BlogRead the Latest News

 

Visits Trump Cards (Huguette Clark Estate Pt. 3)

Wednesday, 18 September 2013 02:42

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.

I See Gullibility

Thursday, 12 September 2013 13:55

An English woman is a key witness against a Florida psychic on trial for defrauding people of $25 million.  The woman sought the assistance of the psychic when her husband was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer shortly after leaving her.  The psychic was supposed to prolong the estranged husband’s life by two years and have him return to her if the woman divested herself of  the “tainted” money she made when selling the castle she and her husband owned. In a future plot line from Downton Abbey, when the husband died six months later, he left his wife no money in his will and authorized a servant to use his frozen sperm to have an IVF child.  In spite of the failure of the psychic to accomplish her goals, the woman continued to give money to the psychic ($900k  total) to prevent the servant from bearing a child with her late husband.

Several points:

1.  In Ohio, a husband may not disinherit his wife.  The wife is entitled to at least 1/3 of the assets under his will.

2.   When a deceased spouse has left a mess of his personal affairs, it is best to seek the counsel of an attorney, not the psychic whose shop is across the street from one’s hotel.

3.  Never tell a psychic how much money one has, do not believe in tainted money, giving money to a psychic does not untaint it . . . Heck, just avoid psychics in general.

4.  When an estranged husband wants out of a marriage then dies shortly thereafter authorizing a servant to conceive his child and tries to disinherit his spouse, and one ends up with $2 million plus one -third of his estate, do not be mournful and hire a psychic.  Be thankful the cad is out of one’s life.

Don’t Stop ‘Til You Pay Enough

Thursday, 29 August 2013 15:43

I previously blogged about the income earned by Michael Jackson’s estate since his death.  His estate is now embroiled in a dispute with the IRS over the value of his estate and the commensurate estate taxes owed.  His estate representatives claimed a total estate value of $9 million on his estate tax return while valuing his image and likeness at only $2,000, while the IRS values the image and likeness at $434 million and the total estate at more than $1 billion.

Several points:

1.  This issue is different than paying income taxes on the earnings since his death.  Those taxes have presumably been paid.

2.  The IRS valuation seems very high while the estate value seems too low.  MJ had borrowed extensively prior to his death to support his lifestyle, including his zoo, and was planning  a series of London concerts to pay off the debt.   The debt would reduce the value of his estate by $500 million or so.

3.  I would love to negotiate with the estate and buy the right to market MJ’s image at their stated value of $2,000.

4.  Estate taxes are levied on the value of assets at the time of death. At the time of his death, MJ was not listed as a billionaire by Forbes, had not had an endorsement since 1993,  and was not on Forbes’ list of top earning musicians in 2008 the year prior to his death.  No one could predict how popular he would be in death.  Child molestation rumors, erratic behavior, dangling babies from balconies, and continual disfiguring plastic surgery have a way of frightening advertisers, shrinking a fan base, and reducing earnings.

5.  The Police earned $115 million in 2008 and were Forbes top earning artist of the year. Huh?

Going for a Touchdown When a Field Goal Would Have Sufficed

Thursday, 29 August 2013 01:45
Jim Carlen was one of the winningest football coaches at the University of South Carolina.  His children from his first marriage, which ended in 1980, are suing his 2nd wife of 29 years alleging that she influenced him to leave all of his estate to her. 
His 2007 will and all prior wills had included the children from his first marriage.  The 2010 will, executed one year after he was diagnosed with dementia, left everything to his widow.  In 2011, he executed a power of attorney in favor his wife which she purportedly used to transfer assets to herself prior to his death 
Several points:
1.  A will executed by an individual diagnosed with dementia that substantially changes his estate plan will always be challenged by the beneficiaries of the prior will.
2.  The coach could have provided for both his widow and children by leaving assets to her in a trust and having them distributed to the children upon her death.
3.  Proving that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered, the widow would have been better off ensuring that the children received something rather than seeing them disinherited entirely.
4.  45 wins constitutes the third most wins at South Carolina?  That might explain the one conference championship it its history.        

“What is Per Stirpes?”

Thursday, 29 August 2013 01:33
After I ask clients if they have reviewed drafts of their wills, the question they most often ask me is “what does per stirpes mean?”  It helps that the term is underlined. In short, it means by representation.  If a beneficiary dies before the decedent, that beneficiary’s heirs will divide his or her share.A recent Nebraska case, Estate of Evans, recently interpreted per stirpes in the context of an individual who died without a will and was survived by a nephew from a pre-deceased brother and 2 nieces from another pre-deceased brother. The court held that the 3 individuals would share equally because the division into shares began at the generation with living heirs.

Several points:

1.  In Ohio, the division would be made at the level of the pre-deceased brothers so the nephew would receive half and the nieces would each receive one quarter.

2.  A common fallacy among non-attorneys is that if an individual does not have a will, the assets will escheat to the state.  States have statutes that provide who will inherit assets if there is no will.  Only if there is no one somewhat directly related to the decedent will the assets escheat to the estate.
3.  It is always better to prepare a will to determine who inherits assets rather than leave the distribution to a state statute.

4.  It is rare to be able to use the term escheat twice in the same post.

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.