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!

Can the Granddaddy of all probate disputes finally be nearing an end?  Those in charge of the Anna Nicole Smith Estate certainly hope not.  Smith, also known as Vickie Lynn Marshall, battled for a share of her late husband’s multi-billion dollar estate for almost 12 years before she died.  Here’s the Probate Lawyer Blog’s discussion of the case to bring you up to speed. 

To cut to the chase, Smith was broken hearted when she didn’t inherit anything from the estate or trust of J. Howard Marshall II, her late husband (who was more than 60 years older than she was).  Smith filed legal claims seeking a piece of his fortune in two different states; she lost in Texas but won in California.  Her victory was snatched away by the federal court of appeals, but she found new hope when that ruling was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 2006.  Yes, that’s right, the highest court in our land ruled in favor of the ex-Playboy Playmate.

But, now, the three federal appellate court judges who reviewed the case ruled against her — again. 

In fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision this past Friday, declaring that the federal judge who awarded her $88 million never should have done so.

Why not?  Because a Texas judge and jury already found that Smith wasn’t entitled to any money from her dear, departed husband’s estate or trust.   This court of appeals panel ruled that the prior trial verdict in Texas took precedence and precluded the California judge from ruling differently.

If you’d like to read the entire 62-page legal decision, you can download it here.

Trust those in control of Smith’s Estate (including the infamous attorney Howard K. Stern) to appeal again.  They’ll either ask the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case and/or they’ll request that the United States Supreme Court again side with Smith.

Can the Anna Nicole Smith Estate be lucky enough to revive her case in the United States Supreme Court twice?

We doubt it.  It’s hard enough getting the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case once.  Twice?  Doesn’t happen very often, except in cases that have an important legal precedent to address.

And the circumstances surrounding the “Marshall v. Marshall” case are too bizarre, and the legal issue that the appeal is based on (having to do with the proper jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court) is too narrow, for the Smith legal team to have much chance at success this time around.

On the other hand, many legal scholars doubted that the United States Supreme Court would accept the case — and rule in Smith’s favor — the last time around, so who knows?

Either way, the case still won’t end for some time now.  It will take several months — at the very minimum — and maybe even years more to be finally resolved.  After 15 years of legal fighting, the feuding isn’t done yet!

Ahh the legal fun that can result when a 26-year old stripper sets her eyes on an 89-year old Texas oil tycoon. 

Keep in mind that while this particular legal battle is unusual in terms of length and how much is involved, court feuds involving who should inherit from an estate or trust are far more common than most people think.  Yes, even for those who pass away with modest wealth. 

The best way to minimize the chances of it happening to your family?  Good legal planning with a qualified estate planning attorney. 

By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and 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.

The Probate Lawyer Blog featured this article about the Michael Jackson Estate several weeks ago, posing the question of whether it is ethical for estate executors to seek a 10% fee for certain business deals they reach for such a high-profile estate.  It’s especially problematic when you factor in that one of the executors was Michael Jackson’s attorney.

Well, this attorney, John Branca, and his co-executor, John McClain (a music executive), just hit the mother-load.  It was widely reported yesterday that they brokered a deal worth up to $250 million dollars (that’s right — one quarter of a billion dollars!). What was the deal for?  Sony announced a seven-year distribution agreement for unreleased music recorded by the late King of Pop (as well as related video footage).

Yes that means that Branca and McClain earned $12.5 million each for one deal.

Why do we question this?  For several reasons, actually.  First, it’s the job of executors to bring in as much money as possible for an estate that has earning potential like this estate has.  They shouldn’t need a 10% incentive to do the job they’re required by law to do.

Second, Branca, reportedly, is the attorney who prepared the will and trust that named him as the co-executor and co-trustee.  Because of these documents that he created, he just made $12.5 million — in addition to the other fees he’s already earned (and will continue to earn).

Would it be ethical for an attorney to create a will for a client to sign that leaves $12.5 million to that attorney as a direct beneficiary?  In most cases, no, it wouldn’t.  So why is this attorney allowed to earn that much as an executor fee?

