sharons statement

      May 23,2011

       I, Sharon K. de Lobo, state:

       1.       I am the daughter of the late Mercedes K. Kibbee, who passed away on April15,
2007.

       2.       In the last year of her life, I had many conversations with my mother about a charitable foundation she wished to establish for children. My mother wanted the foundation to perform good works for children in Sheridan County directly and through funding of and cooperation with other charitable organizations. My mother wanted the Sheridan County Young Men's Christian Association ("YMCA"), under the auspices of the Mercedes K. and Chandler H. Kibbee Foundation, to share in operation of projects for at-riskand underprivileged children on the C Lazy M Ranch. However, my mother wanted the foundation to function independently of the YMCA and to pursue aims and activities of its own. My mother did not want the YMCA to run the foundation or receive any funding other than that. which supports its participation in projects for at-risk and underprivileged children on the C Lazy M Ranch.
       3.       On November 6, 2006, when gravely ill, my mother signed an amendment to the Mercedes K. Kibbee Trust Agreement dated January 16, 1996, which called.for the creation of the Chandler H. Kibbee and Mercedes K. Kibbee Foundation for Children.
       4.       The terms of the trust do not comply with my mother's intent. The trust purports to provide that a majority of the foundation board must be appointed by the board of directors .of the YMCA. The trust purports to make the YMCA the sole beneficiary of the foundation, which would include the C Lazy M Ranch.
       5.       The Chandier H. Kibbee and Mercedes K. Kibbee Foundation for. Children was incorporated on November 17, 2006. In terms even stronger than those in the trust, the articles of incorporation purported to give the YMCA sole control and supervision of the foundation and limit the foundation to carrying out only the purposes of the YMCA. This was not my mother's intent.
       6.       Once my mother had improved and learned of the ramifications of the trust and articles of incorporation, she tried to get things changed to meet her wishes To that end, on December 12, 2006, my mother had delivered to the First Interstate Bank and the lawyers Deb Wendtland and Bob Leonard; and on December 19,2006 to Dick Davis, a signed, witnessed and notarized directive stating that she did not want the YMCA board to appoint a majority .of her foundation board and also appointing me, giving me her full power of attorney, "to oversee the completion of this work of this work", referring to the foundation documents.
       7.       After my mother's death, it was claimed that the document my mother signed was inadequate to accomplish these purposes. Between December 12, 2006, when the. directive was delivered, and April 15, 2007, when my mother died, no one, not the trustee, not counsel, advised us as to this fact or what form of document they believed to be necessary in order to facilitate compliance with her instructions. I believe they had a duty to assist us. and provide this vital information;
       8.       My mother signed amended articles of incorporation on February27,2007.. The document did not prevent the YMCA :from. taking over the foundation as my mother had insisted "most emphatically" in her directive. Though, in a video tape of that meeting, Mrs: Wendland can be seen and heard assuring my mother, in response to a discussion of the independent Board my mother insisted upon, that the document she was presenting for my mother's signature assured "the majority of members are not appointed by the Y" I have very recently come to learn that an amendment┬Ěto the trust would have been a simple and direct way to make it impossible for the YMCA to do so. No amendment to the trust was ever prepared or tendered to her; No one has ever explained why this was not done..
       9.       My mother was not a lawyer. My mother did not understand legal technicalities. My mother did all.she could do, with no knowledge of the law, to ensure the foundation would be what she wanted it to be. This included instructing all involved that I was to be present at all meetings, "to be her eyes and ears", as is confirmed in the narrative Ms. Wendtland presented for use in the Peter Kibbee case. On page 25 under the heading of August 16, 2006,. "Mrs. Kibbee asked that Sharon be present so we agreed that future meetings with Mrs. Kibbee would include Sharon." In the same section she goes on to say "I spoke with Jerry by phone and explained this to him. He is fine with it." However, Robert Leonard testified multiple times in his deposition that efforts were made to prevent this; for example, he testified that "as a matter of practice we did not discuss any of the estate planning in the presence of Sharon." Based on this, it is my understanding that my mother's bank and counsel were depriving her of the protection she had instructed them she wanted.
       10.       The foundation is not what my mother intended and requested. The found:; .tion is not doing the work my mother wanted it to do; the YMCA is dominating the foundation; and the foundation now exists essentially for the sole benefit of the YMCA. This is not right. This is not what my mother wanted;
       11.       I understand my mother's estate will now be closed. By withdrawing my objection to closure of the estate, I am in no way agreeing to the way things were and are being handled and I am in fact very disturbed by the conduct of those involved. I do not agree that the terms of trust are consistent with my mother's intent. I do not agree that the trust is or has been properly carried out. I do not agree with the way the foundation has been organized or has been operated since its inception. I am not waiving any rights, remedies, claims or contentions I may make regarding the trust and the foundation.