More fireworks for the Gary Coleman Estate

The Probate Lawyer Blog posed the question a few days ago:  Will there be a fight over Gary Coleman’s estate ?  It looks like we have an answer — a resounding “Yes!”. And it all centers around Gary Coleman’s final wishes.  The 1999 will has been released.  You can download Gary Coleman’s Will (courtesy of TMZ). It’s very brief (all of a page and a half), and it appoints his friend Dion Mial as executor and directs that all of his assets be turned over to a trust he created called the Millennium Edge Trust. It also states that he should be cremated and that only those with no “financial ties” to him be invited to his wake.  Coleman wants them to ”look each other in the eyes and say they really cared personally for Gary Coleman.”  And no members of the press are invited! Based on this language, ex-wife Shannon Price may not be included.  It sure looks like she has financial ties to him — at least, if she has anything to say about it. She says that Coleman hand wrote a new will (or more specifically, a codicil) in 2007 that left her everything. There are only two problems with this.  For one, Utah law (where Coleman lived when he passed) provides that wills and other instruments (meaning trusts, beneficiary designations, etc.) naming a divorced spouse are null and void, unless they were written after the divorce was final.  So a 2007 will or codicil wouldn’t help Price, who was divorced from Coleman later than 2007. The second reason is that former Diff’rent Strokes co-star Todd Bridges says he has a different will — a secret will no less — that spells out what Coleman really wanted.  It doesn’t appear to favor Price, and Bridges says it certainly doesn’t name Coleman’s parents (from whom Coleman was estranged because they stole money from his trust fund — according a court of law that ruled in favor of Coleman after he sued his parents). Bridges also says that he believes Coleman is entitled to a handsome pension from his acting days, just like Bridges gets, and that Coleman did not make arrangements for Shannon Price to receive this money. So does Shannon Price have any financial ties to Coleman?  According to the executor, Mial, she sure does.  He accuses Price of selling death-bed photographs of Coleman, from the hospital, to Globe Magazine.  He also says she was raiding his home of personal property. Price at first denied selling the pictures, but a spokesperson later backed off, admitting she really needed money. Price also vows to fight for the handwritten will and for her claim in the Coleman Estate. And she plans to spread his ashes on a train track, because he loved trains.  We doubt Mial, the estate executor, will let that happen, because he’s in charge of Coleman’s final arrangements.  At least, he is in charge until the “secret will” is filed with probate. All this drama and we’re only a week and a half past the day Coleman died.  What’s going to happen next week? Celebrity estate battles seem to be growing in frequency.  While they are interesting to read about, they can also be educational and help your family avoid fighting in probate court like the celebrities’ heirs.  Want to find out how?  Trial & Heirs can help. By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
More fireworks for the Gary Coleman Estate

Michigan Bar Journal Review of Trial & Heirs

The State Bar of Michigan’s montly journal has recently reviewed our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights! .  Here are some of the highlights: After reading Trial & Heirs, I am convinced that I need an estate plan. It’s time to get serious about, you know, death.  Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, Michigan estate-planning attorneys who are married to each other, have written a lighthearted book. But a reader can’t miss what they’re really talking about: the dreaded D-word. Isn’t the whole point of estate planning to plan for your own inevitable death? Luckily, the Mayorases probably agree with Bugs Bunny: “Don’t take life too seriously; no one gets out alive.” The whole point of estate planning is to control your property from the beyond. Or, if the decedent (legalese for dead person) is a bit more altruistic, to lessen the pain of death, taxes, and unnecessary disputes for survivors. And most disputes are avoidable. In fact, “Avoid a family fight!,” a sidebar in every chapter, is one of the more important features of this book. We all know nice people from loving families who, after the death of a parent, suddenly became greeneyed monsters. These sidebars discuss, very briefly, how to slay the monster—or, better yet, avoid the monster’s appearance altogether. The authors offer tips, some obvious and others not, for avoiding disputes. In one sidebar, for example, the tip is to avoid fighting because of the legal fees the estate will incur (and this from two lawyers!). The authors give two examples: the Johnson & Johnson legacy, which took 210 lawyers, 22 law firms, and $24 million in fees (the wife, a former chambermaid, took $300 million); and the Leona Helmsley estate, which was settled between her grandchildren and her dog (Trouble, the dog, took $2 million). Mere mortals like you and me needn’t worry about estates of that size, but everyone should be concerned about the emotional costs of family fights. And family fights result from poor estate planning. Where there is uncertainty in a will or estate plan, there will be unrest. Where there are gaps, there will be greed. And where there are mistakes, there will be fights. * * * If you are an estate-planning lawyer, you shouldn’t read this book. Do read, however, the “official disclaimer” on the first page; it’s clever. But consider buying the book in bulk as gifts for your clients or as a marketing tool. You’ll have to accept the overuse of exclamation points, the overdone design, and the celebrity caricatures that are not all recognizable.  But remember that an informed client is a better client, and a client who understands some of your language is one who is easier to talk to. I bet you can get a quantity discount from the publisher. What do they mean too many exclamation points?!?!  How dare they?!!!!  We would never! ever! use . . . well, you get the point. Seriously, if you’d like to read the whole review, here it is . By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys.  As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand.   Email them at contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Michigan Bar Journal Review of Trial & Heirs

