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

Songwriter Danny Tate wins long court fight to be set free

Guardianship and conservatorship proceedings exist to help those who are incapacitated, usually due to age or disability, and can’t make proper decisions for themselves. While these court cases help many thousands of people each year, they can also expose people to fraud and abuse.Danny Tate Many believe that Nashville, Tennessee musician Danny Tate was one of the very unfortunate who was abused by the system. Tate had written music for popular TV shows Entertainment Tonight and The Ellen DeGeneres Show, as well as a top 10 hit in the 1980’s. Yet his lifetime of savings of more than $600,000, and yearly royalty earnings of $125,000, are almost completely gone. And he’s only 54 years old. Why? Because in 2007, his brother convinced a probate court judge that Danny was so addicted to crack cocaine that his life was in jeopardy, and he was unable to make legal, financial and medical decisions for himself. Danny was not even told of the initial court hearing. He was not given an attorney. At a second court hearing three weeks later, he was denied an attorney and was instead committed to a psychiatric ward, according to this report by the Associated Press . Danny finally won his freedom yesterday, after battling for two and one-half years. But the court fight reportedly cost him his entire lifetime of savings. Here is an interesting article that examines the case in a little more detail and holds it up as an example of abuses that can occur in guardianship and conservatorship cases. Danny Tate’s brother defends his actions, saying his younger brother would be dead if not for his actions. Danny admits he had a drug addiction, but says he still functioned and could make his own decisions. He says his estate has been plundered through the legal fees spent on his case, especially because his money was used to pay the lawyers and experts on both sides. At least he now has his rights back, as of yesterday — after providing clean drug tests for nine months and a report by three different doctors saying he could make his own decisions. While the circumstances that gave rise to this case are troubling — to say the least — and certainly this case shows the horrors of what can go wrong in guardianship cases, not all of these court proceedings are bad. Sometimes people need the help of a court-appointed guardian or conservator for their own protection. Was this such a case? Or was Danny Tate a victim of a broken court process? It’s especially odd that Danny Tate wasn’t given a lawyer until his rights had already been stripped away. An experienced guardianship and conservatorship attorney is critical for families facing complicated cases like these, such as those where competency is questionable, where there are allegations of abuse, or where family members are fighting. If you or a loved one are facing such a court proceeding, the sooner you consult with a good attorney, the better. Posted by: Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors 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. Andrew and Danielle are husband and wife attorneys, professional speakers and consultants across the country.

Read more here:
Songwriter Danny Tate wins long court fight to be set free

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

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

Happy April Fools Day 2010!

Mrs. Jones, the 5th grade teacher, posed the following problem to one of her arithmetic classes: “A wealthy man dies and leaves ten million dollars. One-sixth is to go to his wife, one-fifth is to go to his son, one-fourth to his butler, and the rest to charity. Now, what does each get?” After a very long silence in the classroom, Little Johnny raised his hand. The teacher called on Little Johnny for his answer. With complete sincerity in his voice, Little Johnny answered, “A lawyer!” 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:
Happy April Fools Day 2010!

