The Detroit Free Press featured an article recently about the lawsuits surrounding the estate of the late owner of the Detroit Pistons, Bill Davidson.  You can read our prior article about the estate here.

The estate of the late William Davidson has been the target of at least three lawsuits seeking to wrest at least $20 million from the fortune left by the billionaire businessman and owner of the Detroit Pistons — a hazard that one attorney said is the result of being very rich and dead.

Of the three suits filed in Oakland County Circuit Court, all have been quietly settled, according to court records and attorneys involved. Details of the settlements have not been revealed.

Forbes magazine had estimated Bill Davidson’s fortune in 2009 at $5.5 billion.

With an estate that big, it’s no surprise that fights would arise over it, said Andrew Mayoras, a Troy probate litigation attorney who writes a blog on the estate disputes of famous people.

“In this economy, it’s more and more common, unfortunately. My practice is just crazy busy and it’s been growing every year, and I do think the economy has a lot to do with it,” he said.

Estate disputes not a shock

Davidson may have been best known as the owner of the Detroit Pistons basketball team. But he was a billionaire businessman and philanthropist with interests that ranged around the world.

With his complex financial life, perhaps it’s no surprise that Davidson’s estate has been the focus of lawsuits hoping to get a piece of what Davidson left behind — a fortune estimated by Forbes magazine at about $5.5 billion.

At least three lawsuits have been filed against the estate, and all three have been quietly settled.

* * *

Mayoras and his wife, attorney Danielle B. Mayoras, have written a book called “Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights,” detailing the estate battles of Michael Jackson, Marlon Brando, and others.

“It’s amazing how many celebrities there are where their families are fighting. We’ve got dozens of them in there (the book), but it only scratches the surface,” Mayoras said.

Settlement is usually the best option, he added. “If there is a knock-down drag-out fight all the way to trial, the lawyers win.”

Read the rest of the Free Press article here.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! (www.TrialandHeirs.com) and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

Even though Michael Jackson’s father was not included as a beneficiary in his will or trust, it hasn’t stopped Joe Jackson from trying to intercede in the legal proceedings surrounding the estate.  First, he asked the judge to remove estate executors John Branca and John McClain.

The probate judge dismissed his claims, saying he lacked “standing” in the estate because he was not a beneficiary.  In other words, he did not have enough of a financial interest in the estate to be able to legally complain about who was in charge.

Recently, Joe Jackson filed an appeal of that decision, arguing that he was financially dependent on his son while he was alive, so he did have enough of an interest to attack the executors.

This argument is a long shot, at best.  Joe Jackson requested an allowance from the estate initially, but he recently withdrew that request.  More importantly, Michael did not choose to leave any of his assets  to his father, so even if he supported his father while alive, he made no provisions for this to continue after he died.

Joe’s attorney is pushing forward with the appeal anyway, arguing that Joe’s due process rights were violated and the judge failed to treat him “with dignity and worth.”  He also accuses the executors of a laundry-list of misdeeds, including embezzlement, mismanagement and fraud.  The executors, of course, deny these claims.

The attorney appointed to represent Michael’s children says that Joe’s filings cause harm to the children and the estate by dragging out the legal proceedings unnecessarily.  She also opposes Joe’s claims.

But Joe and his lawyer feel that they have an obligation to proceed.  They claim the executors violated their legal duties in not pursuing a wrongful death claim against Dr. Conrad Murray and concert promoters AEG (among others).  So, Joe says, he was forced to do so.

But that lawsuit was also dismissed … well, almost.  Joe’s attorney didn’t specify where two of the defendants conducted business, which meant the court couldn’t take jurisdiction.  Joe Jackson’s lawyer was permitted to fix the error and amend his lawsuit, which he recently did.  So his wrongful death lawsuit can proceed, at least for now.

Of course, Dr. Murray has bigger legal troubles to worry about.  He’s been criminally indicted for allegedly causing Michael Jackson’s death.  That criminal case is tentatively scheduled for trial in early January.

