Families Of Deceased Celebrities Have Wealth Wars Too

Rich celebrities---who one might assume would have sophisticated, ironclad estate planning documents in place to avoid estate disputes and facilitate post-death transfers of assets to their desired beneficiaries---are not immune from wealth wars.  Rather, even the families of famous musicians, actors, etc. occasionally engage in years-long battles over their deceased loved one’s money and property.  For example, below are 8 randomly-selected celebrity inheritance disputes:

1.  Prince:  The purple-loving musician died without a will in 2016, leaving 6 half-siblings but no spouse or living children.  A 6-year long legal battle, apparently with thousands of Court filings, resulted among his heirs (ultimately settling) over his $156 million estate because they could not agree how to manage the estate moving forward.

2.  Stan Lee:  After the Marvel Comic Books co-creator's death in 2018, his daughter J.C. Lee and other parties engaged in a 4-year battle over his estate, worth around $50 million.  She was accused of intellectual property theft and elder abuse, while Stan’s former business partners were accused of exploiting him for financial gain.

3.  Aretha Franklin:  After the legendary singer's death in 2018, she left an estate estimated to be worth about $80 million.  In the months that followed her death, numerous wills were discovered---some of them handwritten, some of them found under couch cushions, and all of them contradictory in parts---which resulted in confusion and years of litigation over who her intended beneficiaries really were. 

4.  James Brown:  The iconic singer's estate was involved in a 15-year long legal battle after his death in 2006.  He left a will naming numerous beneficiaries---including children, grandchildren, and charities---but various other claims were made by other alleged children and relatives leading to multiple lawsuits that were ultimately resolved in 2021.

5.  Whitney Houston:  After the acclaimed singer's death in 2012, her daughter, Bobbi Kristina Brown, inherited her estate and was her sole beneficiary according to a 1993 will.  However, Bobbi Kristina died in 2015, just 3 years after Whitney, resulting in a legal dispute among multiple people scrambling over who would inherit the assets:  Bobbi Kristina’s father (bad boy Bobby Brown); her maternal grandmother, Cissy Houston; Whitney’s brothers; and even Bobbi Kristina’s boyfriend at the time, Nick Gordon (later found civilly liable for her death in 2016, and in turn he later died of a drug overdose in 2020).

6.  Michael Jackson:  After the singer's untimely death in 2009, his estate became involved in multiple legal battles, including disputes between his family and the estate's executors over control of his assets (estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars at a minimum) and a lawsuit filed by Quincy Jones for unpaid producer royalties.  His mother and 3 children were the beneficiaries of his estate, and the primary dispute was one in which his will was alleged to be fraudulent and not properly executed, claims ultimately rejected by the Courts.

7.  Robin Williams:  Following the actor's 2014 death from suicide, his widowed 3rd wife and his children from previous marriages were involved in a legal dispute over the interpretation of his estate planning documents.  The case ultimately settled, with both sides accusing the other of “greed,” and is a Hollywood example of one of the most common scenarios in estate and trust litigation, i.e., the children of the deceased locking horns with a subsequent spouse of the deceased. 

8.  Philip Seymour Hoffman:  After the actor's death in 2014 from a drug overdose, his estate was embroiled in legal battles involving will contests and disputes over the rights of his estate.  While understandably not wanting to leave behind “trust fund kids” without incentive to work, he left a will naming his girlfriend as sole beneficiary of his estate, trusting that she would purportedly provide for his children.  He also failed to have sound estate planning in place, subjecting his assets to millions of dollars of otherwise avoidable taxes.

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, House, Swann & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Mediation As An Option In---Or As An Alternative To---Litigation In Estate, Trust And Inheritance Disputes

          Estate, trust, and inheritance litigation can be a complex process.  Family members are often involved in these disputes, and they may have strong emotions and conflicting interests.  Resolving these “wealth wars” can be challenging, and traditional court proceedings may not always be the best solution.

          Mediation has become an increasingly popular alternative for resolving disputes in these and all types of litigated matters, and here are few reasons why:

1.     Mediation is cost-effective

          Traditional court proceedings can be very expensive.  Mediation is often a more cost-effective solution.  Mediation can be completed faster, and the cost is far lower than full-blown litigation.  By avoiding lengthy court battles, and the discovery process leading up to trial, costs can be kept to a relative minimum.

