STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE PROBATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MUSKEGON______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: File No. 11-87628-CAFile No. 11-87633-GA

MARTHA ANN GRIMM HON. GREGORY C. PITTMAN____________________________________________________________________________

Martha Ann GrimmProtected Individual (see MCL 700.5306a(1)(s), (v)) 1330 West Summit AvenueMuskegon, MI 49441

Michael G. Walsh (P54678)Guardian Ad Litem8 West Walton AvenueMuskegon, Michigan 49440231-725-4200

Christine MalloryGuardian for Protected Individual4876 Bluff RoadWhitehall, MI 49461(231) 894-5241

Eric C. Grimm (P58990)ERIC C. GRIMM, PLLC1330 West Summit AvenueMuskegon, MI 49441(734) 717-4900

Harold M. Hermanson (P29727)Attorney for Kirsten Grimm andTeresa Stratton8 West Walton Avenue, Suite CMuskegon, Michigan 49440231-727-8058

Charyn K. Hain (P46931)Robert C. Rutgers, Jr. (P47181)VARNUM LLPAttorneys for Michael GrimmP.O. Box 352Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352616-336-6000

Gregory R. Todd (P70978)POLARIS LAW, PLCAttorney for PW Services, Inc.P.O. Box 164Grand Haven, MI 49417(616) 422-5921

______________________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO ADJOURN HEARING AND APPLICATIONFOR EX-PARTE ORDER ADJOURNING HEARING

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOW COMES Eric C. Grimm, an interested person, and respectfully moves to adjourn a

hearing presently scheduled for April 7, 2014. It would be preferable, for reasons explained more

fully below, to have an order issued on Monday adjourning the hearing, so as not to

Page 1 of 11

inconvenience those who might otherwise show up. The intention to file this motion has been

communicated in advance, in writing, to courthouse staff and also to the individual who noticed

the hearing. Accordingly, there is no surprise, let alone any unfair surprise. Moreover, this

motion has been promptly served by email or hand-delivery on all parties.

We have repeatedly been in communication with attorney Gregory Todd, seeking an

agreement (which, according to basic civility principles, Mr. Todd has no reason and never has

offered any reason to refuse). And yet, in a continuation of objectionable practices that have

been observed for months from a Muskegon Crew clique of collusive repeat-players in Probate

Court,1 PW Services and Mr. Todd are neither fulfilling objectively-ascertainable standards of

professional civility, nor doing the right nor the honorable thing.

1. Prior to Tuesdays hearing, the Court may wish to reflect on 1 Kings 3:16 - 28, the

famous story of Solomon calling for his sword, to split the baby. It is often tempting for a

judge to presuppose that seemingly unreasonable litigants are equally unreasonable, and that

justice lies right at the midpoint of their respective positions that justice somehow can be done,

for instance, by allowing Kirsten Grimm to sign a mortgage in 2015 that she easily could have

1The attorney signing this motion is aware of the general standard that absent goodcause, we will not attribute bad motives or improper conduct to other counsel such as, but notlimited to, Messrs. Hermanson and Walsh. There is a difference, however, between (1) mistakesthat happen rarely, and that are promptly corrected once pointed out, and (2) repeated,uncorrected instances of clear and inexplicable misconduct. Unfortunately, in this case goodcause does exist precisely because of the magnitude of the misinformation, the repeated andcontinuous nature of the misconduct, and the failure and refusal of those responsible to self-correct, when the problems are promptly identified reasonably to infer not only that themisconduct is collusive and intentional, but that it exceeds the threshold of Rule 8.3 of theMICHIGAN RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. Thus, raising such an issue not only is properunder the circumstances presented here, but rises to the level of a professional obligation. Id.Additional action, beyond raising these issues in court, also appears to be required under thecircumstances, and will follow within a reasonable time. We respectfully suggest that the Courtmay wish to schedule and conduct an evidentiary hearing, in which all the facts can be laid outon the record, in relation to the misconduct, and that the Court, too, may wish to fulfill its ownobligations as a licensed professional under the same Rule 8.3.