Magazine Article: Lessons of Famously Bad Estate Planning

The May 2010 issue of Insurance News Net Magazine, written for insurance and other financial professionals, has a great feature on how lessons drawn from famous estate screw-ups can help promote proper estate planning.  (Gee, that sounds familiar.)  Co-author of Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights !, Danielle Mayoras, was quoted extensively in the article, and several stories and lessons from our book were featured in the story.  Here’s the beginning of the article: Admit it: You can’t resist celebrity news. You’re standing at the grocery checkout behind someone who still uses checks, and then you notice the gossip rags. You can’t help but look and shake your head: “Tiger Woods did what? Brad wants to remarry Jennifer? Kirstie Alley is obese—again?” Let’s face it—celebrity foibles are even more enticing than are the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups calling your name. Sex might sell, but silliness does too. And celebrity screw-ups can help sell one of the most unsexy things out there: estate planning. Sure, people know they should have a will, but if you tell them about the many celebrity disasters that have ensued because of the absence of a will, you’re likely to grab clients’ attention. Guitar great Jimi Hendrix died without a will in 1970, setting up a family fight that would end up in court more than 30 years later. His father, Al, had cut Jimi’s brother out of the estate and left the Hendrix legacy in control of Al’s adopted daughter, Janie, from his second marriage. And even though Al had built an $80 million business called Experience Hendrix, he reportedly still did not complete Jimi’s grave site. Odds are good that Jimi Hendrix would not have expected these turns of events, but he had no say in the matter because he did not leave a will. Because of undefined intent, the celebrity universe is filled with questionable handling of legacies. Sometimes it is not failure but overwhelming success that generates criticism, as in the Bob Marley case. The Marley estate in 2009 signed a deal with a private-equity firm to sell merchandise worldwide to generate as much as $1 billion, prompting some to ask if that is what Bob Marley would have wanted. Forbes, for example, asked, “Could this be commercial overkill for the Rastafarian whose spiritual songs about social injustice, hope, and redemption have become anthems for billions of fans, from Marrakech to Tokyo, and will it alienate them?” Here’s a link to the full story in the magazine .  Remember, using stories of celebrity estate battles is a great way to motivate family members and clients to do the proper planning! By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Magazine Article: Lessons of Famously Bad Estate Planning

Widow of England millionaire in an interesting estate fight

Battles over the assets of those who have passed are far too common, for millionaires and non-millionaires alike.  Usually they involve whether someone was competent when a will or trust change was made, whether a joint bank account owner was supposed to share with the rest of the family, who gets the wedding ring, or other disputes over money and property. But some fights aren’t about money.  59-year old Andrea Walker was crushed when her 64-year old husband died of pancreatic cancer last August.  The couple (who owned a 1000-year-old castle turned into a luxury hotel) had a rocky relationship at times.  In fact, the husband, Brian Walker, reportedly told Andrea he was leaving her in November, 2008, only to return when his cancer was diagnosed a few months later.  They were very close in the months leading up to his demise, with Andrea devoting herself to Brian’s care. At least Andrea thought they were very close.  Shortly after he passed, she found a red file Brian had kept. What was in it?  A series of documents showing that Brian had donated sperm to a lady he was friendly with.  Andrea was shocked.  She had yearned to have children with Brian, but he steadfastly refused — saying he was too old (he was in his late 40’s when they met).  Andrea was always sad that they never had a family together. So, not surprisingly, she couldn’t bear the thought and betrayal of Brian giving his sperm to another woman without telling her.  Brian had even given more than $100,000 to the woman, including credit card payments to the IVF center less than a month before he died. So Andrea sued the fertility center seeking to have the medical records released to her and the donated sperm destroyed.  The IVF center says that, legally, the wife doesn’t need to consent to the donation of sperm, so they intend to honor the documents Brian signed.  They say that Brian and his female friend told them they were “partners”.  Reportedly, Brian wasn’t romantically involved with the woman (although Brian did have an affair a few years earlier with someone else). Andrea’s lawsuit claims the signatures of Brian are forged.  She also seeks to change the law to require the spouse’s consent in a situation like this. If she fails, and the child is conceived and born, will the baby be entitled to a share of the millionaire’s estate?  It’s an interesting question. London’s Daily Mail newspaper has the complete story here .  While fights over frozen sperm (especially a millionaire’s frozen sperm) are rare, probate and estate related lawsuits do happen more often than most realize.  Good estate planning is the best source of prevention. But when a loved one is determined to betray someone — like poor Andrea — there’s usually nothing than can be done to stop it ahead of time.  That’s when it’s time to consult with an experienced probate litigation attorney and learn what options are available. By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Widow of England millionaire in an interesting estate fight

