Earl Morgan was a judge in North Platte, Nebraska.  When he died, his will provided that the majority of his estimated $3.2 million estate was to be given to a North Platte animal charity – Paws-itive Partners Humane Society.

Mr. Morgan left two children and they are contesting the will.  They have filed a pettion to set aside the informal probate of the will and they are contending that their father was susceptible to the exercise of undue influence “because of his advanced age and physical and mental condition”.  When he signed his will, the retired judge was 87 years old.

It is rare, but not unusual, for a will contest to allege that a charity utilized undue influence on a testator.  The petition says his will is void and unenforceable and should be ruled invalid.  Moreover, it seeks to remove the estate’s personal representative (a ong time attorney) and replace him with the judge’s daughter.

The next court hearing is scheduled for January 20, 2009.  If nothing else, this case points to the necessity of dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s when executing a will or a trust.  Otherwise, there is going to be probate litigation.

While many wills do not contain much in the way of details, some wills tell a lot about a person.  Some wills even shed light about what is and what is not acceptable in a given society.

In California probate courts – it really does not matter whether it is in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, or anywhere else in the state – a large percentage of probates involve either pourover wills or do not involve a Will. 

I recently came across an article on Tony Ryan’s will.  Mr. Ryan was the founder of Ryanair which is a European version of the United States’ Southwest Airlines.  His will disposed of 95 million euros (currently $135,830,000 dollars) – which was only a fraction of his wealth as the majority of it was in discretionary trusts for his children and grandchildren.   He provided 20 million euros ($28,600,000) to his estranged wife and 6 million euros  ($8,580,000)to his final lover, Martine Head.  The article makes a point of noting that none of his other well-known lovers are mentioned in his will, which was lodged last week in Dublin’s Probate Office.

Ms. Head is the daughter of a prominent horse trainer and lived with him at his estate during his illness. Prior to his relationship with Ms. Head he was also involved with other well-known women in Dublin including Lady Miranda Iveagh.

I am not sure if this was specified in his will or his trust, but his funeral service included “a fly-past by three aircraft, and a memorial at Lyons, cost over $700,000 in American dollars.

Recently I have read about two cases that have interesting fact situations that are being heard  in probate courts .  While neither of them are California cases, as a California probate attorney it is important for me to be aware of what is going on nationally.

In Florida, Jessica Kalish was stabbed to 222 times with a screwdriver by her lover, Carol Ann Burger.  Kalish and Burger owned a home in joint tenancy.  Therefore, under normal operation of law, the home became Burger’s upon Kalish’s death.  (Burger killed herself a day later).  However, Florida has what is known as a “Slayer Statute” which provides that murderers and their estates cannot inherit from the victims. 

Just this week, Wendy Hunter Roberts, a  feminist writer, therapist, and new age guru filed an action seeking part of Kalish’s estate.  Roberts claims that she had “a very close personal relationship” with Kalish and that according to her there is a will naming her as a beneficiary.  Therefore her attorney has indicated that he will file a “request for access to the property to find that will.”

As a probate lawyer based in Los Angeles, but handling cases throughout the state of California, I always explain that it is extremely important that people have their estate planning in order.  I realize it is easy to write this after the fact, but it would have been wise for Ms. Kalish to have held her interest in the property in a living trust.  In that document she would have set forth her beneficiaries.  Another option would have been to hold title to the property as tenants in common. 

The second case involves a couple in Ohio and their son.  That son was convicted of attempting to kill his adoptive parents.  Two years after that attempt, Walter and Mildred Sowell had wills prepared.  In their wills, they left $50 for their only child.  They left the remainder of their estates to the other.  Unfortunately, or not,  there was no mention of secondary heirs.

Therefore, under the laws of intestacy, the son who attempted to murder them in 1982 now appears ready to collect more than $500,000.  To his credit, the now 43 year old runs a commercial cleaning business.  Previously he was in the Navy and he also drove an 18-wheeler for 10 years.

Did his parents want him to receive everything?  We will never know.  Not just in Ohio, but probate courts in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, or Riverside Counties are not in the business of deciding what decedents should have wanted or even what they might have wanted.