Random Odds And Ends

A couple of quick things before I head off to celebrate the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011:

(1) The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog contained an interesting quote today from the French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher Voltaire, who lived about 300 years ago, which goes to show that the subject matter discussed in my own Blog is hardly new or novel:

"Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills."

---Voltaire, French author (1694 - 1778)

(2) A recent article cites a study by the Center For Retirement Research at Boston College for the proposition that Baby Boomers, who apparently have already inherited $2.4 trillion from older generations, are in line to inherit at least $8.4 trillion more.  In fact, according to a December 27, 2010 Associated Press article, starting in January more than 10,000 Baby Boomers a day will turn 65,  a trend that will continue for the next 19 years.  Given those numbers, one can only assume that the number of inheritance-related disputes will continue to rise as well.  

Best wishes for a Happy New Year!

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Recent Articles On Alzheimer's Disease, And Trustee/Beneficiary Relationships

There is not much to this post, primarily because the articles referenced below already thoroughly discuss the issues.  Specifically, both articles shed light upon two common problem areas which can often eventually erupt into estate, trust and probate disputes. 

The first article is from the New York Times and addresses the effect of Alzheimer's Disease and dementia upon an individual's ability to control and account for their finances.  Given our aging population and ever-increasing life expectancy, it's recommended reading for everyone as this concern affects innumerable families in this country. 

The second article is from the Wall Street Journal and touches upon the often-tense relationship between trustees and beneficiaries.   It may especially be interesting and insightful for anyone who already acts as trustee or who may eventually act as a trustee in the future.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Mediation As An Alternative To Inheritance Litigation

Lawsuits are not the only way to resolve disputes, and arguably are not even the best way.  Litigation can be financially expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally tolling.  Especially in the context of estate, trust and probate litigation, the disputes often involve persons who know each other, including relatives, friends, and business associates.  Accordingly, in addition to the expenditure of money, time and emotions, litigation can sometimes involve harm to the relationships between the litigants. 

Because of the foregoing concerns, different types of alternative dispute resolution have been developed over the years.  One of these methods, in particular, is conducive to the issues arising in inheritance-related disputes.  Specifically, mediation generally involves a third party called a "mediator" who is specially trained to attempt to bring the adverse parties to a compromise and settle their differences.  Unlike the judge or jury, or an arbitrator, a mediator does not resolve the dispute for the parties but instead aims to facilitate a final resolution that the parties reach on their own.  There are many such mediators in Arkansas (e.g., Hamlin Dispute Resolution, ADR, Inc., etc.), and we have successfully used them in the past on behalf of our own clients.  A good article in the New York Times this weekend also discusses mediation in the elder law context. 

A simple fact is that the death of a loved one is already a stressful experience.  If, for example, that person's estate is perceived to not have been distributed in the manner in which that decedent intended (or perhaps in a way in which a would-be recipient originally anticipated it), long-simmering feuds can rise to the surface and minor misunderstandings can erupt into major conflicts.  Occasionally it's too late, but the relationships of the persons involved can frequently be maintained, and their disputes ultimately resolved,  by mediation.  Drawn-out court battles can be avoided or at least minimized, and the money and property in dispute can be preserved instead of exhausted on the litigation process.  Mediation is confidential as opposed to occurring in the public eye, can be scheduled by the parties at their convenience rather than subject to the limited openings in a Court's docket, and takes place in a neutral conference room rather than in an often-intimidating courtroom. 

Not every dispute is ideal or appropriate for mediation, but it can and should be considered as an alternative method of dispute resolution.  

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Frank Talk On Attorney's Fees

One of the first questions that a potential inheritance litigation client quite reasonably asks is some form of the following question: “How much is this ultimately going to cost me?”  While there is unfortunately little or no way of determining on the front end how much a legal matter might cost, how that cost will be calculated generally is capable of early determination.  There are typically three primary ways in which an attorney charges for his or her services, and of course occasionally a couple of these methods can be combined together to create a “mixed” fee arrangement.

1.  HOURLY FEE

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade."  Accordingly, the most common fee arrangement is based upon an hourly fee, i.e., the lawyer charges an hourly rate for their time and the ultimate fee is determined upon how much time the lawyer has to spend on the representation.  For example, if I was retained by the trustee of a trust to defend against claims brought by a beneficiary of the trust, I would charge the trustee an hourly fee and the ultimate bill would be determined upon how much time I had to spend working on the trustee’s case.  The same goes for a beneficiary pursuing claims against the trustee.

Obviously, the more time-consuming the case the more expensive the representation (and vice versa).  Hourly rates in Arkansas are by and large considerably lower than in other, more populated and wealthier areas of the country, especially the East and West Coasts.  There are a number of factors which determine the hourly rate, including but not limited to the complexity of the area of law, the attorney’s experience and reputation, the attorney's location, etc.

2.  CONTINGENCY FEE

A second, but less common, fee arrangement in inheritance disputes (and other litigation for that matter) is a “contingency fee.”  This is an arrangement which is necessarily only used by the person bringing the lawsuit, as opposed to the person defending the action.  Specifically, the lawyer and the client agree that the lawyer will accept a percentage of whatever amount is recovered (if anything) as the lawyer’s fee for the representation.  A common percentage is anywhere from 25-50%, and rarely will the percentage stray outside of that range.  Usually the lawyer and the client will come to an agreement on the front end regarding who will pay for the various costs (filing fees, deposition expenses, copies, postage, etc.) and sometimes the lawyer will advance those expenses and then take them “off the top” in the event of any recovery.

