Thanks once more, Bob.
I also got the inquiry from David, among other words and explanations about
the interesting dynamics of the John Chamblee-Dilly Strickland [her first
marriage] relationship which brings much bearing on the ensuing lawsuits
after John died. I asked Carla Tate, our resident attorney for a TRUE legal
explanation according to law--which she always is so adept at.
This is what she reported back to me which I forwarded, which would be of
interest to others on this line:
"Simple. Frances (or her husband) wanted her legacy before the estate
dispute was settled. So Hood got them to agree that if he released her
promised legacy, they would pay for any costs incurred (up to $3,138)
if her legacy were disputed by somebody and they won. (If they won,
then she would't have any legal right to the legacy. If it had already
been paid, the winner(s) could sue Hood for releasing it prematurely.)
Frances or her husband probably needed the money for something, and also
probably knew who the potential claimants were and that they either
weren't going to sue or if they did, that they would lose.
"These are called "hold harmless" clauses. Unless Frances and her
husband knew they were going to get the legacy no matter what, this was
not a good deal for them to enter into. They could have ended up
spending more than the legacy was worth defending it."
I have the legal papers on the Dilly Strickland vs. "the others" law case.
Also, Dilly and John had their oldest child, Margaret out of wedlock
according to documents filed in court. I have a feeling the stepchildren
didn't like Dilly much (which was also part of oral history) after their
mother, Olive Richardson died.
John Chamblee was not unlike his brother, James Chamblee. who also had a
pre-wedding liaison, but with Nancy Pippin, his eventual second wife. Their
affair is chronicled in court records as well. They kept claiming they were
"innocent."
At any rate, this all caused some nice paper trails which created names,
places, dates!
D'Ann