On the other hand, Joe Jackson has legal problems of his own.  After 60 years of marriage, Katherine Jackson reportedly says she’s filing for divorce from him.  So even though she is a beneficiary of Michael Jackson’s Trust, Joe won’t be able to benefit from it.

It’s been a busy summer for the Jackson family … and this only covers the recent events.  Here’s our recap of the first year of legal wranglings in Michael Jackson’s estate.

Court fights involving estates sure can be messy, and not just for those who are famous.  If you find yourself involved in a legal fight over a will, trust or estate, it’s important to work with an experienced probate litigation attorney to help you navigate through it.  This area of the law is too complicated to trust a lawyer who doesn’t specialize in probate and estate planning-related court battles.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! (www.TrialandHeirs.com) and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

We are consulting for a new television pilot called “Estate Wars,” which involves families fighting or in conflict over personal effects (antiques, coin collections or jewelry) after a loved one passes away.  The goal of the show is to have the conflict resolved with the help of an appraiser and mediator.

If you know any families involved in a conflict like this that would be interested in being on TV, please have them contact us at contact@trialandheirs.com as soon as possible. The pilot is being produced for a top-ranked national cable station by the Emmy Award winning production company behind “Storm Chasers”, “The Rachel Zoe Project”, and “LA Ink”.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

I’ve had many people contact me wondering about Eliza Presley’s case and her efforts to prove that she is the daughter of Vernon Presley and half-sister of Elvis Presley.  In doing so, she’s also trying to show that Elvis is still alive and she has DNA evidence to prove it.

So it seemed appropriate to share an update about her case on August 16th, 2010 … exactly 33 years after the day that the history books mark as when Elvis died.  Click here to review the first installment of my four-part discussion about Eliza’s case and why — as hard as it was for me to swallow at first – I believe she’s telling the truth and Elvis really is alive.

On August 6, 2010, Eliza’s attorney filed a Motion for Default Judgment, asking the Chauncery Court in Tennessee to enter a default judgment on her Complaint to Determine Parentage and Heirship against Lisa Marie Presley and all other surviving or unknown heirs of Vernon Presley.  You can read the Motion for Default here.

Despite the fact that Lisa Marie was legally served and notice was published for all heirs one year ago, no one has come forward to respond to the lawsuit or challenge Eliza’s claims in court.  You can read the Complaint that started the lawsuit here.

When Eliza initially filed suit to have Vernon Presley’s estate reopened in probate court, her efforts were opposed by an attorney who said he represented various Presley interests, but Eliza won and the estate was reopened.  This is a separate lawsuit, however, and this time no one has even tried to stand against her.

The Judge is scheduled to rule on the Motion by September 10, 2010.  Because no opposition is expected, Eliza’s request will likely be granted and an order should be entered legally recognizing her as the heir to Vernon Presley.

But, of course, being legally recognized as an heir and having proof to show the world that the history books should be rewritten are two different things.  Obtaining the court order will only be one more step in Eliza’s journey.  But it will certainly be a big step in her quest to prove she’s neither lying nor crazy.

So if you’re one of the thousands of fans visiting Graceland today to pay tribute to the late Elvis Presley, take lots of pictures.  This may be the last anniversary that you have a reason to visit the gravesite.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

It’s been a relatively-quiet couple of months in the Gary Coleman estate, after the two weeks of craziness that followed his sudden death on May 28, 2010.  It looks like that’s about to change.

A short recap:  Coleman’s ex-wife, Shannon Price, used her medical power of attorney document to terminate Coleman’s life support, which upset his estranged parents.  They then filed to open his estate, saying he died without a will, and stopped Price from planning his funeral.

But there was a will.  Coleman’s ex-manager, Dion Mial, came forward with a 1999 will naming him as the executor in charge.  But wait!

There was a later will, in 2005, naming Coleman’s female friend and former companion, Anna Gray as the one to be in charge of his estate.  So she’s in control, right?  No!

