See also response to item #4 below.





Here is Bank One's response on 05/02/01 to the above item #4:

"Dr. Surian contends that Bank One Trust Company, N.A. did not have a conflict of interest because it is a separate legal entity from Bank One Indiana, N.A.   While it is true that Bank One Trust Company, N.A., was a separate legal entity from Bank One Indiana, N.A., during its appointment as Guardian in the year 2000, that legal separation of the trust (including guardianship) responsibilities of Bank One from its retail banking operations did not occur until after September, 1994 – after the deposit of the three-party check without Ms. Wilding’s endorsement which she asserted gave rise to Bank One’s conflict of interest.   Therefore, Dr. Surian’s contention misses the mark in questioning whether Bank One Trust Company acted properly in asking the court to approve its withdrawal as successor Guardian because of the conflict asserted by Ms. Wilding.  This request was made in good faith after examination of the issue by Bank One’s in house legal counsel, and was granted by this Court.  It was not a unilateral withdrawal by Bank One.  Furthermore, if Dr. Surian had an objection to the court allowing Bank One to withdraw because he did not believe there was a conflict of interest, he should have made that argument in September, 2000.  He should not now be allowed to undercut the Court’s ruling granting the withdrawal request."