was 17 interlocutory. 18 But we spent a significant amount of 19 attorney time and resources responding to the Brothers' 20 documents that make these assertions which are 21 factually, mathematically impossible. 22 MR. BRADSHAW: Excuse me, Mr. Shade. 23 Recognizing I'm not an active participant; 24 nevertheless, may I request a brief recess? 25 THE AUDITOR: Sure. Before we go off the 87 1 record, I think I'm observing that the Brothers are not 2 present here today. 3 For the record, is that correct? 4 MR. KEHNER: That's correct. 5 THE AUDITOR: They don't intend to be here 6 at all in these proceedings ~ MR. KEHNER: No. Mr. Shade, neither Mr. 8 Cohen or the Brothers could make it today, but I did 9 not want to pursue a continuance. 10 THE AUDITOR: That's certainly apt in view 11 of the fact that they have known for a long time that 12 this hearing was scheduled. So I just want the record 13 to reflect that they are not present in court. 14 We're in recess. 15 (A brief recess was taken.) 16 THE AUDITOR: Proceed. l~ (Executor Exhibit No. 14 was marked.) 18 BY MS. GEMMILL: 19 Q. Ms. Colonna, let me hand you what we have 20 marked as Exhibit 14. Do you recognize Exhibit 14? 21 A. Yes. These are all the invoices that McNees 22 issued to Marshall Dixon as the Executor. And let me 23 clarify that. 24 These are actually not all of the invoices. 25 I left off the first couple because the first couple 88 1 included only fees related to estate administration so 2 they're not fees that we are seeking in our motion. 3 Q• And I'm lookin g at the very first page of 4 Exhibit 14, and there are some boxes, things that are 5 blacked out. What's been blacked out? 6 A. Yes. I went through the exhibits, and I 7 redacted out the fees and the description and the 8 attorney and the date, so I redacted out the entire, 9 across the entire invoice for all of the activities 10 that were related to the estate administration. 11 And I don't administer estates; but you 12 know, when they are preparing tax returns or doing that 13 kind of work, I removed those activities so that we are 14 not pursuing those fees in this motion. 15 Q. So fees that are blacked out are fees that 16 are not being pursued? l~ A• Correct. There's one other area where I 18 blacked out fees, and that is that I actually took out 19 the fees that were incurred b y McNees while we were 20 preparing an objection to the QTIP account. 21 There is, I would sa y, a significant amount 22 of overlap between the issue that the Executor raised 23 in his objection to the QTIP accounts and the Brothers' 24 objections. 25 But I felt that it was a ppropriate not to 89 1 seek the fees where we were preparing that objection 2 and the related pleadings, so our Response to New 3 Matter, that kind of thing. So those are all the fees 4 that I have blacked out with those large, wide, black 5 boxes. 6 Q• Now. how were the fees for the Executor of 7 the Estate determined in this case? 8 A• Through standard hourl y process; so the 9 professional's hourly rate multiplied by the time 10 actually spent on the activities related to the 11 litigation. 12 Q. And you reviewed all the entries on these 13 bills, these invoices? 14 A. I did. 15 Q. We talked about the bi g parts that are 16 blacked out where the entire entry, including the 17 amounts of time and the dollar value, is blocked out. 18 Was there anything else that you redacted as we go 19 through here on the Exhibit 14? 20 A. Yes. There were some time entries that I 21 believed reflected either attorney work product or 22 attorney/client communications. And so where I found 23 those, I used a small redaction tool, so I redacted out 24 only that part of the description that I believed 25 should not be disclosed. 90 1 But I did not black out the time spent and 2 the fees incurred on those tasks. And I will say that 3 I tried to use a very light touch in redacting those 4 items because I recognize that our fees are what is at 5 issue. 6 So I tried intentionally to not redact 7 things unless I felt it was truly necessary to protect 8 work product or privilege. 9 4. And what are the firm's policies in terms of 10 when the time entries are made that are then reflected 11 ors the invoices of Exhibit 14? 12 A. The firm's requirement is that attorneys 13 record their time in our time management system within 14 seven calender days of the date that the work was 15 performed. 16 So the time for one Monday must be entered 17 into the system by the following Monday. But the other 18 policy of the firm is that attorneys bill for the 19 actual time incurred. 20 So where some firms bill .5 for ever y phone 21 call, we do not do that. If a phone call lasts 12 22 minutes, it's .2. So those are generally the policies 23 that were followed with the attorneys recording time in 24 this matter. 25 4. Now, if we go to the third page of Exhibit 91 1 14 which is the summary page of the first invoice, the 2 October 12th, 2007 invoice, and that reflects a less 3 discount amount. Can you explain why there are 4 discount amounts that are being reflected on some of 5 these invoices? 6 A. Yes. Each client at the firm has a client 7 relationship manager who is one of the attorneys. And 8 that attorney is responsible for reviewing the invoices 9 and issuing them, approving them to be mailed out to 10 the clients. 11 Not infrequently those client relationship 12 managers will apply some discount, essentially as a 13 courtesy to the client. Sometimes they will discount 14 fees because the work ended up being more involved than 15 was expected. Sometimes it's, frankly, for the client 16 to feel that we're trying to accommodate their concern 17 about fees. 18 And in this case, the client relationship 19 manager, who is Lou Dejoie -- and I'll spell that. 20 It's D-e-j-o-i-e. Lou Dejoie gave discounts on many 21 but not all of the invoices. And it seemed to me that 22 what he usually did was round down to, like, an even 23 thousand dollars, or something to that effect. 24 Q. And how did you account for these discounts 25 Because obviously you had amounts for estate 92 1 l l: l; l~ l~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 administration and you took off these bills. How did 2 you account for the discount in determining how the 3 discount would be applied on that invoice? 4 A. Right. Well, we are not seeking the fees 5 that were recorded in this motion. We are seeking the 6 fees that were actually billed to the Executor. So we 7 are seeking the discounted fee number. 8 The other thing I had to do was because, 9 especially if you just look at this first exhibit, some ~ of the time I completely eliminated because it was L estate administration time, so I had to allocate the ' discount over all the fees. ' So what I did was I essentially took an even discount off of every dollar. So I didn't use the entire discount on the fees that we redacted, and I also did not apply it solely to the fees that we're seeking here. 4. And so I understand, so the fees that are actually evidenced on the many pages of Exhibit 14 are the fees that are shown are related to the litigation on the objections of the Brothers? A. Yes. Q. Did you also prepare a summary of these invoices? A. Yes, I did. 93 1C 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 (Executor Exhibit No. 15 was marked.) 2 BY MS. GEMMILL: 3 4. Let me hand you what we have as our final 4 exhibit, Executor Exhibit 15. Can you explain what 5 Exhibit 15 is? ~ A. Yes. This is an Excel spreadsheet that I 7 worked with one of the secretaries at the firm to 3 prepare. So to kind of walk through and give you a ~ sense of what this is showing, the first column is the invoice date, and these invoice dates will match up with the invoices that are in Exhibit Executor 14. The next line is the total fees that were recorded. That would include all the fees that were recorded, even the estate administration fees. And so I included that line so that I could calculate the discount percentage when there was a discount given. 4. So let's do -- for example, if you looked at Exhibit 14, the very first invoice from October 12th, 2007, it has a total fee amount of $7,519, as that would appear in that first line for fees recorded? A. Yes, exactly. Q. And then you took the $634 discount? A. Right. And that gives an 8-percent discount 4. And then what did you do with that discount 94 L L E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 percentage? A. Well, what I actually did next was in the next column, the fifth column, I put in that box the fees that we are seeking, the fees that were related to the litigation. So just to compare, the second column shows $7,519. The fifth column shows that of that, only $1,725 was related to the litigation, so the rest of those fees are estate administration. So then I took the discount percentage of 8 percent, that result times the fees recorded for the litigation, and that gives you a discount of $145.45. And then the next to the last column indicates the fees that we are seeking from the Brothers, so it's the litigation fees minus the discount. So in the first row, it's $1,579.65. So a lot of these columns were necessary just so that we could get the right discount applied. Q. Now, you start in October 2007 with fees sought from the Brothers. In this proceeding, is the Estate seeking any fees from the Martson firm? A. We are not seeking any fees from the Brothers' original counsel, the Martson firm. Q. And so as we go from October of 2007 down to the line for February of 2010, until that line, you 95 1( 11 l~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 only have fees being sought from the Brothers. Is that 2 correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 4. Why do you then have a column that begins 5 with figures for fees sought from Obermayer? ~ A. Our position in the motion is that the 7 Obermayer firm should be held jointly and severally 3 liable for the fees that the Executor incurred from the ~ time that Obermayer began to be involved in the case. So if you look at that row where it shows the first entry for fees sought from Obermayer, you'll see that that is from the February 2010 invoice. That invoice reflects the time that was spent in January of 2010 when the Obermayer firm got involved in the case. 4. And then have you provided a total of the fees related to the litigation on the Brothers' objections, the total of the fees that are sought from the Brothers? A. Yes. That is at the bottom of the next to the last column, and the total is $207,116.82. Q. And then what is the total of the next column? A. The total in the next column is the amount that we believe the Obermayer firm should be jointly and severally liable for, and that's $102,808.97. And 96 L E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 let me just clarify, we're not seeking the sum of those two numbers. Q. So you're not seeking 207,000 plus 102,000? A. Correct. We are seeking for the Brothers to be held liable for the $207,000 figure and for Obermayer to be jointly and severally liable for $102,808 of that same number. Q. And while we won't do this here, have you gone through all the figures of the spreadsheet and matched that up to all the figures on the invoices that are on Exhibit 14? A. Yes. Not only did I match them up, I actually inputted the fees myself. So for this chart, I listed all the invoice dates. I listed the total fees recorded. I listed the fee discount figure, and I listed the fees recorded for the estate account objections. The rest of it is just math. Thankfully the secretary could set it up to calculate the discount percentage and calculate the discounts, etcetera, and do the totals. So I actually inputted the basic information that leads you through the math to get to (these. Q. And then the Excel program actually does the 25 ~ A. Yes . 97 L ~' E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Ms. Colonna, based upon your experience as a federal court clerk since 1997 and as a litigator since 1999, would these fees of $207,000 have been necessary if there was any factual or legal basis for these objections? A. Not in my opinion. I recognize that there would have been some fees incurred during the period that the Brothers sought to investigate the basis of their claim. But because of the dilatory, because of the content that we contend was dilatory, obdurate and vexatious, the fees were substantially higher than they should have been. The case lasted substantially longer than it should have been. Mrs. Dixon has been dead for four and a half years, and we're not near the end of this yet. And because of that, we are requesting the fees as a sanction. MS. GEMMILL: Thank you. I have nothing further for this witness. THE AUDITOR: Cross-examine. MR. KEHNER: Mr. Shade, I'd request a break. I need some time to review some of these documents, especially the binder that we just received as an exhibit. 98 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE AUDITOR: I mean, are you talking about a matter of until after lunch, or are you talking about another hearing? Because I'm not inclined to go along with a request for another hearing for the reasons that I indicated before. I mean, I think that your office had plenty of opportunity to issue timely discovery here and apparently didn't. And so if you're saying you need -- if you're saying let's break for lunch now, if the Estate has no objection to that, I would say that's fine. MS. GEMMILL: That is fine, Your Honor. It seems like an appropriate time for a lunch break. THE AUDITOR: So then how much time do you think you're going to need? MR. KEHNER: Well, I'll try and do it during the lunch break. THE AUDITOR: What time do we want to reconvene? I'll ask you. MR. KEHNER: 1:30. THE AUDITOR: Is that okay? MS. GEMMILL: That is fine. THE AUDITOR: Fine. We'll recess until 11:30. (A lunch recess was taken.) 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE AUDITOR: I remind you that you remain under oath. MS. GEMMILL: One thing first. I neglected to move my exhibits into evidence. THE AUDITOR: Well, I think probably we ought to wait until after cross examination. MS. GEMMILL: We'll do that then. Thank I You . THE AUDITOR: Sure. MR. KEHNER: Mr. Shade, I would like to formally request, in light of the volume of the documents that were presented here today, a continuance of this hearing. It's my position that in light of the volume of documents, that they should have been produced regardless of whether there was a request for production or not. There's no way to review and prepare for this volume of documents in an hour's time. THE AUDITOR: Response? MS. GEMMILL: Mr. Shade, almost all these documents are documents that should have been in their files or in the files of the prior counsel. The only -- or they are documents that they produced to us right before the hearing that was scheduled in 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 February. The only new documents are the attorneys' fees documents, and those fees are what they are. And if they had wanted to see those in advance, they had an opportunity to request them in discovery because that's the entire basis of this motion. So we think they should be prepared to proceed today, and we ask that you would overrule that request, reject it. THE AUDITOR: Well, and I agree. I mean, I'm very troubled by this. I mean, it's just been like a way of life in this case, that what this whole direct testimony has been about. If somebody can explain to me why the Brothers did not timely request these documents when they had every opportunity to do so. It's not very difficult to issue a request for production of all documents that are intended to be introduced into evidence at a hearing. And to my knowledge and the representations made here today, that did not happen. And so under those circumstances, I think it would be -- I just think it would be totally inappropriate to delay these proceedings any further. I think that the Brothers do not take care of business at their peril. So I'm going to deny that 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examination. MR. KEHNER: Well, I would like to say, though, there was some uncertainty as to whether the motion would proceed, number one; and, number two, whether there was going to be a hearing and what the date was, which is why I did not submit a request for production prior to the time that I did. THE AUDITOR: Well, I hear your explanation; but, I'm sorry, I regret to say that I cannot accept that as a reasonable basis for any further delay in these proceedings. MR. KEHNER: I would also like to reinstate my motion to dismiss on the basis that the Martson firm is an indispensable party in this hearing and that because if there is an award of attorneys' fees against th.e Brothers for conduct that is attributed to the Martson firm, the burden should not be on the Brothers to then go after the Martson firm. These are the claims of the Executor, and the Executor has the duty to join Martson. THE AUDITOR: Response? MS. GEMMILL: We are not seeking any fees 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fees regardless of whether or not we join their counsel. So if they believe that they are now charged with these fees because of actions of their counsel, it is their duty to go against their prior counsel. It is not our obligation to bring their prior counsel into this case because the Brothers, themselves, are the ones who hired that attorney and who engaged in this conduct through that attorney and, perhaps, even on their own. THE AUDITOR: I think it would be a different situation if the Estate were asking for attorney fees against the Martson office. Then I believe they would have that burden to join them. But it seems to me that to the extent that an award would be made in favor of the Estate for attorney fees prior to the entry of the appearance of the Brothers' present counsel, the Brothers would have a claim over against the Martson firm and it would be their burden to join them. That's how I see that, and so that motion is lalso denied. CROSS EXAMINATION Q. Ms. Colonna, you may recall, I'm Kevin I'm representing George and Richard Dixon at 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this hearing. You made mention a number of times in your direct testimony that with regard to some of the objections that were made that there was no explanation provided by the Brothers' counsel, which is the Martson firm. