Jarvis Law Office

Hernandez’s Estate Not Worth Much

It has been determined that after criminal cases filed against former NFL player Aaron Hernandez played out in court, there is little left in the estate, according to the New York Daily News in "Aaron Hernandez's estate is worth nothing: court records."

Aaron Hernandez’s suicide ended the criminal cases against him, but also launched battles over his estate. Those involved in the estate battles would be his four-year-old daughter, her mother and the families of his victims who expect to receive a share of the estate to compensate them for their losses.

What was not initially known, was how much money Hernandez had left after all of his legal troubles.

Hernandez's girlfriend, the mother of his child, filed papers with the probate court overseeing the case. These papers document that Hernandez passed away with virtually no money or valuable personal property to speak of.

The only thing left is his home and the court granted the girlfriend permission to sell the home to an undisclosed interested buyer for $1.3 million. The mother of one of Hernandez's victims has stated that she wants a portion of proceeds from the sale.

This is a case that is tragic all around.

Reference: New York Daily News (April 27, 2017) "Aaron Hernandez's estate is worth nothing: court records

Jackson Estate Wins One but Still Faces Long Battle

A small but important victory has been won by Michael Jackson’s estate over the claims of four of his former business associates, according to TMZ in "Michael Jackson Victory for Estate ... Judge Tells Ex-Biz Partners to Beat It."

This particular claim against the estate was brought by four former business associates of Jackson's when they sued in 2014. They claimed that in 2006 three of them met with the singer in a Tokyo hotel room.  They said that he gave them all shares in his business to reward them for their loyalty.

This particular case appears to have been an easy one for the judge to decide.

The business associates had never reduced the alleged agreement with Jackson to writing and they never made an attempt to claim any shares in his business while he was alive. The lack of a written agreement, made it easy for the judge to dismiss their claims and to decide that the case was frivolous. The judge also ruled that they filed the case too late.

Reference: TMZ (March 27, 2017) "Michael Jackson Victory for Estate ... Judge Tells Ex-Biz Partners to Beat It."

Just How Much Will the Kids Inherit?

There is a difference of opinion between parents and children about the amount of an inheritance, because only 21% of parents have told their children what to expect as an inheritance, according to Financial Advisor in "Hoping For An Inheritance? You May Not Get As Much As You Expect."

Most children do not know the amount of assets their parents hold, how much their parents have saved for retirement or even how much their parents earn from working.  However, those details can be really important when it comes to what is expected for an inheritance.

This can be a big problem when children think they will inherit more from their parents than they actually will. When people are disappointed with the size of their inheritances, is when they start to think about fighting other family members over an estate.

It is rare to learn of an estate battle started by someone who gets more than they thought they would. On the other hand, it is not at all rare to see estate litigation brought by someone who gets less.

Estate litigation is extremely expensive and emotionally taxing for all family members involved.

It is recommended that you contact an estate planning attorney for advice on creating an estate plan that fits your circumstances and guidance on communicating that information.

Reference: Financial Advisor (March 15, 2017) "Hoping For An Inheritance? You May Not Get As Much As You Expect

Federal Law to Protect Rights of Heirs Headed for Test

The Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act is about to get its first use, according to The New York Times in "A Suit Over Schiele Drawings Invokes New Law on Nazi-Looted Art."

While the Nazis were plundering Europe, one of the many things the Nazis did while taking over most of Europe, was to steal artwork from the owners and keep it for themselves. Under international law, artwork is supposed to be returned to the original owners or their heirs.

The current holders of many contested works have successfully defended themselves against the heirs for technical reasons, such as the statute of limitations. To address this problem, last year the U.S. Congress passed the HEAR Act.

One of the first cases is over two drawings by Egon Schiele that were once owned by Fritz Grunbaum. The Nazis took Grunbaum's artwork from his home in Vienna in 1938 and sent him to a concentration camp, where he died.

His heirs claim the Nazis stole the artwork.

However, that has been disputed by dealers, current owners and museums, who claim the Nazis only inventoried the works. They also claim that Grunbaum's sister-in-law sold some of the works, including the two drawings in the current dispute, to a dealer in the 1950s.

