One of Reese Witherspoon’s more famous roles was as the perky young attorney in Legally Blonde.  Late last week, she accompanied her parents to court in a much more somber setting. 

Reese Witherspoon’s father, Dr. John Draper Witherspoon, was recently married.  At least, that’s what a newspaper in Nashville, Tennessee announced.  You can read the big announcement and see the happy couple’s wedding photo here.

While John doesn’t exactly look happy in the picture, the announcement reveals that they will reside together in Nashville, following the intimate ceremony that featured cowboy boots and yellow roses, based on their Texas heritage.  The festivities took place on January 14th, and the couple plans a celebration with friends and family for the summer.

In fact, Mary is very worried for John.  She recently sued his new “wife,” Tricianne Taylor (whose legal name is Patricia Taylor), in order to annul the marriage, due to bigamy.  Reese’s mother also asked the court to order Tricianne to vacate the condo where John and Tricianne live (and which is owned by Reese), and to return any property she has received from the family.

Mary alleged in her court filing that John and Tricianne used fraud or forgery, with her possibly posing as Mrs. John Witherspoon, to trick a bank into lending $400,000 to them.  She said that Tricianne has tried to borrow money as John’s wife.  She’s also living in his condo, driving their families’ vehicles, and even has convinced John to sign a new will.

Mary says she confronted John about it, and he didn’t even know he had gotten married.   Mary is very worried for John’s mental and physical health, pointing out that he suffers from diabetes, a heart condition, and what she fears is early-onset dementia.  She says John was recently let go from the medical practice where he was an otolaryngologist for 30 years.

Reese’s mother tried to appeal directly to Tricianne as well, telling her that John was still married, with two children and four grandchildren.  Tricianne refused to talk to her, Mary says.

So, with no other choice to protect John, Mary turned to the court system.  In fact, filing to annul the marriage was only part of the process.  Mary also asked for, and received a temporary restraining order against Tricianne.  This court order prohibits her from using the Witherspoon name or posing as John’s wife.

Even as helpful as that was, it still wasn’t enough to fully protect her husband.  In fact, after this story first broke, we wrote an article suggesting that Mary should seek a guardianship or conservatorship over John, which is the only way to be sure that he would not be exploited.

These are legal proceedings where someone is appointed as a decision-maker over a person who is determined to be in need of protection, typically for being legally incompetent.  The most common situations where these arise occur when an elderly person has dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.

Interestingly, the same time that we were writing and posting our article on Friday, Reese Witherspoon and her mother were in court in Tennessee, seeking conservatorship over John.  John appeared in court with them, where the family attended an emergency court hearing.  You can read the article about it from The Tennessean here, which includes pictures of Reese and her father in the courthouse.

The Tennessean reports that the judge closed the court hearing on Friday, over objections from the newspaper’s attorney, and the outcome is not known.  It is likely that the judge granted at least some protections over John, given the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that he appears to have attended the court hearing voluntarily with Reese at his side.

It’s a sad reality that people take advantage of seniors living alone all the time.  We’ve seen many cases of this in our law practice, especially of single women desperate for money, who hook onto older, lonely men.  And it’s not just the rich ones who become targets of the Anna Nicole Smith’s of the world.

While in the case of Reese Witherspoon’s father, the relationship turned into bigamy, many gold-diggers are content to convince their victims to give them gifts, add their names to bank accounts or deeds, or change their wills or trusts.  All of this can be achieved without a marriage, and the only way to stop it is with a guardianship or conservatorship court proceeding.

It’s never an easy task for a family to go court because of exploitation of an elderly loved one.  It’s a growing epidemic in our country, with an estimated $2.6 billion annually lost to financial exploitation of seniors.  Hopefully, the Witherspoon family caught this problem early enough to remedy it.

You can be on the lookout for elderly exploitation in your family by watching for these ten warnings signs.  And, if you fear that an elderly loved one is making unsafe decisions or being taken advantage of, we encourage you to consult with an experienced guardianship and conservatorship attorney in the proper state to see if these court proceedings are right for your family.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

If the allegations are true, why did this take 25 years to come to light? Maeng-hee says he’s been trying to find out what happened to the stock for 25 years.  Events started to come to light in recent years because of a corporate whistleblower who used to be Samsung’s top attorney.