Finally, there’s the issue which we discuss in our book, “Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!”, that Michael Jackson’s Trust wasn’t funded properly.  If it had been, then his estate would have been kept out of court and handled in private.  It’s also entirely possible that his trust document (which hasn’t been released to the public) may have specified what compensation the trustees would have received.

IF that’s the case (just speculating here), then Branca and McClain wouldn’t necessarily have been able to receive this percentage fee.  But, because Jackson’s Trust wasn’t properly funded, thereby requiring it to pass through the probate court process, it opened the door to allow this type of fee to be approved by the judge (again, if the trust document addressed their compensation, which isn’t unusual).  And the judge did approve the executors’ 10% fee in this case.

A properly-used estate plan would have bypassed court entirely.  Jackson’s estate plan didn’t do that.  The attorney who prepared that estate plan now just earned tens of millions of dollars because of that estate plan.

And it’s all legal.  But is it ethical?

Some feel it is.  After all, Branca is a respected entertainment lawyer and McClain is an experienced music executive.  They have the expertise to broker deals like this.  And clearly, judging by the amount of money they’ve brought into the estate, they’re good at what they do.  And Michael Jackson’s heirs are benefiting from their expertise.

If it’s standard to compensate entertainment industry experts with this type of fee, why shouldn’t Branca and McClain earn what may be considered fair compensation in that line of business?

There is some merit to this position.  After all, Michael’s mother, Katherine Jackson, spent months battling McClain and Branca in court over this estate (until she hired a new attorney, at which time she changed her position).  Yet she didn’t object to their 10% fee.  If a primary beneficiary of Michael’s estate didn’t object to this generous fee, why should anyone else?

What do you think?

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.

Dennis Hopper was already fighting against advanced prostrate cancer.  Now the 73-year-old actor is turning up the heat in his battle against his wife, 41-year-old Victoria.  He filed for divorce in January, and according to published reports, the key factor is his will.

Victoria is a 25% beneficiary under Hopper’s will.  But, in the case of divorce, the couple’s prenuptial agreement says that she gets nothing.  And that’s the sole motivating factor behind the divorce, according to Victoria.  She blames his three children from a prior marriage and says that Dennis is not making rational decisions, due in large part to the medication he’s taking.

In other words, she says it’s all about the estate planning. 

And it’s hard to argue with that point.  Dennis Hopper’s lawyer was in court last week, seeking a restraining order against Victoria to keep her away from him.  His attorney filed a doctor’s report saying that his estranged wife is hampering his recovery.  The doctor feels that the less he sees of her, the better.

Why?  According to papers filed in the divorce proceeding, Dennis says that she’s after his will.  Dennis claims that in November, Victoria’s mother told him he should change the will and leave everything to Victoria, because he was going to die soon.  Dennis also says his wife and mother-in-law would wake him in the middle of the night and badger him about his will.

So, yes, it seems the divorce is all about the estate planning.

But who is the bad guy here?  Is it Victoria, a scheming gold-digger after his money?  Dennis says so.  He feels he gave her every luxury he could, which of course only made her want more.

Or are Dennis’ children the bad actors?  Are they taking advantage of their father in a weakened state to cut his wife out, so they can get more?

Or is it Dennis himself?  Victoria says he threatened to kill her, and she found a loaded handgun and shotgun in her bedroom, despite the fact they were living with their six-year-old daughter.

According to Dennis Hopper’s doctor, he’s perfectly capable of making his own decisions and is in fine mental health.  It seems like the Judge agrees, because the divorce is going full-steam ahead.  Dennis got his restraining order a few days ago.

So, it looks like Dennis and his children will get their wish, and Victoria will get cut out of the will.  Unless he succumbs to his battle with cancer first, that is.

