Chapter 6 - What Robert Wanted in 2018
The 2018 signing ceremony had been filmed.
Not because anyone expected litigation.
Dad loved technology for about six months after buying a new camera.
He set it on shelf while Janet Holloway came to house.
He wanted to record himself explaining trust for “when everybody starts fighting after I’m dead.”
We found file on old external drive in Dad’s office after court-authorized inventory by temporary fiduciary.
In video, Robert was sixty-three.
Sharp.
Joking.
Margaret sat off camera.
Eric came late.
I had never seen.
Janet asked:
“Robert, why are you amending grandchild language?”
He replied:
“Because Noah’s adoption is almost final and I don’t want anybody playing word games.”
Then:
“If Marissa says he’s her son and a judge says he’s her son, he’s my grandson.”
Clear.
“What about biological versus adopted?”
“No difference.”
Then he laughed:
“I’m not checking DNA at Christmas.”
Lily cried when we watched.
Noah was not shown yet.
Then Janet:
“You understand adding Noah means four grandchildren instead of three under equal-share trust?”
“Yes.”
“Each share becomes smaller.”
“Yes.”
“Any concern?”
“No. I did not create fund to make grandchildren compete.”
Then:
“Why independent co-trustee if you become incapacitated?”
Robert:
“Because Margaret loves everybody but has favorites.”
Off-camera, my mother:
“Robert!”
He laughed.
Then:
“And Eric thinks spreadsheets make him king.”
More laughter.
Then serious:
“If I’m not thinking right, nobody who gets more money from a decision should be making that decision alone.”
There.
That sentence mattered legally.
He anticipated conflicts.
The 2024 amendment did opposite.
Then:
“What do you want Marissa and Eric to receive?”
“Equal. They are my children.”
No caregiving adjustment.
Could change later legitimately, of course.
But baseline.
Then:
“Would you ever exclude Noah?”
Dad frowned.
“Why would I?”
The video ended with him complaining about cake.
No hidden fortune.
Just intent.
At temporary protective hearing, David did not argue 2018 must forever control.
People can change minds.
He argued:
Robert’s later change occurred amid documented cognitive impairment, after prior attorney stopped amendment, with beneficiaries/agents orchestrating, and removed safeguards specifically designed for incapacity.
Judge appointed independent temporary conservator for financial matters and temporary trustee pending capacity/undue-influence review.
Not permanent guardian over everything.
Robert retained personal decisions as much as possible.
Margaret remained spouse.
Could visit and participate in care, but no financial authority during investigation.
Eric’s POA suspended.
He was ordered not to contact Lily about evidence.
No jail.
Then Dad’s evaluation.
Neuropsychologist Dr. Samuel Price assessed.
Diagnosis:
Major neurocognitive disorder, likely mixed vascular/Alzheimer’s process, mild-to-moderate stage by then.
But retrospective capacity in 2024 not simple.
Dr. Price reviewed old records.
At signing time, Dad likely had significant impairment in complex financial decision-making, with fluctuating ability.
Could he have understood simple beneficiary change in a lucid interval?
Possibly.
Could he understand combined effects of:
excluding Noah,
changing 50/50 remainder to 65/35,
removing independent trustee,
appointing Eric,
while Eric owed him money?
Questionable.
Court needed lawyer notes.
The lawyer who drafted amendment was Peter Sloan, no relation to other story. Let's choose Martin Hale, 58.
He testified later.
Margaret and Eric scheduled.
He met Robert alone for twenty minutes.
Good practice, at least.
Robert said:
“Eric does more. Marissa has enough.”
Asked about Noah:
“Who?”
Then after prompt:
“Oh, little dinosaur kid.”
Martin noted confusion.
He asked whether Robert wanted exclude adopted grandchildren.
Robert said:
“I don’t want strangers.”
Martin should have explored.
He did not know Noah had been adopted seven years and treated as grandson.
He did not obtain prior trust or Janet notes initially because Eric said “we want clean restatement.”
That was concerning.
Martin later admitted he should have stopped.
No criminal collusion.
Professional negligence maybe.
Then signature.
Robert could state own name, assets generally, children.
But misidentified Noah as a foster child “still temporary.”
False.
Noah adoption finalized years.
Where did Robert get that?
Margaret had repeatedly told him Noah “was never really ours.”
Influence.
Then the court investigator interviewed Robert.
“Do you want Noah excluded?”
Dad stared.
“From picnic?”
“From trust.”
“What trust?”
Then:
“No. He’s Marissa’s boy.”
That present statement could not retroactively decide.
But it aligned with 2018.
Then Dad asked:
“Did I do something bad?”
I cried outside.
May you like
Because this was not about whether I got 35 or 50 percent.
It was about an old man being forced to discover his signature had been used to say something his clearer self had expressly rejected.