Price says she has a handwritten amendment to the will, from 2007, naming her as the executor and the beneficiary.  She claims Coleman actually wanted her to inherit everything, even though they were divorced in 2008.  How can that be?

Price says they lived together as common-law husband and wife, even after the divorce, so she still should inherit and control his estate.  Here’s our article discussing what all this means and whether Price has a shot at prevailing.

The probate judge decided to appoint a neutral administrator to handle things while all these claims could be sorted out.  The Special Administrator, Robert Jeffs, recently filed a petition asking for permission to let him sell Coleman’s house.  Jeffs says it needs some work, a lot of cleaning, and unfortunately, it is upside down.  In other words, Coleman owed more on the mortgage ($325,000+) when he died than the property is worth.  Jeffs says that the estate doesn’t have money to pay for the house’s expenses, so it must be sold, even at a loss.

Price, of course, isn’t too pleased about this and wants to fight the sale.  She says that Coleman wanted her to have the house.  It still contains her belongings, she says, and she has been barred from getting them back.

So Price is pushing forward with her claim of common-law marriage.  But, Coleman’s parents are pushing back.  Their attorney recently filed a response with the court opposing Price’s request to be recognized as Coleman’s widow.  Their representative said that they expect Anna Gray will join them in the fight against Price.

Poor Shannon Price.  She says that she’s the only one involved with intentions that are pure.  Price’s spokesperson says that Price realizes there is no money in the estate, and she only wants to be able to receive his ashes and make sure his bills are paid.

Do you believe that all this fighting is going on and no money is involved?  While there may not be cash now, whomever wins this battle will be able to control the former Diff’rent Strokes star’s image and be able to profit from it … not to mention his pension from his child actor days.

So, yes, we do expect the battle to continue.  In fact, it’s just getting started!

And while the estate is unusual in terms of some of what the contestants are fighting over, battles over the final wishes of people that aren’t properly documented are far too common in our country.  They happen to the wealthy and not-so-wealthy alike, especially when handwritten documents and questionable wills surface.

That’s why stories like this provide valuable lessons to everyone to see a good estate planning attorney and help prevent fights like this from happening in your family, before it’s too late.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

This is the second installment of a two-part series covering the controversy.  You can read Part I here to learn how Dr. Barnes’ detailed wishes to safeguard the collection in a building he chose, as expressed in his trust document, were completely thwarted by Philadelphia’s art “elite”, whom Dr. Barnes despised until he unexpectedly died in 1951.

Many current and former students and teachers of the Barnes Foundation, along with neighbors and the local township and county governments, banded together to try to protect Dr. Barnes’ vision.  They formed the Friends of the Barnes Foundation (which has a very informative website).

The Friends of the Barnes Foundation were determined to stop the trustees of the charitable trust from ignoring Dr. Barnes’ wishes and moving his prized art collection to a location next to the Philadelphia Institute of Art.  They took the case back to court and presented new evidence which they said had been kept from the Judge when he had decided to allow the relocation in his 2004 decision.

Shockingly, the group discovered (along with other new evidence) that the State of Pennsylvania had allocated $100 million to build a new home for the Barnes collection, in downtown Philadelphia, back in 2002.  The public financing was buried in an lengthy appropriations bill passed by the state legislature, long before the move was legally permitted.

In other words, the State government funded the move — supporting the efforts to undercut Dr. Barnes’ express wishes in his trust – at the same time a State official (the Attorney General) was charged with the responsibility of protecting the trust and Dr. Barnes’ intent.  Talk about a conflict of interest!  Remember, the Attorney General sided with the trustees and advocated to allow the move.

So what did the Judge do when presented with new evidence suggesting that the Attorney General’s office and even the Governor of Pennsylvania were biased in favor of the move?

He ruled that the students, teachers and neighbors of the Barnes Foundation did not have legal “standing” to bring the new legal challenge.  He felt that only the Attorney General, or the trustees, could challenge the prior ruling to permit the move, based on established legal precedent in the state.  So he threw the case out of court, never addressing the new evidence.