As one can tell, under this arrangement the more favorable the recovery, the higher the lawyer’s fee.  However, there is also added risk for the attorney because if there is little or no recovery, or if the client prevails but the judgment is uncollectible as a practical matter (the defendant has no money, etc.), then the lawyer loses just like the client.  Given the fact that litigation can often take years, essentially the attorney is working for free for a long period of time before recouping out-of-pocket expenses much less any fee for the work performed.

This type of arrangement can be beneficial in situations wherein an individual might not be able to afford an hourly arrangement.  Again, the potential downside is that, unlike a rear-end collision wherein liability in a personal injury case might be very clear, liability in estate, trust, or probate litigation can often be quite unclear and unpredictable.  Therefore, in cases where liability is unclear or in cases in which the defendant could potentially have counterclaims against the plaintiff, contingency fee arrangements will probably not be the ideal arrangement.  Occasionally, a lawyer will be willing to combine a lower hourly fee (perhaps charging 2/3 of their regular hourly rate) with a lower-than-usual contingency percentage (perhaps 25% instead of 33% or more), therefore creating a mixed hourly/contingency fee arrangement.

 3.  FLAT FEE

Finally, the third and least common type of fee arrangement is simply a “flat fee” paid for a certain amount of services.  In other words, the lawyer and the client agree that a certain type of service or a certain number of actions will be taken by the lawyer to represent the client (drafting a certain amount of letters, preparing an agreement, etc.).  For that finite amount of services the lawyer and client agree on a specific fee.  This gives both the lawyer and the client a greater degree of predictability, but it is an often impractical arrangement in estate, trust and probate disputes because litigation is unpredictable and can rarely be reduced to only a certain number of actions.  However, in certain situations it can be used effectively and should not automatically be discarded.

In conclusion, the best fee arrangement in a particular situation will necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances.  While the free market has resulted in lawyers no doubt being expensive, when it comes to the amounts of money and high stakes involved in inheritance litigation, many times the lawyer’s fee can be a mere drop in the bucket.  For example, if a plaintiff potentially goes without recovering some or all of a large inheritance that they were otherwise supposed to receive, then hiring an attorney can even be construed as a wise investment.  Likewise, if a trustee could potentially be removed from her office or is wrongfully accused of harming the trust and causing substantial damages, hiring representation is a necessity rather than a luxury (incidentally, sometimes trustees' attorney fees can be paid out a trust or reimbursed by a trust).  In certain situations (breach of contract, breach of trust, etc.) the prevailing party also may be able to recover some or all of their attorney’s fees expended.  In essence, every situation is different and unfortunately there are simply no guarantees when it comes to the outcome of a legal matter nor the attorney fees necessary to handle that legal matter.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Stealing From Grandma And Grandpa---Inheritance Theft

A recent lengthy but interesting series of stories (Part I and Part II) on the odd heiress, Huguette Clark, appeared to prompt a good article yesterday from Bob Sullivan, who covers Internet scams and consumer fraud for msnbc.com.  Mr. Sullivan's posting focuses upon allegations and situations involving elder financial abuse, which is a significant portion of my own law practice.  I suggest that you read the article when you have a free moment, as it extensively summarizes a growing issue in this country and is obviously one in which you may very well have an interest if you regularly read or have merely stumbled upon my Blog.  

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Inheritance Hijackers: Who Wants To Steal Your Inheritance And How To Protect It

At the recommendation of a client, I have recently started reading a fascinating book entitled Inheritance Hijackers:  Who Wants To Steal Your Inheritance And How To Protect It (Ovation Books 2009) written by a Florida attorney named Robert C. Adamski.  The book is primarily written for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of an inheritance.  Mr. Adamski's book sets forth an extensive discussion of the growing phenomenon which he calls "inheritance theft," and which of course is a primary component of what I do in my own law practice as well (representation of beneficiaries, but also fiduciaries such as trustees andexecutors, in estate, trust and probate litigation).  "Inheritance theft" is defined on page 2 of the book as "the act of diverting assets from the intended recipient to another person[.]" 

While the book is available for sale at Mr. Adamski's own website, Amazon.com, and I'm sure other places, a good overview of the phenomenon can be found below which is directly from a prior post by Mr. Adamski: 

1.  Who steals inheritances?

Inheritance theft is a crime of opportunity committed by those we place our trust in. These are family members, close associates, care givers and others we depend on as we grow older. Inheritance hijacking is always a surprise to the victim, who never expected a trusted family member or friend to betray their trust.

2.  Who are the victims of inheritance hijacking?

There are always two classes of victims. The first is the person who intended to give the inheritance. The second is the person or persons who were the intended recipient of the inheritance. As we age we are all potential victims because we become weaker in our physical and mental ability. We then are forced to rely upon and put our trust in others. This gives the trusted persons the opportunity to hijack our inheritance.

3.  How are inheritances hijacked?

The hijacker's bag of tricks includes undue influence, duress, forgery, theft by an administrator, marriage, and more. Administrators of probate estates and trusts are common hijackers. They have the opportunity and ability to take advantage. Marriage is the 'Silver Bullet" in the world of inheritance theft because it is all but impossible to overturn a marriage which hijacks an estate. Care givers earn the trust of their victims and as a result are often inheritance hijackers. An important element of inheritance theft is the trust which is gained by the hijacker and later betrayed. Without that element of trust it would be very difficult to hijack an inheritance.

4.  How can I determine if my inheritance is at risk?

Take the Inheritance Risk Quiz at www.ProtectYourEstate.Net to determine the risk to the inheritance you intend to give or the inheritance you expect to receive.

