Astor’s assets — along with the $50 million charitable trust of her late husband — have been tied up since she passed in 2007. The fighting was so extensive that it dragged in a “who’s who” of top New York City institutions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Carnegie Hall, the New York Public Library, Rockefeller University, and even the United Nations, among many others.

Under Astor’s 2002 will, her only son, Anthony Marshall, stood to inherit tens of millions of dollars, with most of it slated to pass to charity after he died. But Marshall wanted much more. He and a lawyer, Francis X. Morrissey, Jr., convinced the elderly Astor — when she was suffering from dementia — to sign a series of codicils to Astor’s 2002 will. These codicils would have allowed Marshall to leave much of Astor’s fortune to whomever he wanted (specifically, his younger wife, whom Astor reportedly detested) instead of to charity.

Unlike most court fights over whether changes to a will are valid, this fight led to criminal prosecution. After a six-month trial in 2009, Marshall and Morrissey were found guilty of grand larceny, fraud, and a host of related charges. Marshall, who is now 87, has not seen any jail time yet because of his pending appeal, despite a sentence of one to three years in jail.

The criminal trial did not end the fighting, of course. Since 1997, Astor signed a total of eight wills and codicils, so sorting out which documents were actually valid was no easy task. That job fell to the lawyers representing the various parties and the assigned Judge from Surrogate’s Court for Westchester County (Surrogate’s Court is what New York calls its probate court system). With dozens of charities involved, along with Astor’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren and the New York Attorney General, the process of determining which documents were invalid due to mental incompetency or undue influence was complex.

It took two and a half years of negotiating, after the criminal verdict was hounded down, for the parties to reach the global settlement that was accepted by the Judge on March 28, 2012.

Ultimately, the settlement documents reveal that Marshall caved in, rather than continuing to fight. Given how poorly the criminal trial went for him, this was no surprise. But how little Marshall is left with at the end of settlement is telling.

The settlement provides that Astor’s 2002 will is accepted as the valid one, but not the three codicils to that will that came afterwards. Under this will, Marshall would have a received quite a lot. It left him two pieces of real estate that sold for $28.5 million (and were originally valued at much more), $5.3 million in cash, plus another 7% interest per year on a $60 million trust fund, for the rest of his life. That would have meant almost $20 million in the several years since Astor died, plus another sum that would have been potentially more than that if Marshall lived past the life expectancy of an 87-year old man (another 4.5 years from now).

In total, this would have likely meant a gross sum of more than $70 million, reduced by his pro-rata share of the estate taxes on the real estate portion alone. The will only required Marshall to pay the estate taxes attributable to the value of the real estate. Had the real estate been sold promptly in 2007 or 2008 after Astor passed, before the real estate bubble burst, the properties likely would have netted as much as $30 million, even after paying estate taxes. They were initially listed for sale for a combined $58 million.

In other words, without all the fighting (which delayed sales of the real estate), under the 2002 will alone, Marshall would have likely brought in close to $70 million. Even with the lower real estate sales, the Attorney General’s office stated in its press release announcing the settlement that Marshall’s share would have been $31 million.

So how much did Marshall walk away with? Less than $3 million. While he officially accepted $14.5 million, Marshall already has outstanding judgments against him for legal fees of $11.6 million. Plus, his legal fees are still accruing through his criminal conviction appeal. Part of the reduction down to this amount included $12.3 million paid to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office as restitution, for the costs spent prosecuting Marshall.

Other than a million to each of Astor’s grandsons, and lesser amounts to great-grandchildren and others close to Astor, the large bulk of the fortune will now pass directly to New York charities. Unlike what would have happened if the 2002 will was upheld in its totality, they won’t have to wait until Marshall dies to receive the generous bequests. On the other hand, the entire estate has been greatly diminished by legal fees that would not have been necessary if things had been handled as Brooke Astor intended them when she signed her 2002 will.

Should anyone feel sorry for Marshall? The 87-year old has been disgraced, defeated, denied almost all of the generous bequests his mother wanted him to have, and he still has a one-to-three year jail sentence hanging over his head — if he is still alive after the appeal process, that is.

His son, Philip, appears to feel sorry for his father. Philip was the person who filed for guardianship over his grandmother, exposing his father’s greed and mistreatment of Astor. Philip testified against his father during the criminal trial. He blames Marshall’s wife, Charlene, whose greed and control over Marshall led to the chicanery with Astor’s estate.

Even if Philip’s belief is true, no one should feel sympathy for Marshall. Marshall chose his path. Exploitation of elderly citizens in our country is a mostly-silent epidemic. One study pegged the annual cost of seniors exploited out of money to be as high as $5 billion. That’s each and every year. Too many of those who take advantage of seniors are never caught.

Sadly, seniors — even those with only a small home and modest retirement account — are often tempting targets for greedy family members, caregivers, or others. It seems so easy to convince someone whose mind is stricken with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia to change their will, trust, deed, or bank account. But it can be difficult to fight the changes because undue influence and other forms of exploitation are sometimes hard to prove. Many times it’s not even discovered, much less challenged in court.

Criminal prosecution of offenders like Marshall are extraordinarily rare. How many prosecutor offices have the time, money and resources to devote even a small fraction of what was invested to bring Marshall to justice? If not for Brooke Astor’s high-profile status in New York, they likely would not have tried to do so, even in this case.

Marshall serves as an example that there is a cost to wrongly convincing seniors to change their final wishes. He should pay the ultimate price. So many others escape justice because the victims are often of questionable competence, closing in on death, and unable to speak for themselves.

So it is fitting that, after paying his lawyers, Marshall will likely have nothing left. He could have received $70 million or more, just by being a good son. Instead, he — possibly at the direction of his wife — let greed overcome him.

It can happen in your family too. If you, or someone you know, find yourself in a situation where you feel that someone took advantage of an elderly loved one to coerce a change to an estate plan or otherwise exploit them, you cannot afford to sit back and hope that criminal prosecution will right the wrong. You should speak with an experienced probate litigation attorney and see what options you have to honor the true wishes of the loved one who was victimized.

Our book, Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, uses the Brooke Astor and other celebrity estates to educate about wills, trusts, estates, and how to protect your family from an estate battle. We also offer tips to help families who are facing probate fights like this one.

Don’t let your elderly loved ones be victimized like Brooke Astor.

Amy Winehouse in 2007. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Probate records were recently filed showing that Winehouse died intestate, meaning without a valid will. The estate value is listed as £4,257,580 (worth about $6.7 million U.S.) in total assets, but taxes and other debts reduce the value to £2,944,554, or $4.66 million, U.S. Many believed her estate would be worth much more, perhaps as high as $15 to $20 million.

But, let’s not jump to conclusions so quickly. The assets passing through probate court are those left in her individual name when she died. So anything held jointly with someone else, or that had a beneficiary designation (like a life insurance policy), would pass outside of probate, directly to the other person. Also, if Winehouse had a trust — which is unlikely, considering she didn’t have a will — anything held in the trust would also avoid probate. None of these types of assets would be included in her estate value as listed in the probate documents.

What of her ex-husband, Fielder-Civil, who has been serving a lengthy jail sentence for burglary related to his drug addiction? As an ex-spouse, he gets nothing. Some have speculated that Winehouse still loved him and would have left him something if she had a will. Whether that’s true or not, it doesn’t matter at this point, because there is no will. That’s the biggest problem with procrastinating with estate planning; you have no say over “who” receives “what” when you die. For example, did Winehouse want her older brother, Alex, to inherit anything? He doesn’t, because she had no will.

Instead of money passing to her brother or to her ex-husband, it will all go to Winehouse’s parents, Mitch and Janis. Mitch is the estate administrator, according to the probate documents.

It’s too bad that the earlier reports of Winehouse having done proper estate planning have proven to be inaccurate. We previously applauded the foresight that a 27-year old would have had in updating her will after her divorce. By having no will at all, despite earning millions of dollars in her short career, Winehouse joined the dozens of other famous celebrities who procrastinated with their estate planning.