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any knowledge or information independently that the Brothers were involved in making these objections? A. I do not know what communications the Brothers had with the Martson Law Firm; so, no. Q. And the explanations that you were seeking from the Martson firm were legal explanations, were they not? A. Both factual and legal. Q. I believe you also testified that going back to September of 1987 the Brothers' counsel would have been in possession of all financial information regarding Mrs. Dixon's accounts? A. I'm sorry. What date did you say again? A. September of '87, or '97. Q. I don't think that was my testimony, although I may have misspoken as to the year. What I know is that in 2007, the Martson firm requested all of the financial information that the Executor had, and it 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was provided in that same month. Q. Referring to Exhibit 3E, which is the letter from Martson to Mr. Shade, No Otto states that at no point did we receive from the Estate copies of checks drawn against these accounts or letters of authorization permitting transfers of money from these accounts. That's in October of 2008. Do you dispute (that statement? A. No. I think that statement is accurate because the canceled checks were not located by the Executor in Mrs. Dixon's residence, so the Martson firm obtained those checks directly from M&T Bank pursuant to the authorization that we provided in June of 2008. And if you actually look at Exhibit 3C, that's where the Brothers' counsel says in the second paragraph, we have received Mrs. Dixon's monthly statements and canceled checks associated with the checking account at M&T Bank. Q. And that statement precedes the October letter that I just referred to? A. It does precede it in time, yes. Q. Exhibit 3E, if we go back to that next to the last paragraph, could you read that first sentence to me? A. In summary, our clients are aware of the 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 belief -- I'm sorry; I misread that. I guess I can't. Let me try that again. In summary, our clients are of the belief that the substantial resources available to Mrs. Dixon prior to her death were significantly depleted as part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by the Executor to benefit himself to the exclusion of his siblings. Q. You also testified on direct a number of times that the Brothers changed their theories of the case and expressed great surprise in any allegations relating to misappropriation of assets. Does this letter alter your position? A. No. My surprise was that the new allegation that there was fraud or deceit or theft. That was certainly not the position that the Brothers' counsel had expressed up through October of 2009. Q. But it was not a surprise to you that there were continuing allegations throughout the case that assets were depleted to or for the benefit of Marshall IDixon? A. That was not a surprise. We were aware of that from the time the Brothers filed their objection. Q. You also mentioned that the addendum to the prehearing memo that was filed by our office was the first time that you received any information regarding 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the itemization of assets that were not included in the 'estate account. A. Yes. Q. Is that right? A. I think that was my testimony, yes. Q. Isn't it true that part of the exhibits attached to the addendum was an exhibit from Marshall Dixon's deposition? A. Yes. Q. So that it wouldn't have been the first time A. Oh, no; it was not the first time I saw it. This is the first time that we received the Brothers' allegation that this list -- and it's actually identified at the top of the page as Lottie Ivy Dixon Estate Exhibit A. Q. Right. A. It was the first time that the Brothers alleged that the checks listed on this exhibit were items that were improperly dissipated from the estate. In fact, all the checks listed on this were checks written to Marshall, Richard and Charlotte and George. Q. Would you agree that a number of the objections just seemed to languish during the time that the Martson firm was involved? 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I guess languished -- they certainly didn't seem to be moving forward. Q. And you mentioned that there was a productive discussion soon after the Obermayer firm became involved in resolving several objections. A. Yes, that's true. Q. Referring to your calculations on the cash flow chart, that's your Exhibit 11B. A. Yes. I'm there. Q. Do you know, for example -- let me back up. You testified that you reviewed the brokerage statements in reviewing the amounts for the stocks and funds? A. Yes. I actually specifically reviewed the December statements for each year. Q. Do you know with certainty that Lottie Ivy Dixon did not own any other stocks and funds that would ',not have been reflected in the brokerage statements? A. Yes, I believe I do know that with I certainty. She had one brokerage account statement. Q. How do you know she didn't have stocks aside from those appearing on the brokerage statement? A. The only account statements that were in her home or mailed to her, either before or after her i (death, were the ones for the Legg, I call it the Legg 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mason account. I think it then became a Wachovia account. It may have been something else in between. But there were no records of any other account in the home or received in the mail. Q. Exhibit 12, which is a list of the value of the brokerage account for Lottie Dixon. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. And let me direct your attention to the second page of that exhibit. There are a number of references on the right-hand side. The first one is the fourth line down, transfer of securities to margin account. Do you know if Lottie Dixon had a margin A. I actually do not know that. Q. Well, I thought you testified that Lottie Dixon only had one brokerage account. A. She had one account with the Legg Mason firm. I have no idea if it had a margin account that was related to it or not. I did not look for that. Q. A few lines further down there's a notation, transfers in kind to number 360-01688-2. And further over on the right-hand side it has Marshall. 25 ~ A. Yes, I see that. 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Q. Isn't it true that the transfers that are referred to went to Marshall's account? A. Yes, they did. I think Mr. Dixon was asked about them in his deposition, and he testified that those sums were actually transferred back. And I think you can see there's a jump from 110,000 up to 179. So that probably reflects a portion of that transfer being transferred back. Q. A portion of the transfer but maybe not necessarily the whole transfer? A. I actually don't remember the details, but I believe they might be in Mr. Dixon's deposition testimony. Q. Well, let's go to October of 2000. There's another notation for transfers in kind to number 360-01688-1 and 2, both of which are Marshall's accounts, but there's no notation further down that there was any transfer coming back to Lottie Dixon. A. I believe that's a correct way to read this, I Yes . Q. Let me go to the invoices, Exhibit 14. Wouldn't you agree that numerous of the tasks that are noted in at least the first few months of these invoices would have been conducted regardless of whether there were objections in this case? 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I don't think I can answer that without referring to the specific items that you're referring to. I'm sorry; I just don't have all these memorized. Q. Well, for example, 9/27/07 there's an entry for you in reviewing Rhoads & Sinon estate file. Now, does that have anything to do with the Brothers' involvement? A. Yes, it does. Q. And why's that? A. Because early in the case, the Brothers raised the question regarding Mrs. Dixon's capacity when she signed her last, either will or codicil, and Rhoads & Sinon was her estate planning firm. And so there were questions regarding privilege and how we were going to manage the questioning of Rhoads & Sinon, and that was why I reviewed the Rhoads & Sinon estate file. I would not have reviewed it if it were just a matter of estate administration. Q. Wouldn't someone at your firm have reviewed I it? A. Possibly. But I believe that that would have occurred well before October of 2007 which is the (date of this invoice. Q. How about reviewing the wills and codicils, 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ithat's an entry of 12/31/07? A. (Perusing document.) I see that entry for 12/13. Q. 12/13; I'm sorry. A. Yes. This is also related to the Brothers' suggestion that there was a lack of capacity. Q. There's an entry on 3/13/08 by Ms. Mullaugh for revisions to tax return. Tax returns would have been prepared regardless of whether the Brothers were involved or whether there were objections? A. That's true, but that's not the only work that Ms. Mullaugh was performing on that date. Q. I understand that. Well, while we're there, though, does your firm have a policy regarding what's called block billing? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. The entry for 3/13/08, do you recognize that to be a block-billing entry where numerous tasks are included under one lump sum? A. I would agree that there is more than one task included under one time entry. Q. Just as another example, 11/11/08 -- I'm sorry. What I'm looking for, there were a number of entries regarding reviewing invoices related to the foreign properties which seemed to have no relation to 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilthe Brothers' objections or -- let me strike that. They have no relation to adding work in this case that would not otherwise have been done. A. I recall those entries generally, and I do think they relate to the Brothers' objection because there was an objection that the Estate had paid certain costs, taxes and maybe condo fees on the Florida properties after the time that it should have because those properties had been bequeathed, one to Marshall Dixon and one to Charlotte Dixon. So I believe that those entries related to our efforts to figure out what time period was covered by those charges and then determine whether the charges should have been paid by Marshall and Charlotte or by the Estate. Q. Wouldn't you say that was a pretty obvious objection well-founded? A. Not necessarily. I guess it depends on how the condo fees are billed, what time period the taxes are billed, what time period the utilities covered. I think all of that you have to look at and analyze. Q. Didn't you concede those objections? A. We conceded $5,000 that Marshall should have paid and $5,000 that Charlotte should have paid. Q. M&T Bank also filed objections, did they 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not? A. Most of the objections were filed jointly, I believe, by M&T and George and Richard. Q. Are you seeking attorneys' fees from counsel A. No. Q. Is there any attempt to separate out time devoted to Rhoads & Sinon issues? A. No. Q. So it would have been lumped together in these invoices attributed to the Brothers' objections? A. I don't know that I would say it was lumped together, but I can tell you that I did not try to redact from the invoices work that specifically related to M&T's objections. They were joint objections with the Brothers. Q. Correct. Now, I'm not going to go through every one of these invoices, but isn't it true that there's a lack of itemization and many vague entries? And by that, I mean reviewing correspondence or making phone calls without any reference to the nature of the correspondence or to whom a call was made for what the call was about. A. I agree that there are many entries that do not indicate the nature of the correspondence, be it 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 email or otherwise. Q. And would you agree that there were also numerous times when time was entered by two, sometimes three attorneys from your firm for the same work? A. No. Q. On 11/11 of '09, both you and Ms. Mullaugh .charged time for attending a status conference. A. Yes, we did, but I would not say that was for the same work. Q. Well, do you really need two partners attending a status conference and charging for that? A. We believe the answer to that was yes, particularly because Ms. Mullaugh had done the very careful calculation of the unified tax credit which was still at issue in this matter. And I do not profess to be an expert or anything close in the matters of federal estate taxation, so she did accompany me to the prehearing conference, primarily to address that issue. Q. Was preparing the fiduciary tax return an increase in the fees in this case, an increase due to the Brothers' objections? A. I don't believe so. Is there a time entry that relates to that? Q. There is at least one that I know of. 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Perusing document.) 12/3/09 by a D. Gruver. Can you identify who D. Gruver is? A. Yes. It's David Gruver, and he is a paralegal in the estates and taxation group. Q. And the entry for 12/3/09 is prepare fiduciary income tax return and draft letter to lexecutor. A. I believe, Mr. Kehner, you are right. I should have redacted that amount. I didn't catch that Q. Well, you didn't catch that one. Isn't it possible that there's lots you didn't catch here because of the lack of itemization? A. I don't think so. Q. From just reviewing these invoices without itemization, how can you relate the work to anything to do with the Brothers' objections? A. Even where the entries are not as specific as they could have been, because I participated throughout this case, I know what was going on during the relevant time periods. So as I reviewed these invoices, I bore that in mind. Q. And while there are entries from a number of other folks, that you may not have known what they were doing exactly. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I wouldn't agree with that. Q. How much do you think you charge for the brief in support of your objection to the Auditor's report? A. Off the top of my head, I do not know. Q. It was roughly a 25-page brief, was it not? A. I do not know off the top of my head. I would be happy to look at it to confirm that. Q. Do you think a 25-page brief is appropriate on the amount that you're objecting to as $20,000? A. I do. Q. And you believe that's a sign of good faith? A. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I would say it's a sign of diligent effort as counsel. Q. And a fair price to the client? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Do you know Stan Smith? A. Yes. I recall him being involved in the case, yes. Q. And he's an attorney at Rhoads & Sinon? A. Yes. Q. Entries relating to your work involving Stan Smith would have been connected to the M&T Bank, (correct? A. Not solely, no. I think most of the 11~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 jentries -- and you haven't referred me to a specific I one, but I think many of the entries to Stan Smith relate to the federal tax refund issue because there were several pieces of correspondence back and forth with Mr. Smith regarding that issue. And that is an objection that the Brothers made in conjunction with M&T. Q. But you made no attempt to separate out your time devoted toward M&T Bank? A. I don't think it was devoted towards M&T Bank; I think it was devoted to the objection. Q. Were you the billing attorney on this file? A. No. Q. Would that have been the client relationship manager that you mentioned? A. Yes. MR. KEHNER: Just give me a couple of minutes, and I may be done. (Pause.) I think that's all I have. THE AUDITOR: Redirect? MS. GEMMILL: Yes. Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Ms. Colonna, were you the lead litigator on the team of the people that were addressing the 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 objections filed by the Brothers? A. Yes. Q. And in that capacity, were familiar with everything that was happening? A. Yes. Q. And with respect to time entries where it doesn't reference a specific item of correspondence, if you were to go to your file for a time entry on a particular day, would that file then have those documents in it? A. I believe it would. We save all emails, and we keep hard copies of all correspondence that go by i name . Q. Do you have any reason to believe that any of these entries are inaccurate in terms of their description of responding to correspondence or emails or reviewing any of that information? A. I have no reason to think that any of them are inaccurate. Q. You were asked a question about the brief objecting to the Auditor's fees and the number of pages and the effort put into that brief. If the Auditor's fees are shifted or allocated to the estate, who bears Ithe cost of those fees? 25 ~ MR. KEHNER: Objection. 