The really sad part of this saga isn’t that it’s happening to the Hopper family.  Rather, to me, the really tragic part is that this type of family drama is far too common.  Families often place aging or disabled seniors in the middle of a tug-of-war over money, especially in second marriage situations.  Do you think people stoop to this level only when millions of dollars are involved?

No!  In this economy especially, I see families act just as ruthlessly over $100,000, or even less.  Too many people see sickness and death as a financial opportunity.  And that’s the real tragedy.

There is some hope.  A well-crafted estate plan, from an experienced estate planning attorney, is a good start.  And a vigilant family who protects aging or dying loved ones from unsavory sorts is a must.

The problem is that spotting the true gold-digger isn’t always easy.  Sometimes it’s a new spouse or girlfriend.  Sometimes, it’s the children from a prior marriage.

Either way, anyone who thinks that this only happens in Hollywood–and that it can’t happen to their family–needs to think again.

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.

It’s been widely reported across various websites in the last couple days that Farrah Fawcett’s will has been revealed and it “shockingly” disinherited her longtime ex-boyfriend Ryan O’Neal (father to her son, Redmond).  These reports are wrong on several levels.

First, the document was her Trust, not her will.  You can read it here, courtesy of Radaronline.com.  This is an important distinction.  Wills are public records and must always be filed in probate to be effective, which allows anyone interested to read them.  Trusts, on the other hand, are private documents, normally kept out of court and the public eye.

As I wrote in this article this past July, the contents of Fawcett’s Trust were leaked by an anonymous “source” then, and now the whole trust document has been revealed.  This is unusual.  Normally that is one of the primary reasons why trusts are used, to keep affairs private (and out of probate court).

As the source previously leaked to the media (and as covered in my article on this blog in July), it was  revealed then that Ryan O’Neal was not a beneficiary.  So the recent exposure of the trust document is nothing new on that front.  O’Neal said publicly that he was not surprised and had discussed with Fawcett that their son Redmond would be the biggest beneficiary.

So what did the trust reveal?  The real surprising part here isn’t that O’Neal was omitted (ex-boyfriends aren’t usually included in a trust).  Rather, to me, there were far more surprising elements, including that another of Fawcett’s ex-boyfriends, Gregory Lawrence Lott, received $100,000.  Further, her artwork was left to the University of Texas, her other personal property, including her household furnishings and vehicles, went to her nephew (who also received $500,000 outright), and her father received a trust fund of $500,000, from will benefit him while he is alive.  Fawcett’s charitable foundation is also a prominent beneficiary.

Who will manage this trust?  Fawcett’s business manager and producer, Richard Francis.  He will be charged with the difficult task of overseeing these bequests — and more importantly — the trust fund established for Fawcett’s troubled son, Redmond.

It has been widely reported that Redmond has struggled with drug addiction for years.  Fawcett obviously knew this when she created this particular trust document on August 9, 2007.  So, instead of leaving him money outright, she left $4.5 million to be used for his benefit through a trust fund.  When he passes away, what is left from that fund will go onto her charitable foundation.

The specifics of how this will work are a good lesson for others to follow when they have a beneficiary who is not ready to receive a chunk of change all at once.  The trustee of the Trust, Francis, will be required to pay the income from the trust fund to Redmond — or apply it for his benefit — at least 4 times year, and as often as monthly.  If this $4.5 million is conservatively invested to generate even a modest 5% return, this would mean almost $19,000 per month would be available for Redmond, without ever spending any of the $4.5 million itself.

Francis can also tap into the $4.5 million itself for Redmond, but only to the extent it is advisable for his health.  This means the money (again, other than the interest earned) cannot be used for things like education, housing, etc. — only health.  Clearly, Fawcett thought this through, because she gave the same trustee rights to use the trust fund money set aside for Fawcett’s father for many other needs beyond just health.

This trust provision allows Francis to carefully control the money so Redmond is benefited the best way possible.  And, for a drug addict like he is reported to be, this means Francis can spend as much as he deems advisable for rehabilitation (which would clearly improve Redmond’s health), without paying anything directly to him for fear of it being spent on drugs, etc.