This has many pitfalls, for celebrities and non-celebrities alike. Without a will, you have no say about who inherits your legacy, and you also lose control over how and when they receive it. In addition, wealthier individuals lose the ability to do estate-tax avoidance planning. For many families, probate court can often be a breeding ground for family fights, and this is especially true when there is no will.

Wills do not cost much to have prepared the right way, by an experienced estate planning attorney. No adult with any level of assets should be without one, especially someone with millions — no matter what their age. In fact, for most people a will is only the beginning of a comprehensive estate plan, but it’s a good start.

Her attorney filed the conservatorship paperwork in the Los Angeles probate court on March 20, 2012. Interestingly, the case was assigned to the same judge who is handling Britney Spears’ conservatorship. Hilton asks to be appointed as the conservator for her mother, which would give her the right to make Gabor’s medical, financial and other decisions under the supervision of the court, if she wins the case.

In her petition to the court, which you can read here, courtesy of Eonline, Hilton alleges that for the last year and a half, since Gabor fell and broke her hip, von Anhalt has been isolating Gabor and over-medicating her, in an increasing pattern. She says she’s only been allowed to see Gabor twice in the last several months, and Gabor was sedated both times, with evidence of bed sores and lesions on her face. She wants her mother to be medically evaluated to see if she is required to be bedridden.

Hilton also makes accusations about the finances. She says that von Anhalt has allowed the house to go into foreclosure. Hilton’s petition includes a copy of a recent notice of default filed against the home by the bank that holds the mortgage. She accuses von Anhalt of taking out a $700,000 loan against the house, but says he hasn’t been using it to make mortgage payments. Hilton says Gabor and von Anhalt signed a prenuptial agreement, keeping her money out of his control, and this loan undermined Gabor’s wishes.

So how did the publicity-loving von Anhalt respond to the news of this court case? He held a press conference, of course. TMZ has the video footage, which you can watch here. In the video, he rants against Hilton and says she’s only after Gabor’s money. He goes on to complain how he and Gabor are $6 million in debt, and the loan was needed to help pay for her medical bills. He even goes so far as to blame Hilton for the fact that the mortgage on the house is so large.

Yet this is the same man who spent $70,000 on a billboard to commemorate the happy couple’s 25-year wedding anniversary. And he holds lavish parties at Gabor’s house for events like her recent 95th birthday, even though Gabor is too incompetent to know what is happening. One can only wonder how much of this $6 million debt was incurred because of his recent campaign for governor of California and his upcoming run to be elected the next mayor of Los Angeles.

Family fights over an aging loved one end up in court through guardianship and conservatorship proceedings all too often, especially in second-marriage families. Of course, in Gabor’s case, it’s a ninth-marriage family, but surprisingly, she has only one child. That one child is not happy with the way her step-father is controlling Gabor and isolating her, and it’s hard to blame her. But, ultimately, the question of whether Gabor needs a conservator will come down to whether or not her care and/or finances have been compromised.

That’s not always easy to prove. Certainly, there are two sides to every story, and von Anhalt insists he is a loving and devoted husband, who cares only about Gabor’s well-being. He thinks that Hilton’s visits are detrimental to Gabor. Specifically, von Anhalt says that Hilton is not happy enough, which could depress Gabor.

Will the Judge intercede and order that Hilton be allowed more time to see her mother before she passes away? And will the Judge attempt to find peace in the family by appointing a neutral, third-party conservator to manage the situation, given the obvious hatred that both sides have for one another? We’ll watch closely to find out.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, where you feel an elderly family member is at risk — or if someone is challenging the level of care that you are providing — then it may be time for you to speak with an experienced attorney who regularly handles guardianship and conservatorship cases. While no one likes to go down that route, it’s often unavoidable. Seeking good legal counsel early can sometimes even avoid a costly dispute, or at the very least, help you through the process if a court fight is inevitable.

Her attorney filed the conservatorship paperwork in the Los Angeles probate court on March 20, 2012. Interestingly, the case was assigned to the same judge who is handling Britney Spears’ conservatorship. Hilton asks to be appointed as the conservator for her mother, which would give her the right to make Gabor’s medical, financial and other decisions under the supervision of the court, if she wins the case.

