Bielski Law Office, Ltd.

TV Star Sues Stepsons

A reality TV personality is suing her stepsons for what she claims is an attempt to steal a home belonging to her late husband that should rightfully belong to her.

The Real Housewives reality TV series is well-known for the family drama it produces. Viewers seem to appreciate seeing the types of family issues they share in common with the wealthy women who star on the show.

Now, one of the stars of Real Housewives of Miami, Alexia Echevarria, is having another issue with family that many other people have.

She is fighting with her stepchildren over part of her late husband's estate, as the Daily Mail reports in "Real Housewives of Miami star Alexia Echevarria accuses her stepsons of trying to seize her $3 million Miami Beach home and Maserati after her husband's sudden death."

Prior to marrying, Echevarria and her husband picked out a home in Miami Beach that he purchased in his name alone. A prenuptial agreement was signed which included a provision that upon his death, ownership of the house would be transferred to her.

The two announced that they were separating in 2015, but according to Echevarria they continued to live together until his death in 2016.

His estate went to his two sons from a previous relationship. Echevarria claims they are attempting to seize the house as part of the estate.

It is not uncommon for stepparents and children to have disputes over an estate.

One thing that can help with a situation like this, is to include any specific details about what should go to the surviving spouse in an estate plan, even if a prenuptial agreement already includes the information.

Reference: Daily Mail (March 21, 2017) "Real Housewives of Miami star Alexia Echevarria accuses her stepsons of trying to seize her $3 million Miami Beach home and Maserati after her husband's sudden death"

Victory for Jackson Estate

Michael Jackson's estate has become notorious for its many ongoing legal battles, including feuds between family members and a long fight with the IRS. The estate was recently victorious in one battle.

The estate of Michael Jackson has seen more than its fair share of legal disputes. It is likely that legal disputes over the estate will continue for many years. However, the estate can take some relief that one case appears to be over, after a judge ruled in the estate's favor.

This particular claim against the estate was brought by four former business associates of Jackson's. 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.

In 2014, they sued the estate for the shares they claimed they were given as TMZ reported in "Michael Jackson Victory for Estate ... Judge Tells Ex-Biz Partners to Beat It."

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.

While Jackson's estate undoubtedly celebrated this decision, other tougher cases for the estate to win are still upcoming.

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

Dementia Patients Are Not Children

It is obvious that elderly people are not children. However, many elderly people with dementia are often treated as if they were young children. That can be harmful to them.

Everyone can tell when another adult is talking to a very small child or a baby, even if they do not see the child or have previous knowledge that a young child is present. This is true because we are all able to recognize that most adults have a different way of speaking to young children than to other adults.

Most adults would be offended if someone talked to them in the same way they speak to a young child. However, there is a group of adults who are often spoken to in a similar manner. It can be harmful to them, as the Daily Mail reports in "Don't call me sweetie! Why we should never use 'elderspeak' to talk down to dementia patients."

Elderly people with dementia are often talked to in a form of baby talk, that researchers have dubbed "elderspeak." It is common for dementia patients to be called names, such as "sweetie" and "dear."

While the speaker does not mean any harm, it can be harmful to the patients.

Talking to dementia patients in that way comes across as patronizing and may increase their feelings of isolation. It can worsen their problems.

This is something caregivers and elder law advocates should be aware of. Obviously, there can be no legislative ban on elderspeak, but it is important to know that it can cause problems for the elderly, so we can mindfully refrain from using it.

Reference: Daily Mail (March 24, 2017) "Don't call me sweetie! Why we should never use 'elderspeak' to talk down to dementia patients."

Who Is Afraid to Die?

Researchers at Oxford University have discovered what might be somewhat surprising findings about what types of people are the least afraid of passing away.

One of the reasons that people put off estate planning is they are afraid to die. Most people do not think that they will hasten their own deaths by planning for their estates.  However, that was a common superstition in the distant past.

Estate planning makes people think about what will happen after they pass away. For many people, that leads to think about the act of death itself, and they are deathly afraid of it. Unfortunately, that causes some people to delay estate planning for too long and they pass away without estate plans.

Oxford University researchers have analyzed what types of people are the most and least afraid of dying.

The “least afraid” list includes those people who are extremely religious and, interestingly enough, atheists. The analysis shows that those on the “most afraid” of death list are those people who are mildly religious and who may only join a religious group for social and economic reasons.