In 2007, the attorney brought to light that Kun-hee was evading taxes by holding stock and other assets in the name of other people.  Mr. Lee was prosecuted, found guilty of tax evasion, and forced to step down as the Samsung Group chairman. But South Korea’s President later pardoned him, after he paid a large fine and transferred the stock to his own name.  His three-year jail sentence was rescinded.

Prosecutors also tried to bring claims against Lee Kun-hee based on widespread abuses, including bribery and illegally trying to transfer controlling interest in Samsung to his son, again based on information from the whistleblower.   They lacked sufficient evidence of the bribery charges and weren’t able to secure convictions on the rest.

Perhaps that is why Lee Kun-hee is so confident about winning this lawsuit. He vows to fight the suit to South Korea’s highest court, refusing to settle. Last week, he publicly ridiculed his older brother, saying he had been exiled from the family and was not permitted to look at him in the eyes.  Lee Kun-hee told reporters when discussing his older brother, “How dare he say my first name?”

A recent New York Times article discussing the case reported that these types of family fights over large Korean conglomerates are common.  Recent inheritance battles have affected Koren companies like Hyundai, Kumho and Doosan.

It’s a wonder that such rich and powerful businessmen wouldn’t do the proper planning to protect their heirs from court battles like these.  Business succession planning shouldn’t be done through secret arrangements, but through the proper estate and corporate planning.

It’s a lesson for everyone, especially those who own businesses.  Don’t wait until it’s too late to plan how your assets, including your ownership interest in any business you own, will pass onto the next generation.  Choose those who will be in control after you’re gone carefully.  Make sure that you document your planning the right way with an experienced estate planning attorney, and if necessary, a business succession attorney as well.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

The music world has been buzzing ever since the surprise appearance of Tupac Shukar — well, that is, a digitally-created 3-D image of Tupac — on stage to rap at the Coachella music festival in California.  Some have described this as creepy, like seeing a ghost.  Is this going to be a new trend for celebrity estates?  Should it be? 

First, there is the issue of legality.  Was it legal for Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg to bring Tupac’s image on stage?  Because this was a use of Tupac’s image and likeness for commercial purposes, only the holder of the “right of publicity” for Tupac could authorize it.  That right is owned by Tupac’s estate, under the control of the executor — his mother, Afeni Shakur.

Reportedly, she not only authorized it, but was thrilled with the outcome.  Dr. Dre repaid the estate for this permission with a contribution to the Tupac Amaru Shakur Foundation, which is Tupac’s charity.

Dr. Dre has already said he’d love to bring out other dead celebrities to perform with him, like Jimi Hendrix and Marvin Gaye.  Michael Jackson’s brothers are planning a reunion tour next year, and hope to have a holographic version of the King of Pop join the tour.  And we certainly wouldn’t be surprised to see Whitney Houston’s estate take advantage of what could be a new trend in celebrity estates, based on the reports of how much debt her estate has.  Celebrity estates could profit handsomely by allowing the use of holographic images, given how much excitement Tupac’s appearance generated.

Who’s next?  Elvis?  Marilyn Monroe?  Maybe Amy Winehouse?  They all rank highly on Trial & Heirs‘ list of top Twitter accounts of deceased celebrities.  So their estates are already putting words into their mouths through social media, mostly to promote commercial endeavors and raise money for the estates.  It’s certainly not a stretch to envision holographic performances next.

The Michael Jackson estate will be an interesting one to keep an eye on. Unlike many other celebrity musicians who passed away, his estate is controlled not by his family, but by professionals.  The Ray Charles estate is another example.  Both have featured court fights between the family and those in charge.  With those estates, the executors — not the family members — have the right to agree to a holographic performance, whether the family members like it or not.