Michael Jackson Estate’s record deal raises questions

The Probate Lawyer Blog featured this article about the Michael Jackson Estate several weeks ago, posing the question of whether it is ethical for estate executors to seek a 10% fee for certain business deals they reach for such a high-profile estate.  It’s especially problematic when you factor in that one of the executors was Michael Jackson’s attorney. Well, this attorney, John Branca, and his co-executor, John McClain (a music executive), just hit the mother-load.  It was widely reported yesterday that they brokered a deal worth up to $250 million dollars (that’s right — one quarter of a billion dollars!).   What was the deal for?  Sony announced a seven-year distribution agreement for unreleased music recorded by the late King of Pop (as well as related video footage).  Yes that means that Branca and McClain earned $12.5 million each for one deal. Why do we question this?  For several reasons, actually.  First, it’s the job of executors to bring in as much money as possible for an estate that has earning potential like this estate has.  They shouldn’t need a 10% incentive to do the job they’re required by law to do. Second, Branca, reportedly, is the attorney who prepared the will and trust that named him as the co-executor and co-trustee.  Because of these documents that he created, he just made $12.5 million — in addition to the other fees he’s already earned (and will continue to earn). Would it be ethical for an attorney to create a will for a client to sign that leaves $12.5 million to that attorney as a direct beneficiary?  In most cases, no, it wouldn’t.  So why is this attorney allowed to earn that much as an executor fee? Finally, there’s the issue which we discuss in our book, “ Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights !”, that Michael Jackson’s Trust wasn’t funded properly.  If it had been, then his estate would have been kept out of court and handled in private.  It’s also entirely possible that his trust document (which hasn’t been released to the public) may have specified what compensation the trustees would have received.  IF that’s the case (just speculating here), then Branca and McClain wouldn’t necessarily have been able to receive this percentage fee.  But, because Jackson’s Trust wasn’t properly funded, thereby requiring it to pass through the probate court process, it opened the door to allow this type of fee to be approved by the judge (again, if the trust document addressed their compensation, which isn’t unusual).  And the judge did approve the executors’ 10% fee in this case. A properly-used estate plan would have bypassed court entirely.  Jackson’s estate plan didn’t do that.  The attorney who prepared that estate plan now just earned tens of millions of dollars because of that estate plan.  And it’s all legal.  But is it ethical? Some feel it is.  After all, Branca is a respected entertainment lawyer and McClain is an experienced music executive.  They have the expertise to broker deals like this.  And clearly, judging by the amount of money they’ve brought into the estate, they’re good at what they do.  And Michael Jackson’s heirs are benefiting from their expertise. If it’s standard to compensate entertainment industry experts with this type of fee, why shouldn’t Branca and McClain earn what may be considered fair compensation in that line of business?  There is some merit to this position.  After all, Michael’s mother, Katherine Jackson, spent months battling McClain and Branca in court over this estate (until she hired a new attorney, at which time she changed her position).  Yet she didn’t object to their 10% fee.  If a primary beneficiary of Michael’s estate didn’t object to this generous fee, why should anyone else? What do you think? Posted by:  Andrew W. Mayoras & Danielle B. Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs :  Famous Fortune Fights! and co-founders 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.  Andrew & Danielle are husband and wife attorneys, professional speakers and consultants across the country.

Read more here:
Michael Jackson Estate’s record deal raises questions

The Redd Foxx Estate mess

There was an interesting article recently in AOL News about the Redd Foxx Estate.  The successful comedian and star of Sanford and Son (whose real name was John Elroy Sanford) died October 11, 1991.  Apparently, the Estate has no assets.  Even if it did, there’s an outstanding tax bill owed that’s a bit hefty — a whopping $3.6 million as of the day he died. But the court-appointed executor for the estate is trying to change all that.  John Cahill, who is a public administrator in Las Vegas (where the estate is pending) was put in charge in 2007.  The prior administrator was Debraca Foxx, Foxx’s daughter, who was removed from her position in 2006.  Apparently, she failed to comply with a court order to account for what she had done with royalties and other monies the estate brought in under her watch. In fact, Foxx’s widow (and fourth wife), Ka Ho Foxx, accused Debraca of stealing the money instead of paying down the tax debt. Since Cahill took over, he has aggressively pursued revenue for the estate and has brought in more than $100,000 since 2007, including royalty checks from Hallmark and CBS Studios for using Foxx’s image. But now, Cahill is trying to sell the rights to Foxx’s life story to bring in some real cash for the estate.  He says he’s received offers for various amounts, up to $2 million, for the story rights.  He’s recently “done lunch” with a Hollywood producer and TV star about the project. But, there are a few hurdles to clear.  The first is that, while the estate does own the right to profit from Foxx’s name, image and likeness, it’s far from clear that the estate has the same rights for a “life story”.  That’s why you see “unauthorized” biographies and documentaries about famous people all the time. But Cahill says his attorney feels otherwise and he is legally permitted to sell the story rights of behalf of the estate. The second problem is that Foxx’s widow plans to fight Cahill in court.  Apparently she and other Foxx heirs don’t want this to happen.  And why would they, with all the money due to the IRS anyway? You can read the AOL article here . We’ll have to see if Cahill’s efforts are successful.  Managing estates is never easy, especially when the first person in charge wasn’t forth coming with what was done with the money.  People often don’t stop to think about the headaches that can occur in probate court when someone dies. That’s why is always important for everyone to do the proper estate planning, including choosing someone who is trustworthy and dependable to handle the difficult job of trust or estate administration.  Even without a big tax bill or complicated issues like publicity rights to worry about, probate court is never a walk in the park. 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:
The Redd Foxx Estate mess

