The Probate Lawyer Blog: Famous Fortune Fights!

Leona Helmsley charity battle rages on

Andrew Mayoras — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:24:49 PST

As I described in this article from February 2009, the trustees of the Leona Helmsley charitable trust asked the probate court in New York for permission to donate primarily to charities that helped people rather than dogs, despite some language in the trust that suggested she wanted her billions to benefits animal charities.

Specifically, the trust had a Mission Statement that included, as its first purpose "the provision of the care for dogs". But it also gave the trustees discretion to benefit charities as they saw fit. This is a very important decisions for many charities (not to mention the people or animals they help) because we're talking about several billion dollars.

This August, several different animal charities, including the Humane Society and American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, launched a legal challenge to the judge's ruling to force the trustees to support animal charities. Reportedly, the trustees so far have donated very little to help dogs.

There was a big question whether these charities even had proper "standing" to bring this action (meaning whether or not they had the legal ability to challenge the judge's ruling even though they were not named beneficiaries). So far, their challenge has been allowed to proceed.

In fact, a couple weeks ago, another animal charity -- D.E.L.T.A. Rescue -- filed legal papers in court asking to join in the fight. They issued a press release saying that Helmsley's true wishes were to benefit dog charities and they complain the trustees are giving far too little to help dogs. They object that the trustees gave $136 million to help humans with only $100,000 helping an animal welfare mission.

The trustees of the Helmsley Charitable Trust have publicly responded to the allegations through their website, which you can read here. They feel that Leona Helmsley's wishes were clear, and she really did want to primarily help people, not animals. They even point out that in the eight years between forming the charitable foundation and her death, Helmsley gave some $55 million to charities, but only one thousand dollars to an animal charity.

But this isn't the only fight caused by Helmsley's love of dogs. She left a $12 million trust fund for her dog, a Maltese named Trouble, while two of her four grandchildren got nothing. Those two filed a legal challenge to her trust, while the court was asked to slash Trouble's inheritance.

What happened? And how can this story (and others) help those of us who don't have billions? The new book, Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, has the stories and the information to benefit all families protect themselves from court fights . . . and help people know what to do when they're in a fight. A free preview is available here.

Regardless of what happens with this fight about Leona Helmsely's wishes, the moral here for the rest of us is that instructions in a will or trust need to be very clear so there isn't confusion and fighting later. Did Leona want her trustees to donate more of her money to help dogs? Or did she really want them to decide for themselves? She could have been more specific in her trust and avoided this fight. The same rule applies to everyone planning how to pass their assets onto loved ones when they die.

Posted by: Author and probate attorney Andrew W. Mayoras, co-author of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founder and shareholder of The Center for Probate Litigation and The Center for Elder Law in metro-Detroit, Michigan, which concentrate in probate litigation, estate planning, and elder law. You can email him at awmayoras @ brmmlaw.com.

Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! The Video Preview

Andrew Mayoras — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:10:37 PST

Curious about how celebrity estate errors can help you protect yourself, your family, and your heirs? Watch this video:

Ike Turner Will Contest Ruling is in

Andrew Mayoras — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:34:03 PST

The trial involving whether Rock 'n Roll pioneer & legend, Ike Turner, left a valid will has ended. As described in this prior article I wrote, the case pitted his six children (two of whom apparently are now questionable children of his) versus his ex-wife versus his friend and "sometime" attorney. I'm not exactly sure why someone would be a "sometime" attorney, but that's how he was described in this North County Times (California) article about the trial.

The children argued Ike died without a valid will, leaving all to them under California's intestate laws. The ex-wife, Audrey Madison Turner, felt that Ike had left everything to her through a handwritten will written two months before he died of a drug overdose in 2007 (even though the couple was already divorced).

The "sometime" attorney believed a prior handwritten will in 2001 left him in control of Ike's legacy. What was that legacy? While it appeared the estate was cash-poor, the victor would receive the rights to own and profit from some 4000 songs. That's a lot of notes!

A few days ago, the judge issued his decision. He ruled that both wills may have been valid, but a later note written by Ike Turner had revoked the last will, which in turn had revoked the 2001 will. This meant the children were the big winners . . . at least so far.

The judge also granted all of the combatants a chance to appear in front of him again to try to change his mind. This is a rare step, especially given his first ruling came through a 16-page decision, issued two weeks after the trial ended. In other words, this was far from a snap decision, which means the likelihood of him changing his mind would be minimal.

So, while we can't declare a final winner yet, the children surely had a good time celebrating this Halloween weekend. Of course, regardless of what happens after the next court hearing, there is likely to be an appeal. The losing side almost always appeals after trials like these. There are too many emotions at stake (not to mention dollars) to go away quietly.