The Daily Mail reported these findings in "How afraid are YOU of dying? Researchers say atheists and the most religious are the least scared."

Of course, people cannot act on this information to make themselves have less fear of death. It is difficult to force yourself to be more or less religious than you are.

However, those who have put off estate planning due to a fear of passing away, can use this information to understand that their fear is normal. That in and of itself might help some overcome their fear long enough to do the necessary estate planning.

Reference: Daily Mail (March 24, 2017) "How afraid are YOU of dying? Researchers say atheists and the most religious are the least scared."

Same-Sex Spouses on Death Certificates

A recent case in Florida illustrates why same-sex couples should not rely solely on marriage rights and the laws on intestate succession for estate planning purposes.

The Supreme Court might have legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country.  However, advocates and observers know that has not eliminated the need to fight to exercise those rights in some places.

One of the latest examples comes from Florida.

In this case, two men had lived together in Florida for 42 years. They were legally married in New York in 2012. A year later, one of them passed away in Florida.

Since Florida did not recognize same-sex marriage, the death certificate listed the deceased man as single. After the Supreme Court's decision, the surviving spouse requested that the death certificate be reissued to list the deceased as married at the time of death as Slate reports in "Federal Judge Rules Florida Must Add Same-Sex Spouses to Death Certificates."

The state of Florida refused to reissue the death certificate without a specific court order to do so for each death certificate. A federal judge has ruled against the state and ordered that it must reissue all death certificates to list same-sex spouses for couples who were legally married before Supreme Court's decision.

While this case turned out well for those affected, it illustrates that same-sex couples cannot necessarily rely on proper enforcement of their marriage rights. It is still advisable to have estate plans to protect same-sex spouses.  This can help make sure that some states do not throw up roadblocks to inheritances.

Reference: Slate (March 24, 2017) "Federal Judge Rules Florida Must Add Same-Sex Spouses to Death Certificates."

The Earl and the Pop Star

A British lord is connected to a pop star who is notorious for partying uncontrollably. However, it is probably not in the way that you might think.

Upon hearing that the Earl of Cardigan, whose ancestor led the famed Charge of the Light Brigade, has a connection to a pop star best known for partying hard, your first thought would probably be that an older aristocrat had started dating or married a much younger woman. Your opinion probably would not change, if you learned that the connection between the Earl and the pop star had led to three separate trustees of the Earl's estate stepping down.

However, in this case, your thought would not even be close to the truth, as the Telegraph reported in "Earl of Cardigan's lawyer quit in latest storm to hit troubled estate."

It appears that a trustee of the estate rented a house on the Earl's estate to the British pop star Pete Doherty, who is notorious for throwing parties and causing large amounts of damage.  It is not surprising that is exactly what Doherty is alleged to have done at the estate.

The Earl of Cardigan was not happy. As a result, two estate trustees stepped down three years ago. The Earl sued them last year. The latest bit of news is that another attorney acting as a trustee for the estate, has also stepped down and has been vague about the reasons for doing so.

It is not clear what will eventually happen with this estate.

If the Earl cannot get along with his attorneys, he might find it much harder to get new ones to work as trustees for his estate.

Reference: Telegraph (March 13, 2017) "Earl of Cardigan's lawyer quit in latest storm to hit troubled estate."

 

Zappa Family Feud

The long and contentious battle between the children of Frank Zappa continues to be strange.

Since his death in 1993, Frank Zappa's children have waged a curious fight over the use of their father's name and music. It is a fight that has seen many tabloid headlines written and almost as many legal motions.

At the center of the battle appears to be Dweezil Zappa's desire to go on tour and play his father's music for live audiences. He has previously attempted to tour under the name "Zappa Plays Zappa."

Dweezil, however, does not have control over the estate.  The estate is controlled by his younger siblings Ahmet and Diva Zappa.

Dweezil has previously contended that Ahmet and Diva refuse to let him use the family name and their father's music while on tour, without paying them royalties.

The younger siblings disagree with that claim, as TMZ reports in "Frank Zappa Family War Dweezil vs. Ahmet and Diva."

Ahmet and Diva Zappa have now filed a motion with the court for what appears to be a strange purpose. They seek permission of the court to create a website, specifically to refute their brother's claims.