2.     Mediation is less adversarial

          Inheritance disputes are uniquely emotionally-charged.  Litigation itself is inherently stressful and adversarial, which can further exacerbate emotions.  Mediation is far less adversarial, and it allows parties to work together to find a resolution that meets everyone's needs.

          This less adversarial approach can help reduce tensions, ease the overall dispute resolution process, and result in a win-win solution.  However, mediation requires everyone working in good faith to find a solution, and if one or more parties do not share that aim or are not invested in the process, then mediation will probably fail.

3.     Mediation is confidential

          The court process is generally public, and court documents are often available to the public over the Internet.  However, mediation is confidential, and the details can be kept private.  This can be an important consideration for families who wish to keep their disputes, or assets, confidential.

4.     Mediation is flexible

          Mediation is flexible, and the process can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the parties.  This flexibility allows for more creativity in finding a solution that works for everyone.  Mediation also allows for more informal discussions, which can help parties communicate more freely and come to an agreement that works best for everyone.

5.     Mediation is faster

          The court system can be notoriously slow, and litigation can take many months or even years to conclude.  Mediation is generally faster, and can typically be scheduled and completed in a matter of weeks or months.  This expedited process can reduce the amount of time and stress involved in the dispute resolution process.

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, House, Swann & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Estate And Trust Litigation’s Resemblance To Family Law: “Divorces On Steroids”

Estate and trust litigation, and family law, may seem like two distinct areas of law, but in truth they share some significant similarities and parallels---perhaps that is why at least 75% of my clients and cases fall in these two legal fields.  Separate and distinct from the basic fact that they often involve family members fighting about money and property, below are a few key areas where the two areas overlap:

1.     Emotional Complexity

Both family law, and estate and trust litigation, frequently involve complex and emotionally-charged situations.  In family law, for instance, divorce, child custody, and child or spousal support issues can provoke strong feelings from all parties involved.  In estate and trust litigation, family members may likewise have passionate emotions when dealing with the death of a loved one or the distribution of an inheritance.  

Probably the two most common scenarios that I see in estate and trust litigation are (a) sibling disputes between brothers and sisters and (b) a deceased person’s children of the first marriage having disagreements with a subsequent spouse of the deceased person.  In both areas of law, it is important to understand the emotional complexity of the situation and work to find solutions that are fair and practical.

2.     Mediation And Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are increasingly popular methods for resolving conflicts in both family law and estate and trust litigation.  Mediation can help parties come to a mutually beneficial agreement without the need for a lengthy court battle.  In both areas of law, mediation and arbitration (submission of a dispute to a private party who resolves the dispute by making a binding decision) can sometimes be faster, less expensive, and less adversarial than traditional litigation.

3.     Legal Documentation

Both family law, and estate and trust litigation, often involve detailed documents and disputes that result from interpretation or violation of the terms of those documents.  In family law, this may include documents such as prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements, custody agreements, and divorce settlements.  In estate and trust litigation, such documents may include wills, trusts, and powers of attorney.

4.     Family Dynamics

In both family law, and estate and trust litigation, it is important to understand family dynamics and how they may impact legal proceedings.  In family law, the relationships between parties (certainly divorcing parties, but often children or grandparents as well) may be strained or contentious, which can make communication and cooperation very challenging.  In estate and trust litigation, the distribution of money and property may lead to tension among family members who have different ideas about how assets should be distributed or what the deceased person truly intended.  Occasionally the disputes are not even really about the money and property, but rather about jealousy or unresolved grudges and arguments going back years or decades.

5.     Advocacy

Family law, and estate and trust litigation, require skilled advocates to help parties navigate the courts and find fair solutions.  Occasionally there is no settlement between the parties and a third party (judge, jury, arbitrator, etc.) must become involved to conclusively resolve the dispute for them, which can be both risky and expensive.