Page 2 of 11

exercised the self-control and self-restraint to sign in April, 2010. And she did not. And the

difference matters. It matters immensely because the difference tells the Court all it needs to

know about the truth about the difference in character between Eric Grimm and Marthas

daughters.2 Solomon understood that only the appearance of justice lies in the middle and that

true justice involves getting beneath the surface to understand the undisclosed motivations of

those coming to court. The difference between Eric Grimm (willing to sacrifice his last dime,

with no expectation of repayment, in order to protect his mother from further harm), and Hal

Hermanson or his clients (more than delighted, obviously, to play spoiler out of spite in the

same manner as 1 Kings 3:26), or Mr. Todd and PW Services (more than happy to help the

spoilers spend Marthas money, as quickly as possible), speaks volumes, and conveys to this

honorable Court all it really needs to know. Remember, Solomon never actually cut the baby in

half; custody of the child in question was assigned solely to one of the two women appearing

before the king. And this was wise and just, because only one put the babys interest first, ahead

of self-interest and ahead of spite. The question this honorable Court will have to decide is

whether it can put aside its apparent predisposition to view Eric Grimm as a villain, rather than as

a loyal protector of his mom, and then having put predisposition and bias aside, do the right thing.

2. This motion comes as no surprise to Mr. Todd, because the timing issue raised

herein already has been the subject of making a written record by email, of the moving partys

2Eric Grimm often repeats the observation when people apply the misnomer to this case,of calling it a family dispute, of pointing out that the categories of predator and family aremutually exclusive, and that the two daughters already made the decision which of the twocategories they belong in. The forensic audit being conducted at Marthas expense, merelyrepresents a duplication of effort, and Eric Grimm already has documentation sufficient toanticipate the reasonble outcome.

The renewal of family ties with a predator, is not something that can be accomplishedwithout the kind of intervention (namely, criminal convictions and probation) that Eric Grimmrecognized long ago he could not accomplish on his own. That, too, is a wise observation.

Page 3 of 11

courteous and dignified effort to communicate the facts, issues, and objective civility standards to

Mr. Todd. See Exhibit One.

3. First of all, the question needs to be asked why has PW Services not turned over

the matter of paying for legal counsel to an errors and omissions insurance carrier?

4. This sort of thing is exactly what insurance is supposed to address, when PW

makes a mistake and is accused (with considerable evidence to support the accusation) of

violating one or more fiduciary obligations.

5. Next, since when has the victim (here, Martha Grimm) of multiple violations of

fiduciary duties by a professional fiduciary, ever been obligated to act as the insurance company

for the wrong-doer? The very idea is Kafkaesque and bizarre.

6. An adjournment is absolutely necessary because an indispensable party cannot be

present, and because Mr. Todd has known for over a week that the indispensable party on

Tuesday will be out of Muskegon County on a previously-scheduled vacation.

7. Whether or not the moving party agrees with prior rulings that this honorable

Court has made, still, the Court clearly has refused up to now to hear from Martha Grimm

directly, about Marthas objections (among other things) to the way her money is being mis-spent

by PW Services. The Court has insisted instead that Marthas point of view be presented via

Marthas Guardian.

8. The Guardian is Christine Mallory. And, as Mr. Todd has been repeatedly

advised, Chris Mallory must be out of the country on a previously-scheduled vacation, on

Tuesday. She is already out of the country, and cannot return for a hearing this week.

9. Thus, the Courts own rulings make Christine Mallory an indispensable party to

the scheduled Tuesday hearing. And Mr. Todd and his client have been timely advised of this

information. Rather than doing the right thing, they have not agreed to a reasonable adjournment.

Page 4 of 11

10. Ms. Mallory can be available within a reasonable time, in order to be present for a

hearing about whether to require PW Services to pay for its own legal counsel. She just cannot be

present on the date that Mr. Todd unilaterally picked without consulting anyone else in advance

about the scheduling.

11. A reasonable adjournment will cause absolutely no prejudice to PW Services, and

no adverse consequence whatsoever, because the briefing schedule on appeal necessarily requires

that the Appellant must go first. PW Services, obviously, is not the Appellant. The clock has

only just started on the Appellants brief, meaning that nearly two months remain before the

Appellants brief is filed. Thus, there is nothing for the attorney hired by PW Servicess

insurance company (again, the money ought never to come from Martha Grimms pocket) to do

at this time, in any way related to any appeal, or for the next two months. It is absurd to think that

there could possibly be any urgency so great, that the hearing cannot be adjourned for a week or

two, to make sure that an indispensable party can be present.

12. This is hardly the first time that PW Services has attempted to manipulate the

timing of events, in order to secure tactical advantage, from ambush. PW Services has repeatedly

and intentionally, cut interested parties and the Ward, out of the loop on critical decisions, has

repeatedly done actions by ambush, and has repeatedly refused to take the time to engage in

reflection and circumspection about a variety of actions in order to manufacture a result of

transferring real estate in a way that is harmful, not beneficial, to the Ward.

13. The representation that has been made to this honorable Court drain on the

estate is and always has been totally false. It has been known to be false by the collusive

lawyers who have intended to mislead this honorable Court. It is possible to ascertain with

mathematical certainty, by performing simple arithmetic, whether any so-called drain on the

estate ever has existed. Obviously, if the market price of an asset is rising faster than the

carrying costs, then the estate is growing and not shrinking and, hence, there is no drain.