5.  How do I protect the inheritance I intend to give or the inheritance I expect to receive?

Self education and proper estate planning are the first steps. But it does not end there. It is vital to understand how inheritances are hijacked and how to guard against inheritance hijacking. The book, INHERITANCE HIJACKERS: Who Wants to Steal Your Inheritance and How to Protect It, was written to help people protect their families from inheritance theft. Learn more about the book at www.ProtectYourEstate.Net

**********

I have not yet finished Mr. Adamski's book, but can already tell that I will be recommending it to beneficiary-clients, and potential clients, who anticipate possibly receiving inheritances.  The book contains an immense amount of valuable information for a very reasonable price. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Update On Gary Coleman Estate Dispute

As a child of the 1980's, I grew up watching Diff'rent Strokes like most people my age.  A white, middle-class kid growing up in Oklahoma, I did not have much in common with two African-American orphaned children from Harlem taken in by a rich Park Avenue businessman, but the show constantly had me laughing, especially when Gary Coleman ("Arnold") would throw out his catchphrase "What'choo talkin' bout, Willis?"   So it was disappointing to hear about the recent death of Coleman, whose post-Diff'rent Strokes life was seemingly as scandal-ridden as the lives of his child co-stars on the show, Todd Bridges ("Willis") and Dana Plato ("Kimberly"). 

Coleman was apparently taken advantage of in life (in the early 1990's he successfully sued his parents and business advisor for almost $1.3 million over misappropriation of his $3.8 million trust fund), and now that he has passed away it looks like there may be additional controversy as well.  Specifically, another blogger who writes on similar topics has provided a good update on the documents and characters who are coming out of the woodwork following his death.  Wikipedia of course also has a good summary of his life and recent events. 

Gary Coleman did not have "Michael Jackson money" but it appears that there is still enough to fight over.  Notwithstanding that Coleman filed bankruptcy in 1999, it is possible that the potential heirs fussing over the leftovers havea special interest in the intellectual property and other rights which could conceivably have value in the years to come as the people in my generation watch reruns and relive the glorious(?) early 1980's.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Rules Dying Woman Not Competent To Execute Deed

Sorry for no posts as of late---I've been tied up preparing for, and then engaged in, a lengthy trust litigation case in which the jury, after a 6 day trial in Pulaski County Circuit Court, returned a significant verdict for our clients.  I'm just now trying to catch up on other work, but hope to resume regularly updating this blog again soon. 

One case that I read about since my last blog post demonstrates that although it is difficult to prove the invalidity of a deed, will, trust, etc. by proving that the person signed the will was not competent (whether due to mental illness, undue influence, duress, etc.), occasionally such claims are successful.  For example, in Munzner v. Kushner, 2010 Ark. App. 196 (an appeal from Washington County Circuit Court), the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that a deed transferring property was invalid due to the incapacity of the grantor.

Specifically, a mere 36 hours before her death, Mrs. Kehoe executed a deed conveying her home to her brother, Mr. Munzner.  Mrs. Kehoe apparently had to sign the deed with an "X" as she was too weak to finish the signature of her name when she lost her place.  Her daughter, Ms. Kushner, sued asserting the invalidity of the deed.

At trial, Mrs. Kehoe's doctor testified that just prior to her death she had been administered morphine (utilized for severe pain and suffering), a medication that fights anxiety and sedation, a medication which causes confusion, and a powerful narcotic.  The doctor testified that it would be ill-advised to make any life decision while taking any of the medicines and that they would have impaired her ability to make decisions related to her property. 

On the other hand, friends and relatives who spoke to Mrs. Kehoe that day testified that she was competent.  Moreover, Mrs. Kehoe's attorney, who spoke to her about the deed on that day, also stated that she was competent. 

After considering all of the evidence, the trial court ruled that because Mr. Munzner was Mrs. Kehoe's brother and she had a close confidential relationship with him, he had the burden of proving that his sister was competent to make the deed.  This was especially the case in light of the lack of any consideration (exchange of money or property) for the deed.  The trial court then found that Mrs. Kehoe had been too mentally impaired to execute the deed and ordered it set aside.

Mr. Munzner appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Specifically, the Court held that Mrs. Kehoe's mental impairment was debilitating to the point that she could not function appropriately to execute the deed regardless of whether she may have been exposed or susceptible to any undue influence.

Under Arkansas law, the determination of whether a deed is void because of the mental incapacity of the grantor is generally measured by her mental ability at the time of execution of the deed.  Andres v. Andres, 1 Ark. App. 75, 83, 613 S.W.2d 404, 409 (1981).  If the grantor is mentally competent at the time that the deed at issue is executed, the deed will be deemed valid.  Id.  In this case the Court held that Mrs. Kehoe's mental impairment was so debilitating that she was unable to function in a capacity to execute the deed, due to her medication and due to her medical condition.  Because the trial court placed great weight upon the physician's opinion, and because a trial court generally has great discretion with respect to considering the credibility of the various witnesses who testify at trial, the Court of Appeals did not find that there was sufficient reason to reverse the trial court's ruling.   

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Estate Of Pinup Anna Nicole Smith, "Widow" Of Elderly Texas Billionaire

One of the longest-running estate and trust battles on record added another chapter with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent ruling in the saga involving Anna Nicole Smith, now deceased, and her estate's attempt to claim a chunk of her former husband's billion-dollar fortune.  Specifically,  Anna Nicole, stripper-turned-Playboy model-turned-pop-celebrity, married elderly oil magnate J. Howard Marshall in the last year of his life.  She later claimed that Marshall promised her over $300 million although there was apparently no written documentation supporting the gift. 

