As a follow-up to my recent post, an article in the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, December 24 states that on the previous day, a New York City judge suspended Ms. Clark’s longtime attorney and accountant as the executors of her estate.

Under the ruling, the two are permitted to reapply to the court for reinstatement, but the reporter writes that it will be difficult as the public administrator contending that they bilked Ms. Clark, lied to the Internal Revenue Service, and permitted Ms. Clark to make gifts that she might not have made under other circumstances.

Relatives of Ms. Clark are challenging her last will which was done six week after she had executed another will. The previous will gave the vast majority of her estate to distant relatives. The last will directed that her Santa Barbara Mansion be turned into a museum housing her art collection and left $50 million to her longtime nurse.

These cases are always difficult as Ms. Clark’s feelings probably changed frequently. The last will may be found to be valid; invalid; or a compromise may be negotiated.

A few months ago I wrote about Huguette Clark, the 104 year old heiress who died in May 2011. It turns out that she left the bulk of her $400 million estate to a museum that will be created in her 21,000 square foot home in Santa Barbara.

Ms. Clark was the youngest of 7 children of William Andrews Clark who at one time was the second richest man in the USA. Her father died in 1925 when she was 19 and in 1928 she entered into what would be a two year marriage.

She inherited $60 million or so from her father. In 2011 dollars that would be approximately $1 billion so she obviously did not manage her money particularly well. From 1988 until her death this year, she lived in various hospital rooms because she preferred small places.

It is frequently interesting when someone without close family passes as to the distribution of their estate. I work with many people to assist them in crafting their estate plan. Many do wish to leave people who provide care to them with a part of their estate. Sometimes it is a rather significant portion. Ms. Clark, provided her nurse, Hadassah Peri over $30 million dollars. Ms. Peri was originally sent to Ms. Clark by an agency 20 years ago. Over the years, she was treated very well by Ms. Clark.

In some instances a caregiver takes advantage of the person they are providing care to. However, sometimes it appears that way, but really the “patient” comes to see the caregiver as a very good friend and would like to benefit that person.

It seems clear from what I have read in this situation that Ms. Clark did not have anyone that she was closer to than Ms. Peri. Ms. Peri was in the right place at the right time when she got the assignment from the agency!

Growing up, one of my favorite shows was Colombo. I remember looking forward to the various mysteries that were on that night and of them all, Columbo was my favorite.

A large percentage of my clients are in “blended” situations. It may be that both spouses had lost their previous spouse; it might be that both had divorced their previous spouse; or it might be a different combination. In any event, frequently at least one of the spouses has a “step-child.”

Sometimes the relationship between step-child and step-parent is great and sometimes it is not. From an estate planning perspective, it is very important that when people have a child or children from a previous marriage or relationship, that they meet with an attorney who prepares wills and trusts to discuss in complete detail their situation.

An experienced estate planning attorney can really earn his/her fee by creating a plan that works to the satisfaction of both the current spouse and the child(ren) from the previous marriage. In the Peter Falk situation, one of his daughters had tried to become his conservator a couple of years ago and was rebuffed as the judge sided with Mr. Falk’s wife, Shera.

It has been reported that Mr. Falk did have a trust and that most of his estate was left to his wife. However, he did leave money to his two daughters from his first marriage.

Why it took nearly six months for the news to be released is a mystery. It is now known that Trouble, Leona Helmsley’s Maltese died on December 13, 2010.

In her will, Mrs. Helmsley left $12 million to be utilized on behalf of Trouble. A judge reduced the amount to $2 million at the behest of her grandchildren. The unused funds have been added to the Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust.

The Helmsley Trust has been sued by animal rights groups who contend that Helmsely wanted the money to be utilized on behalf of dogs and that the trustees were allocating just a small amount to dog causes. A lower court judge ruled against them, but last week the groups filed an appeal.

You may be wondering what happened to Trouble’s remains. It is being kept a secret.

It was only in the last couple of months that I recall having ever heard about Huguette Clark and it was in connection with an article on her estate in Santa Barbara. It came to my attention last week that she died on May 24, 2011 two weeks shy of turning 105 at the New York hospital where she had resided for the last 20 years

Her father was a United States senator and a copper king and considered the richest or second richest American when she was born in Paris. Her father was 56 when he met her mother who was then 17. They ended up marrying four years later and having children. Huguette was the second daughter and she outlived her six brothers and sisters. She grew up in a 121-room mansion in Manhattan; was educated at Miss Spence’s School for Girls; and took extended vacations in France.

Her dad acquired a Santa Barbara estate called Bellosguardo when she was a teenager. She continued to own and maintain it throughout her life despite not having been on the property in at least 50 years. She was married once for two years in her early to mid-20s and never had children.

Few know how her estate planning documents read and those that do know are not talking publicly. When she left her Fifth Avenue co-op in an ambulance in 1988, she moved to Mount Sinai Medical Center.

The Wikipedia entry indicates that she “developed a distrust of outsiders, including her family, because she thought they were after her money.”

Recently distant relatives attempted to have a guardian assigned to her. A New York judge denied their request.

