Trial & Heirs™ » trust

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.

George Steinbrenner’s heirs avoid estate tax – or do they?

Andrew and Danielle — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:09:50 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve McNair Estate unsettled after one year

Andrew and Danielle — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:58:51 +0000

It’s been just over a year since Steve McNair, the former NFL quarterback, was murdered on July 4, 2009, at the age of 36. The Probate Lawyer Blog covered the initial drama surrounding the estate in a series of articles. In the months that have passed since then, the estate has been relatively quiet. It’s been rather surprising given the early fireworks last summer.

McNair died with an estate worth more than $19 million but without even a basic will. It looked like trouble initially when his wife named their two kids as estate beneficiaries in the probate paperwork, but failed to list his other two kids (from two other mothers). The family was far from harmonious even before McNair was killed.

McNair and his wife, Mechelle, had hired an artist to paint a family portrait. The artist hadn’t been paid and filed a claim against the estate. Before the estate settled and paid the artist $5,000, she revealed an email from McNair. He wrote that his “wife has some disagreements” with his two older boys “who are not by her, so I wouldn’t be having them in the painting.”

So far, the boys and their mothers haven’t been fighting in court against Mechelle, despite the early controversy from last summer. But then again, the estate has been mostly stagnant to this point (other than one wild claim), so they haven’t really had much to fight about yet.

McNair’s prized restaurant in Nashville, Gridiron 9, was closed shortly after he died. Mechelle tried to sell McNair’s interest in that business, but it was blocked by his cousin who co-owned it with him. McNair’s ranching/farming business and his mansion called “The Ranch” (near his childhood home in Mississippi) are also up in the air. McNair’s home in Nashville was for sale before he died but has since been taken off the market.

So in summary, a year has passed, nothing substantial has been sold, and no one knows how much they’ll get. Reportedly, there’s a court hearing set for September 19th, at which the family members will learn how much they’ll inherit.

Delays like this are not unusual for estates left in a mess because of non-existent estate planning. When people don’t take the time to make out a basic will (which is the case with approximately 2/3 of adults in this country), these types of delays and complications are common.

That’s why we recommend that people work with experienced estate planning attorneys to put their affairs in order. In fact, most people should create a revocable living trust. When properly used, it avoids probate court entirely. And it also reduces the costs, delays and potential conflicts that happen for any estate — especially an “intestate” estate (meaning one that has no will).

So what is unusual about this estate (other than the fact it’s worth around $19 million)? How about the murder case.

The police were confident it was an open-and-shut case. McNair’s girlfriend was dead beside him with a gunshot wound in her head and a gun nearby, in an apparent suicide. McNair’s body was riddled with several bullet holes.

But the family of his girlfriend, 20-year-old Sahel “Jenni” Kazemi, say that she wasn’t suicidal. They worked with a retired cop who investigated the case and presented findings to a grand jury, arguing it was a robbery, not a murder-suicide. He points out how unusual it was for McNair to only have $7 in his wallet, when he usually carried hundreds.

The grand jury felt it wasn’t enough evidence to reopen the case. So the matter is officially closed.

Now we’ll have to see how long it takes for his estate to close too.

Trial over L’Oreal heiress sparks French political scandal

Andrew and Danielle — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:50:10 +0000

It’s been more than 18 months since the daughter of France’s richest woman sued to protect her from a man described as a “dandy” who had received more than $1 billion (U.S. value) in gifts from the owner of cosmetic giant L’Oreal. You can read The Probate Lawyer Blog’s last article on the case here.

The daughter of 87-year-old Liliane Bettencourt sued Francois-Marie Banier, a 63-year old (male) celebrity photographer who reportedly has befriended Johnny Depp, Salvador Dali and others. Banier claims the lavish gifts of cash and art masterpieces were given to him by Bettencourt when she was mentally competent as a thank-you for his years of friendship and help as an advisor.

Bettencourt’s daughter, Francoise Bettencourt Meyers, was permitted to sue Banier criminally last year. This means that if she wins her lawsuit, Banier will not only have to return the money, but also face jail time. The case was set for trial late last week.

There was already plenty of intrigue surrounding the famous fortune fight over the person who ranks as number 20 on Forbes’ annual list of richest people. (Bettencourt has a reported net worth of $20 billion.) But, to make it more interesting, the trial was postponed indefinitely because of new evidence.

What evidence you ask? Bettencourt’s butler had been sneaking a tape recorder into the room with her when he served refreshments. With this recorder, he obtained hours of audiotape from secret meetings between Bettencourt and her advisors.

The Associated Press reports that the tapes reveal the elderly Bettencourt was treated like a child in these meetings and was often confused, to the point where she had forgotten having given Banier a private island. (Now that’s not something easy to forget.)