A msnbc.com article from a couple of days ago summarizes the 15-year legal battle and also contains a link to the 68-page ruling: 

"The convoluted dispute over J. Howard Marshall's money has its roots in a Houston strip club where he met Smith. The two were wed in 1994 when he was 89 and she 26. Marshall died the next year and his will left his estate to his son.

Smith challenged the will in a Houston probate court, alleging the billionaire's son illegally coerced his father to exclude the former Playboy model from sharing the estate. She alleged that her husband promised to leave her more than $300 million above the $7 million in cash and gifts showered on her during their 14-month marriage.

While the probate case was pending in Houston, Smith filed for bankruptcy in Los Angeles, alleging in federal court filings that her husband promised her a large share of the estate.

In late 2000, the bankruptcy court awarded Smith $474.75 million, which a federal district judge reduced to $89.5 million in 2002.

Between those two decisions, a jury in the Houston probate court ruled in March 2001 against Smith. The jury found the billionaire was mentally fit and under no duress when he wrote out a will that left everything to his son.

Since then, the two sides have been fighting over which court to obey.

Smith argued that the federal courts were in charge because the bankruptcy court was the first to rule.

Pierce Marshall countered the decision was the jurisdiction of the probate court, because that's where the first legal action was filed and the site of the only full-blown trial."

Ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the estate of Marshall's son (who died in 2006) and against the estate of Anna Nicole (you will recall that she died of an apparent drug overdose at age 39 in 2007).  Specifically, the Court held that the bankruptcy court did not have authority to decide a probate dispute such that its $475.75 million award was a mere advisory opinion.  The Court also concluded that the lower court should have relied upon the probate jury's verdict against Anna Nicole and dismissed the entire case rather than merely reducing the award to almost $90 million. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Rejects Cousin's Attempt To Set Aside Gifts To The Decedent's "Yardman"

One common thread running throughout this blog since its inception has been the issue of competency, i.e., the ability of a person to make informed decisions.  Conflicts often arise when ill or elderly people are claimed to have made signficant decisions regarding disposition of their property shortly before they died---sometimes the decision will be legitimate, the culmination of some long, thought-out plan that just never was memorialized on paper until shortly before their death---whereas sometimes the "decision" will be illegitimate, the product of undue influence or overreaching by a dishonest relative, family friend, or advisor.  Whatever the facts and circumstances, it can be difficult to prove that the person did not have competency to make the decision that they purportedly made.  A recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision demonstrates that the outcome of these disputes usually boils down to the specific evidence that was presented to the trial court, and ultimately what evidence that the trial court found to be the most credible. 

For example, on March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Deslauriers v. Marilyn Irene Deslauriers Revocable Trust, 2010 Ark.App. 211.  An appeal from Lonoke County Circuit Court, the appellant (Killeen) attempted to invalidate certain documents (quitclaim deed, revocable trust, will, etc.) executed by her cousin, the deceased, during and after her 2005 stay in a hospital due to a stroke.  As a result of those documents, the appellee (Richard, the deceased's "yardman") received the bulk of the cousin's estate.  Killeen filed suit after the cousin's death to contest the validity of the documents in question, contending that the cousin was not competent to execute them due to her medical condition. 

Under Arkansas law, the party contesting the validity of a will generally has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not"), (1) that the decedent lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed or (2) that the decedent was acting under undue influence.  The Deslauriers Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the cousin attempting to set aside the documents did not satisfy that burden. 

Killeen presented the testimony of multiple doctors who had treated the deceased around the time of her execution of the documents, and they all testified  that she suffered from dementia and would purportedly be incompetent to sign the documents (though they were admittedly not in attendance at the signing).  Medical records also demonstrated a range of impairment (from mild to severe) at different times during the relevant time period.  Killeen likewise presented the testimony of two non-medical witnesses, one of whom contended that  the deceased was mentally incompetent (in their experience) and both of whom testified that the deceased intended to keep her property "in the family."

Richard presented the testimony of the lawyer whom the cousin used to prepare the documents in question, and he testified that he was very careful to determine whether his client was legally competent to execute the documents.  The attorney also testified that he had been hired to prepare a power of attorney so that Killeen and Richard could be placed in charge of the deceased's business affairs, and that Killeen herself believed the deceased to be an odd person but very competent.  Two other witnesses also testified, in a manner favoring Richard's position, to the extent that they were disinterested employees working at the hospital where the deceased was treated and they observed her as competent when they witnessed her signing of the will.   Richard also offered other evidence in the form of the attorney testifying that he met with the deceased several times after her initial execution of the documents, and in the  form of a doctor who treated the deceased remarking that he was impressed how mentally capable (though not physically capable) she remained after her stroke.

In sum, the trial court concluded that the cousin did not prove incompetency and that the deceased was sufficiently competent at the time that she executed the documents.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while proof of medical condition around the time of the execution of the documents is relevant and important, ultimately the medical condition at the time of execution is paramount.  The Court seemed to attach particular significance to the testimony of the witnesses who were actually in the room when the decedent signed the documents in question.  Observing that it is possible for a testator to execute a document during a "lucid interval" in a period where they may otherwise be incompetent as a general matter, the case generally demonstrates the difficulty that a party can have in attempting to prove a testator's   incompetency. 

Court Rules Testator Was Not Under Insane Delusions When He Revoked His Will

It has been estimated that well over 1/2 of all Americans do not have a will.  I personally know many attorneys that do not even have a will, even though virtually every Arkansas lawyer passed a bar examination covering wills and trusts and more than likely also took a decedents' estates class in law school.  Whether because of not wanting to confront the inevitable (death), procrastination, or other factors, drafting a will is simply not high on the list of priorities for a large percentage of people. 

