The headquarters of Redstone Construction Group, which was led by Michael Lasiter (inset), on West Dixon Road in Little Rock.
The ongoing dispute over the estate of Little Rock construction executive Michael Lasiter has escalated between his widow and the trustee administering assets ballparked around $50 million in court filings.
Newland & Associates is trying to cut off Caroline Lasiter as a beneficiary of two trusts set up by Lasiter, who owned Redstone Construction Group. The Little Rock law firm, led by Richard Newland Jr., also is trying to recoup upwards of $4.5 million in assets distributed to Caroline Lasiter since her husband’s death in 2016.
The lawsuit filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court on behalf of the Michael Allen Lasiter Revocable Trust and the MAL Irrevocable Insurance Trust claims she contested provisions of the trusts in violation of the in terrorem clause.
The complaint alleges that under the terms of the no-contest clause, Caroline Lasiter forfeited the right to all distributions from the trusts and the assets should be treated as if she had died prior to her husband.
If upheld, her share of the trust assets would be divided among beneficiaries who include their two children and his two adult daughters from a previous marriage. Footing the bill for the trustee’s lawsuit are the trusts set up by Michael Lasiter.
Newland’s lawsuit portrays Caroline Lasiter as a spendthrift who is trying to undo her late husband’s estate planning and tap into more than her share of family assets.
Newland alleges her extravagant spending habit was a source of marital friction that led Michael Lasiter to incorporate the no-contest clause to protect other beneficiaries from any challenges of the trust provisions that she might make.
In turn, Caroline Lasiter is seeking to remove Newland & Associates as trustee by alleging the firm is operationally unfit to serve and is persistently failing to administer the trusts effectively.
She also claims Newland breached trust in its allegedly conflicted handling of the sale of Redstone Construction and seeks to recover more than $1 million the firm and its affiliates have collected for professional and fiduciary fees associated with the Lasiter trusts.
Court documents indicate 75 percent of Redstone was sold to its employees in a transaction of undisclosed value after Michael Lasiter’s death.
Caroline Lasiter claims Newland orchestrated her removal from the Redstone board of directors because she suggested during board meetings that he and his firm had professional conflicts of interest. She linked her forced exit from the corporate board to her unwillingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the administration of her husband’s trusts and estate.
Newland and Lasiter deny each other’s allegations.
Siding with Newland’s efforts to remove Caroline Lasiter as a beneficiary is her mother-in-law and trust protector, Hannah Finley. The women’s emotionally charged relationship surfaced in the court records describing their dispute regarding hospice care of Michael Lasiter days before his death on May 31, 2016.
The fracture between the women resurfaced a year later in a lawsuit regarding potential benefits for Caroline Lasiter’s children under a lifetime trust set up for and administered by Finley.
Finley is the sole beneficiary and trustee of the Peck Family Trust as long as she lives. Her grandchildren are among the beneficiaries of any trust assets remaining after her death.
Anger erupted in Hawaii when Finley was served with the lawsuit in Kula, Maui, on Aug. 14, 2017, as recounted in an affidavit by a process server, Eric Muroki.
“I lightly tapped her passenger side window as not to alarm her, and as Mrs. Finley looked at me, I showed her the document. I then pointed to her and then to the document and then pointed back to her.
“I realized she was not going to open the window and not wanting a confrontation, I placed the document between her windshield wiper and windshield fronting Mrs. Finley… At this time, I heard Mrs. Finley exit her vehicle screaming at me.
“As I was about to turn around and explain the service of the legal document, I was struck in the back of my head with the document. I cannot recall what Mrs. Finley was screaming at me but got the impression she knew what the document was about.
“As I got to the open front passenger door…, I was immediately confronted by Mrs. Finley. She placed her body against the open door and stood inches away from me and continued screaming into my face. She demanded my name, the company I represent and my business card.
“I then informed her of my first name and that I was only serving the legal document. I informed her that she should not get upset at me as I was only the messenger of the document. Mrs. Finley realized I was not willing to argue with her and returned to her vehicle.”
Caroline Lasiter alleges that Finley has hired private investigators to follow her and/or monitor her daily life.
Family Contentions
The sedate distribution of family wealth envisioned by Michael Lasiter and memorialized in his estate planning became increasingly contentious in the three years following his death.
The heightened animosity among wrangling parties is joined by the growing prominence of unintended beneficiaries: attorneys paid to file and answer lawsuits related to his estate.
Disagreements behind the scenes brewed into an August 2017 malpractice lawsuit Caroline Lasiter filed against Newland & Associates, Richard Newland and his fellow attorney at the firm, Elizabeth Caldwell.
The case, still wending its way through discovery, accuses Newland and his firm of mismanaging the Lasiter trusts with conflicting interests as trustee while serving as attorney, accountant, finacial adviser and insurance salesman for both Michael and Caroline Lasiter.
Court filings note the rejection of Caroline Lasiter’s one-time-only offer to dismiss her case in exchange for a $15 million payout from the trusts.
Along the way, Newland stepped away from its appointment as executor of Michael Lasiter’s estate, a role filled by Relyance Bank of Pine Bluff.
The bank was sued last year by Caroline Lasiter regarding the impact of a disputed premarital agreement on her claims against her husband’s estate.
The PMA was first enacted in 2003 at the beginning of their marriage, later dissolved and reinstated in a disputed 2104 amendment to the Michael Allen Lasiter Revocable Trust.
Lasiter’s two sisters, Paula Christy Schmidt and Holly Woprice, recently lost their appeal of an unfavorable ruling in an October 2017 federal lawsuit against Newland & Associates as trustee of their brother’s namesake trust.
Their case revolved around claims to partial ownership of Lasiter Asphalt Maintenance Co., established by their father, Mannie Lasiter, and the foundation for Redstone Construction.
Their lawsuit questioned the legality of stock transfers between their father and brother and laid financial claim to shares and dividends they could’ve received over the years. However, Judge Billy Roy Wilson ruled their claims were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed the case.
The sisters testified they only became aware of the details of father-son stock transfers in 1999 and 2000 after their brother’s death in 2016.
His ruling centered on their decision not to act on their acknowledged concerns regarding the stock in 2004 after their father’s death. The Eighth Circuit upheld Wilson’s decision in June.
Sign up for Daily E-news