It’s no easy task to balance the desire to profit from a late musician’s image, and the concern of crossing the line into exploiting that image in ways that would leave the performer spinning in his grave.  Even family members can often disagree over this line.  For example, the Bob Marley estate has seen lots of fighting over this very issue, including a recent lawsuit by the estate, controlled by Marley’s mother, suing one of his half-brothers.  That case involves the right to sell Mama Marley fish products and use the Marley name in connection with a popular music festival.  The Jimi Hendrix estate faced similar court fights between half-siblings, one of which involved “Electric Hendrix Vodka.”

In the future, these types of disputes will take on heightened significance if a holographic image of a long-lost celebrity is involved.  Should the ability to profit outweigh the harm that comes with commercial exploitation of what is essentially a ghost?  As this New York Times Op-Ed piece eloquently put it:

[T]he reanimated dead are never the people they were before. Oh, they sing the same, and rap the same, and have the same distinctive tattoos and hand gestures.  But they don’t have the complexity, or the humanity, to really compel our interest. They’re ghosts — ghosts in a new machine, perhaps — but at best they are no more than the shadow of the shadows that they cast upon us, back when they were alive.

Pale imitation of the original or not, holographic performances will surely generate profits from devoted fans who miss their fallen idol.  There will always be legions of devoted followers who would gladly pay to see even a lesser version perform again.  As long as the executor in charge gives the green light, this is all perfectly legal.

But, is it right?  What would Tupac have thought about this?

This is something to think about for many of us.  Even when you’re not famous, and don’t have to worry about whether or not your estate will allow a hologram of you to perform, you have a name and reputation that will live on after you’re gone.  For business owners, there is the added concern of your reputation being properly managed through your business after you pass away.

Who do you want to control your legacy after you pass?  Do you want that person to treat your heirs honorably, as you would have liked?  Do you want your business to be managed in a way that would make you proud?

These are legitimate concerns that many people don’t stop and think about when doing their estate planning.  Creating a will or trust is more than simply deciding who gets what.  Choosing the right person to manage your estate, trust or business after you die is critical, both for your loved ones and often for your own reputation.  Putting the right person in charge can make all the difference between tainting your legacy, and having your wishes and goals followed the way you want.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

News broke recently about a global settlement involving the estate of Brooke Astor.    The renowned New York society queen and philanthropist, who died at age 105, left behind an estate of nearly $200 million dollars.  

Astor’s assets — along with the $50 million charitable trust of her late husband — have been tied up since she passed in 2007.  The fighting was so extensive that it dragged in a “who’s who” of top New York City institutions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Carnegie Hall, the New York Public Library, Rockefeller University, and even the United Nations, among many others.

Under Astor’s 2002 will, her only son, Anthony Marshall, stood to inherit tens of millions of dollars, with most of it slated to pass to charity after he died.  But Marshall wanted much more.  He and a lawyer,  Francis X. Morrissey, Jr., convinced the elderly Astor — when she was suffering from dementia — to sign a series of codicils to Astor’s 2002 will.  These codicils would have allowed Marshall to leave much of Astor’s fortune to whomever he wanted (specifically, his younger wife, whom Astor reportedly detested) instead of to charity.

The criminal trial did not end the fighting, of course.  Since 1997, Astor signed a total of eight wills and codicils, so sorting out which documents were actually valid was no easy task.  That job fell to the lawyers representing the various parties and the assigned Judge from Surrogate’s Court for Westchester County (Surrogate’s Court is what New York calls its probate court system).  With dozens of charities involved, along with Astor’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren and the New York Attorney General, the process of determining which documents were invalid due to mental incompetency or undue influence was complex.

It took two and a half years of negotiating, after the criminal verdict was hounded down, for the parties to reach the global settlement that was accepted by the Judge on March 28, 2012.

Ultimately, the settlement documents reveal that Marshall caved in, rather than continuing to fight.  Given how poorly the criminal trial went for him, this was no surprise.  But how little Marshall is left with at the end of settlement is telling.

The settlement provides that Astor’s 2002 will is accepted as the valid one, but not the three codicils to that will that came afterwards.  Under this will, Marshall would have a received quite a lot.  It left him two pieces of real estate that sold for $28.5 million (and were originally valued at much more), $5.3 million in cash, plus another 7% interest per year on a $60 million trust fund, for the rest of his life.  That would have meant almost $20 million in the several years since Astor died, plus another sum that would have been potentially more than that if Marshall lived past the life expectancy of an 87-year old man (another 4.5 years from now).

