Creighton sues his Mother


CREIGHTON WESLEY SLOAN, son and next friend of









The plaintiff respectfully represents unto this Court the following:

(1) The plaintiff, Creighton Wesley Sloan, is the natural son of Helen Marjorie Sloan, and, by power of attorney executed on or about November 2, 1984, (a copy of which is attached hereto and labeled "Exhibit A") was lawfully appointed the attorney-in-fact of his mother, Helen Marjorie Sloan;

(2) Helen Marjorie Sloan, by Trust Agreement executed on August 26, 1985, conveyed all or substantially all of her assets to the defendant, at its Lynchburg, Virginia offices, in trust, with herself as the beneficiary of the trust during life;

(3) As a result, the defendant has since the creation of the trust maintained the assets of Helen Marjorie Sloan and paid bills and statements at her direction;

(4) Helen Marjorie Sloan practiced psychiatry in the City of Lynchburg, Virginia for many years and has many friends in this City who perceive her recent behavior as inconsistent with her prior behavior;

(5) Recently, Helen Marjorie Sloan left the United States of America with her natural son, Samuel Howard Sloan, (also known as Mohammed Ishmael), and has been following an erratic course of travel around the world, to such diverse places as Argentina, New York, New York, Paris, France, the United Arab Emirates, etc., whereas, prior to leaving with her son, she had lived for some time with the plaintiff and his family in Aiken, South Carolina;

(6) This recent pattern of travel and behavior has significantly depleted Dr. Sloan's assets and is not in her best interests;

(7) Samuel H. Sloan has threatened that he would not bring his mother home again and the plaintiff is justifiably concerned for the safety of his mother;

(8) Dr. Sloan was diagnosed in 1985 to have Alzheimer's disease, (copies of records from Duke University Medical Center are attached hereto and labeled collectively as "Exhibit B") which is a disease without cure which significantly affects one's memory and Dr. Sloan has exhibited symptoms of the disease, which make her incapable of caring for herself and creates a substantial potential for her to be the subject of undue influence, duress, and/or coercion;

(9) The plaintiff understands that Dr. Sloan has expressed the desire to be returned to the United States of America, but she has not done so, and the plaintiff is concerned that her failure to so return is the result of her inability to control her actions, for the reasons aforesaid;

(10) The only way that it can be determined what the true wishes of Dr. Sloan are, and whether she is capable of making such decisions for herself is to have her examined by appropriate experts;

(11) The plaintiff believes that Dr. Sloan will not be able to return to the United States as long as Samuel Howard Sloan has the ability to influence or control Dr. Sloan's expenditure of money, which she obtains from the defendant;

(12) Samuel H. Sloan is currently a fugitive from justice and is being sought in connection with kidnapping charges arising out of his having taken his daughter from the United States;

(13) Recently, the defendant received a telegram purporting to be from Dr. Sloan, which allegedly revoked the power of attorney of the plaintiff, which attempted revocation the plaintiff denies is of legal effect;

(14) As a result of the foregoing, the assets of Dr. Sloan are subject to waste, and the only effective method of preventing such waste is to enjoin the defendant from honoring said expenditures and to approve the power of attorney of the plaintiff to the extent necessary to have Dr. Sloan returned to the jurisdiction of this Court and thereafter to inquire regarding her capacity;

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that:

(1) The Court convene the parties and take evidence upon the issues raised herein;

(2) The Court enjoin the defendant from expending further sums from Dr. Sloan's trust account except as directed by the plaintiff until she can be present in court to advise the Court regarding her capacity;

(3) The Court determine that the attempted revocation of the power of attorney of the plaintiff was ineffective and that it remains valid and should be honored by the defendant, and others; and

(4) He will ever pray, etc.

Killis T. Howard
Attorney for the plaintiff
Post Office Box 99
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505

Filed in the LYNCHBURG CIRCUIT COURT Clerk's Office
the 11th day of December 1986.

K. F. Lindsey, D.C.

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: