Trial & Heirs™ » heir

Estate of Bobby Fischer facing a possible Checkmate

Andrew and Danielle — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:04:44 +0000

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!

Lucille Ball’s daughter fights to save heirlooms

Andrew and Danielle — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:13:47 +0000

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.

Florida millionaire left more to her dogs than her son

Andrew and Danielle — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:18:17 +0000

Apparently Leona Helmsley is not alone. Gail Posner of Miami Beach, Florida passed away in March at the age of 67, from cancer. Her only son, Bret Carr, was left one million dollars, despite not being close with her in the years leading up to her death. They did reunite while she was on her deathbed, in the hospital, according to Carr.

So should Carr really complain? A million dollars isn’t so bad.

The first problem, says Carr, is that his mother’s three dogs received a $3 million trust fund and a $8.3 million mansion. But who can put a price on loyalty?

There’s more. Posner’s former staff (including bodyguards, a personal trainer and housekeepers) get $27 million. Wow — that’s some severance package!

Carr says he and his mother had a rocky relationship, but grew closer in the last decade or so, until 2008. What happened then? The staff kicked him out of Posner’s house and convinced his mother to keep him away. He says he captured it all on video.

Carr also says the staff exercised “undue influence” and connived, cajoled, and coerced their way into the will. Mom never would have left all that money to the Chihuahua named Conchita, and the two other dogs, if the staff hadn’t taken advantage of her. They realized, according to Carr’s lawsuit, that convincing her to favor her canine companions would be a great way to keep themselves working (and getting paid) while living in that mansion. Someone has to care for the dogs after all, don’t they?

The Today Show has a complete feature on the case.

While leaving millions to dogs (and millions more to staff) is a bit unusual, cases built around claims of undue influence are common. In fact, with the continued economic woes our country faces, these issues are popping up more and more — from Florida to Michigan, New York to California, and everywhere in between.

Every states has laws to help families who believe that a will or trust was due to undue influence, as opposed to the true wishes of a deceased loved one. These cases aren’t easy to prove, but are often necessary when someone has been targeted by an unsavory caregiver, family member, or gold-digger.

That’s why experienced probate litigation attorneys are there to help.

The Elvis Presley Conspiracy (Part II): The Background

Andrew and Danielle — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:45:23 +0000

[This is the second of a four-part series covering the Eliza Presley case. You can read Part I here and Part III here.]

After Eliza Presley shared her DNA evidence with me, as well as the story about how she got it, I spent some time digging around to see what else was out there to corroborate or contradict her story. Eliza’s claim is that she’s the daughter of Vernon Presley, the father of Elvis. But she bases her claim, in part, on evidence from a man who Eliza believes actually IS Elvis Presley, still alive. Eliza says she never suspected Elvis might be alive when she began her journey.

Rather, according to Eliza, she only wanted to find out who her father was. Eliza was 13 when she learned that she was adopted as a baby. Several years later, Eliza met her birth mother, who gave Eliza the name of a man who was supposedly her father. But when Eliza contacted him, he was adamant he wasn’t her father and didn’t even know her mother in 1961. Eliza had to look elsewhere.

Later in life, she and her husband at the time had been shocked, when seeing pictures of Elvis as a young child, how much he looked like their three-year-old son, Andrew. Eliza knew that her birth mother had lived across the street from Elvis at Graceland when he bought it in 1957-58 and had been friends with his family [see picture of Elvis and Eliza's birth mother and aunt].

Eliza’s husband even suggested that Elvis may have been the father, because she shared a family resemblance … not to mention the fact that Eliza was the only one of four children given up for adoption.

So Eliza had wondered for some time if she could be the daughter of Elvis. But she never bought into the whole “Elvis is alive” movement when she started her search.

People who believe that Elvis did not die on August 16, 1977 like to point to a book published in 2001 and written by a board-certified psychiatrist named Dr. Donald Hinton. He wrote it with a mysterious co-author named “Jesse.” Dr. Hinton claimed Jesse was actually Elvis, having faked his death with the help of his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Jesse, by the way, was the name of Elvis’ identical twin brother who was stillborn.

According to Dr. Hinton, Jesse had to get away from the life of Elvis for several reasons, primarily because of his poor health and due to threats against him and his family. Col. Parker agreed to help because he could earn lots of money from doing so, Dr. Hinton said. Indeed, Elvis has been at or near the top of Forbes’ list of the highest earning dead celebrities for years.

Dr. Hinton said he treated Jesse for nearly six years for pain management due to his arthritic condition and other medical problems. He claimed that Jesse opened up to him and told him of his true identity. His book included many handwritten letters by Jesse and said it was Jesse’s way of re-introducing himself to the world.

There were a few problems with Dr. Hinton’s story. One was that he promised in the book that Elvis/Jesse would reveal himself to the world in 2002. Obviously, that never happened.

Another was that the book led to an investigation of Dr. Hinton for mail fraud, by the Missouri Attorney General’s office, as well as by the DEA and Missouri Healing Arts Board for illegally prescribing medications to Jesse. Dr. Hinton actually lost his ability to prescribe medicine and was placed on 5 months probation by the medical board.