Regardless, attorneys in both areas of law must understand the complex nuances of the law and be able to effectively communicate with clients and other parties involved in the case. They must also be able to advocate for their clients and help them achieve their desired outcomes while keeping in mind the emotional complexity and family dynamics involved.

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, House, Swann & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

"Are Millions Missing? Some Relatives Want To Know. Others Don't."

            One of the premises of this Blog is that estate and trust disputes will become more common over the coming years and decades, in large part due to the graying of America given the large baby boomer generation actively retiring, the fact that people are living longer and many of them will develop dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease, and because we are in the midst of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in human history.  Accordingly, there will be increasingly more attention given to this subject. 

            A recent example of that is a New York Times article entitled “Are Millions Missing?  Some Relatives Want To Know.  Others Don’t” that features our law firm’s clients, Virginia and Curt Noel, and their years-long struggle to discover the truth surrounding their family’s wealth. We were privileged to represent Virginia and Curt in multiple legal proceedings both in federal court and state court, as they sought to unravel the mysterious and unfortunate events that surrounded the whereabouts of the assets left by Virginia’s mother, Rose McKee, and father, Dr. Bobby McKee, a prominent Jonesboro, Arkansas ophthalmologist and entrepreneur.  

            As the article states, between our law firm, our co-counsel, Asa Hutchinson, III, other law firms across the country, and a myriad of other financial experts and other consultants, the Noels have spent over a million dollars pursuing their investigation and litigation through the courts.  Most people are not blessed with the Noels’ resources to pursue such matters for the years which it has taken, but for them it was never about the money but was rather about the truth.  Their quest continues and can be followed at www.misplacedtrust.com. 

            I encourage you to read the New York Times article and then consider whether or not you might have a similar experience with regard to your wealth or your family.  If you are the potential beneficiary of a will or trust it pays to be diligent about your rights and be attentive to other beneficiaries and fiduciaries who may be less than diligent, attentive, or transparent.  If you are an executor or a trustee, this story is a good reminder that you must be attentive to your fiduciary obligations, mindful of the estate planning documents, and cognizant of your duties and obligations under the pertinent law. 

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, House, Downing & Lueken, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Avoiding Estate, Trust, Probate & Inheritance Litigation?

As one who largely makes his living assisting fiduciaries and beneficiaries in disputes arising out of the contested disposition of a deceased person's money and property, it is probably not in my personal economic interest to dispense advice on how to avoid estate, trust, probate & inheritance litigation.  After all, such litigation is how I pay the bills and put food on the table.

However, first and foremost as an attorney I am in the business of trying to help people with their legal problems.  I am therefore reminded of what President Abraham Lincoln, a former lawyer himself, once said:  "Discourage litigation.  Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.  Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time.  As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man.  There will still be business enough."

With that admonition in mind, in researching an issue lately I came across the following linked article written by a Texas lawyer and published a few years ago by the American Bar Association:  "A Message To Clients:  Avoiding Probate Court Litigation."   It contains a good summary of situations which are susceptible to these types of disputes (dysfunctional families, subsequent marriages, sloppy or stale estate planning,  etc.).  It also includes solid suggestions for proactively preventing such disputes from arising in the first place.  

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Understanding Estate, Trust, Probate And Inheritance Litigation In Terms Of "Pie"

I love pie, and it's probably my favorite type of dessert.  I have fond childhood memories of my Grandmother making fantastic butterscotch meringue pies whenever we would travel to her house back when I grew up in Oklahoma.  Every Fall I look forward to eating pecan pie, and I can cook a pretty good one using a recipe and method that I read about in Southern Living magazine many years ago.  In my opinion, cakes, cookies and other desserts pale in comparison to a big slice of pie accompanied by a big scoop of Blue Bell ice cream (or Arkansas-based Yarnell's).  

That said, I find that when talking to clients it is often helpful to explain estate, trust, probate and inheritance litigation and disputes  in terms of "pie."  For example, sometimes the question is "who gets a piece of the pie?"  There could be a conflict   about who the beneficiaries are in a will or trust.  Or, if there was not a will or trust a Court could need to determine who the deceased's heirs are for purposes of intestate succession.  If a will or trust sought to exclude someone and they challenge it, the enforcement or non-enforcement of that term could dictate whether or not they get a piece of the pie at all.