The only flaw I see in the plan is that Francis is obligated to pay the interest on Redmond’s behalf at least 4 times each year.  This is still quite a significant sum of money to be spent on him, if his life isn’t in a position to benefit by it.  Plus, it is odd that things like education and housing wouldn’t be included, but that appears to be what Fawcett wanted.

Often, in my law firm, we recommend crafting specific trust provisions for people with drug and/or alcohol addictions that requires them to prove sobriety before receiving money, or tying other specific strings to distributions of money so that this goal can be achieved (such as requiring payments for drug rehabilitation programs).

The beauty of properly-used trusts is that you can be creative and use conditions like this for all sorts of reasons, in addition to sobriety, including promoting hard work, maintaining good relationships, education, and many other goals.  We explore how trusts can do this in our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, which helps families learn from celebrity errors how to properly plan for their heirs.

Fawcett gets a lot of credit for using a trust the right way to protect her son and still allow him to benefit from her money.  Too many rich and famous people don’t do this.  For example, as we discuss in Trial & Heirs, celebrities such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimi Hendrix, Sonny Bono, and Howard Hughes didn’t even have wills, much less trusts.

Trusts are not just for rich people.  Anyone with family members they want to leave money to when they die, but are worried what the money may do to them when they get it, should strongly consider creating a revocable living trust with the help of a good estate planning attorney.

Not sure how to find a good attorney?  Click here for a new way to help you.

For more information about Farrah Fawcett, visit her Wikipedia page.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com. ]]> http://www.trialandheirs.com/estate-planning/farrah-fawcetts-trust-provides-a-good-lesson/feed/ 3 http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/bo-schembechlers-son-sues-his-stepmom-over-trust/ http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/bo-schembechlers-son-sues-his-stepmom-over-trust/#comments Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:12:56 +0000 andrewwmayoras http://www.trialandheirs.com/?p=414

Glenn E. “Bo” Schembechler, Jr., is one of the most respected names in the history of college football.  And, no, I’m not saying that just because I graduated from the University of Michigan (twice).  He built one of the most successful football programs around, and it excelled for decades.

Coach Bo died of heart disease on November 17, 2006, at age 77.  He was survived by his second wife, Kathryn, his son, Glenn III, and two children of his beloved first wife, Millie, whom Bo had adopted (a third adopted son died before him).

From an estate planning perspective, Bo did everything right to avoid a family fight after he passed.  He created a living trust, which was quite detailed and left the income from his assets to his wife, Kathryn, passing from there to his son Glenn III (known as “Shemy”), and then onto his grandchildren and Kathryn’s grandchildren.

He chose Kathryn as his successor trustee to manage his trust after he passed.  As part of this responsibility, Kathryn was required to furnish reports four times each year to Bo’s son, Shemy.  Recently, Shemy sued Kathryn in federal court in Columbus, Ohio (home to the school which was Bo’s chief rival, which shall remain nameless here).  Shemy alleged she hadn’t furnished the reports as required by the trust and Ohio law.

It appears, according to Shemy’s attorneys, that Kathryn hasn’t shared any financial information with him since Bo died almost three years ago.  The lawsuit includes a letter written by Bo’s trusted financial adviser trying to convince Kathryn to turn over the information.  According to the Complaint that started the lawsuit (which you can read here:  Download Schembechler complaint), she failed to respond to the letter or other requests.

Usually, one of the big benefits of a living trust, when properly funded (as this one appears to have been), is that it reduces the chances of a family fight in court.  But, that is only the case if the person names as trustee does what he or she is required to do.  When that person fails to act properly, court proceedings like this one are the last choice of trust beneficiaries.

When that happens, it turns a private matter, public.  When Shemy’s attorneys filed the lawsuit, they made the trust document a public record for the world to read.