Page 5 of 11

14. Mr. Hermanson himself admitted on the record at a recent hearing that, as of

October, 2012, a handyman / contractor introduced by Mr. Walsh, pegged the market value of

the North Muskegon residence at $60,000.00. Mr. Hermanson remembered wrong. The

valuation offered by Walshs handyman / contractor in October 2012 is already reflected in the

Courts record, and was $50,000.00. Simple arithmetic establishes: $99,900.00 - $50,000.00 =

$49,900.00.

15. Unless the collusive attorneys, Walsh and Hermanson, who have repeatedly and

intentionally been misinforming this honorable Court, can show in excess of $49,900.00 in

carrying costs incurred for the North Muskegon residence, between October, 2012, and

December 31, 2012, then obviously, the asset value is increasing (according to Walshs own

representations to this honorable Court), and no drain could even arguably exist.

16. This is simple common sense.

17. Next, we respectfully observe that this honorable Court does not apply its own

ground-rules consistently. The Court has repeatedly applied a have you filed a motion and

noticed it for a hearing rule to Eric Grimm and the Ward. And yet, the same rule does not apply

when Hal Hermanson attempts to seek the scheduling of visitation (for which there is no basis

in the EPIC) between Martha Grimm, and an individual who was driving a vehicle in Arizona

(according to photographs received via an email account belonging to Mike Walshs own

daughter) that had hypodermic needles in the trunk, and who on information and belief, continues

to use opiates either on a prescription or nonprescription basis. Why not if Hermanson wants a

visitation actually notice a proper hearing, get all the evidence on the record, allow the legal

issues to be briefed in the proper way, and let the Court get all the facts and law in front of it,

rather than springing the issue by ambush?

18. Likewise, the same advance-notice rule repeatedly referenced by the Court does

not appear to apply when Mike Walsh tries to do things by ambush. The Court did not require

Page 6 of 11

advance notice, a written motion, or any hearing, when Mike Walsh by ambush (in a non-

transparent meeting back in Chambers) sought to manufacture a deadline for listing the North

Muskegon real estate. And, as a result, the Court got misled by Hermanson and Walsh, precisely

because it did not hold a hearing on the record to get all the facts. Had a proper hearing been

conducted, it would have been trivially easy to show that no so-called drain on the estate ever

has existed, and that said representation is a fraud and a sham. Quite the opposite, the rise in

asset value clearly exceeds the carrying costs, which means the estate was making money until

the GAL deceived the Court into supporting an unwise set of actions. This honorable Court has

been deceived precisely because it selectively countenances ambush tactics by the Muskegon

Crew, including Mr. Walsh.

19. In yet another example, the Courts rule about fair notice, prior to a hearing so as

to enable the Court actually to get al the facts, and to know what is really going on does not

apply consistently, when Hermanson and Walsh collusively (without having the slightest clue

about Marthas medical condition, and without bothering to ask anyone with knowledge) elect to

manufacture needless expense and inconvenience for Martha and her son Eric, by introducing a

door alarm into the Roosevelt Park home, when no such thing has even remotely been needed.

20. Other examples can be offered of the double-standard.

21. What accounts for the bizarre and inexplicable double-standard, Your Honor?

22. The Court did not follow the proper procedures (including the statutory

requirement of written notice about the basis for the GALs motion), when the Court apparently

to enable PW Services to engineer an ambush below-market sale of real estate, and to steer a

commission to a particular real estate brokerage changed conservators, without any hearing to

ascertain the real facts, and without any statutory basis to do so.

23. The Court did not bother to ascertain the real facts, and to provide a fair

opportunity to be heard before the objectionable order was entered causing a Fourth

Page 7 of 11

Amendment violation in the Wards home in Roosevelt Park, and other avoidable errors of law

(avoidable, if a fair hearing before a neutral and impartial adjudicator as Due Process requires

had actually been held).

24. Getting back to the intentional fiction about drain on the estate that this

honorable Court appears to have been tricked into believing, even if you use the numbers

provided by USPAP-qualified appraisers, still, the asset value was obviously rising faster from

October, 2012, to December 31, 2014, than any carrying costs, and thus necessarily, there can be

no dispute that no drain on the estate ever existed, and this honorable Court has been materially

deceived by licensed professionals who ought to be expected to act as officers of the court.