A primary reason why people do have a will, however, is to have direction and control as to whom their property will be distributed after their death.  Dying without a will is called dying "intestate," and the intestacy laws of the State of Arkansas set forth a rather strict statutory scheme detailing how a person's property will be divied up (to children, descendants of children, surviving spouse, parents of the decedent, etc.).  If a person does have a will, but then validly revokes it without ever executing a new one, then that person will "die intestate" as well.

That is what happened in the recent appeal of Heirs of F.D. Goza, Jr., et al. v. Estate of William E. Potts, Deceased, CA 09-235 (February 17, 2010).  Specifically, this was a probate case in which the former in-laws of the decedent, Mr. Potts, were attempting to take their shares as beneficiaries of a 1989 will which, the estate asserted, was revoked sometime between 2002 and Mr. Potts' 2006 death.  The appellants, relatives of Mr. Potts' deceased wife, Ms. Goza, argued that Mr. Potts lacked testamentary capacity and was under insane delusions when he revoked his will.  The trial court disagreed, ruled that Mr. Potts died intestate (meaning that Mr. Potts' property amounting to several hundred thousand dollars went to persons other than the appellants), and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. 

The facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Potts' revocation were interesting to say the least, and involved Mr. Potts marking "void" over each paragraph, writing "bastard" and "get nothing" on the will, applying Liquid Paper over the names of the beneficiaries, and later shredding the document in front of witnesses.  There were tales of alleged affairs and "wife stealing," temper tantrums, and other curious claims, but in the end the Court held that "the evidence clearly showed that Bill was an irascible, angry, suspicious, controlling, profane, and difficult man for most of his adult life; however, we cannot say that the trial court erred in refusing to find that he labored under insane delusions."   

The lesson learned from this case is that not only must a testator have the capacity to execute a will (the ability to understand the effects if executed), the testator much also have the same capacity to later revoke that will after it has been executed.  As the Court held, "complete sanity in a medical sense is not essential to testamentary capacity, provided power to think rationally exists."  Given the steep standard for proving lack of capacity by a testator, contesting a will (or, in this case, a will revocation) can be a difficult task in the absence of very persuasive evidence.    

Court Rules Handwritten Note Found By Deceased's Mother Did Not Result In Change Of IRA Beneficiary

As previously discussed on this Blog, a common fact scenario in estate, trust and probate lawsuits involves an eleventh-hour change in a dying person's final wishes regarding their property.  Quite often the last-minute decision appears legitimate, although occasionally there is an aura of suspicious facts and circumstances surrounding the event which arises to the level of an "inheritance theft."  Frequently the change in question is expressed in the form of a handwritten note, and courts are commonly called upon to rule whether or not such "wishes" will actually be  enforced.

On January 27, 2010, the Arkansas Court of Appeals addressed a somewhat similar situation in the case of Nunneman v. Estate of Donald T. Grubbs, et al, Case No. 2010 Ark.App. 75.  Specifically, Mr. Grubbs had named Ms. Nunnenman as beneficiary of his IRA, and a few days before his death evidently called a lawyer to his hospital bed and executed a will, leaving all of his property to his mother, Ms. Grubbs.  She then asked the Court to freeze certain IRA monies contending that she had discovered a 2005 note in Mr. Grubbs' bible which stated:  "My Will.  I Donnie Grubbs want all of my estate All IRA and any SBC Telco and all other assets and worldly goods to go to my Mother Shervena Grubbs.  Being of sound mind.  Donnie Grubbs."  Ms. Grubbs alleged that she had found the note in the presence of a coworker, but that witness claimed that she had not known of the note's existence before the trial. 

After considering the evidence, the trial court ruled that the handwritten note should have the effect of changing the IRA beneficiary.  Ms. Nunnenman appealed and the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that it was clear error to find an effective change of the IRA beneficiary.  Specifically, the Court pointed to the conflicts in the testimony regarding the discovery of the note and also focused upon the fact that the very person who discovered the note was the same person who would end up benefitting from its discovery.  The Court also opined that it was significant that while Mr. Grubbs had undertaken steps to call a lawyer to come to his bedside, he had not taken similar measures to change his IRA beneficiary. 

In sum, this case is a good example of the heavy burden that a party has when attempting to prove a change in property disposition by means of a handwritten document.  As a general matter the Court will need to be presented with a strong showing of evidence before favorably considering such a request. 

Billionaire's Former Lover's Shenanigans Fail In Will Contest

Most estate and trust conflicts for which our law firm is retained, either to represent the fiduciary (executor, trustee, etc.) or the beneficiary to whom the fiduciary duty is owed, involve anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars.  The fact is that the substantial time and expense associated with litigating smaller amounts in dispute can often be cost-prohibitive for the client.  Because the matters that we assist with typically involve family fortunes within the above-described range, wealth wars erupting over $4.2-plus billion are rare indeed.

However, that is precisely what occurred as recently noted in a February 2, 2010 post by the Michigan Probate Law Blog, in the case of Hong Kong tycoon Nina Wang.  Asia's wealthiest woman, she died of cancer in 2007 at the age of 69.  Following her passing, a gentleman named Tony Chan, who also was her former lover and feng shui master, revealed a 2006 will which purported to leave her entire fortune (which has been estimated to possibly range up to $13 billion) to him instead of to charity.  In what might be the mother of all will contests, the Court ruled that the will was a forgery and that the signatures contained on the document were a "highly skilled simulation."  In fact, in a 326-page opinion, the court held that Mr. Chan "lied and withheld relevant information from the court regarding the circumstances leading to the preparation of the document." 

