Longevity Contributes to Increased Estate Litigation

LongevityIncreased Estate Litigation Due to Increased Longevity

In 1998 I did a seminar on mental capacity with a geriatric specialist who told the crowd that historically people only live to be 40 years of age. He mentioned that medical science has made such quantum leaps and advancement that people’s bodies, and in particular their minds, have not adjusted to the current longevity of the life expectancy well into the 80s or 90s. The following brief article was excerpted from the Atlantic:

Why We Live 40 Years Longer Today Than We Did in 1880

Joe PinskerOct 23 2013, 7:08 PM ET

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a golden era of American health innovation. Breakthroughs like germ theory, antibiotics, and widespread vaccination, as well as major public-health advances in sanitation and regulation, neutralized many long-leading causes of death. Life expectancy skyrocketed as a result, but brought with it new demons. For the past 50 years, medical innovation has focused less on eradicating disease and more on managing chronic conditions. Does this indicate a slowdown in medical progress and a coming plateau in life expectancy? Or have we merely hit a lull before the next wave of major fixes?

Sibling Rivalry – Mom Always Loved YOU Best

mom loved you bestSibling rivalry is rife in estate litigation

and often comes to the fore with

the death of the parents—

particularly the last parent.

Although some fortunate siblings

may be the best of friends, that

situation is obviously rare in our

practices.

One of our favourite sibling stories

happened in the case of “Robert.” He

was the youngest child, born many

years after his four older siblings.

Robert and his mother “had been

very close” and when she died, he

ended up with her entire estate. The

That story serves as an allegory

for sibling rivalry. Seemingly minor

childhood conflicts can result in

underlying resentments that may last

a lifetime. Such resentments often

emerge during the emotional upheaval

following the death of parents.

Sibling rivalry exists among most

animal species where competition

begins at birth. The rivalry may be

extreme—take for example, the black

eagle who lays two eggs. Mother looks

on while the first hatchling pecks the

second to death.

Among humans, sibling rivalry dates

back to the Bible. The Book of Genesis

tells of the jealousy between Adam and

Eve’s sons Cain and Abel. When Cain

kills Abel, the first murder occurs. That

story has inspired much Western art and

literature over the centuries.

Sibling rivalry remains a common

theme in our culture and is found in

television shows from Leave It to Beaver

to Family Guy, from Friends to The

Smothers Brothers with Tommy’s

frequent refrain, “Mom always loved

you best.” Social media loves to report

on the “friendly” tennis competition

of Venus and Serena Williams.

Our clients often include those

who adopted traits that their parents

approved of, those who rebelled, and

those who simply withdrew from the

competition altogether. It seems many

of us grew up with internal labels

such as “I’m the smart one,” “I’m the

athletic one,” or “I’m the black sheep.”

disinherited siblings sued. At the

examinations for discovery, the siblings

were extremely hostile, glaring at

Robert. During questioning, Trevor

asked Robert’s older sister about her

obvious hatred toward her youngest

brother. He fully expected to hear

how Robert was selfish, greedy,

and dishonest. Instead, the sister

responded, “He was allowed to have

cheese sandwiches before bed and

we weren’t!” The others nodded in

agreement.

Sibling Rivalry:

Mom Always

Loved You Best

Seemingly minor childhood

conflicts can result

in underlying resentments

that may last a lifetime.

Wills & Estates

Trevor Todd

Judith Milliken, QC

©iStockphoto.com/Fertnig Photography

72 The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia V olume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013

Unfortunately, it seems some

parents more or less openly favour

a preferred child. Others needlessly

criticize a less-favoured child. Such

treatment inevitably creates resentment

between and among the siblings.

Psychologists report that from age

18 months, siblings can understand

family rules and know how to comfort

and be kind to each other. By age 3,

children have a sophisticated

grasp of the social rules within the

household and know how to adapt

to circumstances within the family.

One school of thought suggests

that fighting among siblings may

actually increase in adolescence, with

early teens reaching the highest level

of competition.

Some say that sibling bullying and

abuse are largely underreported. Recent

studies have indicated that bullying

and aggressive behaviour by a sibling

can be just as damaging as bullying

by a classmate, neighbour, or peer.

