Charges dropped against widow accused of diverting multimillion-dollar trust

By Brian Huber

bhuber@conleynet.com 262-513-2674

WAUKESHA — A North Prairie widow accused of diverting the multimillion- dollar trust of her husband, the former president of Dierks Waukesha Foods, saw the criminal charges against her dismissed on Friday after the state said it did not feel it could meet its burden of proof in the case, her attorney said.

Aumoullin “Lin” E. Muehl was charged last year with two counts of theft between $10,000 and $100,000, four counts of theft over $100,000, and four counts of identity theft. The criminal charges against Muehl follow probate cases in the estate of Thomas R. Muehl, and a civil case brought against her by Muehl’s brother Wesley Muehl in 2020, which remains unresolved.

See DISMISSED, PAGE 5A

From Page 1A

Muehl was accused of spending about $1.1 million of her husband’s money before he died, and changing documents in his accounts to have her become the beneficiary of about $15 million in funds, rather than a trust he’d set up.

But on Friday, just ahead of a trial slated for next week, the charges against her were dropped. District Attorney Lesli Boese referred a reporter to the transcript in the case, and did not divulge the rationale for the dismissal.

But defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said that Deputy District Attorney Randy Sitzberger said the charges were dropped because Sitzberger didn’t feel the state could meet its burden of proof. Chirafisi added he did not believe the case was one of criminal intent.

“My opinion is that this case, the whole case, stems from a civil case the civil lawyers couldn’t resolve. So what they did is they went to the D.A.’s office and tried to turn a civil case into a criminal case. Deputy D.A. Sitzberger had the courage to dismiss the case because he couldn’t prove it. He did exactly what the people in that county should expect him to do when he can’t prove a case,” Chirafisi said. “I really do think that the D.A.’s office, today they got a ton of pushback when they did the right thing and I think it takes courage to do the right thing when people are yelling at you for doing the right thing. That’s my belief.”

John Ingrisano, attorney for Wesley Muehl, brother of Thomas Muehl, who resigned recently as trustee but remains a beneficiary, said he was disappointed in the outcome.

He said that once the matter became the subject of civil litigation in 2020, the firms holding the funds in trust froze the funds until the matter was resolved. As a result, some 15 beneficiaries, including friends and family of Muehl, as well as charitable and educational organizations around the state and nation, are left waiting for the gifts Muehl wished to bequeath them.

Ingrisano said he believed criminal activity could have been proven, as did the sheriff’s investigators who referred the case and the prosecutors who investigated it and brought charges. He said it was “very disappointing” to see the charges dropped, as the beneficiaries and trustees who waited for four years during the investigation, then felt vindicated when charges were issued, “after almost a year and half since that indictment came down to suddenly be told days before trial they felt they couldn’t meet their burden of proof and that was the first we heard that.”

He said the “victims” in the civil case have contended Lin Muehl took about $1.1 million physically and caused Tom Muehl’s investments accounts to be changed over to her ownership on his death, when no such prior agreement existed between them. Had she done nothing, Ingrisano said, Mrs. Muehl would have received about $3.6 million from her husband’s funds as his third wife.

Lin Muehl’s attorney in the civil case, Stephen Kravit, said the $1.1 million Lin Muehl is accused of taking was money spent on her husband’s behalf, to arrange repairs to their home should he make it home from the hospital, and to prepare to move him to a rehabilitation facility and arrange for housing nearby so she could be with him.

“Did (Ingrisano) tell you the most revered expert from the University of Chicago looked at all the medical records of Tom Muehl’s hospitalization, which by the way, no expert has ever been hired by the trust to rebut, and found that on the date Tom Muehl made certain changes to the trust. … he was sentient and competent? That’s why the D.A. can’t prove criminal intent. There was no criminal intent. She was following her husband’s instructions. He’s dead. He was sentient and capable of making those decisions and he made those decisions. Mrs. Muehl intended at all times to follow his wishes as to charities and the like but they would never know that. They sued her for fraud before they even asked her.”