Anna Nicole Smith is no longer alive having died in the Bahamas in 2007 at the age of 39 years old. The high school drop-out married a very wealthy man when she was age 26 and he was age 89. He died fourteen months later in 1995 and his estate has been at issue since that time. For the last three plus years it has been her estate against her husband’s estate.

Smith’s will provided that everything was to go to her son. The will also provided that in the event that she had another child, that child was not to receive anything. Her son predeceased her and she did have another child after the execution of the will.

The United States Supreme Court rarely gets involved in probate disputes and is involved in this probate case not because of the facts of the case, but rather to decide whether Smith’s estate was the recipient of a proper hearing in the federal courts, and to determine whether state probate courts are the proper venue for hearing such cases.

Anna Nicole Smith certainly was colorful in life. She did have the courage of her convictions to pursue what she believed was rightfully her as the surviving spouse of J. Howard Marshall.

Now her estate, through her attorney Howard Stern continues the fight. This probate lawyer awaits the Supreme Court’s decision.

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!

Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love’s daughter, Frances Bean Cobain, turned 18 last week. For most 18 year olds, that means that you can vote and for some it means that you can drink legally. As an estate planning attorney, it has a different relevance.

The girl who was born at Cedar’s Sinai Medical Center on August 18, 1992 was not yet 20 months old when Mr. Cobain committed suicide on April 8, 1994. As an eighteen year old, absent a will or trust to the contrary, she is deemed by the law an adult and old enough to control her inheritance. In 2006, Forbes magazine indicated that Mr. Cobain’s estate earned $55 million – number one for that years amongst dead celebrities.

In articles I have read, there has been mention of a trust that was created on Frances Bean’s behalf in 1997. However, the specifics of the trust are not discussed. Normally, it would be difficult to accomplish the creating of a trust on her behalf that last’s past her 18th birthday out of proceeds from an estate that were not provided for in a will or trust.

In any event there are two takeaways from this blog post: 1. Ms. Cobain has more money than virtually any other 18 year old; and 2. it is essential to plan for your children so that they are not in a position of having control over their inheritance when they do not have the life experience to make the correct decisions and may end up investing with the wrong people.

Ms. Cobain will be fine. What about the child inheriting $500,000 at age 18 and receiving nothing more? Plan with an estate planning lawyer. Think things through!

The interesting thing about probate litigation is that often a lot of the family dirty laundry comes out for the world to see. This can certainly be seen in the estate of Melvin Simon.

For estate planning attorneys this is a great teaching tool. As lawyers, we frequently counsel our clients on the benefit of preparing their estate plan as soon as possible in an effort to minimize the risk that there will be probate litigation. Steps can be taken to minimize the risk of litigation.

Currently, the estate of Melvin Simon is being fought over by his widow and his children from his first marriage. His widow has admitted in deposition that she referred to her stepson David as a terrorist and to her stepdaughter Deborah as “Debbie bin Laden.” Moreover, she said that her brother-in-law “speaks from both sides of his mouth depending on the day.”

Melvin Simon was the namesake with his brother Herb of Simon Property Group, our nation’s largest mall developer. He was also the owner of an NBA team and a producer of some very successful movies.

Control of that company is somewhat at issue as his widow has attempted to sell about a third of his holdings. If she does sell, it would be a major dilution of the family stock.

It appears to me, that Mr. Simon might not have done all he could do years ago to make sure that his estate was ultimately handled in a way that made all parts of his family happy. Making changes at the end in a blended family situation often leads to probate litigation upon death.

Last year Brook Astor’s son was on trial for causing more of her assets to be given to him than she originally intended. It was a very interesting trial for estate planning attorneys everywhere to observe from afar because we deal with many of the same issues on a frequent basis.

In France, there was litigation over the actions of that country’s wealthiest woman, Liliane Bettencourt. Ms. Bettencourt is the owner of L’Oreal. Ms. Bettencourt has allegedly given a male photographer approximately one billion dollars in gifts over the years. Ms. Bettencourt’s daughter was suing Mr. Francois-Marie Banier in criminal court.

