I think it would help answer questions if we knew what the terms of the trust were. The 'other will' may not have been entered into probate because the trust served just as well for Luke and probating a newer will was seen as not necessary, at the time when everyone was getting along. Now that something has changed, Luke is trying to probate a newer will
E. Gary Gygax Sr. May Have Had Another, More Recent Will?
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
And here we go, folks! After three years of feinting and preparations, the trial of Gygax v. Gygax has begun! Let's break things down as best we're able now that day one of the three-day trial proceeding has concluded.
After a brief order of proof ("essentially a checklist of elements of facts needed to be proven to establish claims and defenses") submitted on Luke's behalf on April 6th, there's been no other developments prior to the trial's having begun, so there's no further background to catch up on. As for the trial itself, here's what the docket says:
I'm going to try to break this down into bullet points as best I can. As always, if any attorneys here want to chime in with their insights and/or corrections, please do so! Also, bear in mind that a lot of this seems to hinge on documents and exhibits which aren't described in the docket (though quite a few of them are), so if there seems to be a lack of information in that regard, it's not that you've missed something.
After a brief order of proof ("essentially a checklist of elements of facts needed to be proven to establish claims and defenses") submitted on Luke's behalf on April 6th, there's been no other developments prior to the trial's having begun, so there's no further background to catch up on. As for the trial itself, here's what the docket says:
I'm going to try to break this down into bullet points as best I can. As always, if any attorneys here want to chime in with their insights and/or corrections, please do so! Also, bear in mind that a lot of this seems to hinge on documents and exhibits which aren't described in the docket (though quite a few of them are), so if there seems to be a lack of information in that regard, it's not that you've missed something.
- Luke's attorney, Jennifer Gorn, calls Gail Gygax to the stand.
- At this point, attorney Gorn introduces exhibit #15: Gary's 1990 will, document #18 (not described), and exhibit #3: a premarital agreement (i.e. a pre-nup), into evidence.
- When attorney Gorn enters exhibit #5: agreement email submitted by Gail Gygax into evidence, Steven Koch (the attorney acting as the executor of Gary's estate) makes an objection, noting that the authenticity of the email has not been verified. The court receives the exhibit but makes no determination as to the email's authenticity.
- Attorney Gorn then enters exhibit #4: agreement with Trigee & the decedent into evidence. For clarification, "the decedent" is Gary Gygax; "Trigee" is the name of Trigee Enterprises, a corporation that Gary formed with Gail, so named for it being three G's: Gary and Gail Gygax.
- Attorney Gorn then enters exhibit #2: agreement of transfer of property into evidence. At this point, Gail's attorney, Theodore Johnson, offers an unspecified "clarification," which Gail herself responds to. Steven Koch then enters an objection, with the docket noting only that it was recorded.
- Attorney Gorn then asks the court to take notice of the date that "Tri-G" (I think the alternative spelling is a typo, here, but I'm not 100% sure) was dissolved as a business entity. After a response by attorney Johnson, the court accepts that Tri-G was no longer a business in California as of 2/2/1998.
- After a brief recess, attorney Gorn introduces exhibit #16: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto into evidence, with no objections being raised. However, when attorney Gorn introduces exhibit #17: email from Gail Gygax to Tom DeSanto (7/19/2016), attorney Johnson objects, not to the evidence itself, but "does object to the line of questioning." After a brief argument by attorneys Gorn and Johnson (with Koch not participating), the court receives exhibit #16, but no further mention is made of exhibit #17.
- Attorney Johnson raises another objection at this point (it's unclear as to whether this was with regard to the court receiving exhibit #16, or something attorney Gorn asked of Gail), specifically objecting to something as being speculation. The court allows the witness (i.e. Gail) to answer to the best of her ability.
- Attorney Gorn introduces exhibit #1 (not defined). At this point, attorney Johnson notes that there are different versions of exhibit #1, one version being in color while another is in black-and-white. With no other objections made, the court receives exhibit #1 into evidence.
