Courtney Love Looks to Sue Ex-Attorney Over Bizarre Kurt Cobain Estate Fraud Claims

Marlon Brando's daughter Courtney Love, widow of Kurt Cobain (above), is the target of a defamation suit by her former lawyer.

Courtney Love Looks to Sue Ex-Attorney Over Bizarre Kurt Cobain Estate Fraud Claims
by Eriq Gardner
HollywoodReporter.com
9/17/2013

Courtney Love's unfettered love of social media has gotten her into much legal trouble over the years. In January, she is scheduled to go to trial for allegedly defaming her ex-attorney Rhonda Holmes in tweets and press interviews. The singer is charged with damaging the attorney's reputation by saying "they got to" Holmes and that her former lawyer was "bought off."

...In 2008, [Courtney] Love was ... preparing a lawsuit to charge that the Kurt Cobain estate had been mismanaged. Love says she hired Holmes to draft a complaint over stolen money and property. The following year, Holmes was quoted in the press as saying, "I have never seen such greed and moral turpitude. This case is going to make Bernard Madoff look warm and fuzzy."

But the lawsuit never came. Love says she didn't ever see a draft of the complaint that Holmes was working on. Holmes allegedly blamed it on others who had "broken into her computer and erased the drafts" and later, how she was "too busy."

As time went on, a fight over Frances Bean Cobain's trust erupted. In 2010, according to a story from The Fix, a settlement was reached to end litigation in Washington state court. A deal amended the trust known as "NMWH," said to be a reference to some of Kurt Cobain's final words to his wife, "No matter what happens, I love you."

Love also lost control of End of Music LLC, which owns Kurt Cobain's publicity rights. Love reportedly relinquished her position as acting manager after receiving a $2.5 million loan from the trust, and agreed not to participate in any revenues until she paid it back. Battles then ensued in arbitration over Kurt Cobain's musical equipment, paintings, and other personal belongings.

What led to all of this?

The countersuit centers on the 2009 letter allegedly sent by Holmes, which is said to have convinced those managing the Cobain trust that Love had hired an unstable attorney to represent her.

According to a motion to support the filing of counterclaims, when Holmes stated in the letter she was representing Love's daughter, it was untrue. She was only representing Love at the time.

Love's lawyer also points to "unduly personal," "bizarre," and "solicitous" statements made to Frances Bean Cobain in that same letter. Among the statements attributed to Holmes, "I lost my own husband from suicide within a few months of your Father's suicide. … I write you now because we all need your help and your support."

The letter also gives unsolicited advice about education, takes credit for winning "Trial Lawyer of the Year," and tells the teenager that, "You are ALL the unfortunate victims of a very large and very scary conspiracy. I have personally experienced the reach and criminality of these thieves: They have hacked into my PCs (on one such occasion, to make my legal brief in this very case 'disappear'; used my credit cards all over the county; and accessed/drained my savings account."

Cobain is told that she does "not have 1/1,000,000,000th of what it appears you should have in my view. … They accused your Mother of 'diverting money in 2003.' … Yes, as crazy as it sounds, not ONE of your 'protectors' (lawyers, bankers, accountants, managers, etc.) stood up to this. They had too much of an interest in keeping you and your Mom in the dark, sadly."

With less than four months left before a scheduled defamation trial, Love is looking to make her former lawyer pay for the statements made in this letter. She's seeking damages, including for emotional distress.

Holmes' attorney tells THR, "We view this as an act of desperation."

He adds that Love agreed to settle the case earlier this year and make a public retraction, and then breached the settlement agreement by going on Howard Stern's radio show and talking about it.

Superior Court Judge Cline retires after 15 years

Judge Richard Cline.

Superior Court Judge Cline retires after 15 years
By Daily Transcript Staff Report
July 31, 2013

San Diego Superior Court Judge Richard Cline announced his retirement Wednesday, capping a 15-year career on the bench. His last day will be Friday.

Cline is well-known in the North County, having spent his legal career in that region before joining the bench.

Prior to his judicial career, he was an associate at the Law Offices of Richard D. Ring and then partner at Ring and Cline Law Firm in Vista. He also served as the president of the North County Bar Association.

Cline was appointed to the Municipal Court in September 1998 by then-Gov. Pete Wilson and then joined the Superior Court three months later.

While he has spent the majority of his judicial career in probate court, Cline has presided over criminal and civil cases as well.

During his tenure on the bench, Cline has spearheaded such community outreach projects as Youth in Court Day and the On My Honor programs -- both designed to expose students to courtroom procedure.

In addition, he has worked with California State University, San Marcos to develop the On My Honor Teachers Institute. The institute provides training statewide to elementary and high school teachers in an effort to enhance understanding of the state judicial system.

"It quickly became apparent that many of the citizens throughout our community had an inaccurate and grossly incomplete understanding of the role and operation of the court and the third branch of government," Cline said. "Much of this problem is traceable to the skewed information presented by the media, especially television. Many of my colleagues share this view. I decided I could do my part in educating the public through youth outreach programs."

