Darlene Bishop Sued for Wrongful Death
and Financial Improprieties

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


Darlene Bishop, co-pastor of Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio, is being sued by the children of the late country music songwriter Darryl Perry, who died of cancer in May 2005. Bishop is Perry's sister and executor of his estate. The suit accuses her of (a) wrongful death, (b) clergy malpractice, (c) undue influence, (d) coercion, (e) tortuous interference with medical treatment, (f) fraud, (g) tortuous interference with inheritance, and (h) as executor of Perry's estate, breaches of certain fiduciary duties. The second amended complaint (shown below) states:

Bishop's book, Your Life Follows Your Words, claims that she herself had "received a miraculous healing from cancer." However, during a deposition in the case, she admitted that she had never been medically diagnosed with cancer.


IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION

FEDERAL CLAIMS

Justin Wayne Jones, individually and as
Special Administrator in place of
Darlene Bishop1
211 Oak St.
Carlisle, Ohio 45005

and

Bryan Wayne Perry
6826 Hawthorne Ln.
Ft. Lewis, Washington  98433

and

Olivia Nicole Perry
2922 Mohawk St.

Plaintiffs ,

vs.

Darlene Bishop (Individually, as Trustee,
and as Executrix)
856 Mason Rd.
Monroe, Ohio 45050

and

Darlene Bishop’s Agents, Employees,
Assignees and any other Jane or John Does,

Defendants .



:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

 

Case No.  CV 2006 04 1425
    
     JUDGE CHARLES L. PATER

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
HEREIN

1Pursuant to the Butler County Probate Court’s Order, Petitioner Justin Jones is appointed special administrator ad prosequendum for the purposes of this action.  Or. Opinion Regarding Exceptions to Fiduciary’s Account, Motion to Remove Executor, and Motion to Appoint Justin Jones Special Administrator, 31-33 (Feb. 12, 2007). 

Now Come Plaintiffs Bryan Perry, Olivia Perry, and Justin Jones, individually and as Special Administrator pursuant to the Probate Court Order of February 12, 2007 in Case No. PE05-06-0659, by and through counsel, and for this Second Amended Complaint against defendants state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

  1. This Complaint arises after the death of Darrell Wayne Perry, father of four and brilliant songwriter of numerous number one hits.
  1. This is a complex fact pattern which involves multiple wills, a trust, and other legal instruments that have been utilized by Fiduciary Darlene Bishop to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries, Wayne Perry’s children (Plaintiffs).  Defendant Bishop and her associates have by design, systematically and purposefully excluded Plaintiffs from the benefits they are entitled under the decedent’s Estate and Trust. 
  1. Upon Wayne Perry’s death, all of his children and only his children were to receive benefits emanating from a Trust that was created for the children upon his death (attached as Ex. 1).  To date, no such benefits have been bestowed upon Plaintiffs by the trustee, Defendant Darlene Bishop.
  1. Defendant Bishop has unlawfully diverted trust assets into the estate. 
  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 
  1. Plaintiff, Oliver Christian Perry, a minor at age eleven (11), under the guardianship of Janet McCormick (mother), at all times relevant to the matters plead herein was and is a resident of Proctorville, Ohio.  Oliver is the son of Wayne Perry, and rightful heir under the decedent’s Will, Trust, and under Ohio’s laws of intestate succession.  Janet McCormick no longer seeks representation from Brannon & Associates.     
  1. Plaintiff Justin Jones, age twenty-seven (27), at all times relevant to the matters plead herein was and is a resident of Carlisle, Ohio.  Justin is the son of Wayne Perry, and rightful heir under the decedent’s Will, Trust, and under Ohio’s laws of intestate succession.   He sues in his individual capacity as well as special administrator pursuant to R.C. § 2113.15 since some claims are made against the current executor, Darlene Bishop, whose right to administrator has been challenged, and some claims should be brought in the name of the estate.
  1. Plaintiff Olivia Perry, age twenty-four (24), at all times relevant to the matters plead herein was and is a resident of Carlisle, Ohio.  Olivia is the daughter of Wayne Perry, and rightful heir under the decedent’s Will, Trust, and under Ohio’s laws of intestate succession.  
  1. Plaintiff Bryan Perry, age thirty-six (36), at all times relevant to the matters plead herein was and is a resident of Ft. Lewis, Washington.  Bryan is the son of Wayne Perry, and rightful heir under the decedent’s Will, Trust, and under Ohio’s laws of intestate succession.  
  1. Defendant Bishop is the sister of the decedent and aunt of all Plaintiffs.  Defendant Bishop is the executrix and trustee of Wayne Perry’s Estate, and is sued in her fiduciary and individual capacities, as well as any other.  She acted or claimed to act as a fiduciary for the benefit of Plaintiffs and, indeed, willfully interfered with their interests.     
  1. The acts and practices of Defendants as herein described occurred in Butler County and possibly other counties in this state and/or in other states. 
  1. Plaintiffs are unaware of the names of any other necessary party to this action and, therefore, are unable to join any such parties.  Should it be required, Plaintiffs will conduct discovery pursuant to Civ. R. 37(D) and R.C. § 2317.48 in order to ascertain the identity of any such potentially adverse parties and to ascertain any other causes of action to which they may be entitled against the named Defendants.