In total, this would have likely meant a gross sum of more than $70 million, reduced by his pro-rata share of the estate taxes on the real estate portion alone.  The will only required Marshall to pay the estate taxes attributable to the value of the real estate.  Had the real estate been sold promptly in 2007 or 2008 after Astor passed, before the real estate bubble burst, the properties likely would have netted as much as $30 million, even after paying estate taxes.  They were initially listed for sale for a combined $58 million.

In other words, without all the fighting (which delayed sales of the real estate), under the 2002 will alone, Marshall would have likely brought in close to $70 million.  Even with the lower real estate sales, the Attorney General’s office stated in its press release announcing the settlement that Marshall’s share would have been $31 million.

So how much did Marshall walk away with?  Less than $3 million.  While he officially accepted $14.5 million, Marshall already has outstanding judgments against him for legal fees of $11.6 million. Plus, his legal fees are still accruing through his criminal conviction appeal.  Part of the reduction down to this amount included $12.3 million paid to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office as restitution, for the costs spent prosecuting Marshall.

Other than a million to each of Astor’s grandsons, and lesser amounts to great-grandchildren and others close to Astor, the large bulk of the fortune will now pass directly to New York charities.  Unlike what would have happened if the 2002 will was upheld in its totality, they won’t have to wait until Marshall dies to receive the generous bequests.  On the other hand, the entire estate has been greatly diminished by legal fees that would not have been necessary if things had been handled as Brooke Astor intended them when she signed her 2002 will.

Should anyone feel sorry for Marshall?  The 87-year old has been disgraced, defeated, denied almost all of the generous bequests his mother wanted him to have, and he still has a one-to-three year jail sentence hanging over his head — if he is still alive after the appeal process, that is.

His son, Philip, appears to feel sorry for his father.  Philip was the person who filed for guardianship over his grandmother, exposing his father’s greed and mistreatment of Astor.  Philip testified against his father during the criminal trial.  He blames Marshall’s wife, Charlene, whose greed and control over Marshall led to the chicanery with Astor’s estate.

Even if Philip’s belief is true, no one should feel sympathy for Marshall. Marshall chose his path.  Exploitation of elderly citizens in our country is a mostly-silent epidemic.  One study pegged the annual cost of seniors exploited out of money to be as high as $5 billion.  That’s each and every year.  Too many of those who take advantage of seniors are never caught.

Sadly, seniors — even those with only a small home and modest retirement account — are often tempting targets for greedy family members, caregivers, or others.  It seems so easy to convince someone whose mind is stricken with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia to change their will, trust, deed, or bank account.  But it can be difficult to fight the changes because undue influence and other forms of exploitation are sometimes hard to prove.  Many times it’s not even discovered, much less challenged in court.

Criminal prosecution of offenders like Marshall are extraordinarily rare.  How many prosecutor offices have the time, money and resources to devote even a small fraction of what was invested to bring Marshall to justice?  If not for Brooke Astor’s high-profile status in New York, they likely would not have tried to do so, even in this case.

Marshall serves as an example that there is a cost to wrongly convincing seniors to change their final wishes.  He should pay the ultimate price.  So many others escape justice because the victims are often of questionable competence, closing in on death, and unable to speak for themselves.

So it is fitting that, after paying his lawyers, Marshall will likely have nothing left.  He could have received $70 million or more, just by being a good son. Instead, he — possibly at the direction of his wife — let greed overcome him.

It can happen in your family too.  If you, or someone you know, find yourself in a situation where you feel that someone took advantage of an elderly loved one to coerce a change to an estate plan or otherwise exploit them, you cannot afford to sit back and hope that criminal prosecution will right the wrong.  You should speak with an experienced probate litigation attorney and see what options you have to honor the true wishes of the loved one who was victimized.