Sometimes the issue revolves around "how big a slice does everyone get?"  For example, a will or trust often leaves different types or percentages of property to different people or entities.  In an intestate estate where the deceased did not leave a will or trust (or perhaps those documents were found to be invalid), one's status as a surviving spouse, surviving child, surviving parent, surviving sibling, surviving grandchild, etc. will determine the size and extent of one's piece of the pie.

Other times the question involves "what is even in the pie?"  What I mean by  that is that property formally conveyed to a trust should pass through the trust, but property not conveyed to that trust will pass outside the trust (typically through the estate).  Likewise, whether or not an estate is formally opened or a trust even exists, some property can automatically pass by beneficiary designations (IRA's, life insurance, etc.) or operation of law (transfer on death accounts, joint tenants with right of   survivorship accounts, etc.) instead of passing to or through a trust, estate, etc.  

Finally, occasionally the concern focuses upon "whether anyone ate some (or all) of the pie before it got sliced  up?"  In other words, if there was a misappropriation of monies or assets the dispute may necessarily be primarily concerned with (1) attempting to investigate, locate and recover the missing property, and (2) holding whomever took it civilly or criminally responsible, if appropriate.  

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Presentation At The 2016 Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting

Today one of my law partners, Pat James, and I will be privileged to make a presentation at the Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where over 1,200 lawyers and judges congregate every June for 4 days of continuing education seminars,  meetings, and socializing.   The title of our presentation is---not surprisingly given that you are reading this blog---"WEALTH WARS:   Arkansas  Estate, Trust, Probate And Inheritance Litigation."

The hour-long presentation is designed to be a broad overview, for the general practitioner, of numerous topics arising in this area of law.   For an A to Z listing of the topics to be discussed, inclusive of some written materials containing a checklist of common claims and causes of action; a checklist of common defenses; an exemplary case theme (the “fraud triangle”); a lengthy list of Arkansas statutes frequently arising in litigated estate and trust matters; and citations to a few helpful general and Arkansas-specific secondary materials,  please click on the following link:    Written Materials For June 2016 CLE Presentation 

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Brief Thoughts On Claims Of Undue Influence

As stated in my previous post regarding the capacity of a testator to execute a will or trust, the two concepts are closely related.  For example, incapacity relates to invalidation of a will, trust, deed, etc. because of the testator’s own deficiencies (typically mental impairment).  Undue influence, however, is when the will, trust, deed, etc. may be invalidated by the actions of others because they allegedly exercised such a degree of influence and power over the testator thatthey were induced to act by something other than free will.

As a general matter, the less testamentary capacity that one possesses, the less proof of undue influence will be necessary.  A presumption of undue influence may be triggered by a confidential relationship between the testator and someone who is receiving a benefit from the document, such that the burden of proof can shift to the proponent of the document to prove that there has in fact been no undue influence.  Unless there is “procurement” involved, in Arkansas the proponent merely has the burden of proving no undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not, as opposed to a higher standard such as beyond a reasonable doubt).

Obviously influence is ever-present and we are constantly influencing others to take certain actions.  This is especially true in the context of family and other close relationships.  However, mere influence doesn’t necessarily equate to taking advantage of someone.

Accordingly, while a testator may be legitimately influenced by his children, for example, the influence may go too far if the kids dictate or control the testator.  Likewise, the mere existence of a confidential relationship between the testator and the beneficiary, or a close and affectionate relationship, may not in and of itself constitute undue influence although it can in some instances have the effect of shifting the burden of proof.

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Brief Thoughts On Claims Of Incapacity

People often question whether a deceased person was mentally capable of executing or changing a will or trust.  Perhaps the person was suffering from dementia at the time.  The legal question involved in these situations is typically whether the decedent had the requisite “testamentary capacity.”  Testamentary capacity has generally been deemed to mean sufficient mental ability to (1) understand and remember, without prompting, the extent and condition of the testator’s property; (2) understand the “natural objects of their bounty;” and (3) understand to whom the property is being given and on what terms. 