Most disturbing in our practice are

the surprising number of female clients

who have apparently suffered sexual

abuse by a teenage brother, usually

a few years older. They include serious

sexual assaults leaving lasting scars.

The Role Played by Parents

While it is natural for siblings

to compete, parents can certainly have

a positive or a detrimental effect in

reducing the potential to cause great

damage. Starting early to reduce such

rivalry is key. It is beyond the scope

of this article to provide parenting

advice but there are many useful

self-help books available, for example

Siblings Without Rivalry by Adele Faber

and Elaine Mazlich.

By the time most clients reach

a lawyer’s office, the horse is out of the

barn. It often seems parents have

contributed to rivalry by encouraging

competition, snitching, teasing, or

displaying overt favouritism. We

also unfortunately see the results

of highly dysfunctional families where

a parent with a personality disorder

has deliberately played one sibling off

against the others for most of their lives.

Sibling rivalry is inherent in human

nature. Most of us grew up competing

for an equal share of limited family

For example, if one child has

a disability, it is important that the

memorandum accompanying the Will

explain that fact clearly. Such an

explanation will often be better received

if also delivered to the family in person,

while the parent is still alive.

Clarity is also extremely important.

Even matters such as funeral

arrangements can cause great conflict

between and among siblings after

death when emotions of grief can

easily turn to anger. Long-standing

resentments by siblings can manifest

in pettiness—basically the need

to control . . . to flex their muscles and

withhold control from others.

Minimizing the opportunity for

conflict is important. Clear, written

directions by the parent are often

persuasive, for example, directions

for any funeral or celebration of life,

clear directions as to who specifically

should receive which items of personal

property. In these days of ubiquitous

technology, for further clarification it

is easy to take photographs and attach

them to any list.

Thoughtful legal practitioners will

have many more practical suggestions

for addressing this age-old problem. s

Trevor Todd restricts his practice

to estate litigation and has practised

law for 38 years. He is a past President

of the Trial Lawyers Association of BC,

a past chair of the Wills and Trusts

(Vancouver) Subsection, and a past

president of the New Westminster Bar

association. He frequently lectures

to CLE, TLAB C, the BC Notaries, and

various law, business, or general

public sessions on estate law issues.

disinherited.com is 17 years old.

It has hundreds of blogs and articles

and currently over 5600 visitors per

month on average.

Judith Milliken, QC, hails from

Saskatchewan. She has practised law

in BC since 1976. A former commercial

lawyer then senior Crown Counsel, she

is a highly experienced litigator who

practises exclusively estate litigation,

Wills, and trusts with Stewart Aulinger,

Vancouver.

judithmilliken@telus.net

resources, whether that be parental

attention, time in the bathroom, or

a share of dessert.

Other complicating factors

include the so-called “blended family”

involving step-siblings Many cultures

also significantly favour males, which

can lead to “societal sibling rivalries”

between men and women.

Significant life issues such as

care giving for elderly parents or

unequal treatment in inheritances can

inflame old grievances and perceived

slights. Even making funeral

arrangements can bring out the worst

in the surviving children.

While siblings display an intense

need to share equally in their

inheritances, unfortunately some

parents continue to play favourites

until the end, leaving some children

much larger or lesser shares of the

estate. That usually causes incredible

bitterness and resentment. On a basic

level, survivors equate inheritance

with parental love and cannot bear

being loved less by a parent than their

siblings were loved.

Lesser shares also invite litigation

under British Columbia’s Wills Variation

Act for it defies the moral claims

of the children to share equally in their

parents’ estates.

The societal expectation that

children will receive equal shares was

recognized by Madame J. Daphne

Smith, now of the Court of Appeal, in

Ryan vs. Delahaye 2003 BCSC 1081.

In paragraph [67] she said, “In the

absence of express reasons for an

unequal distribution, contemporary

standards create a reasonable

expectation of children sharing equally

in a parent’s estate.”

Reducing Sibling Rivalry after Death

Parents are strongly encouraged

to divide their estates in equal shares

among their children. If there is

a compelling reason to do otherwise,

it is crucial for parents to address

their communications thoughtfully.

