The red-herring inheritance analyzed

 

Our rights as heirs to our grandfather’s house are as a result of two inheritance documents:

-         that of Agneta Klein inheriting the estate of Ionas Klein as living wife and

-         that of Eugen Szekely and Gratian Szekely inheriting the estate of Agneta Klein.

 

Note - The notary acts that establish the inheritance are the only official acts required in Romania to establish the rights of heirs.

 

The name discrepancy issue

 

At the beginning of the legal proceedings, COMTIM and PwC Romania has raised an objection relative to the difference of names between the house deed, registered to Eugen Klein and the inheritance documents that named Ionas Klein.  This legal objection rightly pointed out the discrepancy and was raised in November 1999.  We brought as proof in Court, a copy of the Civil Registry entry that registered the marriage between Ionas Klein to Agneta Szekely (changed to Klein) in which the groom has signed with the name Eugen Klein.  In the same registry the Civil Registry Officer (the public servant sanctioning marriages - equivalent to a Judge of Peace)  mentioned that “the groom was known in public life as Eugen”.  In addition, both spouses recorded their addresses as Galati nr. 1 - the house that is claimed!  The document can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/ionas.jpg

 

Further more, on January 24th, 2000,  in the Court proceeding we brought forth two witnesses that under oath confirmed that Ionas Klein was known as Eugen Klein and was the owner of the house that was claimed through the current lawsuit.  In the civil verdict nr. 1137 , the Judge considers based on the proofs that we brought the identity link between Ionas Klein and Eugen Klein was established and denies the request by COMTIM to deny the lawsuit.  The same verdict rules that the house was illegally confiscated even based on the 1950 law!

The two page verdict can be seen here:

http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/dec1a.jpg and here http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/dec1b.jpg

 

During the subsequent appeal, COMTIM on September 14th, 2000 drops the complaint about the lack of proof relative to the inheritance and the complaint relative to the presence of Timisoara’s City Hall as the representative of the Romanian State and as a defendant in the current lawsuit.  The verdict of this appeal can be seen here

http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/dec2a.jpg

http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/dec2b.jpg

http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/dec2c.jpg

The paragraph that I refer to can be seen on page 3 and it starts in Romanian as “La termenul din 14.09.2000 apelanta SC Comtim SA Timisoara a renuntat….”

 

Conclusion

 

It is puzzling that PwC Romania brings this issue up again after almost three years since it has been addressed in Court by a Judge and subsequently dropped by COMTIM and PwC legal counsel as a defense.  Further more, although I have pointed out in my analysis of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion that the issue was ruled in Court and the decisions were known and acknowledged (accepted) by PwC, the independent reviewer has failed recently to look for the evidence that substantiated my statement and infirmed PwC’s Romania claims!

 

This has given more support to PwC Romania’s Liquidation Director, Ms. Speranta Munteanu to identify this as a critical issue although PwC Romania is in possession of all the documents needed to solve this already-solved mystery.   However this approach is consistent with PwC’s Romania strategy of delaying the restitution of the house and introducing red-hearings in order to draw away the attention from the illegal actions that it took in this case.

 

 

go back to the main page