In her petition to the court, which you can read here, courtesy of Eonline, Hilton alleges that for the last year and a half, since Gabor fell and broke her hip, von Anhalt has been isolating Gabor and over-medicating her, in an increasing pattern. She says she’s only been allowed to see Gabor twice in the last several months, and Gabor was sedated both times, with evidence of bed sores and lesions on her face. She wants her mother to be medically evaluated to see if she is required to be bedridden.

Hilton also makes accusations about the finances. She says that von Anhalt has allowed the house to go into foreclosure. Hilton’s petition includes a copy of a recent notice of default filed against the home by the bank that holds the mortgage. She accuses von Anhalt of taking out a $700,000 loan against the house, but says he hasn’t been using it to make mortgage payments. Hilton says Gabor and von Anhalt signed a prenuptial agreement, keeping her money out of his control, and this loan undermined Gabor’s wishes.

So how did the publicity-loving von Anhalt respond to the news of this court case? He held a press conference, of course. TMZ has the video footage, which you can watch here. In the video, he rants against Hilton and says she’s only after Gabor’s money. He goes on to complain how he and Gabor are $6 million in debt, and the loan was needed to help pay for her medical bills. He even goes so far as to blame Hilton for the fact that the mortgage on the house is so large.

Yet this is the same man who spent $70,000 on a billboard to commemorate the happy couple’s 25-year wedding anniversary. And he holds lavish parties at Gabor’s house for events like her recent 95th birthday, even though Gabor is too incompetent to know what is happening. One can only wonder how much of this $6 million debt was incurred because of his recent campaign for governor of California and his upcoming run to be elected the next mayor of Los Angeles.

Family fights over an aging loved one end up in court through guardianship and conservatorship proceedings all too often, especially in second-marriage families. Of course, in Gabor’s case, it’s a ninth-marriage family, but surprisingly, she has only one child. That one child is not happy with the way her step-father is controlling Gabor and isolating her, and it’s hard to blame her. But, ultimately, the question of whether Gabor needs a conservator will come down to whether or not her care and/or finances have been compromised.

That’s not always easy to prove. Certainly, there are two sides to every story, and von Anhalt insists he is a loving and devoted husband, who cares only about Gabor’s well-being. He thinks that Hilton’s visits are detrimental to Gabor. Specifically, von Anhalt says that Hilton is not happy enough, which could depress Gabor.

Will the Judge intercede and order that Hilton be allowed more time to see her mother before she passes away? And will the Judge attempt to find peace in the family by appointing a neutral, third-party conservator to manage the situation, given the obvious hatred that both sides have for one another? We’ll watch closely to find out.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, where you feel an elderly family member is at risk — or if someone is challenging the level of care that you are providing — then it may be time for you to speak with an experienced attorney who regularly handles guardianship and conservatorship cases. While no one likes to go down that route, it’s often unavoidable. Seeking good legal counsel early can sometimes even avoid a costly dispute, or at the very least, help you through the process if a court fight is inevitable.

First, the fact that Whitney relied on a will — signed back in 1993 no less — instead of a living trust is troubling. We’re talking about the woman who signed the largest recording contract in history! If anyone should have thorough estate planning, including a living trust, it was Whitney.

Why? Wills have to pass through probate court to be effective, which makes them public record. That’s why information about the contents of her will is all over the internet. Inside Edition, for example, posted a copy of the will, here. In addition to be public, probate can be expensive, time-consuming, and a breeding ground for family fights.

Living trusts, on the other hand, when properly-used, keep matters private and outside of probate court. Most people with even modest estates are better served using living trusts, instead of a will. It’s frankly rather shocking that Whitney only had a will.

After signing her will in 1993, Whitney made one change, at least. She signed at least one codicil (an amendment to the will), dated April 14, 2000. There have been reports of a second codicil in 2004, but that has not been made public. The Order from probate court which admitted the will only refers to a single codicil, not two codicils, which would normally be the case if there were in fact multiple codicils.