Grunbaum's heirs have previously lost in court trying to recover this artwork.

They claim they have lost for the very technical reasons that the HEAR Act was designed to prevent.

Reference: New York Times (Feb. 27, 2017) "A Suit Over Schiele Drawings Invokes New Law on Nazi-Looted Art

Families of Boat Crash Victims Sue Jose Fernandez Estate

It is uncertain what happened the night that Miami Marlins star pitcher Jose Fernandez and two other men died in a boating accident, but the uncertainty has not delayed the families of the other two men from claiming that Fernandez was responsible, according to FOX News in "Families of men killed with Jose Fernandez file lawsuits."

It is believed that Fernandez got into an argument with his girlfriend, and to calm himself down, decided to go boating late at night. Two of his friends went with him. In the dark, they did not see a pier and rammed it, capsizing the boat. All three men died.

It was revealed that Fernandez had large amounts of alcohol and cocaine in his system. The investigation is still open, as authorities have thus far been unable to determine which of the men was driving the boat.

An attorney representing both families has filed lawsuits on their behalf against Fernandez's estate. Both lawsuits are requesting $2 million in damages.

An attorney for the estate has indicated that a settlement is not likely, given the uncertainty about who was driving the boat. Clearing up that mystery could go a long way in determining whether these lawsuits have any chance of success.

Reference: FOX News (Feb. 11, 2017) "Families of men killed with Jose Fernandez file lawsuits."

Lord’s Grandson Challenges Illiterate Man over Estate

The grandson of a Lord and an illiterate fisherman continue to fight in court over an estate valued at approximately £20 million (US$25 million), according to the Daily Mail in "Cursed inheritance of the £20million manservant: Illiterate fisherman who was left his master's entire fortune is still living in poverty - and locked in a legal battle as colourful as it is bizarre."

The late British Lord Glennconner was known as a wealthy partier who often entertained royalty at his home in St. Lucia. Both of his children predeceased him, so he decided to leave his entire estate, which consisted mostly of his home, to his longtime servant.

The servant is an illiterate fisherman named Kent Adonai.

The trouble began when Lord Glennconner's grandson found out about his grandfather's estate. He sued and started a long legal battle against the impoverished fisherman. Adonai was left with no money to live on other than the ability to sell a few pieces of furniture that were left to him and that are not a part of the dispute.

Despite that, Adonai paid for Lord Glennconner's funeral out of his own money.

Eventually, the two sides reached an agreement and decided to split the estate in half. However, the agreement has never been formally settled.

Reference: Daily Mail (Feb. 5, 2017) "Cursed inheritance of the £20million manservant: Illiterate fisherman who was left his master's entire fortune is still living in poverty - and locked in a legal battle as colourful as it is bizarre."

Judge Gives Up after 20 Years of Dispute over Estate

Judge Mike Wood, the “Anna Nicole Smith judge” for 20 years, has recused himself from the case, according to Law.com in "'I Beg You to Recuse Me': Anna Nicole Smith Judge Finally Gets His Wish."

The dispute over the estate of J. Howard Marshall is an extreme example of a family fight over money dragging on for decades.

Most people know the dispute as the Anna Nicole Smith case, since she was Marshall's much younger widow. The court room proceedings were broadcast live on TV and highlights of the day's testimony often made the nightly news. There was enough interest in the case that the judge at the center of it, Texas probate Judge Mike Wood, became known as the "Anna Nicole Smith judge."

What most people do not know is that the dispute over Marshall's estate is still going on.

The family is still fighting over it.

Judge Wood was still presiding over the matter as well. He grew so frustrated, that he begged the parties to file a motion to recuse him from the case. He got his wish eventually.

It is very rare for an estate fight to be so contentious and go on for so long, that a judge gets this frustrated. This shows, however, just how bad family feuds over large estates can get.

Reference: Law.com (Jan. 26, 2017) "'I Beg You to Recuse Me': Anna Nicole Smith Judge Finally Gets His Wish."