Parents are strongly

encouraged to divide their

estates in equal shares

among their children.

Volume 22 N umber 3 Fall 2013 The Scrivener 73

Judge Tells Man He Must “Stay Dead”

Dead Man Walking: Judge Tells Man He Must Stay Dead

10/10/13, 7:11 PM EDT

(Credit: Hancock County Juvenile Court)

Legally, Donald Miller is dead and he’s staying that way in the eyes of the law. An Ohio judge told him so in court this week.

Miller, 61, testified on Monday in Ohio’s Hancock County Probate Court that he disappeared in 1986, leaving behind his wife, two children and unpaid child support after losing his job.

Years later, his wife, Robin Miller, sought to have him legally declared dead.

“She had no support,” Robin Miller’s attorney James Hammer told ABCNews.com. “By having a declaration of death, she would then potentially have access to collect Social Security benefits for her two minor children.”

Donald Miller was declared dead in 1994 and his family received his Social Security money.

A few months ago, Robin Miller discovered that not only was her “dead” husband not dead, he was back in Ohio and trying to re-establish his Social Security number.

“To realize that he was back and then to realize that he was going to be taking legal action, from her standpoint, was pretty unsettling and emotional,” Hammer said.

He said his client was “very startled” when her husband testified that he had actually been back in Ohio since around 2005, but she “didn’t wish him any ill-will.”

“Stay Dead”

“He had experienced alcoholism for a number of years and made choices based upon being in that condition,” Hammer said.

Despite his being alive and being in court, Judge Allan Davis ruled that Miller would be staying legally dead. Davis sdkfjhsdjsdfksajfsadkjfsafgsakjfh

told ABCNews.com that while the decision doesn’t appear to make much sense, it was actually very by the book.

“There really wasn’t much opportunity to use any equity in this case because we have a statute right on point,” he said.

A legal statute in Ohio prevents changes to death rulings after three years have passed.

Those involved in the case are uncertain about what happens next in the case and to Donald Miller.

When asked if Donald Miller would be appealing or taking his case to a higher court, his attorney Francis Marley told ABCNews.com, “Probably not.”

“We may go another avenue as far as federal something, but we haven’t decided yet,” he said. “He’s obviously disappointed. Who wouldn’t be?”

“It’s one of those once-in-a-lifetime cases,” Judge Davis sdkfjhsdjsdfksajfsadkjfsafgsakjfh

Page 1 of 2

Live In Caregiver Awarded Wages of Half What Outside Service Would Charge

Foreman v. Reid2010 BCSC 228

The case is largely reported as one of undue influence and testamentary capacity, but the defendant counter claimed for an award of damages based on unjust enrichment, for a reasonable fee for the care giving services provided for over 5 years.

The court in effect awarded over $200,000 for these services, based on approximately one half of what a full time paid caregiver would charge.

The court noted that after his dismissal the deceased had to pay $8000 per month for her care prior to her death.

B. The defendant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment

[89] Mr. Reid seeks compensation on the basis of quantum meruit, for unpaid services which he provided to Mrs. Foreman which he says unjustly enriched her estate.

[90] To establish entitlement to compensation on a quantum meruit, Mr. Reid has the burden of proving the elements of unjust enrichment, which are:

an enrichment;
a corresponding deprivation;
the absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment.
See Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Canada, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 762, 98 D.L.R. (4th) 140.

[91] I am satisfied that Mr. Reid has met that burden.

[92] While Mr. Reid’s explanation for his devotion to Mrs. Foreman to the detriment of his professional career is at first blush difficult to understand, I am satisfied that when considered in light of her many promises to him and his genuine affection for her, it is explicable.

[93] The totality of the evidence establishes that Mrs. Foreman was a domineering woman whose will would not easily be overborne, and I find that Mr. Reid chose to accommodate her wishes that he provide care services to her and be compensated for that rather than defy or displease her by carrying on full time with his own career in real estate.

[94] That decision was not, of course, entirely altruistic. I accept that promises, including one that she would transfer at least half of the title to her valuable home, and one that she would provide him with a bequest for $200,000, were made to him by Mrs. Foreman. If they had come to fruition, Mr. Reid would have been generously compensated for his efforts.