In other words, despite the conflict of interest that had been exposed with the Attorney General’s office, he ironically ruled that only the people who helped orchestrate the move had the ability to oppose it in court.  He let the proverbial wolves continue to guard the hen house.

But were his hands really tied by the prior legal precedent?  Wasn’t there another way to protect Dr. Barnes’ wishes?

There sure was.  It is common practice for judges in trust, estate and other probate-related proceedings to appoint a “guardian ad litem” or a “trustee ad litem”, to protect the interests of those who cannot protect themselves (such as children or unknown heirs).  This would typically be an attorney who would be paid from the trust or estate.

In fact, the Friends Group’s Petition requesting that the Judge reopen the case also asked that two people be appointed in this role.  Additionally, the court rules of Pennsylvania allow Judges in these types of cases to appoint trustee ad litems even if no one requests them, in cases when there are interests to be protected which are not adequately represented.

So the Judge could have appointed someone in this role to make sure the beneficial interest of the trust (i.e., the future students and general public) could be fully protected, in the way Dr. Barnes intended.

This means that even if the Judge felt the Friend Group lacked the legal ability to challenge the relocation (in other words, no proper legal standing), he could have — on his own — followed their suggestion of appointing a trustee ad litem to investigate the new evidence and advocate for a position based on that evidence.

That way, there would have been someone independent to represent what Dr. Barnes would have wanted (based on how his trust was worded), and the Judge would have been presented with both sides of the controversy, instead of only one.  By failing to do this, the Judge avoided answering the difficult questions that the Friends of the Barnes Foundation raised.  Such as:

• If the State was willing to spend so much money to foster the move two years before it was allowed to happen, couldn’t it have come up with some way to help raise money to keep the Barnes collection in the suburban building where Dr. Barnes so desperately wanted to keep the art displayed forever?

• Did the trustees deliberately allow the Barnes Foundation to flounder financially so they could justify the move to greener pastures, where they stood to benefit financially by controlling access to this historic collection of art worth at least $25 billion?

• Was the institution that Dr. Barnes had named to control the board of trustees (a small college, Lincoln University), paid off with government funding to encourage them to surrender control of the Barnes Foundation and go along with the new plan?

Because these questions, and more, were never put to the legal test of a full hearing in court, we can only wonder whether the move truly was financially necessary.  If it wasn’t, Dr. Barnes’ wishes would have been respected, rather than ignored.

If you’d like to learn more about this so you can make up your own mind, rent and watch The Art of the Steal.  Here’s the website of 9.14 Pictures, which is the independent film company that made the documentary.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

The powerful story surrounding the legacy of Dr. Albert C. Barnes and his historic art collection was captured in a documentary released on DVD last week, called The Art of the Steal.

While this isn’t the typical way we track down stories, it certainly was highly entertaining.  The Art of the Steal is a must-watch; it’s not only moving and compelling, it is thoroughly enjoyable.

So who was Dr. Albert Barnes?  Raised in a Philadelphia working-class family, he found extraordinary wealth by inventing a new antiseptic medicine to treat and prevent venereal diseases at the start of the 20th Century.  He used his wealth to build what is widely considered to be the greatest collection of post-impressionist art ever assembled.  It includes hundreds of works by masters like Renoir, Cezanne, Matisse, Monet, Picasso, Van Gogh . . . and on and on.  The collection has been valued at 25 to 30 billion dollars, at least.

Dr. Barnes was certainly anything but conventional.  He deeply disliked the art community “elite”, especially those involved with art museums, such as the nearby Philadelphia Museum of Art.  He proudly exhibited his collection in 1923 and was ridiculed by art critics who called his works “nasty” and “primitive”.  Dr. Barnes fired back, saying that “Philadelphia is a depressing intellectual slum”.

He defied convention by grouping his art pieces based on aesthetics and philosophical reasons, instead of by artist or period.  Henri Matisse said “The Barnes Foundation is the only sane place to see art in America.”