Did insurance fraud led to murder of an elderly woman?

The Stephen Hilbert family is well known in Indiana.  Hilbert founded insurance giant Conseco, which he ran until he was forced out because he owed the company hundreds of millions of dollars.  When the company sued Hilbert to collect the giant debt, he tried to hide behind a series of trusts to shelter his fortune.  Our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights !, includes the Hilbert story to highlight what trusts are not intended to be used for. But now Stephen Hilbert and his family are in the news for a different reason.  Hilbert’s mother-in-law, Germaine “Suzy” Tomlinson, died under very questionable circumstances on September 28, 2008 at age 74.  Her death was ruled an accident.  Hilbert an d his wife aren’t so sure.  Tomlinson was found fully dressed, face down in her bathtub, where she had drowned after a late night of drinking at a night club.   [See picture which reportedly was taken the night before she died] There was broken glass, a shelf knocked over and a broken faucet knob in the bathroom.  The coroner found no bruising but questions how the water was turned on.  Hilbert says it doesn’t add up. Here’s where it gets really interesting … there was a 15 million dollar life insurance policy on Tomlinson’s life.  That’s a big policy!  And who was the beneficiary named to receive this fortune?  It wasn’t any of her family members. Instead, the $15 million was left to a trust Tomlinson had created.  While she had told the insurance company that the policy was purchased to benefit Hilbert’s wife and other family members, the actual beneficiary, through her trust, was a business called Carlson Media Group.  The company is run by a 36-year-old man named JB Carlson.  He was not only a social friend of Tomlinson, but he was the last person to see her alive.  He says he drove her home from the bar because she was too drunk to drive and he left her (alive and well, he says) in the living room of her house. The insurance company on the hook for the $15 million isn’t buying all this.  They sued Carlson and his company to invalidate the insurance policy, saying it was obtained by fraud and lacked an “insurable interest”.  This means that beneficiary is not a family member and has no other close relationship to the person who died which would have justified the policy.  This legal requirement prevents strangers or acquaintances from buying policies on people as a twisted type of investing. Carlson says the policy was legitimate, because Tomlinson was a “key man” for his company.  Indeed, that can be a valid reason for a policy — companies purchase insurance for owners or other key members of their businesses all the time.  But, again, there are suspicious facts.  The policy paperwork indicated that it was obtained for estate planning, not to protect the business.  And the financial information submitted for Tomlinson said she was worth $46.7 million – nearly $40 million of which was from stock in Carlson Media.  Carlson admits that the true value of that stock was nowhere near $40 million.  In fact, documents uncovered by the insurance company show that Tomlinson had very few assets and her annual income was less than $17,000. So who paid the large premiums for this insurance policy?  Carlson’s company, of course.  But it had to take out a substantial loan to pay the annual premiums.  When that loan was set to come due, it tried to refinance the loan, but the refinance efforts fell through.  As a result, the company was about to be in default.  In fact, the loan was due only two days after Tomlinson died.  So it seems her death occurred just in time for Carlson’s business.  At least, it would have if the insurance company had paid the policy without investigating what happened. And, of course, when that company discovered these questionable circumstances, it sued rather than pay the money.  And now Hilbert’s wife and her siblings have joined the lawsuit saying that the money should be turned over to them, as their mother really intended. They claim that Carlson and others concocted this fraud to take advantage of an unsophisticated elderly woman. And it just may have ended in murder. The lawsuit is scheduled for a jury trial in October of this year.  If the case doesn’t settle beforehand, it promises to be a doozy. Whether or not Tominlson died accidentally, there is no question that someone took advantage of her.  Elderly women with little income or assets shouldn’t be anywhere near a 15 million dollar life insurance policy.  Why this particular situation may seem unusual, scams targeted at seniors are far too common.  Sometimes they involve sales of shady annuities .  Other times there is undue influence designed to coerce a new will or trust.  Or it may be outright theft. Here are some warnings signs of financial abuse and exploitation families should watch out for.  Many families don’t want to pry into the financial affairs of their elderly loved ones for fear of offending them.  Certainly Hilbert’s wife wishes she had done so. Families can share stories like this one with parents and grandparents to break the ice and open the conversation to protect aging loved ones from scams. By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Did insurance fraud led to murder of an elderly woman?