  2. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.
  3. FACTS

  1. Wayne Perry approached Attorney Cummins in 2003 and retained him for the purpose of formulating an estate plan for him because he was dying of cancer. 
  1. On or about September 16, 2003, Wayne Perry executed a Trust Agreement that was established for the benefit of his children and made Defendant Bishop trustee and fiduciary for the benefit of the children.  Ex. 1, attached. 
  1. Under Article I, the Trust’s language clearly states that “Trustee agrees she [Defendant Bishop] will hold all property (including…insurance policies (or proceeds) on my or any other person’s life)…”  Article IV Section A then states, “[t]he Trustee shall divide The Family Trust being held hereunder into equal separate shares, one such share to be for the benefit of each then living child of mine…”  The decedent’s intent was to provide assets only to his children. 
  1. Defendant Bishop, the trustee, took in her individual capacity, the proceeds on a $260,000 life insurance policy payable to her upon the death of Wayne Perry, which belong to the trust and/or estate.2

    2The Probate Court awarded Defendant Bishop all insurance proceeds, although it is unclear at this point whether that was an unlawful ruling by the Court.  Or. Opinion Regarding Exceptions to Fiduciary’s Account, Motion to Remove Executor, and Motion to Appoint Justin Jones Special Administrator  (Feb. 12, 2007). 
  1. Defendant Bishop has even admitted on recorded telephone conversations that Wayne meant for Christian (one of Plaintiffs) to get the insurance proceeds.    
  1. Defendant Bishop opened a separate bank account and deposited all insurance proceeds into the account.  Defendant Bishop then paid a $90,000 debt of the estate and fulfilled supposed last requests of Wayne Perry by tithing $40,000 to the Solid Rock Church.  $20,000 was given to Defendant Bishop’s father for a supposed debt owed by Wayne Perry and 100,000 was given to Defendant Bishop’s daughter.3

    3Depo. Darlene Bishop Tr. 78:5 to 79:80 (Aug. 26, 2006).

  1. From the decedent’s success(es) as a  songwriter, he is entitled to certain royalties from companies including, but not limited to:  Broadcast Music, Inc. (“Broadcast Music”), American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (“ASCAP”), Ananiah Songs, Inc. (“Ananiah”), BMG Music Publishing, N.A., Inc. (“BMG”), Circle 3 Music, Zomba Songs, Inc. (“Zomba”), Borcher Music Works, Wayne Perry Productions and other entities not yet known.  These royalties should have been or should be funneling into his Trust, for the benefit of his children. 
  1. To date, these royalties have not been fully accounted for by Fiduciary Bishop and Attorney Cummins states these assets are not owned by the estate and/or trust.4 

    4Depo. Bill Cummins Tr. 60:10 to 61:11 (Nov. 11, 2006).

  1.  On or about June 22, 2004, Wayne Perry appeared to assign his royalty rights from Zomba to Arlene Parker, Defendant Bishop’s personal assistant.  Attached as Ex. 2.  Upon information and belief, Parker received royalty payments as a “strawman” to launder the decedent’s money to avoid his creditors such as Janet McCormick, as a former spouse.  On or about October 31, 2005, Defendant Bishop redirected royalties from Arlene Parker back to the Trust, attached as Ex. 3. 
  1. Prior to Wayne Perry’s death, he was emotionally, spiritually, and physically devastated when he learned that he had treatable cancer. 
  1. He relied on his sister, Defendant Bishop, for total guidance on spiritual and health decisions.  In 2004, he moved from Waverly Tennessee to Butler County so that he cold live with Defendant Bishop.
  1. Wayne Perry relied on Defendant Bishop’s claim that she was healed of breast cancer in 1986 by a miracle, yet Wayne Perry was never informed by Defendant Bishop that she never was diagnosed, nor had any medical records to support her claim that she ever had breast cancer. 
  1. In the months leading to Wayne Perry’s death, Defendant Bishop persuaded him to “go to God” instead of the doctors and hospitals to treat his cancer. 
  1. Wayne Perry told his eldest son, Plaintiff Bryan Perry, that Defendant Bishop refused to give him rides to his daily doctor appointments for chemotherapy and radiation treatments. 
  1. Under Defendant Bishop’s care, Plaintiff Bryan Perry observed his father laying in urine, very malnourished, dehydrated and had a bedsores on his ear the size of a quarter.  On two occasions Bryan Perry was in town to visit his father, he was forced to take his father to the hospital for emergency treatment.   
  1. Plaintiff Bryan Perry was so concerned about his father’s treatment that he called Human Services for assistance.  Defendant Bishop was too busy conducting her evangelical tours to care for her brother, Wayne Perry. 
  1. Gail Winkler, Bryan’s Perry’s mother, visited Wayne Perry on numerous occasions and found him without supervision and alone.  Although Wayne Perry remained at home for some of this period, it was Defendant Bishop that assumed the role of primary caregiver and assured him she, or competent help under her supervision, would provide complete health and spiritual care. 
  1. Wayne Perry communicated to his children that he was scared and was not within his normal senses and mental capacity.
  1. Gail McHugh, Wayne Perry’s long-time friend, was told by him from the very beginning that he had cancer.  Wayne Perry made it clear to her that he was going to ignore medical treatment to pursue faith-based healing under the advice and direction of Defendant Bishop although Wayne Perry did not have full knowledge of the fact that Defendant never had been diagnosed with breast cancer. 
  1. Wayne Perry was told by Defendant Bishop that she herself was completely healed of breast cancer by her faith alone.  Defendant Bishop was going to heal Wayne the same way.  Indeed, Defendant Bishop states in her own words that, “I had even received a miraculous healing myself from cancer.”  Your Life Follows Your Words:  Releasing the Prayer of Faith at 9 (attached as Ex. 4).  Defendant Bishop was never diagnosed with breast cancer by a medical professional.5 