Dr. Barnes never had children, but he took great care to plan for his treasured art legacy.  In 1922, he created a type of trust agreement called a “trust indenture”.  This trust established the Barnes Foundation, a charitable organization to manage his art gallery as an educational institution, on a beautiful 12-acre property in the suburbs south of Philadelphia.

He amended his trust indenture several times, the last less than a year before his sudden death from a car accident in 1951.  Dr. Barnes spelled out, at length, how his art could not be sold, moved, placed on tour, or even rearranged within his gallery.  He wanted it used primarily for education, but open for the public (to benefit the working class) on a limited basis.  He restricted how it could be viewed, when (one day per week, generally), and how much could be charged.

Tragically, the same care he used in adding restrictions to his trust indenture to protect his vision ultimately helped lead to its downfall.

Why?  Dr. Barnes made it very difficult for the Board of Trustees to keep the Barnes Foundation profitable.  At least, that’s what the trustees said over the years.

So, little by little, they filed court proceedings asking for permission to change the trust provisions.  They charged more admission, allowed additional days of public viewing, increased the permissible number of visitors, and obtained court approval to take the paintings on tour to raise money, among other deviations.  With the changes, the trustees engaged in expensive litigation in court, arguing that the terms of Dr. Barnes’ trust were impossible to follow because of the great costs needed to maintain the collection.

The final blow came in 2004, when a Judge ruled that the Barnes Foundation, now supported in court by three wealthy and elite charitable foundations and the Pennsylvania Attorney General, could move the entire collection away from Dr. Barnes’ treasured building and 12-acre gardens.  Where?  To the museum district of downtown Philadelphia, right next door to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

This was probably the last place on earth that Dr. Barnes would have wanted.  He once said, “The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a house of artistic and intellectual prostitution.”  Yet the Judge felt the move was appropriate.

In the same ruling, the Judge permitted the board to expand from five members to fifteen, allowing the Barnes Foundation to be controlled by the very same type of wealthy art “elite” that Dr. Barnes despised when he was alive.

How could Dr. Barnes’ wishes have been so blatantly disregarded?  Because of the “doctrine of deviation”, which is a legal principle that allows a court to effectively rewrite a charitable trust if the purpose becomes impossible to maintain without changes.  The trustees argued that there was no financially-viable way to keep the art in the building Dr. Barnes had created for it.  The collection could only be maintained, they argued, by permitting the move.

These trustees stood to benefit greatly by a move downtown.  Most (if not all) of them had ties to the museums nearby to where the new building would be built.  And the Mayor of Philadelphia, the state Attorney General (the person charged with the responsibility of upholding charitable trusts), and even the Governor all used their political weight to make the move happen.  Why?  For tourism, of course!  They realized that the Barnes collection would potentially transform downtown Philadelphia into a must-see destination for art aficionados across the world.

This wasn’t the end of the fight though.  Two years later, a new challenge was filed in court to stop the move, based on some very interesting evidence.  But, was it enough to enforce Dr. Barnes’ wishes?

To be continued …

(This is the first in a two-part series discussing the Barnes Art Collection Controversy)

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

The New York Times recently featured a story about the person universally recognized as one of the greatest chess players of all time.  Robert James “Bobby” Fischer died from kidney disease on January 17, 2008 at the age of 64.  He was buried in Iceland, where he lived for the last few years of his life.

He was a King in the game of chess and his life was anything but conventional.  So why should Fischer’s estate be simple?

Fischer scorned his 1972 world chess championship, renouncing it in 1975.  He retreated from the world and turned his back on fame and fortune.

When he finally emerged for a rematch in 1992, he became a national fugitive.  Why?  Fischer ignored government warnings not to play the match in Yugoslavia, because of a trade embargo.  This made him a criminal.  He found refuge in Iceland, which granted him citizenship and prevented deportation.

Being a criminal was not his only character flaw.  The former chess prodigy was deeply anti-Semitic, according to the Times article, despite having Jewish parents.  The article also says he called a radio station in the Philippines after the 9/11 attacks and called it “a wonderful day.”