When Whitney signed the codicil, she named her mother, Cissy Houston as the executor, replacing the person named in her original will, the attorney who prepared that will. When the attorney who created a will also is named as an executor, it sometimes raises red flags. Whitney obviously had second thoughts about who she wanted in control of her estate, and that’s not a bad thing. Interestingly, Cissy Houston did not end up serving as executor, however. Instead, Whitney’s sister-in-law, Pat Houston, was appointed by the probate court.

So what else is surprising about the will? It did create a trust, but not a living trust as most people would do. Rather, the will calls for Whitney’s assets to be held in trust for her daughter, Bobbi Kristina, but Whitney did not create an actual trust while she was alive. This is called a testamentary trust, because it is created by the will, not during life. A testamentary trust can still function like a living trust, but it doesn’t have the advantages of avoiding probate court and privacy, which a living trust would have.

But, you certainly have to give Whitney credit for thinking that aspect of her estate plan through. As we wrote previously, without employing a trust, Whitney’s daughter would stand to inherit all of the money immediately, because she is 18 — legally, an adult. By using a trust — even a testamentary trust — Whitney was able to space out the distributions. So Bobbi Kristina will inherit 10% at age 21, another one-sixth at age 25, and the rest at age 30. There are provisions to allow for the money to be spent by independent trustees (Whitney’s brother and sister-in-law) for Bobbi Kristina’s benefit, for things like education, buying a home, starting a business, having a child, and more.

What else is surprising about the will? It was signed on February 3, 1993, several months after Whitney’s marriage to Bobby Brown. In most states, a spouse has rights to elect against his or her share of the will and receive more than what was left to him or her; sometimes one-half of the estate, or even more. Georgia’s laws do not permit this (except for a limited allowance to the spouse for a limited period of time). But, Whitney created the will in New Jersey and the law where she lived at the time of her death would control this.

In other words, if she had still been married to Bobby Brown, even though she wanted everything to pass to Bobbi Kristina, Bobby Brown would still have the right to take a large part of the estate. This could have been avoided (at least in many states) with a living trust.

This problem was solved when Whitney divorced Brown, in 2007. However, this raises another question. Why didn’t Whitney update her will after the divorce? Under the will, Bobby is named as the person Whitney wanted to serve as guardian for Bobbi Kristina if Whitney had died when Bobbi was still a minor.

As we wrote before, there is some concern that Bobby could still try to seek control of Bobbi Kristina, through a conservatorship (as was done with Britney Spears), if Bobbi Kristina is found to be not competent and at risk of harm. Whitney’s will suggests that she wanted Bobby Brown to be the person to assume this position if it was needed. Did she really still want that after their divorce?

And, the will stated that if Whitney did not have any living children when she died, her money would have been split between several family members, including Bobby Brown.

A critical component of estate planning is updating documents after important life events, such as a divorce. Whitney’s will should have been changed to remove any reference to Bobby Brown — or, if she still wanted him to be named as the preferred guardian for Bobbi Kristina and a potential beneficiary, then it still should have been updated to make that clear.

It’s a good lesson for everyone. Most people would benefit from living trusts, beyond just simple wills. And, whether you have a will, trust, or both, it’s important to update your estate planning documents with life events, like divorces, new children, buying or selling a home, or starting a new business.

Several months ago, we wrote how her father, Jamie Spears, was using the conservatorship to insulate Britney from lawsuits, including one by a company called Brand Sense. The company had sued Britney for breach of contract, after Team Britney cut Brand Sense out of profits from her perfume deal with Elizabeth Arden. Because Britney had been declared mentally incompetent, which justified the conservatorship, her father and their attorneys were able to keep Britney from being questioned under oath in a deposition for the lawsuit.

Recently, they’ve settled the case and agreed to give Brand Sense a confidential amount of the profits. The Daily Mail in Britain reported that the settlement added up to $10 million for Brand Sense.

And that wasn’t the only lawsuit settlement. Even more recently, Britney’s legal team settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former bodyguard Fernando Flores. Radaronline reports that the settlement was done to keep embarrassing details about Britney’s personal life quiet. Despite this, the deposition of Flores from the lawsuit apparently was still leaked, describing how Britney allegedly attempted to seduce Flores and how her father would bar Britney’s now-fiancee Jason Trawick from the house after they fought, sometimes in what Flores called “violent quarrels.”

