We reported this morning, Peter Kelly is being removed as executor of the Mary Thibeault estate effective October 1.
That’s also the date that Kelly must provide a full accounting of the estate while it was in his control. In January, the court will review that accounting.
But the accounting won’t be complete unless it fully addresses several issues, including:
The missing $161,587.13. As we detailed in our investigation of the estate, after Mary Thibeault died, Peter Kelly removed over $160,000 from Thibeault’s personal bank account, placing the money in the control of himself and his son.
There are a few issues here. Primary is, well, the money isn’t there. There’s a notion that Thibeault’s heirs have received the money they’re due—apparently, since publication of our article Kelly has paid the non-profit organizations named as heirs the money they were due if Kelly’s inventory of the estate was correct.
But the inventory Kelly submitted to the court on August 19, 2005 is not correct. That inventory was supposed to document all of Thibeault’s property and cash at the time of her death, on December 4, 2004. But the inventory does not reflect the $160,000+ that Kelly removed after her death.
So, if in the accounting Kelly returns the missing money to the estate, the heirs will be due another $160,000, on top of what they’ve already received. Most of the heirs—all of the people and two of the non-profits—were to receive five percent of the estate, so if the full $160,000 is returned, they’re due another $8,000 or so each. Two of the non-profits were to receive 10 percent of the estate, so in this instance they’ll be due about another $16,000 each.
Relatedly, how does Kelly cover his tracks on the missing money? He could, and I’m guessing probably will, file a revised inventory that accounts for the money he later removed. This wouldn’t be the kind of revised inventory that is typical in probate cases, where the executor discovers a bank account that no one knew existed or some property that eluded the grief-torn family members of the deceased right after death, and the executor is properly catching up where there was no ill intent. Rather, if Kelly files a revised inventory, he’s admitting that the previous inventory was incorrect, and it looks a lot like it was incorrect not because of some oversight, but because Kelly was purposefully not disclosing the money he removed. That, in turn, raises the question: Did Kelly knowingly swear to a false court document, the inventory?
The Kearney Lake property. The Coast first reported on the Thibeault estate on March 24, 2011, in an article headlined “Peter Kelly’s failure of will.” At that time, we still had not uncovered the missing $160,000, but we raised issues of the long delay in resolving the estate, and especially about a tiny property that Thibeault owned at her death. The small lot was just 7,500 square feet and assessed at $3,500, and sits in the scrub land back behind Kearney Lake.
When we published that article, we raised issues about a possible conflict of interest for Kelly: the property may not be worth much in and of itself, but it is a possible access route for developing large parcels farther back into the woods. As mayor, Kelly had voted on issues related to the larger parcel, and we questioned whether he should have recused himself. So I asked Kelly about it directly, at a Tuesday night city council meeting, and he declined comment. But the next day Kelly called me at my office. Here’s how I reported it in 2011:
Wednesday morning, Kelly called back to explain Thibeault’s property. “That land is being donated to the municipality for parkland, so that’s why you caught me off-guard [the previous night],” he said. “When I spoke to the lawyer, it’s in the process of being done, so there’s no—it’s going to go to the municipality as parkland. It’s going to them. It was always the intent to go to them in memory of [Mary Thibeault] and that’s in the process of being done.”
Wouldn’t such a donation have to be approved by all the other heirs?
“It would come out of my portion, as I understand it,” answered Kelly.
“That was already planned,” said Kelly of the parkland donation. “It’s already in the process of being worked on, and will be going to them as was the intent.”
When did it become the intent?
“That was a year or two ago, but it hasn’t gone because the estate’s not closed yet, so it’s not yet done.”
The Coast contacted officials in the city’s planning and real estate departments, but none were aware of a possible donation of Thibeault’s land. “A donation would first have to be reviewed by the planners,” said Peter Stickings, manager of real estate “and then approved by city council.”
In the intervening year and a half, I’ve occasionally checked back with the city to see if there’s been any mention of a parkland donation from the Thibeault estate. There hasn’t.
Kelly told us in 2011 that the parkland contribution would “come out of my portion.” But according to the cheque register for the estate, which we examined for this year’s investigation, Kelly has paid himself what he considers to be the full amount he is due from the estate—$25,000. Also, as of this writing, the Kearney Lake parcel has not been liquidated by the estate—it’s still in Thibeault’s name, ad as administered by Kelly. So how does he contribute parkland “from his portion” of the estate?
Relatedly, tax records aren’t public record in Nova Scotia, but there’s no evidence in any of the documents filed with the court that the estate has paid property taxes on the parcel for over seven years. Granted, the taxes due won’t be much. I haven’t bothered to calculate them, but it will be far less than $1,000 for the entire seven years, I think. Still, I’ve seen plenty of properties go to tax sale because of non-payment of taxes, in much less than seven years. And often these properties are tied to estates, just as Thibeault’s is. So why hasn’t the city started tax sale proceedings against the property? I’ve asked that very question to city staff today, and they said they’ll get back to me tomorrow.