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE AUDITOR: Basis? MR. KEHNER: Irrelevant and beyond the scope Hof this hearing. THE AUDITOR: Irrelevant and what? MR. KEHNER: Beyond the scope of this shearing. THE AUDITOR: Response? MS. GEMMILL: It shows why it is that we were putting effort into doing this brief as to who would ultimately be responsible for that and the obligation of the Executor of the Estate. MR. KEHNER: And I'll stipulate to that. THE AUDITOR: Are you satisfied with a stipulation? MS. GEMMILL: I'm sorry. I'm not sure what his stipulation is. To what the answer is going to be? MR. KEHNER: That the Estate would be obligated to pay the Auditor's fees. MS. GEMMILL: And then who would ultimately be responsible for those payments from the Estate? My question is, are there any beneficiaries that are impacted by the Auditor's fees. THE AUDITOR: Are you objecting to that question? It seems to me that it's pretty self-evident and already a matter of record who the heirs of the 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 estate are. It doesn't seem to me that it makes much difference whether I sustain or overrule the objection. I think it's a matter of record. All you have to do is look. But with that observation, do you want Ito -- MR. KEHNER: I have no objection. THE AUDITOR: Go ahead and answer. BY MS. GEMMILL: Q. Who would the beneficiaries be who would be responsible? A. Marshall Dixon and Charlotte Dixon because there are no more liquid assets in the estate, so those fees would have to be offset somehow against the property, the real estate that those two heirs of Mrs. Dixon, that they are receiving. Q. You were asked a question with respect to M&T's joining in the objection. If M&T had not joined in, would you still have had to do the same things in terms of responding to the objections? A. Yes. Q. And who was it that was pushing for these objections? Was it the Brothers and the Brothers' counsel? Maybe pushing forward is not the right word. But who was asserting these objections and taking the 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lead, the Brothers and the Brothers' counsel, or M&T? A. It was certainly the Brothers, and particularly so after M&T got new counsel. Q. Mr. Kehner took you through some of the items on Exhibit 12. I want to ask you some questions about them. Your purpose in bringing Exhibit 12, did that have anything to do with the -- these are items that are not necessarily missing assets; these are items where we can see where things went. Isn't that (correct? A. Yes. Q. Because these are actually from the brokerage statements? A. Correct. And if the Brothers wanted to show that those transfers to Marshall were improper, they had the opportunity to do that in February. Q. But you were taking this as a basis of showing that the figures on Exhibit 11 that the Brothers had put forward with respect to the amount of stocks and funds was an inaccurate figure? A. Correct. Q. You were asked whether there were any other brokerage accounts. Did the tax returns of Lottie Dixon reflect any other brokerage accounts? A. I'm sure they did not. 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And finally, you were asked a question with respect to the fact that the assertion that there were assets that were depleted was an assertion that was made early on in the case, so it was an assertion that you were aware of that assertion. Is it correct you just didn't have the details of that until the very end? A. That is correct. Q. And was there ever any legal or factual basis given over this entire time period for this alleged depletion of assets? A. No. MS. GEMMILL: That's all I have. THE AUDITOR: Recross? MR. KEHNER: Nothing further. THE AUDITOR: I have a few questions. Q. My understanding is that Exhibit 11A was a document that was either generated by the Brothers or their counsel and would have been a document that would have been introduced in the previous hearing in this case if any documents had been introduced by the Brothers at all, apparently, that you got this from the brother's counsel. Is that correct? A. That is correct. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I don't know that you would have any way of knowing this, but it would be of interest to me to know who actually physically prepared this document, Exhibit 11A. Do you have any basis upon which to answer that question? A. I have suspicion, but not more than that. THE AUDITOR: Does counsel know who actually prepared Exhibit 11A? MR. KEHNER: You're referring to me? THE AUDITOR: Yes. MR. KEHNER: I would have to check the file again. THE AUDITOR: And before today, had you ever seen Exhibit 11A? MR. KEHNER: I had, yes. BY THE AUDITOR: Q. Do you have any recollection or any record or independent recollection of when you first received Exhibit 11A? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. 3:00 in the afternoon on February the 23rd, the day before the hearing. Q. This was part of that package? A. Absolutely it was. 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So that we know that it would have been prepared prior to that, obviously? A. Yes. And perhaps we know a little bit earlier as well because in the addendum to the supplemental hearing, which is only a few days, well, it's a couple weeks earlier, February 13th, this document is listed as a proposed exhibit. Q. It was? A. It was. So that's the very last page of Ion -- A. No. It's listed as a proposed exhibit. It says Lottie Dixon cash flow chart '94 to 2007. Q. Okay. I thought you said it was attached. A. I may have, but that's not what I intended ~ to say. Q. All right. Was the supplemental memorandum the first time that the one-and-a-half million-dollar figure was advanced? I~ A. I believe so, yes. Q. So we know that Plaintiff's Exhibit 11A existed by the middle of February of 2010, and my question to you is, when did you do the arithmetic that 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 established the foundation for your handwritten notations on Exhibit 11B? A. I actually did this careful analysis just this week. Prior to the February hearing, we did enough of an analysis, and it was actually Mr. Dejoie, not me, did enough of an analysis to believe that there was no support for the 1.5 million. But I actually added up the numbers in the QTIP account and looked at the brokerage statements, etcetera, and did these handwritten notes yesterday or two days ago. Q. So my next question is then, the time that you expended to do that work, is that reflected in the Executor's Exhibit 14, that time? A. It is not. Q. So that's work you did over and above what you're claiming here today? A. Correct. Could I add something, actually? Q. Sure. A. I just wanted to say that because we got this cash flow statement the afternoon before the hearing, we just really didn't have time to do as much of an analysis as we recently did. I'm not sure that's relevant, but I did want to let you know that that's why I was able to look at it a lot more closely 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recently than before the hearing. Q. Did your firm have another billing account for the estate, or was -- I realize that there are charges in here that could appear to be related to work for the estate tax returns and that sort of thing. And, of course, I don't know what's been redacted. But my question is, did your firm have a separate item number to which you billed for the estate? A. We did not. A. Correct. THE AUDITOR: Did my questions prompt any additional questions on direct? MS. GEMMILL: No, Your Honor. THE AUDITOR: Cross? MR. KEHNER: No. THE AUDITOR: Any further witnesses? MS. GEMMILL: We don't have any further witnesses. The only thing that I would ask is if we could have the witness, on Exhibit 15, because Mr. Kehner has caught one mistake that Ms. Colonna has made a $221 error, if we could have her, on Exhibit 15, do the math to subtract that $221 from our demand in this case. 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KEHNER: Well, I'm not meaning to suggest that that was the only error. MS. GEMMILL: It's the one that's been ,pointed out, and we'd like to take that back off the exhibit to make it clear that we are not seeking that $221. THE AUDITOR: I think that's fairly self-evident. Are you resting? MS. GEMMILL: I am resting. I just -- THE AUDITOR: As soon as we deal with the lexhibits. MS. GEMMILL: Yes. Thank you. THE AUDITOR: And I trust that you are moving the admission of your Exhibits 1 through, is it 14? MS. GEMMILL: 1 through 15, including the subparts in those exhibits. THE AUDITOR: Yes. What is 15? MS. GEMMILL: 15 is the summary chart of the lexhibit. THE AUDITOR: Yes. I'm sorry. Objections to the exhibits? MR. KEHNER: Well, I object to Exhibit 14 simply because I think there's no way -- first of all, there's no way that I could have adequately reviewed 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit 14 during the lunch break. Number two, there's no way to relate (numerous charges that are reflected in Exhibit 14 to the motion for attorneys' fees as work that was necessitated by the Brothers' objections. THE AUDITOR: Response? MS. GEMMILL: With respect to the time period, we've already dealt with that. If he wanted to see these earlier, he could have asked for them earlier. And with respect to relating them to the work, we have Ms. Colonna's testimony as the attorney in charge of this litigation responding that she has related these entries to the work that was done with respect to the litigation on the objections and only with respect to that except for that one entry that was pointed out to us. THE AUDITOR: Well, the problem that I have throughout this entire case with the Brothers is that there's just been a pattern of one dilatory action after another. And this idea of not requesting discovery for this hearing today when we've known for months that we were going to have this hearing is just another pebble on the pile. And so I find it just impossible 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to sit here and exclude this document on the basis of a lack of opportunity to address it. And there have been a lot of other things that the Brothers have not addressed in this case because they did not take care of business in .developing their case for whatever reasons. And this is just another example; it's not the first thing. And so on the basis that this was not timely requested when -- and by the way, the Brothers would have had every reason to anticipate that there would be billing statements introduced in this hearing today that would have covered a period of time of three or four years. And to not request them and then to come in and say, well, I'm being denied due process of law because I didn't have an adequate time to address this, I just cannot, I just don't -- there's a major disconnect. I can't connect the dots on that theory at all. MR. KEHNER: Well, Mr. Shade, what I really want to do is to submit an analysis of the invoices. THE AUDITOR: You want to what? MR. KEHNER: And I wouldn't have necessarily had that prepared for today anyway. I would like to review these invoices in a memorandum. 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I~ THE AUDITOR: Well, and I am going to i request detailed Findings of Fact, requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with citations to the record. And, you know, you'll have your opportunity to say whatever you want to say, but you're going to come up against the argument that, the testimony of the only witness in this hearing that she was intimately involved in this and that everything on this exhibit was related to the conduct of the Brothers in this litigation. And so you can ask me to find whatever you want to ask me to find, but I'm going to be butting up against that testimony the whole time. That's the problem I have with that. So the other thing is, I've tried to keep an open mind in this throughout. And all I want to do is the best that I can to resolve this matter fairly and in accordance with the law. And so I'm going to tell you now so that the Estate knows what I'm thinking, I believe it's clear law that any legal fees in Exhibit 14 that have to do with the Brothers' Superior Court appeal must be addressed to the Superior Court; they cannot be addressed to the trial court. 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I believe it's Rule of Appellate Procedure -- I don't know what it is off the top of my head, I don't remember off-hand -- 27 something, 2774, something like that. But there's a rule there, and there's case law to that effect. And so I believe that if you're saying that that was a frivolous appeal, that that's where you must go. I do not believe that -- I think I'm right about this, I'm pretty confident that I am, that the trial court does not have jurisdiction to address that. That doesn't mean you're foreclosed. I mean, you can still go back and ask them. You can still file an application to the Superior Court, as far as I know, at this point. I've been over this before, and I believe that's the rule. There's a Rule of Appellate Procedure that addresses it, and I believe that there are cases that construe it. And I've got that somewhere because I've come across that before and I knew I was going to be coming up against that -- I thought I was going to be coming up against that in this case. So that's something you need to look at. And I'm sure that the Brothers aren't going to have any trouble being satisfied that that's being law, being 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what I've just said. And so I'm going to be looking for the requested Findings of Fact to separate those time entries out because I do not believe they're And the other thing that I'm going to be looking at, that I'm looking from the Estate for is -- I know there's authority out there; I just don't know what it is, for the basis upon which to hold counsel jointly and severally liable with the clients. I know there's authority out there. I struggle with seeing how it really makes any difference in this case one way or the other, and I'm just telling you what my thoughts are because, again, all I want to do is get this thing resolved. I have no reason to think that the Brothers are judgment proof on this; but, of course, you never know, I suppose. I mean, I think there's -- I've seen enough in this case now to know that I think there are probably assets that remain to be distributed to the Brothers, perhaps, that exceed the full amount of this claim. I don't know whether that's right or wrong, but not necessarily from the Estate, but from the Trust and so forth. But I'll take a look at it. I struggle with it. I struggle with -- I will say this, that I 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe that -- I mean, present counsel for the Brothers didn't have to take the case, they didn't have to take the case. Well, they made a decision to take the case. They took it under difficult circumstances. I think any of us would acknowledge that. I don't see how anybody could not agree with that. And, you know, new clients come into you, they tell you what their position is and they want you to advocate for them and represent them. And, you know, if they come in and tell you that there's a million and a half dollars worth of assets missing and so forth and so on, well, that's what your clients tell you and you do the best you can. I really struggle with holding the lawyers in that, but I will certainly review any authority that you have. I really would like to see the cases that are similar factually. I realize that might not be easy to find. But I struggle, I struggle with that concept, for whatever it's worth, under these circumstances. I mean, they were brought into the case, what, a month before the hearing or something? And, you know, you could say, well, the only alternative they have to being painted into the corner in which 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they were painted would be not to take the case, it seems to me. And, of course, that would be an option. But I'm not without some sympathy for present counsel for the Brothers under the circumstances in which they got involved. But, again, 'like I said, they didn't have to. So I will take a look at your cases on that. And I really think -- you know, here's another thing: I mean, I got a memo in my office last night at 4:56 p.m. Just another pebble on the pile. I mean, we've known that this hearing was going to be held for how long? Long time. And so I had not even read that. I don't know what's in it. And I would suggest now that we've made a record that you would redo that and address it to the facts. And I'm not sure I ruled on the exhibits. I rule that they are all admitted. (All Executor Exhibits presented were admitted.) THE AUDITOR: And so I presume you're going to rest your case? MS. GEMMILL: Yes. THE AUDITOR: Any testimony? MR. KEHNER: No. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE AUDITOR: So I believe that closes the Irecord. (Discussion held off the record.) THE AUDITOR: The Reporter has indicated that the transcript will be ready by, will be launched by March 2. So the Estate's requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Argument will be due on March 16. The response of the Brothers will be due on March 30. And the reply of the Estate will be due on April 13, as long as you don't have a problem with Friday the 13th. I don't. MS. GEMMILL: No. THE AUDITOR: So that will be our schedule. Anything further for the record? MS. GEMMILL: No, Mr. Shade. Thank you. THE AUDITOR: Very good. The record is Iclosed. (The hearing was concluded at 2:36 p.m.) 25 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I hereby certify that the proceedings and 'evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the within proceedings, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same. -- ~, ~. .. Amy R. itz, Court Reporter NOTORIAL SEAL NO t a r t' Pub l i C AMY R. FRITZ, NOTARY PUBLIC BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMPER 22, 2014 c -A- a.m. [1] 1:15 ability [1] 74:6 able [11] 14:20; 22:2; 24:18, 19; 30:1; 31:7; 51:22; 54:10; 58:16; 66:8; 125:25 above [7] 22:12, 13; 77:15; 82:3, 11, 15; 125:16 Absolutely [1j 123:25 absolutely [2] 65:11; 84:19 accept [4] 52:9; 73:25; 81:15; 101:10 accepted [2] 35:12; 80:17 access [2] 22:1; 44:25 accommodate (1] 91:16 accompany [1] 114:18 accordance [1] 130:19 Account [1] 4:22 account [77] 4:20; 16:18; 18:9; 20:6; 25:23; 30:4, 5; 31:8; 33:21, 24; 34:22; 39:18; 40:5, 14, 15; 41:2, 7, 12, 14; 43:12, 14; 54:5; 55:23; 57:22; 67:14; 68:2, 23, 25; 69:5; 70:9, 14, 25; 71:3; 72:25; 73:13; 74:9, 10, 23; 75:25; 76:2, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24; 77:11, 15, 18; 78:6, 9, 20, 22; 79:10; 80:10; 81:17; 88:20; 91:24; 92:2; 96:16; 104:18; 106:2; 107:20, 23; 108:1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20; 109:2; 125:9; 126:2 accountant [2] 65:16; 73:25 accounted [5] 18:11, 17; 45:5; 46:5; 83:23 accounting (4] 69:12; 72:19; 73:19, 23 accounts [11] 30:3; 70:7; 72:5; 83:21; 88:23; 103:19; 104:5, 7; 109:17; 121:23, 24 accuracy [1] 74:5 accurate [2] 73:2; 104:9 accurately [1] 136:2 acknowledge [1] 133:6 acknowledged [1] 39:18 acknowledgment [1] 39:22 across [2] 88:9; 131:20 acting [1] 5:11 action [6] 10:17; 15:21; 17:8; 26:4; 32:9; 128:20 actions [2] 18:13; 102:3 active [1] 86:23 activities [3] 88:9, 13; 89:10 actual [5] 54:14; 70:14; 77:22; 84:12; 90:19 Actually [2] 35:9; 60:11 actually [50] 20:4; 21:11; 23:19; 24:6; 25:19; 43:19; 49:14; 51:10, 18, 20; 54:11; 60:15; 65:5; 70:4; 71:4, 13, 18, 20; 72:4, 21; 73:16; 75:23; 78:9; 80:15; 82:1, 24; 86:10; 87:24; 88:18; 89:10; 92:6, 19; 94:2; 96:13, 20, 23; 104:14; 106:14; 107:14; 108:16; 109:5, 11; 121:12; 123:3, 7; 124:12; 125:3, 5, 8, 18 added [2] 80:22; 125:8 Addendum [1] 4:16 addendum [10] 52:8, 15, 18; 53:2, 13; 55:17; 56:2; 105:23; 106:7; 124:4 adding [2] 72:9; 112:2 addition (3] 73:24; 74:3; 83:1 Additional [2] 44:15; 62:5 additional [5] 30:7, 14; 37:7; 42:14; 126:14 additionally [1] 68:22 address [7] 6:16; 18:2; 114:19; 129:2, 16; 131:10; 134:15 addressed [8] 15:3, 16; 17:12, 13; 35:5; 129:4; 130:24, 25 addresses [1] 131:17 addressing [1] 117:25 adequacy [1] 37:1 adequate [1] 129:16 adequately [1] 127:25 adjustment [2] 81:18, 20 adjustments [2] 82:22, 25 administer [1] 88:11 administering [1] 16:8 administration [10] 7:25; 17:23; 48:14; 88:1, 10; 92:1, 11; 93:14; 94:9; 110:19 Administrator [4] 62:7; 85:2, 17, 24 administrator [2] 10:14; 62:9 admission [1] 127:14 ADMITTED [2] 3:8; 4:2 admitted [4] 6:20, 23; 134:18, 19 admitting [1] 58:18 advance [2] 76:10; 100:4 Advanced [1] 124:21 advise [1] 15:15 advised (1] 53:4 advises [1] 20:11 advocate [2] 5:11; 133:10 affiliated [1] 7:1 afraid [1] 59:16 After [1] 52:2 after (21] 7:10; 8:3; 23:14; 26:5; 29:11; 36:13; 42:23, 24; 47:19; 50:11; 51:9; 77:20; 83:10; 98:2; 99:6; 101:19; 107:4, 24; 112:8; 121:3; 128:21 afternoon [3] 57:4; 123:22; 125:21 afterwards [1] 37:1 Again [1] 59:3 again [31] 14:25; 16:22; 17:11; 21:14; 32:14; 34:7, 9; 45:3; 53:9; 56:14; 66:16; 68:3, 9; 71:2; 75:5, 14; 77:2, 15, 24; 79:14, 21; 81:10, 24; 83:17; 84:7; 85:4; 103:20; 105:2; 123:12; 132:13; 134:5 against [13] 16:16; 78:23, 25; 101:16; 102:4, 12, 18; 104:5; 120:14; 130:7, 14; 131:21, 22 agree [10] 28:9; 86:14; 100:9; 106:23; 109:22; 111:20; 113:24; 114:2; 116:1; 133:7 agreed [8] 25:12; 38:7, 10, 24; 46:14; 47:5; 58:8; 60:19 agreement [2] 47:6, 9 ahead [10] 5:23; 6:2; 44:7; 45:10; 49:5; 67:7; 75:4; 77:10; 78:11; 120:8 allegation [12] 39:13; 45:4; 52:22; 53:2, 3; 58:10, 22; 79:15; 84:10; 85:3; 105:13; 106:14 allegations [19] 50:11, 13, 15, 19; 52:19; 53:10, 12; 62:15, 18; 63:1, 2, 3, 10, 20; 65:1, 6; 85:23; 105:10, 18 alleged [4] 62:10; 85:3; 106:19; 122:11 allegedly [3] 55:9; 57:22; 66:18 alleges [1] 50:1 alleging [1] 85:1 allocate [2] 14:9; 92:11 allocated (2] 13:20; 118:23 allocation [2] 13:5; 43:23 allow [2] 56:4; 63:12 almost [9] 54:3; 67:5; 68:1; 69:23; 70:10; 71:8; 80:24; 99:21 alone [1] 66:8 along [2] 3:12; 98:3 already [3] 37:13; 119:25; 128:8 alter [1] 105:12 alternative [1] 133:24 Although [1] 35:20 although [3] 7:5; 36:1; 103:23 amount [17] 16:15, 16; 43:23; 54:12; 58:9; 62:23; 81:13; 85:21; 86:18; 88:21; 91:3; 93:19; 95:23; 115:9; 116:10; 121:19; 132:20 amounts [5] 43:18; 89:17; 91:4, 25; 107:12 analysis [7] 63:19; 64:7; 125:3, 5, 6, 23; 129:21 analyze [2] 59:4; 112:21 annually [1] 62:21 Another [1] 11:23 another [15] 52:3; 57:18; 60:21; 76:9; 81:2; 98:3, 4; 109:15; 111:22; 126:2; 128:21, 24; 129:7; 134:8, 10 Answer [1] 28:1 answer (8] 34:11; 38:17, 19; 110:1; 114:12; 119:16; 120:8; 123:4 answering [1] 58:13 anticipate [1] 129:10 anybody [1] 133:7 anyone [1] 49:2 Anything (1] 135:15 anything [9] 23:20; 41:13; 49:1; 84:4; 89:18; 110:6; 114:17; 115:16; 121:7 anyway [1] 129:24 anywhere [1] 83:22 apparently [4] 14:24; 39:20; 98:8; 122:23 appeal (7] 86:4, 6, 7, 8, 16; 130:23; 131:7 appear (3] 69:15; 93:20; 126:4 Appearance [1] 5:14 appearance (4] 5:12; 8:23; 47:19; 102:16 APPEARANCES [1] 2:1 appeared [1] 8:25 appearing (1] 107:22 appears [2] 71:13; 75:15 Appellate [2] 131:1, 16 application [1] 131:13 applied [3] 15:8; 92:3; 94:18 apply (2] 91:12; 92:16 appoint [2] 10:13; 62:9 appointed [2] 25:25; 28:20 appointing [1] 26:6 Appointment [1] 62:7 appraisal [5] 11:24; 12:1, 2, 4, 15 appraisals [1] 29:18 appraise [4] 11:25; 12:16, 17. 20 appreciate [2] 44:24; 59:15 appropriate [7] 24:13; 25:2; 56:6, 9; 88:25; 98:13; 116:9 approved [1] 32:18 approving [1] 91:9 Approximately [1] 27:22 April [2] 34:18; 135:11 area [1] 88:17 areas [2] 7:12; 56:22 aren't [2] 71:7; 131:24 argue [1] 57:19 argued [3] 58:1; 86:10, 15 Argument [1] 135:7 argument [5] 43:10; 51:15; 58:5; 86:12; 130:7 arisen [2] 38:4; 46:24 arithmetic (1] 124:25 around [3] 25:22; 36:18; 60:20 aside [1] 107:21 asked [15] 8:5; 13:13; 14:22; 34:20, 21; 36:4; 40:12; 62:8; 86:12; 109:3; 118:20; 120:17; 121:22; 122:1; 128:9 asking [9] 10:13; 14:17; 29:14; 37:14; 39:6; 48:13, 16; 61:17; 102:11 assert [3] 17:20; 53:5; 85:15 asserted [12] 10:4, 8; 11:6, 11; 13:2, 4; 17:16; 18:9; 43:1, 13; 48:19; 57:23 asserting (1] 120:25 assertion [6] 44:12; 81:16; 122:2, 4, 5 assertions [1j 86:20 asserts [1] 9:16 assess [1] 45:23 asset [2] 83:12, 14 Assets [3] 49:24; 66:14; 81:14 assets [49] 11:21; 12:16, 18, 20, 21; 14:10; 16:7, 12; 18:9, 16; 19:2, 23; 39:14; 42:16; 43:11; 45:18, 22; 46:2; 50:16; 53:19, 20; 55:8; 60:2, 5; 62:10, 11; 63:3, 24; 66:22, 23, 25; 67:5; 73:8; 78:1; 81:23; 82:4; 83:16; 85:1, 15; 105:11, 19; 106:1; 120:13; 121:8; 122:3, 11; 132:19; 133:12 assigned [2] 11:7; 33:24 assist [1] 7:25 assisting [1] 40:8 associated [2] 30:5; 104:17 attached [5) 25:5, 8, 16; 106:7; 124:16 attempt [2] 113:7; 117:8 attend [1] 15:15 attended [1] 42:12 attending [2] 114:7, 11 attention [1] 108:9 attorney [14] 5:4; 6:24; 86:19; 88:8; 89:21, 22; 91:8; 102:7, 8, 12, 16; 116:20; 117:12; 128:12 attorneys [26] 5:7, 18, 24; 8:18, 24; 9:1, 10; 14:15; 17:8, 22; 42:20; 48:1, 13; 49:4; 59:2; 61:3; 85:18; 90:12, 18, 23; 91:7; 100:2; 101:16; 113:4; 114:4; 128:4 attributable [1] 16:11 attributed [2] 101:17; 113:11 audit [2] 10:12; 11:22 AUDITOR [84] 5:16; 6:1; 10:21, 24; 12:4, 8, 20; 19:8; 21:24; 27:1, 21; 28:9; 31:16, 24; 59:12, 18; 61:12, 15, 22; 62:1, 4; 63:8, 11; 64:17, 23; 65:13, 18, 23; 69:14, 19, 22; 70:18; 72:16; 73:20; 86:25; 87:5, 10, 16; 97:21; 98:1, 14, 18, 21, 23; 99:1, 5, 9, 20; 100:9; 101:9, 22; 102:10; 117:20; 119:1, 4, 7, 13, 23; 120:8; 122:14, 16, 17; 123:7, 10, 13, 16; 126:13, 16, 18; 127:7, 10, 13, 18, 21; 128:6, 18; 129:22; 130:1; 134:21, 24; 135:1, 4, 14, 17 Auditor [35] 1:14; 29:20; 30:22; 31:9; 32:11, 18, 21; 33:18, 20; 34:13, 14, 24; 36:3, 6, 9, 11; 40:13, 23; 41:15, 17; 43:10, 20; 47:8; 51:12, 13, 19; 52:9; 53:3; 56:3, 4; 58:16; 61:11, 20; 64:16 auditor [2] 25:25; 28:20 AUDITOR'S [1] 1:12 Auditor's [20] 4:12; 32:16, 25; 35:6, 15, 22; 36:1, 13; 41:20, 25; 45:13, 17; 46:9; 51:17; 56:21; 116:3; 118:21, 22; 119:18, 22 August [4] 25:24; 35:12; 37:23; 76:13 authenticate [1] 21:23 authenticated [1] 72:15 authority [7] 34:15, 17; 45:22; 46:6; 132:7, 10; 133:16 Authorization [1] 3:17 authorization [12] 22:11, 16; 24:12, 15; 25:3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 19; 104:6, 13 Authorizations [1] 3:14 authorizations [2] 23:9; 78:8 authorize [2] 24:25; 25:2 available [7] 21:8; 40:10; 66:22; 81:23; 82:5; 85:11; 105:4 aver [1] 52:22 average [9] 68:9, 11, 15; 69:7; 72:8; 73:11, 14, 16; 74:25 avoid [1] 10:11 award [2] 101:16; 102:15 aware [8] 40:4, 12; 53:11; 84:3; 104:25; 105:21; 111:16; 122:5 away [1] 74:15 -B- back [29] 15:9; 16:17; 19:14; 20:7, 9; 21:13; 22:21; 26:2; 29:12, 25; 30:21; 38:11; 48:22; 60:20, 22, 25; 73:4; 74:21; 77:21; 79:25; 103:16; 104:22; 107:10; 109:5, 8, 18; 117:4; 127:4; 131:12 background [2] 15:24; 18:15 balance [5] 77:7, 11, 18; 79:1, 18 balances [1j 77:6 BANK [1] 2:7 Bank [13] 13:8; 30:3; 39:18; 67:14; 68:2; 72:14; 104:12, 18; 112:25; 113:5; 116:23; 117:9, 11 bank [2] 19:25; 43:11 Bank's [1] 72:22 banks [1] 25:3 based [14] 32:23; 44:6; 63:6, 24; 65:5, 10; 73:9; 78:4; 80:10; 81:6, 25; 82:17; 84:12; 97:1 basic [1] 96:20 Basis [3] 10:21; 63:8; 119:1 basis [26] 9:13; 10:5; 12:1; 13:11; 14:19; 16:20, 23; 17:2; 27:13; 31:1; 37:14; 42:19; 62:25; 65:6; 79:17; 97:4, 8; 100:6; 101:11, 14; 121:17; 122:10; 123:4; 129:1; 132:8 bear [1] 20:16 bears [1] 118:23 became [4] 46:15; 80:15; 107:5; 108:2 Because [7] 5:6; 19:10; 46:14; 91:25; 98:3; 110:10; 121:12 because [62] 7:4; 14:2, 17; 16:6; 21:22; 25:8; 28:19, 22; 35:4; 40:14, 24; 48:3; 56:13; 59:16; 64:20; 66:5; 68:9; 69:11; 71:19; 72:12; 73:7; 78:7, 19; 79:14, 17; 81:7, 16; 82:16; 83:1, 20; 85:10; 86:12; 87:25; 90:4; 91:14; 92:8, 10; 97:10, 17; 100:5; 101:16; 102:3, 6; 104:10; 112:5, 8; 114:13; 115:13, 19; 117:3; 120:12; 124:4; 125:20; 126:21; 127:24; 129:5, 16; 131:19; 132:3, 13 become [3] 8:6; 40:4, 12 BEFORE [1] 1:14 Before [1] 86:25 before [30] 10:10; 15:17; 17:14; 20:3, 6; 21:4; 38:9, 12; 45:9; 49:21; 53:4, 18; 57:4, 12; 78:7; 82:12; 85:2; 98:5; 99:25; 107:24; 110:23; 123:13, 23; 124:12; 125:21; 126:1; 131:15, 20; 132:4; 133:23 beforehand [1] 28:3 began [5] 8:2, 3; 39:4; 57:19; 95:9 Begin [1] 67:8 begin [4] 11:2; 23:5; 51:6; 59:5 beginning [2] 8:15; 77:19 begins [2] 71:14; 95:4 behalf [2] 8:25; 71:20 being [16] 6:10; 26:22; 44:21; 47:10; 77:7; 88:16; 91:4, 14; 95:1; 109:7; 116:18; 129:15; 131:25; 133:25 belabor [2] 28:18; 51:16 belief [2] 105:1, 3 believe [62] 9:1, 7; 11:4, 9; 14:19; 16:24, 25; 19:1; 20:5; 21:12; 25:22; 27:11; 31:5; 33:21; 34:12, 18; 35:3; 37:18; 44:23; 47:20; 52:1, 6; 56:5, 9, 20; 69:21; 73:20, 22; 74:22; 75:5; 79:13; 80:14; 82:16; 83:14; 95:24; 102:2, 13; 103:16; 107:19; 109:12, 19; 110:22; 112:11; 113:3; 114:12, 23; 115:8; 116:12, 16; 118:11, 14; 124:22; 125:6; 130:21; 131:1, 6, 8, 15, 17; 132:3; 133:1; 135:1 believed [7] 14:24; 24:13; 40:14; 46:2; 73:9; 89:21, 24 believes [2] 59:23; 61:18 belonged [1] 16:3 below [3] 77:12; 82:8; 83:10 Beneficiaries [1] 71:15 beneficiaries [2] 119:21; 120:10 beneficiary [1] 71:10 benefit [2] 105:7, 19 bequeathed [4] 11:14, 15, 16; 112:9 Besides [1] 42:15 best [2] 130:18; 133:14 between [12] 3:10; 14:17; 17:10; 20:10; 23:17; 25:10; 46:24; 54:12; 58:9; 71:11; 88:22; 108:3 Beyond [1] 119:5 beyond [2] 76:13; 119:2 bill [2] 90:18, 20 billed [6] 48:1; 92:6; 112:19, 20; 126:8, 10 billing (4] 111:15; 117:12; 126:2; 129:11 bills [2] 89:13; 92:1 binder [9] 69:12; 70:1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 23, 24; 97:24 black [2] 89:4; 90:1 blacked [6] 88:5, 15, 18; 89:4, 16 block [1] 111:15 block-billing [1) 111:18 blocked [1] 89:17 Boiling [2] 55:6; 84:5 bore [1] 115:22 Both [1] 103:15 both [2] 109:16; 114:6 bottom [8] 21:15; 22:4; 44:22; 66:13, 19; 70:13; 81:22; 95:19 bound [1] 33:25 boxes (2] 88:4; 89:5 BRADSHAW [2] 2:7; 86:22 Bradshaw [1] 38:6 brand [3] 50:8; 51:5; 57:11 break [6] 56:23; 97:22; 98:9, 13, 17; 128:1 brief [10] 86:2, 10, 24; 87:15; 116:3, 6, 9; 118:20, 22; 119:9 briefing [1] 85:25 bring [1] 102:5 bringing [1] 121:6 broad [1] 10:1 brokerage [34] 4:20; 20:1; 30:8; 40:5, 14, 15; 41:2, 7, 11; 75:24, 25; 76:2, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23; 77:11; 78:6, 9, 20, 22; 79:10; 80:10; 107:11, 18, 20, 22; 108:7, 18; 121:13, 23, 24; 125:9 brother's [1] 122:24 Brothers [246] 8:4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23; 9:16, 22; 10:4, 11, 18; 11:5, 13, 14, 25; 12:12, 17; 13:1, 4, 8, 10; 14:18, 20, 24; 15:14, 22; 16:17, 19; 17:2, 4, 10, 17, 20; 18:5, 12, 19, 25; 19:21, 22; 20:10, 18; 21:4, 7; 22:12, 15, 22; 23:8, 11, 17; 24:9, 12, 15, 17; 25:11, 14, 23; 27:24; 28:13; 29:14, 18, 22, 24; 30:17, 23, 25; 31:6; 32:5, 8, 13, 19, 22; 33:12, 17; 34:8; 35:11; 36:4, 6, 14; 37:1, 3, 11, 14, 16, 19; 38:25; 39:11, 15; 40:1, 10, 17, 24; 42:2, 10, 17, 21; 43:10, 13, 21, 24; 44:3, 11, 22; 46:2, 7, 18, 23, 25; 47:15; 50:9, 21, 24; 51:14, 20, 21; 52:3, 6; 53:9, 13; 54:9, 19; 55:8, 12; 56:6, 9, 21; 57:9, 18; 58:14, 15, 20, 25; 60:1, 10; 61:5; 62:6, 12; 64:13; 65:19; 66:5, 16, 22; 67:3, 6, 14; 68:10, 14, 17; 72:13; 74:4, 10, 13; 75:12; 76:10, 17; 78:2, 5, 23; 79:3, 10, 13; 80:11, 17, 25; 81:4; 82:23; 83:12, 23, 25; 84:3, 9, 17, 25; 85:14; 86:1, 4, 13, 19; 87:1, 8; 88:23; 92:21; 94:15, 20, 23; 95:1, 16, 18; 96:4; 97:8; 100:14, 24; 101:17, 18, 25; 102:6, 17; 103:4, 8, 11, 17; 104:15; 105:9, 15, 22; 106:13, 18; 110:6, 10; 111:5, 9; 112:1, 5; 113:11, 16; 114:22; 115:17; 117:6; 118:1; 120:23; 121:1, 2, 14, 19; 122:19, 23; 128:5, 19; 129:4, 9; 130:10, 23; 131:24; 132:15, 20; 133:2; 134:4; 135:9 brothers [6] 8:12; 11:6; 16:1; 18:8; 54:22; 65:11 brought [4] 10:16; 15:20; 66:5; 133:22 burden [5] 57:24; 78:21; 101:18; 102:13, 19 business [4] 6:16; 21:25; 100:25; 129:5 butting [1] 130:13 -C- C-o-I-o-n-n-a [1] 6:18 C.S.A. [1] 9:19 calculate [3) 93:15; 96:18, 19 calculated [4] 13:18, 19, 20; 58:9 calculation [12] 13:11, 15; 14:8; 15:8; 66:21; 67:8; 79:23; 81:3; 82:14; 83:8, 9; 114:14 calculations [2] 14:23; 107:7 calculator [1] 80:20 calender [1] 90:14 call [12] 6:7; 7:5; 47:22, 24; 48:12, 22, 24; 90:21; 107:25; 113:22, 23 called [7] 6:9; 44:15; 49:24; 58:14; 64:10; 81:14; 111:15 calling [1] 8:9 calls [1] 113:21 came [8] 11:19; 16:14; 35:5; 55:4; 57:8, 23; 67:21; 80:24 can't [4] 5:8; 51:20; 105:1; 129:18 canceled [3] 30:5; 104:10, 17 Candy [4] 4:17, 19; 64:10, 11 cannot [4] 51:6; 101:10; 129:17; 130:24 capacity [4] 5:10; 110:11; 111:6; 118:3 care [3] 55:1; 100:24; 129:5 careful [2] 114:14; 125:3 Carlisle [5] 1:17; 8:18; 67:9, 10, 11 case [57] 5:20; 7:22; 8:10, 14; 10:8; 18:12, 14; 23:20; 25:21; 35:25; 36:4; 42:23; 43:2, 8; 50:8; 51:6; 56:10; 57:19; 59:5; 61:3; 64:22; 65:19, 25; 66:4, 5; 70:11; 89:7; 91:18; 95:9, 14; 97:14; 100:11; 102:6; 105:10, 18; 109:25; 110:10; 112:2; 114:21; 115:20; 116:19; 122:4, 22; 126:25; 128:19; 129:4, 6; 131:5, 22; 132:12, 18; 133:2, 3, 4, 22; 134:1, 22 cases [3] 131:17; 133:17; 134:7 Cash [3] 4:17, 19; 64:10 cash [6] 72:6; 76:3; 85:20; 107:7; 124:15; 125:21 catch (3] 115:9, 11, 12 caught [1] 126:22 cause [2] 31:7; 85:17 cents [1] 79:13 certain [1] 112:6 Certainly [2] 59:7; 79:16 certainly [10] 28:12; 49:18; 59:13, 18; 74:4; 87:10; 105:15; 107:1; 121:2; 133:16 certainty (2] 107:16, 20 certify [1] 136:1 chain [4] 20:9, 12, 21; 22:5 chair [1] 7:15 change [8] 11:21; 42:22; 49:20; 57:18; 58:5; 77:13; 79:9; 80:22 changed [4] 45:7, 8; 82:12; 105:9 characterize [1] 20:2 charge [3] 72:6; 116:2; 128:13 charged [4] 17:22; 68:18; 102:2; 114:7 charges [4] 112:13; 126:4; 128:3 charging [1] 114:11 charitable [2] 83:23; 84:2 Charlotte [7] 54:21; 60:22; 106:22; 112:10, 14, 24; 120:12 chart [7] 79:4, 13; 85:5; 96:13; 107:8; 124:15; 127:19 check [1] 123:11 checked [2] 78:22, 25 checking [5] 30:4; 54:5; 57:22; 59:9; 104:18 checks [32] 30:5; 39:17, 19, 20; 52:1; 54:2, 4, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25; 55:3, 7, 10, 12, 22, 24, 25; 58:17; 59:9; 104:4, 10, 12, 17; 106:19, 21 chronological (1] 71:18 circumstances [4] 100:21; 133:5, 21; 134:5 citations [1] 130:3 claim [3] 97:9; 102:18; 132:21 claimed [1] 13:4 claiming [2] 83:17; 125:17 claims (1] 101:20 clarify [2] 87:23; 96:1 clarity [1] 55:20 clear [12] 16:24; 17:1; 21:3; 35:23; 66:2; 68:21; 74:17, 23; 78:15; 84:17; 127:5; 130:21 clearly [2] 18:12; 55:10 clerk (1] 97:2 clerkship [1] 7:10 client [10] 27:12; 89:22; 91:6, 11, 13, 15, 18; 116:15; 117:14 clients [6] 91:10; 104:25; 105:3; 132:9; 133:8, 13 close [5] 34:6; 37:21; 50:12; 81:7; 114:17 closed [3] 42:24; 48:4; 135:18 closely [1] 125:25 closer [1] 82:20 closes [1] 135:1 Codicil [1] 110:12 codicils [1] 110:25 Cohen [2] 9:3; 87:8 colleague [4] 8:1; 21:1; 24:6; 29:13 colleges [1] 7:16 COLONNA [1] 6:9 Colonna [24] 3:3; 5:5, 8; 6:7, 17; 12:15; 19:17; 22:1; 28:23; 31:20, 23; 32:1; 63:18; 65:16; 66:12; 69:4; 70:1, 2; 72:19; 87:19; 97:1; 102:24; 117:24; 126:22 Colonna's [1] 128:12 column [15] 67:22; 73:12, 15; 75:15; 80:8; 93:9; 94:3, 6, 7, 13; 95:4, 20, 22, 23 columns [1] 94:17 come [9] 67:5; 74:20; 75:18; 82:4; 129:14; 130:7; 131:20; 133:8, 11 coming [4] 84:7; 109:18; 131:21, 22 commission [1] 17:21 COMMON [2] 1:1, 5 communicated [3] 25:11; 37:4; 46:24 communication [2] 33:9; 36:25 communications [11] 16:4; 23:15, 17, 21; 25:2; 32:17, 23; 37:19; 43:9; 89:22; 103:10 company [5] 11:25; 12:5, 16, 17; 30:8 compare [1] 94:6 compared [1] 69:4 complete [5] 20:14; 22:7; 27:12; 28:14; 32:5 completed [2] 10:10; 53:10 completely [3] 43:2; 71:19; 92:10 completing [1] 32:19 complex [1] 15:7 comply [1] 45:12 concede [2] 51:20; 112:22 conceded [1] 112:23 concept [3] 34:16; 46:5; 133:20 concern [4] 11:23; 13:4; 39:15; 91:16 concerning [1] 74:5 concerns [1] 48:5 conclude [1] 37:23 concluded [1] 135:19 conclusion [3] 61:10; 63:24; 66:24 Conclusions [2] 130:3; 135:7 conclusory [1] 61:25 concrete [1] 43:7 conditioned [1] 47:9 condo [3] 54:24; 112:7, 19 condominiums [1] 54:24 condos [1] 84:6 conduct (24] 5:19; 9:17, 22; 10:2, 7; 42:17; 58:25; 59:22, 23; 61:5, 9, 18, 19, 20, 24; 62:2, 5; 63:18; 85:14; 101:17; 102:8; 105:6; 130:10 conducted [2] 12:2; 109:24 conference [10] 34:13; 40:22; 41:19; 42:12; 47:7; 51:11; 52:2; 114:7, 11, 19 conferences [4] 15:4; 17:13; 43:9; 60:12 confident (1] 131:9 confirm [2] 39:24; 116:8 conflict [2] 38:3; 46:24 conjunction [1] 117:6 connect [1] 129:18 connected [1] 116:23 connection [1] 9:21 consent [2] 47:3, 6 consistent [3] 13:22; 16:9; 53:3 consolidated [1] 34:23 construe [1] 131:18 contact [1] 22:22 contacted [1] 47:21 contained [2] 59:8; 136:2 contend [5] 10:16; 42:18; 43:21; 45:19; 97:11 contended [1] 40:3 contending [1] 9:23 contends [4] 13:1; 15:20; 17:17; 18:5 content [1] 97:11 contention [2] 18:16; 78:2 contentions [1] 40:2 context [2] 6:5; 32:4 continuance (2] 87:9; 99:12 continue [3] 52:18; 65:1, 7 Continued [1] 4:1 continued [2] 8:20; 60:3 continuing [3] 73:18; 85:14; 105:18 contradicted [1] 67:6 contradicting [1] 50:8 contributions [2] 84:1, 2 cooperate [2] 29:18; 48:3 cooperation [1] 30:2 copied [4] 20:19; 33:18; 56:3; 69:11 Copies [1] 3:14 copies [7] 47:25; 54:14; 56:7, 25; 78:9; 104:4; 118:12 copy [4] 3:12; 5:14; 70:15; 136:4 copying [4] 20:15, 16; 21:2, 9 core [1] 62:25 corner [1] 133:25 Corporation [1) 67:11 Correct [8] 75:20; 88:17; 96:4; 113:17; 121:14, 21; 125:18: 126:12 correct [26] 9:6; 12:23; 15:1; 48:15; 62:3; 67:13, 23; 68:1; 74:12, 22; 75:22; 83:14; 85:9; 87:3, 4; 95:2, 3; 103:5; 109:19; 116:24; 121:10; 122:5, 8, 24, 25; 136:4 corrected [4] 73:8; 80:23; 83:2, 15 correction [1] 65:9 correspond [1] 42:5 correspondence [13] 17:10; 19:12, 14; 24:3; 34:6; 36:12; 113:20, 22, 25; 117:4; 118:7, 12, 16 correspondences (1] 42:7 corresponding [1] 33:18 cost [4] 21:2, 9; 118:24 costs [5] 20:15, 16; 21:3; 59:11; 112:7 cotrustee [1] 17:11 cotrustees [11] 11:16, 17; 16:2; 68:17, 21; 70:25; 74:13, 16, 18, 20; 85:10 Counsel [1J 47:1 counsel [82] 5:13; 8:3, 13, 17; 9:8, 17, 20, 23; 14:17, 18, 20; 17:11; 18:2, 25; 20:10, 18; 21:4; 22:12, 15, 22; 23:8, 17, 18; 24:12, 15, 17, 22; 25:11, 14; 27:12; 28:14; 29:14; 30:17; 33:11; 34:19; 37:4, 19; 38:2, 4, 8, 11; 39:1; 40:10; 43:9; 46:23; 47:15, 17, 18, 21; 50:22, 24; 51:2, 14; 52:7; 56:3, 6; 62:6; 84:25; 94:23; 99:23; 102:2, 4, 6, 17; 103:4, 17; 104:15; 105:15; 113:4; 116:14; 120:24; 121:1, 3; 122:20, 24; 123:7; 132:9; 133:1; 134:4 counsel's [2] 24:9; 29:24 counseling [1J 7:16 COUNTY [2] 1:1, 5 County [1] 1:16 couple [12] 11:12; 18:24; 20:7; 27:16; 47:19; 54:2; 55:5; 60:17; 87:25; 117:17; 124:6 course [6] 42:23; 43:4; 46:11; 126:6; 132:16; 134:2 COURT [4] 1:1, 2, 5, 6 Court [31] 1:21; 7:10, 14; 10:13; 25:24; 31:17, 21, 22; 34:20, 25; 35:3, 4, 7, 12, 14; 37:24; 41:5; 42:8; 47:12; 62:8; 69:5, 13; 70:15; 86:2, 5, 9, 16; 130:23, 24; 131:13; 136:10 court [5] 85:25; 87:13; 97:2; 130:25; 131:10 Court's [2] 35:23; 47:17 courtesy [2] 59:20; 91:13 Courthouse [1] 1:16 courtroom [1] 9:4 Courts [1] 41:5 cover [2] 20:25; 52:9 covered [4] 72:6; 112:12, 20; 129:12 covering [1] 72:1 credit [5] 13:5, 12, 17; 14:9; 114:14 CROSS [2] 3:2; 102:22 Cross [1] 126:16 cross [2] 99:6; 101:1 Cross-examine [1] 97:21 cross-examine (1] 74:5 CUMBERLAND [2] 1:1, 5 Cumberland [1] 1:16 cumulative [1] 43:23 cutoff [1] 35:10 -D- D-e-j-o-i-e [1] 91:20 DATE [1] 1:15 date [14] 12:14; 24:10; 29:6; 47:10, 14; 54:13; 81:15; 88:8; 90:14; 93:10; 101:7; 103:20; 1 10:24; 111:12 dates [4] 55:23; 74:21; 93:10; 96:14 David [1] 115:3 days [19] 26:25; 27: 20, 22; 29:15, 25; 32:9; 36:24; 38:9, 11; 47:17; 51:3; 53:18; 54:12; 56:12, 15; 90:14; 124:5; 125:11 dead [1] 97:15 deadline [17] 34:3, 12, 15; 35:6, 8, 13, 14, 24; 37:24; 38:22, 24; 39:1, 12, 21; 40:18; 42:9; 47:20 deadlines [2] 35:2; 38:11 deal [5] 5:23; 6:4; 30:2; 86:6; 127:10 dealt [4] 23:13; 30:8; 44:21; 128:8 death [9] 43:24; 62:24; 76:13; 77:20; 81:23; 82:1; 105:5; 107:25 Deceased [2] 1:2, 6 Decedent [1] 52:24 Decedent's [1] 52:23 deceit [1] 105:14 December [11] 8:21; 32:6; 46:18, 22; 78:16, 17, 18, 25; 79:2; 107:15 deception [4] 53:6, 7; 56:11; 60:7 decide [1] 61:20 decision [1] 133:4 declines [1] 77:9 decreased [1] 77:19 deduction [1] 81:5 Deductions [1] 84:1 deductions [1] 83:24 defend [1] 54:10 defense [5] 54:15; 56:13, 24; 59:6; 85:22 defrauded [4] 50:2; 52:24; 62:23; 64:1 defrauding [1] 52:19 degree [1] 62:17 Dejoie [3] 91:19, 20; 125:5 delay [4] 42:2, 15; 100:22; 101:11 delivered [1] 86:9 demand [1] 126:24 demands [1] 16:5 denial [1] 86:5 denied [5] 40:24; 41:6; 86:1; 102:21; 129:15 deny [1] 100:25 depends [1] 112:18 depleted [3] 105:5, 19; 122:3 depletion [1] 122:11 depose [1] 30:12 deposition [9] 24:24; 32:20; 38:9, 12, 13, 16; 106:8; 109:4, 12 describe [4] 10:2; 61:17, 24 describes [1] 71:9 DESCRIPTION [2] 3:8; 4:2 description [3] 88:7; 89:24; 118:16 despite [1] 26:23 detailed [2] 13:21; 130:2 detailing [1] 4:24 details (3] 10:3; 109:11; 122:6 determine [3] 63:19; 85:22; 112:13 determined [2] 72:9; 89:7 determining [1] 92:2 developing [1j 129:6 devoted [4] 113:8; 117:9, 10, 11 Didn't [1] 112:22 didn't [23] 34:8; 49:1; 55:20, 24; 65:24; 78:21; 80:16, 22; 86:14; 92:14; 98:8; 107:1, 21; 115:9, 11, 12; 122:6; 125:22; 129:16; 133:2; 134:6 died [5] 15:25; 18:23; 26:9; 29:9, 11 difference [2] 120:2; 132:11 different [2] 13:25; 102:11 difficult [2] 100:16; 133:5 dilatory [12] 5:19; 9:17, 24; 10:7; 18:6; 59:23; 61:7, 9, 21; 97:10, 11; 128:20 diligent [1] 116:14 DIRECT [2] 3:2; 6:13 direct [6] 5:8; 100:11; 103:2; 105:8; 108:9; 126:14 directed [3] 36:6; 38:19; 62:2 Directive [1] 4:11 directive [11] 34:24; 35:6, 16, 22, 25; 36:1, 13; 43:20; 45:13, 17; 46:9 directly [2] 23:11; 104:12 disadvantage [1] 26:23 disagree [1] 12:1 disclosed [5] 50:14; 66:1, 6; 81:15; 89:25 disconnect [1] 129:18 discount [20] 91:3, 4, 12, 13; 92:2, 3, 12, 14, 15; 93:16, 22, 23, 25; 94:10, 12, 16, 18; 96:15, 18 discounted [1] 92:7 discounts [3] 91:20, 24; 96:19 discovering [1] 54:17 Discovery [2] 4:12; 44:15 discovery [85] 10:7, 9; 13:14; 14:22; 15:14, 15; 17:12, 25; 18:13; 20:3; 23:25; 26:3; 27:16, 17, 23, 25; 28:4; 29:4, 15; 30:10; 32:6, 7, 19; 34:3, 11, 15, 20, 25; 35:6, 8, 10, 24; 36:15, 16, 19; 37:10, 12, 20, 21, 23; 38:22, 24; 39:1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 21; 40:2, 18, 22, 25; 41:16, 18; 42:2, 9, 11, 15, 23; 43:3, 17; 44:21; 48:4; 50:12, 14; 51:7, 17; 53:11; 57:11; 63:23; 65:20, 22, 24; 66:1; 67:15; 73:10; 78:7, 10; 84:20, 21, 22; 98:7; 100:5; 128:22 discovery-setting [1] 26:15 discussed [5] 14:16; 47:7; 49:20; 59:22; 81:21 discussing [1] 59:1 Discussion (1] 135:3 discussion [3] 20:15; 60:14; 107:4 discussions [1] 26:2 dismiss [1] 101:14 dispute [1] 104:7 dissipated [2] 58:23; 106:20 dissipation [2] 50:16; 63:2 distributed [3] 11:21; 72:4; 132:19 distribution [2] 69:1; 71:10 Distributions [1] 71:15 distributions [6] 68:20; 71:17, 19; 72:1, 2; 73:2 divergent [1] 86:14 diverse [1] 86:13 divided [1] 73:14 DIVISION [2J 1:2, 6 DIXON [3] 1:1, 5; 2:5 Dixon [59] 8:11; 15:25; 18:23; 19:24; 22:10; 23:12; 26:8; 29:9, 11; 30:12; 40:5, 8; 50:2; 52:19; 57:21; 58:14; 60:22; 62:20, 23; 64:1, 12; 67:11, 25; 68:11, 15, 20; 69:1; 71:11, 16, 20; 72:5, 23, 24; 73:17; 74:14; 76:20; 83:24; 87:22; 97:15; 102:25; 105:4, 20; 106:15; 107:17; 108:7, 14, 18; 109:3, 18; 112:10; 120:12, 16; 121:24; 124:15 Dixon's [32] 4:17, 19; 11:8; 13:22; 14:11; 21:8; 30:4, 18; 39:18; 41:3, 14; 50:4; 54:24, 25; 55:1, 3, 11; 63:23; 64:10; 66:18; 75:25; 76:12; 77:14, 25; 78:6; 81:21; 103:19; 104:11, 16; 106:8; 109:12; 110:11 document [22] 39:25; 56:5; 64:9, 10, 17, 25; 65:4, 5, 19; 66:15; 69:15; 70:8; 72:13; 79:6; 82:23; 111:2; 115:1; 122:19, 20; 123:3; 124:7; 129:1 documentation [1] 82:17 Documents [2] 3:17; 57:12 documents [43] 20:13, 19; 21:1, 10, 17; 24:18; 26:19; 27:24; 28:3, 5, 7; 30:14; 57:8; 63:6; 65:8, 10; 67:6; 72:10, 12; 73:10; 75:21, 24; 83:15; 85:5, 7, 19, 22; 86:9, 20; 97:23; 99:12, 15, 19, 22, 24; 100:2, 3, 14, 17; 118:10; 122:22 doing [5] 8:2; 31:1; 88:12; 115:25; 119:9 dollar [3] 77:25; 89:17; 92:14 dollars [9] 40:6; 67:21; 68:13; 75:11; 77:8; 80:11; 83:7; 91:23; 133:12 dormant [1] 38:3 dots [1] 129:18 down [8] 11:19; 51:12; 82:8; 91:22; 94:24; 108:12, 22; 109:17 draft [1] 115:6 drafting [1] 24:7 dragging [1] 32:12 dramatic [1] 49:20 dramatically [1] 45:8 draw [1] 66:23 drawn [1] 104:5 drop [1] 82:8 duly [1] 6:10 during [16] 23:13; 39:21; 40:25; 51:24; 52:22; 68:22; 69:1; 72:5; 74:16; 81:22; 84:20; 97:7; 98:16; 106:24; 115:20; 128:1 duty (2] 101:20; 102:4 -E- E-mail [2] 4:5, 6 E-mails [1] 3:10 Each [1] 91:6 each [8] 10:15; 71:25; 72:23; 76:12; 77:6; 78:17; 79:11; 107:15 earlier [10] 18:22; 26:9; 36:12; 39:10; 49:19; 51:5; 124:4, 6; 128:9, 10 early [9] 8:21; 17:5; 20:5; 33:10; 34:18; 40:6; 48:12; 110:10; 122:4 easy [1] 133:19 Education [1] 7:15 effect [3] 23:21; 91:23; 131:5 effort [3] 116:14; 118:22 119:9 efforts [1] 112:12 eight [2] 22:24; 23:14 eight-month [1] 23:16 either [8] 12:3; 27:2; 43:15; 84:20; 89:21; 107:24; 110:12; 122:19 elapsed [1] 39:7 eliminated [1] 92:10 Elizabeth [7] 8:1; 24:6; 29:13; 30:21; 32:3; 33:19; 47:22 else [2] 89:18; 108:3 email [10] 20:9, 12; 21:14, 23; 22:5, 21; 33:7; 34:13; 114:1 emailed [2] 52:7, 16 emails [4] 20:21, 22; 118:11, 16 enclosing [1] 23:9 enclosures [1] 24:7 end-of-August [1] 35:12 ended [4] 38:22; 81:12; 84:23; 91:14 ends [1] 77:7 engaged [5] 7:18; 9:17; 10:12; 102:8; 105:6 enough [5] 55:20; 66:7; 125:5, 6; 132:18 entered [6J 5:12; 8:22; 41:5; 47:19; 90:16; 114:3 entire [10] 11:22; 68:22; 74:16; 88:8; 89:16; 92:15; 100:6; 122:10; 128:19 Entries [1] 116:22 entries [16] 89:12, 20; 90:10; 111:24; 112:4, 11; 113:19, 24; 115:18, 23; 117:1; 118:6, 15; 128:14; 132:3 Entry [1] 5:14 entry [14] 89:16; 95:11; 102:16; 110:4; 111:1, 2, 7, 17, 18, 21; 114:23; 115:5; 118:8; 128:16 error [2] 126:23; 127:2 especially [2] 92:9; 97:24 ESQUIRE [3] 2:2, 4, 7 Essentially [1] 20:11 essentially [25] 14:4; 16:13; 19:25; 20:13; 24:20; 29:3, 20; 30:22; 31:5; 32:17, 18; 36:9; 37:14; 43:13; 56:4; 57:19, 23; 58:18; 62:8; 66:15; 67:18; 79:18; 81:19; 91:12; 92:13 establish [3] 26:3; 53:10; 63:12 established [4] 26:8; 47:13; 74:14; 125:1 ESTATE [4] 1:1, 5; 2:5; 3:2 Estate [35] 13:1, 6; 14:5, 7; 16:10; 17:17; 18:5, 8; 21:17; 22:22; 27:5, 10; 29:17; 49:25; 59:23; 61:6, 18; 66:8; 70:16; 89:7; 94:21; 98:10; 102:11, 15; 104:4; 106:16; 112:6, 15; 119:11, 17, 20; 130:21; 132:6, 23; 135:10 estate [51 ] 8:1; 11:21; 15:23; 16:3, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20; 17:2, 22; 18:10; 19:2, 23; 25:23; 34:21; 40:9; 45:19; 46:3; 48:1, 14; 58:23; 60:20, 22, 25; 62:10, 22; 84:5; 88:1, 10; 91:25; 92:11; 93:14; 94:9; 96:16; 106:2, 20; 110:5, 13, 17, 18; 114:17; 118:23; 120:1, 13, 15; 126:3, 5, 8 Estate's [3] 15:22; 23:18; 135:6 estates [3] 7:13; 88:11; 115:4 etcetera [10] 7:17; 54:15; 55:25; 70:12; 79:12; 84:6; 86:9; 96:19; 125:10 Even [1] 115:18 even [14] 12:3; 26:8; 72:15; 73:21; 77:18; 78:7; 79:19; 81:16; 86:14; 91:22; 92:13; 93:14; 102:9; 134:13 eventually (5] 12:10; 34:3, 12; 35:5, 8 ever [5] 13:10; 16:19; 17:3; 122:9; 123:13 Every (1] 79:12 every [8] 55:4, 5; 59:16; 90:20; 92:14; 100:15; 113:18; 129:10 everybody [1] 38:7 everyone [1] 38:10 everything [4] 28:8; 118:4; 126:10; 130:9 evidence [22] 5:24; 6:3, 5; 11:20; 41:21; 43:2; 50:13; 54:9; 57:9; 58:20, 24; 60:5, 6, 7, 8; 65:3, 25; 66:3; 99:4; 100:18; 136:2 evidenced [1] 92:19 exact [2] 83:18; 84:8 exactly [4] 57:8; 79:9; 93:21; 115:25 EXAMINATION [3] 6:13; 102:22; 117:22 examination [2] 99:6; 101:2 examined [1] 6:10 example [8] 24:23; 43:7; 55:21; 93:17; 107:10; 110:4; 111:22; 129:7 exceed [1] 132:20 Excel [3] 4:24; 93:6; 96:23 except [1] 128:16 exception [2] 86:2, 3 exchange [3] 22:21; 34:14; 35:2 exclude [1] 129:1 exclusion [1] 105:7 Excuse [2] 31:16; 86:22 executive [1] 67:12 EXECUTOR [3] 2:5; 3:7; 4:1 Executor [74] 7:25; 8:12; 9:8, 9, 20, 23; 11:7, 23; 15:11, 19; 19:3; 21:6; 22:10; 23:1; 25:13; 26:11; 30:14, 24; 31:10; 33:2; 34:19; 35:18; 36:17, 20; 37:2, 10; 38:16, 19; 40:13, 16; 41:1, 7, 9, 22; 42:3, 14; 43:4, 15, 16, 22; 44:8, 9; 45:5; 47:4; 49:7; 50:1; 52:12; 53:5; 57:20, 24; 58:15; 60:19; 62:22; 63:25; 64:3; 76:4; 78:13 85:18; 87:17, 22; 88:22; 89:6; 92:6; 93:1, 4, 11; 95:8; 101:20; 103:25; 104:11; 105:6; 119:11; 134:19 executor [4] 5:13; 23:10; 115:7 Executor's [15] 5:18; 14:14; 17:8, 21; 18:1; 30:2, 19; 31:7; 38:9, 13; 42:19; 45:17; 51:2; 59:2; 125:14 exercise [1] 65:17 Exhibit [118] 19:7, 18; 20:8, 24; 21:13, 15; 23:6, 7; 24:2, 4; 25:9, 16; 28:24; 29:2, 12, 24; 30:20; 31:3; 32:1, 15, 16; 33:6, 7, 9, 15; 35:18, 20; 39:4, 23; 41:21, 22, 24; 44:1, 2, 8, 9, 12; 45:11, 13; 49:6, 7, 9, 22, 23; 51:18; 52:11, 12, 14; 53:13, 24, 25; 55:17; 57:1, 2; 64:9; 66:13; 69:6; 72:7; 73:3, 5; 75:6, 17; 76:4, 8, 22; 77:21; 78:12, 13, 15, 16, 24; 79:1, 25; 80:19; 83:4, 11; 87:17, 20; 88:4; 89:19; 90:11, 25; 92:19; 93:1, 4, 5, 11, 18; 96:11; 104:2, 14, 22; 106:16; 107:8; 108:6; 109:21; 121:5, 6, 18; 122:18; 123:3, 8, 14, 19; 124:10, 23; 125:2, 14; 126:21, 23; 127:23; 128:1, 3; 130:22 exhibit [34] 19:7, 15; 20:17, 20; 31:2; 33:16; 35:17; 46:16; 48:8; 51:4; 53:16; 55:15; 59:17; 64:15; 66:16; 70:13, 19, 21; 74:3; 76:9; 80:13, 18; 92:9; 93:4; 97:25; 106:7, 19; 108:10; 124:7, 14; 127:5, 20; 130:9 EXHIBITS [2] 3:7; 4:1 Exhibits [11] 19:3; 23:1; 26:11; 31:10, 14; 33:2; 50:23; 64:3, 7; 127:14; 134:19 exhibits [26] 19:11; 23:4; 26:14; 31:13, 17; 33:6; 50:18, 25; 53:14; 55:16, 21; 56:7; 57:1, 6; 58:19; 64:13, 14; 76:18; 85:20; 88:6; 99:4; 106:6; 127:11, 17,22; 134:17 existed [1J 124:24 expect (2] 30:9; 59:18 expected [2] 36:10; 91:15 expecting [5] 29:21; 30:7; 33:8, 11; 45:24 expended [1] 125:13 expense [4] 82:9; 83:3, 13, 15 expenses [7] 55:11; 66:20, 23; 82:5, 21, 22; 83:10 experience [1] 97:1 expert [3] 61:9; 73:25; 114:16 explain [8] 7:21; 13:10; 14:18; 18:6; 78:19; 91:3; 93:4; 100:13 explained [1] 40:24 explanation [5] 13:15; 14:25; 15:7; 101:9; 103:3 explanations [2] 103:12, 13 express [2] 47:2, 4 expressed [4] 12:1; 47:24; 105:10, 16 extend [5] 39:1, 11; 40:2, 17; 42:11 extended [1] 26:24 extension [2] 38:23; 39:6 extensions [1] 39:4 extent [2] 38:23; 102:14 -F- Fact [4] 130:2, 3; 132:2; 135:6 fact [11] 13:15; 16:6; 26:23; 49:1; 58:1; 59:7; 66:1; 83:18; 87:11; 106:21; 122:2 facts [1] 134:16 factual [11] 10:5; 13:11; 16:20; 60:1; 61:19; 65:6; 74:2; 84:9; 97:4; 103:15; 122:9 factually [2] 86:21; 133:18 failed [2] 28:6; 42:7 failure [3] 27:2, 4 fair [1] 116:15 fairly (3] 67:12; 127:7; 130:18 faith [1] 116:12 fall [1] 7:9 falls [1] 61:18 false [4] 63:3, 10, 14, 21 familiar [3] 28:20; 48:11; 118:3 fathom [1] 51:6 fault [1] 26:19 favor [1] 102:15 February [37] 1:15; 12:13; 14:13; 15:18; 17:6, 15; 33:10, 18; 34:2, 7; 47:13; 49:2, 15; 51:2, 11, 12; 52:3, 5, 16; 53:22, 23; 57:3, 14; 62:6, 19; 64:15; 76:10, 17; 94:25; 95:12; 100:1; 121:16; 123:22; 124:6, 24; 125:4 Federal [1] 7:10 federal [7] 13:21, 22; 15:23; 16:20; 97:2; 114:17; 117:3 feel [2] 34:15; 91:16 fees [89] 5:7, 9, 18, 25; 9:10, 19; 14:15; 15:11; 17:8, 22; 42:3, 14, 20; 48:1, 13; 54:24; 59:2; 61:3; 81:6, 8; 85:18; 88:1, 2, 7, 14, 15, 18, 19; 89:1, 3, 6; 90:2, 4; 91:14, 17; 92:4, 6, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20; 93:12, 13, 14, 20; 94:4, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22; 95:1, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17; 96:13, 15, 16; 97:3, 7, 12, 17; 100:3; 101:16, 23; 102:1, 3, 12, 16; 112:7, 19; 113:4; 114:21; 118:21, 23, 24; 119:18, 22; 120:14; 128:4; 130:22 felt [7] 15:1; 24:21; 36:22; 37:4; 88:25; 90:7 fiduciary (3] 7:14; 114:20; 115:6 Fifth [1] 1:16 fifth [3] 44:14; 94:3, 7 figure (25] 68:13; 69:6; 72:10; 73:15; 75:22; 77:25; 79:9; 81:7, 11, 25; 82:5, 9, 18; 83:4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18; 84:8; 96:5, 15; 112:12; 121:20; 124:21 figures [10] 65:9; 67:2; 74:8; 79:4; 83:1; 84:13; 95:5; 96:9, 10; 121:18 file [17] 9:9; 26:20; 27:12; 28:14; 37:18; 40:8; 46:18; 48:11; 110:5, 17; 117:12; 118:8, 9; 123:11; 131:13 filed [36] 20:4, 6; 25:23; 33:21, 22; 34:19; 36:21; 39:1; 42:10, 25; 44:20; 46:10; 49:11, 12, 14, 18; 62:7; 68:22, 23; 69:5, 12; 70:6, 11, 14; 74:9; 84:25; 85:2; 86:1, 4, 10; 105:22, 24; 112:25; 113:2; 118:1 files [4] 27:3, 5; 99:23 filing [2] 47:1; 52:3 final [6] 18:4, 7; 31:2; 51:10; 60:11; 93:3 finally [6] 12:12; 27:23; 36:15; 37:20; 53:18; 122:1 finances [2] 30:18, 19 financial (12] 19:24; 21:7; 23:11, 12; 24:19, 20; 30:24; 45:1; 63:22; 73:10; 103:18, 25 find [6] 34:16; 71:9; 128:25; 130:12, 13; 133:19 Findings [4] 130:2; 132:2; 135:6 Fine [1] 98:23 fine [4J 59:14; 98:11, 12, 22 fingers [1] 49:16 finish [1] 58:13 Firm [2] 8:17; 103:11 firm [50] 7:1, 9, 20; 8:1, 20, 22, 25; 14:17; 18:2; 19:19; 21:1; 26:20; 32:14; 38:2, 6; 46:23, 25; 47:9; 49:2, 12; 51:14; 52:7; 60:13, 16; 90:18; 91:6; 93:7; 94:21, 23; 95:7, 14, 24; 101:14, 18, 19, 24; 102:18; 103:5, 13, 24; 104:11; 106:25; 107:4; 108:20; 110:13, 20; 111:14; 114:4; 126:2, 7 firm's [4] 7:15; 31:4; 90:9, 12 firms [1] 90:20 First [2] 11:12; 64:8 first [54] 5:23; 8:16; 10:1, 17; 11:3; 18:19; 19:17; 22:5, 14; 26:18; 28:7; 30:16; 31:14; 36:6; 42:24; 44:3; 45:11; 50:1, 9; 53:17, 22; 56:17; 60:16; 66:12; 68:18; 70:8; 74:20; 75:8; 76:6; 82:9; 83:7; 87:25; 88:3; 91:1; 92:9; 93:9, 18, 20; 94:16; 95:11; 99:3; 104:23; 105:25; 106:10, 12, 13, 18; 108:11; 109:23; 123:18; 124:20; 127:24; 129:7 firsthand (1] 9:22 five [2] 41:3; 79:21 flip [1] 21:13 Floor [1] 1:16 Florida [3] 54:25; 84:6; 112:7 Flow [3] 4:17, 19; 64:11 flow [6] 72:6; 76:3; 85:21; 107:8; 124:15; 125:21 flummoxed [1] 16:23 focus [2] 18:12, 17 focused [2] 35:1; 43:17 focussed [1] 43:11 focussing [1] 36:5 folks [1] 115:24 follow [1] 39:21 followed [1] 90:23 following (3] 48:22, 25; 90:17 follows (1] 6:11 foreclosed [1] 131:11 foreign [1] 111:25 forensic [3j 65:16; 73:19, 23 form [2] 25:12; 70:5 formal [1] 23:24 formalized [1] 24:23 formally (1] 99:11 former [2] 27:12; 28:14 forms [7] 24:12, 15; 25:4, 5, 13, 15, 19 forth [9] 6:3; 19:14; 20:10; 22:21; 26:3; 44:5; 117:4; 132:24; 133:13 forward [7] 26:10; 29:2; 36:14; 38:13; 107:2; 120:24; 121:19 found [1j 89:22 foundation [2] 63:13; 125:1 four [3] 41:3; 97:15; 129:13 fourth [2] 80:2; 108:12 frame [2] 18:23; 29:8 frankly [3] 12:2; 16:23; 91:15 fraud [5] 50:15; 53:6; 56:11; 60:6; 105:14 Friday [2] 52:5; 135:12 Fritz [2] 1:21; 136:10 frivolous [2] 10:8; 131:7 front [1] 72:19 full [4] 54:3; 78:20, 21; 132:20 fully [4] 27:3; 44:23; 48:10; 136:2 funds [12] 16:7; 30:15; 50:4; 57:25; 58:3, 22; 75:11, 18; 77:22; 107:13, 17; 121:20 Further [1] 61:22 further [18j 20:17, 20, 21, 22; 35:24; 40:1; 50:3; 65:14; 97:20; 100:23; 101:11; 108:22, 23; 109:17; 122:15; 126:18, 19; 135:15 fuss [1] 80:16 -G- GEMMILL (82] 2:4; 5:2, 17; 6:6, 14; 11:1; 12:9, 21, 22; 19:5, 10, 16; 22:19; 23:3; 26:13; 27:19, 22; 28:16, 17; 31:12, 19, 25; 33:4; 35:19; 41:20, 23; 44:7, 10; 49:5, 8; 52:11, 13; 58:4; 59:15, 20, 21; 61:17; 62:3, 14; 63:5, 15, 17; 64:5, 24; 66:11; 69:25; 70:20, 22; 72:18; 74:7; 75:1, 3; 76:5; 78:11, 14; 87:18; 93:2; 97:19; 98:12, 22; 99:3, 7, 21; 101:23; 117:21, 23; 119:8, 15, 19; 120:9; 122:13; 126:15, 19; 127:3, 9, 12, 16, 19; 128:7; 134:23; 135:13, 16 Gemmill [1] 5:3 general [1] 55:19 generally [6] 10:4; 18:13; 36:2; 54:17; 90:22; 112:4 generated [2] 61:2; 122:19 generous [2] 80:12; 83:20 GEORGE [1] 1:5 George [7] 8:11; 19:21; 54:20; 72:23; 102:25; 106:22; 113:3 gets [1] 77:15 getting [1] 45:10 gifts [16] 43:16, 18, 22; 44:12, 24; 45:4; 46:5; 49:21; 50:5; 53:6; 57:23; 58:1, 6, 8, 10, 11 Gilroy [1] 8:19 given [3J 56:12; 93:16; 122:10 giving [1] 31:17 goes [2] 51:25; 77:7 going [40] 10:15; 15:16; 20:16; 23:22; 24:21; 27:9; 30:25; 32:24; 46:25; 48:21; 54:9; 55:21, 22; 56:4; 59:9; 60:24; 65:9; 69:10; 76:16; 77:21; 98:15; 100:25; 101:6; 103:16; 110:15; 113:17; 115:20; 119:16; 128:24; 130:1, 6, 13, 20; 131:20, 21, 24; 132:1, 5; 134:11, 21 gone [2] 16:16; 96:9 Good [1] 5:2 good [3] 30:1; 116:12; 135:17 granted [3] 40:18; 47:12; 56:18 great [1] 105:10 grossly [1] 11:9 grounds [1] 39:12 Group [1] 7:15 group [7] 19:7, 13; 23:4; 26:14; 31:13; 33:5; 115:4 Gruver [3] 115:1, 2, 3 guess [4] 31:16; 105:1; 107:1; 112:18 -H- H-e-i-n-t-z [1] 9:2 hadn't [1J 40:24 half [6] 40:6; 48:9; 77:8; 83:6; 97:16; 133:12 hand [10] 5:14; 19:6; 23:4; 31:14; 64:6; 69:9, 10; 70:1; 87:19; 93:3 handed [2] 41:24; 70:3 handing [1] 76:6 hands [1] 84:22 handwriting [2] 73:4, 6 handwritten [6] 75:6, 7; 80:1, 9; 125:1, 10 handyman [1] 55:1 happen [3] 24:22; 32:24; 100:20 happened [13] 12:10; 14:12; 25:20; 35:9; 38:20, 21; 40:20; 46:21; 47:12, 18; 51:9; 56:17; 57:16 happening [2] 38:8; 118:4 happy [4] 5:25; 20:14; 24:25; 116:8 hard [1] 118:12 Harrisburg [1] 6:19 haven't [3] 25:8; 33:13; 117:1 he'll [1] 29:21 head [3] 116:5, 7; 131:3 heading [7j 44:15; 49:24; 50:21, 23; 71:14; 81:14, 15 hear [3] 25:25; 49:1; 101:9 heard [1] 47:11 HEARING [1] 1:12 Hearing [1] 1:16 hearing [53] 10:11; 12:14; 27:19; 28:2; 30:17; 47:10, 14; 48:6; 50:18; 51:2; 53:18; 54:10, 13; 55:16; 56:15, 18, 20; 57:4, 14, 16, 17; 58:14, 21; 60:4; 64:18; 65:2; 66:3; 76:10, 18; 87:12; 98:3, 4; 99:13, 25; 100:18; 101:6, 15; 103:1; 119:3, 6; 122:21; 123:23; 124:5; 125:4, 22; 126:1; 128:23, 24; 129:11; 130:8; 133:23; 134:11; 135:19 hearsay (1] 22:3 Heintz [6] 9:2; 47:23; 48:2, 10, 24 heirs [2] 119:25; 120:15 held [5] 41:19; 95:7; 96:5; 134:11; 135:3 HELEN [1] 2:4 Helen [1] 5:3 helped [2] 24:6; 55:2 here's [1] 134:8 hereby [1] 136:1 herself [1] 5:9 high [1] 81:25 higher [1] 97:12 himself [1] 105:7 HIPPEL [1] 2:2 hired [1] 102:7 hitch [1] 37:25 hold [1] 132:8 holding [1] 133:15 home [3] 21:8; 107:24; 108:4 Honor [2] 98:12; 126:15 hour's [1] 99:19 hourly [2] 89:8, 9 hours [2] 56:8; 59:9 house [2] 55:2, 6 housekeeper [1] 55:4 However [1] 47:6 Hubert [1] 8:19 hundreds [2] 54:4; 55:7 husband [1] 67:12 idea [2] 108:20; 128:22 identification [1] 46:1 identified [2] 36:11; 106:15 identify [7] 33:16; 34:4. 49:9; 52:14; 70:2; 76:7 115:2 identifying [1] 23:6 impacted [1] 119:22 impossible [3] 63:25; 86:21; 128:25 improper [2] 16:21; 121:15 improperly [4] 13:6; 14:19; 15:20; 106:20 inaccurate [4] 49:13; 118:15, 19; 121:20 inadequate [1] 37:5 inappropriate [2] 37:6; 100:22 incapacity [1] 51:23 Incidently [1] 59:12 inclined [1] 98:3 include [2] 36:22; 93:13 included [19] 18:10; 36:10; 45:19, 20, 21; 49:25; 54:19, 20, 23, 25; 55:3, 5; 73:12; 81:4; 88:1; 93:15; 106:1; 111:19, 21 includes [1] 84:5 Including [1] 55:12 including [5] 7:13; 42:23; 85:20; 89:16; 127:16 Income [1] 71:15 income [31] 16:1; 17:1; 62:21; 66:18, 22; 68:4, 10, 12, 15, 20; 69:2; 71:10; 73:2, 16; 75:12, 13; 78:1; 80:5, 13; 81:5, 12, 21; 82:10, 14, 16, 17; 83:7; 85:4; 115:6 incorrect [2] 15:2; 73:9 increase [7] 14:14; 15:11; 17:7; 42:3; 59:2; 114:21 increased [2] 59:11; 85:18 incumbent [1] 28:13 incurred [9] 9:10; 14:2; 15:12; 42:3; 88:19; 90:2, 19; 95:8; 97:7 independent [4] 11:24; 62:9; 63:18; 123:18 independently [1] 103:8 INDEX [1] 3:1 indicate [11] 29:15; 30:6, 11, 13; 31:8; 44:22; 50:17, 22, 24; 75:13; 113:25 indicated [11] 14:11; 28:11, 12; 30:1; 32:5; 34:14; 38:3; 40:4; 51:13; 98:5; 135:4 indicates [6] 22:6; 29:13; 32:17; 43:21; 75:10; 94:14 indicating [3] 19:20, 22; 68:10 indication [1] 21:16 indications [1] 76:15 indispensable [2] 101:15, 24 inextricably [1] 33:25 influence [4] 50:6; 51:15, 23; 53:1 informal [2] 20:3; 39:5 informally [1] 39:9 information [24] 18:20; 19:24; 21:7; 30:2, 7, 24; 31:8; 37:8; 39:16; 53:11; 56:14; 63:22; 74:19; 84:17, 19, 21, 24; 85:11; 96:21; 103:7, 18, 25; 105:25; 118:17 infrequently [1] 91:11 inputted [2] 96:13, 20 instead [1] 80:5 institutions [3] 23:12; 24:19, 21 insurance [1] 81:8 intend [2J 50:18; 87:5 intended [5] 48:5; 55:16; 57:9; 100:17; 124:17 intentionally [1] 90:6 interest [2] 29:1; 123:2 interlocutory [1] 86:17 interview [1] 24:20 intimately [1] 130:8 into [21] 10:3; 16:2, 14; 41:21; 60:20, 22, 25; 65:3, 24, 25; 66:3, 4; 90:17; 99:4; 100:17; 102:6; 118:22; 119:9; 133:8, 22, 25 introduce [3] 5:3; 58:17; 66:8 introduced [12] 64:17; 65:19, 21, 23, 24, 25; 66:3, 4; 100:17; 122:21, 22; 129:11 introductory [1] 71:4 invest [2] 18:2; 85:21 investigate (5J 30:18, 19; 39:13; 62:10; 97:8 investigating [1] 62:12 investigation [5J 32:14; 34:9; 39:10; 40:25; 63:19 invite [1] 101:1 Invoice [1] 3:13 invoice [12] 21:9; 88:9; 91:1, 2; 92:3; 93:10, 18; 95:12, 13; 96:14; 110:24 Invoices [1] 4:23 invoices [22] 4:24; 47:25; 87:21, 24; 89:13; 90:11; 91:5, 8, 21; 92:24; 93:11; 96:10; 109:21, 24; 111:24; 113:11, 14, 18; 115:15, 22; 129:21, 25 involved [17] 8:6, 18; 9:1; 23:20; 24:22; 27:8; 68:19; 91:14; 95:9, 14; 103:8; 106:25; 107:5; 111:10; 116:18; 130:9; 134:5 involvement [2] 7:21; 110:7 involves [1] 7:16 involving [1] 116:22 Irrelevant [2] 119:2, 4 Island [1] 7:11 issue [19] 11:18; 15:3, 15, 16; 24:14; 30:22; 37:10; 43:24; 44:21; 61:10; 74:2; 88:22; 90:5; 98:7; 100:16; 114:15, 19; 117:3, 5 issued [6] 36:16; 37:12, 21; 43:20; 52:1; 87:22 issues [7] 4:12; 6:4; 18:3; 43:5; 51:18; 56:1; 113:8 issuing [1] 91:9 item [3] 118:7; 126:7, 11 itemization [4] 106:1; 113:19; 115:13, 16 itemized [6] 45:18; 46:1; 53:19, 20; 55:8; 59:8 items [7j 29:20; 90:4; 106:20; 110:2; 121:5, 7, 9 itself [1] 70:9 -J- January [14] 8:22; 30:12; 32:20, 23; 33:9, 13, 22; 47:20, 23; 68:24; 70:25; 74:9, 21; 95:13 jewelry [6] 10:19; 11:8, 14; 12:11; 15:10; 29:18 join [5] 13:8; 101:21; 102:1, 13, 19 joined [3] 7:9, 20; 120:18 joining [1] 120:18 joint [1] 113:15 jointly [5] 95:7, 24; 96:6; 113:2; 132:9 judgment (1] 132:16 July [2] 35:10; 37:13 jump [1] 109:6 June [15] 18:23; 25:10, 13, 19; 35:16; 36:17, 18; 62:24; 64:11; 66:19; 67:19; 71:12; 72:1; 77:20; 104:13 jurisdiction [1] 131:10 jury [1] 6:3 -K- Katie [1] 8:19 keep [3] 26:9; 118:12; 130:16 Keeping [1] 27:7 KEHNER [44) 2:2; 10:20, 22; 21:21; 26:17; 58:2; 61:8, 23; 63:4, 9; 64:20; 65:15, 21; 69:17, 20; 72:11; 73:18; 74:24; 87:4, 7; 97:22; 98:16, 20; 99:10; 101:3, 13; 102:23; 117:17; 118:25; 119:2, 5, 12, 17; 120:7; 122:15; 123:9, 11, 15; 126:17; 127:1, 23; 129:20, 23; 134:25 Kehner [6] 9:3; 69:10; 102:25; 115:8; 121:4; 126:22 kept [1] 14:17 KEVIN (1] 2:2 Kevin (2] 9:3; 102:24 KIMBERLY [1j 6:9 Kimberly [3] 3:3; 6:7, 17 kind [15] 9:14; 26:7; 29:23; 33:13; 34:6; 38:4; 42:6; 45:9; 70:4; 86:6; 88:13; 89:3; 93:8; 108:23; 109:15 knew [2] 60:21; 131:20 know [73j 5:20, 22; 8:24; 12:15; 14:16; 21:10; 23:21, 22; 24:23; 26:23; 27:9, 20; 29:1; 32:12, 21; 33:14; 47:18; 49:13; 51:1, 3; 55:20, 24; 58:2; 59:12; 60:12; 65:16; 67:18; 68:14; 72:14; 77:5, 24; 81:20; 85:12; 88:12; 103:10, 24; 107:10, 16, 19, 21; 108:14, 16; 113:12; 114:25; 115:20; 116:5, 7, 17; 123:1, 2, 7; 124:1, 23; 125:24; 126:6; 130:5; 131:2, 14; 132:7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 22; 133:8, 11, 24; 134:8, 14 knowing [3] 32:8; 68:19; 123:2 knowledge [6j 5:8; 22:2; 50:4, 12; 100:19; 103:7 known [5] 65:11; 87:11; 115:24; 128:23; 134:11 knows [1] 130:21 -L- labeling [1] 19:8 lack [4] 111:6; 113:19; 115:13; 129:2 languish [1] 106:24 languished [1] 107:1 large [1] 89:4 last [14j 27:16, 17; 33:5; 41:3; 52:23; 72:24; 77:16, 17; 94:13; 95:20; 104:23; 110:12; 124:9; 134:9 lasted [1] 97:14 lasts [1] 90:21 late [3] 18:23; 37:22; 74:15 Later [1] 16:10 later [7] 18:24, 25; 22:24; 29:25; 38:25; 40:11; 50:18 launched [1] 135:5 lawyer [1] 6:20 lawyers [1] 133:15 lead [2] 117:24; 121:1 Leading [1] 10:22 leads [1] 96:21 least [6] 26:24; 50:2; 55:4; 62:20; 109:23; 114:25 leaves [1] 31:23 left [3] 33:6; 81:9; 87:25 left-hand [1] 79:7 legal (14] 10:5; 13:10; 16:19; 42:22; 44:5; 45:22; 46:4, 6; 49:20; 97:4; 103:13, 15; 122:9; 130:22 Legg [3] 107:25; 108:19 less [5] 79:20; 82:17; 83:7, 20; 91:2 Let's [7] 11:2; 44:7; 45:10; 49:5; 67:7; 75:4; 82:8 let's [6] 33:5; 45:9; 68:7; 93:17; 98:9; 109:14 letter [26] 8:4, 16; 18:21, 25; 19:19; 20:2; 22:20; 23:7, 14; 24:5, 7, 10; 25:6; 29:2, 6, 12, 19; 30:21; 31:5; 32:3; 39:23; 52:9; 104:2, 20; 105:12; 115:6 letters [1] 104:5 level [1] 85:25 liable [5] 95:8, 25; 96:5, 6; 132:9 life [6] 23:13; 41:3; 52:23; 77:14, 17; 100:11 lifetime [1] 51:24 light [3] 90:3; 99:11, 14 like [20] 5:22; 11:3; 26:17; 28:10; 59:8; 69:17, 23; 80:21; 83:23; 91:22; 98:13; 99:10; 100:10; 101:3, 13; 127:4; 129:24; 131:4; 133:17; 134:6 likely (1] 33:23 limbo [1] 47:10 line [29] 26:3, 7, 15; 29:4; 30:9; 32:14, 19; 34:9; 42:6, 7; 56:8; 67:9; 68:7, 8; 74:25; 75:1, 8, 9, 16; 80:13; 82:8, 9; 83:10; 93:12, 15, 20; 94:25; 108:12 lines [2] 73:9; 108:22 liquid [2] 16:7; 120:13 List [1] 4:20 list [26] 19:25; 29:20; 46:1, 17; 48:8; 51:4; 53:16, 17, 19, 20; 54:4, 6; 55:8, 15, 19; 59:8; 64:15; 68:25; 71:25; 73:1, 2; 76:11; 78:23; 106:14; 108:6 listed [15] 54:18; 55:7; 57:1; 64:14; 69:6; 82:11, 21; 96:14, 15, 16; 106:19, 21; 124:7, 14 lists [4] 36:9; 54:2, 4; 71:16 literally [1] 78:20 litigating [1] 9:11 Litigation [1] 7:13 litigation [15] 7:14, 18; 8:5; 9:21; 48:15; 89:11; 92:20; 94:5, 8, 11, 15; 95:16; 128:13, 15; 130:11 litigator [2] 97:2; 117:24 little [8] 13:21; 37:25; 67:21, 25; 77:7; 79:19; 83:5; 124:3 located [1] 104:10 Long [1] 134:12 long [7] 6:23; 7:7, 18; 57:7; 87:11; 134:12; 135:11 longer [2] 54:2; 97:14 look [25] 51:17; 52:21; 71:21, 24; 73:11; 75:21; 76:22; 77:2, 5, 6, 10; 79:5; 82:11; 85:4; 92:9; 95:10; 104:14; 108:21; 112:21; 116:8; 120:4; 125:25; 131:23; 132:24; 134:7 looked [9] 21:11; 31:5; 45:13; 58:7; 63:7; 75:23; 76:2; 93:17; 125:9 Looking [2] 44:12; 80:19 looking [9] 31:20; 71:22; 79:25; 80:2; 88:3; 111:23; 132:1, 6 looks [2] 69:17, 23 lots [3] 16:4; 26:18; 115:12 LOTTIE [2] 1:1; 2:5 Lottie [11] 51:23; 64:12; 71:16; 106:15; 107:16; 108:7, 14, 17; 109:18; 121:23; 124:15 lump [1] 111:19 lumped [2] 113:10, 12 lunch [6] 98:2, 9, 13, 17, 25; 128:1 -M- made [35] 10:18; 12:25; 13:8; 16:5; 18:5; 26:9; 37:7; 38:10; 40:9; 50:11; 57:18; 60:10; 62:15, 18; 63:2; 66:4; 71:17, 20; 79:3; 81:19; 83:24; 85:3, 23; 90:10; 100:20; 102:15; 103:1, 3; 113:22; 117:6, 8; 122:4; 126:23; 133:4; 134:15 magnitude [1] 17:19 mail [1] 108:5 mailed [3] 25:14; 91:9; 107:24 mailing [1] 21:2 major [1] 129:17 make [18] 13:19; 21:16; 28:22; 31:21; 35:16; 40:1; 52:18; 56:22; 65:1, 7; 66:2; 81:18; 82:22, 24; 84:16; 86:20; 87:8; 127:5 makes [3] 74:23; 120:1; 132:11 making [3] 13:24; 103:8; 113:21 manage [1] 110:15 management [1j 90:13 manager [3] 91:7, 19; 117:15 managers [1] 91:12 many [9] 14:17; 21:10; 55:24; 71:2; 91:20; 92:19; 113:19, 24; 117:2 March [3] 135:6, 8, 10 margin [3] 108:12, 14, 20 MARK [1] 2:7 mark [4] 44:7; 49:5; 52:11; 78:11 MARKED [2] 3:8; 4:2 marked [25] 19:3; 23:1, 5; 26:11, 16; 31:10, 14; 33:2; 35:18; 41:22; 44:9; 49:7; 52:12; 53:24; 57:2; 64:3, 7, 9; 70:19; 76:4, 7; 78:13; 87:17, 20; 93:1 Marshall [13] 22:10; 44:24; 52:24; 87:22; 105:19; 106:7, 22; 108:24; 112:9, 14, 23; 120:12; 121:15 Marshall's [3] 45:1; 109:2, 16 Martson [23] 8:17; 19:19; 26:20; 27:2, 4; 31:4; 46:23; 94:21, 23; 101:14, 18, 19, 21, 24; 102:12, 18; 103:4, 11, 13, 24; 104:3, 11; 106:25 Mason [2] 108:1, 19 match [3] 79:6; 93:10; 96:12 matched [2] 79:12; 96:10 math [10] 67:22; 75:18; 80:21; 81:2, 10; 84:12; 96:17, 21, 24; 126:24 mathematical [2] 13:14; 84:8 mathematically [3] 63:25; 84:14; 86:21 mathematician [1] 79:22 Matter [1] 89:3 matter [17] 8:5; 9:11; 17:11; 18:18; 26:10; 36:14; 42:6; 47:11; 51:8; 85:25; 90:24; 98:2; 110:18; 114:15; 119:25; 120:3; 130:18 matters [8] 33:25; 34:1; 36:22; 48:5; 59:1; 73:19; 86:7; 114:17 MAXWELL [1) 2:2 Maxwell [2] 3:15; 8:19 Maybe [1] 120:24 maybe [7] 24:22; 34:13; 53:19; 71:6; 78:7; 109:9; 112:7 MCNEES [1] 2:4 McNees [14] 5:4; 6:18; 7:2, 8, 24; 19:20; 22:22; 23:8; 26:19; 33:19; 47:25; 70:5; 87:21; 88:19 mean [19] 36:5; 56:19; 58:3; 59:14; 61:23; 65:15; 98:1, 6; 100:9, 10; 113:20; 116:13; 131:11, 12; 132:17; 133:1, 22; 134:9, 10 meaning [1] 127:1 means [1] 59:19 meant [1] 20:20 meantime [1] 23:15 medical [1] 55:1 member [3] 7:2, 4, 6 Memo [1] 3:12 memo [5] 33:12; 45:11, 12; 105:24; 134:9 memoranda [6] 15:4, 17; 17:14; 35:2; 49:17; 85:1 Memorandum [2] 4:13, 15 memorandum [27] 20:25; 29:22; 32:23; 36:7; 40:4, 7; 42:24; 44:4, 8, 20; 45:25; 46:8, 10, 16; 49:3, 11, 22; 50:10, 17; 52:4, 8; 58:8; 60:17; 62:20; 124:11, 19; 129:25 memorized [1] 110:3 mention [1] 103:1 mentioned [3] 105:23; 107:3; 117:15 merits [1] 86:10 mess [1] 80:16 middle [5] 36:18; 37:13; 51:21; 73:15; 124:24 might [3] 8:4; 109:12; 133:18 million [35] 40:6; 50:2, 16; 52:20, 25; 58:22; 62:21; 64:1; 67:21; 68:13; 73:8; 75:11, 17, 22; 77:8; 78:3; 79:16, 17; 80:3, 11, 25; 81:1, 11, 24; 82:20; 83:6, 13; 84:10, 13; 85:1, 15; 125:7; 133:12 million-dollar [1] 124:20 mind [4] 27:7, 15; 115:22; 130:17 minus [1] 94:15 minutes [2] 90:22; 117:18 misappropriation [1] 105:11 misread [2] 77:3; 105:1 misrepresentation [1] 53:7 Missing [1] 66:13 missing (23] 39:14; 42:17; 43:11; 46:2; 55:9, 10; 57:22; 60:2, 6; 62:11, 22; 66:24; 67:5; 73:8; 78:3; 83:16, 19; 84:11; 85:1, 15; 121:8; 133:12 misspoken [1] 103:23 mistake [1] 126:22 moment [3] 15:9; 44:16; 85:12 Monday [4] 53:23; 54:6; 90:16, 17 money [3] 16:2; 44:24; 104:6 moneys [2] 57:20, 21 month [6] 37:22; 48:9; 50:19; 76:12; 104:1; 133:23 monthly [4j 77:6; 78:16; 79:1; 104:16 months [12] 18:24; 22:24; 23:14; 26:9; 27:16, 18; 29:10; 51:5; 77:20; 109:23; 128:23 more [22] 10:12; 13:21; 15:6, 25; 20:23; 22:23; 23:16; 27:20; 31:13; 39:3, 10, 16, 20; 48:9; 51:5; 56:18; 62:12; 91:14; 111:20; 120:13; 123:6; 125:25 morning [2] 5:2, 12 Most (1] 113:2 most [4] 41:17; 55:19; 79:20; 116:25 mother [2] 43:16; 44:25 motion [30] 5:6, 18, 20, 21, 24; 6:4; 9:9, 14, 16; 34:19; 39:1, 11, 16; 40:2, 17, 21, 23; 41:5; 42:11; 56:22; 88:2, 14; 92:5; 95:6; 100:6; 101:1, 5, 14; 102:20; 128:4 move [3] 35:15; 75:4; 99:4 moving [5] 26:10; 29:1; 36:14; 107:2; 127:14 much [10] 27:20; 28:19; 29:16; 39:7; 44:24; 80:21; 98:14; 116:2; 120:1; 125:22 Mullaugh [22] 3:9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 23; 4:3, 5, 9; 8:2; 20:10, 19; 21:14, 16, 22; 24:6; 47:22; 111:7, 12; 114:6, 13 Mullaugh's [2] 22:5; 30:21 multiple [4] 42:5, 22; 54:1; 71:13 multiplication [1] 67:20 multiplied [4] 67:17; 68:4, 12; 89:9 multiply [3] 75:14; 80:7; 82:13 must [5] 65:11; 69:15; 90:16; 130:23; 131:7 mutual [1] 75:11 myself [4] 5:3; 7:6; 45:10; 96:13 -N- name [3] 6:15, 17; 118:13 nature [3] 5:6; 113:22, 25 near [3] 22:18; 41:13; 97:16 necessarily [5] 109:10; 112:18; 121:8; 129:23; 132:23 necessary [5] 16:6; 74:1; 90:7; 94:17; 97:3 necessitated [1] 128:5 need [11] 6:2; 28:22; 44:25; 45:2; 46:5; 73:21; 97:23; 98:8, 15; 114:10; 131:23 needed [4] 29:16; 39:16; 45:5; 54:10 neglected [1] 99:3 neither [1] 87:7 never [11] 11:25; 12:2; 14:20; 17:24, 25; 37:3, 4; 48:4; 57:12; 77:15; 132:16 nevertheless [1] 86:24 next [25] 15:19; 22:22; 24:3; 25:20; 33:9; 38:20, 21; 46:21, 22; 48:12; 66:20; 67:24; 68:7; 75:4, 8; 80:13; 93:12; 94:2, 3, 13; 95:19, 21, 23; 104:22; 125:12 nickname [1] 64:11 night [1] 134:9 Nina [1] 9:2 nine [1] 56:15 non-QTIP [1] 14:10 none [1] 41:12 Notary [2] 1:21; 136:11 notation (3] 108:22; 109:15, 17 notations [1] 125:2 Note (1] 73:18 note [1] 80:1 noted [2] 26:8; 109:23 notes [4] 75:6, 7; 125:10; 136:3 Nothing [1] 122:15 nothing [1] 97:19 November [11] 32:4, 7; 33:7; 46:10, 12, 13; 76:13, 23, 25; 77:8, 19 Number [2] 51:18; 128:2 number [27] 55:22; 67:13, 18; 68:1, 3; 75:19; 77:2; 80:6, 8, 16; 81:9; 83:21; 92:7; 96:7; 101:5; 103:1; 105:8; 106:23; 108:10, 23; 109:15; 111:23; 115:23; 118:21; 126:8, 11 numbered [4] 44:17; 70:9; 71:5, 7 numbers [8] 67:2, 4; 74:6; 79:6; 80:22, 23; 96:2; 125:8 numerous [4] 109:22; 111:18; 114:3; 128:3 Hunt [2] 52:10; 56:5 NURICK [1] 2:4 Nurick [6] 5:4; 6:18; 7:3, 24; 19:20; 23:9 -O- oath [1] 99:2 obdurate [10] 5:19; 9:18, 24; 17:18; 18:6; 59:24; 61:6, 9, 21; 97:11 OBERMAYER (1] 2:2 Obermayer [17] 8:22, 25; 49:2, 4, 11; 51:14; 52:7; 60:13, 16; 95:5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 24; 96:6; 107:4 object (4] 21:21; 64:20; 72:11; 127:23 objected [3] 15:22; 16:17; 18:8 objecting [4] 13:11; 116:10; 118:21; 119:23 Objection [5] 10:20; 58:2; 61:8; 63:4; 118:25 objection [53] 10:6, 18; 11:3, 6, 10, 20; 12:10; 13:3, 7, 9; 14:12, 14; 15:10, 11, 18, 19; 17:3, 7, 14, 21; 18:4, 7, 11, 16, 20; 20:4; 22:3; 27:14; 42:16, 18; 44:5; 48:3; 60:2; 61:16; 63:8, 11; 66:9; 73:18; 85:16; 88:20, 23; 89:1; 98:10; 105:22; 112:5, 6, 17; 116:3; 117:6, 11; 120:2, 7, 18 objectionable [1] 36:23 Objections [1] 127:22 objections [57] 7:22; 9:11, 21; 10:5, 16, 23; 11:2; 12:25; 16:18; 17:16, 24, 25; 18:1; 25:24; 26:1; 33:23; 34:21, 22; 36:22; 37:5, 15; 43:6; 45:15; 48:18; 60:9, 15, 24; 61:1, 2; 70:11; 88:24; 92:21; 95:17; 96:17; 97:5; 103:3, 9; 106:24; 107:5; 109:25; 111:10; 112:1, 22, 25; 113:2, 11, 15; 114:22; 115:17; 118:1; 120:20, 23, 