Then came reports that a third lawsuit, by Britney’s former manager, Sam Lufti, did not settle but instead is set for trial, in September of 2012. Because of this, Britney’s wedding date has been postponed. Lufti is suing Britney and her parents for breach of contract, libel and defamation. As in the other lawsuits, Lufti’s lawyers also want to take a deposition of Britney.

The last thing that anyone on Team Britney wants is for Britney to have to answer difficult questions, under oath, especially where that deposition might get leaked to the media (as in the Flores lawsuit). So Jamie Spears insists that Britney is not competent, which so far has allowed her to avoid undergoing a deposition.

The downside to this? They can’t have their cake and eat it too. If Britney is not competent to answer questions in a deposition, then can she be competent enough to be married? Likely not, which is why her wedding date is being postponed until the Lufti lawsuit ends.

But, that’s not the only problem. Most recently, newspapers report that Trawick is negotiating with Simon Cowell’s The X Factor for Britney to be a judge on the show. Reportedly, they’ve offered Britney $10 million, but she wants $20 million. She’s even said to be ready to undergo media training to get ready for her judge-ship.

This of course raises the question. If she’s competent enough to serve as a talent judge on a major TV network television show, how in the world can she be so incompetent that she can’t make her own decisions? Singing on stage is one thing. She’s been doing that since she was a child.

But talking, off-script, making talent judgments and providing what would expected to be witty or insightful commentary? Can someone incompetent do that?

Absolutely not. If that were allowed to happen, it would turn the conservatorship system (called guardianship in many states) into a farce. The system is designed to protect vulnerable adults – usually elderly people suffering from dementia, Alzheimer’s diseases or other medical conditions – because they or their property would be at risk of significant harm. It’s not designed to insulate young pop-stars from having to answer questions in a lawsuit about why a former manager was fired.

Conservatorships and guardianships are needed court proceedings to help protect those adults in our society most in need of protection. But, that protection comes at a very high price. Incompetent adults cannot make most decisions for themselves, like selling property or even getting married.

For example, Britney’s LA mansion was recently put on the market for $3 million, nearly $4 less than she paid for it in 2007. Because of the conservatorship, the house can’t be sold without probate court approval. This is the type of restriction that is very common with guardianships and conservatorships.

While most people don’t have to worry about conservatorships or guardianships for younger adults like Britney, they are quite common for older adults in our country. That’s why we recommend that everyone create powers of attorney and living wills, which allow someone to make decisions for another without having to go to court. But, you have to plan in advance for them to work; once someone becomes incompetent, it’s too late to create a power of attorney. Then the family often has to go to court to have a guardian or conservator appointed.

Even young adults should have this done, because no one knows when an accident or medical tragedy could arise. Every adult 18 years and older should have powers of attorney for medical and financial decisions, just in case.

Advanced legal planning can help in most situations involving an incompetent adult, but not all of them. If you or your loved ones are facing the need to protect a vulnerable senior, we encourage you to work with an experienced elder law attorney to learn the best solution for your family, with the least amount of court-involvement as possible.

In fact, it’s getting more and more use even by celebrities who are no longer with us. Whether it’s attributable to their estates, companies managing their image rights, or other-worldly influences, just because someone is dead doesn’t mean they can’t have an active Twitter account.

This topic got us thinking, and researching. What are the most-followed official Twitter accounts of deceased celebrities? Trial & Heirs has the answer.

We’ve done our best to only include actual celebrity accounts. If you use Twitter and want to follow all of these, we created a Twitter list with all ten.

(All totals are as of February 28, 2012.)

1. Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson / Twitter

@michaeljackson

New York, NY

verified celebrity Twitter account

631,893 followers

370 tweets

Michael Joseph Jackson died at age 50 on June 25, 2009 from acute propofol intoxication.

His estate uses the account actively, posting trivia, news, commemorative items, and more. Recent tweets include a tribute to Whitney Houston and concert tour information.

2. Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse / Twitter

@amywinehouse

London

verified celebrity Twitter account

548,535 followers

111 tweets

Amy Jade Winehouse passed away from alcohol poisoning at age 27, on July 23, 2011.