- Attorney Koch briefly cross-examines Gail. Attorney Johnson objects to an unspecified question, which Koch rephrases.
- At this point, attorney Johnson cross-examines Gail, and attorney Koch objects to something (it's unclear what), specifically making a "call for legal conclusion" objection ("asking the witness to draw a conclusion or make an inference based on the evidence presented"). This will come up several times later on.
- After attorney Gorn doesn't bother with a re-direct, attorney Koch cross-examines Gail again. This time, attorney Johnson makes two "calls for legal conclusion" objections.
- At this point, the witness is excused, and the court breaks for lunch.
- Once lunch is over, there's another round of cross-examining a witness, but the docket doesn't specify who has been called. I'm not sure if this is an error in the docket itself, or if we're supposed to understand that the same witness as before (i.e. Gail) is back on the stand now (perhaps she was only excused so the court could break for lunch?).
- Attorney Johnson raises an objection as to relevance, and after a back-and-forth between him and attorney Gorn, Johnson's objection is overruled.
- Attorney Johnson raises another objection "to witness using any documentation that all parties do not also have access to."
- Further cross-examination by attorney Gorn sees attorney Johnson making objections, "as to emails the witness is referring to," "as to speculation & relevance," (this one is allowed, which I believe means overruled) and "relevance" again.
- The witness is then cross-examined by attorney Koch, and then by attorney Johnson. On the re-direct by attorney Gorn, Johnson raises another "legal conclusion" objection, with the court allowing the witness to answer.
- There's another re-cross by attorney Johnson, followed by another re-direct from attorney Gorn, at which point Johnson objects to something as hearsay, but is overruled.
- At this point, this unidentified witness is excused.
- Attorney Gorn calls Paul Stormberg to the stand.
- Attorney Gorn then introduces exhibits #12 and #13: records of items sold at auction into evidence, without objection.
- After another brief recess (and with a new court clerk taking over for unspecified reasons), attorneys Gorn, Koch, and Johnson take some time to cross-examine the witness (i.e. Stormberg), with no objections being noted, although Gorn does have a re-direct with the witness.
- The witness is then excused.
- Attorney Gorn notes that her next witnesses won't be ready until tomorrow, and the court addresses scheduling in that regard.
- The first day of the trial is then adjourned.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Day two of the trial saw several more witnesses called, more exhibits entered into evidence, and more objections! The full text of the docket entry is below, with my breakdown after that. As always, EN World attorneys, please feel free to interject with comments and corrections!
From what I can make of this, things went like so:
From what I can make of this, things went like so:
- Luke's attorney, Jennifer Gorn, calls officer Lucas Hansen to the stand. Precisely who this is or what their bearing is on the trial is unclear.
- Attorney Gorn then enters exhibit #9, Officer Hansen's report into evidence.
- Steven Koch, the attorney acting as the personal representative (i.e. executor) for Gary's estate, then cross-examines Officer Hansen. At one point during this, the court notes that Officer Hansen identified the respondent (i.e. Gail Gygax).
- Officer Hansen is then cross-examined by attorney Theodore Johnson, Gail's lawyer, with a subsequent redirect by attorney Gorn.
- Officer Hansen is then excused.
- Attorney Gorn then calls Alex Gygax (i.e. Gary's son with Gail) to the stand.
- Attorney Johnson objects to something as being speculation, but the court decides to allow the witness (i.e. Alex) to answer.
- Attorney Gorn then introduces exhibit #11, conversation between Lucion Gygax & Alex Gygax into evidence. Attorney Johnson objects as to foundation ("the witness does not have firsthand knowledge about the subject matter of their testimony"), but the court believes that he (i.e. Alex) has shown "proper foundation," and the exhibit is entered into evidence.
- Attorney Koch cross-examines Alex, and while attorney Johnson initially conduct his own cross, he does so after Alex is directed to answer some questions by the court itself.
- Attorney Johnson then enters exhibit #105, list of items delivered into evidence, followed by a quick re-direct from attorney Gorn.
