Help the Famous Dixfield Stray Cats
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/river-valley/2016/01/31/13-years-later-dixfield-cats-waiting-inheritance/1857628
As many Mainers saw recently in the newspapers and local television news, the stray cats of Dixfield, Maine have been waiting 13 years since their cat-lover benefactor Dixfield resident Barbara N. Thorpe died, leaving almost her entire estate to "the cats of Dixfield" in her will. Mrs. Thorpe and her husband William had worked their adult lives and lived very frugally, never having children. They saved close to at least $200,000 that could be accounted for.
The problem started when she became sick and her health began failing her. Her housekeeper, who she had paid $8/hr to for years was given power of attorney authority to act on Mrs. Thorpe's behalf while the latter was in a nursing home. The housekeeper, apparently in conjunction with Mrs. Thorpe's attorney, began charging the estate $100/hour for simple services, such as paying bills and getting the mail, etc. (This amounted to over $20,000, including the work the housekeeper did after Mrs. Thorpe passed away).
Mrs. Thorpe passed away in 2002. She had named the housekeeper as her personal representative, at the housekeeper's request, apparently with the blessing of her attorney. As is customary, the attorney and the housekeeper worked together at that point to settle the estate. Several of Mrs. Thorpe's friends received small keepsakes in the will or small amounts of money. The rest of the $200,000 or more estate was to go to a trust set up for the "stray cats of Dixfield." Mrs. Thorpe was a cat lover, yes, but she, as did many in this small close-knit community of about 2000 people, where many successful families reside and high school sports are unmatched, knew very well that there was quite a problem with abandoned and stray cats in the area. She also knew that there was a heaven-sent set of sisters- Brenda Jarvis and Caroline Smith, that had been taking care of the stray cats in Dixfield since 1974 in their deceased parents trailer. At any one time they have about 25 cats that they care for in this clean trailer of unconditional love. The sisters and several other regular volunteers haven't missed a day at the trailer taking care of the cats in 40 years.
Unfortunately, despite the sisters and others using their retirement social security checks to pay for the rent of the trailer land, heat, lights, medicine, medical care, spaying/neutering, cat food and litter, that is not enough to care for the 25 cats at the trailer, and all the new cats that are rescued each and every week by the team of volunteers, including Donna Weston and Valerie Warriner, who also host dozens of cats at their homes as well. Recently another home was donated but the volunteers do not have the funds to fix the home up and make it livable after is has started to fall into disrepair, such as a new roof needed.
All these financial troubles were supposed to have been resolved by Mrs. Thorpe's god-send gift 14 years ago. Unfortunately, for reasons none of which make a bit of common sense, the housekeeper has refused to give more than a few thousand total to the stray cats of Dixfield over the last 13 years. Local attorney Thomas S. Carey filed a lawsuit in the Oxford County Probate Court in 2004 to force the housekeeper to comply with her duties as personal representative and turn over the funds to the cats. Shockingly, to say the least, the attorney for Mrs. Thorpe was "hired" by the housekeeper to defend her choice not to turn over the money to the cats and their caregivers. It is not clear whether this attorney charged his fees to the Thorpe estate, which is arguably to say the least, a questionable ethical and moral tactic. Over the next nine years, the two attorneys fought out a bitter fight in the probate court. At one point at least, the probate judge admonished the attorneys for being "overlitigious." That admonition seems ominous at today since, apparently being overlitigious still was not fighting hard enough, since the cats still don't have their money.
The part-time judge in 2013 finally made a ruling in the case. He basically stated that the defendant housekeeper had "not had enough time to pay money to the cats and their caregivers." He bought the defendant's attorney's argument that the housekeeper refrained from giving the cats money because the legal matter was in the way. He intimated that the cats would get their money once the court put an end to this court battle.