    5Depo. Darlene Bishop Tr. 16:10 to 16:13.
  1. Cancer has tragically struck the Perry family before.  It was actually Wayne Perry’s other sisters, Louise Perry and Patricia Mullins who died of breast cancer.  Aff. Cheryl Smith ¶ ¶ 2-3.  Ex. 5, attached. 
  1. It was never Defendant Bishop who was diagnosed with cancer.  Id.  Defendant Bishop learned how breast cancer affected their physical conditions by observing their illnesses.  Id.   She attempted to utilize the false claim of breast cancer to further her interests and investments in her church, religious-based businesses, and assets.
  1. Because of the absence of standard of care medical supervision and treatment, Wayne Perry’s condition naturally went from bad (but treatable) to worse (non-treatable). 
  1. In fact, just before he died, Defendant Bishop had no choice but to abandon her faith-based treatment and call an ambulance because of an incident where Wayne Perry could not breathe.  The next phone call was to Gail McHugh, asking that she return to the area to care for him.  Defendant Bishop went to Atlanta to go furniture shopping and preach.
  1. Gail McHugh went to the hospital, where she tried to comfort Wayne Perry as best as she could.  Wayne Perry had not slept, because when he dozed off and laid his head back, he started to choke and could not breathe.  He asked Gail McHugh to step behind his bed and hold his head up so that he could take small naps in five to fifteen minute intervals.  Gail did this for a number of hours. 
  1. Wayne Perry then told Gail McHugh that earlier he had refused a tracheotomy procedure (which the hospital staff offered multiple times earlier).  He refused because he wanted to be healed the same way Defendant Bishop had assured Wayne she was “healed” of her cancer.”  Gail McHugh was flabbergasted by his statements, as his throat cancer had only affected his tonsils and was probably initially curable with medical assistance. 
  1. Gail McHugh then persuaded Wayne Perry to accept the procedure.  Because of the tracheotomy, he could not talk for the next forty-eight (48) hours or so, and had to scribble notes to her.  Gail McHugh telephoned Defendant Bishop from his hospital bed for Wayne Perry. 
  1. When she spoke to Defendant Bishop, Wayne Perry scribbled a note and broke down and started crying.  He jotted a note for Gail McHugh to read over the phone to Defendant Bishop which stated he was so sorry to Defendant Bishop, because he allowed the tracheotomy to be performed and that he was in so much pain that he could not let the healing occur the way she was healed.   
  1. On or about May 3, 2005, Wayne Perry designated his son, Plaintiff Bryan Perry, Executor and/or Power of Attorney of his Living Will on file at the Middletown Regional Hospital.  Wayne Perry’s brother, Dale Perry, and his nephews, Dwayne and Billy, were present when Plaintiff Bryan Perry was empowered.    
  1. On or about May 5, 2005, Wayne Perry slipped into a coma.  As the days passed, more IV and vitamin bags and oxygen tubes were inserted into him.  Plaintiff Bryan Perry, with medical advice, elected to exercise his Father’s wishes under the Living Will and terminate life-sustaining treatment. 
  1. Upon the tragic news of the coma, Defendant Bishop pulled all of Wayne Perry’s children (Plaintiffs) aside and told them that she would ensure that each child would receive $62,500 directly from Wayne’s life insurance policy and each child would receive $500 per month as per the Trust’s terms. 
  1. To date, Defendant Bishop has converted the insurance money and claimed all life insurance proceeds as her own and has refused to pay the Trust’s mandatory $500 per month per child as trustee of said Trust. 
  1. Defendant Bishop threatened physical harm to Plaintiff Bryan Perry if he abided by the Living Will by telling him that she would send four of the biggest men Plaintiff had ever seen that would kill him and his children.  Plaintiff Bryan Perry called the Monroe Police Department and reported Defendant Bishop’s conduct. 
  1. Plaintiff Bryan Perry instructed Middletown Regional Hospital to remove his Father from the feeding tubes, providing the hospital with the proper documentation and signatures.  Although the hospital halted IV feeding for Bryan when he was present, Defendant Bishop demanded the Hospital to reinsert the feeding once Bryan left, prolonging Wayne Perry’s agony, causing him additional mental anguish, pain and suffering. 
  1. Defendant Bishop then made the comment that it would be a miracle if Wayne Perry survived.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop was improperly using her spiritual powers over her brother because she was planning on writing a sequel to her book, Your Life Follows Your Words:  Releasing the Prayer of Faith, attesting to yet another “recovery” and promoting herself at the expense of the decedent.   
  1. Defendant Bishop continued physical threats against Plaintiff Bryan Perry.  She also blamed him for Wayne Perry’s physical state (unconscious and dying from throat cancer).   
  1. Defendant Bishop also made statements to the effect that he [Bryan] killed his father, and he never loved Plaintiffs. 
  1. Wayne Perry died on May 15, 2005, still under life support contrary to his directions under his living will. 
  1. Immediately after her brother’s death, Defendant Darlene Bishop claimed approximately $260,000 in life insurance policy proceeds for herself, individually.
  1. Immediately after her brother’s death, Defendant Bishop permitted her own children to visit the decedent’s residence to collect certain belongings.  Defendant Bishop gave permission to others to “ransack” the house, never permitting Plaintiffs access to his residence except under extreme supervision.
  1. The following items have disappeared under Defendant Bishop’s supervision:  about fifty (50) of Wayne’s music awards; a diamond ring with pristine diamonds attached; a family portrait; multiple pieces of music including a Circle Three catalogue; Wayne Perry’s prized “Hook Book”; and thousands of dollars in cash from Wayne Perry’s homes.
  1. Originally, Defendant Bishop told Plaintiffs Justin Jones and Bryan Perry that Wayne Perry’s gold and silver collection was used by their father to purchase his house.  Defendant Bishop then told Janet McCormick that she had the gold and was not going to tell the other children about the gold. 
  1. At the time, Defendant Bishop was willing to share Wayne’s property with Janet McCormick, but not the other children.  However, a couple of weeks after his father’s death, Plaintiff Justin Jones walked into Defendant Bishop’s home and caught Attorney Cummins and Defendant Bishop carrying approximately $40,000 worth of gold and silver coins down the stairs.  Defendant Bishop then made the comment that she’d just found the gold.  Janet McCormick told Defendant Bishop that she couldn’t hide the gold anyway because Wayne Perry had boasted to all of his children that he had the gold and the children knew the gold was never sold to another party.   
  1. Defendant Bishop stated specifically that the children would be permitted to take possession of Wayne Perry’s personal property, especially work product related to his songwriting, which never occurred.
  1. Plaintiffs have been systematically excluded from participating in the probate and trust process.  Since the reading of the will, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ representatives have been denied access to information regarding the estate and trust.
  1. On or about June 22, 2005, Attorney Cummins filed the Application to Probate Wayne Perry’s Will on behalf of Defendant Bishop in the Butler County Probate Court.  The case number is PE05-06-0659.
  1. On or about June 22, 2005, the Probate Court admitted the will to probate.  On or about July 13, 2005, the Probate Court appointed Defendant Bishop Administrator (although technically she should have been titled executor) of the testate estate, dispensing with the bond requirement.  Defendant Bishop was appointed fiduciary and provided Letters of Authority.   
  1. Defendant Bishop and Attorney Cummins did not open trust and estate accounts as required by Ohio law until January of 2006, although they had been in possession of thousands of dollars in assets since Wayne Perry’s death in May of 2005.
  1. Defendants Bishop and Cummins operated out of a joint bank account titled in Defendant Bishop’s name and Wayne Perry’s name, which in reality was the trust account.    
  1. On or about September 13, 2005, Janet Perry (former wife of Wayne Perry and guardian of the minor child, Plaintiff Oliver Perry) made a claim against the estate stating that Wayne Perry owed her $40,000 arising from a marital dissolution.  The Dissolution Decree also states that Wayne Perry was to maintain life insurance on his life for the amount of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) with Janet Perry as the beneficiary.  These issues were settled outside of the purview of the Probate Court between Defendant Bishop and Janet Perry.
  1. Although Defendant Bishop calls the settlement a “gift,” it cost Janet Perry approximately $30,000 in attorney fees.  This was entirely inappropriate, as the Probate Court was never informed of such settlement or “gift.”  It is still unclear which “hat” Defendant Bishop was unlawfully wearing, Executor, Trustee, or herself Individually, as the release signed by Janet Perry released Defendant Bishop as executor and trustee.        
  1. On or about December 2, 2005, Defendant Bishop filed an Inventory and Appraisal with the Probate Court stating that the estate has a total value of $222,884.89.  This inventory grossly understated the assets in the estate.  Many of these assets have still not been accounted for. 
  1. Attorney Cummins never claimed assets of the estate relating to intellectual property or estimated their value, including all ASCAP, Zomba, and BMI rights, stating the estate does not own the rights, all the while cashing thousands of dollars in payments from said sources.
  1. The Probate Court ordered that Defendant Bishop file an inventory of all intellectual property with it and pay almost $800 in damages to the estate, yet refused to remove her as executor.  Or. Opinion Regarding Exceptions to Fiduciary’s Account, Motion to Remove Executor, and Motion to Appoint Justin Jones Special Administrator (Feb. 12, 2007). 