[95] Mr. MacRae also testified that Mrs. Foreman variously discussed with him giving Mr. Reid half of her house, or up to $200,000, to express her gratitude and debt to him, and that after further discussions with Mr. MacRae in early 2005, gave Mr. MacRae instructions to settle a gift of $100,000 upon Mr. Reid in the contemplated alter ego trust.

[96] I do, however, also find that in addition to acting upon promises of further recompense, Mr. Reid cared deeply for Mrs. Foreman and her well-being, and did his best to care for her as she wished. His obvious distress and emotion when testifying about his removal from the Capilano Road home by the police in June of 2005, and his loss of contact.

Are We Hard Wired to Litigate Over Estates?

Litigate Over Estates

When Billionaires are willing to air their family laundry over inheritances, it makes one reflect on do these people ever have enough money? The Revlon Heiress Ms Perelman is suing her uncle over her grandfather’s will alleging that his son used undue influence to dwindle away an inheritance which may have been as much as $200 million from her ” inheritance”

Revlon heiress Samantha Perelman battles uncle over share of grandfather’s fortune
David Porter, Associated Press | 28/09/13 | Last Updated: 28/09/13 4:44 PM ET
More from Associated Press

AP Photo/The Record of Bergen County, Amy Newman, PoolSamantha Perelman looks on during opening arguments in her lawsuit against the Cohen family in Superior Court in Hackensack, N.J.

Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Email
Comments
More
Tumblr
Pinterest
Reddit
Digg
FarkIt
StumbleUpon
HACKENSACK, N.J. — A bitter fight between two of the New York area’s wealthiest families is playing out in the modest trappings of a county courthouse more used to seeing low-level drug offenders and alimony cheats.

On one side is James Cohen, son of the founder of Hudson News, the newsstand operator with stores in airports and train stations across the country. On the other is Cohen’s niece, Samantha Perelman, the 23-year-old daughter of billionaire Revlon Chairman Ronald Perelman.

Samantha Perelman claims her uncle systematically squeezed her out of her grandfather Robert Cohen’s will as he suffered from the debilitating effects of a Parkinson’s-like disease before dying in 2012.

The case figures to turn on whether Perelman’s attorneys can demonstrate to state Superior Court Judge Estela De La Cruz that James Cohen used undue influence to get his father to change his will several times to reduce Perelman’s share.

AP Photo/The Record of Bergen County, Mitsu Yasukawa, PoolJames Cohen is accused of using undue influence to get his father to change his will several times to reduce Samantha Perelman’s share.

Cohen’s attorneys don’t mince words in court filings, calling Perelman’s lawsuit “brazen beyond belief” and the product of “pure gall.” They claim that even under Robert Cohen’s last will, penned in 2009, Samantha Perelman stood to inherit jewelry and real estate worth more than $20 million and insurance policies worth more than $47 million. They also claim her lawsuit is a thinly veiled attempt by Ron Perelman to use his daughter to get control of the Hudson News empire.

“This shameless lawsuit is filled with repackaged claims, and we are confident that the truth will again prevail as it has in every previous iteration of this nuisance litigation,” James Cohen said through a spokeswoman.

Christine Taylor, a spokeswoman for Samantha Perelman, called the accusations regarding Ron Perelman “simply not true.”

“It’s something they feel if they repeat enough times it’ll be true,” she said. “It couldn’t be further from the truth, it has never been the case and it has never been contended that the business should go to Ronald Perelman or Samantha. They would like to make it about Ronald because it’s easier to beat up on a grown-up than a 23-year-old girl.”

‘My mother taught me to stand up for what I believe, and I know she would have been heartbroken by what was done’

James Cohen, who lives in northern New Jersey, began working for Hudson News in 1980, became CEO in 1994 and had always been in line to inherit the business from his father, according to his court filings. He is credited with developing it into a business that sold for $805 million in 2008.

In the 2004 document that Samantha Perelman is seeking to be considered her grandfather’s last valid will, she stood to receive real estate in Palm Beach, Fla., New York City and Englewood; $25 million in cash; $500,000 a year for 10 years; a corporate jet; and other assets totalling about $150 million, according to her court filings. Her attorneys charge that once her mother, gossip columnist Claudia Cohen, died in 2007, James Cohen took control of his father’s estate planning, and the “changes adverse to Claudia and Samantha came repeatedly, relentlessly and secretly.”