Because of this, we now can read the trust agreement of Bo Schembechler, which is interesting.  It shows that his trust leaves nothing to his two adopted children still living (although it does include the grandchildren of one of them).  Yet, his widow’s grandchildren are named as beneficiaries in the trust, treated equally with Bo’s grandchildren.  (Keep in mind that it’s possible Bo made other arrangements for those who were excluded, apart from the trust).

Due to Kathryn’s (alleged) secrecy, this information is now public.  And an expensive court fight has started.  It’s a good lesson for everyone left in charge of an estate or trust … don’t leave the other beneficiaries in the dark.  It’s amazing how many family fights in court, after a loved one passes, are started for this very reason.

In the new book I co-wrote, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, we explore other cases of rich and famous people that were started for this same reason (along with many other cases), including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.  We share specific ways that people who find themselves with the job of trustee or executor can avoid these types of court fights, as well as what rights beneficiaries have.  And the first rule for those in charge is — don’t be secretive!  Share information!  How do you know what information to share or not share?  When in doubt, ask a good estate attorney.

I’m guessing that Glenn Schembechler III didn’t want to take his stepmother to court.  Indeed, he waited almost three years after his father died to do so, when he could have started this case three months after Bo died (assuming his allegations that no reports were provided are accurate).

Hopefully, for everyone involved in the Schembechler family, this lawsuit will be resolved quickly.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com.

The Michael Jackson Estate has been the subject of regular court hearings as Katherine Jackson battled for control over the last several months.  She routinely objected to the decisions of the co-executors John Branca and John McClain.  Recently, she hired a new attorney with the promise of taking the case in a new direction, as I discussed in this recent article about the Michael Jackson case.

Her case took a new direction, all right.  She decided to drop her claim.  That’s right, she stopped fighting and agreed to let the executors run the show without her.

Surprised?  I was.  And I was far from the only one.  Here’s what a lawyer in the case said about Katherine Jackson’s change of heart, according to CNN:

“She has now reneged on her obligation to her family.”  This same lawyer then said that it was “one of the most despicable displays” he’d ever seen in court.  He even accused Katherine of colluding with the estate executors in a “secret deal”.

So who was this attorney representing?  None other than Joe Jackson — Katherine’s husband of 60 years.  Granted, they don’t live together, but obviously, he was taken aback about what happened.

And Joe and his attorney didn’t take it lying down.  In fact, they filed their own petition to remove the executors, claiming they had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose to the court that Michael Jackson was in New York the date the will was signed, calling into question whether it is even valid.

But the judge ruled that Joe Jackson didn’t have legal “standing” to make that claim because he wasn’t a beneficiary.  In other words, he had no horse in the race, so to speak, so he wasn’t allowed to try to remove the executors.  The only ones who can do so are Katherine Jackson, the three children (who are minors — and they act through their guardian, Katherine), or the unnamed charities that so far have not been publicly revealed.

So, at this point, unless Katherine Jackson has another change of heart, or unless another beneficiary comes forward, the legal fighting may be at an end … at least in this court.  Joe Jackson’s attorney has promised to appeal the verdict and try his luck in another court.

He did get one bit of good news.  The judge allowed him to proceed with his request for a monthly allowance from the Michael Jackson Estate in the amount of $20,000/month.  The judge hasn’t agreed to give him that yet, but at least he has the right to file a request for it.

Perhaps trying to pacify her now-angry husband, Katherine Jackson reportedly said she won’t contest his request for an allowance.

Wow this is getting interesting!  And I have a feeling we haven’t heard the last of this issue.  But, we’ll have to wait and see.

The Michael Jackson case shows how important the proper estate planning is for everyone.  The better your legal planning, the less likely you’re family will fight over your money when you’re gone.  So don’t delay; go see a good estate planning attorney now.  Or your family may end up hiring probate litigation attorneys later.

