I was looking through some old legal paperwork dating from 2002 during the time when Burke's attorney, James Jenkins, was suing John and Patsy for legal fees owed to him for services rendered on behalf of Burke. It was an interesting little sideshow for a couple of reasons, but today one item of note was this statement: In response to paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant admits that she is the duly appointed guardian of the property of her son, Burke Hamilton Ramsey, having been appointed by the Probate Court of Fulton County and having received her Letters of Guardianship on or about February 1, 2001 in Fulton Probate File No. 182868. Except as specifically admitted herein, all other allegations in paragraph 3 are denied. Perhaps your collective experiences can shed some light on this for me. From what I can gather from research, a parent is a natural guardian of a child. From what I also gather, neither parent, as natural guardians, have any need to obtain specific Letters of Guardianship over a minor child. The question that arises is -- could this obscure notation in legal paperwork indicate that at some point John and Patsy did actually get a divorce, with John getting custody of Burke, but that when the Globe settlement paid out to Burke, John decided to let Patsy handle the funds as conservator, which would then necessitate her getting Letters of Guardianship to allow her control of Burke's money? What makes this even more interesting is that Patsy got her Letters of Guardianship in February of 2001. And as it happens, just two months before on December 7, 2000 (John's birthday!), John signed a Quit Claim Deed on the Paces Ferry house, handing the sole title of the house over to Patsy. Hmmmmmmm.
You are something else Why_Nut. I sure wish I had a fraction of your investigative talent. Do you suppose that at that time they were not all that sure that they were not going to be indicted? Maybe they were just covering all their bases. Little
Interesting. I found the following news article which details the lawsuit Maloy & Jenkins filed in hopes of getting paid for work they did on the Ramsey case. Apparently, the Ramseys hired M & J to represent Burke in the criminal investigation into JonBenet's death, then refused to pay in a timely manner. How Ramsey of them. So, Maloy & Jenkins decided if the Ramseys weren't going to pay, they would sue to collect their fees out of Burke's settlement money from the tabloids. The article mentions Patsy's guardianship of Burke's funds several times. Of course, Lin Wood, being his arrogant and bullying self, gets into the act threatening to sue Maloy & Jenkins for wanting the money owed to them by the Ramseys! http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024079079793 Ramseys Fight Firm's Efforts to Draw Fees From Son's Funds Trisha Renaud Fulton County Daily Report August 1, 2002 An Atlanta criminal defense firm claims John B. and Patsy A. Ramsey owe it more than $38,000 in attorney fees for representing their minor son. The firm, Maloy & Jenkins, has sued to collect that tab out of 15-year-old Burke H. Ramsey's settlement of a libel case against a tabloid. But the firm has drawn fire from the Ramseys for what they call a "wrongful collection practice against the estate of a child of tender years." The couple contends that any debt they might owe shouldn't come out of their son's money. They managed to block the collection efforts in Fulton County, Ga., Probate Court earlier this year, but now the dispute is in Fulton Superior Court. [skip] He called Jenkins' tactic a "wrongful collection attempt to charge Burke's estate for money owed by the parents" and added that the Ramseys intend to sue Jenkins for frivolous litigation. Jenkins declined comment, deferring to his attorney Ann J. Herrera. Through a spokeswoman, Herrera also declined comment on the litigation. Maloy & Jenkins claims the Ramseys owe $38,103.74, plus interest, for Jenkins' representation of Burke in connection with the investigation into the December 1996 murder of his sister, JonBenét Ramsey. John and Patsy Ramsey signed a contract in 1998 to hire Jenkins at $225 an hour, plus expenses and costs. Jenkins, according to court filings, claims his representation included "extensive interviews by the Boulder [Colo.] District Attorney's office and testimony before a grand jury investigating the murder of the minor's sister" and resulted in Burke "being publicly vindicated by the District Attorney in regard to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey." [skip] Settlement funds, the collections suit says, were used to set up a guardianship for Burke in Fulton Probate Court last year, with Patsy Ramsey named as guardian of her son's property. Maloy & Jenkins, represented by Herrera and Dana C. Bryan, both of Decatur, Ga.'s Russell & Herrera, claim the Ramseys promised to pay their legal bill out of the guardianship funds, a claim the Ramseys deny. Wood said John Ramsey may have made an off-the-cuff remark that perhaps Jenkins' bill could be paid after Burke's civil cases had been settled. But his client didn't know that the law prohibits paying the bill out of the guardianship, he said. [skip] Maloy & Jenkins first pursued its fees in probate court, filing a petition to encroach on the guardianship last fall. The Ramseys moved to dismiss the petition. They argued that since they signed the contract, the lawyers must attempt to collect the debt from them, not their son. [skip] Maloy & Jenkins also filed a motion to remove Patsy Ramsey as guardian of Burke's property and Wood as lawyer for the guardian, alleging a conflict of interest