But the Dr. Hinton investigation did lead to an interesting place. When Dr. Hinton came under attack, his patient, Jesse, wrote a letter to the Attorney General supporting Dr. Hinton and refuting the mail fraud claims. He included the following in his letter:

Sir, I don’t know if you believe in my continued existence or not, but if I continue to expose myself like I did in the book, I will be eliminated very easily. Pure and simple as that.

The Attorney General’s office had the letter analyzed by a special type of handwriting expert, Shirley Mason, who was a certified graphologist. Graphology is commonly used by the FBI and throughout Europe, but is not universally accepted.

Mason worked for the Kansas City Bureau of Investigations for many years, successfully using graphology as evidence in criminal court cases. Shirley Mason reported that she compared the Jesse letter to past letters written by Elvis. So what did she have to say about it?

Not only did they match, Mason wrote, but she would testify in court, under oath, that Elvis “has to be ALIVE.” She felt the handwriting was “UNMISTAKABLE”. The attorney general’s office cleared Dr. Hinton of all charges.

Here’s a website by Linda Hood-Sigmon, who is a friend of Jesse, showing copies of the Jesse letter and the Mason report.

Hood-Sigmon is one of the biggest proponents of the “Elvis is alive” theory and has a great deal of evidence on her website. She points to this picture of Jesse and says it was taken on a visit to Lisa Marie Presley so he could see his grandchildren. She states that the controversial photograph marks the first time Jesse met his grandson, Benjamin Storm, in 1994.

But Hood-Sigmon and others who say Elvis is alive do have many vocal critics. Here’s an example of a recent article written by one who tries to debunk some of the evidence that Elvis didn’t really die. But, he doesn’t address any DNA evidence in his article or the Mason report. Instead, he summarily concludes that “one side has no facts and no evidence” and as such, there shouldn’t even be a debate.

Others see it differently. In fact, because of Dr. Hinton’s book, a television reporter in Cleveland, Suzanne Stratford, began investigating.

She interviewed Dr. Hinton on camera and analyzed the evidence, including the Mason report, a picture taken 6 months after the funeral of what looked like Elvis peering through a screen door (and certified by Kodak), and the fact Elvis’ tombstone lists his middle name as “Aaron” when official records show his true middle name to be “Aron”. [See the pictures below on this point]. Stratford also reported that Dr. Hinton had passed a lie detector test they had administered.

And there’s more. Stratford reported she was contacted by Jesse. She asked for, and received, a sample of Jesse’s DNA, in 2002, so it could be tested. FOX 8 News did in fact test the DNA sample against known “control” samples of Elvis, including a 1975 liver biopsy sample and tissue from his autopsy. The problem was that they didn’t match.

But again, another interesting turn. Not only did the “Jesse” sample not match the other two samples, but they didn’t match each other. In other words, Elvis’ autopsy tissue did not match the liver tissue from 1975.

So where did the autopsy sample come from? Does this mean that Elvis’ autopsy was faked? Maybe. Stratford also interviewed cousins of Elvis who said that the body at the funeral looked like it was made out of wax, rather than being real.

But, of course, there’s only one person alive (other than Jesse, of course) who can definitively prove or disprove that Jesse is Elvis … Elvis’ daughter. FOX 8 News contacted Lisa Marie Presley’s representatives and asked for a sample of her DNA to find out the truth. She declined.

The FOX 8 News video stories are available on YouTube. Here’s the one from 2008 that summarizes all of Stratford’s investigation up until the Eliza Presley case. Her previous investigation stalled in 2004, until Eliza Presley contacted her 2008. Apparently, an Elvis collector, David Collins, repeatedly told Eliza to get in touch with Stratford when Eliza had contacted him as part of her search to learn if Elvis was her father.

At first, Eliza didn’t contact Stratford, still thinking that Elvis couldn’t actually be alive. But, then she did reach out to Stratford, hoping to test her DNA against other Elvis samples FOX 8 News had.

In 2008 Stratford interviewed Eliza Presley as part of her ongoing investigation. FOX 8 News sent the 2002 sample it had received from Jesse to a lab so that it could be tested against Eliza’s DNA evidence.

And the results were . . .

(To be continued . . . )

[This is the second of a four-part series covering the Eliza Presley case. You can read Part I here and Part III here.]

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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

Farrah Fawcett’s Trust Provides A Good Lesson

andrewwmayoras — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:56:02 +0000

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.

Bo Schembechler’s Son Sues His Stepmom Over Trust

andrewwmayoras — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:12:56 +0000

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.

Katherine Jackson’s Shocking Change Of Heart

andrewwmayoras — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:42:51 +0000

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.

Leona Helmsley Charity Battle Rages On

andrewwmayoras — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:17:17 +0000

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.

Ike Turner Will Contest Ruling Is In

andrewwmayoras — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:39:42 +0000

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.

FBI Investigated Anna Nicole Smith For Murder Of “Step-Son”

andrewwmayoras — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:29:51 +0000

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.