Thread: Bowlen's brother files court motion to remove Joe Ellis

A lawyer representing Bill Bowlen, who filed a lawsuit Thursday asking that the three-member trust appointed by Broncos owner Pat Bowlen to run the team be removed from power, said the goal is to have an out-of-court resolution.

Giovanni Ruscitti of the firm Berg Hill Greenleaf Ruscitti LLP in Boulder also represents Beth Bowlen-Wallace, who has the support of her uncle Bill to become the Broncos’ next controlling owner.

“From our perspective, what’s next is that we hope we’re in discussions with the trustees and their attorneys,” Ruscitti told The Denver Post in a phone interview on Friday. “I would hope we could sit down and have a professional discussion that would lead to an amicable resolution. It’s something we were pushing for from the get go.

“We were hoping we didn’t have to file it. It was our sincere hope that these issues could be worked out.”

rest - https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/2...solution-hope/

Colorado statute regarding probate, trusts and fiduciaries states that a "The principal's caregiver or another person that demonstrates sufficient interest in the principal's welfare" may petition the court for a power of attorney or to review an agent's conduct.

Bill Bowlen is asserting that as Pat's brother and knowing what Pat wanted in terms of the future of the Broncos as it relates to his family, that he has standing based on his interests in the Bowlen's welfare.

As to this specific part, I'd say without researching it to really know, most case law interpreting that kind of statute nationwide would involve cases of physical abuse of the protected person, or squandering or mismanaging his assets. They will point that out and argue that statute just doesn't apply to this situation.

But, what responsibility do the trustees have to appoint anybody while Pat is still alive, just because she argues that she is "qualified?" If they had no such duty, then what is the basis for any claim? Might be premature.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Ah, good. I never litigated any trust issues. I just draft them!
I was thinking mostly of any allegation that Bowlen was being mistreated, his assets squandered, or other mistreatment of the protected person. There's nothing to suggest Pat is being mistreated in his care, or that the value of his assets are declining in any way. Rather the reverse. Can't really argue that the trust is squandering assets or failing to meet the prudent investor rule when they are rocketing upward in value every single year as the value of NFL franchises has increased from $84m or something when Bowlen bought the team to $2.5billion now.

That's a difficult claim to make. Should a successor be formally appointed for his business interest while he is still alive? Or should his chosen business partners and trustees be allowed to exercise their discretion in following the terms of the trust with respect to his heirs.

Might be easier to for the court to punt that decision while Pat is alive and let the trustees continue to exercise their authority, but with the later right to complain about their choices when they later make them. But, when Pat is dead, then the trustees have to formally reject Beth Bowlen and choose her sister, or to sell to an outside party.

Good luck with that argument! I think this whole lawsuit looks like something where the league might ultimately decide to step in and decide the whole thing for the good of football. I don't think the other owners will be easy seeing Pats' heirs passed over for sale to an outsider. They might not permit that. They all have heirs or are heirs themselves.

I'm with you on the value of the assets (if we think of it in terms of how a fiduciary might invest traditional assets). I don't think a case can be made that Ellis and the others are doing anything to harm Pat Bowlen's assets, which will eventually become the assets of the successor trustees.

I think we can assume that Pat's physical well being is being well taken care of.

So, the only thing the brother has to make any claim is that Ellis and company are not accurately carrying out Pat's intentions in terms of having a child take over the club.

I would think to prevail (assuming his standing argument works) is to make a solid case that Bill has intimate knowledge of Pat's plans for the Broncos, and that by passing over Beth, that it's in clear contravention to Pat's wishes for how the Broncos will be run.

In addition, he's trying to make a case that it isn't just a case of a judgement call where the trustees have determined that Beth doesn't meet Pat's criteria, but instead that it is a fraudulent act to pass over her. They are making the case that since Ellis is the team President (and the other two trustees are involved in various ways with the Broncos) that they are choosing their self interests and to maintain their power (by not giving Beth control) over complying with Pat's wishes.

Hence, what they are really making at it's heart is a type of fraud case/claim against Ellis and others. Akin to embezzling in many ways.

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

rest - https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/2...solution-hope/

Bwa-hahahahahahhahahaha!

They filed this in order to force face to face negotiation since the trust was stiff arming them, but that won't work at all. Listen to this;

Ruscitti said he tried to schedule a meeting next week in New York (home of the NFL office) with the trustees but he cancelled when he was informed that only the trustees’ attorneys would be attending.

In response to Ruscitti’s comments, the Trust told the Denver Post in a statement on Friday night: “There have been many meetings and written communication between the trustees, Beth Bowlen-Wallace and lawyers for Beth Bowlen-Wallace over the last four years. To suggest that the trustees have not been willing to discuss and consider these issues is directly contradicted by the facts.”

Ruscitti confirmed there has been several examples of communication between the sides over the years but it hasn’t led to resolving issues regarding the future of ownership.

In late May, when Bowlen-Wallace announced her desire to succeed her father, the trustees responded forcefully, saying she was not “not capable or qualified at this time,” to lead the Broncos.

Beth to Trust: "I am too qualified! I am!"
Trust to Beth: "
"

Putting those parties in a room together isn't going to get them to agree to anything. The trust still absolutely doesn't want Beth Bowlen in charge and she wants that power - in order to get rid of all of them. They view it like a hostile board of directors takeover.

So, the only thing the brother has to make any claim is that Ellis and company are not accurately carrying out Pat's intentions in terms of having a child take over the club.

I would think to prevail (assuming his standing argument works) is to make a solid case that Bill has intimate knowledge of Pat's plans for the Broncos, and that by passing over Beth, that it's in clear contravention to Pat's wishes for how the Broncos will be run.

In addition, he's trying to make a case that it isn't just a case of a judgement call where the trustees have determined that Beth doesn't meet Pat's criteria, but instead that it is a fraudulent act to pass over her. They are making the case that since Ellis is the team President (and the other two trustees are involved in various ways with the Broncos) that they are choosing their self interests and to maintain their power (by not giving Beth control) over complying with Pat's wishes.

Hence, what they are really making at it's heart is a type of fraud case/claim against Ellis and others. Akin to embezzling in many ways.

Again, I'm no expert here but I wouldn't put 50 cents on their winning this case. They haven't made any final decision against Beth. Officially, she's still in contention. Are they required to make a decision right now? He's still alive.

Or is his probate action a more appropriate time to move the business assets to his heirs? And that gives Brittany Bowlen time to gain more experience and become justifiably the favorite to take over.

I'm not a judge but I wouldn't interfere in this matter now, but would make the parties wait until Pat's passing at which point the plaintiffs might be able to sustain a burden of showing some kind of violation of the terms of his trust agreement since the trustees would presumably move at that time to make a decision.

Perhaps that is not what the court will do of course, they could find for the plaintiffs. But, it sounds like they don't even expect to win, but want to force face to face negotiations between the parties in the hopes of forcing some kind of settlement.

Bill the cat, nice!

Originally Posted by Cugel

As to this specific part, I'd say without researching it to really know, most case law interpreting that kind of statute nationwide would involve cases of physical abuse of the protected person, or squandering or mismanaging his assets. They will point that out and argue that statute just doesn't apply to this situation.

But, what responsibility do the trustees have to appoint anybody while Pat is still alive, just because she argues that she is "qualified?" If they had no such duty, then what is the basis for any claim? Might be premature.

The act they are relying on, which i think is relatively new, was put in place related to elder care and the fact we have many people living longer and many of them have Alzheimer/dementia. It's intended to create a way for those with a legitimate interest in the welfare of the incapacitated person to petition the court to give them POA over health care decisions, or in the case of agents that are squandering assets, or more likely, taking unreasonable fees for the services they are rendering, to have the court review and either remove the agent or change the terms of their compensation.

I'm not sure how much, if any, caselaw there is regarding this statute being used in the way Bill Bowlen is attempting to us it.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Again, I'm no expert here but I wouldn't put 50 cents on their winning this case. They haven't made any final decision against Beth. Officially, she's still in contention. Are they required to make a decision right now? He's still alive.

Or is his probate action a more appropriate time to move the business assets to his heirs? And that gives Brittany Bowlen time to gain more experience and become justifiably the favorite to take over.

I'm not a judge but I wouldn't interfere in this matter now, but would make the parties wait until Pat's passing at which point the plaintiffs might be able to sustain a burden of showing some kind of violation of the terms of his trust agreement since the trustees would presumably move at that time to make a decision.

Perhaps that is not what the court will do of course, they could find for the plaintiffs. But, it sounds like they don't even expect to win, but want to force face to face negotiations between the parties in the hopes of forcing some kind of settlement.

