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.

Here is a status report on the probate estate of Gary Coleman. As we left off last week, there was a will that had been filed naming Mr. Coleman’s former manager as the executor of his estate and its beneficiary.

However, there is a 2005 will that appoints a woman that used to run his corporation as his executor. Therefore, the former manager has bowed out.

Now, the woman he was divorced from, but lived with at the time of his death has filed a couple of documents. One is a handwritten codicil to his will (a codicil is essentially an amendment to a will) that provides that she is to receive Mr. Coleman’s entire estate.

Utah, like many states, has a statute that states that estate planning documents are invalid as to that part of the will that provides for the disposition to a spouse in the event there is a divorce. Therefore, his ex-wife has a large hill to climb. Her argument is going to be that they were common-law husband and wife.

In most states, including California, that would not be a successful argument because most states do not recognize common law marriage. However, Utah does recognize common law marriage under some circumstances. Ms. Price, the ex-wife, will have to prove that their relationship qualified under Utah law and then prove to the satisfaction of a probate court that the common-law marriage is an exception to its law that ex-spouses do not inherit under a prior written will.

Even if she cannot prove that she should inherit under the will, she may still be able to prove that she is entitled to inherit part of the estate as the common-law wife. It is possible that Mr. Coleman’s parents – who are being quiet for now – will get involved.

They would certainly inherit if he died intestate – without a will – and they could allege that Ms. Price used undue influence over their son. Probate litigation is not going away!

Part 4 will be up soon!

Gary Coleman probably did not leave a huge estate. Sadly, what he did leave probably not be distributed the way he would have envisioned. His last will was prepared in April, 1999 and names his manager at the time as his executor; leaves everything to that manager; and provides that he be cremated. He wanted a wake to be held in his honor and that the service be conducted by people who had no financial ties to him.

The attorney for the executor of the 1999 will has filed it and a hearing has been set for July 2.

In the eleven years since the will, Coleman’s life changed substantially. Besides no longer having the same manager, running for governor of California, moving to Utah, marrying, divorcing, he lived at the time of his death, with his ex-wife.

A codicil (similar to an amendment) to the will was allegedly handwritten by Coleman in 2007 and leaves everything to his then wife. The attorney for the ex-manager indicates that the codicil is invalid because Coleman was divorced at the time of his death.

The ex-wife has indicated that she will contest the will.

Whether he is right or not remains to be seen. Every state has its own probate laws. While the laws in most states are similar, they are not identical. Therefore, knowing California probate’s law is helpful to some degree to understanding Utah’s. However, the intricacies of the California probate code are going to be different from Utah’s. Moreover, California case law, is obviously not binding in Utah.

As a probate lawyer, I will be following this matter closely. It is a good example for me to provide to my clients about their need to keep on top of things.

Gary Coleman rose to fame at the age of 10 in 1978 starring in the television show Diff’rent Strokes. He made a lot of money from the show which ran until 1986, but in 1989 he sued his parents over their management of his money.

Coleman was taken off life support on May 28 at the age of 42. There was supposed to be a funeral on Saturday in Utah. However, it was cancelled.

Initially, it appeared from various articles that he did not leave any estate planning document – either a will or a living trust. From the articles that I have read, it is unclear whether he left a will and/or a revocable living trust. His agent said that he left a will, but an attorney in Provo, Utah had said that the only trust that he has seen was unsigned by Mr. Coleman. His parents retained an attorney who intended to file a probate.

At the end of last week, a different attorney indicated that there in fact was a will that was executed in 1999 in the possession of a former manager and close friend of the deceased which names the former manager as the executor. Among other things, it provides that the former manager has the power to determine Mr. Coleman’s final resting place.

By definition, the will could not provide for Shannon Price as he did not meet her until after 1999. Ms. Price was the woman he married, divorced, and was very close with at his death.

Meanwhile, there is an issue as to whether Mr. Coleman’s ex-wife should have been making the medical decisions on his behalf. While, he did refer to her as his wife recently and they were living together at the time of his death, they were officially divorced. Therefore, unless he had executed a document specifically providing for her to make medical decisions for him, one would think that she did not have the legal authority to determine whether he remained on life support.

What are the lessons from this? Update your estate planning documents. Your will; your trust; your advance health care directives; your thoughts concerning life support; your beneficiary designations should always be “fresh”.

Call your estate planning attorney – or find a new trust lawyer. Stay current!!!