- A brief recess is then taken.
- Coming back from the recess, attorney Gorn argues against the court's receiving exhibit #105 into evidence. Attorney Koch makes a foundation objection of his own (it's unclear if he's objecting to what attorney Gorn is arguing, or objecting to attorney Johnson's entering exhibit #105 into evidence).
- The court elects not to receive exhibit #105 into evidence.
- Attorney Gorn then calls Stephen Chenault to the stand.
- Chenault testifies, then is cross-examined by both attorney Koch and attorney Johnson, on re-direct by attorney Gorn, and then re-crossed by attorney Johnson.
- Chenault is then excused.
- Court then pauses so the parties can discuss scheduling.
- Attorney Gorn then calls Luke Gygax to the stand.
- Attorney Gorn then introduces exhibit #10, text messaged between Lucion & Gail Gygax into evidence.
- Attorney Johnson objects as to relevance, which leads to a back-and-forth between him and attorney Gorn, with a "record" by attorney Koch, before the court sustains attorney Johnson's objection.
- Luke is cross-examined by attorney Koch.
- Luke is cross-examined by attorney Johnson, who then introduces exhibits #103 & #104 (no description) into evidence.
- Attorney Gorn objects to the relevance of a question put to Luke, to which attorney Johnson responds. There's a re-direct from attorney Gorn to Luke, followed by a re-cross by attorney Johnson.
- Luke is then excused.
- Attorney Johnson asks the court to receive exhibits #103 and #104 into evidence. Attorney Gorn objects. The court "receives & will consider for the record."
- The petitioner (i.e. Luke) has no further witnesses to call.
- The court then takes a brief recess.
- Coming back from recess (with a new clerk), the petitioner rests their case.
- Attorney Johnson then conducts a direct exam of Gail (which necessarily implies calling her to the stand as a witness).
- Attorney Johnson re-introduces exhibit #105.
- Gail is then cross-examined by attorney Gorn.
- Gail is then excused.
- Attorney Johnson offers exhibit #105 into evidence, and over attorney Gorn's objection, the court receives it.
- Each of the three attorneys, Gorn, Johnson, and Koch, present arguments.
- The court appoints attorney Koch to submit the inventory (of Gary's estate, presumably).
- The court then orders Gail not to sell or transfer any property (of Gary's estate, presumably).
- Attorney Koch expresses willingness to continue acting as the personal representative of Gary's estate.
- Attorneys Johnson and Gorn make further arguments to the court.
- The court then grants attorney Koch the power to sell property (of Gary's estate, presumably) in order to prepare to file the inventory.
- Attorney Gorn will "prepare any Orders needed."
- There's a discussion of scheduling for the next ninety days.
- Court is then recessed for the day.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Okay, so I was expecting there to be a docket entry for the third day of the trial, but given that all we've had appear since my last post is a notation regarding an exhibit list on April 20th (which I think means that the list of exhibits was submitted then), the implication here seems to be that there was no third day of trial, i.e. that what happened on the 19th and 20th were the whole of it.
To that end, I'll keep periodically checking for new developments, and post them here as they happen.
To that end, I'll keep periodically checking for new developments, and post them here as they happen.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
Sorry, not only is probate not my jam, but trusts and estates was my only not-A in law school and the only class I never enjoyed.
...it was at 8am.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I'd have posted these updates sooner, but for some reason the Wisconsin court website seemed to be down every time I tried to access it. Fortunately, whatever was going on seems to have been resolved.
That said, while there's been a bunch of activity since the trial, virtually none of it seems to be particularly noteworthy:
That said, while there's been a bunch of activity since the trial, virtually none of it seems to be particularly noteworthy:
- On April 20th, the last day of the trial, there's a note in the docket that simply reads "Exhibit list." Presumably this was the list which was submitted to the court.
- Also on that same day, there's a notice saying "will added to probate" with a notation which reads "Original will filed dated July 11, 2006; four (4) pages." I don't know if this is the will that Gail was using up until the suit was filed, or if it's the newer one that Gary made before his death (as the date listed is less than two years prior to his passing).