Too bad Ike wasn't better about documenting his wishes and avoiding a family fight. For some reason, court fights among heirs to famous musicians are common. Just ask the families of Michael Jackson, James Brown, Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix, Jerry Garcia, and Whitney Houston (wait -- she's not dead yet, but she is involved in a fight over what her late father's true wishes were).

All of these stories, and many more, are covered in the new book Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, co-written by Andrew & Danielle Mayoras. We use these stories to help make sure your family won't end up the same way. We also teach you what to do (and not do) if you're already in a fight.

It's available at TrialAndHeirs.com.

New evidence coming in the Michael Jackson Estate case

Andrew Mayoras — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:41:14 PDT

The Michael Jackson probate dispute between his mother and his two executors has been active since it started this summer. But it looks like it's about to really get heated up.

For starters, Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother and a primary beneficiary (along with his children and unnamed charities), has been challenging decisions made by co-executors John Branca and John McClain on a regular basis. She had asked for, and received, permission from the judge to allow her to challenge them based on conflict of interest and undue influence without jeopardizing her rights as a beneficiary under the "no contest clause" of Jackson's will and trust.

A "no contest clause" is a common provision than many people use in their wills and trusts to discourage family fighting. It usually says that anyone who files a legal challenge and loses gives up their inheritance. Katherine Jackson wanted to be free to challenge Branca and McClain without fear of losing her inheritance, and the judge allowed her to do so.

So far, her challenge have been limited to objecting to certain decisions they make (such as the many business deals they've entered into on behalf of the Jackson Estate) and asking the judge to reduce their legal authority. The judge so far has allowed them to keep control and make decisions, including entering into business deals and deal with creditors without his approval, as long as Katherine didn't object. He also recently reiterated that Katherine Jackson is be kept informed.

But it seems this isn't enough for Katherine. Instead, she seems ready to ramp up her efforts. Just a couple days ago, Katherine replaced her legal team with a new attorney, who has handled celebrity probate battles in the Anna Nicole Smith, Marlon Brando and James Brown cases.

One of the other attorneys representing Katherine says that this new probate lawyer was brought in because of "new evidence". This evidence must be important, for he also said, "The case is now moving in a different direction".

So what is the new evidence? Cnn.com and TMZ both said the new evidence questions the authenticity of Michael Jackson's signature on the will. Family members said that he was in New York when the will was supposed to have been signed, meaning he couldn't possibly have signed it.

What do you think? You can read Michael Jackson's will here and see his signature for yourself.

Disputes over celebrity wills, trusts and estates can make for interesting reading. But they can also be very helpul for those who don't want their families to end up the same way. Don't let your heirs suffer from the same celebrity planning errors that happen time and time again.

Visit TrialAndHeirs.com to learn more how to use these celebrity stories to protect your family.

FBI investigated Anna Nicole Smith for murder of "step-son"

Andrew Mayoras — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:47:21 PDT

Probate disputes over whether a will or trust was valid, or instead was signed at at time when the person was mentally incompetent or subject to undue influence, are common. They're also very emotional and difficult for everyone involved. The Anna Nicole Smith case -- the Granddaddy of all probate disputes -- illustrates this more than any other.

I discussed the case in this article, including how the estate executor/lawyer/former boyfriend, Howard K. Stern, not only lost a request he filed in the federal Court of Appeals on behalf of Smith's Estate, but how he was charged criminally with conspiring to provide Anna Nicole with the prescription drugs that killed her.

In Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights, which I wrote with Danielle Mayoras, we discuss the case at length (along with dozens more) so people can learn from celebrity errors, protect their heirs, and know their legal rights if they find themselves in a family fortune fight.

But a new twist on the case surfaced recently. While this development did not affect the case itself, and turned out to be nothing important in the end, it highlights how difficult these cases can get for those going through them. And yes, not just the rich and famous!

The Associated Press submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and received hundreds of pages of documents that revealed how the FBI investigated Anna Nicole in 2000 and 2001 as a suspect in a murder plot against her late husband's son. She and the son had been fighting over the multi-billion dollar estate of Anna Nicole's 90-year old husband since he died in 1995. The FBI suspected she may have hired a hit-man to commit murder!

The FBI questioned Smith in July, 2000, during which she tearfully denied any such plot. She said she thought the probate case was almost over, and even if her "step-son" had died, the Howard Marshall fortune still would have been tied up in trusts and wouldn't have gone to her.

The step-son, Pierce Marshall, was also interviewed and claimed that Anna Nicole rarely spent time with her husband before he died, and how Pierce's father had complained to him that she asked for $50,000 or more twice a week.

The FBI took the investigation seriously. The investigation lasted at least 10 months. FBI agents even confiscated from Anna Nicole a .357 revolver, a 3 and 1/2 inch steel knife, and a black and orange "Dr. Suess" hat (your guess is as good as mine on that last one).