THE DECEDENT’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS:

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Wrongful Death/ Clergy Malpractice against Defendant Bishop pursuant to R.C. §2125.01)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 
  1. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant Bishop individually and on behalf of the Estate and/or Trust and for the benefit of the next of kin of the decedent (Plaintiffs), and Plaintiffs individually.

  2. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bishop’s severally negligent/grossly negligent/reckless/wanton/willful/intentional/legally malicious and otherwise wrongful conduct (hereinafter referred to as “wrongful conduct”), Plaintiffs have been damaged.

  3. Defendant Bishop wrote a book called Your Life Follows Your Words:  Releasing the Prayer of Faith, attached as Ex. 4.

  4. This book evidences that Defendant Bishop influenced Wayne Perry into making decisions to follow Defendant Bishop’s “treatment” instead of going to receive proper treatment via conventional medicine, although Wayne Perry was not given truthful and complete information. 

  5. The introduction to Defendant Bishop’s book begins with Wayne Perry coming to her as his sister and his Pastor.  In fact, Defendant Bishop falsely attributes her faith as the cure for her own cancer.  The testament continues stating that Wayne’s cancer was “an opportunity to watch god work…”  Ex. 4 at 10.

  6. When Wayne Perry notified Defendant Bishop that he had cancer, she responded with “[l]et that be the last time those words ever come out of your mouth.”  Ex. 4 at 180.  Defendant Bishop also stated, “I have just discovered in God’s Word that when He saved you, He also healed you and set you free.  You’re already healed.”  Id.  Over time, she exercised undue influence and she encouraged the decedent to go to god (sic with a little g) instead of going to the hospital.
  7. Wayne Perry lost his ability to make rational decisions as would a reasonable man at his age and suffering s similar illness.  As the illness progressed, Wayne Perry became scared, lonely, irrational and incompetent, unable to make rational decisions for himself.
     
  8. Tragically, Wayne Perry’s health of course deteriorated regarding his cancer situation.  But what is outrageous is that at the end of Defendant Bishop’s book, she writes under the “Recovery” chapter that “Wayne was healed.”  Unfortunately, realty illustrates that there was no healing.   
  9. In fact, Wayne confided in Janet Perry and Defendant Darlene Bishop, as evidenced by the October 13, 2004 letter from the decedent’s doctor that he was not healed.  Ex. 6, attached.  By Wayne Perry’s own hand, he writes to Janet McCormick, “[o]nly you and Darlene know this.”  Id. Defendant Bishop continued writing and publishing her book using the falsity that her brother was actually healed.  Wayne Perry relied on Defendant Bishop to his detriment, as she tried to “create a miracle” by persuading Wayne Perry to rely on her rather than the medical experts. 
      