Reportedly, when Fischer was diagnosed with kidney disease in 2007, he did not fully appreciate what would happen.  He refused the painful treatments prescribed for him and died within a few months, without even a simple will.

This set the stage for a lengthy battle — one that is still far from finished.  The three-sided match pits his Japanese wife/girlfriend, Miyoko Watai, vs. a Filipino woman who says he fathered her daughter, Marilyn Young, vs. two estranged nephews.  Reportedly, Fischer did not like that their parents practiced Judaism.

Watai (who also is a chess master) says that she and the chess champ were married in 2004, entitling her to at least a part of the estate.  But an Icelandic court has already rejected her claim.  She could still win on appeal, though.

Young says that her 9-year-old daughter, named Jinky, is the true heir.  The Supreme Court of Iceland ordered Fischer’s body exhumed for DNA testing to see if she’s right.

If neither are found to be legitimate heirs, then the nephews will receive the inheritance.  On the other hand, if both women win out, Watai would get one-third of the prize money with Jinky getting the rest.

So how much are they maneuvering for?  Reportedly, somewhere between one to two million dollars.  There’s a very big “but” though.

The United States government isn’t done with Fischer just because he fled to the frozen tundra of Iceland.  The IRS says that Fischer never paid taxes on his $3.65 million payday from the 1992 chess championship rematch — not to mention failing to pay taxes for 15 years before that.

In other words, even the winners of the match may find themselves in checkmate, with Uncle Sam being declared the new champ.  You can read the full New York Times article here.

How could one of the smartest tacticians in the world have failed to make out a simple will?  Friends say that he didn’t believe he was dying.

So add this interesting tale to the long list of reasons why putting off your estate planning is never a good idea.  Don’t wait until you’re going to die; who knows when that will be?  Even without Japanese wives, Filipino kids, and distant relatives who don’t share your religious views, do you really want your family fighting over your estate when you pass?

Go see an experienced estate planning attorney today.  Protect the King, Queen, and all the little pawns in your life before it’s too late.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

I Love Lucy star Lucille Ball died more than 20 years ago — on April 26, 1989, at the age of 77.  So why did her daughter rush to court last week to save awards, love letters and other personal items of the famous comedienne?

Reportedly, when Lucille passed, she left love letters between she and her first husband, Desi Arnaz, along with her lifetime achievement awards, photographs and other items to Lucille and Desi’s daughter, Lucie Arnaz Luckinbill.  But, apparently, Luckinbill never claimed the items from Lucille’s estate and lost them.

So they ended up in the hands of Susie Morton.  Morton is the widow of Gary Morton, who was Lucille Ball’s second husband.  After Lucille passed, these items, along with a Rolls-Royce, were passed to Gary Morton, and then onto Susie after Gary died.

Susie Morton placed the items up for sale at a Beverly Hills, California auction house, with the sale set to start this past Saturday, July 17, 2010.  When Luckinbill’s attorney threatened legal action to stop the sale, Morton filed suit first to allow the auction to proceed.  Luckinbill’s lawyer went to court on Friday to stop the sale and won … well, sort of.

The Judge ruled that Luckinbill would be granted a restraining order, but only on the condition she post a $250,000 bond.  Ouch!  Luckinbill couldn’t afford it and the sale was set to go forward.

But it’s not all bad.  Luckinbill’s legal team was able to negotiate a resolution with the auction house, Heritage Auction Galleries, for the return of the lifetime achievement awards.  The love letters, photographs and Rolls still went up for auction though.

Here’s the link to the online auction, in case you want to see the listings.  The auction house website reports the items earned more than $230,000.

Luckinbill’s lawyer had called the auction efforts demeaning and insulting to Lucille Ball’s memory.  Now, he says, the awards will be donated to a museum, instead of being hawked for cash.

Susie Morton says that Luckinbill abandoned the property years ago.  It’s unclear why.

