PAWS and SOCKS Have Joined Forces in Court
A court battle for a major inheritance left by the late Terrence Kunky has seen organizations PAWS and SOCKS join forces. In a court motion that was filed in September this year, attorney Jill Crew, who represents both the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society and Save Our Cats and Kittens accuses family members left out of Kunky’s will of both fraud and gross malfeasance, specifically his daughter Kimberly Huggins.
The lawsuit accuses attorney Richard Sherrill, representing the Kunky children, of being complicit with the family in an attempt to defraud both PAWS and SOCKS. According to PAWS Executive Director Dee Thompson, the inheritance in question totals over $400,000.
According to court papers, Kunky, 81, of Fort Walton Beach, died on August 20, 2014. The legal document states that the will named beneficiaries PAWS, SOCKS and Covenant Hospice. It goes on to state that the will also expressly disinherited Kunky’s two daughters, Ms. Kelli Lee Brown and Ms. Kimberly Huggins, as well as his stepchildren. The motion alleges that Kunky was suffering from dementia at the time of writing, and was therefore not competent to create a will.
The court motion said that Huggins, by and through Richard Sherrill, should not be allowed to profit from her fraudulent actions, malfeasance, and material misrepresentations, all of which have been designed to defraud both PAWS and SOCKS of the specific bequest.
Along with Kunky’s primary physician, the attorney who drew up his will rejected the notion of the deceased suffering from dementia, according to the court motion.
Intentional Breach of Agreement
In July, the family were pressured by the attorneys of PAWS and SOCKS to agree to turn over two U.S. Savings Bonds which were willed to the two animal welfare organizations, according to the court motion. However, the motion states that as of September the transaction had not yet been completed.
As Kunky’s personal representative, Huggins, along with Sherrill, the attorney, then further attempted to exclude PAWS and SOCKS as beneficiaries in court documents, the motion states. According to the court document, they entered into an agreement to distribute the Savings Bonds to PAWS and SOCKS with the intention of failing or breaching their agreement to distribute the said funds to the Treasury.