Chapter 3: Wanted Dead or Alive
In the complex legal battle over the Broder estate, one pivotal moment came to be known by those involved as “the ambush.”
This event centered on a critical procedural maneuver by Elizabeth MacInnis, the lawyer representing Donald Broder’s siblings, who sought to force the lawsuit forward before the proper legal groundwork had been laid.
At the heart of the matter was a fundamental legal principle: no individual sibling had the right to sue over estate property without probate. Probate is the formal court process that validates a deceased person’s will and appoints a Personal Representative to manage the estate. Without probate and an appointed representative, no party could properly claim standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the deceased’s belongings.
Despite this, in late 2000, MacInnis sought to file the Certificate of Readiness, a legal document that effectively closes pleadings and signals readiness to proceed to trial. This was a critical juncture. By closing pleadings before probate was granted, MacInnis aimed to block Donald and his son Craig from raising the valid defense that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to sue in their personal capacities.
Donald and Craig refused to consent to closing the pleadings. They understood that agreeing would mean losing their strongest procedural defense. Their refusal set the stage for what they viewed as an ambush—an attempt by MacInnis to railroad the case forward without following proper legal protocol.
Despite their refusal, MacInnis proceeded to apply for probate months after the pleadings had been ordered closed. This sequence of actions was legally problematic. The plaintiffs lacked standing at the start of the case, and attempting to retroactively gain that standing after pleadings closed was unprecedented and raised questions of fairness and due process.
This maneuver not only escalated the conflict but also exposed deep procedural flaws and a conflict of interest, as MacInnis represented both the personal plaintiffs and, eventually, the estate’s appointed Personal Representatives. The ambush, therefore, was more than a mere tactical ploy; it became a symbol of the tangled legal and ethical challenges that haunted this case.
For Donald and Craig Broder, this ambush was a clear attempt to silence their lawful objections and force a verdict without fully addressing the foundational questions of legal authority and standing. Their resistance became a cornerstone of their defense, illustrating how procedural tactics can shape, for better or worse, the course of justice.