Posted by Larry Jordan on January 21, 2015, 8:15 pm
Those of you who are privy to the long, long legal wrangling over the estate of Mary Reeves and the disposition of her assets (which included Jim Reeves' recordings, memorabilia and personal ephemera) may find it interesting to listen to the audio from an appeal that Terry Davis, Mary's second husband, filed in the case back in 2013.
It offers fascinating insight into these matters and for the first time you hear some of the principals in action, making arguments in front of an appeals court in which judges ask the lawyers questions.
Make up your own minds as to whether or not Mr. Davis got fair representation. Remember that the plaintiffs represented in court that day (eg. Reeves niece Lani Arnold), constitute FOUR individuals -- a very small percentage of the heirs named in Mary's will.
But as I have commented previously, those who pursued this matter for so many years did so because there was obviously a vendetta against Terry instead of, IMHO, an earnest effort to resolve the case years ago before the estate was drained nearly dry by legal fees. In retrospect, it was a very bad and self-defeating strategy in which the only thing that seems to have been accomplished is that Mary's remains were moved to the Jim Reeves Memorial in Carthage.
Otherwise, the Reeves estate appears to remain in disarray, with no one guiding his musical legacy or working to perpetuate his name.
Along the way, Jim's estate was plundered by charlatans and other opportunists including junk dealers and unscrupulous eBay sellers (one of whom is a habitual liar whose lies I was able to capture on tape in my dealings with her). How sad that the very thing Mary Reeves personally told me she had paid lawyers big money to PREVENT, ended up happening: Jim's legacy was severely and irreparably harmed.
Take a listen and feel free to comment here. Just click the link below...
This was long to listen to,and I wasn't always sure who was speaking.It seems Mr. Davis was accused of abusing Mary.I think the woman speaking was a Reeves heir,Mrs.Arnold.They got Mary's date of death wrong,I believe,she died on Nov.11,1999,not the 9th of Nov.They said Mr. Davis was mentally ill.Does or did he have alzheimers also?I can see there may be a vendetta factor at play here plus a lot of raw greed on the parts of many people involved.I hope they all get what they deserve for destroying Jim's legacy so well.Anita L. Cooper
Re: Hear trial testimony in Reeves court case
Posted by Larry Jordan on January 21, 2015, 10:22 pm, in reply to "Hear trial testimony in Reeves court case" Edited by board administrator January 21, 2015, 10:31 pm
Just to clarify, there are two men named Mr. Davis in this case (neither one of which is related to the other). Terry Davis was Mary's second husband for 30+ years. Ames Davis is an attorney appointed by the court to look after the interests of Mary's estate.
The mental illness comment was a reference to Terry, not Ames.
One of the things that puzzles me, however, is that the panel of judges brushed aside the reference by Terry's lawyer that his client had a mental illness. Why did this not factor into their decision when they were trying to assess whether he had adequate time to hire another lawyer? Would a person with such an affliction necessarily think rationally? Isn't that a contradiction? Yet these judges were more concerned about procedural matters than they were the HUMAN implications and displayed no curiosity about the state of mind of Terry Davis. Ironically, the one older-sounding man who was a judge and delighted in telling how one of his own clients had been thrown in jail for failing to file paperwork in a timely manner, didn't show the least concern about defendant Davis' ability to plot legal strategy. It was clear he felt Terry should have found a lawyer quickly and had HIM file any necessary paperwork for a continuance. This judge also chronicled a series of actions by Mary Reeves' second husband which fortified the defense counsel's proclamation about Terry's mental capacities!
I am not defending Terry Davis here. But he clearly was no match for the high powered attorneys paid for by money from Mary's estate.
So the Mr.Davis being accused of abusing Mary wasn't her second husband,Terry,but Ames Davis,a lawyer.This was not domestic spousal abuse.It is strange that no questions about the type of psychiatric illness Terry had was asked by any of the judges,not even curiosity about his mental or other health issues.That's beyond a sad affair,its a rotten one. Anita L. Cooper
Anita, I don't know how you draw that conclusion as it is completely wrong. AMES Davis, the attorney, is NOT the one who was accused of physically abusing Mary.
It was TERRY Davis, her second husband, who was accused of this. Terry's lawyer was objecting to the fact that anonymous people reported to the Tennessee department of protective services that Terry was abusing his wife, and the lawyer's argument was that at no time during prior proceedings, were the names of these accusers made known to the defendant (Terry) and hence his legal counsel did not have an opportunity to cross-examine them and potentially debunk their stories.
The right to confront one's accusers is a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence but it apparently was not allowed in this particular case. Whether or not these allegations against Terry Davis were true, I firmly believe a person should have a right to know who is accusing him, and that these so-called witnesses be subjected to rigorous questioning so as to ascertain the validity — or lack thereof — of their accusations.
Without defending Terry Davis, I must add that Judge Frank Clement (who even attended Christmas parties at convicted bank fraud felon Ed Gregory's home WHILE THE REEVES COURT CASE WAS PROCEEDING), allowed testimony and other evidence into the record, and made a series of rulings which I personally find very questionable.
He also made decisions which in retrospect were appalling mistakes, such as appoint Mary's nephew. Rev. Bill White, to act as her so-called "conservator" and ultimately recommend to the court whether or not his aunt really wanted to sell her estate to United Shows of America. Clement did this despite clear and compelling evidence that Ed Gregory was exerting undue influence over White (who has tried to capitalize on the fact that he was once Jim's nephew by marriage but is not a blood relative by dressing up like Jim and touring the world singing Jim's songs). Gregory bought him a red tuxedo, booked him at his fairs, took him to the White House and the Super Bowl, and made other gestures to manipulate Rev. White at a time when White was SUPPOSED to remain an impartial observer.
As a result of these machinations on Gregory's part, White ended up signing over everything of Mary's BEFORE ED PAID FOR IT, thus relinquishing his aunt's security interests. Mr. Gregory ultimately filed bankruptcy and screwed over creditors -- Mary among them -- for tens of millions of dollars.
This also is a reflection on Judge Clements who allowed the sale of the Reeves estate to proceed to Gregory, based on White's recommendations to the court.
So this whole case was grotesquely mishandled from the start -- by the litigants, certain lawyers, the judges, and others close to the situation.
If Mary had not remarried, this probably would have been simpler. But that still would not have been a remedy for crooked lawyers and judges, who have had, and still have, their own interest foremost in their minds.
I did not mean that lawyer Ames Davis physically abused Mary,but that it was implied he metaphorically was abusing her in the handling of the case and not acting in her or the estate's best interest.I heard that Terry was accused of abusing Mary prior to today.I don't know if he did or not.I do not believe that Jim was ever abusive to his wife Mary.I don't know if her second husband was or not.BTW is Mr.Terry Davis living or deceased?He must be about 86 if alive.Anita L. Cooper
If Mary had wanted to adopt children (as Dolores and Bob Hope did),then those adopted children would have been the heirs,not nieces and nephews and this could have been avoided.Plus,perhaps she shouldn't have remarried.I believe she didn't want to adopt kids.She and Jim were married for almost 17 years and had plenty of time to adopt children if she had really wanted to have some adopted babies or kids.Jim's travel schedule seems a lame excuse.They could have adopted at least one baby or child when he was still only a DJ and radio announcer at KGRI,before his singing career got off the ground,before his hit with "Mexican Joe".By 1952 even.Anita L. Cooper