I would have to go back and look at previous statements by Ellis and the trustees, but I don't believe they have tied elevating a child to control of the Broncos and Pat's death.

My understanding is that the Broncos are now in trust, not that they will upon his death, and that the trustees have been told to work with the children to help one of them gain the experience needed to run the Broncos and when there is a child with those qualifications, then they will be given control of the club.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it is in any way tied to Pat's death (which could be decades away). The NFL has stated they are happy with the plan in place. Whether they would consider it more urgent after Pat's passing, is unkown, but considering he has been completely removed from active control for years now, I can't see where their comfort/discomfort with the plan and timeline would be impacted by whether or not Pat is still alive.

I would have to go back and look at previous statements by Ellis and the trustees, but I don't believe they have tied elevating a child to control of the Broncos and Pat's death.

My understanding is that the Broncos are now in trust, not that they will upon his death, and that the trustees have been told to work with the children to help one of them gain the experience needed to run the Broncos and when there is a child with those qualifications, then they will be given control of the club.

Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it is in any way tied to Pat's death (which could be decades away). The NFL has stated they are happy with the plan in place. Whether they would consider it more urgent after Pat's passing, is unkown, but considering he has been completely removed from active control for years now, I can't see where their comfort/discomfort with the plan and timeline would be impacted by whether or not Pat is still alive.

Judge: "Down vixen with thy unseemly haste to despoil your father! The man's not even dead yet and you're squabbling over controlling his possessions? Have you no compassion harpy? Loose thy talons from the carcass woman, let him breath a bit, and take thy flight!"

A lot of information in this article -

The Broncos haven’t named Pat Bowlen’s successor yet. But there is a blueprint to select the next owner.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/1...rolling-owner/

Originally Posted by Cugel

Judge: "Down vixen with thy unseemly haste to despoil your father! The man's not even dead yet and you're squabbling over controlling his possessions? Have you no compassion harpy? Loose thy talons from the carcass woman, let him breath a bit, and take thy flight!"

If the Broncos are in an irrevocable "trust" then the club is no longer Pat Bowlen's possession. Something a judge would understand.

Originally Posted by Tned

As a general rule, that's the safest course of action -- due to my superior intellect, always being right, humble and modest approach to life....

Indubitably.

Originally Posted by Tned

If the Broncos are in an irrevocable "trust" then the club is no longer Pat Bowlen's possession. Something a judge would understand.

Obviously. That was a joke.

But, the thing remains. Trustees are given broad discretion and so appearances matter, since the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof that they so violated their duty of care as to warrant the court issuing an order removing them. Trustees are entitled to the presumption that they were exercising their given authority in good faith.

The Trustees deciding to sit there and control things will look a lot worse if Pat Bowlen were dead and they still hadn't decided things. The longer this goes on, the more unaccoutable they start to look and the better Beth Bowlen's got to look unless they have some misconduct or other they can charge her with from her background.

If the publicity gets ugly, the NFL owners are going to force the team quickly to name a successor. The last thing the NFL wants is a prolonged, bitter and ugly custody fight for team ownership between Beth and Brittany Bowlen.

Interesting article from 9News from back in June.

https://www.9news.com/article/sports...a/73-560656775

Originally Posted by Cugel

Obviously. That was a joke.

But, the thing remains. Trustees are given broad discretion and so appearances matter, since the plaintiff will bear the burden of proof that they so violated their duty of care as to warrant the court issuing an order removing them. Trustees are entitled to the presumption that they were exercising their given authority in good faith.

The Trustees deciding to sit there and control things will look a lot worse if Pat Bowlen were dead and they still hadn't decided things. The longer this goes on, the more unaccoutable they start to look and the better Beth Bowlen's got to look unless they have some misconduct or other they can charge her with from her background.

If the publicity gets ugly, the NFL owners are going to force the team quickly to name a successor. The last thing the NFL wants is a prolonged, bitter and ugly custody fight for team ownership between Beth and Brittany Bowlen.

And, at least publicly (potentially legally) they can make the case that Joe Ellis has conflicting priorities. His position as President of the Broncos and his duty as trustee. If someone is named the controlling owner, he could be removed as President (especially with an apparently tense relationship with Beth.

Personally, I think Ellis has done a very good job running the Broncos, so I'm not trying to make the case that he's abusing his power as co-trustee, just pointing out that it's the angle they are going to focus on.