The FBI returned these items to her and closed the case in 2001. It found insufficient evidence that she engaged in a murder-for-hire scheme to kill Marshall's son. Pierce Marshall died from an infection in 2006 at age 67, the year before Anna Nicole Smith died from a drug overdose.

Yet the fight over Howard Marshall's money is not over, even though it started 14 years ago. Even in death, the two are battling -- but now, their estates are duking it out.

You can order a copy of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! at TrialAndHeirs.com if you'd like to learn more about this case and many other celebrity estate battles, so your family won't end up the same way.

Family fight over control of Michael Crichton's trust

Andrew Mayoras — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:12:51 PDT

Celebrity estate battles just keep coming. Here's the UPI article about the latest in a long line of court cases involving dueling heirs of the rich and famous. Best selling author Michael Crichton (writer of ER and Jurassic Park) left behind a messy estate and trust because he failed to update his estate planning documents to provide for his son, not yet born when he died of cancer at age 66. I wrote about the problems this caused in a prior article.

Then his estate had to contend with the claim of his wife, Sherri Alexander, who filed paperworking seeking seven million dollars from his estate under a prenuptial agreement she signed with her famous husband in April 2005, before their marriage.

But the real fight just began. A few days ago, Crichton's daughter, Taylor Crichton, filed a petition in the Los Angeles Probate Court to remove Sherri as one of the three trustees of Crichton's trust, claiming she's breached her fiduciary duties.

Sherri's attorneys issued a press release to publicly criticize Taylor's legal maneuvering. They pointed out that it is not a breach of fiduciary duty for someone to serve both as trustee and beneficiary at the same time (which does happen regularly). The press release also addresses how Sherri filed to allow her son to be included as an heir, despite language of Crichton's will disinheriting any children born after his will was written. It sure seems like how much the 8-month old baby gets will be one of the central issues fought over in this new legal battle.

Fighting over control of estates and trusts doesn't just happen to the wealthy. In fact, they are partcularly common in second-marriage situations (or fifth-marriage situations like Crichton's). That's why doing the proper estate planning is extra important for those families.

It's crucial for people who are worried about their spouses and children fighting to think long and hard about appointing a neutral trustee and estate executor, to help avoid disputes like this one. That's just what Senator Ted Kennedy did (as recently revealed when his will was publicized).

To learn more about Senator Kennedy's choice -- and why he should be commended for making it -- along with other ways to help your family avoid a fight, keep an eye out for Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, which is coming out in a few weeks.

Brooke Astor verdict aids fight against financial elder abuse

Andrew Mayoras — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:13:22 PDT

An interesting article came out today by the Associated Press about how professionals who combat financial abuse against seniors can hold up the Brooke Astor verdict to raise awareness of the growing epidemic. You can read the article here.

Jennifer Peltz, who wrote the article, discusses how advocates against financial exploitation of the elderly hailed the verdict and how it is far from alone. She points that there have been many other famous cases involving the rich, such as J. Steward Johnson (heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune) and Anna Nicole Smith versus the son of her late 90-year-old billionaire husband.

The really sad part is that this problem affects many more than the wealthy in America. Indeed, with our country's troubled economic times, the problem of people stealing from and coercing seniors out of their money is getting worse and worse. And the best prevention is for families to be proactive and protect their aging loved ones, especially once there is a diagnoses of dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

But many people still refuse to think it can happen to their families. It does! Trust me, as a probate litigation attorney who sees this happen to real people on a regular basis (and I'm talking about average, middle class families, not just the upper class), I can assure you that every baby boomer with an aging loved one needs to be aware of this problem.

Sometimes the crime involves theft or fraud. Other times it comes in the form of coercing a change to a will or trust. Often it involves convincing someone to add a new name to a bank account or deed.

But, these acts rarely result in criminal prosecutions. The Brooke Astor case is very unusual from that standpoint. It's up to people, and experienced attorneys, to combat these acts in civil and probate courts because police and prosecutors simply don't have the resources to take on most of these cases.

Of course, with better prevention, cases like these don't have to happen at all. That's part of the reason I, and my co-author Danielle Mayoras, wrote Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!

Our book helps bring awareness to the issue and educates people about the importance of proper estate planning and avoiding family fighting over money. We discuss the Brooke Astor, Johnson & Johnson, and Anna Nicole Smith cases (along with dozens more) to help teach families how to protect against having to end up in court after a loved one dies, fighting over money.

In fact, the Associated Press article quotes me and mentions Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! Education and raising awareness is the first step towards prevention. That's why celebrity cases like the ones discussed in Trial & Heirs are so important. They help get people talking.

So if you have an elderly loved one, learn about these celebrity court cases, so you can talk to and help educate your family, before it is too late.