Lost in the fact that Mr. Chan has apparently now been arrested for his shenanigans is the fact that another will of Ms. Wang's actually bequested $10 million to Mr. Chan.  Seems like Mr. Chan could have benefitted from a phrase that we often toss around here in Razorback country, which rings especially true in this case:  "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."   

UPDATED: Dispute Erupts Over Wealth Of Deceased Billionaire Shopping Mall Developer

Pretty much anyone who has lived in Central Arkansas over the last few decades has been aware of if not actually visited University Mall in Little Rock's midtown area.  While it used to be the hot spot for shopping many moons ago, in more recent years it became better known for its empty stores and the litigation that resulted from disputes over the mall's management.  The mall closed in 2007, demolition began in 2008, and a brand new mixed-use development appears imminent for the property in the next year or two.  

Anyone familiar with University Mall is also undoubtedly aware of its close proximity to Park Plaza Mall.  Ever since moving to Arkansas back in 1992, I never understood why University was built almost literally next door to Park Plaza (built a few years earlier in 1959), yet another enclosed shopping mall.  But I guess that's why I'm a mere lawyer and the folks who make the big bucks are mall magnates like Melvin Simon. 

Specifically, University Mall was developed by Melvin Simon & Associates, an Indianapolis-based real estate development and management company which later became known as Simon Property Group.  I mention this because Simon Property Group is evidently the largest public U.S. real estate company, and shopping mall development made the company's namesake---Mr. Simon---a very wealthy man.  He and his brother, who also co-founded the company, eventually purchased the Indiana Pacers franchise of the National Basketball Association. 

According to a recent post on the Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog,  the Wall Street Journal writes that a wealth war has begun over the terms of Mr. Simon's will.  Apparently, Mr. Simon's wife was only supposed to receive approximately one-third of his fortune and, after some changes were evidently made to his will a few months before his death, she now stands to receive about one-half.  Considering that his wealth has been estimated at $1-2 billion depending upon the fluctuating stock price of his company, even minor changes in his will could amount to a major redistribution of wealth.  Notably, the changes cut out Mr. Simon's three children from his first marriage.  

At least one of those children is now suing Mrs. Simon, their stepmother, contending that she unduly influenced Mr. Simon and persuaded him to change his will to reduce the children's inheritances.  The lawsuit also alleges that Mr. Simon had dementia and needed assistance signing the document, to which Mrs. Simon has now apparently responded that while he did in fact have Parkinson's Disease and needed help with his signature, he voluntarily signed a new will and trust of his own free will.  This will be a wealth war worth watching in the next few months. 

Seemingly sudden changes to wills and trusts shortly before someone dies are one of the most common disputes arising in estate, trust and probate litigation.  As the Baby Boomer generation begins to retire and ultimately pass away, there will no doubt be millions more similar disputes in the decades to come. 

UPDATE:  The following link contains the latest update (as of 2/11/10) from the Wall Street Journal.

Removal Of A Trustee Under Arkansas Law

My previous blog post generally discussed principles associated with the removal of executors or personal representatives of an estate.  This post is similar except that it analyzes this issue in the context of trusts rather than estates.  Every trustee of a trust, and every beneficiary of a trust, should be aware of these principles as well.  

To remedy a breach of trust under the Arkansas Trust Code, the Court may:

(1) compel the trustee to perform the trustee’s duties;

(2) enjoin the trustee from committing a breach of trust;

(3) compel the trustee to redress a breach of trust by paying money, restoring property, or other means;

(4) order a trustee to account;

(5) appoint a special fiduciary to take possession of the trust property and administer the trust;

(6) suspend the trustee;

(7) remove the trustee as provided in § 28-73-706;

(8) reduce or deny compensation to the trustee;

(9) subject to §28-73-1012, void an act of the trustee, impose a lien or a constructive trust on property, or trace trust property wrongfully disposed of and recover the property or its proceeds, or

(10) order any other appropriate relief. 

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-1001(b).

Also, section 706 of the Trust Code further elaborates on the removal of an trustee:

(a) the settlor, a co-trustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.

(b) A court may remove a trustee if:

(1) the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;

(2) lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust;

(3) because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries;

(4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds the removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all of the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and suitable co-trustee or successor trustee is available.

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-706(a) and (b) (emphasis added).

So, as one can tell the grounds for removal of a trustee are very broad.  Accordingly, similar to estates, those administering trusts in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of a trust should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the trustee to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove trustees where the facts and circumstances warrant it. 

Removal Of An Executor (Personal Representative) From An Estate Under Arkansas Law

As previously discussed on this Blog, an executor, also known as a personal representative, is a person who is charged with the responsibility of administering an estate after another person has passed away.  They will typically do things like collect and inventory the deceased's assets, manage the property, pay the debts, and distribute property according to any will or the intestacy laws (setting forth distribution priorities for those dying without a will).

However, conflicts will sometimes arise between the executor of the estate and the beneficiaries of that estate, the latter of whom are generally supposed to receive bequests or property from the estate.  Perhaps the executor is alleged to be operating under a conflict of interest, is improperly personally benefitting from the property of the estate, or is simply not carrying out their duties.  In Arkansas, there is a specific statute that governs these conflicts and sets forth the grounds for when an executor can be removed from his or her office.  For anyone who currently is or ever anticipates administering an estate in Arkansas, or who is or ever will be the beneficiary of an estate,  it is worth getting familiar with the removal statute.