For their part, these siblings contend that they have always been willing to let Dweezil do what he wants for a small fee of one dollar. They also state that Dweezil is tarnishing the family name by spreading what they call lies.  Therefore, they need to counter the lies.

It is not clear why they would need the court’s permission to do this.

This feud over their father's estate has gone on for so long and is so strange, that it is unlikely about the music.

Sometimes, children just do not get along.

Reference: TMZ (March 13, 2017) "Frank Zappa Family War Dweezil vs. Ahmet and Diva."

Expect Less than You Think for Your Inheritance

While the details change somewhat from survey to survey, there is something that appears to hold true in almost all studies about inheritances.  It is that parents and their children have far different expectations about how much the children will inherit.

Most people do not really know how many assets their parents have. They do not know exactly how much their parents have saved for retirement. They do not know how much their parents earn at work.

When you get right down to it, adult children do not know any of the important details about their parents' finances.

There is something inherently American about not talking about money, especially how much we have and make, even with close family members. This even holds true when discussing estates and how much parents plan to leave their children as inheritances.

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."

The big problem is that most of the time, children think they will inherit more from their parents than they actually will. When people are disappointed with the size of their inheritances,  it 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.

To avoid it in your own family, you should consider letting your children know what they can expect to receive from you as an inheritance.

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

Getting Rid of Old Trust Terms

It used to be that once you executed an irrevocable trust, you were more or less stuck with its terms. That is no longer the case.

Irrevocable trusts are often far superior to revocable trusts for many reasons, not the least of which is taxes. However, the big drawback to irrevocable trusts is in the name. They are irrevocable. Once the trust is properly executed, it is supposed to be set in stone.

If circumstances change and you no longer like the terms of the trust, that is too bad. You are stuck with it.

This has always caused many people to be wary of irrevocable trusts, especially younger people who expect many things in their lives to change.

No need to worry? Irrevocable trusts may no longer be truly irrevocable, as Forbes explained in "Old Money, New Bottle: Decant If You Don't Like the Terms Of An Old Trust."

 A total of 25 states now allow old trusts to be decanted.

This process entails taking all of the assets from an old trust and putting them in an entirely new trust with different terms. It is technically the trustee who is allowed to do this. It is supposed to be for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries.

Interestingly, the trustee does not need to have permission from a court and often does not even need to inform the beneficiaries. The different states that allow decanting have different rules about what trust terms can be changed in the new trust. You will, therefore, want to seek out experts to make sure you decant in a state that allows you to do so.

If you have an old irrevocable trust and would like to change the terms, you now have options. Talk to an estate planning attorney to learn more.

Reference: Forbes (March 16, 2017) "Old Money, New Bottle: Decant If You Don't Like the Terms Of An Old Trust."

Pettiness Costs Brothers Entire Inheritance

Not all disputes over an estate are worth bringing. A recent case from the U.K. illustrates why.

It is not unusual for people to not get along well with their stepparents. It is the source of many family feuds over estates when adult children of the deceased think a stepparent has received a larger portion of the estate than is fair. This is especially true, if the estate plan has been changed from a previous one to give the stepparent a larger share.

Because this is common, it is perhaps not surprising that two brothers in the U.K. were upset when their father left their stepmother a larger share of the estate than either one of them received. Their father had after all changed his will to give the stepmother more. The brothers took the position that he lacked the legal capacity to do so.

They initiated a legal battle to have their father's will thrown out and an old one reinstated that would have given them more of the estate.

What is unusual about this case is the amount of money that was at stake.

The will the brothers wanted disregarded only gave the stepmother £25,000 (approximately $30,000) more than under the will they wanted reinstated. The judge in the case was not amused.

After ruling in the stepmother's favor, the judge ordered the brothers to pay all of the legal costs of the case, which was enough to wipe out everything they inherited.

The Daily Mail reported on this story in "Farmer's sons lose their ENTIRE £200,000 inheritance from father's will in doomed legal bid to stop their stepmother getting an extra £25,000."

Before starting an estate battle, it is important to ask whether doing so is really worth it. Legal fights are not always worth the trouble, even if you do not like your stepparent.

Reference: Daily Mail (March 17, 2017) "Farmer's sons lose their ENTIRE £200,000 inheritance from father's will in doomed legal bid to stop their stepmother getting an extra £25,000."