Too many people fail to take action when a loved one passes away, until it is too late.  We’ve had people contact us years after someone dies, wanting to protect their legal rights to an estate, trust or claim property.

Don’t let the emotions of a lost loved one keep you from protecting yourself.  Burying your head in the sand won’t help!  See a good probate lawyer and make sure you receive what your loved one intended.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!

Baseball pioneer George Steinbrenner, owner of the famed New York Yankees’ franchise, died from a heart attack on July 13, 2010, at age 80.  Checking in at number 341 on Forbes’ list of richest Americans last year, the Steinbrenner fortune has been estimated at $1.1 billion.

Many publications, including the New York Post, have pointed out that, tax-wise, Steinbrenner chose a great year to die.  Due to a quirk in the federal estate tax law, there are no estate taxes for those who die in 2010.

Those who died in 2009 paid a 45% tax for every dollar over $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples who did the proper estate tax planning).  There are no estate taxes this year, but next year, the estate tax comes roaring back with only a $1 million exemption and a 55% tax rate.

As the Post article and others have pointed out, this led to a huge tax savings for Steinbrenner’s widow and four children of $500 million (based on 2009 levels) or $600 million (compared to the 2011 limit).  Not bad!

So what do Yankees’ fans think about this?  They should be pretty happy (assuming, that is, they like having the Steinbrenner family own the Yankees).  Heirs of other sports franchise owners have been forced to sell teams to pay estate taxes.  For example, in Michigan, the Detroit Pistons are for sale because owner Bill Davidson died in 2009.  The estate needs money; his heirs need to plan for the large estate tax bill that will be due one day, because he died before 2010.

In fact, there’s another quirk about the estate tax law that makes it even less likely that the Steinbrenner family will ever sell the team.

The estate tax loophole has a catch.  In 2010, heirs of the very wealthy do not get to enjoy a typical tax savings called “step-up in basis”.  What does this mean?  Normally, when someone dies, their heirs receive the assets at the tax value they are worth as of the date of death.  So, when the heirs sell that property, they only pay capital gains taxes on any increase in value after the date of death.

For 2010 estates, however, these normal tax savings are gone (above a certain dollar level).  This means that the Steinbrenner heirs have the same tax “basis” that George did when he bought the franchise back in 1973 for a mere $10 million.

In other words, if they chose to sell their 55% ownership in the Yankees’ parent company (which is valued at $1.6 billion), they will have to pay taxes on every dollar over $14.3 million (which is $10 million plus $4.3 million extra that married couples are permitted to credit towards their tax basis amount).  This would lead to a huge tax bill to pay based on 55% of stock worth $1.6 billion!

This means the Steinbrenner family will have no choice but to hold onto the New York Yankees’ stock and not sell it, unless they want to pay this large tax.  Instead, they’ll likely pass down the stock from generation to generation, unless of course a new tax law gets passed which changes their situation.

Wow, this is complicated!  And it’s all because of this one-year estate tax gap.  Everyone knew that Congress would pass a new law long before 2010 to close the gap.  But, um, we’re still waiting for that to happen.  There have been rumors of a retroactive tax — meaning Congress could pass new laws now and try to apply the tax even to those who already died in 2010.

Most experts feel that would be unconstitutional.  Certainly, the Steinbrenner heirs (and heirs of other billionaires who have died this year, like Houston oil tycoon Dan L. Duncan, who died with an estate worth an estimated $8 billion dollars) would agree with those experts.  They would undoubtedly file lawsuits to challenge any new estate tax laws that are passed which try to impose an estate tax on them after their wealthy loved ones died.

Does all this estate tax stuff leave your head spinning?  We’re not surprised.  But it’s certainly something you may need to worry about.  If you have an estate that may potentially be worth more than $1 million (and this figure includes life insurance), it is essential for you to visit an experienced estate planning attorney for a revocable living trust, as part of a complete estate plan.

Unless, of course, you plan to die this year.

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com.  Find us on Facebook!