  10. The wrongful conduct of Defendant Bishop proximately caused:  1)  Wayne Perry’s wrongful death; 2) a delay in the treatment of Wayne Perry; 3)  a loss of chance of recovery from Wayne Perry’s cancer and a loss of longevity of life; 4)  great pain, mental anguish, suffering, emotional distress and other non-pecuniary injuries to the Plaintiffs; and 5)  through her fraudulent undue influence caused Wayne Perry’s medical care to fall below the standard of medical care. 
  1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bishop’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered the loss of support, services, society, companionship, care, assistance, attention, protection, advice, guidance, counsel, instruction, training and education, a loss of prospective inheritance, mental anguish, as well as other damages, including but not limited to those set forth in R.C. § 2125.02 and under Ohio common law, all of which is incorporated as if fully rewritten herein.  

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Survivorship Action against Defendant Bishop pursuant to R.C. § 2305.21)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 
  1. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant Bishop, Wayne Perry suffered severe and permanent injuries, resulting in his death.
  1. The claims of Wayne Perry’s estate, on behalf of Wayne Perry, are against Darlene Bishop and other defendants, jointly and severally, including, but are not limited to:  1)  undue influence; 2) wrongful interference with his estate plans and inheritance expectations; 3) interference with his relationship with his children; 4) interference with and fraud and misrepresentation as to Wayne Perry’s health care; 5) fraud and misrepresentation as to Wayne Perry’s life insurance, estate plan, and trust; 6) interference with Wayne Perry’s living will and testament after he was medically terminable and incapacitated (wrongful extension of his dilapidated life); 7) intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Wayne Perry; 8) malpractice as to his estate and trust; 9) misconduct in the administration of Wayne Perry’s estate pre and post death; negligence; and 10)  pain and suffering. 
  1. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant Bishop, Plaintiffs’ father suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. 
  1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs’ father suffered a complete loss of enjoyment of life, or at the very minimum, a shortened enjoyment of life and was not permitted to die with dignity. 
  1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as pled herein, Plaintiffs have been damaged.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Clergy Malpractice against Defendant Bishop)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendant Bishop established a close and special relationship with the decedent, Wayne Perry.

  3. The decedent and Defendant Bishop established the clergy-communicant relationship between one another due to their faith and spirituality. 

  4. Defendant Bishop failed to exercise the degree of care and skill normally exercised by members of the clergy in carrying out their professional duties with respect to the decedent’s condition. 

  5. Defendant Bishop, by discouraging and/or prohibiting Wayne Perry from seeking conventional medical treatment, and by not giving him sufficient [truthful] information with respect to her miracle healing, Wayne Perry could not have given his informed consent to agree to her faith-healing. 

  6. Even if Wayne Perry could consent to solely religious-based healing, he did lacked the capacity to do so, as his mental faculties made him incapable of making rational decisions. 

  7. Defendant Bishop has a history of advising commicants not to seek conventional treatment for their illness(es).  Attached as Exhibit 11, is an affidavit from an ordained minister who was told by Defendant Bishop to stop taking his diabetes medication and that he was healed after she laid hands on him.  He suffered a massive heart attack within three (3) weeks, which his doctor attributed to his sudden rejection of conventional medications.

  8. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs’ father suffered loss and enjoyment of life.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Tortious Interference with Medical Treatment/ Failure to Provide Medical Treatment against Defendant Bishop)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendant Bishop was in a special relationship with the decedent, Wayne Perry.

  3. Because of their special relationship, Defendant Bishop owed the decedent an elevated duty of care to provide adequate medical treatment while supervising his care.

  4. Wayne Perry lacked the mental capability to make rational decisions.

  5. Defendant Bishop breached that duty of care by failing to follow doctors’ instructions regarding his treatment, and in fact, undertook her own therapy in order to “heal” her brother. 

  6. Defendant Bishop, by discouraging and/or prohibiting Wayne Perry from seeking conventional medical treatment, and by not giving him sufficient [truthful] information with respect to her miracle healing, Wayne Perry could not have given his informed consent to agree to her faith-healing. 

  7. Defendant Bishop interfered with the Plaintiffs’ efforts to get treatment for Wayne Perry.

  8. Defendant Bishop has a long history of interfering with medical treatment of loved ones.  Defendant Bishop instructed caregivers to giver her father (Harris Perry), prescription medications that were not prescribed by doctors.  Aff. Cheryl Smith ¶ 6, attached as Ex. 5.  In fact, Harris Perry’s health deteriorated rapidly after those medications were administered.  Id.  This was witnessed by Defendant Bishops own niece, who is not an interested party to this action.

  9. Defendant Bishop interfered with the written agreement (aka living will and/or health care power of attorney) executed between Wayne Perry and Plaintiff Bryan Perry by compelling the hospital to reinsert feeding tubes into Wayne Perry after Bryan Perry elected to execute his father’s wishes. 

  10. By Defendant Bishop’s own words, she interfered with her own mother’s treatment as well.  In her book Your Life Follows Your Words:  Releasing the Prayer of Faith, Defendant Bishop discusses how her mother was sick and she told her mother how to become healed.  Defendant Bishop writes, “[g]et together all of your medications, and then dump them into the toilet and flush them away.”  Make sure you’re following the Lord.  I’m not telling you to stop taking your medication.  This is what the Lord told me for this particular situation.”  Id. at 148.  Ex. 7, attached. 