created by Ramsey's refusal to pay the bill out of her son's estate. That motion, which Wood called "unconscionable," is pending in probate court. The Fulton Superior Court suit was filed two months after Propst's ruling. It named John and Patsy Ramsey individually and Patsy Ramsey as guardian of Burke's property. Maloy & Jenkins v. Ramsey, No. 2002CV53937 (Fult. Super. May 31, 2002). The complaint says Judge Propst tossed the petition because he had no jurisdiction to hear it and that ruling doesn't bar the firm from attempting to collect its fees from the estate in a different venue. It also says John Ramsey owes another $8,399 for a contract he signed for representation of his ex-wife and two grown children in connection with the murder investigation. Wood has responded with a motion asking that Patsy Ramsey, in her capacity as guardian, be dismissed from the case. [more]
It is common for a parent to be named as guardian over a minor child's finances. I don't think it necessarily was a prequel to the Rs getting divorced. One thing that it may indicate, as well as JR putting the Paces Ferry house solely in PR's name is that he may have been trying to shield assets from being subject to lien if the lawsuit was against only him. What I have seen in print mentions JR only as having hired attorneys for his son, as well as his ex-wife and children from his first marriage. That in itself was such a suspicious move- I mean if the ex-wife and JAR and Melinda were supposedly nowhere near Boulder when JBR was killed, what was he so worried about them being asked? What was there to hide, if they knew nothing and if the Rs had nothing to do with the murder? Now...if JAR was actually in Boulder Dec.25-36 (as Joe Barnhill thought), that would explain it. This way lawyers would make sure the ex-wife and surviving daughter was never questioned about JAR's whereabouts during that time.
My father died when I and my sisters were minor children ages, 13,12 and 9. He knew he was dying and talked things over with my mother about what to do after he was gone. He wasn't able to leave us anything so he told my mother to draw social security benefits for herself and all 3 children until such a time acme that she was ready to go back to work. I still remember to this day my mother sitting there shaking her head and telling my aunt that she had to go down (somewhere?) and become our legal guardian to do this and also to do other legal things, I don't know what. She just couldn't believe it since she was our mother but she still had to do it. I don't think JR and PR divorced. I think it's something they set up JUST SO nobody could sue and get that money.
I think where large sums of money are concerned, that it's not unusual to appoint one parent as "legal" guardian for the paperwork.
This is the first time I 've read anything like this Why_Nut. Thank you for posting it. I am enjoying all the replies here. I cannot understand why the Ramseys bilked when it came to paying Burkes's Attorney James Jenkins, the money he was due for his services (?).
Thank you once again and always Why_Nut. I find it interesting that Patsy was named guardian of the property. The guesswork of appointing ONE parent as guardian is interesting considering that, at that time, with Patsy's cancer returning, they didn't name John. They would have had to refile if Patsy had passed before Burke was of legal adult age??????? Anyone know? I think any money from the lawsuits on behalf of Burke, as a minor, has to have an appointed "guardian" to request funds, should they be needed before legal age. That is usually a stipulation in most settlements to minors. The money is theirs when they reach a legal age, but if money is needed beforehand for things like tuition, etc. when the child is still a minor, the legally appointed guardian has to petition for it I think.....
I had the same thought, Barbara. Why was Patsy appointed guardian when she was the one with returning bouts of cancer? As far as I know, John has never been in ill health. Was it because John was so much older than Patsy, and they thought he might die first? Or were they trying to protect John's assets by putting everything in Patsy's name, including the Paces Ferry house? Was John worried about a lawsuit of some kind in which he would be named for some reason without Patsy? If so, would the suit have been from his ex-wife or some other source?
I checked some real estate records, and Patsy and John were still doing business in real estate under both their names in Sept. of 2002. So I don't think they were divorced, as that wouldn't make sense to me. They both signed real estate papers for their Basque Dr. home.
I think that a Guardian has to account for all expenditures yearly, not necessarily petition the court to use the funds, but it's all in the State Law and how the Guardianship was set up. Or something like that....
That's interesting - $38,000 to publicly vindicate Burke. I'd think paying that bill would have been a priority.
What a nerve these Ramseys had, JC (?). Hiring an attorney, and then not making payment for services rendered. They truly thought they were above the law. On second thoughts, maybe they were (?).. They were never charged with one single thing relating to the death of their daughter, although all the evidence pointed bang smack right to them. This is quite an achievement, is it not? No doubt about it JC. $$$$$ TALKS!
Actually, it doesn't really surprise me at all. People who have that much of a sense of being entitled to special treatment probably expected the lawyers they hired would be thrilled to do it pro bono for the publicity alone.