Detroit Free Press article on celebrity estate fights

This past Sunday’s Detroit Free Press featured an article, written by business columnist Susan Tompor, about “Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!” and how families can learn from celebrity estate fights.  Here’s part of it: What can you learn about estate planning from TMZ.com, the celebrity gossip site?  Plenty. Errors involving celebrity estates can motivate everyday families to talk ahead of time about who gets Mom’s blown-glass collection — long before things get overblown. Or at least that’s the theory being promoted by Troy attorneys Danielle B. and Andrew W. Mayoras. “The reality is we’re a celebrity-based culture, for better or worse,” said Danielle, an estate planning attorney. The couple, both partners at Barron, Rosenberg, Mayoras & Mayoras in Troy, popped up last year on TV’s “Rachael Ray Show” — you can see the interview on YouTube.com — to talk about their book, “Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” Andrew also has a blog, www.probatelawyerblog.com , that tracks the twists and turns in celebrity estate battles, such as the struggle over Michael Jackson’s will and the potential tax nightmare facing the widow of slain NFL quarterback Steve McNair. “The celebrity-gossip angle of the stories does make it more interesting for people,” said Danielle. Sure, celebrities live on another financial planet, and usually leave a lot more to fight over than the rest of us do. They also can afford far more legal advice. Anyone can make mistakes Even so, “Trial & Heirs” and the blog show how anyone can mess things up when it comes to giving away their wealth after death. Jackson, for example, died at 50 but had made a will and set up a trust for his children. But like so many everyday fathers or mothers, he didn’t take the next key step — funding the trust or re-titling his assets into it. Now, it’s a family mess. Danielle said Andrew’s grandfather almost faced the same issue — until she raised the issue with him. Another bit of advice from the book: It is usually not advisable to choose your estate planning attorney to also serve as your trustee. Sonny Bono, the Detroit native who made his name as a 1960s pop singer before entering politics and winning election to Congress, died in a skiing accident at age 62 without a will. His widow had to deal with claims filed by creditors against his estate, including one filed by Sonny’s second wife and original singing partner, Cher, who said she was owed money from their divorce. And then a man came out of the blue and filed a legal claim saying he was Bono’s son. A valid will — which two out of three people don’t have — could have solved many problems, according to “Trial & Heirs.” The authors stress that estate plans need to be updated when couples divorce, have another child or have a family member with special needs. You can read the full article here . By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Detroit Free Press article on celebrity estate fights