25. We dont being up these repeated failures of legal counsel, and of the professional

fiduciary, to get into a needless pissing contest with them over trivialities but because these

mistakes and errors have real and significant consequences, both for the Wards health and well-

being, as well as for the Wards financial ability to pay for assisted living in 5 or 10 years, when

she really starts to need it. If the Muskegon Crew of repeat-players in front of the Probate

Court, are permitted to siphon off Marthas remaining assets, in the form of income to their

respective firms for professional services, then where does that leave Martha, when she really

needs to spend her money on something of genuine benefit to her? These issues also have

significant and measurable financial consequences, for the people who are being over-paid to

provide unnecessary and excessive professional and other services, to the Wards detriment.

26. Moreover, since obviously no urgency existed in 2014 or early 2015 to sell the real

estate, then it was a grave error, that requires prompt correction, to manufacture a fire-sale

transaction below the fair market value of the real estate solely for the purpose of steering a

double-commission to RE/Max Muskegon. Enriching RE/Max (or paying excessive fees to

lawyers, accountants, or PW Services) does no good for Martha whatsoever. Multiplying the

Page 8 of 11

injury to Martha, by seeking to use her resources in an effort to cover-up the flagrant wrongdoing

that has been occurring, is the exact opposite of justice.

27. If the Muskegon County Probate Court has not bothered to adopt a set of Civility

Principles it really ought to do so without further delay.

28. We were astonished to learn, last week, that The Muskegon County Probate Court

apparently is so behind the times, that no such formal guidance (not only for attorneys, but also

for court personnel) has been formally adopted. See Exhibit One.

29. A good model, and one that has stood the test of time (and has been replicated in

numerous courts) is the set of principles formally adopted by the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, in or about 1996. Just short of 20 years of implementation,

confirms that the MIED standards are reliable and sound, and ought to prove informative and

persuasive, even in places where they have not been formally adopted.

30. It is helpful to look to an impartial, objective, and unbiased source, for guidance on

what principles of civility ought to apply both in terms of judicial conduct toward parties

appearing in court, and in terms of attorneys interactions with one another.

31. One of the best such objective and reliable sources one that has stood the test of

time, and that has been adopted and followed by numerous state and federal courts not only in

Michigan, but elsewhere is the 1996 Civility Principles published by the U.S. District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan. That is attached as Exhibit Two.

32. The Civility Principles are especially important in making clear whether it is the

attorney, or the client, who calls the shots, on such basic professional courtesies as reasonable

requests for an adjournment, due to vacations.

33. On the subject of scheduling, and reasonable adjournments, the time-tested,

objective, and reliable Civility Principles are clear beyond peradventure:

Page 9 of 11

15. We will endeavor to accommodate previously-scheduled dates

for hearings, depositions, meetings, conferences, vacations,

seminars or other functions that produce good faith calendar

conflicts on the part of other counsel. . . .

17. We will agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time and

for waiver of procedural formalities, recognizing that it is the

attorney, and not the client, who has sole discretion to determine the

accommodations to be granted . . . .

See Exhibit Two (emphasis added).

34. Under the circumstances, Craig Monette is absolutely correct that this modest

adjournment is something that should have been accomplished voluntarily by agreement between

Messrs. Todd and Grimm.

35. However, what reason does Mr. Todd have to behave in a manner consistent with

time-tested principles of professional civility, if he believes that the Court will act in an arbitrary

and selective way, by rewarding ambushers (even serial ambushers) for their uncivil and

unprofessional conduct? What reason does PW Services, or Mr. Todd, have to fulfill fiduciary

obligations of prompt disclosure, loyalty to the ward, and professional civility, if they anticipate

that this honorable Court will not only reward serial ambushers, but also reward those who

knowingly represent facts (for instance, search the transcripts for the term cajole and variants

thereof, by Mr. Walsh, who knew that representation was completely untrue)3 in open court.

3So as to make it clear that bringing this up now is not the least bit unfair or surprising toMr. Walsh, it is perhaps worthwhile to point out that Walsh has previously been asked in writingto correct numerous false representations that he has knowingly made on the record in this case and he has had months to do so (including multiple court appearances, in which he could havedone the right thing). Merely because he has elected to continue the deception rather thancoming clean, does not make it unfair in the least to alert the Court that deceptive behavior hasbeen going on for some time.

Page 10 of 11

36. Basic fairness, transparency, insistence that everyone have a full and fair

opportunity to put all the relevant facts on the record (the oath includes the words the whole

truth, for a reason, judicial interruptions notwithstanding), and consistent application of the

ground rules, are necessary in order to make sure that the court system works properly, and that it

does not become a vehicle for manufacturing injustice and deceit.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________Eric C. Grimm (P58990)ERIC C. GRIMM, PLLC1330 West Summit AvenueMuskegon, MI 49441(734) 717-4900

Page 11 of 11