8. The Master in Chancery, states that C. Warren Colgan, Esq., went to Alexandria, Virginia, to trace the heirs, herein; but fails to state, that the said C. Warren Colgan, Esq., could not find the heirs. 9. As a matter of fact, I went to Alexandria, Virginia, and in one day, obtained all the information, which resulted in the disclosure of all the names and ́addresses of all the heirs, involved herein. 10. That the amount of the $500.00 fee to the said C. Warren Colgan, Esq., is out of all proportion to the amount involved herein, and the simple, perfunctory, clerical work done; the fee should be not more than $50.00 (Flack's Code, volume 1, Article 16, Section 297, states: "In the absence of special circumstances, such allowance shall be equal to one-half of one percent upon the value of the corpus so distributed"). 11. That the 1% interest of the estate of Cass Carroll Curtis, should be awarded either to the City of Baltimore, School Fund, or to the United States Treasury, as interest may appear. P. O. Box 1003, Baltimore 3, Maryland. STATE OF MARYLAND, City of Baltimore, to wit: (S) CHARLES SHANKROFF. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 4th day of April 1955, personally appeared before me the Subscriber, a Notary Public in and for the said City and State CHARLES SHANKROFF and acknowledged the foregoing instrument of writing to be his act. (S) ANNE WARFIELD MARTIN, Notary Public. EXHIBIT NO. 8 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF BALTIMORE CITY 53A, 234, 1944, 26490A HENRIETTA JENKINS v. STATE OF MARYLAND ET AL. Additional Exceptions to the Report of the Master in Chancery. To the honorable the JUDGE OF SAID COURT. Petition of Charles Shankroff respectfully shows unto Your Honor: 1. That he appears, in person, on his own behalf, by reason of an assignment of a interest of Frederick Robert Jackson, and as amicus curiae. 2. In addition to the exceptions previously filed herein, the Master in Chancery has failed to show, that there were five minors involved; but no provision was made in his report, covering the proper disposition of the fund due the said minors. 3. It appears that the Master in Chancery, acting in an advisory capacity, has failed to do his duty: First, in ignoring, the share due Cass Carroll Curtis; Third, recommending a fee to C. Warren Colgan, Esq., based on the regulation of the Baltimore County Bar, but ignores the Maryland Code, Article 16, Section 297, subsection "e". Therefore, the Master in Chancery, should receive no compensation. 4. In his petition, filed November 24, 1954, C. Warren Colgan, Esq., states: "Your petitioner has made extensive efforts to locate the said Frederick Jackson and Elizabeth Harrison by means of a personal search and by correspondence with the members of their family, but has failed to discover any evidence whatsoever of their whereabouts." 5. It appears that Mr. Colgan, made the personal search and wrote certain letters prior to his appointment as Trustee, herein. 6. The fund, approximately $2,200.00, was deposited in 1947, in the Equitable Trust Company, which pays 1 percent interest. (Eighteen months elapsed from the date of the original distribution in 1945, until this deposit in 1947.) 7. The bond of the respective trustees herein, cost about as much, per annum, as the interest earned. Therefore, the principal of the fund is practically unchanged, for more than seven years. 8. The Savings Bank of Baltimore has paid 21⁄2 percent since 1947, and there are Federally insured Savings and Loan Associations which pay interest at much higher rates. 9. Had a banking institution been appointed Trustee herein, the expense of a bond would have been eliminated. The banking institution could have deposited the fund in a savings bank, or a Federally insured savings and loan association, at a rate much higher than the 1 percent paid by the Equitable Trust Company. 10. Mr. Colgan, the Trustee, as well as the former Trustee, have failed in their duty to obtain the maximum earnings for the beneficiaries herein. And for such further relief as the Court may grant. P. O, Box 1003, Baltimore 3, Maryland. STATE OF MARYLAND, City of Baltimore, to wit: CHARLES SHANKROFF. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 19th day of May, 1955, personally appeared before me the Subscriber, a Notary Public in and for the said City and State CHARLES SHAN HROFF and acknowledged the foregoing instrument of writing to be his act. ANNE WARFIELD MARTIN, Notary Public. EXHIBIT No. 9 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF BALTIMORE CITY HENRIETTA JENKINS ET AL. v. STATE OF MARYLAND ET AL. EXCEPTIONS TO MOTION NE RECIPIATUR To the honorable the JUDGE OF SAID COURT. Petition of Charles Shankroff respectfully shows unto your Honor: 1. That he appears, in person, on his own behalf, by reason of an assignment, dated February 1, 1955, and filed herein April 4, 1955, of a % interest of Frederick Robert Jackson, and as amicus curiae. POINT 1 This action, commenced May 23, 1944, resulted in a distribution, on or about April 10, 1945, except $2,239.74, which was held by the former trustee herein, on account of inability to locate two missing heirs. The fund was on deposit for