25; 128:5, 15 Objector's [3] 4:13, 14, 16 OBJECTORS [1] 2:3 Objectors [5] 44:23; 45:19, 23; 49:10; 52:22 obligated [1] 119:18 obligation [2] 102:5; 119:11 observation [1] 120:5 observe [1] 9:22 observing [1] 87:1 obtain [5] 23:11; 38:2; 47:15, 16; 85:8 obtained [6] 43:3; 63:23; 67:15; 84:20; 85:6; 104:12 obvious [1] 112:16 Obviously [1] 72:13 obviously [5] 5:8; 21:22; 36:2; 91:25; 124:2 occurred [2] 38:12; 110:23 occurring [1] 85:13 October [16] 39:3, 23; 41:19; 53:21; 77:10; 84:22; 85:8; 91:2; 93:18; 94:19, 24; 104:7, 19; 105:16; 109:14; 110:23 off-hand [1] 131:3 offer [2] 58:21; 65:3 office [9] 27:3, 4, 5; 54:7; 57:7; 98:6; 102:12; 105:24; 134:9 offset [1] 120:14 Okay [6] 12:8; 25:18; 62:4; 68:7; 80:19; 124:16 okay [2] 10:24; 98:21 oldest [1] 20:12 once [1] 57:5 one-and-a-half [1] 124:20 ones [6] 17:20; 20:23; 31:19; 60:13; 102:7; 107:25 ongoing [1] 34:1 only [26] 14:8; 24:17; 30:4, 18; 58:9, 15; 59:16; 61:10; 72:10; 76:19; 88:1; 89:24; 94:7; 95:1; 96:12; 99:24; 100:2; 107:23; 108:18; 111:11; 124:5; 126:20; 127:2; 128:15; 130:8; 133:24 open [1] 130:17 opinion [3] 63:6; 80:23; 97:6 opportunity [8] 63:12; 74:4; 98:7; 100:5, 15; 121:16; 129:2; 130:5 opposed [1] 39:11 option [1] 134:2 Order [6] 26:6; 35:4, 23; 41:5; 42:8; 47:17 order [2] 44:23; 71:19 original [4j 19:11; 58:7; 83:11; 94:23 original-labeled [1] 31:17 originally [1] 46:13 ORPHANS [2J 1:2, 6 Orphans [1] 7:14 other [26] 12:25; 17:10, 16; 42:17; 46:4; 53:17; 55:18; 60:9; 61:5; 69:20; 70:10; 82:21, 25; 88:17; 90:17; 92:8; 107:17; 108:4; 115:24; 121:22, 24; 129:3; 130:16; 132:5, 12 others [2] 56:1; 60:17 otherwise (2] 112:3; 114:1 Otto [9] 3:9, 11, 12, 21, 24; 4:6, 8; 8:19; 104:3 ought [1] 99:6 over [20] 21:12; 45:7; 59:17; 64:1; 66:22; 67:21, 25; 68:5; 69:15; 77:8, 19; 78;1; 82:15; 83:6; 92:12; 102:18; 108:24; 122:10; 125:16; 131:15 overall [1] 10:2 overdue [1] 48:9 overlap [1] 88:22 overpayment [1J 16:12 overridden [1] 13:23 overrule [2] 100:8; 120:2 Overruled [1] 62:4 overruled [3] 22:3; 66:10; 73:22 owed [3] 15:25; 16:15; 17:1 -P- p.m. [2] 134:10; 135:19 pack [1] 31:2 package [1j 123:24 page [30] 21:15; 22:5, 14; 24:11; 36:6; 44:14, 22; 49:23; 50:20; 51:21; 52:21; 66:13, 17, 19, 20; 67:2; 71:9, 14, 15, 24; 82:6; 83:4, 7; 88:3; 90:25; 91:1; 106:15; 108:10; 124:9 pages [21] 15:6; 20:7; 21:10; 44:17; 69:15, 23; 70:9; 71:2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 21, 22, 25; 72:24; 73:4; 92:19; 118:21 paid [10] 14:2, 6, 25; 21:4; 62:9; 81:9; 112:6, 14, 24 painted [2] 133:25; 134:1 paper [1] 69:22 paragraph [4) 49:25; 50:3; 104:16, 23 paralegal [1] 115:4 paraphrasing [1] 32:25 part [16] 14:6; 40:6, 7; 63:1; 64:21; 66:4, 17; 80:15; 81:20, 22; 85:16; 89:24; 105:5; 106:6; 123:24 participant [1] 86:23 participated [1] 115:19 particular [1] 118:9 particularly [2] 114:13; 121:3 parties [2] 22:9; 47:2 partner [2j 5:5; 7:2 partners [1] 114:10 parts [1] 89:15 party [2] 101:15, 25 passed [2] 21:8; 74:14 past [1] 22:2 pattern [2] 105:6; 128:20 paucity [2] 19:1, 23 Paul [2] 9:2; 47:23 Pause [2] 44:19; 117:18 payment [2j 16:5, 6 payments [4] 43:22; 59:10; 76:16; 119:20 pebble [2] 128:25; 134:10 PENNSYLVANIA [2] 1:1, 5 Pennsylvania [4] 1:17; 6:19, 21, 24 Pension [2] 67:9, 10 pension [1] 67:10 people [2] 24:20; 117:25 percent [5] 75:12; 80:4; 82:13, 19; 94:10 percentage [5] 93:16, 24; 94:1, 10; 96:19 pertorm [1] 81:2 pertormed [1] 90:15 performing [1] 111:12 perhaps [3] 102:9; 124:3; 132:20 peril [1] 100:25 period [30] 18:18; 23:16; 39:2; 41:1; 42:11; 50:14; 62:23; 64:2; 66:18; 68:22; 69:2, 3; 71:11; 72:1, 5; 74:11, 17; 76:1, 3; 77:9; 78:1; 81:22; 84:22; 97:7; 112:12, 19, 20; 122:10; 128:8; 129:12 periods [1j 115:21 permission [1] 50:5 permitting [1] 104:6 person [1] 8:2 personal [17] 10:19; 11:7, 8, 13; 12:11, 16; 15:10; 29:19; 30:15, 19, 23; 31:8; 40:13; 41:7, 10, 11; 55:11 perspective [3] 45:17; 51:1; 57:17 Perusing [4] 39:24; 79:6; 111:2; 115:1 Petition [5] 47:1; 62:7; 85:2, 17, 24 petition [10] 47:3, 6, 13; 62:8, 16, 25; 86:1, 5, 11, 15 phone [3] 90:20, 21; 113:21 physically [1] 123:3 piece [1] 24:3 pieces [2] 54:1; 117:4 pile [2] 128:25; 134:10 Pine [1j 6:19 PLACE [1] 1:16 place [2] 27:17; 79:15 Plaintiffs [1j 124:23 planning [2] 40:9; 110:13 pleadings [5] 70:5, 6, 10; 89:2 PLEAS [2] 1:1, 5 Please [1] 44:19 please [7] 6:15; 14:18; 20:18; 30:20; 34:5; 61:12; 72:17 plenty [1] 98:6 plus [3] 66:24; 68:13; 96:3 point [26] 8:6; 11:22; 13:7; 15:5; 19:8; 21:5; 27:8, 14; 28:19; 33:20; 34:1, 7; 38:1; 45:3, 16; 48:9; 49:16; 51:13; 67:3; 77:12; 81:16; 84:7, 8; 104:4; 131:14 pointed (2j 127:4; 128:17 policies [2] 90:9, 22 policy [2] 90:18; 111:14 portion [4] 15:23; 16:11; 109:7, 9 posed [1] 38:17 position [16] 15:1, 2; 28:2; 44:3; 47:2, 4; 50:9; 56:21; 61:6; 86:13; 95:6; 99:14; 105:12, 15; 133:9 possession [4] 21:18; 31:21; 84:18; 103:18 possible [1] 115:12 Possibly [1] 110:22 possibly [1] 63:9 Practice (1] 7:15 practice [3J 6:20; 7:12, 19 practicing [1] 7:7 Pre-Hearing [1] 4:13 Pre-hearing [2] 4:15, 16 precede [1] 104:21 precedes [1] 104:19 prefer [1] 59:14 prehearing [40] 15:3, 4, 17; 17:12, 13; 18:3; 29:21; 32:22; 33:12; 35:2; 36:7; 42:12, 24; 44:4, 8; 45:11, 12, 25; 46:7, 10, 15; 49:3, 11, 17; 50:10, 17; 51:10; 52:2, 4, 8; 58:8; 59:1; 60:12, 16; 62:18, 19; 84:25; 105:24; 114:18 prejudice [1] 41:6 preliminary [1] 86:7 premarked [1] 19:6 premised [1] 75:16 prepare [12] 22:11, 16; 34:24; 41:15; 54:15; 56:12, 24; 59:5; 92:23; 93:8; 99:18; 115:5 prepared [9] 41:17; 72:13, 14; 100:7; 111:9; 123:3, 8; 124:2; 129:24 preparing [4] 88:12, 20; 89:1; 114:20 present [13] 5:24; 6:2, 5; 7:22; 54:9; 55:16; 58:20, 21; 87:2, 13; 102:17; 133:1; 134:4 presented [2] 99:12; 134:19 presume [2] 80:20; 134:21 pretrial [1] 52:2 pretty [4] 81:7; 112:16; 119:24; 131:9 previous [1] 122:21 previously [2] 36:4; 58:1 price [1] 116:15 Primarily [1] 8:18 primarily [3] 7:13; 38:6; 114:19 Prior (1] 125:4 prior [16] 23:15; 28:1; 32:17; 51:14; 58:5; 74:10; 84:20, 24; 85:8; 99:23; 101:8; 102:4, 6, 16; 105:5; 124:2 privilege [2] 90:8; 110:15 probably [6] 49:12; 80:12; 81:7; 99:5; 109:7; 132:19 probe [4] 73:7; 78:2; 79:15; 84:9 probing [1] 79:22 problem [4] 11:10; 128:18; 130:15; 135:11 procedural [1] 86:7 Procedure [2] 131:2, 16 Proceed [2] 12:8; 87:16 proceed [9] 6:7; 23:23; 28:15, 25; 44:19; 57:14; 100:7; 101:1, 5 proceeded [1] 58:14 proceeding [6] 14:15; 22:23; 28:23; 38:20; 42:4; 94:20 PROCEEDINGS [1] 1:11 proceedings [7] 18:3; 35:24; 87:6; 100:23; 101:12; 136:1, 3 process [6] 10:12; 11:22; 29:5; 43:3; 89:8; 129:15 procured [2] 50:5; 53:6 produce [2] 40:13; 41:2 produced [8] 41:11; 57:10; 64:25; 73:10; 78:9; 82:23; 99:15, 24 producing [1] 75:12 product [2] 89:21; 90:8 Production [1] 26:24 production [3] 99:17; 100:16; 101:8 productive [2] 60:14; 107:4 profess [1] 114:16 professional [1J 81:6 professional's [1] 89:9 program [1] 96:23 progress [2] 32:13; 34:8 prompt [1] 126:13 promptly [2] 29:2; 38:5 proof [2] 57:24; 132:16 properly [4] 10:16; 11:4, 11; 43:6 properties [3] 111:25; 112:8, 9 property [9] 10:19; 11:8, 13, 25; 12:11; 15:10; 29:19; 84:6; 120:15 proposal [1] 30:23 Proposed [2] 50:21, 23 proposed [7] 35:13; 53:15, 16; 64:15; 85:20; 124:7, 14 protect [1] 90:7 protocol [1] 59:13 prove [3] 51:22; 57:20; 58:11 provide [13] 16:19; 20:14; 27:3, 5, 24; 31:9; 41:7; 45:15; 46:16; 53:14, 15; 56:7; 60:1 provided [19] 21:6, 10; 24:12, 16; 25:3; 28:5; 36:23; 53:16; 64:13; 66:17; 67:2; 70:15; 76:10, 17; 78:23; 95:15; 103:4; 104:1, 13 providers [1] 55:1 provisions [1] 13:24 Public [2] 1:21; 136:11 pulled [1] 79:2 purchased [1] 43:16 purported [1] 55:10 purpose [1] 121:6 pursuant [2] 35:25; 104:12 pursue [4] 11:18; 53:1; 60:3; 87:9 pursued [12] 10:6; 11:4; 15:20; 17:24; 18:12; 29:16; 43:25; 48:4; 56:10, 11, 21; 88:16 pursuing [2] 42:15; 88:14 pursuit [1] 42:18 push [1] 38:10 push-back [1] 46:14 pushing [2] 120:22, 24 putting [1] 119:9 -Q- QTIP [47] 1:6; 11:15; 12:18, 21; 14:2, 3, 5, 6; 15:25; 16:12, 15, 17; 17:1; 33:21, 24; 34:22; 68:9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 23; 69:3, 4, 6, 12; 70:7, 8, 24; 72:5, 7, 19, 24; 73:2, 11, 13; 74:8, 13, 23, 25; 81:7; 85:10, 11; 88:20, 23; 125:9 quashed [1] 86:16 question [19] 10:25; 14:23; 27:14; 34:11; 38:18; 58:13; 61:13; 62:2; 72:17; 110:11; 118:20; 119:21, 24; 120:17; 122:1; 123:5; 124:25; 125:12; 126:7 questioned [1] 53:9 questioning [1] 110:16 questions [7] 5:10; 38:17; 110:14; 121:5; 122:16; 126:13, 14 quibble [1] 82:2 quite [1] 8:10 quote [1] 83:19 -R- raise [1] 43:5 raised [4] 39:15; 59:4; 88:22; 110:11 range [1] 77:17 rate [4J 80:4; 82:13, 19; 89:9 rather [1] 19:9 rational [1j 45:21 reach [1] 61:11 reached (2] 26:6; 28:19 reaching [1] 27:7 read [6] 36:2; 61:12, 14; 104:23; 109:19; 134:13 ready [1] 135:5 real [2] 84:5; 120:15 realize [2j 126:3; 133:18 really [16] 6:1; 19:13; 28:10; 36:5; 45:3; 51:16; 60:14; 81:21; 84:4; 114:10; 125:22; 129:20; 132:11; 133:15, 17; 134:8 ream (2] 69:22, 24 reason [7] 28:11; 47:24; 118:14, 18; 129:10; 132:15 reasonable [1] 101:11 reasonably (1] 55:9 reasons [4] 28:10; 45:20; 98:4; 129:6 REBMANN [1] 2:2 recall [5] 12:6; 23:19; 102:24; 112:4; 116:18 receive [10] 24:10; 29:21 30:7; 33:12; 37:17; 45:24 48:8; 56:16, 25; 104:4 received [28] 8:16; 16:10; 24:9; 26:5, 20; 32:7; 33:13; 45:25; 49:3; 53:22; 56:2; 57:21; 59:7; 67:25; 68:5, 11, 15; 69:1, 2; 78:5; 82:14; 85:20; 97:24; 104:16; 105:25; 106:13; 108:5; 123:18 receiving [5] 44:25; 54:13; 67:11; 73:17; 120:16 recent [1] 62:18 recently [4] 40:4, 12; 125:23; 126:1 recess [5] 86:24; 87:14, 15; 98:23, 25 recognize [4] 87:20; 90:4; 97:6; 111:17 Recognizing [1] 86:23 recollection [2] 123:17, 18 recommendation [1] 41:4 recommended [2] 40:23; 41:1 reconvene [1] 98:19 record [28] 8:10; 21:21, 25; 22:1, 2; 26:18; 28:22; 35:21; 61:14; 64:21; 69:14; 78:15, 21; 86:8; 87:1, 3, 12; 90:13; 119:25; 120:3; 123:17; 130:4; 134:15; 135:2, 3, 15, 17 recorded [7] 92:5; 93:13, 14, 20; 94:11; 96:15, 16 recording [1] 90:23 records [10J 22:7, 8, 17, 23; 23:12; 25:1; 45:1; 78:4; 82:18; 108:4 recovery [2] 9:19; 42:19 RECROSS [1j 3:2 Recross [1] 122:14 redact [2] 90:6; 113:14 redacted [7] 88:7, 8; 89:18, 23; 92:15; 115:9; 126:6 redacting [1] 90:3 redaction [1] 89:23 REDIRECT [2] 3:2; 117:22 Redirect [1] 117:20 redo [2] 83:9; 134:15 reduction [1] 81:5 reference [4] 51:25; 72:12; 113:21; 118:7 referenced [2] 18:22; 24:8 references [2j 51:19; 108:11 referencing [1] 52:16 referred [6] 8:7; 70:18, 21; 104:20; 109:2; 117:1 Referring [2] 104:2; 107:7 referring [7] 8:8; 44:1, 11; 66:14; 110:2; 123:9 reflect [3] 77:22; 87:13; 121:24 reflected [12] 43:19; 47:25; 49:21; 67:13; 68:2, 4; 89:21; 90:10; 91:4; 107:18; 125:13; 128:3 reflects [4] 83:6; 91:2; 95:13; 109:7 refund [6] 15:24; 16:11, 14, 16, 21; 117:3 refusal [1] 16:9 refused [1] 16:2 regard [5) 22:11; 47:3, 11; 70:7; 103:2 regarding [10] 7:23; 22:23; 63:23; 103:19; 105:25; 110:11, 14; 111:14, 24; 117:5 regardless [5] 11:19; 99:16; 102:1; 109:24; 111:9 regret [1] 101:10 reimbursed [1] 9:10 reimbursement [2] 43:18; 58:10 reimbursements [1] 43:15 reinstate [1] 101:13 reject [1] 100:8 relate [5] 26:14; 112:5; 115:16; 117:3; 128:2 related [16] 88:1, 10; 89:2, 10; 92:20; 94:4; 95:16; 108:21; 111:5, 24; 112:11; 113:14; 126:4; 128:14; 130:10 relates [1] 114:24 relating [3] 105:11; 116:22; 128:11 relation [2] 111:25; 112:2 relationship [4] 91:7, 11, 18; 117:14 relatively [1] 15:7 Release [1] 3:17 relevance [1) 58:17 relevant [5] 15:6; 43:23; 65:13; 115:21; 125:24 reluctantly [1] 47:5 remain [2] 99:1; 132:19 remember [3] 15:5; 109:11; 131:3 remind [1] 99:1 removed [2j 53:2; 88:13 renewed [1] 41:6 repeating [1] 36:3 rephrase [2] 10:24; 72:16 replaced [2] 80:3; 81:24 reply [1] 135:10 Report [1] 4:12 report [6] 41:15, 17, 21, 25; 51:17; 116:4 Reporter [5] 1:21; 31:18, 22; 135:4; 136:10 reporter [1] 61:14 Reporter's [1] 31:21 represent [3] 19:21; 82:9; 133:10 representation [2] 8:20; 75:16 representations [1] 100:19 representative [1] 72:23 represented [1] 38:1 representing [1] 102:25 represents [1] 82:10 Request [1] 26:24 request [21] 18:19; 22:9; 24:18; 35:5; 37:7; 39:5; 42:8; 47:24; 56:17; 86:24; 97:22; 98:4; 99:11, 16; 100:5, 8, 14, 16; 101:7; 129:14; 130:2 requested [11] 15:14; 26:7; 35:10, 11; 47:2; 58:9; 103:24; 129:9; 130:2; 132:2; 135:6 requesting [8] 9:9; 19:23, 25; 23:10; 29:3; 52:9; 97:17; 128:22 requests [6] 23:24; 27:23; 28:1; 32:8; 36:16; 37:11 require [3) 40:13; 59:13, 19 required [12] 13:20; 31:1; 36:24; 41:2; 44:4; 45:18; 46:9; 47:16; 57:20; 58:11; 82:25; 85:25 requirement [1] 90:12 research [1] 43:5 residence [1] 104:11 resolve [2] 60:23; 130:18 resolved [4] 60:10, 18; 61:1; 132:14 resolving [2] 60:19; 107:5 resources [2] 86:19; 105:4 respect [27] 12:11; 21:17, 19; 22:23; 24:14; 30:14; 34:25; 37:1; 40:20; 41:9; 45:14, 15; 48:14, 15; 49:21; 52:4, 19; 58:6; 66:9; 118:6; 120:17; 121:19; 122:2; 128:7, 11, 15, 16 respond [5] 32:9; 37:16; 43:4, 5; 73:21 responded [5] 24:11; 34:7; 35:11; 42:11; 56:3 responding [4] 86:19; 118:16; 120:20; 128:13 responds [1] 29:11 Response [6] 64:23; 89:2; 99:20; 101:22; 119:7; 128:6 response [15] 13:14; 14:21, 23; 19:12; 29:24; 31:4; 32:16; 33:1, 17; 36:19; 61:15, 22; 65:14; 135:9 responses [7] 36:21, 23; 37:2, 5, 17, 20; 70:11 responsible [5] 91:8; 101:25; 119:10, 20; 120:11 rest [5] 29:19; 77:14; 94:8; 96:17; 134:22 rested [1] 58:18 resting [2] 127:8, 9 result [2j 10:11; 94:10 resulted [2] 42:13; 60:24 retained (3] 7:24; 11:24; 38:5 retention [1] 15:23 return [5] 48:24; 80:4; 111:8; 114:20; 115:6 returns [6] 20:1; 84:4; 88:12; 111:8; 121:23; 126:5 review [14] 22:17; 48:11; 54:6; 55:15; 59:4, 5; 63:22, 24; 85:22; 86:15; 97:23; 99:18; 129:25; 133:16 reviewed [10] 35:4; 85:19; 89:12; 107:11, 14; 110:17, 18, 20; 115:21; 127:25 reviewing [13] 37:18; 54:13, 14, 16; 86:8; 91:8; 107:12; 110:5, 25; 111:24; 113:20; 115:15; 118:17 revised [1] 25:3 revisions [1] 111:8 revocable [2] 11:16; 80:15 Rhoads [9] 38:1, 2; 40:7; 110:5, 13, 16, 17; 113:8; 116:20 Rhode [1] 7:11 Richard [7] 8:11; 19:21; 54:20; 72:24; 102:25; 106:22; 113:3 Right [13] 20:25; 24:5, 17; 27:21; 29:10; 70:4; 75:10; 76:25; 77:24; 79:2; 92:4; 93:23; 106:17 right (22] 10:10; 12:7; 16:25; 22:12, 13; 27:11; 31:20; 63:15; 67:1, 22; 73:12; 75:15; 79:4; 94:18; 99:25; 106:4; 108:7; 115:8; 120:24; 124:19; 131:8; 132:22 right-hand [3] 80:8; 108:11, 24 Room [1] 1:16 roughly [2] 32:25; 116:6 round [1] 91:22 rounding [1] 81:11 Rule [2j 131:1, 16 rule (3] 131:4, 16; 134:18 ruled [1] 134:17 running [1] 79:1 -S- said [20] 11:9; 12:3; 14:1; 20:20; 24:25; 31:6; 32:11; 35:7, 20, 24; 46:12; 48:2, 7, 10, 21; 56:4; 124:16; 132:1; 134:6 same (20] 12:17; 14:22; 24:11; 44:2, 21; 57:25; 58:3; 62:11; 79:9; 81:9, 19; 82:3; 85:3; 96:7; 104:1; 114:4, 9; 120:19; 126:11; 136:4 sanction [3] 5:18; 9:11; 97:18 satisfaction [1] 63:20 satisfied [2] 119:13; 131:25 satisfy [1] 58:16 Saturday [2] 52:6, 16 save [1] 118:11 saying [12] 14:4; 26:19; 27:24; 33:8; 40:11; 41:5; 66:2; 86:16; 98:8, 9; 124:12; 131:6 says [17] 20:13, 18; 22:6, 8, 13, 16; 29:17, 20; 32:21; 33:11; 50:3; 51:19; 55:22; 68:9; 74:25; 104:15; 124:15 schedule [3] 26:15; 34:20; 135:14 scheduled [5] 27:20; 38:10; 51:11; 87:12; 99:25 schools [1] 7:16 scope [2] 119:2, 5 Second [1] 68:19 second [10] 13:3; 21:15; 22:4; 46:7, 10; 49:25; 83:4; 94:6; 104:15; 108:10 secretaries [1] 93:7 secretary [1] 96:18 Section [1] 9:19 secure (1] 30:1 securities (1] 108:12 Security [2] 67:24; 68:5 seeing [3j 26:18; 28:7; 132:11 seek [2] 30:23; 89:1 seeking [22j 5:7; 20:3; 21:3; 31:7; 39:3; 42:19; 88:2; 92:4, 5, 7, 17; 94:4, 14, 21, 22; 96:1, 3, 4; 101:23; 103:12; 113:4; 127:5 seem [5] 27:9; 28:12; 33:22; 107:2; 120:1 seemed [5) 42:21; 54:8; 91:21; 106:24; 111:25 Seems [1] 65:13 seems [7] 7:5; 21:24; 66:7; 98:13; 102:14; 119:24; 134:2 seen [3] 57:12; 123:14; 132:17 self-evident [2] 119:24; 127:8 senior [1) 67:12 sense [3] 26:9; 38:10; 93:9 sent [5] 8:4; 19:20; 21:1, 23; 23:8 sentence [1] 104:23 separate [4] 113:7; 117:8; 126:7; 132:2 September [18] 8:15; 18:22; 21:6; 22:15, 18, 20; 29:7; 30:16; 32:18; 36:7, 12; 38:14, 22; 39:5, 10; 46:15; 103:17, 21 series [1j 71:5 serve [1] 27:25 served [5] 8:13; 11:15, 17; 28:4; 42:18 services [1] 81:6 setoff [1] 16:20 sets [2] 34:21; 75:23 setting [2] 35:23; 42:8 seven [3] 77:16, 17; 90:14 several [3] 60:14; 107:5; 117:4 severally [4] 95:7, 25; 96:6; 132:9 SHADE [1] 1:14 Shade [31] 3:18, 20, 21, 23, 24; 4:3, 5, 6, 8, 9; 5:2, 22; 25:25; 26:6; 27:19; 28:19; 29:3, 11, 25; 33:11, 25; 64:24; 69:21; 86:22; 87:7; 97:22; 99:10, 21; 104:3; 129:20; 135:16 Shade's [1] 33:7 sheet [1] 67:4 shifted [1] 118:23 short [1j 56:8 Shortly [2] 8:3; 26:5 show [9j 31:1, 7; 51:20; 65:4, 10; 66:20; 69:9; 71:25; 121:14 showed [2] 41:12; 56:19 showing [3] 21:2; 93:9; 121:18 shown [2] 67:22; 92:20 shows [9] 66:17, 18; 67:24; 71:16; 79:8; 94:6, 7; 95:10; 119:8 siblings [1] 105:7 side [3] 79:8; 108:11, 24 sign [5] 22:10; 23:10; 25:13; 116:12, 14 Signed [1] 3:17 signed [2] 25:20; 110:12 significant [3] 85:21; 86:18; 88:21 significantly [1] 105:5 similar [5] 15:13; 36:11; 56:1; 62:17; 133:18 simply [6] 21:5; 30:25; 78:2; 84:9; 85:5; 127:24 Since [3] 6:25; 7:9, 20 since (3j 84:3; 97:2 single [1] 38:18 Sinon [8] 38:2, 3; 110:5, 13, 16, 17; 113:8; 116:20 Sinon's [1] 40:8 sister [1] 54:21 sitting [2] 12:6; 83:17 situation [2] 27:6; 102:11 small [2] 61:1; 89:23 Smith [4] 116:17, 23; 117:2, 5 Social [2] 67:24; 68:5 solely [3] 13:8; 92:16; 116:25 Some [1] 60:15 some [41] 8:10; 10:1; 13:23; 14:23; 18:2; 26:7, 21, 24; 27:14, 16, 23; 30:13; 32:9; 36:3, 22; 38:4; 42:6; 45:5; 57:10, 11; 60:23; 62:17; 69:20; 71:4, 19; 76:15; 81:8; 88:4; 89:20; 90:20; 91:4, 12; 92:9; 97:7, 23; 101:4; 103:2; 121:4, 5; 134:3 somebody [1] 100:13 somehow [2] 40:15; 120:14 someone (1] 110:20 something [9] 13:24; 27:15; 91:23; 108:3; 125:18; 131:3, 4, 23; 133:23 Sometimes [2] 91:13, 15 sometimes [1] 114:3 somewhat [1] 77:7 somewhere [1] 131:19 soon [3] 30:7; 107:4; 127:10 Sorry [2] 44:18; 77:4 sorry [18] 20:22; 22:13; 34:5; 35:7; 46:12; 48:21; 62:19; 67:17; 70:20; 84:2; 101:10; 103:20; 105:1; 110:3; 111:4, 23; 119:15; 127:21 sort [2] 57:8; 126:5 sought [9] 17:11, 25; 58:17; 94:20; 95:1, 5, 