These tapes also revealed that Bettencourt had almost $100 million stashed away in foreign bank accounts and wasn’t paying taxes on the money. Reportedly, a top French government official, Eric Woerth, was forced to resign because he knew about it. Woerth’s wife worked for a company that managed Bettencourt’s money.

Why was this scandalous? Woerth was France’s Budget Minister. One of his primary duties was combating tax evasion. Reportedly, Bettencourt was a big donor to Woerth’s political party (which also includes the French President).

Financial exploitation (alleged financial exploitation at this point — but it sure doesn’t look good for Banier) sure can be messy. But the sad part is that it is far from an isolated occurrence and it certainly doesn’t affect only the wealthy.

It’s a growing epidemic in this country. The National Center on Elder Abuse has estimated that there are up to five million victims each year. Here are the Center’s Warning Signs of Elder Financial Abuse.

This is a serious problem, especially with the turbulent economy. Many perceive seniors as easy marks with available savings to exploit. Don’t let this happen to your elderly loved ones.

Be proactive. Watch over your aging family member’s finances when you suspect trouble (or when they show confusion, memory loss or other signs of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease). And don’t hesitate to seek the help of an experienced elder law or probate litigation attorney, or another expert who can help.

Bettencourt’s daughter was smart to intervene when she did. It wasn’t easy for her — she sadly reports that her mother cut off communications with her because of the lawsuit. Who knows what would have happened if she hadn’t taken action?

Forbes: Celebrity Death and Divorce Train Wrecks

Andrew and Danielle — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:48:16 +0000

Forbes.com recently featured an article we wrote about our celebrity-based Trial & Heirs‘ Top Five Estate Planning Tips for Divorcees. Here’s a shortened version. Go to Forbes.com for the full article:

1. Update your will and/or trust. Life events like divorces are a critical time to update all estate planning documents with an experienced attorney.

Take the case of Gary Coleman. Since his death, a variety of documents have surfaced purporting to be his will. We know that Gary Coleman was divorced in 2008 from his wife, Shannon Price. It was on an episode of Divorce Court after all! The problem is that Price claims that she’s entitled to inherit all of Coleman’s assets based on a 2007 handwritten will and as his “common-law wife.” Now it looks like the estate will be tied up in a long and nasty fight. If Gary Coleman had an estate planning attorney draft a clear will after his divorce, the impending legal battle may have been avoided.

2. Don’t forget the insurance. Many people who get divorced forget to change their life insurance beneficiaries to someone other than their ex-spouse.

Dennis Hopper was locked in an ugly divorce fight with his fifth wife, Victoria Duffy-Hopper. She blamed his children for convincing him to start the divorce as a way to cut her out of his estate plan. Hopper asked the divorce judge for permission to change his life insurance policy to remove his wife and their young daughter as beneficiaries. His request was denied and the judge said that issue would have to wait for trial. But Hopper died first, and the life insurance was never changed.

3. Act now, even before the divorce is final. Divorces can be extremely messy and may drag on for years. What happens if one of the spouses dies or becomes disabled during the divorce proceedings?

It’s reported that Tiger and Elin Woods are in divorce negotiations now and that Elin is asking for $750 million. What if Tiger is in a car accident? What money does he want Elin to receive? It is probably a lot less than what his estate planning documents had dictated prior to the divorce. Hopefully, Tiger is prepared for the unexpected and has updated his estate planning documents even before the negotiations are concluded.

4. Choose a new executor and/or trustee wisely. If something does happen to you, whom do you trust to make sure that your beneficiaries are financially protected?

A good example of problems that can arise is the nasty battle going on between Ronald Perelman, the billionaire Revlon chairman, and his ex-father-in-law, Robert Cohen. Perelman was named as the executor under his ex-wife’s will. In spite of crystal clear instructions in the will that showed that his ex valued her relationship with her father, Perelman launched a series of lawsuits against Cohen in the name of her estate. He did this even though Cohen was elderly, infirm and paralyzed. Perelman wouldn’t have been able to do this if his ex-wife hadn’t named him as her executor.

5. Create a new Medical Power of Attorney and Advance Directive. Even if you are comfortable with an ex-spouse making financial decisions, what about the medical decisions?

In Gary Coleman’s case, his ex-wife, Price, did pull the plug after he sustained a head injury and was put on life support. Is this what Coleman would have wanted? We’ll never truly know, but legally Price had the right to make this decision through Coleman’s advance directive.

Tiger Woods pay heed! Elin already came after you with a golf club (allegedly!), do you really want her making your termination of life support decisions?

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.

Lawyers for Ron Perelman hit with sanctions for frivolous case

Andrew and Danielle — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:23:29 +0000

The Chairman of Revlon, Ron Perelman (who is one of the richest men in the world), recently lost a very heated and ugly probate lawsuit (or more specifically, several different lawsuits), in which he sued on behalf of his ex-wife’s estate. Claudia Cohen had named Perelman as her executor shortly before she died in 2007.