NY Times has interesting feature about Mark Twain’s will

Yesterday marked the 100th anniversary of the death of Samuel L. Clemens, better known as Mark Twain.  The New York Times commemorated his passing with an interesting article about his final wishes.  The reporter dug up a copy of his handwritten will from the dusty archives of the probate court in Redding, Connecticut, which Twain called home until he died. The Times also published copies of other probate records from his estate, including a detailed inventory that listed the property he owned at death.  The executors reported his assets to be worth $541,136.07 (give or take a few cents) as of the date of his passing.  Not a bad sum for a man who found himself broke late in life and rebuilt his fortune in the ten years before he passed. His largest asset was “50 shares of the capital stock of the Mark Twain Company” valued at $200,000.  He owned a great deal of other stock, a 230-acre homestead, some automobiles, three horses and a cow.  The court documents detail his various holdings, including the value of furnishings of each room of his house. So what were his final wishes?  Twain left everything to his two daughters.  Sadly, one of his daughters, Jean, died on Christmas Eve 1909, only a few months after he wrote his will (on August 17, 1909).  Reportedly, Twain took the loss of his daughter hard.  The New York Times obituary said that he “Died of a Broken Heart.” Twain gave each daughter 5% of his total estate to start, with the rest held in trust for the two of them.  The protective father specifically directed that their shares were to be “free from any control or interference on the part of any husband she may have.”  The income from each trust was to be paid to the daughters on a quarterly basis, and each had the right to direct who would receive what was left when she passed.  But, because Jean died before her famous father, the other daughter, Clara, became the sole beneficiary. Twain also directed that his literary works be managed through consultation with Clara and a close friend of his, both of whom he had told how he wished his cherished writings to be handled. Here is the link to the New York Times article , which in turns has links to the documents themselves and the original Times obituary.  So how can the New York Times publish these documents?  Because wills and related filings in probate court are public record.  Trusts – on the other hand – are not, at least when they are created during life (thus the term “living trust”).  Twain’s will spelled out (in detail) how he wanted his property to be held in trust for his daughters.  This means he created a “testamentary trust” because the trust was established through his will and did not exist until after he died. In today’s day and age, living trusts are much more common and make more sense than testamentary trusts.  When properly used, they can avoid probate court entirely.  This not only keeps a family’s affairs private, but reduces costs, legal fees, time, stress, aggravation, and sometimes even hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in estate taxes.  Want to read more about celebrity wills, trusts and estates, and how they can help your family and legacy?  Visit our website www.TrialAndHeirs.com to learn more. By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
NY Times has interesting feature about Mark Twain’s will

The crazy claims of the Michael Jackson Estate

Given MJ’s eccentricities in life, and the craziness that has surrounded his estate since he died, it is no surprise that Michael Jackson’s estate executors are busy denying wild claims left and right.  TMZ has a list of the wackiest ones: Jose Freddie Vallejos asked for $3.3 million to reimburse Los Angeles for the costs of the King of Pop’s memorial service. A homeschooler, Claire McMillan, is seeking $2 million. Michael, according to Nona Paris Lola Ankhesenamun Jackson (try saying that three times fast), was actually married to her, so Nona of course wants custody of the three kids. Richard Lapointe claimed he’s owed $5 million for a memorabilia auction that was wrongly canceled. And, best of all, a woman is convinced that Jackson wiretapped her telephone and had organized criminals watch her.  She wants a mere $50 million. You can read TMZ’s coverage of these claims , which were all formally denied last week by Howard Weitzman, the estate’s attorney.  This means the claimants now have to initial legal action to try to prove that their claims are valid, if they still want to pursue their demands for dough. Oh — let’s not forget the claim of the secret love child.  What celebrity estate mess, with fortune-seekers coming out of the woodwork, would be complete without the claim of a secret child?  25-year-old Prince Michael Malachi Jet Jackson is asking for a DNA sample so he can prove he’s really Michael’s eldest son.  Hey, as wacky as MJ was in life–who knows–maybe some of these claimants are actually telling the truth.  Stayed tuned to find out! But, bad news for Prince Michael Mala(etc.).  Michael, Sr.’s will ( which you can read here ) states that he had no other children and he intentionally did not leave anything for any other heirs (except for this three legitimate children and his mother, who are beneficiaries of his trust).  This means that even if this secret child is telling the truth, he won’t inherit anything (at least, it would be very unlikely because of the language of the will). That’s one of the reasons why it is important to work with a good estate planning attorney.  You never know what kind of crazy people will surface when someone dies, with hands extended looking for money.  If Michael Jackson had properly funded his trust, then his entire estate could have been handled in private, outside of court.  This would have made it much tougher for these crazy creditors to try to stake a claim in probate court . Of course, without crazy creditors, it just wouldn’t have felt right, would it? By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
The crazy claims of the Michael Jackson Estate