- Several entries are listed for April 26th: a letter to the court re: order, a proposed order (which is presumably what the aforementioned letter is about), a proposed notice to creditors (with no mention of who those creditors are), a form in which attorney Steven Koch agrees to serve as the estate's personal representative (I'm not sure if this was a prior letter he signed in that regard, or a new one), and proposed domiciliary letters being issued (i.e. the writ which states that someone can act as the personal representative for an estate).
- April 27th saw the domiciliary letters actually being issued to attorney Koch, as well as the notice to creditors being issued; this latter notice states that there's an August 31st, 2023 deadline to file claims.
- Finally, May 5th saw several affidavits of service being issued. All of these were with regard to the trial, and their entry seems (to me) to be somewhat after-the fact; there's one for a trial subpoena that was issued, one for a subpoena duces tecum (i.e. a writ ordering a person to appear in court and to bring any relevant documents) and witness fee check, another subpoena duces tecum (with a court date of April 19th, 2023 at 8:30 AM) and witness fee check, and a trial subpoena for April 20th, 2023 at 8:30 AM and witness fee check.
- I'll note that, in addition to noting the aforementioned August 31st deadline for creditors to file claims, the "court activities" header on the docket now also lists an "inventory due date" of July 26th of this year.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
A few minor updates over the last several weeks:
- On May 22nd, a proof of publication was filed. As the link notes, this apparently refers to a notice being released in one or more (presumably local) newspapers.
- On May 25th, there's a filing for "letters/correspondence" with no further description.
- There's another such listing for June 26th, but there are also three other entries relating to another development: a an affidavit, notice of motion, and order approving Steven A. Koch, the personal representative (i.e. executor) for Gary's estate "to Allow Personal Representative to Enter into Agreements to Sell Assets." As the affidavit in support of the motion was filed by Koch himself, this seems to suggest that he's going to sell portions of the estate (my guess is that this has something to do with the previously-mentioned "issues" that came up with the IRS, though as noted that is just a guess).
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
It's been a few months, and although the trial is over, things are still happening!
With regard to Kuntz's claim, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that this has to do with certain aspects of the game he ran for Gary (i.e. El Raja Key/Kalibruhn) and/or things that he might have contributed/made for the campaign that Gary ran for him (and several others, i.e. the original World of Greyhawk). He's actually written about this on several occasions, most recently in The Return of Robilar, which is a fascinating glimpse into the earliest years of the hobby.
- On July 14th, Rob Kuntz made a claim against the estate for "physical property" as described in documents that were submitted to the court (and are, unfortunately, unavailable from the public website).
- Pursuant to a notice that was issued on July 10th, there was a motion hearing held on August 10th. Attended by attorneys Gorn (for Luke Gygax), Johnson (for Gail Gygax), and Koch (the personal representative for Gary's estate), this was presumably with regard to the aforementioned notice allowing Koch to sell off portions of the estate. The court signed an order that had been proposed, and there was a brief discussion of the schedule before a notation was made that a claimant had not been notified, with attorney Koch to notify the claimant via email. A subsequent hearing is scheduled for September 26th.
- Interestingly, attorney Koch also requested a hearing back on July 26th, and five days later a notice was made that there would be a hearing held on August 16th. Currently, however, no such hearing is shown on the docket; perhaps the August 10th meeting preempted the need for it?
- On August 11th, the court issued an order approving the motion of the personal representative (i.e. attorney Koch) to produce and sell assets from the estate.
With regard to Kuntz's claim, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that this has to do with certain aspects of the game he ran for Gary (i.e. El Raja Key/Kalibruhn) and/or things that he might have contributed/made for the campaign that Gary ran for him (and several others, i.e. the original World of Greyhawk). He's actually written about this on several occasions, most recently in The Return of Robilar, which is a fascinating glimpse into the earliest years of the hobby.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