While she seemed to live the way she wanted, her story does teach us that having all the money in the world does not necessarily mean that someone will live life the way we think we would if we had that much money.

As an estate planning attorney, I look forward to learning more about her will and any trusts that she set up.

I read recently an online article that tells the story of the Wellington Burt. Burt made a lot of money in the lumber and iron industries and died in 1919. His will provided the bulk of his fortune was to be distributed through a trust 21 years after his last grandchild’s death.

Since his last grandchild died in 1989, more than 21 years have passed and therefore the estate is ready to be completely distributed. Burt had left one child $30,000 annually and the rest of his children between $1,000 and $5,000 annually. He also left his secretary $4,000 annually and other personal employees $1,000 per year.

There were attempts to break the trust in court by his relatives. Those attempts centered around arguing that he was not of sound mind when he executed his estate planning documents. They were unsuccessful.

Now 12 heirs are splitting the $100 to $110 million. The final probate judge, Patrick McGraw, told ABC’s WJRT he thinks “he was kind of a wise old man, kind of foxy. And really, I think knew what he was doing in the long run.”

While I have clients that provide for their grandchildren and great grandchildren, I have never drafted either a will or a living trust that essentially excluded both children and grandchildren. Interesting man!

Over the last twenty years, I have assisted thousands of families in planning the distribution of their estates through the use of living trusts and other estate planning tools. I have also administered or assisted on the administration of many estates. Moreover, I have served as the probate attorney for many estates.

I strive to work with my clients to ensure that what they have worked a lifetime to attain is not “wasted” quickly after their deaths. I have read studies that claim that states that 70% of heirs will lose their inheritance.

Matriarchs and patriarchs should think about holding family meetings when appropriate to explain the finances. Heirs need to know that they should engage financial planners or trust advisors to assist them with managing their inheritance. Estate planning attorneys should counsel their clients based upon their individual families. Among the factors to consider include amount of money each heir will be inheriting; each heirs individual situation; potential for divorce; potential for creditors; each heir’s spending habits.

Lawyers who spend a significant amount of time in estate planning are likely to be able to craft an estate plan for their clients that not avoids probate, but creates a plan for the transfer of the estate that is both orderly and successful in the sense that the inheritance is not wasted.

Two things are inevitable, or so the saying goes, death and taxes. Elizabeth Taylor passed on March 23, 2011 at Cedar-Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. She was probably the first actress that I ever knew the name of as my parents spoke about her frequently while I was growing up. I could not have told you that she won two Oscars (“Butterfield 8” and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf”), but I did know that she had more than her share of husbands!

Ms. Taylor had a trust known as The Elizabeth Taylor Trust which she signed on June 23, 1998. The reason that I know this is that two days after her death, on March 25, the attorney for her trustees filed a notice to creditors in the probate department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. It is a court with which I am very familiar. One of the purposes of filing the notice to creditors is to begin the running of the statute of limitations.

As of now, it appears that the distribution of Ms. Taylor’s estate is not going to be as “public” as that of many of our other celebrities. She appears to have planned and to have utilized a living trust correctly.

Having stayed in at least 5 of his hotels, I have read with interest what has been occurring with regard to John Q. Hammons recently in Greene County Missouri.

John Q. Hammons’ has an estimated net worth of over $1 billion. His company owns approximately 200 hotels and he is involved in many real estate ventures. He is 92 years old and his wife suffers from Alzheimer’s Disease. He does not have any children. In 2008 he executed a power of attorney granting Jacqueline Dowdy, his one time administrative assistant, said power.

Recently some leaders in Springfield, Missouri have petitioned the probate court to put Mr. Hammons’ health care decisions in the hands of the public administrator for Greene County. They are alleging that Ms. Dowdy is keeping him involuntarily secluded and that his treatment needs to be evaluated.

In California, including Los Angeles County, there are systems in place to provide assistance and information to the judge so that the judge can make his/her decision fully informed. I believe that ultimately the judge in Greene County will have plenty of information. For now the judge has sealed the court file.

This is another example of why people need to be proactive with their estate planning including their living trust and will and see a lawyer. I know very little about how and why he executed the power of attorney. Maybe Mr. Hammons for many years has wanted Ms. Dowdy to be in control. It likely would have been better had he signed estate planning documents years before.

Stanley Ho is a billionaire many times over. He held a casino monopoly for four decades in Macau. Macau is the only Chinese territory where casino gambling is legal. It was only in 2002 that other companies were allowed to operate. Today it does more volume than the Las Vegas strip. Mr. Ho’s company holds about 30% of the market which is expected to be $24 billion dollars this year

Mr. Ho is 89 years old and the father of at least 17 children by 4 women. Earlier this month, Mr. Ho indicated that he and members of his family have settled a dispute over controlling stake in his empire.

It will be interesting to see if this “settlement” is the final settlement. It is possible that Mr. Ho’s will or trust will make someone unhappy. In a family as large as Mr. Ho’s with the stakes as high as they are it is certainly possible that there will be disputes after the patriarch’s demise.

Nevertheless, the fact that the family has worked some things out while Mr. Ho is helpful and will provide a starting point in the event that probate litigation occurs.