Over the next several years, Robert Cohen’s physical condition worsened steadily as he battled progressive supranuclear palsy, a disorder that attacks muscular control and ultimately left him unable to walk, speak or care for himself, according to court papers.

AP Photo/The Record, Elizabeth LaraSamantha Perelman listens to witness testimony in superior court in Hackensack, NJ in a lawsuit against the Cohen family.

In a previous trial, also in Hackensack, a different Superior Court judge ruled against the Perelmans and concluded that Robert Cohen was “fundamentally sound” in his thinking and legally allowed to make a new will. Under the law, however, a person can still be unduly influenced in the making of a will even if he or she is considered to have mental capacity, both sides said.

Samantha Perelman graduated recently from the University of Pennsylvania and is pursuing an MBA at Columbia University. Court papers revealed that her grandfather referred to her as “Little Cupcake.” She is expected to testify next week.

“My mother always taught me to stand up for what I believe, and I know she would have been heartbroken by what was done in connection with her father’s will,” Samantha Perelman said in an emailed statement. “This is my case and I intend to make sure my grandfather’s true intentions are carried out.”

The Associated Press

Many Super Rich Will Not Leave It All to Their Children

warren buffet

 

Not all of the world’s super rich billionaires are dedicated to being extraordinarily altruistic — many decide to spend their money indulging in fancy cars, planes, and yachts and not on their children

 

Warren Buffet is notorious for saying he will donate all his fortune rather than leave it to his children .

But others want to spread as much of their wealth as possible before they die. A select few even want that last check to only cover the cost of their funeral.

Of course, not everyone stands to gain from such selflessness — namely, the children of these generous donors.

Though they will still have untold opportunities, advantages, and connections, to help them succeed, the children of many tycoons won’t be living large off their inheritances.

Moguls such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates typify the sentiment of these largely self made people, that having too much money from an early age is a disaster for that individual, as well as not being good for society as a whole.

Mayor Bloomberg says of his 20 billion and his two children, in his letter to The Giving Pledge, Bloomberg wrote that “nearly all of my net worth will be given away in the years ahead or left to my foundation.”

Bloomberg’s two daughters, however, may be left to foot the bill upon his death. Bloomberg once said “the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker.”

Even Kiss rock star Gene Simmons stated: in terms of an inheritance and stuff, they’re gonna be taken care of, but they will never be rich off my money. Because every year they should be forced to get up out of bed, and go out and work and make their own way.”

Finally, Andrew Lloyd Webber :

Having racked up hundreds of millions of dollars and becoming a knight thanks to his work as a theater composer, Webber wants to use that money to encourage teaching the arts.

Webber once said that ”(A will) is one thing you do start to think about when you get to my age. I don’t think it should be about having a whole load of rich children and grandchildren. I think it should be used as a way to encourage the arts.”

His five children will be “taken care of,” but the majority of the estate will go towards arts programs.

40 Great Things To Say While Alive

Build your dreamThings To Say Before You Die and are still alive.

Before you’re sprawled on your deathbed, there are some things you really have to say. They’re not complicated.

 

40
“I wonder.”

Give yourself time to think so the time you spend doing things will be better spent.

39
“Today was good.”

 

If you can say it once, you can say it again. And again. And again.

 

38
“I believe in this.”

 

A god, a plan, a company, a person, an idea—you have to put your faith in something.

 

37
“I’m not finished

Only you get to decide when your life’s work is done.

 

36
“Thank you for making this possible.”

 

Because nobody does anything alone. We’re driven and supported and thwarted by others at every turn.

 

35
“That’s enough.”

 

Food. Drink. Episodes of Law & Order. Pairs of shoes. Overtime. Articulating your own limits is powerful.

 

34
“I can do better.”

As soon as you say it, you’re that much closer to making it true.

33
“I’m sorry.”

But you can’t just say it; you have to mean it. Really mean it.

 

32
“I survived.”

Moments of danger are the plot points of an exciting life.