There is more to the story than the above. Ms. Bettencourt’s butler secretly tape recorded conversations which seem to demonstrate that she did not know what was occurring. In other words, she was ripe for being taken advantage of by her advisors and others.

Last Thursday, July 22, Ms. Bettencourt’s daughter received a letter indicating that her lawsuit could not go forward without a medical certificate indicating her mother’s mental state.

Ms. Bettencourt has refused to undergo an independent medical examination. Her daughter and grandchildren have been given her entire holdings in L’Oreal.

While the case in France is being litigated during Ms. Bettencourt’s lifetime, it illustrates the complexities involved in determining whether an older individual is of sound mind when he/she is giving away assets.

As an estate planning attorney, who is also a probate attorney, I understand the issues involved.

I read a small article yesterday about a woman in Alabama who forged court documents regarding paternity test results. She forged the signature of a district judge and made up a name – “Lawrence County Probate Judge” – and signed that name as well. The woman confessed and said that she was attempting to harass an ex-boyfriend.

It obviously points to an estate planning/estate administration/probate issue as well. Some men may think they are the biological father of a child and actually not be the biological father. They may have support obligations and if they die that child is an heir under the laws of intestacy. Therefore, if there is a question as to the identity of a man’s issue, it is not enough to just get a blood test done – as the Alabama case points out - one needs to make sure that the report you receive is accurate! Moreover, the living trust or will should mention the identity of someone who might allege that he/she was a child of the decedent and indicate what, if any, share that individual is to receive.

Like other stories, the Gary Coleman story is fading. Probably for a bunch of reasons including that his estate is not that large; the controversy is taking place in Utah instead of Los Angeles; he was not a superstar; and the players are not that compelling.

Nevertheless, it provides an opportunity to illustrate why it is important to keep your estate planning documents up-to-date and that includes your advance health care directive or living will. In California, we call the document an advance health care directive.

Coleman was taken off life support one day after he fell into a coma. His living will provided that he should be taken off life support if two doctors believed his condition was “incurable, terminal and expected to result in [his] death within twelve months” or if doctors “diagnosed that [he has] been in a coma for at least 15 days and that the coma is irreversible, meaning that there is no reasonable possibility of [his] ever regaining consciousness.”

Should he have been taken off life support as quickly as he was? That is certainly not a question for me to answer. What I can say is that we all should be cognizant of who we have making medical decisions on our behalf!

Coleman’s remains were cremated on June 17 which was 20 days after his passing. The ashes are being stored until it is determined who is going to be the estate’s administrator or executor. Until then, an attorney has been appointed to serve in that position.

I have to confess. I had never heard of Gail Posner until this past weekend. However, now she and her dogs are all over the internet. The Wall Street Journal did an article on them that appeared in its Friday, June 18 edition.

Ms. Posner, was the daughter of Victor Posner who was a master of the hostile takeover in the 1980s. From what I can tell from reading various articles, he set up a trust for his daughter in the mid-1960s. At one time it was alleged to have approximately $100 million dollars in it, but an attorney who was a trustee of the trust said that it never had anywhere near that amount, but rather had “in the area of $6 million”.

Ms. Posner died in March 2010. She had a trust prepared in March 2008 which provided lavishly for her dogs. It also provided $5 million to one of her employees provided that employee cared for her dogs. She also provided that the assistant and the assistant’s mother could live rent free in Ms. Posner’s home and provided another $1 million to the assistant’s daughter. A body guard was bequeathed $10 million and another individual was bequeathed $5 million.

Meanwhile, Ms. Posner’s son was given a total of $1 million. Predictably he is upset. He has retained a probate litigator and has sued the attorney who drafted the estate planning documents, BNY Mellon, and Mellon Private Trust. The attorney who was named as the personal representative of the estate in the will has declined to serve.

This dispute will center on whether Ms. Posner was unduly influenced or incompetent when she signed her documents. Obviously had she never signed anything, her son would be her sole heir.