BlogRead the Latest News

 

Fake Tan, Fake Debts, Short Marriage

An NYC heiress has accused her estranged husband of duping her into giving him $750K of her trust funds which he allegedly spent on his mistress.  The 39 year old woman met her 30 year old husband at a tanning salon in 2010, married him in 2011, and soon ended up withdrawing funds to pay his alleged “gambling debts.”  At one time she withdrew $150K cash from a bank and placed it in a duffel bag.  She alleges that her husband used the funds to take his mistress to  Vegas and the Dominican Republic and to purchase gifts from Bloomingdales, Louis Vuitton, and Cartier.

Three quick points:

1.  A trust fund that allows a beneficiary to withdraw $150K and place it in a duffel bag is not very effective.

2.  A trust beneficiary capable of being duped to the tune of $750K in 2 years needs more restrictive trust terms.

3.  In ranking questionable locales for meeting prospective spouses, a tanning salon ranks below AA but only slightly above a rehab facility.

Happy New Year

 

I hope the new year is treating you well.  I am back in town after some time in Florida with my family.  Blog post to follow soon.  In the meantime, here is a picture of my children.

 

 

Merry Christmas

And a Happy New Year.

 

Rick Dees’ Family Would Not Act This Way

The family of long time American Top 40 host, Casey Kasem, settled their dispute over his health care on Friday.  The children from his first marriage had requested a conservatorship because they alleged that their step-mother was not permitting them to see him.  A court appointed doctor had opined that Kasem, who is bed ridden and hospitalized with Parkinson’s disease, would want to see his children.   Details of the settlement are undisclosed.

Several points:

1.  These types of disputes are fairly common with second marriages and children from a prior marriage.  They are also common among siblings when one child lives out of town.

2.  To reduce the risk of conflict, an individual should execute a durable power of attorney for health care and a financial power of attorney.   Further, the attorney in fact under both documents should communicate with other family members.

3.  Because terms of the settlement are undisclosed, it remains unknown if the Kasem children are permitted to visit their father, or if they have to send him long distance dedications.

 

 

 

Love Means Never Having to Fight Over a Portrait

After Nick Saban declined the University of Texas  football job, the bad week for UT continued when a jury determined that a painting of Farrah Fawcett by Andy Warhol belonged to Ryan O’Neal and was not part of her art collection that she left to the university.  She left none of her estate to long time lover O’Neal which forced him to fight for the ownership of the painting which is estimated to be worth between $1 million and $12 million.

Several points:

1.  Marriage can provide legal protection.  If Ryan and Farrah had married, he would have been entitled to one-third of her estate as a matter of law and could have skipped the drama over the painting.

2.  When one’s former girlfriend/lover/companion leaves $100K to a college boyfriend and nothing to you, perhaps your relationship is not comparable to the idyllic “Love Story.”  Love means never having to fight over a portrait of the deceased.

3.  A photograph with painted eyes and lipstick is worth seven figures?

Who Wants to Make (or Receive) This Phone Call?

From today’s Dear Prudence column on Slate:

Q. Death Around the Holidays: A man I work with and with whom I’ve had an affair the last two months died suddenly over the weekend. I am pregnant with his child. He didn’t know. His current wife, now widow, doesn’t either. How do I broach this subject? His estate is rather large.

A: I’d say I’m sorry for your loss, but since apparently you aren’t, I won’t bother. For your financial interests, contact a lawyer specializing in family law. I don’t have any advice on where you go to get help for your lack of morals—or heart.

Several points:

1.  If the man left all of his assets to his wife, I do not think that there will be much available for the child other than Social Security because the widow is not obligated to leave assets to the child.

2.  If the man did not have a will, in Ohio the child would essentially share in 2/3 of the probate assets with the other children.

3.  If  the man left assets in a trust for his wife and children, which ultimately are to be distributed to his children, the child from the affair will likely inherit the same share as his other children because children are usually defined generically in wills and trusts not as “children from my relationship with my wife.”