LA Times article about estate planning

The business section of Sunday’s Los Angeles Times featured an article called “Time to prepare your will”.  Discussing the importance of estate planning, the article included quotes from both of us.  Here’s a few selections from the article: If you’re rich, the best estate planning advice would be to die quickly. If you’re not, the best advice is to either review or rewrite your estate planning documents to make sure your heirs aren’t left high and dry if you die. FOR THE RECORD: The Personal Finance column about estate planning in Sunday’s Business section misidentified the book “Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!” by Andrew W. Mayoras and Danielle B. Mayoras as “Trial & Errors: Famous Fortune Fights.” That’s because estate taxes that could allow Uncle Sam to nab up to 45% of your bequeathed assets are currently — and very temporarily — kaput. A decade-long phase-out of the estate tax eliminated the tax completely as of January. The catch: If nothing’s done, estate taxes will boomerang back to historic levels in 2011. That means any bequest of more than $1 million would be hit with a heavy levy on any amount above that limit after December. But estate planning isn’t just about taxes, and it’s not just for the rich. The legal vacuum that was created by the temporary elimination of the estate tax has created potential pitfalls even for people with modest estates. For example, if you were to die this year and had an old “by-pass” trust, the elimination of the estate tax could cause you to accidentally disinherit your spouse, said Clay Stevens, director of strategic planning for Aspiriant, a wealth management firm in Los Angeles. These trusts, aimed at reducing estate taxes, often have boilerplate provisions for bequeathing children an amount equivalent to the estate tax “exclusion.” This year, that exclusion is unlimited, so everything goes to your kids and unintentionally there would be nothing left for a spouse, he said. Then, too, as long as the estate tax is phased out, so is something called the “step-up” that reduced capital gains taxes on your appreciated assets after you died. You can still get that break if you make a few strategic fixes to your estate plan this year, Stevens said. But, if you do nothing, your heirs could face capital gains taxes on all but a pittance of your appreciated property. * * * What if you have no documents? Then get cracking. Studies indicate that the vast majority of Americans don’t have wills, trusts or powers of attorney. That can leave heirs in a rough spot, said Danielle Mayoras, coauthor with her husband, Andy, of “Trial & [Heirs]: Famous Fortune Fights.” Act now, avoid trouble later Ignoring your estate plan can land your children with ill-suited guardians or give them a pile of cash that they’re too young to handle, she said. If you become incapacitated before you die, it can mean that your care could be dictated by a stranger — or even an enemy. And, doing nothing can cause your heirs to bicker and battle in court — sometimes for decades. “People never think their family is going to end up fighting,” Andy Mayoras said. “But, especially in this economy, families are fighting over money more and more.” * * * Both Nass and the Mayorases wrote books about what celebrities have done wrong with estate planning. They say they did so to give parents and their children a way of bringing up the topic to explore how they could do it better. “It’s a way to get the dialogue started,” Andy Mayoras said. Danielle Mayoras adds that entertainer Ray Charles’ estate plan provides a blueprint of how to do it right. He got his 12 children and their nine respective mothers in a room to talk about what he was planning, which was to give most of his money to charity. But everyone was provided for in some way, she said. “The beauty of doing that is that everything is out in the open,” she said. “It gives the family some comfort and the ability to talk about it.” Here’s the link to the full LA Times article .  (It’s too bad they got the name of our book wrong, but at least they issued a correction.) 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:
LA Times article about estate planning

Brittany Murphy did update her estate plan, after all

Actress

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software