  11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs’ father suffered loss and enjoyment of life.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligence against Defendant Bishop)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendant Bishop and Wayne Perry had a special relationship.

  3. Defendant Bishop owed a duty to Wayne Perry.

  4. Defendant Bishop breached that duty to Wayne Perry, a breach of which had a    foreseeable injury to Wayne Perry.

  5. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs’ father suffered damages.

CLAIMS BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS:

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Serious Emotional Distress upon Plaintiffs against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2.  After Wayne Perry slipped into a coma in his last days, Plaintiff Bryan Perry attempted to execute his father’s wishes in accordance with a living will.  Wayne Perry had been in an unconscious state for approximately four days at that point.  As the days passed, and more IV bags and oxygen tubes were inserted into his Father, Plaintiff Bryan Perry elected to exercise his father’s wishes under the Living Will to terminate his life.  

  3. The hospital complied with the initial request.  However, IV bags were reinserted into the unconscious Wayne Perry after Bryan left the hospital premises.  The IV bags and vitamin were reinserted by the hospital under Defendant Bishop’s orders.  Defendant Bishop made the comments that it would be a miracle if her brother survived.  Upon information and belief, Defendant Bishop was looking forward to writing a sequel to her first book.  Defendant Bishop had every reason to prolong Wayne’s unconscious state, as she had already falsely stated in her first book that he was healed, all the while knowing that he was not, as evidenced by Wayne Perry’s own handwriting.  (Ex.6, attached). 

  4.  Moreover, Defendant Bishop threatened Plaintiff Bryan Perry multiple times, stating that she would have huge thugs kill him and his family if he interfered.  Plaintiff Bryan Perry was threatened to the point that he was not able to attend his father’s funeral in fear for his and his family’s safety. 

  5. Since the inception of the probate estate and the trust, Defendant Bishop has refused to disclose information and property to all Plaintiffs.  Specifically, she threatened all Plaintiffs that she would give all assets (including trust assets) to the state or other third parties if the children did not adhere to her demands.

  6. Defendant Bishop intentionally or recklessly acted in an extreme and outrageous manner.

  7. Defendant’s actions proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.

  8. Plaintiffs’ mental anguish was serious and of a nature that no reasonable man could be expected to endure.   

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Tortious Interference with Inheritance Rights against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendant Bishop has a history of interfering with the assets of others.  Under the direction of Defendant Bishop, Arlene Parker and the decedent sold all of Harris Perry’s and Eleanor Perry’s (Defendant Bishop’s and the decedent’s parents) antiques and home in Tennessee before moving them up to Ohio to live under the care of Defendant Bishop.  Aff. Cheryl Smith ¶ 5, attached as Ex. 5.  Cheryl Smith, Defendant Bishop’s niece and granddaughter of Eleanor and Harris Perry, had to break the news to Harris Perry that he had been tricked into conveying his home and assets to Defendant Bishop.  Id. ¶ 7.  In fact, before Eleanor Perry (Granny Perry) died, she told Ms. Smith that Defendant Bishop had taken “everything from her and Grandpa,” referring to their money and assets, and “they didn’t even have $20 to their name.”  Id. ¶ 8.
  3. Immediately after Wayne Perry’s death, Defendant Bishop permitted her own children to “ransack” Wayne Perry’s personal residence.  Defendant Bishop’s children benefited by having “first dibs” on his personal effects, rightly belonging to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiff Nikki Perry was expressly told to leave the home while her cousins (Defendant Bishop’s children) remained in her father’s home and searched through his things.

  4. At present, Defendant Bishop’s child possesses a guitar that is rightly Christian Perry’s (Janet McCormick’s minor son) as per the decedent’s will.  Various music awards and clothing of the once famed songwriter disappeared, Defendant Bishop’s only explanation being that the awards were broken in transport.  Upon information and belief, cash, jewelry, and other valuables disappeared with the ransacking.  

  5. Defendant Bishop currently sells property on www.darlenebishop.org that belongs to the Estate and/or Trust.  Defendant Bishop claims to have sold “under a million” copies of the country music albums published by her son, Lawrence Bishop, II, which contain songs owned and registered by Wayne Perry.  Defendant Bishop and Attorney Cummins refuse to collect royalties on the albums “Prayer of a Bad Man” and “Two Shades of Blue” (among others) even though they are aware of the infringement and aware that the songs are owned by the Estate and Trust.  This is in breach of fiduciary duties of the Trust and Estate, as well as copyright and other laws.

  6. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a check drawn by Defendant Bishop for $20,000 payable to her husband, Lawrence Bishop, dated August 1, 2005.  This check was drawn on the decedent’s personal account, when Defendant Bishop was executor and owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.  Clearly those duties were breached, as no explanation for the pilfering has been proffered.  The $20,000 was returned eight (8) months later after Defendants realized this lawsuit was imminent and their scandalous actions were identified.    

  7. Part of Wayne Perry’s valuable intellectual properly includes a specific item called the “Hook Book.”  Upon information and belief, this Hook Book contains work product that is ready to be published into songs that would generate substantial future income.  Although Defendant Bishop and Attorney Cummins hold the position that this “Hook Book” is a phantom, it has been described by Attorney Cummins as a “red spiral-bound notebook.”  There are many witnesses that suggest this potentially valuable book does exist. 

  8. Defendant Bishop, as executrix and trustee, wrongfully holds funds and other assets to which the Plaintiffs, individually, as beneficiaries of the Trust, and/or as beneficiaries of the Estate, are entitled to immediate possession.  Additionally, Defendant Bishop still refuses to pay Plaintiffs cash proceeds to which they are entitled per the terms of the Trust agreement. 

  9. Defendant Bishop has tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ rights of inheritance and future economic advantages/expectancies without privilege to do so.