In addition to promoting her charitable foundation and album sales, her account includes promotional news and videos. The tweeting is sporadic, and most recently included Winehouse-related Grammy tweets.

Our Amy Winehouse estate article is here.

Bob Marley / Twitter
3. Bob Marley

@bobmarley

“Higher”

verified celebrity Twitter account

163,601 followers

251 tweets

Robert Nesta Marley died at age 36 on May 11, 1981 from skin cancer.

His family maintains his official twitter account, including a variety of videos, discussion topics, and Marley family re-tweets.

Our recent Trial & Heirs article about Bob Marley’s estate is here.

4. Tupac Shakur

Tupac Shakur / Twitter

@2pac

no location given

verified celebrity Twitter account

66,587 followers

396 tweets

Tupac Amaru Shakur was only 25 when he died of multiple gunshot wounds on September 13, 1996.

Far less promotional than other estate accounts, Tupac’s estate posts frequent tweets discussing a variety of topics, such as Grammy winners, videos and trivia about Tupac.

5. Elvis Presley

Elvis Presley / Twitter

@ElvisPresley

Memphis, TN

verified celebrity Twitter account

56,170 followers

2,910 tweets

Elvis Aaron Presley was declared dead on August 16, 1977, at age 42.

His frequently-updated account features trivia, interviews, photographs, videos and more. With promotional content kept to a minimum, it’s a must-follow for Elvis fans.

6. Aaliyah

Aaliyah / Twitter

@AaliyahHaughton

New York

non-verified Twitter account

33,357 followers

5,874 tweets

Aaliyah Dana Haughton died tragically in a plane crash, at age 22, on August 25, 2001.

The Twitter account for this R&B artist and actress is active, very conversational, and focuses far more on honoring Aaliyah than promoting sales.

7. Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe / Twitter

@MarilynMonroe

no location given

verified celebrity Twitter account

21,234 followers

167 tweets

Norma Jeane Baker died from an overdose of barbiturates at age 36, on August 5, 1962, but no one knew for sure whether it was suicide, homicide, or an accident.

The first non-musician on the list, the estate of Marilyn Monroe uses most of the tweets from this relatively-new account for promotional purposes.

8. George Harrison

George Harrison / Twitter

@GeorgeHarrison

United Kingdom

non-verified Twitter account

20,765 followers

53 tweets

George Harrison suffered from lung cancer, which claimed his life at age 58 on November 29, 2001.

His “official” Twitter account tweets are infrequent and mostly promotional.

9. Humphrey Bogart

Humphrey Bogart / Twitter

@HumphreyBogart

Los Angeles, CA

verified celebrity Twitter account

10,920 followers

1,320 tweets

Bogart was 57 when he died on January 14, 1957, making him the celebrity who has been dead the longest before embarking into the Twitter universe. He suffered from cancer of the esophagus.

His Estate’s Twitter account is highly-interactive, and full of trivia and interesting Bogart quotes.

10. Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix / Twitter

@JimiHendrix

non-verified Twitter account

Seattle, WA

8,677 followers

191 tweets

James Marshall Hendrix was only 27 when he died on September 18, 1970 from asphyxiation, after he ingested a large amount of sleeping pills and red wine.

His “Official” Twitter feed is heavily promotional.

Trial & Heirs is all about using celebrity estates to educate people about estate planning. Have you ever thought about what would happen to your Twitter and Facebook accounts if tragedy should strike? Would your family members know how to access them?

We strongly suggest that everyone get organized, as part of the estate planning process. This includes grouping your legal documents together with a list of assets, professionals you work with, as well as important information such as bank account numbers, funeral preferences … and yes, even a list of social media passwords. There is so much information stored in your head that no one else knows. The last thing you want your loved ones to worry about when you die is where to find all of this information.

Make it easy on your loved ones. Create a list, get organized, and leave your information with your legal documents, in a safe and secure place. And don’t forget to tell at least two people you trust where to find your information.

Finally, if you’re a financial or legal professional, you can do your clients a great service by helping them get organized. Trial & Heirs can help you do this. Click here to learn more.