4.  I doubt Ann Landers and Dear Abby would have answered as tersely as Prudie did.

5.  Giving the woman the benefit of the doubt, which Prudie did not, the writer might have adapted her writing style to the 21st century blog post/Internet style and left out all perceived unnecessary adjectives (and emotion).  Or, she could be a Hemingway fan.

The Morning Line

Paul Daugherty of the Cincinnati Enquirer has once again graciously allowed me to guest write his blog.

R.I.P. Nelson Mandela

I remember this incredible Nightline closing clip featuring Tracy Chapman’s “Freedom Now” from the week Nelson Mandela was released from prison in 1990.

Bonus music video – “Free Nelson Mandela” by Special AKA.

 

It’s All About Francesca

Julie Harris, the 5 time Emmy Award winning actress, died in August.  Her will named a minor soap opera actress, Francesca Rubino, as the co-executor of her estate.  Her will also contained a codicil stating that if her son, who lived on her property and who is to receive the bulk of his estate, threatened to harm the co-executor, he would be disinherited.  The son was unable to see his mother the last 3 years of her life.  Friends of Ms. Harris claim that Ms. Rubino wormed her way into Ms. Harris’ life and fired all of her long time employees including the gardener, housekeeper, and attorney. The new attorney, who presumably would earn $100,000 as co-executor, maintains that they are merely disgruntled former employees.

Several points:

1.  Wills can generally be challenged on the grounds of lack of mental capacity or undue influence.  An indicia of undue influence is where a non-relative receives money to the exclusion of children or one child receives a disproportionate amount.

2.  The son has standing to contest the validity of the will, but if he still receives most of the estate and the only issue is who will serve as executor, he might not be inclined to contest the will and lose money in legal fees.

3.  I have never seen a codicil threatening to disinherit someone, much less a child, for threatening anyone.  Codicils usually change the amounts to be received by a beneficiary.

4.  Who can blame the son for making a threatening gesture to someone described as “very alluring but very manipulative” and “who had a saintly look that was overboard”?

The Grand Disillusion

The author of this article in the New York Times discusses how little her deceased mother’s personal belongings were worth.  She was fortunate in that some of the items – a silver German tea service, a French painting, and  a friend’s Tiffany lamp – are more common in New York than in other places.

 Among the salient points:

 1.  In a best case scenario, contents might be worth 1/10 the value of the house.

2.  Non-Baccarat crystal goblets are not worth packing up.

3.  English and Early American antiques are not as valued as they once were.

4.  Non-Steinway pianos are not very marketable.

 My quick points:

 1.  I always advise my clients to not argue with siblings over personal property – the sibling relationship is far more valuable than any particular item.

2.  Tastes in furnishings and household items change which leads to declining values in most items.

3.  In addition to one’s personal belongings being worth less than expected, one’s children are probably not as smart as one believes either.

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving.

Road Kill Leads to Will Contest

Close to home, the four daughters of the founder of Griffin Industries, an animal rendering and food recycling company located in Greater Cincinnati, are suing 3 of their brothers for allegedly cheating them out of their inheritance.  They are also suing the law firm that advised the company and several family members.  To make their claim, they are relying on the federal RICO statute which was crafted to combat organized crime in the 1970s and alleging that their brothers were part of a racketeering enterprise.  Their mother died in 1985 and their father died in 1995.  The father had executed a trust in 1967.  Griffin Industries was sold for $840 million in 2010.

Many points:

1. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to work for the law firm being sued in the case.  I have no knowledge of the matter other than what is in the linked article.

2.  In the small world category, my law school professor, Robert Blakey, crafted the RICO statute when he was a Senate staffer and the issue of civil RICO actions was a frequent law review topic in the mid-80s.

3.  At some time between 1967 and 1995, the father should have revised his will and trust to reflect the current status of the business, his current finances, and the differing contributions of the family members to the business.

4.  The case is being litigated in federal court under a RICO theory presumably because the statute of limitations for litigating a will and trust contest has long since expired.

