Even Rappers Need Wills (and Life Insurance, Trusts, and Condoms) Pt. 3

Monday, 17 June 2013 15:14
Written by
0 Comments

I previously blogged about rapper Nate Dogg who died in 2011 survived by 6 children of unascertainable ages and different mothers.  His estate is back in the news again because the mother of one of his children filed a claim against his estate for unpaid child support from the date of the child’s 2006 birth, plus support since Dogg’s death in 2011.   Two other women, one of whom also has  a child Dogg fathered in 2006, are arguing in court over the amount of support they are supposed to receive from his estate.

Several points:

1.  In Ohio, claims against an estate must be filed within six months of the date of death.  The claim for Dogg’s unpaid back support would be invalid due to untimely filing.

2.  In Ohio, child support obligations terminate at death.  Adding money for post-death support to an already late claim just makes the claim doubly improper.

3.  Dogg’s children are entitled to social security payments until they turn 18.

4.  For divorced couples, a life insurance policy is recommended to cover any future child support payments.

5.  Dogg could have established a trust to provide for his children upon his death.   However, that would have required foresight and planning.  For a guy who did not make child support payments nor who wore a condom, such planning would be inconceivable.

Double Indemnity Fail

Monday, 10 June 2013 14:41
Written by
0 Comments

A SC woman murdered both of her 20 something sons, her ex-husband who lived next door, and her step-mother.  She tried to blame the crime on her oldest, murdered son.   She was the beneficiary of insurance policies on the victims in the amount of $680K.  She had previously killed an alleged intruder and kept 3 guns in the house.  She recently plead guilty but mentally ill and was sentenced to life in prison.

What are the estate planning and other issues in this crime?

1.  The killer is precluded from inheriting under the state slayer statute which prevents a murderer from benefiting financially from her crime.

2.  Without valid wills, the sons’ policies will benefit their grandparents, or aunts and uncles if the grandparents are deceased.

3.   If a mother takes out a large life insurance policy on a child, the child should sleep with one eye open.

4.  It is never a good idea to live next door to a mentally ill ex-wife, much less one who has already killed a man and who has a life insurance policy on one’s life.

Beneficiary Designations and Pyrrhic Victory

Wednesday, 05 June 2013 13:51
Written by
0 Comments

A Virginia man died of a rare leukemia survived by his 3rd wife.  One of his assets was a $125K insurance policy he received while employed by the federal government.  The policy listed his second wife as the beneficiary.  The surviving spouse contested the former wife’s right to the policy proceeds.

Virginia has a statute which precludes divorced spouses from inheriting from a   deceased former spouse.  Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the former spouse was entitled to the proceeds because the 1954 federal law establishing the insurance program and providing that beneficiary designations must be followed trumped the Virginia statute which omits former spouses.

Several points:

1.  Ohio has a similar statute to Virginia.

2.  After a divorce, individuals MUST revise all of their estate planning documents and update their insurance and retirement plan beneficiary designations.

3.  After a leukemia or cancer diagnosis, no matter how positive the treatment options, individuals need to review their estate planning documents and their beneficiary designations.

4.  I suspect this was a Pyrrhic  victory for the former wife with most of the policy proceeds being consumed by legal fees during the 5 year dispute.  But then, most disputes between former spouses are Pyrrhic.

Into the Ground, Then into Thin Air

Thursday, 30 May 2013 12:59
Written by
0 Comments

A Pennsylvania attorney and his wife, a successful dentist, perished in a private plane crash in 2007. They had no children so they left their assets to various relatives in their wills.  The estates were comprised of a law practice, dental practice, various real estate holdings, and medical businesses in South Carolina and initially estimated to be worth $40 million.  After six years and a will contest action, the estate has incurred administrative fees of $3.75 million and has $3 million remaining.

Several points:

1.  With their varied investments, the couple should have used a trust to minimize probate administration expenses.

2. Legal and medical practices are personality dependent and are not worth much without the contribution of the individual who built the practice.

3.  $3 million left after an initial $40 million estimate?  The 2008 financial crash was brutal on everyone.

4.  Private planes are known as doctor and lawyer killers for a reason.

Charitable Conflict

Friday, 24 May 2013 15:28
Written by
0 Comments

The estate of an elderly, childless  Fresno woman was officially closed this week when the bulk of her $2.4 million estate was distributed  to Fresno State and a smaller percentage including personal items was distributed to the retirement community in which she resided.   The estate is newsworthy because she had promised in 2001 to leave her entire estate (then valued at $4 million)  to Fresno State in exchange for it naming the education school after her and her late husband.  She changed her will multiple times with the final will leaving some assets to her retirement community and naming its foundation as her executor.

Several points:

1.  She would have been well served by a living trust to ensure privacy for this matter.

2.  Couples make planned gifts, but after the death of one of them,  the survivor is pressured by other charities to leave money to them.

3.  Fresno State seems to have conducted itself honorably by not contesting the will and executor appointment and not removing her name from the education school.

4.  The retirement home will receive 40 mens’ shirts, 70 ties, and 5 sport coats.  Apparently no one  cleaned out the husband’s belongings after his 1995 death.

5.  The retirement home will also receive 35 turtlenecks and 33 pairs of gloves.  I did not think that the weather in Fresno necessitated such a large collection of cold weather gear.

6.  I hope no one wants the 60 pairs of undergarments.

7.  See point 1.