Would you have either of these guys draft your will? I ran into Chuck Meyer (Santen and Hughes) during the eclipse at the Banks.
Gronk Would Not Do This
- Thursday, 11 May 2017 17:12
Aaron Hernandez is the former New England Patriot who committed suicide last month while imprisoned for murdering a friend. He had only recently been acquitted of the murder of two other individuals and was still appealing his prior murder conviction. Since his suicide, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has vacated his murder conviction because his appeals were still in process. Within hours after his arrest in 2013, the Patriots terminated his contract and did not pay the remaining guaranteed money owed to him.
In his suicide note addressed to his fiancé, Hernandez wrote “you’re rich.” Many reporters have interpreted that to mean that he was thinking not only of what money he still owned but also that she would collect $6 million owed to him by the Patriots under his last contract. Some think that the Patriots would be on the hook if they terminated Hernandez’s contract because he was convicted of murder but was later exonerated due to this peculiarity of Massachusetts law.
A few points on the intersection of two of my favorite topics – probate law and the NFL:
1. Hernandez and the Patriots actually settled his grievance for unpaid guaranteed money under his last contract for $1 million in 2014 likely meaning there is no further money to collect from the Pats.
2. The victims of Hernandez have filed lawsuits against him. Any judgments against him would be paid from his estate probably rendering it insolvent.
3. Unless Hernandez signed a will, his fiancé will not receive any portion of his estate because fiancés are not statutory heirs. His daughter would inherit his estate if he did not leave a will.
4. Drafting a will and thinking about the application of an obscure Massachusetts law involve long term planning and thinking which seem beyond the acuity of a guy seemingly lacking impulse control.
Photo Credit: AP/Elise Amendola
License: Fair Use/Education
Don’t Be Like John B. (Estate Planning Lessons From “S-Town”)
- Friday, 21 April 2017 10:08
“S-Town” is the critically acclaimed successor podcast to “Serial.” The anti-hero, John B, lives in a Faulkner-esque house on 128 acres in Woodstock, Alabama with his octogenarian mother who suffers from dementia. He is a genius horologist (clock repairman), builder of a “Shining” type maze on his property, hypocrite about tattoos, and so obsessed with climate change and other problems that he makes Thomas Malthus seem optimistic.
John B. was thought to be worth a large amount of money by residents of Woodstock. During the podcast he mentions that he wants to leave $20,000 to his friend, Tyler. He also tells Tyler (spoiler alert) on the night that he commits suicide that Tyler can have his property. Sadly, John B. died without writing a will or without having a plan for someone to take care of his mother. Mystifyingly, John B. claims to have been unbanked which led Tyler and others to search his property for locations where he could have buried gold and cash. He did leave instructions with a friend about what to do and whom to contact after his death.
Several points:
1. If one has to choose between leaving a will or instructions about what to do after death, one should choose a will.
2. Embrace the power of “AND”. One should be able to leave a will AND instructions about what to do after death.
3. Without a will, John B’s assets if found legally will go to his mother. Without a health care power of attorney, the care of his mother will go to a relative willing to serve as guardian.
4. Being unbanked might make sense for someone of little financial means. For someone who might have made hundreds of thousands dollars annually and is prone to suicidal threats, being unbanked can only lead to one’s property looking like a scene from “Holes.”
Photo Copyright: James Breeden for Daily Mail (?)
License: Fair Use/Education
Not All Step-Mothers Are Evil
- Thursday, 30 March 2017 10:11
A British farmer died and left his second wife of nine years the sum of $155,000. He left each of his sons from a prior marriage the sum of $81,000. The sons contested the will by arguing that their father, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease for 20 years, was incompetent when he made the will. The argued that his prior will which left his wife the sum of $125,000 was his real will. After years of litigation, and $250,000 of legal fees, the court ruled that his last will was valid and that all of the legal fees for the will contest were to be paid by the sons, not the estate. In his ruling, the judge stated the sons were unreasonable and frivolous for fighting over such a small amount which was motivated by their dislike of their mother.
Several non-pithy points:
1. The sons were simply expressing their disdain for their dad’s second wife by fighting over such a small amount and likely hoping to force their step-mother to spend her entire inheritance on legal fees. Bleed her dry, if you will.
2. Unlike the U.S. where each party is responsible for his own legal fees, the British system allows the loser to pay the legal fees of all parties.
3. Editorializing a bit here, I have never understood the visceral dislike or animosity towards second spouses. From a child’s point of view, I embraced my mom’s second husband because he was able to provide her companionship, someone to travel and dine with, a social life, and mental stimulation. He was also able to assist her with her medical needs, whether they were doctor appointments or recovering from surgeries or illnesses (the same applies times two for the woman my father in law has dated for five years – she is an angel). I never viewed him as a replacement for my father, but simply as a good man in the next chapter of my mom’s life. Sadly, I do not think enough children view their parent’s second spouse in a similar manner. These British guys were twits in not appreciating the woman who took care of their ailing father to the best of her abilities.
Photo Copyright: Paul Keogh
License: Fair Use/Education
War and Peace
- Saturday, 18 March 2017 09:25
Audrey Hepburn died in 1993. She left her personal belongings, including costumes, scarves, hats, scripts, awards, and other memorabilia, equally to her two sons. They in turn loaned the memorabilia to a charity to display. After one of the sons ran into financial difficulties, he asked for the return of the property. He and his brother were unable to agree on how to divide the property so they went to court. They just settled their dispute last week.
Several brief points:
1. Most disputes about estate administration that I see are about the personal belongings and not the money. Oddly. And sadly.
2. In Ohio, people can easily specify which child or beneficiary is to receive a particular item by leaving a written document as a will companion so stating.
3. In Hepburn’s case, I feel sorry for anyone fighting over 25+ year old scarves and hats even if they once belonged to a famous person.
Photo Copyright: Paramount/REX/Shutterstock
License: Fair Use/Education
Contact Info
Address
Law Office Of Jay Brinker
1 E. Fourth Street - Suite 900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone
(513) 665-4888