Chief Judge Smith's Order of January 25, 2013. Sent to me in his letter of May 9, 2014.
Trustee to Judge Dennis J. Smith, January 11, 2013
Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia
Fairfax County Court House
4110 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4009
(1) Response to Summons
(2) Re: Harold A. O’Connell(?), CL-2012-13064; Lien, Summons, Injunction, Notice, Order
The Honorable Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith:
I responded to the summons within the required 21 day time period; on September 22, 2012, with one item, and on September 24, 2012, with seventeen items.
September 22, 2012, with one item:
September 24, 2012, with seventeen items:
I don’t understand why there was no response from the law firm or from the Court from my response to the Summons except:
“5. As of the date of the filing of this Motion [September 28, 2012], Defendant Sheila O'Connell has been served with the Complaint and the time period for her to file an answer is pending. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell has filed a response to the Complaint, which consisted of a one-page letter directed to the Clerk of Court, and the filing of numerous documents and records containing his annotations.“
(From the injunction dated 2012.09.28 prepared by the law firm of B&K)
“RE: In Re: Harold A O'Connell, CL-2012-13064
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
I have received your letter regarding the Notice of Scheduling Conference you
received in case CL 2012 -0013064. This is indeed a valid notice from our court .'
provided. so that you would be aware of a Scheduling Conference at which we will, if" .
appropriate, set a trial date and enter a scheduling order in accordance with the Uniform
Pretrial Scheduling Order adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia. No evidence will
be taken at that time as this is only a hearing to establish the schedule for the orderly
processing of the case.
As for accountability for the notice, it clearly indicates that it is sent by the judges
of the circuit court and provides you with a phone number at which you can contact our
case management staff with regard to the Scheduling Conference. We would not send
out a notice indicating that you can contact the judges directly as such contact is
Your letter also indicates that you do not know what issues are raised in the case
but our records indicate that you have responded to the Complaint which sets out the
Plaintiff's allegations and prayer for relief so I therefore assume that you are acquainted
with the issues which have been raised. As to whether the Plaintiff's allegations are
true or merit relief, these issues will not be dealt with at the December 4,2012
Scheduling Conference but are instead decided in the course of later proceedings or
after a trial at which each side has had an opportunity to present evidence in the form of
documents or testimony and make arguments as to the proper disposition of the issues.
You also request that our court take certain actions, but please note that Judges
take actions based upon pleadings which are properly filed, and even then, only after
each interested party has had an opportunity to respond and be heard on the request.
Sending a letter to a judge is not filing a pleading in a case as pleadings are properly
filed with the Clerk of Court. Additionally, copies of anything sent to the Court for filing
must be provided to all other interested parties. As your letter does not indicate copies
were sent to the other parties I will provide them with a copy of your letter and this
Finally, with regard to your participation in the Scheduling Conference at 8:30
a.m. on December 4,2012, this is a civil case and it is your choice as to whether you
participate in this administrative hearing or any further hearings. If you do not appear,
the Court will proceed to establish scheduling without your input. We will, however,
send you a copy of any Order that is entered at that hearing.
Sincerely Yours, [Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith] “
(From Chief Judge Dennis Smith's letter to Trustee Anthony O’Connell of November 27, 2012)
Would you please have your people look at the evidence I sent in response to the Summons and then explain why I was required to appear in Court on December 4, 2012, and am required to appear in Court on January 25, 2013?
Anthony O'Connell, Trustee
Chief Judge Smith's Order of January 25, 2013
THIS CAUSE eame on.to be heard upon the motion of the Plaintiff, Jean Mary
O'Connell Nader, by counsel, for summary judgment pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 3:20; upon
the reply to the motion filed by Sheila Ann O'Connell, pro se; and upon the argument of counsel;
IT APPEARING TO THE COURT as follows:
1. The material facts set forth in the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this action are
deemed to be admitted by Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell pursuant to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule
1:4(e);- based on the failure of Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell to deny such facts in the
responsive pleading filed by him, entitled "Response to Summons Served on September 8,
2. In her Answer to the Complaint and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment, the
remaining party-in~interest, Defendant Sheila Aim O'Connell, agrees with the facts set forth in
the Complaint and the relief requested by Plaintiff.
3. Because there are no material facts in dispute in this action and the facts alleged
in the Complaint support the relief requested therein, summary judgment pursuant to Va. Sup.
Ct. Rule. 3:20 on all counts IUleged in Plaintiffs Complaint is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
A. That judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jean Mary O'ConnellNader as to Count lof
the Complaint be, and hereby is, granted; that Anthony Miner O'Connell is hereby removed as
trustee under the Land Trust Agreement dated October 16, 1992, pursuant to Va. Code § ·64.21405
(formerly Va. Code § 26-48), effective immediately; and that all fees payable to Anthony
Minor O'Connell under the terms ofthe Land Trust Agreement, including'but not limited to, the
trustee's compensation under paragraph 9~01, and aU interest on advancements by the trustee to .
the trust for payment ofreal estate taxes pursuant to paragraph 9.03; are hereby disallowed and
B.'That judgment in favor ofPlaintiffJean Mary O'Connell Nader as to Count II of
the Complaint be, and hereby is,granted; that Anthony Minor O'Connell is hereby reD;1oved as
trustee of the trust created under the Last Will and Testament of Harold A. O'Connell, pursuant
to Va. Code § 64.2:-759 (formerly Va. Code § 55-547.06), effective immediately;
C. That judgment in favor ofPlaiIitiffas to Count III ofthe Complaint be, and
hereby is, granted; that PlaintiffJean Mary O'Connell Nader is he~by appointed as successor
trustee under the Land Trust Agreement and as trustee ofthe trust under the Last Will and
Testament ofHarold A. O'Connell; that the term ofthe Land Trust Agreementis hereby
continued until further Order of this Court or until the real property held under the Land Trust is
sold and final distribution of the net prbceedsis made to the trust's beneficiaries, whichever
occurs first; and that Plaintiff, as successor trustee Under the Land Trust Agreement, shall
proceed forthwith to sell the real property held by such trust as soon as reasonably practicable
upon such terms and conditions as she deems appropriate and consistent with her fiduciary
D. That Plaintiff is hereby awarded wonable attorney's fees and costs in this
action in the amount of $ l7,504.12, to be paid from the Land Trust at such time as funds
ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2013.
(Seal) (Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith)
Chief Judge Smith letter of May 9, 2016, to Anthony OConnell, enclosing the Order of January 13, 2013.
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA
Fairfax County Courthouse
4110 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-4009
May 9, 2014
439 South Vista De Rio
Green Valley, AZ 85614
Re: In Re: Harold A. O'Connell, CL-2012-13064
I am in receipt of your multiple letters, the latest dated April 18, 2014, regarding the
above referenced_case. Please note that no action is initiated by sending correspondence to a
judge as all pleadings must be filed with the Clerk of Court. In fact, your communication is
considered to be an ex parte communication to the court which is prohibited. Pursuant to Canon
3B7 of Canons of the Judicial Conduct tor the State of Virginia, judges can only permit or
consider ex parte communications if the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other
parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.
A hearing was held in the above-referenced case on January 25, 2013. A final order was
entered on January 28, 2013, a copy of which is enclosed. You will receive no further
correspondence from this Court regarding this matter.
Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith
Fairfax County Circuit Court
CC: Elizabeth rvtorrogb, Esq.
Blankingship & Keith, P.(' ...
4020 University Drive, Suite 300
Fairfax, VA 22030
Encl: Order from 1128113