Testamentary capacity is not a particularly high state of mental capacity, but it can be rebutted in some instances by evidence of Alzheimer’s Disease, severe forms of dementia, severe illness, intoxication, etc.  These conditions need to have actually existed at the time of execution of the instrument in question.  For example, the mere fact that mild dementia is diagnosed years before the execution of the instrument does not necessarily mean that the testator lacked capacity when they executed their will or trust, because even a lucid interval of capacity (and people suffering from dementia often have “good days” and “bad days”) can be deemed sufficient.    

Capacity issues are very fact-intensive determinations, and lack of capacity is often pretty difficult to prove.  This is why capacity claims are often coupled with “undue influence” claims, which are often related, frequently alleged in the addition or in the alternative, and sometimes easier to prove.  Undue influence will be discussed in my next post. 

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Demographic Trends Suggest More Estate, Trust And Probate Litigation In The Decades To Come

I have long been interested in demographic trends, emerging technologies, cultural changes, and shifting societal patterns.  For example, 20+ years ago when I was in college I read Alvin and Heidi Toffler's  "War And Anti-War," which while a bit dated now predicts how future wars will be fought (but with an eye toward peace and avoiding such conflicts).   Similarly, about 5 years ago I read George Friedman's "The Next 100 Years:  A Forecast For The 21st Century,"  which was an eye-opening look at how our  nation and world may likely look in the years and decades to come.  I highly recommend either book for some fascinating reading, and it will be interesting to someday see how accurate or inaccurate their predictions were.

 Then,  a couple weeks ago I came across a very interesting article by a Georgia attorney named John J. Scroggin, in Wealth Strategies Journal,  which focused in particular upon 30 positive and negative trends that will impact estate planning over the next several decades:  "Where Is The Estate Planning Profession Going?"    While I focus much of my law practice upon estate, trust and probate litigation---as opposed to estate planning and drafting of wills, trusts, and the like---the article still addressed my areas of interest and I thought I would share a couple excerpts here.  Better yet, lawyers and laypersons   should take the time to read the entire article  which not only encompasses great analysis but also contains good references to other articles, checklists, outlines, etc.

               For example, with regard to estate and trust litigation in general Mr. Scroggin opines that:

               "(9) Estate and Trust Litigation. As a result of the combination of poorly drafted  documents, dysfunctional families, incompetent fiduciaries, greedy heirs, inadequate  planning and poorly prepared fiduciaries, estate litigation has been booming in the last  few decades. This growth will continue.

               One consequence of the increased litigation will be an increased effort by both individual and institutional fiduciaries to make sure estate and trust instruments provide for strong  fiduciary protection. We should anticipate more protective provisions in fiduciary  instruments, including broader indemnity provisions for fiduciaries, modifications of the  normal fiduciary standards and investment polices, broader use of no contest clauses,  limited liability for delegated powers and limits (or increases) on disclosures to  beneficiaries. These changes will increase the need to create counter-balancing powers  designed to protect beneficiaries (e.g., a wider use of Trust Protectors and fiduciary  removal powers). As a result, there will be longer discussions with clients and the  complexity of the documents will increase."

               Related to the foregoing are Mr. Scroggin's thoughts on avoiding estate and trust litigation altogether, through conflict minimization:

               "(10) Conflict Minimization. The corollary to estate and trust litigation is planning  designed to mitigate the potential sources of intra-family estate conflicts. According to  the Wealth Counsel 6th Annual Industry Trends Survey, the top motivation for doing  estate planning was to avoid the chaos and conflict among the client’s heirs. Many clients  have an abiding desire to establish structures which minimize the potential points of  conflict and provide a mechanism to resolve future family conflicts. Clients want to  dispose of assets in a manner designed to minimize family conflict - leaving a legacy of  relationships rather than a legacy of conflict. This is a growing part of the discussion with  clients and a part of their planning documents. Solutions include using personal property  disposition lists, looking at real or perceived conflicts of interest when appointing  fiduciaries, or passing the family business only to the children running the business. As  noted above, attorneys will need to spend more time talking with clients about providing  greater protections to fiduciaries and creating counterbalancing protections for heirs.

