Increased 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?
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
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.
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.”
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.
– If you have never failed, you have never tried anything new! Albert Einstein–
Albert 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.
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.