two years, without earning any interest, until April 24, 1947, when the former trustee, obtained, in this court, an order as follows: I. Reduction of his bond, from $10,000 to $2,500, as of December 5, 1945. III. Deposit balance of $2,194.74 to be transferred to the savings department of the Equitable Trust Company, so as to draw interest, without stating the rate of interest, (but I have been informed, the rate is 1 percent). Now, ten years, since April 10, 1945, the principal of the fund, is still the same, due to the fact that the premium on the bonds of the two trustees herein, have absorbed, the low interest earned, herein. Had this fund been deposited in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, the interest earned, would have been as follows: April 10, 1945 to 1946, 1 year, at 3 percent_. $66.00 April 10, 1946 to 1952, inclusive, 6 years, at 2 percent__. 264.00 April 10, 1952 to 1955, inclusive, 3 years, at 22 percent_. 165.00 Total interest_ 495.00 Less 1 percent Interest paid by Equitable Trust Co. April 24, 1947 to 1955, 8 years- 176.00 Loss in interest_-_. 319.00 79696-56-12 POINT 2 The Master in Chancery has failed to report the five minors, herein, and has failed to recommend, that the funds due the minors, should be properly deposited, in accordance with the practice of the courts. POINT 3 The Master in Chancery, has recommended a fee to the substituted trustee, as per the following statement: "At my request, Mr. Colgan outlined to me the work he has done in this matter. I quote from his letter of March 20, 1955, as follows: "You will recall that you asked me to outline to you by letter the nature of the work that I had done in this affair. Very briefly, it was mostly of an investigative nature, involving a trip to Alexandria, Virginia; several conferences with Mrs. Jenkins, and much letter writing in attempts to locate the missing Jackson and Harrison lady. I also had a complete check made of the death records of the State of Virginia to try to establish the death of either of these parties. On the legal side, I drew all the necessary petitions, the order of publication, and attended the court hearing, the examiner's hearing and one conference in your office. "As a guide in affairs of this type, I have used the table of minimum fees suggested by the Baltimore County Bar. Bearing in mind that the total estate is only $2,200, the minimum collection fee on this sum would be $360, provided no court work was necessary. I will leave to your good discretion the value of time spent on the legal side, but I would be able to certify to a total of about sixty hours spent on the entire matter.' "In my opinion a total fee of $500 to Mr. Colgan would be reasonable and proper and I recommend that he be allowed this amount as an expense of the Estate." Mr. Colgan has admitted, that prior to his appointment as Trustee he wrote four letters, and made a trip to Alexandria. Furthermore, these four letters and trip, did not result in the location of the missing heirs. Why should such unproductive, untimely efforts, be saddled on the beneficiaries herein? In one day, I went to Alexandria, and discovered the whereabouts of the Jackson and Harrison families, sought herein, and thereafter I notified them to come in and claim the funds due them. Furthermore, there was no "collection work," involved. The fund has been available, for more than ten years. My original objections to the memorandum report of the Master in Chancery, were served on the Master in Chancery on April 4, 1955, and filed herein, April 6, 1955. And for other reasons to be shown at the hearing hereof. P. O. Box 1003, Baltimore 3, Md. STATE OF MARYLAND, City of Baltimore, to wit: CHARLES SHANKROFF. Be It Remembered. That on this 25th day of May, 1955, personally appeared before me the Subscriber, a Notary Public in and for the said City and State CHARLES SHANKROFF and acknowledged the foregoing instrument of writing to be his act. ANNE WARFIELD MARTIN, Notary Public. EXHIBIT No. 10 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF BALTIMORE CITY 53A, 839, 1944, 26490A HENRIETTA JENKINS ET AL. V. STATE OF MARYLAND ET AL. EXCEPTIONS TO MOTION NE RECIPIATUR To the honorable the JUDGE OF SAID COURT. Petition of Charles Shankroff respectfully shows unto Your Honor: That he appears, in person, on his own behalf, by reason of an assignment, dated February 1, 1955, and filed herein April 4, 1955, of a 3 interest of Frederick Robert Jackson, and as amicus curiae. POINT 1 My first objections, herein, served on Samuel J. Fisher, Esq., the Master in Chancery, on April 4, 1955, were attached to the Master's report, filed April 6, 1955. In addition, my said objections were also filed, in this Court, on April 6, 1955. Therefore, the statement by Mr. Colgan, that my exceptions were not filed until May 20 and 25, is not true. The Master in Chancery, in his report, ignored the rights, if any, of Cass Carroll Curtis, who died intestate, and without known heirs. The Master nego tiated a waiver, from the City Solicitor, of the interest of the City of Baltimore, in and to the portion of the fund, which then appeared to be due the said Curtis. Neither the City Solicitor, nor the City