 Many individual fiduciaries agree to serve without fully understanding the potential  liabilities and conflict they may be inserting themselves into. Should attorneys provide written materials (perhaps signed by the client and the fiduciary) detailing the  responsibility of the fiduciary, the risk of conflict and the means by which the drafter has  tried to minimize those exposures? Should attorneys more thoroughly advise their clients  on the necessary skill   sets needed by their fiduciaries - instead of just accepting the  client's choices at face value?"

  In sum, as I have written before on this blog, American society is rapidly changing.  The Baby Boomers have begun retiring over the last many years and will continue to do so over the next 2-3 decades.  Large sums of wealth have been acquired and will be transferred to younger generations.  People are living longer, and the aging population will be less competent due to Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia which will lead to conflicts over whether a deceased person had the requisite capacity to execute a will or trust.  These and other trends strongly support the notion that there will be increasingly more estate, trust and probate litigation in the decades to come.

               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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Amendments To Wills And Trusts Can Result In As Many Or More Disputes As The Original Documents Themselves

Often estate and trust litigation revolves not around the will or trust itself, but rather changes to those instruments (a codicil to the will, an amendment to the trust, etc.).  That was the case in the recent appeal of Harbur v. O’Neal, et al., 2014 Ark. App. 119 (February 19, 2014).   The matter involved numerous issues, but one of them entailed the question of whether or not certain amendments to a trust were valid.  

Frequently the settlor of a trust has a legitimate reason for wanting to amend their trust.  Perhaps they want to change a successor trustee, remove or add a beneficiary, alter the trust’s assets, or there could be any number of other reasons why the trust may need to be amended.  However, it is important that the settlor of the trust amend their instrument with the competence to do so, of their own free will and volition, without being coerced, and without undue influence by someone else.  That was one of the disputes in the Harbur case.

Specifically, like so many cases that I handle and so many estate and trust litigation matters in general, this lawsuit involved battling siblings and children of the trust settlor.  One of the litigants, Jeanne, was found to have performed every step of obtaining information regarding a first trust amendment, she actually prepared the amendment, she produced and finalized the document, and she also benefitted from the amendment. 

The trial court held that because these facts supported a conclusion that Jeanne procured the trust amendment, a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arose and the burden of proof shifted to Jeanne to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that her mother had both the mental capacity and freedom of will at the time she executed the trust amendment.

Likewise, Jeanne also testified that she prepared a second trust amendment for her mother’s signature as well.  This amendment made Jeanne the sole beneficiary of the trust upon her mother’s death, and made Jeanne’s children sole beneficiaries of the trust if Jeanne did not survive her mother. 

Similar to the reasons stated for finding procurement with regard to the first trust amendment, the trial court also found that Jeanne had procured the second amendment.  The appellate court affirmed these rulings holding that there was overwhelming evidence of procurement, including but not limited to Jeanne’s own testimony.

A number of lessons can be learned from this case.  For example, this appeal demonstrates that the settlor’s intent should control and they should be able to dispose of their property as they wish, without coercion or undue influence from anyone.  If and when they do want to amend the trust, they either need to do it by themselves or preferably with the assistance of a trusted attorney who is acting solely in their interest and whom is independent from the beneficiaries. 

Further, a beneficiary should consider not preparing the trust amendment, even at the request of a settlor, because that beneficiary may be risking the validity of the very amendment from which they would benefit if someone attempts to set aside the trust amendment based upon procurement, undue influence, coercion, and the like.

In sum, amendments to wills and trusts are fertile ground for estate and trust litigation because frequently the changes are executed many years after the original documents are signed.  Amendments can, in a very short and sweeping document, fundamentally change the intent of the original estate planning documents and the assets disposed of by those documents.  Such amendments are sometimes signed in haste or at a point in the deceased person’s life when they may not fully understand or appreciate the nature of what they are doing (assuming the settlor signed the amendment(s) at all). 

With the stroke of a pen, millions of dollars and valuable real or personal property can be inherited by or administered by persons other than those initially envisioned by the original instruments.  For these reasons, as much or even more care should go into the preparation and execution of the amendments as go into the original versions.  Similarly, as much or more scrutiny should be paid to the preparation and execution of these amendments as was paid to the initial documents.