US bank account. I’m told that Thibeault had both Canadian and US citizenship, and that she collected US social security payments. In the court record, there is a letter from Kelly to Thibeault’s sister, Patricia Richardson. Kelly was responding to an earlier letter from Richardson to the court, complaining about the long delay in resolving the estate.
As you are aware,” Kelly told Richardson in the letter, “you have received your allocation of the estate both here and in the States other than your appropriate share of those that predeceased as per Mary’s instructions [emphasis added].”
In all the records reviewed by The Coast—that is, the public court documents and the bank records of the estate and Thibeault’s personal bank account—nowhere is there any record that any Thibeault property in the United States was sold or otherwise liquidated to become part of the estate. (In fact, one piece of Thibeault’s US property—a trailer in Florida—appears to have been simply sold by the trailer park owner as abandoned property, but that’s an issue for another day.)
So what was Kelly referring to when he said that Richardson had “received [her] allocation of the estate both here and in the States”?
I have suspicions that Thibeault had significant property in the United States at the time of her death, including a US bank account into which her Social Security payments were placed. I stress that I haven’t yet been able to prove that. But if such an account existed, what happened to it?
Whatever the answer to that question, it’s clear that the story about the Thibeault estate is a long, long way from its final chapter.
Related Stories
Peter Kelly’s failure of will
A trust betrayed: Peter Kelly and the estate of Mary Thibeault
Judge approves settlement between Thibeault heirs and Peter Kelly
This article appears in Sep 13-19, 2012.
As a relative and close connection with Mary over the last thirty years,it was Peter who was there every step of the way for her . She depended on him for everything and he was always there.I visited Mary in her trailer down in Florida (and would not have taken it if it was given to me.) Knowing Mary as I did,I also know that she would not have sighned a cheque if she did not mean for him to have it. I was told by Peter (after being surprised that he was given so little of the estate) that she looked after him before leaving to go back to Florida for the last time, in order to help with his son`s education and I was not surprised.Peter was like her son and not just a casual friend.Many times I quoted,”there would not be enough money to pay Peter for the care he is giving Mary” I guess it is difficult for people to think in this day and age that anyone does anything out of the good of their heart !So sad!
Helen, thank you for your input and your side of the story. I want (really!) to believe that he took care of Mary Thibeault out of the good of his heart. So you say he wasn’t in it for the money. Ok. But why did he take 167k and didn’t report them? Why would there be blank cheques? Why did he take years and years and still hasn’t resolved the estate? If he was overwhelmed by it, he should have gotten help. You mentioned the trailer: Why did he abandon the trailer, presumably with some cash in it, have rent and other costs associated with the trailer pile up, until the trailer was sold by the trailer park proprietor (at a loss for her, I understand)? That seems just wrong – if not to the estate, then to that lady in Florida. She could have rented the trailer space for actual money to somene else. Instead, he ignored her pleas, he didn’t even call her back… I understand you have met and experienced Peter Kelly in a different way than he is perceived by the public in this matter, and you wanted to point that out. That is good, thank you for that. Every story has at least two sides. But I’m sure you agree that something in this estate matter is fishy. Very fishy. Maybe you can shed light on this question: Where and how did your relative Mary Thibeault receive her US social security payments? Best regards, Daniel AJ
I will try to answer some of the questions that I know.Mary had dual citizen ship in the USA and Canada. Mary gave Peter the control over assets to do what he saw fit. He offered the trailer to many of us but from my prospective it would cost more for the fees than the trailer was worth. Mary would give Peter post dated cheques to clear up any expenses that she incurred while living in N.S. for the summer months.We spent Thanksgiving week end with her in C.B the week before she left for Florida She appeared very weak and I felt that probably that would be the last time we would see her .However, she was still able to travel on her own and Peter would look after getting her to the airport.Mary wrote out a cheque and signed it and it was to be cashed when a debenture came through at the bank. She had intended to help Peters` children with their education. However , she died before Peter got to cash the cheque. This seems to be where the problem lies. If she had lived a few months later there would be no story.Peter got a small portion of what he deserved in my eyes ! There is much more to the story but no one seems to hwant to hear the good side !
Hey I am doing time for a lot less than this S.O.B. did, imagine stealing from an old lady who regarded him as a friend and protector. You can tell by looking at pie face that he is a crook, If he had any balls he would owe up, probably the lack of balls accounts for his wife finding a man who has the right equipment and knows how to use it as well.