And if you have a loved one in your family who doesn’t want to do estate planning, and you need help convincing him or her, here’s something that may help.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com. ]]> http://www.trialandheirs.com/estate-planning/katherine-jacksons-shocking-change-of-heart/feed/ 3 http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/leona-helmsley-charity-battle-rages-on/ http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/leona-helmsley-charity-battle-rages-on/#comments Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:17:17 +0000 andrewwmayoras http://www.trialandheirs.com/?p=333

As I described in this article from February 2009, the trustees of the Leona Helmsley charitable trust asked the probate court in New York for permission to donate primarily to charities that helped people rather than dogs, despite some language in the trust that suggested she wanted her billions to benefits animal charities. 

Specifically, the trust had a Mission Statement that included, as its first purpose “the provision of the care for dogs”.  But it also gave the trustees discretion to benefit charities as they saw fit.  This is a very important decisions for many charities (not to mention the people or animals they help) because we’re talking about several billion dollars.

This August, several different animal charities, including the Humane Society and American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, launched a legal challenge to the judge’s ruling to force the trustees to support animal charities.  Reportedly, the trustees so far have donated very little to help dogs.

There was a big question whether these charities even had proper “standing” to bring this action (meaning whether or not they had the legal ability to challenge the judge’s ruling even though they were not named beneficiaries).  So far, their challenge has been allowed to proceed.

In fact, a couple weeks ago, another animal charity — D.E.L.T.A. Rescue — filed legal papers in court asking to join in the fight.  They issued a press release saying that Helmsley’s true wishes were to benefit dog charities and they complain the trustees are giving far too little to help dogs.  They object that the trustees gave $136 million to help humans with only $100,000 helping an animal welfare mission.

The trustees of the Helmsley Charitable Trust have publicly responded to the allegations through their website, which you can read here.  They feel that Leona Helmsley’s wishes were clear, and she really did want to primarily help people, not animals.  They even point out that in the eight years between forming the charitable foundation and her death, Helmsley gave some $55 million to charities, but only one thousand dollars to an animal charity.

But this isn’t the only fight caused by Helmsley’s love of dogs.  She left a $12 million trust fund for her dog, a Maltese named Trouble, while two of her four grandchildren got nothing.  Those two filed a legal challenge to her trust, while the court was asked to slash Trouble’s inheritance.

What happened?  And how can this story (and others) help those of us who don’t have billions?  The new book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, has the stories and the information to benefit all families protect themselves from court fights . . . and help people know what to do when they’re in a fight.  A free preview is available here.

Regardless of what happens with this fight about Leona Helmsely’s wishes, the moral here for the rest of us is that instructions in a will or trust need to be very clear so there isn’t confusion and fighting later.  Did Leona want her trustees to donate more of her money to help dogs?  Or did she really want them to decide for themselves?  She could have been more specific in her trust and avoided this fight.  The same rule applies to everyone planning how to pass their assets onto loved ones when they die.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com.

The trial involving whether Rock ‘n Roll pioneer & legend, Ike Turner, left a valid will has ended.  As described in this prior article I wrote, the case pitted his six children (two of whom apparently are now questionable children of his) versus his ex-wife versus his friend and “sometime” attorney.  I’m not exactly sure why someone would be a “sometime” attorney, but that’s how he was described in this North County Times (California) article about the trial.

The children argued Ike died without a valid will, leaving all to them under California’s intestate laws.  The ex-wife, Audrey Madison Turner, felt that Ike had left everything to her through a handwritten will written two months before he died of a drug overdose in 2007 (even though the couple was already divorced).

The “sometime” attorney believed a prior handwritten will in 2001 left him in control of Ike’s legacy.  What was that legacy?  While it appeared the estate was cash-poor, the victor would receive the rights to own and profit from some 4000 songs.  That’s a lot of notes!

A few days ago, the judge issued his decision.  He ruled that both wills may have been valid, but a later note written by Ike Turner had revoked the last will, which in turn had revoked the 2001 will.  This meant the children were the big winners . . . at least so far.

The judge also granted all of the combatants a chance to appear in front of him again to try to change his mind.  This is a rare step, especially given his first ruling came through a 16-page decision, issued two weeks after the trial ended.  In other words, this was far from a snap decision, which means the likelihood of him changing his mind would be minimal.

