Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless.
The allegations made were that Claimant failed to follow the estate plan of the decedent's estate, specifically with regard to a disclaimer of IRA proceeds, when the assets passed to the customer upon the death of her husband. No further action was taken by the customer after the customer made the allegation to the Respondent and the allegation was denied.Claimant credibly testified that he had a conversation with the decedent at which time the decedent explained several trusts, but did not indicate that Claimant (or Claimant's firm) was to amend the IRA beneficiaries regarding the later-disclaimed assets. Claimant submitted notes of that conversation and testified that they were taken contemporaneously with the conversation. Claimant also credibly testified that he was not permitted to offer estate-planning advice.The customer testified that she was not part of any conversation in which her late husband discussed the disclaimer of assets, but that her husband must have discussed the disclaimer. The limitation of her testimony was self-evident, and she did not have any documents to substantiate her testimony.
(BrokeAndBroker.com Blog / December 8, 2017)http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3711/widow-ira-finra/In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in October 2016, Claimant Lee asserted negligence and responsibility under the doctrine of respondeat superior. As set forth in the FINRA Arbitration Decision:The causes of action relate to Respondents' alleged failure to designate Claimant as the beneficiary to an IRA account belonging to her late-husband.Claimant sought the alleged amount of the IRA at issue, which was alleged to be $135,373.76, plus attorneys' fee and costs. In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Mary C. Lee, Claimant, vs. AXA Advisors, LLC, Larry Dan George, and William Paul Evans, Respondents (FINRA Arbitration 16-03173, December 5, 2017).Ex-Wife, Deceased Father, Executrix Daughter, Retirement Account, And Annuity
(BrokeAndBroker.com Blog / July 19, 2016)http://www.brokeandbroker.com/3194/death-divorce-annuity/In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in August 2014, Claimant Shannon Nafaa sought a declaratory judgment and asserted breach of contract and negligence in connection with her allegations that Respondents Morgan Stanley and Sun America had failed to properly and reasonably transfer ownership of a retirement account (held by Morgan Stanley) and an annuity (held by Sun America) in accordance with a divorce agreement. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Shannon Nafaa, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of Raymond Ryals, Claimants, vs. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, Linda Ryals, and Sun America Annuity & Life Insurance Company, Respondents - AND - Sun America Annuity & Life Insurance Company, Cross-Claimant, vs. Linda Ryals, Cross-Respondent (FINRA Arbitration #14-02663, July 5, 2016).(BrokeAndBroker.com Blog / May 17, 2011http://www.brokeandbroker.com/888/ira-beneficiary-finra-arbitration/In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in May 2010, the Estate of Newman Trowbridge alleged that among other things, Respondents were guilty of negligence and a breach of fiduciary duty when they failed to advise Trowbridge to designate Lee Trowbridge (apparently, his surviving spouse in contradistinction to his divorced, ex-wife) as the IRA beneficiary in order for his wife Lee to be recognized by Respondent Capital One as the owner or beneficiary of his IRA account.Claimant sought at least $184,321.43 plus interest of ;nearly $9,000 ;in compensatory damages, attorneys' fees of $25,000.00, costs of $16,425.00, and additional damages as may be reasonable and appropriate. In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Succession of Newman Trowbridge, Jr. through its Executrix, Lee Trowbridge, Claimant, vs. Capital One Investment Services, LLC, and Rick E. Schenck, Sr. Respondents (FINRA Arbitration 10-02435, May 9, 2011).