Timing is everything. John Kluge died on September 7 just two weeks shy of his 96th birthday. He is at least the 5th American billionaire to die this year. In the mid 1980s for a period he was either the richest or second richest man in America.

He was an American success story of German origin. He came to the United States in 1922 and graduated from Columbia University in 1937. During the six year period between 1987 and 1993 he gave over $110 million to the University and in 2007 it was announced that upon his death the school would receive $400 million.

He made a good deal of his money in the media and specifically with the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation which he acquired in the late 1950s for six million dollars and sold in 1986 for approximately four billion dollars.

As anyone reading this knows, for billionaires 2010 is a great year to die! No estate tax. Capital gains tax will have to be paid, but that is a small price to pay. As it stands now, next year an estate over $1,000,000 will be subject to estate tax. Even if legislation is passed and signed allowing for $3,500,000 to be left estate tax free, it is a far (far) cry from the 6.5 billion Mr. Kluge is reputed to have left.

Yes there could be probate of his estate. Probate and estate taxes have little to do with each other. Probate depends on whether or not Mr. Kluge estate planning incorporated probate avoidance vehicles. More than likely it did, but even if did not, Mr.Kluge’s heirs are going to be billions of dollars ahead unless he was leaving the majority of his estate to charity.

While many are against the estate tax, it seems particularly weird the results we are seeing this year!

In a never ending quest to keep this blog current, I do a fair amount of reading about probate related issues. I generally try to write about topics that are of interest to people who are reading my blog to understand a little bit more about probate. Sometimes I come across interesting probate related matters that really do not have much to do with the probate process in California. This is one of those instances.

Recently in Arizona, an Arizona attorney might be face disciplinary action under the following fact. The attorney met her client in a ballroom dancing class and began representing him in a divorce proceeding. In the following year, her client’s wife committed suicide and she handled the probate.

Very shortly after the suicide, the attorney began telling the widower that his deceased wife had “come” to her and that her spirit was inside the attorney. Moreover, she could communicate the deceased wife’s thoughts! The widower has testified before a disciplinary proceeding that the attorney pressure him into having a sexual relationship, which she told the investigator for the Arizona Supreme Court that the references to sex were coming from the deceased wife.

I guess the lesson learned is that even some probate lawyers have their moments and the attorney client relationship sometimes veers into uncharted waters!

While there have been some great divorce cases over the years, the one involving the owner (or is it owners?) of the Dodgers is incredibly interesting. You have a very handsome couple who came to Los Angeles in 2004 and promptly started doing things their way. While not all of it was popular with the fans or the press, they were constantly in the news and became major celebrities. The central issue in their divorce is over ownership of the Dodgers.

Shortly after their move to Los Angeles they began buying homes. One or two mansions were not enough for them. They needed more. The mansions were put in Mrs. McCourt’s name and the Dodgers appear to be in Mr. McCourt’s name.

Frequently in asset protection situations, assets are placed in the name of the spouse who is least likely to be sued. When that happens, the spouse that is more likely to be sued is taking a calculated risk that in the event of divorce, he (but sometimes she) will only own the risky assets while his (or her) spouse often has the majority of assets in her (but sometimes his) name.

Mrs. McCourt is arguing that a marital property agreement that they signed was not fully explained to her or she would not have signed it. To some it sounds like she wanted her cake (the homes solely in her name) and to eat it too (now that the Dodgers are looking to be worth something).

It will be interesting to see her response when she testifies as to why she thought the homes were being put in her name only. If she wanted to share the risk equally with her husband and not care about anything than the homes could have been in both names as they are with most couples.

I am not sure of what the lesson learned here is because we as estate planning and asset protection attorneys do explain “the facts of life” to our clients. It is very interesting to me that Mrs. McCourt, who in addition to her MBA from MIT practiced law (including family law) for many years claims that she was in the dark on something as important as this.

Really the only opinion that is going to count is Judge Scott Gordon’s. I am sure that he is having a fun time!