5.  With $840 million to be divided among family members, one would think that there were enough spoils for everyone to get along especially those not involved in the business operations and its success.

6.  $840 million is an incredible number for a business that started with collecting road kill.  Rendering seems to be the ultimate recycling business.  And most profitable, too.

No Signature, No Witnesses, No Worries

An Australian court recently ruled that a will typed in the notes section of an iPhone is valid.  The will was prepared by a man who committed suicide shortly thereafter.  The will was not witnessed nor was it signed.  Nonetheless, the court deemed it valid.

Several points:

1.  Thanks to Charlie Young, the attorney who represented the estate of the deceased, for sending me this news.

2.  Such a will in Ohio would not be valid because it did not meet the requirements of being witnessed by 2 individuals and signed by the deceased.  Presumably, if 2 witnesses and the deceased had signed their names electronically, it would have a chance of being valid in Ohio.  I would not want to represent the test case, though.

3.  If the will had been written on a Microsoft tablet, it would most likely not have been found valid because no one would have figured out how to use the tiles in Windows 8.

Miscellany

Slow times in the estate planning/probate news arena.  I have 3 quick hits tangentially related to estate planning and probate, albeit with minimal lessons.

First, the estate of the Tin Man’s son is suing Warner Brothers for the proceeds of a documentary about The Wizard of Oz.

The Tin Man’s son died in 2001at the age of 68. Unlike humans, copyrights seem to last forever.

Second, last week was the 65th anniversary of the death of a Canadian man who wrote his will on the under side of a tractor under which he was pinned. The will which said “In case I die in this mess, I leave all to the wife” was valid.

In Ohio, the assets of a person survived by his spouse and children from that marriage who be distributed by law to the spouse. One less thing to worry about if ever pinned under a tractor.

Finally, the estate of sculptor Alexander Calder, who died in 1976, is suing the estate of his art dealer who died 5 years ago for fraud. The suit involves allegations of Swiss bank account, sale of forgeries, and payments of $5 million in hush money.

Yes, $5 million in hush money. Apparently, there is ample money to be made in high end art for artists and their representatives.

His Mom Will Not Be Happy

Donte Whitner, safety for the SF 49ers, has filed an application to change his last name to Hitner.  The hearing in Cuyahoga Probate Court is set for Nov. 19.   His application for the change says it will be commercially favorable to him in various business ventures (and presumably in terms of increased jersey sales).

Two quick points:

1.  In a bit of irony, the 49ers play the Washington Redskins, a team under siege for not changing its name, in his first game after the name change.

2.  Unless the white supremacist market is larger than I believe, I doubt there is huge demand for a jersey with a name that could easily be mistaken for “Hitler.”

If You Have to Ask, . . .

An individual who is a beneficiary of his uncle’s estate asked the Ethicist at the NYT if he should follow his uncle’s instructions to donate several thousand dollars to various charities.  The instructions were made in a letter accompanying the will.  The beneficiary perceived the groups to be “extremely right wing” and was offended by some of them.   The Ethicist instructed the beneficiary to make the donations or not take any money.

Several points:

1. Leaving money to someone with the expectation that he will share it with someone else or a charity is not legally binding nor a good idea (see the comment about not legally binding).

2.  Charitable bequests should be made in the will so they are carried out (and so charitable deductions are effective).

3.  Expecting anyone from California to donate money to a conservative cause is tilting at windmills.

Something’s Got To Give

The estate of Herb Stern, the photographer famous for taking the Last Sitting photos of Marilyn Monroe 6 weeks prior to her death, is poised for a will contest. The 83 year old executed a will in 1997 which left half of his estate to his children from his first marriage with the other half establishing a foundation. He subsequently executed a will and a trust in 2010 which left his $10 million estate, save for a few cash bequests to his children, for the benefit of his 44 year old wife, whom he had secretly married in 2009.

Several points:

1.  It is perfectly logical for a man to alter his will to provide for his wife who was not in his life at the time of the will he signed 13 years prior.