  10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as pled herein, Plaintiffs have been damaged. 

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Doctrine of Deviation applied to the Trust6)

6Daloia v. Franciscan Health Sys. of Cent. Ohio, Inc. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 98; 679 N.E.2d 1084 citing Scott, Law of Trusts (4 Ed. Fratcher Ed. 1989),323 (holding that under the Doctrine of Deviation, a court can “direct or permit a deviation from the terms of the trust where compliance is impossible or illegal, or where owing to circumstances not known to the settler and not anticipated by him compliance would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the purposes of the trust”). 

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Plaintiffs, in agreement, and as sole beneficiaries under Wayne Perry’s Last Will and Trust, respectfully request that this Honorable Court either terminate the Trust or revise the document(s) to best effectuate Wayne Perry’s true intent.

  3. It is clear that even the drafter of the Trust, Attorney Cummins, does not understand the provisions, as the settler surely could not have.  Attorney Cummins stated in his deposition that the Trust that he drafted was not discretionary, yet the Trust expressly gives the trustee discretion to make discretionary distributions “in her sole discretion deems necessary or proper suitably to provide for the maintenance, support and health…”7  Additionally, Wayne Perry was never instructed how to hold assets in trust by Attorney Cummins to avoid the confusion as to whether the Trust was or was not funded.8

    7Depo. Bill Cummins Tr. 89:18 to 91:2.
    8Depo. Bill Cummins Tr. 84:24 to 85:5.


  4. Because of the poor drafting of the Trust documents and because of the malicious abuses by Defendants of fiduciary responsibilities, these documents should be reformulated to provide relief to the beneficiaries if not terminated fully.  The Trust itself is not expressly clear, and provides the trustee with power that has led to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries (Plaintiffs). 

  NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duties by Defendant Bishop regarding the Trust and Estate)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 

  2. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendant Bishop as executrix, trustee, and caretaker for the breach of certain fiduciary duties. 

  3. As Trustee and Executor, Defendant Bishop owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs as beneficiaries of the Estate and Trust.

  4. Defendant Bishop never attempted to acquire assets of the estate known as the “Hookbook” and Circle 3 catalogue from other family members.
  5. Defendant Bishop even sells Wayne Perry’s music on her website and at her church, without accounting such music to the estate and/or trust.

  6. Defendant Bishop never utilized a trust account which was established for such purposes, stating that the trust was never funded. 

  7. Defendant Bishop has refused to provide information to Plaintiffs, of which she is required to disclose per the terms of the trust.  She has also refused to pay cash distributions per the terms of the trust.

  8. The aforementioned breaches of her fiduciary duties are only a fraction of her transgressions. 

  9. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of Defendant’s duties to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Undue Influence/ Coercion against Defendant Bishop)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Wayne Perry was acting under restraint and undue influence by reason of his physical infirmities, mental condition, etc., yielding to the desire or will of Defendant Bishop.

  3. Defendant Bishop has the opportunity to exert said influence on Wayne Perry.

  4. Defendant Bishop either exerted or attempted to exert said influence.

  5. Wayne Perry’s estate plan is a product of such influence. 

  6. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

 ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Constructive Trust/Disgorgement/Replevin/Conversioin/ Fraudulent Transfers against all Defendants)

  1.  Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendants Bishop and Parker, upon information and belief, seized and continue to secrete assets rightfully belonging in the Estate and/or Trust. 

  3. For example, on or about June 22, 2004, Wayne Perry allegedly executed an assignment of royalty payments from Zomba Music, evidenced by Exhibit 2, attached.  In realty, the assignment was a fallacy in order for Wayne Perry to avoid former spouse’s rights to the assets.  As royalty payments were accepted by Arlene Parker, she would pay Wayne Perry cash, as evidenced by the Bank1One receipt and Wayne’s check register noting payments to and from Arlene Parker respectively.  This assignment and others like it are fraudulent transfers, as they were made by Wayne Perry to avoid creditors. 

  4. Under Article I, the Trust’s language clearly states that “Trustee agrees she [Defendant Bishop] will hold all property (including…insurance policies (or proceeds) on my or any other person’s life)…”  Article IV Section A then states, “[t]he Trustee shall divide The Family Trust being held hereunder into equal separate shares, one such share to be for the benefit of each then living child of mine…”  Defendant Bishop, the trustee, took in her individual capacity, the proceeds on a $260,000 life insurance policy payable to her upon the death of Wayne Perry, which belong to the Trust.

  5.  Additionally, Defendant Bishop, acting as executor to Wayne Perry’s estate, conducted an improper auction.  Defendant Bishop acquired some compact discs published by Wayne Perry and sells them on the open market.  Defendant Bishop purchased these discs at a great discount and sells them at a premium, secreting the profits.  She has not accounted to the Estate or Trust for these profits, nor secured the necessary license to sell the CDs.  

  6. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of assets including, but not limited to:  royalties related to any and all of Wayne Perry’s songwriting and publishing, cash, work product, cash, jewelry and other personal property.

  7. Attorney Cummins and Defendant Bishop have tried to bankrupt the estate by charging outrageous attorney fees and other improper fees.  Exs. 8 and 9, attached. 

  8. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

 TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(
Fraud against all Defendants)

  1.  Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 

  2. Defendants committed certain fraudulent acts against Plaintiffs while acting in their fiduciary capacities as Trustee and/or Executor or an agent of one or both.

  3.  Defendants knowingly concealed and still conceal facts where there is a duty to disclose.

  4. The aforesaid concealments were made with the intent of misleading Plaintiffs into relying upon them.

  5. Plaintiffs were justified in relying on concealments, and did, in fact, so rely on the concealments.

  6. Plaintiffs were injured and the injury was proximately and directly caused by Plaintiff’s reliance on the concealments.