of Baltimore, had the power to waive the City's interest in the fund. POINT 2 This action, commenced May 23, 1944, resulted in a distribtuion, on or about April 10, 1945, except $2239.74, which was held by the former trustee herein, on account of inability to locate two missing heirs. No order of the Court was obtained for the original deposit of $13,000.00 of the funds herein, in the Equitable Trust Company. The fund was on deposit for two years, without earning any interest, until April 24, 1947, when the former trustee, obtained, in this Court, an order as follows: I. Reduction of his bond, from $10,000.00 to $2500.00, as of December 5, 1945. II. Payment of $45.00, for two years' premium on his bond. III. Deposit balance of $2194.74 to be transferred to the savings department of the Equitable Trust Company, so as to draw interest, without stating the rate of interest (but I have been informed, the rate is 1 percent). Now, ten years, since April 10, 1945, the principal of the fund, is still the same, due to the fact that the premiums on the bonds of the two trustees herein, have absorbed, the low interest earned, herein. Had this fund been deposited in the Savings Bank of Baltimore, the interest earned would have been as follows: April 10, 1945, to 1946, 1 year, at 3 percent_ $66.00 April 10, 1946, to 1952, inclusive, 6 years, at 2 percent_. 264.00 April 10, 1952, to 1955, inclusive, 3 years, at 21⁄2 percent__ 165.00 Total interest__. 495.00 Less 1 percent interest paid by Equitable Trust Co. April 24, 1947, to 1955, 8 years--- 176. 00 Loss in interest_-_ 319.00 Therefore, from April 10, 1945, to April 24, 1947, the loss of interest (based on the rates paid by the Savings Bank of Baltimore) should be surcharged to the first trustee herein, as follows: 1945, 3 percent____ 1946, 2 percent $66.00 44.00 110.00 POINT 3 The Master in Chancery has failed to report the five minors, herein, and has failed to recommend, that the funds due the minors, should be properly deposited, in accordance with the practice of the courts. POINT 4 The Master in Chancery has recommended a fee to the substituted trustee, as per the following statement: "At my request, Mr. Colgan outlined to me the work he has done in this matter. I quote from his letter of March 20, 1955, as follows: 'You will recall that you asked me to outline to you by letter the nature of the work that I had done in this affair. Very briefly, it was mostly of an investigative nature, involving a trip to Alexandria, Virginia; several conferences with Mrs. Jenkins, and much letterwriting in attempts to locate the missing Jackson and Harrison lady. I also had a complete check made of the death records of the State of Virginia to try to establish the death of either of these parties. On the legal side, I drew all the necessary petitions, the order of publication, and attended the court hearing, the examiner's hearing, and one conference in your office. 'As a guide in affairs of this type, I have used the table of minimum fees suggested by the Baltimore County Bar. Bearing in mind that the total estate is only $2,200.00, the minimum collection fee on this sum would be $360.00, provided no court work was necessary. I will leave to your good discretion the value of time spent on the legal side, but I would be able to certify to a total of about 60 hours spent on the entire matter.' "In my opinion a total fee of $500.00 to Mr. Colgan would be reasonable and proper and I recommend that he be allowed this amount as an expense of the Estate." Mr. Colgan has admitted that prior to his appointment as Trustee he wrote four letters, and made a trip to Alexandria. Furthermore, these four letters and trip did not result in the location of the missing heirs. Why should such unproductive, untimely efforts be saddled on the beneficiaries herein? In one day I went to Alexandria and discovered the whereabouts of the Jackson and Harrison families, sought herein, and thereafter I notified them to come in and claim the funds due them. Furthermore, there was no "collection work" involved. The fund has been available for more than ten years. POINT 5 No fee should be allowed the Master in Chancery for his failure to make a proper report originally, or to make an amended report following his receipt of my original objections. POINT 6 No fee should be allowed to Mr. Colgan, for the following reasons: 1. For his failure to obtain the maximum earnings of interest on the funds herein. 2. For his attempts to prevent my asserting my rights in the premises, by misrepresenting to the court, in stating: "Exceptant has no standing in this Court to file exceptions to the report of the Auditor and Master because the Exceptant is not a party to the cause and has no claim to the funds now in court." 3. That after the deduction of the court costs, and the fees of the two attorneys (representing the 13 heirs herein) there would be very little left for the beneficiaries if the fee recommended to Mr. Colgan is allowed. 4. Flack's Code, volume 1, Article 16, Section 297, subsection "e" states: "In the absence of special circumstances, such allowance shall be equal to one-half of one percent upon the value of the corpus so distributed." |