Descendants of Peggy Guggenheim Continue Estate Battle

Vanity Fair recently detailed the saga of the fight to gain control of the Guggenheim art collection in "The Bitter Legal Battle over Peggy Guggenheim's Blockbuster Art Collection."

The saga begins with the death of Peggy Guggenheim in 1979, when she bequeathed her collection of 326 valuable paintings and sculptures to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation so that it could be put on display and made available to the public six days a week.

The descendants have continuously claimed that the foundation violates the terms of the donation and have asked courts to revoke the gift because of those violations. The foundation denies the charges.

The descendants have lost four times so far, most recently when they lost an appeal in 2015. However, they continue to persist in their claims and it appears this battle has no end in sight.

The descendants have always maintained that they are fighting to make sure Peggy Guggenheim's wishes are followed. However, since the art collection is one of the most valuable in the world, the idea that they might also be interested in the money cannot be entirely dismissed. This notion may have legs, since their efforts have thus far failed to convince the courts that the foundation is not fulfilling the terms of the donation.

Battles over valuable assets are common in estate administration, and even more so when the valuable assets are not inherited by family members who might want them.

Reference: Vanity Fair (Jan. 5, 2017) "The Bitter Legal Battle over Peggy Guggenheim's Blockbuster Art Collection."

Millions of Dollars Can Ignite an Estate Battle

According to the New York Daily News, the wife of Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson, who passed away in 2016 following a battle with cancer, and his mother are locked in a court fight over the millions left behind in "Ken Thompson's mother says she was cut out of will by late Brooklyn DA's wife."

Thompson left behind a wife, two children and his mother. In an explosive new court filing Thompson's mother, Clara Thompson, alleges that his wife, Lu-Shawn, took advantage of her son's cancer and diminished state to rewrite his will. 

Clara alleges that less than two weeks before Ken Thompson passed away, a new will was created that left his entire seven-figure estate to his wife. An older will had left a substantial amount to his mother. According to Clara, Thompson wanted to provide for her as the woman who worked hard to rear him.

Allegations of marital strife between Ken and Lu-Shawn have also been raised.

At this stage of the court battle it is not possible to know who is correct and exactly what happened. Either way, it shows how when millions of dollars are involved, there are plenty of incentives to fight over it.

If the mother is right, then the wife was tempted by the money to act inappropriately. If the wife is right, then the mother was tempted by the money to file a baseless lawsuit.

If Ken Thompson did want to change his will to exclude his mother for some reason, then his best option would have been to make that clear to her.

Although that might have been an uncomfortable conversation between mother and son, it would have made a legal battle less likely. An experienced estate planning attorney can help you set up your estate plan to avoid these kinds of problems for your family after you pass away.

Reference: New York Daily News (Jan. 12, 2017) "Ken Thompson's mother says she was cut out of will by late Brooklyn DA's wife."

Who Can Sue If Will Is Drafted Incorrectly?

A charity has successfully sued the Virginia attorney who drew up a will, according to the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog in "Case Summary on Will Beneficiary's Cause of Action Against Drafting Attorney."

The issue began when a will was drawn up at the request of a Virginia woman asking that all of her property be left to her mother with the stipulation that, if her mother passed away before her, then she wanted everything to go to a specific charity.

It turns out that the woman was predeceased by her mother. The charity expected to get her entire estate when the woman passed away, but there was an error in the drafting of the will since it only covered the woman's personal property.

When the woman passed away, the charity received that property. However, her real property, since it was not covered by the will, had to be distributed by the law of intestate succession, so the charity did not receive that.

The charity won the case at the trial court level and the case made its way to the Virginia Supreme Court on the issue of whether the charity could sue the attorney. The court ruled that it could, based on the grounds that an oral contract existed between the woman and the attorney and that Virginia law allows standing for a third-party beneficiary of an oral contract to sue.

The court also ruled that the statute of limitations began to run when the woman passed away and not when the will was drafted.

It is important to choose and experienced estate planning attorney to make sure your wishes are followed and to avoid potential problems like this for your beneficiaries.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (Dec. 19, 2016) "Case Summary on Will Beneficiary's Cause of Action Against Drafting Attorney."