Specifically, under the Arkansas Probate Code of 1949, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-1-101 et seq., the Court appoints and issues letters testamentary to a personal representative to manage and preserve the property and rights of the decedent until distribution according to the testamentary document or appropriate intestate statute. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-102. It is well-established that "[t]he personal representative occupies a fiduciary position toward the heirs, and it is his duty to act toward them, as the beneficiaries of the trust administered by him, with the utmost good faith." Price v. Price, 253 Ark. 1124, 1137, 491 S.W2d 793, 801 (1973). The personal representative generally continues in that office unless removed due to one or more of the grounds set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-105.

Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-105(a) (emphasis added) provides that:

(a)(1) When the personal representative becomes mentally incompetent, disqualified, unsuitable, or incapable of discharging his or her trust, has mismanaged the estate, has failed to perform any duty imposed by law or by any lawful order of the court, or has ceased to be a resident of the state without filing the authorization of an agent to accept service as provided in § 28-48-101(b)(6), then the court may remove him or her.

(2) The court on its own motion may, or on the petition of an interested person shall, order the personal representative to appear and show cause why he or she should not be removed.

With this in mind, Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-107(a) (emphasis added) provides that "[w]hen a personal representative dies, is removed by the court, or resigns and the resignation is accepted by the court, the court may, and, if he or she was the sole or last surviving personal representative and the administration is not completed, the court shall, appoint another personal representative in his place upon the motion or petition of an interested person."

Separate and distinct from the statutory grounds for removal of a personal representative, multiple Arkansas cases also shed light on this issue. For example, in Robinson v. Winston, 64 Ark.App. 170, 175-76, 984 S.W.2d 38, 40-41 (1998), the evidence was deemed sufficient to warrant removal of the personal representative due to her attitude toward a person interested in the estate that created a reasonable doubt as to whether she would act honorably, fairly, and dispassionately in her trust, and because the tension and her continuance in the office would likely render administration of the estate difficult, inefficient, or unduly protracted. See also Matter of Guardianship of Vesa, 319 Ark. 574, 579-82, 892 S.W2d 491, 494-95 (1995) ("unsuitability" of ward’s sibling to serve as guardian of the estate, justifying removal on probate court’s own motion and appointment of neutral successor, was established by evidence of family friction among ward’s siblings which adversely affected administration of estate).

Likewise, in Guess v. Going, 62 Ark. App. 19, 23-25, 966 S.W2d 930, 932-33 (1998), testimony of the personal representative that "mother’s love" precluded her from challenging a land sale agreement that was extremely favorable to her daughter, even though the terms of the agreement made it unlikely that the heirs of the estate could ever benefit from what would have been the estate’s largest asset, established a conflict of interest making the executrix unsuitable and warranting her removal. See also Price v. Price, 258 Ark. 363, 378, 527 S.W.2d 322, 332-33 (1975) (wherein a personal representative who had persistently acted in furtherance of her own interests in a manner to deprive her step-children of any benefits from their rights of the father’s property, and who had been recalcitrant about compliance with her fiduciary responsibilities and directions of the court, was deemed unsuitable for discharge of the trust involved in acting as personal representative of the estate such that removal was appropriate).

In sum, those administering estates in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of an estate should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the executor to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove executors where the facts and circumstances warrant it.

American Bar Association Releases "Legal Guide For The Seriously Ill: Seven Key Steps To Get Your Affairs In Order"

Estate, trust and probate litigation often involves allegations that elderly adults' estate planning desires were not carried out after their deaths (either by someone's intentional acts or negligence), or that those elderly adults were taken advantage of and their estate planning desires were thwarted while they were still living (albeit without their knowledge or consent).  With respect to the latter scenario, sometimes the claims are true, and sometimes they aren't.  Issues of (in)competency, illness, undue influence, and fraud are often raised in these types of proceedings.   Each case is different and we have certainly represented those doing the accusing as well as those being accused. 

But one common theme that I have noticed in virtually all of these cases is that no matter how much estate planning that the elderly person actually did, in virtually every situation they probably could have done a bit more.  It might not have ultimately made a difference with respect to whether or not litigation would have resulted, but where more planning is undertaken that can frequently result in a lesser likelihood of later conflict. 

With this in mind, thanks to a tip on the Wills, Trusts & Estates Blog, the American Bar Association has apparently just released the "Legal Guide For The Seriously Ill: Seven Key Steps To Get Your Affairs In Order."  I've given the document an overview and  would heartily recommend it to anyone dealing with such circumstances (or anyone with a loved one who is dealing with this situation).

UPDATED: Practical Help For Estate Administrators (Executors) & Trust Administrators (Trustees)

One of my very first posts on this blog generally discussed the legal duties of trustees under Arkansas law.  While that post summarized some of the more abstact legal principles at issue, a much more common question posed to me and other attorneys at dinner parties and elsewhere is what are the practical duties of trustees (and, similarly, the practical duties of estate executors, a.k.a. personal representatives). 

With this in mind, a couple of days before Christmas while doing some last-minute book shopping at Barnes & Noble for some friends, I happened to come across one of the best little books that I have seen on the subject.   Specifically, I was somewhat surprised to discover that "Estate & Trust Administration For Dummies" is a great resource for lay persons charged with the responsibility of serving as trustee for a trust or executor for an estate.  Even though I am historically the not-so-proud purchaser of multiple "Dummies" books on various mundane topics which I am too embarrassed to detail here, I must admit that I did not expect much substance when I first cracked open this text on the sparsely-populated "Law" aisle at B&N.  However, much to my surprise there was a tremendous amount of solid, easily understandable information there that---if utilized---should help any trustee or executor more ably and easily perform their duties and reduce the likelihood of future estate, trust or probate litigation. 

