Published on:

We often read stories about heirs fighting over a deceased relative’s multimillion-dollar fortune. But some estate disputes arise over seemingly trivial matters. The common thread in many of these disputes is insufficient direction from the deceased person’s estate plan.

A One Hundred Dollar Case

Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine had to settle an argument between relatives over the possession of a single item valued at just $100. The deceased was Ada Greenblatt, a Maine realtor with no children, but two surviving siblings and several dozen nieces and nephews. Upon Greenblatt’s death in 2008, her will made several specific gifts and left the remainder of her estate to her siblings in equal shares. If any sibling died before her, that share would be divided among his or her children.

Published on:

In dealing with an elderly person who suffers from dementia or who otherwise loses the capacity to make decisions, it may be necessary to create a conservatorship. This occurs when a probate court appoints someone to act as the disabled person’s agent in making legal, financial and healthcare decisions. Careful estate planning should include a power of attorney that nominates a guardian or conservator if either becomes necessary.

Unfortunately, disputes may arise between family members over how to handle a conservatorship. A recent California case-which actually involves courts in two different states-helps illustrate the problems than can arise from a conservatorship. This case is discussed here for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as an authoritative statement of California law on the subject.

Owens v. Thayer

Published on:

Court judgments are an asset that must not be overlooked as part of your estate planning. For example, if you are receiving the proceeds of a personal injury lawsuit, that is an asset you must factor in to your will or trust. Similarly, if any litigation is pending at the time of your death, your executor becomes your legal successor in continuing the lawsuit. Therefore, it’s imperative you leave a will and name an executor, rather than leaving such decisions up to a probate court.

Unfortunately, large personal injury awards can breed further discord among relatives seeking a piece of the pie. This was evident in a recent California appeals court decision. The case, which is discussed here solely for informational purposes, nevertheless highlights the importance of estate planning as it relates to managing court judgments.

Kitchen v. Foxford

Published on:

Academy Award-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman died on February 2, 2014. His last will and testament was recently filed in a New York City probate court. Curiously, the will directed Hoffman’s executor to distribute his estate according to the provisions of New York intestacy law, which normally applies to estates in which there is no will. In this case, that presumably means Hoffman’s entire estate will be equally divided among his three minor children. Hoffman had a longtime partner, Marianne O’Donnell, but they never married and, according to media reports, separated shortly before his death. O’Donnell, however, was still named executor of Hoffman’s estate.

Distinguishing Desires from Directions

A number of media outlets mentioned a particular clause in Hoffman’s will, in which he asked that his son-he and O’Donnell only had one child at the time he signed the will-be raised in New York City, or alternatively in either Chicago or San Francisco. In reality though, the will made no such demand, and O’Donnell will presumably retain full custody of all three children. Had she died before Hoffman, however, his will nominated a guardian-O’Donnell’s sister-to assume custody. In that event, the will asked the guardian to take into account Hoffman’s “strong desire, but not direction” that his son be raised in either New York, Chicago or San Francisco. Nothing in the will though restricts O’Donnell’s right to determine where her children should live.

Published on:

Many people do not bother to create a will because they don’t have much property. Why go to the trouble and expense when you own so little? But a will-and estate planning in general-isn’t just about what you own today, but what you might own in the future, and failing to leave a will can lead to legal complications, even years after your death. That’s especially true when your heirs discover property interests that were not obvious at the time of your death.

Estate of Huston v. Huston

A recent case from North Dakota illustrates the problems associated with not making a proper will. The case involved a Wyoming man, Virgil Huston, who died 14 years earlier. Huston’s heirs included his wife, Wilma Russell, and three adult children from a prior marriage. At the time of his death in 2000, the family believed Huston owned nothing except a car worth about $200. Not surprisingly, he left no will.

Published on:

A life estate provides a means of transferring real property before death. In a life estate, Person A conveys the title to his house to Person B with the stipulation that Person A may continue to live in the house until his death, at which time Person B assumes sole ownership. It sounds simple enough, but life estates can produce unforeseen complications, as one recent California appeals court decision demonstrates. This case is discussed here for informational purposes only and should not be considered a complete statement of California law on the subject of life estates.

McCay v. Turnboo

The parties in this case are a stepfather and stepson. The stepfather, Warren Turnboo, married his wife Helen in 1960. She had a son, Brian McCay, from a prior marriage. Helen Turnboo brought to her second marriage the house she acquired following the dissolution of her first marriage. At the time of her second marriage, there was a mortgage of about $9,600 on the property. Helen Turnboo remained sole owner of the house, but she and her second husband lived there together and they use their funds to pay household expenses, including the mortgage. The mortgage was finally paid in 1978.

Published on:

Estate planning is about providing for the future. Sometimes, it’s about providing for a very distant future. For example, the famous actor and singer Bing Crosby died nearly 40 years ago, yet a California appeals court just recently issued a decision regarding property that still belongs to his estate. Even more remarkably, the other party to the case represents the estate of Crosby’s first wife, who died more than 60 years ago.

Crosby v. HLC Properties, Ltd.

Harry “Bing” Crosby, Jr., began singing professionally in the 1920s. His most famous recording, that of the Irving Berlin song “White Christmas,” reached No. 1 on the charts in 1942. Also during the 1940s, Crosby became well known as an actor, appearing with Bob Hope in a series of movies, and winning an Academy Award in 1944.

Published on:

It’s important to update your estate plan after a major life event, such as the birth of a child. An accidental omission may be correctable under California law, but it adds to the burden of your estate’s executor and the courts. A recent California Court of Appeals decision demonstrates how a not-so-accidental omission of a child can still lead to costly litigation.

Peltner v. Herterich

This case is discussed here for informational purposes only and should not be treated as a complete statement of California law on this subject. The deceased in this case is Hans Herbert Bartsch, who died in 2008. Bartsch signed a last will and testament in 2007, leaving his estate to various friends and family, most of whom resided in Germany. Bartsch’s will declared that he was unmarried and had no children.

Published on:

It’s common for spouses to execute a joint estate plan, signing their respective wills at the same time under the advice of the same estate planning attorney. What’s uncommon is when the spouses inadvertently sign each other’s wills. While it may sound ridiculous that such an error would go unnoticed, just such a situation occurred in the United Kingdom-and it required a decision by that country’s Supreme Court to correct the mistake.

Marley v. Rawlings

Alfred and Maureen Rawlings made their wills in 1999. They hired a solicitor-an English lawyer who specializes in estate planning-to prepare the documents. The wills were not complicated. Each spouse left his estate to the other, and if the other spouse was already dead, the estate would pass to Terry Marley, a family friend. The Rawlings had two children but, for whatever reason, they chose not to include them in their estate plan.

Published on:

A last will and testament is an important legal document. It is not something that should be drafted or signed without careful consideration. And once a will is signed, it’s essential to keep the original in a safe place where it may be located after the person’s death.

As a matter of law, an executor must file a signed, complete, and original version of a purported last will and testament. In many cases, an estate planning attorney will have a client sign duplicate originals. While a photocopy of a will has been admitted to probate in some cases, it is never advisable or ideal. California law presumes that a missing will is presumed revoked, assuming it was last in possession of the person who made it. This is only a presumption that can be overcome by additional evidence, such as a photocopy, but again this is neither advisable nor ideal, especially in cases where a will is contested by one or more parties.

In re Estate of Dixon

Contact Information