DID DR. JAMES HOUSTON VIOLATE HIS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS?

I can only give my opinion, however, I will supply quotes from legal documents in bold italics.

We have a situation whereby Dr. Bob Houston, the father to Dr. James Houston, had a Power of Attorney #1, he replaced it with Power of Attorney #2 on his own free will. I would also like to mention I had no idea about the writing of either and in fact wasn’t even around. Dr. James was on both Powers of Attorney’s and in fact put his signature to both. Therefore, he was not only aware of both but participated with full knowledge that the first one was replaced and he agreed to it.

Since he did not have full control of his father Dr. Bob in the second one because Angela Houston (his wife) had full fiduciary obligations, Dr. James could only exercise any control should she not be able to follow through on her responsibilities, he therefore ignored #2 Power of Attorney, with his father’s signature on it and his own; with full knowledge.

He uses P/A #1 with the help of Michael O’Connor QC (its a matter of record Mr. O’Connor) ignoring P/A #2, disrespecting Dr. Bob’s wishes as laid out by P/A #2.

Dr. James wanted to severe the Joint Tenancy on Dr. Bob and Angela’s property so that they could gain control. There was NO BENEFIT TO DR. BOB TO HAVE THIS DONE. The only benefit was to the rich, arrogant HOUSTON CLAN.

Question: “It would be fair to say then that you used the power of attorney to sever the tenancy so that you would get a benefit? You — so that you wold get some of the funds from your father’s estate? He used power of attorney #1 because power of attorney #2 didn’t give him the ability to take control of the estate.

Answer: “Those where my father’s wishes.” Oh, is that so. Where is YOUR evidence. The evidence is in his Power of Attorney with his signature on it. He was of sound mind so he could have changed it again himself if that was what he wanted, giving his children what they wanted. He DID NOT. He signed nothing and there were, strangely, no witnesses except another HOUSTON CLAN member.

Question: “But that is what you did?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “You used—-you used the power of attorney so that you would be able to get a benefit from your father’s estate?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Quote by: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/law-of-fiduciary-obligation/

“Law of Fiduciary Obligation

The legal system recognizes a multitude of special relationships in which one party is required to look after the best interests of the other in an exemplary manner.

Fiduciary Obligation, Law of

The legal system recognizes a multitude of special relationships in which one party is required to look after the best interests of the other in an exemplary manner. These relationships, which include solicitor/client, physician/patient, priest/parishioner, parent/child, partner/partner, director/corporation and principle/agent, are called fiduciary relationships. Fiduciary relationships entail trust and confidence and require that fiduciaries act honestly, in good faith, and strictly in the best interests of the beneficiaries of such relationships. The courts have developed a basic test for determining whether fiduciary obligations arise from a relationship: first, the fiduciary has the ability to exercise some discretion or power; second, the fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power so as to affect the interests of the beneficiary; third, the beneficiary is in a position of vulnerability at the hands of the fiduciary.

Ordinarily, fiduciaries cannot for personal gain avail themselves of opportunities arising from the discharge of their duties. There are demanding rules that prohibit both profit making and any conflict of interest that goes beyond that which is intrinsic to the relationship. Strictly prohibited are secret benefits in the form of undisclosed kickbacks, commissions, profits and discounts, as well as conflicts of interest that involve business and other personal advantages which may enure to the fiduciary. An improper benefit is usually financial, but can include virtually any form of improper personal gain.”

There was no benefit to Dr. Bob to have the joint tenancy severed; the only benefit was to the HOUSTON CLAN – his children. There was no benefit to Angela; time has made that clear. In fact at the end of the day who did benefit? The lawyers and the HOUSTON CLAN’S ego. They are so rich paying the lawyers was chump change to them.

I maintain that this group of people didn’t care about the money, they already have so much largely thanks to my mother, but it was an issue of control. Control over me. Someone they didn’t even know. Someone they didn’t even bother to get to know or have a conversation with.