Steve McNair’s widow facing estate tax nightmare

The Steve McNair Estate has been relatively quiet lately, after a fast start with plenty of fireworks.  You can read the Probate Lawyer Blog’s prior articles about it here .  But despite the apparent calm, there are still lessons to be learned.  The lawyers for McNair’s widow, Mechelle McNair, recently had to file a petition with the Tennessee probate court asking for funds to be released from a frozen trust account to pay taxes.  Ho hum, right?  Not so fast. How much did she have to withdraw?  A cool $3.72 million — all for state and federal estate taxes that were due earlier this month.  And that’s just the estimated taxes that she has to pay now.  When the final determination of how much she, as the surviving spouse, will receive is calculated, that price tag may increase.  Her attorneys anticipate filing an amended tax return which may include even more money due to the IRS. Why should this matter to you?  If Steve McNair had done the proper estate planning, he could have avoided all of these estate taxes for his widow.  Through a properly-drafted revocable living trust, his widow would have have avoided the tax bill.  That’s right, she would have owed nothing!  (But the kids may still have owed a tax bill after she died in the future, depending on the tax laws in place then). In fact, if McNair even had a basic will, while the taxes still would have been due, his widow could have saved money in legal fees.  Without a will, she has to pay lawyers to take extra trips to court that result in higher legal fees … not to mention all the headaches that come with dividing an estate based on intestate law between the widow, her two children, and two other children from other relationships. But wait, you may be thinking, this doesn’t matter to me because I’m not a millionaire.  And didn’t Congress repeal the estate tax law this year?  Don’t think like that. While, for 2010 only, the estate tax had been repealed, that only applies to people who pass away this year.  Don’t plan on dying this year?  As of January 1, 2011, the estate tax comes roaring back, at a one million dollar level.  Everyone had expected Congress to “fix” the estate tax and set it at a higher level — possibly even retroactively to apply to those who already passed in 2010.  But, with the new health care laws, the government will be looking for ways to raise money.  Is keeping a low estate tax level one of their answers?  It could be. With a one-million dollar exemption, many Americans will be affected.  Life insurance, home values, and all other assets count towards the exemption.  So, yes, you would have to worry about it even you aren’t a millionaire. Learn from the mistakes of Steve McNair and go see a good estate planning attorney now.  Don’t wait until tragedy strikes and leave your family unprepared. By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Steve McNair’s widow facing estate tax nightmare

Dennis Hopper’s deathbed divorce battle getting uglier

Actor Dennis Hopper, at 73 years of age, is dying from cancer.  To make matters worse, he is battling in a nasty divorce that pits his three adult children, from prior marriages, against his wife, Victoria Duffy-Hopper (she’s number five for Hopper, if you’re keeping score), over whether she’ll inherit anything when he passes.  Here is The Probate Lawyer Blog’s prior article on the case. ABC News posted its Top Ten “most hurtful accusations” from the court fight, including: Hopper’s assistant claimed Duffy-Hopper threatened to kill her. Duffy-Hopper called Hopper an abuser who once threatened that “something bad is going to happen to you and you won’t see it coming”. Hopper accused his wife of stealing millions worth of artwork and other valuables from him, and from secretly taking away their young daughter, preventing him from having a final Christmas with her. Hopper’s daughter, Marin Hopper (who is six years older than her “step-mother”), feels frightened for her safety because of Duffy-Hopper. Duffy-Hopper claims that Marin and the other adult children coerced Dennis Hopper into filing the divorce by taking advantage of him when he was legally incapable of managing his affairs. You can read ABC News’ Top Ten article here. Previously, the judge had granted Hopper a restraining order to keep his wife away, based on a doctor’s report that her presence was harmful to his health. A couple days ago, the judge reversed course and ruled that Duffy-Hopper could live at Hopper’s Venice, California property (but at a different house than Hopper) and that he was to pay $12,000 per month in spousal and child support, as well as $200,000 to her for legal and accountant fees. But what about the battle over her inheritance?  That is yet to come.  Reportedly, the couple signed a prenuptial agreement before they wed 14 years ago, that called for her to lose her inheritance if they were divorced or were living apart.  And there’s a court hearing set for May to determine how to divide his life insurance policy. Family feuds over inheritances – especially in second-marriage situations — are very common.  The odd part about this one is that the person whose money is being fought over is still alive and competent.  While Hopper was too ill to attend the court hearing, his three adult children did, on his behalf (along with his lawyer of course). The divorce judge finds the whole situation odd as well.  She sternly lectured the two sides to put aside their differences, because the seven-year-old daughter was already losing her father and all the fighting certainly won’t help her get through it. Inheritance fights can come in all shapes and sizes.  If you find yourself facing one, make sure to work with an experienced probate litigation attorney . By Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of “Trial and Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” and husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys. As educators across the United States through speaking engagements, print, broadcast, and social media, Danielle and Andrew consistently draw rave reviews and are in high demand. Email them at  contact@trialandheirs.com .

Read more here:
Dennis Hopper’s deathbed divorce battle getting uglier

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software