The answer to the question is that sometimes you do not know!

I recently read that the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the estate of the widow of Jim Reeves should be reopened. Jim Reeves was a country singer who died in a plane crash in 1964. His widow died in 1999 and her will went through probate. However, a second will was found in 2005 that was more favorable to the man she was married to at her death. In fact, it named him as her sole beneficiary.

The husband filed a petition for probate with the newly found will. The administrator of the estate contended that the husband’s petition was time barred. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling denying the summary judgment because it held that there were legitimate questions as to whether the second will had been purposely hidden.

Generally, the estate planning rule is that the most recent estate planning document controls. I am of the belief that some people destroy wills that are unfavorable to them. (Fortunately in the Tennessee case, the Will was at worst hidden and not destroyed.)
It is important that testators make known to people where there most recent document(s) is/are located. It does not necessarily mean that they provide access to the will or living trust, but it does mean that they tell at least one person where to find the document.

In other words, implement a plan so that there are not problems later!

Larry Lee Hillblom was a very successful and some would say unconventional man. He was the cofounder of DHL. Prior to cofounding DHL he was a graduate of Boalt Law School at the University of California at Berkeley. At age 26, in 1969, he cofounded DHL who business purpose was to deliver shipping documents via airplane days before the ships arrived. This enabled the ships to be unloaded quickly. Later the company became an all-purpose air courier.

Hillblom died in an airplane crash in 1995 and his body was never recovered. Almost immediately his estate was contested. In 1982 he had a will prepared leaving virtually all of his assets to the University of California, San Francisco. However, upon his passing, various women alleged that he was the father of their children. Since his body was never recovered, there was no DNA to prove or disprove their claims. Moreover, his house in Saipan which might have been a source of his DNA was of no help.

Initially his family was not helpful with investigators. So investigators took a different route and compared the DNA of the children who were alleged to have been fathered by Hilblom. Ultimately, 60% of his estate was to be distributed to four qualified heirs. Therefore each air was to receive approximately $90 million.

Now nearly 15 years after his death, one of his heirs is suing the attorney who represented him for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, racketeering activity, and violations of the California Business and Professions Code.
The heir alleges that he was charged an inappropriate attorney’s fee and that while his settlement with the estate was for $90 million after all the fees he paid, he only received $12 million.

The moral of the story is that proper estate planning allows the rightful heirs and beneficiaries to receive what the descendent wanted them to receive. It is true that an individual has a duty to provide for his children until they are a majority, but after that an individual is free to do with his or her money as he or she sees fit.

In this case whether or not the heir is correct a lot of money was spent in probate litigation and probate attorneys and not benefiting who Mr. Hillblom would have preferred to have received his estate.

Many of us in California are not familiar with the name Melvin Simon. Yet most of us have been to a Mall that his company either developed or owned. Simon Property Group Inc. is thought to be the largest shopping mall owner in the United States. He also was one of the pioneers of the outlet mall concept and with his brother was the owner of the Indianapolis Pacers of the NBA. In his spare time, he had a hobby of financing movies including “Porky’s”.

As seems to happen with a lot of wealthy and/or famous people, his estate is in litigation. Approximately seven months prior to his death in September 209, he executed new estate planning documents. The new estate planning documents substantially increased his wife’s share to the detriment of his children from a previous marriage.

Mr. Simon’s eldest daughter has filed a lawsuit wherein she contends that he was under duress when he signed his will and to buttress her claims she indicates that he needed assistance to sign his name.

Mr. Simon’s previous will provided his wife with one-third of his estate; the second-third was to go to his four children (one of which was his wife’s child from a previous marriage) with the income from that one-third of the estate going to his wife for the remainder of her life; and the final third to be distributed to charity.

In February 2009, he signed a new will which increased his wife’s share to one-half of the estate. In addition, the other half would, after her death, go into charitable trusts with the children receiving the remainder interest from that half twelve to fifteen years after her death. In other words, not much to the children anytime soon!

Generally speaking when someone challenges a will (or revocable trust), he/she has the burden to prove that the person making the will (or living trust) was incompetent, unduly influenced, or subject to fraud or mistake.

Generally speaking, people are allowed to leave their estate to whom they want provided none of the above applies. The judge has already dismissed the claim for fraud by ruling that the complaint was not specific enough with regard to that allegation. The undue influence and lack of mental capacity claims were kept alive by the judge.

This will be an interesting probate case to monitor. It is one situation where whether or not there is a living trust is irrelevant.