2.  The new will has a no contest provision stating that anyone contesting the will will forfeit their inheritance.  If this clause is coupled with significant bequests to the children it could curtail a will contest by them.

3.  Secret marriage?  Perhaps Mr. Stern and his wife were channeling Marilyn Monroe  film titles.  Instead of “We’re Not Married” they decided to “Let’s Make it Legal” because Stern was only “As Young As You Feel” and followed the axiom that “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.”  Once the facts are revealed, “Something’s Got to Give.” My apologies in advance.

Catching UP

I had some technical difficulties (thanks spammers) with the blog which rendered it impossible for me to post in this forum for 2 months.  I was able to post in the other forums (Facebook, Google+, Tumblr, and Blogger) though. I will re-post the missing posts simultaneously.

If At First You Don’t Succeed, . . . . Forge? (No, Just Kidding).

This is out of a horror movie.  A Kansas City attorney was recently charged with murder for killing her father’s girlfriend of 20 years.  Her father was shot and his girlfriend was repeatedly stabbed then shot at their vacation home in 2010.  Her father did not die from his wounds.  The woman then allegedly forged a health care power of attorney so she could withdraw his medical support 4 days later.  She was charged with his murder a year ago.  Apparently, she was concerned that her father would leave all of his assets to his soon to be wife.  In an odd but clarifying footnote, her mother (her father’s first wife), had spent 11 months in jail for stealing $100,000 from her own mother by forging a power of  attorney 10 years ago.

Points?

1.  If the father had wanted to preserve assets for his daughter he could have executed a pre-nuptial agreement to set forth which assets he would leave his soon to be wife (and what would be left for his daughter).

2.  Along the same lines, he could have executed a trust to provide for his new wife while leaving the remainder to his daughter after the wife’s death.

3.  Preparing a health care power of attorney to address medical needs is essential.   So is ensuring that the person with that responsibility has a copy of the document and is aware of the duties.

4.  When a daughter resents her father and his girlfriend, and her biological mother has already stolen from her own mother, an active alarm system  and a multitude of security cameras would be a worthy investment.  And perhaps a Kevlar jacket.

Visits Trump Cards (Huguette Clark Estate Pt. 3)

I previously blogged about the will dispute over Huguette Clark’s fortune, here and here.  Now the issue is set for trial in the next week.  I snarkily  wrote “When a distant relative is a Gilded Age heiress, a Christmas card and occasional phone call provide a great return on investment.”  It turns out that her great-grandniece did send her a Christmas card for 33 years until her death and was still excluded from the will.  Actually, the great-grandniece and other distant relatives were included initially in a 2005 will but then excluded by a revised will she signed a month later.  However, no relative saw Ms. Clark between 1968 and her death in 2011.  The excluded relatives are challenging a will which left most of her fortune to her caregivers, her support network (including her attorney), and the hospital in which she resided for her last 20 years.

Several points:

1.  1968?  43 years before her death?  Those relatives were not important to Ms. Clark.  Nor was she to them.

2.  The grounds for challenging a will are either lack of mental capacity or undue influence.  If she was not competent to execute the second will, it is doubtful she was competent the prior month to leave everything to the relatives.

3.  The lawyer drafting a will should never be a beneficiary of the will.  He should bring in another attorney to prevent the appearance of undue influence by him.

4.  My guess (which based on my prior snark and other poor predictions in this blog is probably wrong) is that she reflexively signed a will leaving her assets to her relatives even though she had not seen them since the RFK and MLK assassinations and the moon landing, then reconsidered and decided to leave her assets to people who had made a difference in her life.

5.  More bloggers, and journalists, should admit their poor prognostication abilities.

Contact Info

image

Address

Law Office Of Jay Brinker
1 E. Fourth Street - Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Email

[email protected]

Phone

(513) 665-4888

Contact Me

All Posts By Jay Brinker

I am an attorney located in Cincinnati, Ohio who practices in the areas of estate planning, probate, asset protection, and small business advice. I make a difficult and bewildering process as simple as possible. Most importantly, I provide "more for less" for my clients.