So, if you're a current or future fiduciary and have a bookstore gift card that you need to burn through, consider heading over to the probably-vacant leather chairs next to the Law section at B&N and checking out this book.  Considering the expense of this type of litigation, it might be the best 15 bucks that you'll ever spend. 

In closing, thanks for checking out the "Wealth Wars" blog over the first 3-4 months of its existence.  I wish you a happy and prosperous 2010.     

UPDATE:  The Arkansas Bar Association's website also has a free publication that may come in handy as well:  Handbook For Personal Representatives In Arkansas.  It is more of a very broad overview than anything else, but is still helpful since it is Arkansas-specific. 

UPDATED: Sentencing Time In The Ultimate Wealth War: The Astor Family Fortune

As we are in the midst of the holiday season and families all around the world are coming together to enjoy each other's company for a few fun-filled days (or in some cases a couple of miserable hours), it can be a little disheartening to read about (much less write about) another wealth war in the news.  However, this one is pretty spicy, has a celebrity aspect to it (Barbara Walters and Henry Kissinger were witnesses at the underlying trial), and even has some criminal twists and turns. 

Specifically, msnbc.com had an article today which contains one of the more extreme examples of an estate and trust battle.  I was vaguely familiar with Brooke Astor, or rather her last name due to her philanthropy, but became much more interested after hearing and reading of the unfortunate last few years of her life in which she was apparently taken advantage of by her only child.  Mrs. Astor's third husband, Vincent Astor, was a descendant of John Jacob Astor, whose fortune was accumulated in fur trading and real estate.  Mr. Astor was one of the first multimillionaires, and Mrs. Astor ultimately gave away almost $200 million to institutions and was given a Presidential Medal of Freedom for her generosity.  She passed away in 2007 with many more tens of millions in her portfolio. 

According to the msnbc.com article, Anthony Marshall, Mrs. Astor's son, apparently led a successful, well-regarded life until one of his own sons, Phillip Marshall, exposed his father's apparent abuse of his mother (Phillip's grandmother) and her wealth in the course of a 2006 civil suit.  The stealing of her fortune was evidently so bad that the 85 year old Marshall actually was convicted of crimes a couple of months ago after a 5 month long trial and now faces sentencing next week, along with an estate lawyer who was likewise convicted of shenanigans associated with Mrs. Astor's fortune.  The case is rather intriguing given the fact that celebrities such as Whoopi Goldberg and Al Roker have come to his defense and pleaded for leniency from the sentencing judge.  Only time will tell whether he actually receives it, as there were tales told at trial of Papa Marshall engaging in gamesmanship with respect to Mrs. Astor's will so as to benefit him over her favorite charities, stealing her artwork, and giving himself a million dollar raise for his efforts in managing her wealth. 

As a lawyer who has previously worked on many white collar criminal defense matters, I speak from some experience in stating that white collar crime is pretty rarely prosecuted.  The public seems to be more taken aback by crimes of drugs, sex, and violence, and therefore the politicians and the strapped resources of governmental officials are largely dedicated to prosecuting those types of crimes.  White collar crimes are also typically complex, document-intensive, and often go uncovered much less unprosecuted. 

The Astor/Marshall case, however, is one instance in which the facts and circumstances can occasionally be so bad that they warrant more than a civil suit and instead the intervention of criminal investigators.  I do not know why, for instance, stealing $100,000 from a relative by altering some documents is any less of a prosecutable crime than stealing a carton of cigarettes from a convenience store, but for some reason it seems like the latter is much more likely to receive the attention of the law enforcement authorities.  In any event, the Astor/Marshall case contains lessons for lawyers and wealthy individuals alike in ensuring that the estate planning and trust administration processes are as free of hanky-panky as possible. 

UPDATED:  According to msnbc.com, Phillip Marshall was sentenced to 1-3 years in prison, although he may be able to stay out of prison on bail pending appeal.  According to the New York Times, Mr. Marshall's lawyer apparently received the same sentence.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Affirms Trial Court's Ruling In Will Contest

Earlier this month the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled in an appeal from the Crawford County Circuit Court that the trial judge did not err in denying a motion to dismiss and finding that the statutory formalities for execution of a will had been satisfied.  Specifically, in Baxter v. Peters, No. CA 09-594, a dispute arose between the executor of the grandmother's estate and the grandchildren.  The grandmother apparently left nominal gifts of money to the grandchildren and the bulk of her estate to the National Cemetery in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  Presumably the grandchildren were hoping for a larger inheritance if the will in question was not deemed to be valid, and in any event a will contest followed.

At trial the probate court heard conflicting testimony on the issue of whether the will was witnessed with the appropriate number of witnesses (the parties did appear to stipulate that the will in question was in fact signed by the grandmother).  Questions had been raised since the attorney who prepared the will had apparently been in the habit of sometimes not calling in all of the witnesses when the will was being signed (the attorney's own son, for example, evidently testified that he practiced law with his father for a few years and that occasionally witnesses would sign wills outside the presence of the testator).  Ultimately however, the trial court concluded that the signing of the will had been proven according to the statutory formalities. 

While the case is not groundbreaking in the sense that it creates a new rule of law, it is nevertheless instructive because it serves as a careful reminder that testators and their attorneys should be extra careful to ensure that all of the prerequisites for signing a will have been followed (e.g., the will should be in writing, actually signed in front of witnesses, and witnesses should also sign in front of the testator and at their request, etc.).  The fact is that circumstances surrounding the signing of wills and trusts can often be suspect, and those who get sloppy about complying with the statutory requirements are proceeding at their peril as---many years later---estate, trust and probate litigation can ensue long after their deaths.