So who did Perelman sue? None other that the father of his ex, Robert Cohen, who was infirm, partially paralyzed and in his eighties at the time. The Probate Lawyer Blog’s article discussing the case has all the details.

We found the case, and Perelman’s efforts in particular, especially troubling. And we certainly aren’t the only ones.

In fact, the New Jersey judge who presided over the case recently ruled that Perelman’s lawyers are to be sanctioned because some of the claims they filed were frivolous. He specifically took issue with their claims Cohen should not be permitted to change his estate plan because he had allegedly “promised” his daughter (who later died) an equal share of his estate.

The judge said that no “competent attorney” could have proceeded with the claims. In fact, Perelman was the only witness to offer testimony on the topic, and he never even said there was a “promise”. Yet this lack of evidence didn’t stop Perelman’s lawyers from grilling Cohen during a lengthy cross-examination (during which Perelman could barely speak because of his Parkinson’s disease). The judge’s ruling called this ”harsh and painful”.

Because of this ruling, Perelman’s legal team will have to reimburse Cohen a portion of the $14 million legal bill he spent defending the lawsuits. Cohen’s attorney said the amount owed by Perelman’s lawyers will reach into the millions.

It’s very rare for a judge to order these types of sanctions based on a “frivolous” lawsuit. The American legal system has always employed the concept that each side pays their own attorney fees, except in special circumstances. A frivolous claim (such as one done in bad faith, or without a valid factual or legal basis) is one of the exceptions to the general rule, but it’s not often employed, especially in a case of this magnitude.

You can read more about the Judge’s ruling, and even read the actual transcript from the court hearing, from Law.com. The transcript (while quite long) is actually very interesting … at least to probate and estate planning attorneys like us.

We have to applaud the judge’s ruling in this case. He sent a message that it is not ethical to subject an infirm and elderly man to a terrible legal onslaught based on the argument that he shouldn’t be allowed to leave his assets as he chose, merely because he previously expressed an intent to do otherwise.

How can their ever be certainty with wills, trusts and other estate planning documents if disgruntled family members (or even disgruntled ex-spouses of family members who died), can challenge every document simply by claiming that the person really intended to leave their money in another way?

Anna Nicole Smith Estate loses out on $88 Million

Andrew and Danielle — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:24:58 +0000

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 Redd Foxx Estate mess

Andrew and Danielle — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:23:47 +0000

There was an interesting article recently in AOL News about the Redd Foxx Estate. The successful comedian and star of Sanford and Son (whose real name was John Elroy Sanford) died October 11, 1991. Apparently, the Estate has no assets. Even if it did, there’s an outstanding tax bill owed that’s a bit hefty — a whopping $3.6 million as of the day he died.

But the court-appointed executor for the estate is trying to change all that. John Cahill, who is a public administrator in Las Vegas (where the estate is pending) was put in charge in 2007. The prior administrator was Debraca Foxx, Foxx’s daughter, who was removed from her position in 2006. Apparently, she failed to comply with a court order to account for what she had done with royalties and other monies the estate brought in under her watch.

In fact, Foxx’s widow (and fourth wife), Ka Ho Foxx, accused Debraca of stealing the money instead of paying down the tax debt.

Since Cahill took over, he has aggressively pursued revenue for the estate and has brought in more than $100,000 since 2007, including royalty checks from Hallmark and CBS Studios for using Foxx’s image.

But now, Cahill is trying to sell the rights to Foxx’s life story to bring in some real cash for the estate. He says he’s received offers for various amounts, up to $2 million, for the story rights. He’s recently “done lunch” with a Hollywood producer and TV star about the project.

But, there are a few hurdles to clear. The first is that, while the estate does own the right to profit from Foxx’s name, image and likeness, it’s far from clear that the estate has the same rights for a “life story”. That’s why you see “unauthorized” biographies and documentaries about famous people all the time.

But Cahill says his attorney feels otherwise and he is legally permitted to sell the story rights of behalf of the estate.

The second problem is that Foxx’s widow plans to fight Cahill in court. Apparently she and other Foxx heirs don’t want this to happen. And why would they, with all the money due to the IRS anyway?

You can read the AOL article here.

We’ll have to see if Cahill’s efforts are successful. Managing estates is never easy, especially when the first person in charge wasn’t forth coming with what was done with the money. People often don’t stop to think about the headaches that can occur in probate court when someone dies.

That’s why is always important for everyone to do the proper estate planning, including choosing someone who is trustworthy and dependable to handle the difficult job of trust or estate administration. Even without a big tax bill or complicated issues like publicity rights to worry about, probate court is never a walk in the park.

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.