 

31
“You’re amazing.”

 

Let yourself be in awe of another person, and you’ll feel strong and weak simultaneously.

 

30
“I am home.”

Home is every adventure’s final destination and starting point—and we all need one to call our own.

 

29
“I did my best.”

 

If this is true, you did something amazing.

 

28
“How can I help you?”

 

Because you want people to come to your funeral, and if they can’t make it, at least they’ll miss you.

 

27
“I’m lucky.”

You are lucky, in a way that no one else is. Now, what are you going to do with your good fortune?

 

26
“I want that.”

 

Ask for it: that’s you get what you covet—from others and for yourself.

 

25
“This is wrong.”

 

If you never say it, you embody the statement.

 

24
“I quit.”

 

Not everything is worthwhile, and sometimes we don’t find that out until we’re in the middle of a rotten situation.

 

23
“Isn’t this beautiful?”

The more often you notice the gorgeous world around you, the happier you’ll be.

 

22
“Congratulations.”

 

Say this without jealously. Practice if you have to.

 

21
“Damn, I look good.”

You come from a long line of people who convinced others to sleep with them. Remember that.

 

20
“I can master this.”

 

The ability to learn is the foundation of every other talent.

 

19
“Hold the mayo.”

 

Ask for the little things on a regular basis and you’ll find that it’s easier to make larger demands on occasion.

 

18
“This is who I am.”

The nervous energy spent pretending to be something you’re not is better spent on practically anything else.

 

17
“Get out.”

It’s always harder to take back an invitation than to give one, but protecting yourself from personified trouble is always worth the effort.

 

16
“That was my contribution.”

 

Own what you’ve worked to create—that’s how your presence will be felt long after you’re gone.

 

15
“I’ll try it.”

Consider the impotence of never saying you’ll try.

 

14
“Tell me more.”

 

Really getting to know someone (or some topic) will help you better triangulate your own place in the world.

13
“This is my favorite thing.”

 

Enjoy what you love and say this as often as you can.

 

12
“I earned this.”

 

There’s a layer of proud ownership over everything you possess that wasn’t merely given to you.

 

11
“I don’t care.”

 

Being able to discern between what’s important and what’s trivial is a skill that will save your sanity and your schedule.

 

10
“Your secret is safe with me.”

 

Because it feels deep-down good to be trustworthy.

 

9
“Eureka!”

 

Being the first to know something is a delicious sensation.

 

8
“Let’s go!”

 

Where you’re going often matters far less than the enthusiasm you have for the trip.

 

7
“I trust you.”

 

We all need allies, and admitting as much helps forge alliances.

 

6
“I don’t know how to do this.”

 

It’s better to admit it and learn than to fake it and embarrass yourself.

5
“I’m terrified.”

 

Fear is an asset. It can save you from danger and alert you to trouble. Don’t ignore the tingles that run up and down your spine.

 

4
“This is going to work.”

 

When this is said truthfully, it’s an assertion of power.

 

3
“I made a decision.”

 

Autonomy transforms any activity from a chore to an act of destiny.

 

2
“I love you.”

 

We all want to say this, and we all want it said to us.

 

1
“I understand.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

More important than being right, or being important, is being truly aware.

 

 

Reprinted From Forbes Magazine

Famous Failures Who Made It

Famous Failures Who Made It

 

If you have never failed, you have never tried anything new! Albert Einstein

Michael JordonAlbert was not able to speak until he was almost 4 years old and his teacher said he would never amount to much.

Michael Jordan-after being cut from his high school basketball team, Michael went home, locked himself in his room and cried.

Walt Disney-fired from a newspaper for lacking imagination and having no original ideas.

Steve Jobs-at 30 years old he was left devastated and depressed after being unceremoniously removed from the Apple company that he started.

Oprah Winfrey-was demoted from her job as a news anchor because she wasn’t fit for television the Beatles-rejected by Decca recording studios who said we don’t like their sound they have no future in show business.

Americans Donate Billions to Charity

Warren Buffet 2Americans are generally speaking generous towards charities, donating around 7 plus billion dollars per year.