So, while we can’t declare a final winner yet, the children surely had a good time celebrating this Halloween weekend.  Of course, regardless of what happens after the next court hearing, there is likely to be an appeal.  The losing side almost always appeals after trials like these.  There are too many emotions at stake (not to mention dollars) to go away quietly.

Too bad Ike wasn’t better about documenting his wishes and avoiding a family fight.  For some reason, court fights among heirs to famous musicians are common.  Just ask the families of Michael Jackson, James Brown, Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Garcia, and Whitney Houston (wait — she’s not dead yet, but she is involved in a fight over what her late father’s true wishes were).

All of these stories, and many more, are covered in the new book Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, co-written by Andrew & Danielle Mayoras.  We use these stories to help make sure your family won’t end up the same way.  We also teach you what to do (and not do) if you’re already in a fight.

It’s available at TrialAndHeirs.com.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com. ]]> http://www.trialandheirs.com/estate-planning/ike-turner-will-contest-ruling-is-in/feed/ 2 http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/fbi-investigated-anna-nicole-smith-for-murder-of-step-son/ http://www.trialandheirs.com/other-stories/fbi-investigated-anna-nicole-smith-for-murder-of-step-son/#comments Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:29:51 +0000 andrewwmayoras http://www.trialandheirs.com/?p=313 Probate disputes over whether a will or trust was valid, or instead was signed at at time when the person was mentally incompetent or subject to undue influence, are common.  They’re also very emotional and difficult for everyone involved.  The Anna Nicole Smith case – the Granddaddy of all probate disputes — illustrates this more than any other.

I discussed the case in this article, including how the estate executor/lawyer/former boyfriend, Howard K. Stern, not only lost a request he filed in the federal Court of Appeals on behalf of Smith’s Estate, but how he was charged criminally with conspiring to provide Anna Nicole with the prescription drugs that killed her.

In Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights, which I wrote with Danielle Mayoras, we discuss the case at length (along with dozens more) so people can learn from celebrity errors, protect their heirs, and know their legal rights if they find themselves in a family fortune fight.

But a new twist on the case surfaced recently.  While this development did not affect the case itself, and turned out to be nothing important in the end, it highlights how difficult these cases can get for those going through them.  And yes, not just the rich and famous!

The Associated Press submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and received hundreds of pages of documents that revealed how the FBI investigated Anna Nicole in 2000 and 2001 as a suspect in a murder plot against her late husband’s son.  She and the son had been fighting over the multi-billion dollar estate of Anna Nicole’s 90-year old husband since he died in 1995.  The FBI suspected she may have hired a hit-man to commit murder!

The FBI questioned Smith in July, 2000, during which she tearfully denied any such plot.  She said she thought the probate case was almost over, and even if her “step-son” had died, the Howard Marshall fortune still would have been tied up in trusts and wouldn’t have gone to her.

The step-son, Pierce Marshall, was also interviewed and claimed that Anna Nicole rarely spent time with her husband before he died, and how Pierce’s father had complained to him that she asked for $50,000 or more twice a week.

The FBI took the investigation seriously.  The investigation lasted at least 10 months.  FBI agents even confiscated from Anna Nicole a .357 revolver, a 3 and 1/2 inch steel knife, and a black and orange “Dr. Suess” hat (your guess is as good as mine on that last one).

The FBI returned these items to her and closed the case in 2001.  It found insufficient evidence that she engaged in a murder-for-hire scheme to kill Marshall’s son.  Pierce Marshall died from an infection in 2006 at age 67, the year before Anna Nicole Smith died from a drug overdose.

Yet the fight over Howard Marshall’s money is not over, even though it started 14 years ago.  Even in death, the two are battling — but now, their estates are duking it out.

You can order a copy of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! at TrialAndHeirs.com if you’d like to learn more about this case and many other celebrity estate battles, so your family won’t end up the same way.

Posted by:  Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law.  You can email him at blog @ trialandheirs.com.