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Managing Someone Else's Money

 Estate, trust, power of attorney and probate disputes often develop due to disagreements over the manner in which someone managed another person's money. For example, the beneficiaries of a will might disagree with the executor's claim for fees related to administration of an estate.  Co-trustees might differ as to the best investments for maximizing the income and assets of a trust.  Two children might question the propriety of their third sibling's withdrawals of money from their mother's bank account, pursuant to a financial power of attorney that the mother apparently executed at some point in the past.

 To provide guidance in these situations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recently released 4 booklets entitled "Managing Someone Else's Money" which are intended for such persons as trustees, agents under powers of attorney, court-appointed guardians, and government fiduciaries.  Not only do they assist those who are honestly and legitimately attempting to assist in the management of money or property for a loved one, they also provide information on warning signs and things to look for when someone else is doing the managing of that person's finances.

 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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Apparent End To The Huguette Clark $300 Million Estate Battle

In a middle-of-the-night deal during jury selection of a New York trial, it appears that a settlement has been reached in the infamous Huguette Clark estate dispute.  You can read all about it at this link.  I had written about this over 3 years ago back in August 2010 at this link.  This litigation serves as a very interesting case study in undue influence allegations and other issues commonly associated with estate and trust disputes.  A more comprehensive overview of the stories, videos, and other coverage of this saga can be found at this link.          

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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Affirms Agreement To Split Joint Accounts Despite Beneficiary Designations

 There is often confusion regarding what property falls within an estate, or trust, and what property falls outside of either.  For example, commonly bank accounts, IRA’s, etc., are titled in such a way that upon one person’s death, the remaining monies are left to the other person or person(s) identified on the account paperwork such that this property passes outside the estate or trust.  It can often be a difficult task to demonstrate that this money should be divided in a different manner.

 However, the Arkansas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that this was what was supposed to occur, in the case of Richardson v. Brown, 2012 Ark. App. 535 (September 26, 2012) stemming from Faulkner County Circuit Court.  This was actually a case that I handled on behalf of a client, and the Judge ruled in his favor.  The ruling was left wholly intact by the appellate court.

Without going into too much detail, the parties' mother passed away leaving three children as her heirs.  Certain property passed to the children pursuant to a will, but the mother had other property (a car, bank accounts, IRA, etc.) that were titled in various ways as between her and her individual children.  Our client argued that despite the titling on the various property, the three children had in fact an oral agreement, as demonstrated by the later actions and conduct of the children, to split all of the properties evenly.  He had received the “short end of the stick” and, basically, believed that his sisters had intentionally deprived him of his equal one-third share.

 In a hard fought battle, our client ultimately prevailed at trial and proved that, notwithstanding the titling on the various properties, there was an express agreement among the siblings to equally divide the various accounts.  The trial court imposed a judgment and a substantial attorneys’ fee award, both of which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

 In doing so, among other things the Court ruled that ordinarily ownership of a joint bank account with a right of survivorship is conclusive proof of the parties’ intent for the property to pass to the survivor.  However, this general rule does not prevent the survivor from making a different disposition by agreement, and in this case the trial court determined that such an agreement had in fact been made among the siblings.  This is a difficult argument to make, because courts presume that the titling on an account is strong evidence of how that property is to be distributed.  But, if the facts and evidence warrant it, this case demonstrates that a court will sometimes hold that an agreement to divide the property otherwise will prevail over the titling of an account.

 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, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

"Murder, Fraud, $2.2 Million Somewhere"

This week's issue of the Arkansas Times  contains a sad but fascinating story written by Mara Leveritt, who is well-known for her writing about so-called "true crime," including but not limited to her book about the West Memphis Three, Devil's Knot.  Specifically, Ms. Leveritt tells the tale of an older gentleman living in Washington state whose trust assets were swindled by a love interest with Arkansas ties, and how the gentleman's son has relentlessly pursued bringing the woman to justice and recovering the monies in question.  The story also contains a link to the family's own website detailing the ordeal, the criminal case, and the civil lawsuits stemming from the fraud.  Interesting reading. 

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, House & Downing, 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.

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.