A 1965 graduate of Claremont Men’s College (now Claremont McKenna College), Cline served from Ensign to Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy from 1965 to 1972. He received his law degree from University of San Diego School of Law in 1973.

Cline has both chaired and served on numerous committees for the Center for Judicial Education and Research, where he also served as faculty. In addition, he received a statewide “Ralph N. Kleps Award” for his work on the On My Honor program.

“Judge Cline’s outstanding community service work demonstrated his commitment to educating the public about the justice system," said Presiding Judge Robert Trentacosta. "It will be a fitting tribute to Judge Cline’s legacy for our court to continue this important outreach.”

Vista Superior Court Judge Cline leaves problems behind in the probate department

Judge Richard G. Cline










Perhaps this lawsuit is the reason attorney Rusty Grant recently decided to retire from her legal practice.

See case documents HERE.

SHOULD ATTORNEYS THAT COMMIT FIDUCIARY ABUSE AND PERJURY BE ABOVE THE LAW?
Jennifer Grant
January 19, 2013

In July 2011 a petition was filed to remove attorney Rusty Grant (no relation to Jennifer Grant) as trustee from the Schwichtenberg Family Revocable Trust. Reasons included expenditures against trust terms, incuding penalties for Rusty's failure to pay property taxes on time, failure to follow trust terms, illegitimate takeover of two subsections of the trust which had become irrevocable prior to the amendment which made Rusty trustee of the other subsection, and severe discrimination against the trustor's daughter Jennifer who had served as her mom's personal assistant and subsequently cared for her during her long battle with breast cancer.

Rusty Grant and Constance Larsen (Rusty’s own attorney, friend and officemate) had served as co-vice-presidents of the North County Bar with the current president back in 2006. Judge Cline made the majority of the decisions while the case was in Vista (when Vista court still had a probate division), including one in violation of federal and state constitutional law. Judge Cline had long standing bar ties with Richard MacGurn, the attorney of Jennifer's disgruntled brother.. Additionally, Rusty was a pro-tem judge in Vista.

In September 2012, with the closure of Vista's probate division, the case was moved to San Diego's Central division where it was inherited by Judge Jeffery Bostwick. Judge Bostwick is an ethical and professional judge. However, most likely due to the huge number of Vista cases dumped on him and the slow wheels of the justice system, he failed to grasp the urgency of the matter before him. He left Rusty Grant and Constance Larsen to continue their reign of fiduciary abuse, mispenditure of trust funds and violations of law unchecked, despite Jennifer filing a motion to suspend the trustee until the court could hear the case. Judge Bostwick denied the motion because it was “not urgent”.

How exactly, if Jennifer prevails, is all the misspent money supposed to get reimbursed?

In the meantime, there is no money available to pay the ongoing expenses of the trust property, so it will likely be lost if there is no intervention before the case can go to trial. Since Constance Larsen has illegally denied Jennifer the right to be in the property, it sits neglected and further deteriorating.

When Jennifer sought help from the California state fiduciary abuse organization, she was told that they could not touch attorneys though it sounded like Constance Larsen and Rusty Grant had committed crimes. Was there any other category of fiduciary out of their jurisdiction? The answer was “no”. So basically, they were saying if you are an attorney in California, you can break the law with no repercussions.

Both attorneys were also reported to the State Bar. How much their own North County Bar connections may have weighed in is unknown. However the complaint was closed. Jennifer received a letter which basically stated that, while her complaint might have merit, that the Bar could not get involved because there was a civil case in court.

The county DA was contacted but said a police report must first be filed. Since Constance Larsen forbids Jennifer to be in the property left her, there is a pending issue with the police as to who has jurisdiction to take the report.

In the latest incident, Constance Larsen tried to create a circumstance of double jeopardy by filing an accounting petition which contained issues already under contest in the case's other three petitions.

See pleading: Objections to Accounting Petition

Judge Cline allowed Rusty to conduct the forensic accounting ahead of trial on the contested petition where the question of who should conduct the accounting was at issue. Constance Larsen was blatantly trying to press her luck twice to get rid of the Remove Trustee petition and get fees for herself and further ones for Rusty.

This was an attempt to violate Jennifer's constitutional right to due process (US constitutional 14th amendment and California Constitution Section I Article I) as it had been in the circumstance with Cline.

Fortunately Judge Bostwick listened to Jennifer's due process argument on the Accounting Petiton and thwarted Larsen by consolidating it with the three other pending petitions putting it on the same civil justice snail track. However, if one takes a look at the objections he asked Jennifer to file, one can get a small taste of what is being allowed to continue by the State Bar as well as an overburdened, inefficient justice system here in San Diego. To top it off, as can be seen from Jennifer's objections, and looking at the exhibits, Constance Larsen and Rusty Grant have made false statements, committing perjury, when they signed their petitons. The question remains, are attorneys above the law? If not, then how can they be held accountable and by whom?

(Case # 37-2011-00150239-PR-TR-NC)