  7. One example of many involve Defendant Bishops “settlement” regarding the $260,000 life insurance policy with Plaintiff Janet Perry.  Defendant Bishop claimed Wayne Perry’s $260,000 life insurance policy for herself individually, notwithstanding her obligation as Trustee of the Trust or executor of the Estate.  This was in direct violation of Wayne Perry’s Trust which commands that she hold all property for the benefit of the children in the Trust.  This was an immediate breach of her fiduciary duties to the children/beneficiaries, especially because there was no disclosure to the three other children (Plaintiffs). 

  8. Another specific example, of many, involves the check drawn by Defendant Bishop for $20,000 payable to her husband, Lawrence Bishop, dated August 1, 2005.  Ex.10, attached.  This check was drawn on the decedent’s personal account, when Defendant Bishop was executor and owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.  Clearly those duties were breached, as no explanation for the pilfering has been proffered.

  9. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful and malicious conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

 THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Removal of Defendant Bishop as Trustee and Declaratory Action)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Pursuant to R.C. § 2721.05, Plaintiffs maintain this action to ascertain their rights pursuant to the trust and assets of the decedent, Darrell Wayne Perry.

  3. The Court may also remove a trustee upon the written application of more than one-half of the persons having an interest in the estate controlled by the trustee.  In this case, all Plaintiffs are the sole persons with an interest in the estate.  Additionally, all Plaintiffs concur to Defendant Bishop’s removal regarding the Trust and Estate.

  4. The Fiduciary’s conduct need not amount to violations of the law nor or even cause injury to the estate. 

  5. Based on the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Bishop should be removed from all fiduciary positions regarding Wayne Perry and his Estate and Trust.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Tortious Interference with a Business and/or Contractual Relationship against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein.

  2. Defendants intentionally and improperly caused certain third party music companies to discontinue certain business relations with Plaintiffs Bryan Perry and Justin Jones.  Defendants instructed various music companies not to communicate to Plaintiffs, notwithstanding language in the decedent’s Trust expressly stating that Plaintiffs are encouraged to actively promote and grow their father’s catalogue of songs in order to make profits for the Trust.

  3. Due to Defendant’s actions, the music companies terminated communications with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ reputations have been damaged.  In the music industry, reputations mean everything.  Due to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been prevented from acquiring or continuing the prospective relations with the music companies. 

  4. Next, Defendant Bishop intentionally and improperly caused certain royalties that rightfully belong in the Trust (and consequently also to large music companies) to bypass the Trust and be funneled into her son’s pocket as well as the Solid Rock Church’s coffers from the sales of Lawrence Bishop Junior’s country music.  The decedent co-authored a number of these songs, which are registered at the music companies, and which no royalties are being reported.

  5. Other royalties have not been deposited into the Trust, which rightfully belong to the Trust, due to the sham assignment to Arlene Parker, discussed in ¶¶ 19-21, supra

  6. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid wrongful and intentional conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.

 FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Punitive Damages against all Defendants)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 

  2. Defendants owe certain legal duties to Plaintiffs, which were breached by all Defendants.

  3. Defendants’ conduct was so grossly negligent and/or malicious with a willful disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs that their conduct entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages.

 SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discovery Only Action with regard to Certain Claims Pursuant to Ohio Law)

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all previous paragraphs as if fully rewritten herein. 

  2. Plaintiffs have made reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from whom the discovery is sought.

  3. The subject matter of the Petitioners’ cause(s) of action includes, but is not limited to the aforementioned claims. 

  4. Petitioners have attempted to secure information including, but not limited to:  all financial dealings in Wayne’s probate estate regarding receipts and disbursements; all assets received and distributed in Wayne Perry’s Trust; and Wayne Perry’s treatment under the care of Defendant Bishop and/or her agents.

  5. The names and addresses of person(s) Petitioners expect will be adverse parties are named in the caption.

  6. Petitioners request that they be authorized to obtain said discovery.

  7. This Complaint and discovery only requests have been served upon the parties by the Clerk of Court of Butler County.

            PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs jointly and severally demand the following:

A.     Judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for compensatory damages in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) plus interest,  and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), plus interest;

B.     the legal and court costs of this action;

C.     that Defendant Bishop, Attorney Cummins, and all other agents be removed from any and all fiduciary duties including but not limited to the Trust;

D.     that the Court terminate the Trust or appoint a new Trustee, or in the alternative, appoint the undersigned;

E.      any other relief to which Plaintiffs may be deemed entitled at law and/or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Dwight D. Brannon (0021657)
David D. Brannon (0079755)
130 West Second Street, Suite 900
Dayton, Ohio   45402
Telephone: (937) 228-2306
Facsimile: (937) 228-8475
E-Mail:  davidbrannon@branlaw.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues presented herein.

_____________________
Dwight D. Brannon
David D. Brannon

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This will certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by regular U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and/or hand delivery, postage prepaid upon the following, this 11 day of February, 2007:

Bill W. Cummins, Esq.
105 Court St. Suite 204
Hamilton, Ohio 45011

Neil F. Freund, Esq.
Lindsay Johnson, Esq.
FREUND, FREEZE & ARNOLD
One Dayton Centre
1 South Main St., Suite 1800
Dayton, Ohio 45402

Anthony S. VanNoy, Esq.
WRIGHT & VANNOY, L.P.A., Inc.
32 North St., Suite 801
Dayton, Ohio 45402

Janet McCormick as natural guardian and on behalf of
Oliver Christian Perry
182 Twp. 1385
Proctorville, Ohio 45669

_________________________________
David D. Brannon
Dwight D. Brannon

This page was revised on May 7, 2007.

Links to Recommended Companies