Community College Board Member John T. Nejedly Passes Away

One of Contra Costa County’s most prominent political families is embroiled in an ugly dispute over the estate of its patriarch, the late state Sen. John A. Nejedly, as the elder son blames his siblings for his disinheritance and details emerge of the son’s struggles with drug addiction.

In court documents, the senator’s elder son, John T. Nejedly, an elected trustee of the Contra Costa Community College District, alleges that his father disinherited him under the influence of painkillers and hostile siblings.

John T. points the blame at his sister, Contra Costa Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho, and his brother, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District member James Nejedly. He claims his siblings intentionally isolated him from his father, who died at 91 on Sept. 19, 2006, and “conducted a campaign of poisoning” his father’s views against him starting in 2002.

He alleges that his father, at age 90, was suffering memory problems and delusional episodes at the time of his most recent amendment to the trust, a document that spells out how the senator wished to distribute his property after his death. John T. also maintains that the senator was addicted to painkillers, the result of a lifetime battle with backpain.

“As a result of (the) medication and physical and mental infirmities, (he) was easily influenced and controlled by (Jim and Mary) and was substantially unable to resist fraud and undue influence,” John T. wrote in court documents filed in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez.

Mary Piepho and Jim Nejedly declined to comment on the allegations, citing ongoing litigation.

But they both emphasized that they will vigorously protect their father’s wishes.

“We will try our best to protect his name and his legacy, which was to do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Piepho said. “He died a man of honor, and we will fight to protect that.”

While John T. paints a picture of conniving siblings and a feeble father, he had no first-hand knowledge of his father’s state because the two had not spoken in the two years prior to the senator’s death. Indeed, others dispute the notion that the senator was mentally incapacitated or easily manipulated.

The senator “knew precisely what he was doing,” said longtime family friend JoAnn Hanna, who has known the Nejedly children all their lives.

Hanna recalled the senator confiding in her often about his problems with John T., describing her friend as heartbroken and disillusioned by his son’s behavior. She recently watched a videotape the senator made before his death, in which he explained in painful detail his rationale behind the disinheritance.

“He knew this (legal challenge) was coming and he knew how to fix it by making this tape and explaining what (John T.) had done, which was outrageous behavior,” she said. “(John T.) should be grateful for what his father gave him over the years.”

Others outside the family close to Nejedly say he remained mentally alert into the final days before his death, appearing at community events, giving speeches and sending letters on state water issues.

“His body was failing him and he had issues with pain, but he was definitely not infirm,” said Seth Adams with Save Mount Diablo.

Legal wrangling over a patriarch’s estate often exposes hidden rifts, and the Nejedly lawsuit offers a glimpse into a family’s strained relationships and its elder son’s fall from his father’s grace.

The late senator, who spent most of his adult life in public service, had only one major asset to give to his children after his death.

In 1951 he purchased 13 acres on Montecillo Drive, a wooded, Walnut Creek enclave near Tice Valley Boulevard. He would later build a house and a two-bedroom cottage on the property.

The initial 1998 trust specified that Jim would receive the house and most of the land while the other two siblings would each receive 11/2-acre parcels or $75,000 each. If Jim sold the land, the proceeds would be divided equally among them.

Nejedly amended the trust in 2003 and increased the payments to John T. and Mary to $250,000 and $300,000, respectively. Nejedly sought to maintain the rural nature of his property and stipulated that his heirs could not carve it into more than three parcels.

Then, the relationship between John T. and his family spiraled downward, and the senator, known for his dedication to his children, cut his elder son out of the trust in a November 2004 amendment, which he reaffirmed in February 2005.

The senator shifted John T.’s share to his grandchildren, of which there were eight by the time of his death, including John T.’s three children.

In addition to what the senator characterized as John T’s irresponsible acts, such as his failure to pay his debts, the senator wrote that he wanted to reward Mary, who had not received as many gifts as her brothers.

And he sought to repay Jim and his wife, Jaine, whom the senator said maintained the estate and provided personal services so that the aging man could stay in his home rather than in a nursing facility.

He also wrote that Jim had demonstrated a willingness to preserve the senator’s beloved Montecillo property.

Perhaps in anticipation of a legal challenge, the late senator and former district attorney addressed his decision to disinherit his eldest child in the trust.

“John has not acted responsibly and has not met the conditions regarding the gifts he previously received, nor has he participated to any significant degree in maintaining the (Montecillo) property nor demonstrated the willingness or ability to further (my) intentions concerning the property,” the senator wrote.

In his court challenge, John T. called his father’s characterizations false.

Rather, John T. said, the rift between him and his father began widening in late 2002 when Jim and Mary “made repeated false assertions” to their father that his elder son was using “alcohol and drugs, that he could not be trusted, that he was a danger to himself, and that he had abandoned his wife and children.”

Until that point, he and his father were close, John T. wrote. Earlier in 2002, the senator expressed joy that his son had stopped drinking and was enrolled in law school.

But in late September 2004, John T. wrote, his father had become “increasingly hostile” and told his son one evening that “he and his family were no longer welcome at his home.”

While John T. accused his siblings of making false accusations of his drug use and family problems, John T. admitted during an interview Friday that he has struggled with addiction since high school and has had marital problems.

John T. said his drug use had escalated in 2000, resulting in a drunken-driving conviction and separation from his wife, Kathleen.

In documents filed in Superior Court in December 2000, Kathleen sought to bar unsupervised visitation between her husband and their three young children.

The couple has reconciled. But, at the time, Kathleen provided the court written details of several disturbing incidents, including her husband’s cocaine and methamphetamine habits dating to 1994, the year he was elected to the Community College Board.

She also referenced an incident in which he allegedly pinned down a college student and kissed her in a Washington, D.C., hotel room, according to a police report.

The young woman filed the report two weeks after the incident but no criminal charges were pursued. She also filed a complaint with the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which resulted in a requirement that John T. attend a sexual harassment training class.

John T. conceded Friday that some of what the court documents from the divorce case detail was true, but he also said some of it was the product of “an attorney’s embellishment.”

Kathleen called it “the hardest time of my life,” but John T. and his wife say he has been sober for six years now.

“J.T. (John T.) has turned himself around,” his wife said Friday. “You would think that the family would be so proud of their brother and be grateful that he is here to raise his kids.”

Instead, John T. says, his siblings leveraged his personal troubles in their quest to discredit him, an effort he said began when he questioned the 1998 trust, which awarded Jim control of the property.

John T. said he tried to talk to his father about the trust.

“He didn’t know what people were doing with his money and how they were taking advantage of him,” John T. said. “But it’s not something that I thought my dad, who was my best friend, needed to deal with in the last couple of years of his life.”

John T. said he still hopes for an amicable out-of-court settlement with his siblings, although he said he knows it would result in the sale of the property, something his father opposed.

“I’m trying to give my siblings every opportunity to make it right,” John T. said.

A hearing is set for Aug. 9 in Superior Court in Martinez on the question of whether John T.’s challenge to the validity of his father’s trust amendments constitute a violation of its no-contest clause.

The clause states that those who challenge the terms of the trust forfeit their shares and those of their children.

Reporter Sandy Kleffman contributed to this story.

Contact Lisa Vorderbrueggen at (925) 945-4773 or [email protected].