Our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, uses the Brooke Astor and other celebrity estates to educate about wills, trusts, estates, and how to protect your family from an estate battle.  We also offer tips to help families who are facing probate fights like this one.

Don’t let your elderly loved ones be victimized like Brooke Astor.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation. 

Shortly after Amy Winehouse passed away from accidental alcohol poisoning at the age of 27 last July, reports surfaced that she not only had a will, but she had the foresight to update her will after her divorce from ex-husband, Blake Fielder-Civil.  These early reports have recently been proven wrong.  

But, let’s not jump to conclusions so quickly.  The assets passing through probate court are those left in her individual name when she died.  So anything held jointly with someone else, or that had a beneficiary designation (like a life insurance policy), would pass outside of probate, directly to the other person.  Also, if Winehouse had a trust — which is unlikely, considering she didn’t have a will — anything held in the trust would also avoid probate.  None of these types of assets would be included in her estate value as listed in the probate documents.

Instead of money passing to her brother or to her ex-husband, it will all go to Winehouse’s parents, Mitch and Janis.  Mitch is the estate administrator, according to the probate documents.

It’s too bad that the earlier reports of Winehouse having done proper estate planning have proven to be inaccurate.  We previously applauded the foresight that a 27-year old would have had in updating her will after her divorce.  By having no will at all, despite earning millions of dollars in her short career, Winehouse joined the dozens of other famous celebrities who procrastinated with their estate planning.

This has many pitfalls, for celebrities and non-celebrities alike.  Without a will, you have no say about who inherits your legacy, and you also lose control over how and when they receive it.  In addition, wealthier individuals lose the ability to do estate-tax avoidance planning.  For many families, probate court can often be a breeding ground for family fights, and this is especially true when there is no will.

Wills do not cost much to have prepared the right way, by an experienced estate planning attorney.  No adult with any level of assets should be without one, especially someone with millions — no matter what their age.  In fact, for most people a will is only the beginning of a comprehensive estate plan, but it’s a good start.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

So how did the publicity-loving von Anhalt respond to the news of this court case?  He held a press conference, of course.  TMZ has the video footage, which you can watch here.  In the video, he rants against Hilton and says she’s only after Gabor’s money.  He goes on to complain how he and Gabor are $6 million in debt, and the loan was needed to help pay for her medical bills.  He even goes so far as to blame Hilton for the fact that the mortgage on the house is so large.

Yet this is the same man who spent $70,000 on a billboard to commemorate the happy couple’s 25-year wedding anniversary.  And he holds lavish parties at Gabor’s house for events like her recent 95th birthday, even though Gabor is too incompetent to know what is happening.  One can only wonder how much of this $6 million debt was incurred because of his recent campaign for governor of California and his upcoming run to be elected the next mayor of Los Angeles.

Family fights over an aging loved one end up in court through guardianship and conservatorship proceedings all too often, especially in second-marriage families.  Of course, in Gabor’s case, it’s a ninth-marriage family, but surprisingly, she has only one child.  That one child is not happy with the way her step-father is controlling Gabor and isolating her, and it’s hard to blame her.  But, ultimately, the question of whether Gabor needs a conservator will come down to whether or not her care and/or finances have been compromised.

That’s not always easy to prove.  Certainly, there are two sides to every story, and von Anhalt insists he is a loving and devoted husband, who cares only about Gabor’s well-being.  He thinks that Hilton’s visits are detrimental to Gabor.  Specifically, von Anhalt says that Hilton is not happy enough, which could depress Gabor.

Will the Judge intercede and order that Hilton be allowed more time to see her mother before she passes away?  And will the Judge attempt to find peace in the family by appointing a neutral, third-party conservator to manage the situation, given the obvious hatred that both sides have for one another?  We’ll watch closely to find out.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, where you feel an elderly family member is at risk — or if someone is challenging the level of care that you are providing — then it may be time for you to speak with an experienced attorney who regularly handles guardianship and conservatorship cases.  While no one likes to go down that route, it’s often unavoidable.  Seeking good legal counsel early can sometimes even avoid a costly dispute, or at the very least, help you through the process if a court fight is inevitable.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.