11, 17; 97:8 specific [4] 110:2; 115:18; 117:1; 118:7 specifically (3] 15:5; 107:14; 113:14 speed [1] 38:12 spell [1] 91:19 spent [6] 54:11; 59:9; 86:18; 89:10; 90:1; 95:13 spreadsheet [4j 4:24; 54:3; 93:6; 96:9 Springs [2j 55:6; 84:5 Stan [3] 116:17, 22; 117:2 stand [2] 31:23; 59:14 standard [3] 9:18; 86:14; 89:8 standing [3] 11:18; 59:13, 16 start [7] 10:15, 17; 18:15; 28:23; 43:8; 76:6; 94:19 started [1] 39:9 Starting [2] 10:1; 71:23 starting [3] 75:8; 76:22; 79:18 state [4] 6:15; 13:21, 22; 26:17 Statement [1] 4:22 statement [12] 45:18; 76:3; 79:7, 8, 10; 85:21; 104:8, 9, 19; 107:20, 22; 125:21 statements [28] 20:1; 40:14; 41:2, 8, 10, 12; 67:14; 68:2; 75:25; 76:2; 78:6, 10, 17, 20, 22, 25; 79:3; 80:10; 81:17; 104:17; 107:12, 15, 18, 23; 121:13; 125:9; 129:11 states (2) 68:8; 104:3 status [3] 33:14; 114:7, 11 stay [1] 75:5 stayed [1] 57:7 STEVENS [1j 2:6 Stevens [1] 38:5 still [8] 26:17; 48:7; 74:18; 82:18; 114:15; 120:19; 131:12, 13 stipulate [1] 119:12 stipulation [2] 119:14, 16 stock [1] 83:20 stocks [7] 75:11, 17; 77:22; 107:12, 17, 21; 121:20 strange [1] 7:5 Street [1] 6:19 strike [3] 5:21; 6:4; 112:1 strokes [1] 10:1 structure [1] 9:14 struggle [6j 132:11, 24, 25; 133:15, 19 Stryker [3j 9:3, 5 stuff [1] 26:21 subject [1] 51:23 submit [6] 22:16; 32:22; 36:7; 52:3; 101:7; 129:21 submitted [9] 34:25; 35:3; 49:13, 14, 18; 56:5; 60:17; 64:15; 70:25 subparts [1] 127:17 substance [1] 41:18 substantial [4] 17:9; 18:9; 54:11; 105:4 substantially [4] 59:3, 10; 97:12, 14 subtotal [3] 80:20, 24, 25 subtract [2] 66:23; 126:24 subtracted [2] 81:11; 83:13 subtraction [2] 73:24; 83:1 such [1] 56:13 suddenly [1] 58:10 sufficient [1] 22:1 suggest [4] 33:22; 51:22; 127:2; 134:14 suggested [2] 8:4; 34:9 suggesting [2] 19:1; 32:9 suggestion [2] 30:25; 111:6 summarized [1] 41:18 summary [8] 9:13; 67:4; 79:10; 91:1; 92:23; 104:25; 105:3; 127:19 sums [1] 109:5 Superior [5] 86:5, 16; 130:23, 24; 131:13 Supplemental [2] 4:14, 16 supplemental [6] 49:3, 10; 52:8; 124:5, 11, 19 support [12] 18:20; 34:16; 42:16; 50:13, 19; 53:12; 60:1; 64:25; 65:12; 84:10; 116:3; 125:7 supported [4] 51:7; 58:21; 84:14; 85:5 supporting [1] 45:21 suppose [2] 85:12; 132:17 supposed [1] 45:14 supposedly [1] 64:25 Sure [5j 5:16; 67:10; 86:25; 99:9; 125:19 sure [12] 13:19; 31:21; 49:17; 74:12; 79:3; 84:16; 116:13; 119:15; 121:25; 125:23; 131:24; 134:17 surprise [4] 105:10, 13, 17, 21 surprised [1] 19:22 surprising [2] 50:7; 51:8 suspicion [1] 123:6 sustain [2] 63:11; 120:2 Sustained [1] 72:16 sworn [1] 6:10 sympathy (1] 134:3 system [2] 90:13, 17 -T- take [14] 15:16; 36:15; 59:17; 66:22; 73:24; 100:24; 127:4; 129:5; 132:24; 133:2, 3, 4; 134:1, 7 taken [9] 27:17; 28;2; 32:10; 50:9; 51:7; 61:6; 87:15; 98:25; 136:3 takes [1] 25:18 taking [5] 30:22; 39:8; 42:2; 120:25; 121:17 talk [2] 11:3; 45:10 talked [4] 21:14; 37:13; 49:19; 89:15 talking [3] 74:24; 98:1, 2 task [1] 111:21 tasks [3J 90:2; 109:22; 111:18 taxation [2] 114:18; 115:4 taxes [10] 14:5; 16:12; 43:24; 82:10, 19, 20; 83:7; 84:5; 112:7, 19 team [1] 117:25 Tell [3] 24:3; 40:20; 57:16 tell [15] 19:17; 20:8; 28:24; 32:1; 44:13; 64:8; 66:14; 68:8; 71:22; 73:4; 113:13; 130:20; 133:9, 11, 13 telling [1J 132:12 terms (8] 17:19; 61:25; 63:2; 84:16; 90:9; 118:15; 120:20 testified [6] 6:10; 103:16; 105:8; 107:11; 108:17; 109:4 testify [3] 5:9; 63:10; 66:9 testifying [3] 73:19, 22, 23 TESTIMONY [1] 3:1 testimony [13] 9:15; 10:23; 61:19; 73:25; 100:12; 103:2, 22; 106:5; 109:13; 128:12; 130:7, 14; 134:24 text [1] 75:9 Thank [11] 5:16; 6:6; 28:16; 31:24; 59:15; 80:2; 97:19; 99:7; 117:21; 127:12; 135:16 thank [1] 59:20 Thankfully (1] 96:17 theft [5] 53:6, 7; 56:11; 60:7; 105:14 themselves [3j 54:20; 55:13; 102:7 Then [4] 6:6; 22:8; 86:4; 102:12 then [80] 10:3; 18:4; 20:17, 24; 22:12; 24:2; 25:24; 26:2; 28:4, 11, 24, 25; 29:19, 23; 30:6; 31:2, 20; 35:15; 38:14, 25; 42:8, 10; 43:22; 45:1, 7; 48:24; 51:25; 53:5; 54:2.6; 56:5, 22; 57:5; 61:20; 66:21; 67:16; 70:10, 15; 71:5, 16; 73:13; 75:7, 18; 77:5, 10, 20; 78:12; 80:6, 19; 81:2, 14, 18, 22; 82:4; 83:3, 9; 86:15; 90:10; 93:22, 25; 94:9, 13; 95:4, 15, 21; 96:23; 98:14; 99:7; 101:19; 108:2; 112:13; 118:9; 119:19; 124:12; 125:12; 129:14 theories [7] 10:8; 42:22; 43:1; 51:6; 53:8; 56:10; 105:9 theory [10] 44:5; 45:4, 7; 46:4; 49:20; 50:8; 57:18; 59:4; 73:7; 129:18 There's [10] 10:22; 20:15; 46:4; 54:1; 69:20; 88:17; 99:18; 109:14; 111:7; 131:16 there's [33] 19:24; 24:10; 28:10; 32:8, 13; 44:14; 49:24; 50:23; 54:2; 55:21; 70:10; 71:4, 6, 25; 76:15; 79:16; 108:22; 109:6, 17; 110:4; 113:19; 115:12; 127:24, 25; 128:2, 20; 129:17; 131:4, 5; 132:7, 10, 17; 133:11 These [3] 87:21, 24; 101:19 these [77] 19:10; 21:3, 4; 26:19; 27:24; 28:3, 5, 7; 29:24; 31:13; 43:17; 44:12; 48:13; 50:11, 13, 15, 19; 53:12; 54:4, 14, 16, 17, 22; 56:10; 57:5, 8, 25; 58:8, 25; 63:1, 3, 20; 65:1, 6; 67:3; 71:21; 81:17; 86:20; 87:6; 89:12, 13; 91:5, 24; 92:1, 23; 93:10; 94:17; 96:22; 97:3, 4, 23; 99:21; 100:14, 22; 101:12, 25; 102:3; 103:9; 104:5, 6; 109:23; 110:3; 113:11, 18; 115:15, 21; 118:15; 120:22, 25; 121:7, 8, 12; 125:10; 128:9, 14; 129:25; 133:20 They (27] 8:11; 10:8; 17:24; 25:7; 36:16; 40:3; 47:16; 53:1, 2, 10, 15; 54:20, 23, 25; 55:5, 10; 58:24; 62:17, 20; 68:23; 78:8; 87:5; 112:2; 113:15; 133:5 they [185J 10:6, 9, 12; 11:9, 15, 17; 12:2, 3; 13:13; 14:19, 25; 15:1, 15; 16:22; 17:24; 19:20; 20:2; 23:10; 24:19; 25:11; 27:25; 28:2, 3, 6; 29:25; 30:1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 23; 31:1, 6, 8, 9; 32:5; 33:20, 22; 37:4, 21; 39:9, 13, 16, 18, 19; 40:3, 11, 12, 14, 24; 43:1, 3; 44:4, 25; 45:1, 14, 20; 46:25; 47:1; 49:18; 50:18, 22, 24; 51:7, 20, 22; 53:5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19; 55:16, 25; 56:11; 57:23, 25; 58:11, 12, 17, 18; 60:3; 61:3, 4; 62:6; 63:13; 64:15, 25; 65:1, 3, 7, 12; 66:23; 67:4, 16, 20; 68:3, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25; 71:18, 25; 72:7, 8; 73:1; 74:16; 75:18; 79:4, 16; 81:14; 82:12, 13, 14, 19; 84:3, 20, 21, 24; 85:2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11; 87:11, 13; 88:12; 91:13; 97:12; 99:15, 24; 100:3, 4, 6, 15; 101:24; 102:2, 13; 103:14; 107:1; 109:3, 12; 112:5, 25; 115:19, 24; 120:16; 121:15, 25; 129:5; 130:24; 133:2, 4, 9, 11, 22, 25; 134:1, 5, 6, 18 they'll [1J 30:12 they've [2] 39:7; 81:17 thickness [2] 69:16, 23 thing [13] 23:22; 25:20; 53:17; 89:3; 92:8; 99:3; 126:5, 20; 129:7; 130:16; 132:5, 14; 134:8 things [23] 11:12; 19:15; 29:13; 33:8; 36:3, 9, 11; 42:13; 43:5, 6, 15; 45:14; 55:18, 19; 69:20; 81:8; 83:23; 85:12; 88:4; 90:7; 120:19; 121:9; 129:3 think [72] 6:1; 9:2; 21:25; 25:1; 26:8; 27:10; 28:8; 29:4; 31:8; 35:1, 9; 36:17; 37:21; 42:21; 46:22; 48:16; 53:3, 7; 55:4; 56:8, 19; 60:20; 62:25; 65:4, 18; 69:17; 73:21, 23; 74:1, 2, 3, 22; 77:2; 83:18, 19; 87:1; 98:6, 15; 99:5; 100:6, 21, 22, 24; 102:10; 103:22; 104:9; 106:5; 108:2; 109:3, 5; 110:1; 112:5, 21; 115:14; 116:2, 9, 25; 117:2, 10, 11, 18; 118:18; 120:3; 127:7, 24; 131:8; 132:15, 17, 18; 133:5; 134:8 thinking [1] 130:21 third [2] 22:9; 90:25 third-party [1] 22:17 This [28] 19:19; 20:3, 5, 9; 25:18; 31:4; 32:3; 33:17; 35:22; 49:10; 50:7; 52:15; 59:22; 61:8; 64:10, 12; 68:9; 70:4, 5; 75:10; 76:9; 80:14; 84:17, 19; 93:6; 106:13; 111:5; 123:24 this [231] 5:6, 12, 19; 8:5, 10, 14; 9:11; 10:17; 12:10; 14:12, 14, 15; 15:7, 20; 17:3, 7, 8; 18:15, 16, 18; 20:2, 5; 22:20, 21; 23:14, 15, 22; 24:5, 7; 25:20, 22; 26:3, 9, 18, 21; 27:6, 8, 14, 19; 28:1, 6, 18, 21, 23; 29:2, 4, 8, 10; 31:2; 32:4, 12; 33:6; 34:7; 35:16, 21, 25; 36:4, 14; 37:18; 38:20; 39:6; 42:3, 6, 16; 44:20; 45:11, 12, 25; 47:7, 11; 48:15; 49:22; 50:7; 51:2, 16; 52:18; 53:2, 13; 54:6, 8, 13; 56:2, 4, 13, 14; 58:5; 59:7, 22; 60:2; 61:3; 62:15; 63:9, 15; 64:17, 24; 65:4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 25; 66:4, 15, 16, 21; 67:2, 4, 7; 68:10, 22; 69:2, 3, 6; 70:1, 4, 24; 72:6, 12, 24; 73:1, 19; 74:12, 16, 19; 75:16; 76:3, 11, 16, 19; 77:18; 78:1, 23; 79:4, 7, 8; 80:15, 17; 81:16, 22; 84:21, 24; 85:4; 87:12; 88:14; 89:7; 90:24; 91:18; 92:5, 9; 93:9; 94:20; 96:8, 13; 97:16, 20; 99:13, 19; 100:6, 10, 11; 101:15; 102:6, 8; 103:1; 105:11; 106:11, 14, 19, 21; 109:19, 25; 110:24; 112:2; 114:15, 21; 115:20; 117:12; 119:3, 5, 9; 121:17; 122:10, 21, 23; 123:2, 3; 124:6, 12; 125:3, 4, 21; 126:11, 25; 128:13, 19, 22, 23, 24; 129:1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 16; 130:8, 9, 10, 17, 18; 131:9, 14, 15, 22; 132:12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25; 134:11; 136:4 those [71] 13:24; 16:7; 17:19, 24, 25; 18:2; 20:18; 21:19; 25:5, 14, 15, 25; 26:16; 27:25; 33:24; 36:23; 39:19; 41:10; 42:7, 13; 43:4, 22; 48:5; 53:10; 56:22; 59:10; 60:19; 61:1, 2; 71:8, 9, 25; 72:2; 78:9, 11; 82:22, 25; 85:19, 23; 88:13, 14; 89:3, 4, 23; 90:2, 3, 22; 91:11; 94:9; 96:1; 100:3, 4, 21; 104:12; 107:22; 109:5; 112:4, 9, 11, 13, 22; 118:9, 24; 119:20; 120:13, 15; 121:15; 127:17; 132:2 though [6] 12:3; 77:18; 79:19; 81:17; 101:4; 111:14 thought [4] 27:15; 108:17; 124:16; 131:21 thoughts [1] 132:13 thousand [1] 91:23 three [11] 15:6; 16:2; 17:19; 18:24; 19:10, 15; 37:19; 54:22; 72:21; 114:4; 129:12 Through [1] 89:8 through [43] 8:21; 10:15; 15:6; 18:18; 23:5; 26:16; 29:23; 30:2; 33:6; 43:3, 8; 47:13; 53:6; 57.8; 59:9; 64:6, 11; 65:4, 9, 17, 20, 23; 67:1, 3, 7; 71:6, 11, 21; 74:17; 76:13; 78:17; 88:6; 89:19; 93:8; 96:9, 21; 102:8; 105:16; 113:17; 121:4; 127:14, 16 throughout [5] 42:22; 105:18; 115:20; 128:19; 130:17 time [108] 8:10; 18:2, 23; 23:20; 25:22; 26:3, 7, 15, 18; 28:1, 5, 7; 29:3, 8, 16; 30:8, 17; 32:14, 19; 34:9; 39:2, 6, 7; 42:6; 44:21; 45:7; 50:1; 53:18, 22; 54:12; 56:8, 18, 23; 57:7; 59:3, 17; 60:2, 3; 62:24; 65:2; 71:11; 74:11, 13, 14, 20; 77:19; 79:20; 81:23; 82:1; 84:25; 85:22; 86:19; 87:11; 89:9, 17, 20; 90:1, 10, 13, 16, 19, 23; 92:10, 11; 95:9, 13; 97:23; 98:13, 14, 18; 99:19; 101:8; 104:21; 105:22, 25; 106:10, 12, 13, 18, 24; 111:21; 112:8, 12, 19, 20; 113:7; 114:3, 7, 23; 115:21; 117:9; 118:6, 8; 122:10; 124:20; 125:12, 14, 22; 128:7; 129:12, 16; 130:14; 132:3; 134:12 timely [7] 28:4; 36:21; 37:16, 17; 98:7; 100:14; 129:8 times [7] 14:17; 42:5, 22; 94:10; 103:1; 105:9; 114:3 today [18] 5:6, 10, 11, 17; 7:23; 9:4; 11:3; 26:23; 87:2, 8; 99:12; 100:7, 20; 123:13; 125:17; 128:23; 129:11, 24 together [7] 19:11, 13; 54:4; 64:8; 67:8; 113:10, 13 took [17] 14:22; 15:5, 13; 37:18; 44:3; 67:16; 68:3; 78:24; 81:10; 83:12; 88:18; 92:1, 13; 93:22; 94:9; 121:4; 133:5 tool [1] 89:23 total [11] 72:8; 81:12; 83:3; 93:12, 19; 95:15, 17, 20, 21, 23; 96:14 totally [1] 100:22 totals [1] 96:20 touch [1] 90:3 toward [3] 10:10; 20:23; 117:9 towards [1] 117:10 transactions [2j 54:5; 59:8 TRANSCRIPT [1] 1:11 transcript [2] 135:5; 136:4 transfer [5] 108:12; 109:7, 9, 10, 18 transferred [4] 40:15; 41:13; 109:5, 8 transfers [5] 104:6; 108:23; 109:1, 15; 121:15 transition [1] 38:8 trial [3] 6:3; 130:25; 131:9 tried [5] 10:11; 57:7; 90:3, 6; 130:16 trip [1] 59:16 trouble [1] 131:25 troubled [1] 100:10 true [9] 63:3, 10, 14, 20; 106:6; 107:6; 109:1; 111:11; 113:18 truly [1] 90:7 Trust [2] 1:6; 132:23 trust [17] 11:15, 17; 12:18; 14:3; 15:25; 33:21; 34:22; 68:12, 16, 18, 20, 23; 69:5, 12; 71:20; 80:15; 127:13 trustee [1] 81:8 trustees [1] 74:10 trying [9] 19:13; 49:16; 54:15; 77:25; 78:2; 79:14, 22; 82:2; 91:16 tunc [2] 52:10; 56:5 Turn [1] 30:20 turn [9] 18:4; 20:7, 24; 24:2; 25:9; 33:15; 50:20; 66:12; 73:3 two-year [1] 7:10 typed [1j 75:9 types [1] 19:14 -U- ultimately [3] 18:1; 119:10, 19 uncertainty [1] 101:4 under [10] 9:19; 13:20; 79:21; 99:2; 100:20; 111:19, 21; 133:5, 20; 134:4 underlying [1] 64:22 understand [3] 32:24; 92:18; 111:13 understanding [2] 62:1; 122:18 understated [1j 11:9 undue [4] 50:5; 51:15, 23; 53:1 unfair [1] 26:22 unidentified [1] 39:2 unified [5] 13:5, 12, 17; 14:9; 114:14 universities [1] 7:16 unless [2] 65:15; 90:7 unlimited [1] 39:2 unmarked [1] 74:3 unquote [1] 83:19 unsupported [2j 10:9; 43:2 until [9] 49:2; 60:3; 65:1; 77:19; 94:25; 98:2, 23; 99:6; 122:6 upkeep [1] 55:2 upon [10] 27:5; 28:13; 44:5; 47:9; 65:5, 10; 84:12; 97:1; 123:4; 132:8 Used [1] 12:20 used [16] 12:16, 17; 50:4; 74:8; 79:3, 15, 17, 24; 80:3, 12; 82:3, 17, 18; 83:14; 89:23 useful [1] 16:8 using [5] 50:5; 65:8; 67:2; 80:20; 84:12 usually [1] 91:22 utilities [2] 55:5; 112:20 -V- vague [1] 113:19 validity [1] 59:5 value [12] 4:21; 10:18; 11:7; 45:22, 23; 46:3; 76:12, 23; 77:22; 79:8; 89:17; 108:6 various [1] 55:23 verbalize [1] 14:20 verification [1] 72:20 verifications [1j 72:22 verified [2] 68:25; 73:1 Very [2] 10:4; 135:17 very [24] 16:24, 25; 20:5, 11; 24:11; 36:11; 50:1, 7; 53:17; 54:11; 56:8; 59:3; 73:12; 81:25; 83:20; 86:13; 88:3; 90:3; 93:18; 100:10, 15; 114:13; 122:6; 124:9 vexatious [10] 5:19; 9:18, 24; 17:17; 18:6; 59:24; 61:7, 9, 21; 97:12 view [1) 87:10 vigorously [1] 10:6 virtue [1] 66:1 visit [1] 27:2 volume [4] 69:11; 99:11, 14, 19 voluminous [1] 22:7 -W- Wachovia [1] 108:2 wait [2] 99:6; 124:11 waiting [2] 32:22; 48:8 waived [1] 51:15 Waivers [1] 3:14 waivers [1] 23:9 walk [3] 29:23; 67:7; 93:8 WALLACE [1] 2:4 Wallace [6] 5:4; 6:18; 7:3, 24; 19:20; 23:9 Walter [1] 9:3 want [30] 10:15, 17; 18:4, 15, 17; 19:6; 21:13; 22:8; 23:4; 28:18; 30:12; 34:4; 35:15; 51:16; 64:6; 67:1; 78:21; 87:9, 12; 98:18; 120:5; 121:5; 125:24; 129:21, 22; 130:6, 13, 17; 132:13; 133:9 wanted [10] 24:18, 19; 28:3; 30:13, 17; 73:7; 100:4; 121:14; 125:20; 128:8 wasn't [1] 65:21 WAYNE (1) 1:14 we'd [1J 127:4 We'll [5] 9:14; 35:16; 81:15; 98:23; 99:7 we'll [2] 10:3; 64:6 We're [1] 87:14 we're [16] 5:25; 20:14; 21:3; 24:25; 26:22; 27:7; 29:3; 65:9; 74:24; 79:25; 84:16; 91:16; 92:16; 96:1; 97:16; 111:13 We've [3] 8:9; 26:15; 58:7 we've [12] 23:5; 28:2; 31:14; 53:24; 57:1; 59:1, 22; 81:21; 128:8, 23; 134:10, 14 week [7] 38:25; 46:22; 48:12, 22, 25; 55:4; 125:4 weeks [6] 12:13; 27:18; 47:19; 54:12; 55:5; 124:6 Well [46] 6:1; 10:24; 11:12; 13:19; 21:24; 24:5; 25:10; 27:1; 38:21; 39:9; 45:9; 46:13; 50:20; 54:18; 55:24; 56:19; 57:17; 59:18; 61:23; 65:15, 18, 21; 68:17; 69:22; 71:4; 72:11; 77:24; 92:4; 94:2; 98:16; 99:5; 100:9; 101:3, 9; 108:17; 109:14; 110:4; 111:13; 114:10; 115:11; 127:1, 23; 128:18; 129:20; 130:1; 133:4 well [15] 18:3; 22:6; 28:7; 35:17; 56:16; 74:17; 77:12; 79:21; 81:9; 110:23; 124:4, 5; 129:15; 133:13, 24 well-established [1] 11:24 well-founded [1] 112:17 went [8] 18:18; 41:4; 51:12; 79:19; 86:8; 88:6; 109:2; 121:9 Were [6] 12:25; 17:16; 47:21; 60:9; 74:9; 117:12 were [199] 8:18, 24; 9:1, 2; 10:6, 9, 16; 11:12, 21; 13:1; 15:16, 17; 16:1, 4, 22; 17:14, 17, 22; 18:1, 10, 16, 17; 19:3, 22; 21:10; 23:1, 10, 24; 24:13; 25:5, 7; 26:11; 30:1, 17; 31:10; 32:9; 33:2; 36:22; 37:5, 6, 21; 38:17; 39:14; 40:11; 42:16; 43:2, 6, 11, 14, 16, 17, 22; 44:4, 11, 12; 45:4, 14, 19, 24; 46:2, 5, 25; 47:10, 16; 48:7, 14; 49:17, 18, 24; 50:11; 53:7, 11; 54:7, 9, 16, 19, 21, 23; 55:7, 8, 10, 21, 25; 57:10, 11, 21, 22; 58:1, 8, 11, 12, 16; 59:10; 60:9, 15, 17; 61:2, 3, 4; 62:15, 17, 20; 63:1, 3, 10, 14, 20; 64:3; 68:17, 18, 19, 21; 70:6, 11; 71:17, 19; 73:9, 10; 74:13, 16; 75:2, 11; 77:23; 78:1; 81:23; 82:25; 84:3; 85:10, 13, 15; 86:6, 9, 13; 88:10, 19; 89:1, 6, 20; 90:23; 92:5, 6; 93:12, 13; 94:4, 17; 97:12; 99:12; 102:11; 103:3, 8, 12, 13; 104:10; 105:5, 18, 19, 21; 106:1, 19, 20, 21; 107:23, 25; 108:4; 109:5, 25; 110:14, 15, 18; 111:9, 10, 23; 113:2, 15; 114:2; 115:24; 117:4, 24, 25; 118:3, 8, 20; 119:9; 120:17; 121:15, 17, 22; 122:1, 2, 3, 5; 128:24; 133:22; 134:1, 19 weren't [2] 52:1; 58:11 What's [5] 19:8; 25:20; 33:9; 61:15; 88:5 what's [4] 27:9; 111:14; 126:6; 134:14 whatever [6] 27:18; 83:19; 129:6; 130:6, 12; 133:20 whatsoever [4] 13:9; 46:1; 50:13; 65:6 where [28] 16:3; 22:5; 27:8; 28:19; 34:14; 44:4, 13; 57:8; 67:4, 12; 72:7; 73:6; 82:19; 83:22; 88:17; 89:1, 16, 22; 90:20; 95:10; 104:15; 111:18; 115:18; 118:6; 121:9; 131:7 where's [1] 23:22 whereas [1] 80:25 whether [18] 47:18; 61:20; 63:10, 13, 20; 75:21; 84:9; 99:16; 101:4, 6; 102:1; 109:25; 111:9, 10; 112:13; 120:2; 121:22; 132:22 who's [1] 20:15 whole [3] 100:11; 109:10 130:14 whom [1] 113:22 why's [1) 110:9 wide [1) 89:4 will [39] 6:4, 6; 13:22, 24; 14:1, 11; 22:10, 16; 29:15, 16; 30:23; 31:9, 20, 21; 33:23, 24; 39:24; 41:20; 44:25; 50:22, 24; 51:22; 57:10; 61:19, 20; 90:2; 91:12, 13; 93:10; 110:12; 132:25; 133:16; 134:7; 135:5, 7, 9, 10, 14 wills [1] 110:25 wish (1] 22:11 Withdraw [1] 47:1 withdrawn [9] 12:12; 14:13; 15:18; 17:3, 5, 15; 18:1; 60:15, 16 withhold [1] 17:2 within [11] 12:13; 27:15; 29:15; 36:23; 47:17; 56:7; 61:18; 71:8, 9; 90:13; 136:3 without [8) 14:5; 41:6; 50:4; 58:18; 110:1; 113:21; 115:15; 134:3 WITNESS [4] 12:6; 22:4; 62:5; 64:19 witness [15] 6:7, 9; 46:16; 48:8; 51:4; 53:16; 58:15; 59:17; 61:8; 63:9, 13; 73:19; 97:20; 126:21; 130:8 Witnesses [1] 50:21 witnesses [4) 50:17, 22; 126:18, 20 won't [1] 96:8 word [1) 120:24 work [21] 6:18; 8:2; 40:8; 88:13; 89:21; 90:8, 14; 91:14; 111:11; 112:2; 113:14; 114:4, 9; 115:16; 116:22; 125:13, 16; 126:4; 128:4, 12, 14 worked [1] 93:7 worth [3] 40:5; 133:12, 20 Wouldn't [3] 109:22; 110:20; 112:16 wouldn't [3] 106:10; 125:1; 126:2, 7; 127:14; 116:1; 129:23 130:5; 133:13; 134:7, 22 wrapped [1] 29:5 write [1] 29:25 writes [2] 29:12; 33:11 writing [2] 42:12; 43:5 written [20] 17:13; 27:23; 30:10; 32:6, 7; 36:16; 37:20; 39:17; 54:19, 21, 23, 25; 55:3, 11, 12, 25; 82:6, 12; 83:5; 106:22 wrong [2] 80:11; 132:22 wrongfully [1] 13:1 wrote [2j 32:3, 11 -Y- year [13] 10:13; 30:11; 32:19; 36:12; 39:20; 40:11; 68:11; 75:13; 78:17; 79:11; 80:5; 103:23; 107:15 yearly [1] 73:13 years [13j 39:10, 13; 41:3; 52:23; 62:13; 67:18; 68:6; 77:16, 17; 79:21; 81:12; 97:16; 129:13 yesterday [1] 125:10 you'd [3] 5:22; 11:3; 44:16 you'll [10] 20:17; 49:24; 51:18; 52:21; 77:11; 79:5; 80:4; 82:12; 95:11; 130:5 You're [2] 31:16; 123:9 you're [14] 7:4; 44:1; 96:3; 98:8, 9, 15; 110:2; 116:10; 124:12; 125:17; 130:6; 131:6, 11; 134:21 you've [1] 126:10 Your [3] 98:12; 121:6; 126:15 your [42] 6:15; 7:21; 9:14; 10:25; 22:17; 27:4, 12; 34:11; 56:17; 58:13; 59:13; 61:15; 63:6, 19; 75:6, 7; 79:25; 80:1; 97:1; 98:6; 101:1, 9; 103:2; 105:12; 107:7, 8; 108:9; 110:20; 111:14; 114:4; 116:3, 22; 117:8; 118:8;