Hmmm… After reading the comments of Helen Day I decided to go back over the many newspaper articles that The Coast has been providing regarding Teflon Pete. This one about the estate stands out and reeks of a person who took advantage of an old lady and her last wishes. Helen Day, you are probably one of the very few people that support Peter Kelly and after reading your comments, one of few friends he has left. That being said, what’s in it for you? Not being left anything in the estate, is Peter Kelly your only hope now to ‘get something’? You say you had a close connection with the late ‘Mary’, yet you were not in the will. If you were so close, then why weren’t you in the will? She chose to give to some close relatives and some friends but not to you? Must have had her reasons!
If ‘Mary’ signed cheques and really wanted Peter Kelly to have it as you say, why didn’t she put his name on them in her hand writing? Why weren’t the cheques cashed when she died instead until right up to before the dates on them made them no good? Looking at the bank statements and cheques through The Coast’s past articles, that point of Peter Kelly waiting for that ‘debenture coming through at the bank’ is hog wash. That debenture, according to some of the info provided, was cashed early by Peter Kelly (and likely with penalty or loss of interest) to cover Peter cashing those cheques because the date on them was fastly approaching. So, you better check the information that has documentation proving it before you start spouting about ‘good old Peter.’ Key words in your first comment ‘I was told by Peter’. Well, there is enough evidence around to profoundly prove Peter has trouble telling the truth and trouble keeping his lies straight.
I also read a letter online that is in the probate file. Peter Kelly did not offer the trailer to the beneficiaries. Peter Kelly continually lied to the beneficiaries and apparently the Court too. Peter Kelly stopped communicating with the beneficiaries. From ‘your prospective’ I assume you mean perspective, the trailer
‘would cost more for the fees than the trailer was worth.’ So, why didn’t Peter Kelly respond to the guy that wanted to buy it? He wouldn’t respond to him or to the people that owned the trailer park. Start reading the information provided and compare it to what your good friend Peter Kelly is telling you. Why was it so important to Peter Kelly that when his lawyer drafted up an agreement for the beneficiaries to sign (which they didn’t) that the beneficiaries had to agree to not bring up anything about the trailer in Florida or any information surrounding it and would have to swear to secrecy? You stated ‘Mary would give Peter post dated cheques to clear up any expenses that she incurred while living in N.S. for the summer months.’ If this were so, why did the trailer park rent go unpaid? What did Peter Kelly do with those cheques? Seems to me poor old ‘Mary’ looked after Peter’s kids and Peter whether she knew about it or not. Who is to say what went on while she was alive and Peter Kelly was ‘so helpful’.
In the beginning of an unfolding story, people are willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Too much information has come forward and the more that comes, the worse it is regarding Peter Kelly. In your eyes, ‘Peter got a small portion of what he deserved’. Is that the same small portion of what you feel you should have got, considering your ‘close connection’? I find it hard to believe that if you were so close, you were not in the will. My mother used to tell me when I would tell her that ‘so and so said this’, she would say ‘Consider the source.’ After reading your comments, my mother’s words are ringing in my ears.
Hey Mayorschagrin, Your second and third paragraph are very good, I agree with that part. You have asked very good questions!
But your first and last paragraph put a negative frame around them. Just because Helen defends Peter Kelly (and I’m not on his side) doesn’t mean that there is anything “in it” for her. Tens of thousands of people voted for Peter Kelly, again and again over many years!
And some still would – unbelievable but true. What is in it for them? Money its not, or does he have a lot left? He even had to take loans from the city of Bedford back in the day!
I hope the Crown takes interest in this Kelly-Thibeault matter. There needs to be a criminal investigation. But there is no point in attacking Helen like that.
Yes Daniel, I agree there is a negative frame around them. But I also am expressing an opinion in this forum which is exactly what I think. Somewhere in the lengthy information I read Helen Day was related to one of the beneficiaries; can’t remember which one but that information is there somewhere. Those beneficiaries including the one Helen is related to are the ones that filed for Peter Kelly’s removal. Obviously they do not agree with Helen and her opinion of Peter Kelly and obviously ‘Mary’ thought enough of those other beneficiaries to include them in her will. Note that ‘Mary’ did not include Helen in her will. Plus there were people that were beneficiaries in that will that died after ‘Mary’ and didn’t get what their relative or friend ‘Mary’ left to them thanks to Peter Kelly. Again, this is MY opinion which like you or anyone else that comments here, is entitled to my (their) own opinion.
In my opinion Helen didn’t get anything in the will, so she has nothing to lose in defending Peter Kelly. I am sure her relative that IS in the will doesn’t agree with her stance but Helen
is entitled to her opinion too just as I am to mine. Plus I raised the questions to Helen maybe there is something in it for her being so defensive of the executor who didn’t do what ‘Mary’ wanted in many ways as is shown in the documentation available. Purely questions along with my opinion. I stand behind all that I have said and asked.