Here are a few of the top   donors:

1. Warren Buffett

Total: $3.084 billion
2. Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

Total: $499 million
3. John and Laura Arnold

Total: $423 million
4. Paul Allen

Total: $309 million
5. Sergey Brin and Anne Wojcicki

Total: $223 million
Recipients: Brin Wojcicki Foundation, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research

6. Mortimer Zuckerman

Total: $200 million
Recipient: Columbia University

8. Carl Icahn

Total: $150 million
Recipient: Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Six Famous Estate Fights

 

Anna Nicole 2Famous Estate Fights- Mistakes & Lessons

 

Brooke Astor

Mistake: Naming wrong person as agent under power of attorney.

Story: In October 2009 socialite Brooke Astor’s son Anthony Marshall was convicted of fraud and grand larceny relating to his handling of his late mother’s estate. The 14 counts which a New York jury found Marshall guilty of, included misusing his power of attorney over her financial affairs by giving himself a retroactive $1 million raise for managing her finances. Marshall denied wrongdoing and remains free while appealing his conviction.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: Pick your agent with care, and require a backup agent to sign off, too, on major decisions.

 

Princess Di’s Trinkets

 

Mistake: Relying on a “letter of wishes” to give away belongings.

 

Story: At her death in 1997, Princess Diana left a detailed will, naming her sister and mother as executors. She also wrote a separate “letter of wishes” asking her executors, at their discretion, to divide her belongings among her sons and her 17 godchildren. But instead of getting stuff worth an estimated 100,000 pounds, each godchild got only a trinket.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: Don’t rely on executors’ sense of noblesse oblige; put specific bequests in your will or trust or in a signed, dated list. If you’re older, give away cherished belongings before you die.

 

Marjorie Merriweather Post’s Daughter

 

Mistake: Having conflicting wills in different places.

 

Story: Eleanor Close Barzin, a daughter of Marjorie Merriweather Post, who during her life often was called America’s richest woman (her father was C.W. Post of cereal fame), died in 2006 at age 96, worth tens of millions. With assets on two continents, she had an amended French will, a U.S. trust and a U.S. will, not necessarily a problem, except for the fact that the documents weren’t coordinated to account for how the different jurisdictions interact with one another. Her estate is still tied up in litigation.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: If you have assets in more than one jurisdiction (that could be New York and Vermont), make sure you have competent advisors who can deal with the complexities and contradictions.

 

Anna Nicole Smith

 

Mistake: Marrying out of your league.

 

Story: Oil baron J. Howard Marshall was 89 when he married formerPlayboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith, age 26. When Marshall died just over a year later in 1995, she claimed he had promised her half of his estate, but she was left out of the will. Most of Marshall’s fortune went to his only son, E. Pierce Marshall. Then, Marshall and Smith died within months of each other, Smith leaving behind an infant daughter. The case went up to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, with the Court ruling this June that the Texas probate court was the proper venue for the case. That court’s decision, which upheld Marshall’s will, is on appeal.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: Sign a prenuptial agreement.

 

Pritzker v. Pritzker

 

Mistake: Counting on dad.

 

Story: Brother and sister Matthew and Liesel Pritzker sued their father, Robert, and other family members, accusing them of looting their trust fund (dad was trustee) after the death of their grandfather, family patriarch Jay Pritzker, who founded the Hyatt hotel chain. The lawsuit was settled in 2005, with the two reportedly getting control of fortunes of $450 million each.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: If your estate plan includes trusts meant to last multiple generations, a corporate trustee (typically a bank) can be a better choice (more expensive, but more impartial) than a family member.

 

The Koch Brothers

 

Mistake: Exiting the family business too early.

 

Story: Four sons of Fred Koch, founder of oil conglomerate Koch Industries, inherited the company after their father’s death in 1967. Sons Charles and David bought out William and Frederick for $1.3 billion in 1983. William and Frederick (pictured) later sued for a bigger amount. The long-running feud was finally settled in 2001. Meanwhile, Charles and David have climbed into the ranks of the 10 richest Americans, worth $21.5 billion each, while William is worth $3.4 billion; Frederick isn’t even among the 400 richest Americans.

 

Estate Fights Lesson: When your estate includes a family business, extra precautions are needed to ensure that all heirs will be treated equally.