Throughout 2009 and 2010, unbeknownst to D.H., the order says, Blomquist signed seven promissory notes on behalf of his startups to obtain loans from R.N.’s trust. The notes totaled $799,000. “This report indicated Blomquist had invested significant sums of money from the trust principal in five recently created, startup, green-energy companies, which were all partially owned by Blomquist,” the court’s order says. The company never made any payments back to the trust, the order says. Eventually all of the companies dissolved without generating any revenue. By that time, D.H.’s trust has dwindled to $20,000, the order said.
Under terms of the will and trust, D.H. was entitled to collect portions of her trust at intervals, one-third of which was to be paid in 2006. But when she tried to collect that year, she got only $100,000—less than one-third of the principle to which she was entitled. When R.N. died later that year, she left an estate valued at about $2 million. R.N.’s daughter, identified as “D.H.,” and R.N.’s two sons were beneficiaries. The estate was divided into three trusts.
Her next scheduled distribution was late, and the sum was less than D.H. thought it should be. After seeking an accounting of the funds, in 2011 she finally received a trustee summary report. According to the court’s per curiam order, Blomquist n 2003 was assigned trustee over the estate of a client identified as “R.N.,” with whom he had “developed a close personal relationship.”
D.H. filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility in 2018. Over the following year, he failed to respond to the director’s requests for information and provided evasive answers to her queries, according to the Supreme Court order. On June 14, Director Susan Humiston filed charges of unprofessional conduct against him. That September, she petitioned for discipline and the Supreme Court appointed a referee. In the end, according to the per curiam order, Blomquist paid D.H. just $100,000 of the $400,000 judgment against him—and she got that much only because her attorney located some of his assets and sold them at auction.
That court found that D.H. would have been entitled to $400,000 had Blomquist not breached his duties. It ordered him to pay that amount to her. The lawyer did not appeal the ruling. In 2011, D.H. filed a petition in Hennepin County Probate Court. The court issued summary judgment in March 2012, finding that he had breached his fiduciary duties and engaged in self-dealing.
The News Highlights
- Judges dismiss lawyer for wasting trust money – Minnesota lawyer
- Check the latest News news updates and information about business, finance and more.
For Latest News Follow us on Google News
- Show all
- Trending News
- Popular By week