The death of Gene Wilder saddened Willa Wonka fans across the globe — not to mention fans of Blazin’ Saddles, Young Frankenstein, and many others. When his family issued a statement saying that Alzheimer’s disease claimed his life, it served as a valuable lesson. Alzheimer’s disease is a killer. As Wilder’s family aptly described it, it’s an “illness-pirate.”
Gene Wilder is far from the first famous actor to fall victim to Alzheimer’s. Jimmy Stewart, Peter Falk, Charlton Heston, and Rita Hayworth are just a few others. And of course the disease has attacked celebrities from many different industries, including Hollywood producers like Aaron Spelling, politicians like Ronald Reagan, singers like Etta James and Glen Campbell, and sports celebrities like basketball coach Pat Summitt and ball manager Sparky Anderson.
Sadly, there is no cure for Alzheimer’s disease. It always leads to death. While the official cause-of-death for most celebrities who suffered from the disease is usually listed as another affliction, such as a pneumonia or sepsis, Alzheimer’s disease is the real culprit for millions of Americans, causing the brain to decline until the body succumbs. Gene Wilder’s bout with it is notable because his family attributed his death entirely to Alzheimer’s disease, whereas in most celebrity deaths it is listed only as a contributing factor, if at all.
While the final Tom Clancy estate battle may not have been as exciting as the climactic scenes in The Hunt for Red October or Patriot Games, the struggle between author Tom Clancy’s widow and four adult children over his $86 million estate is now over. The seven justices on the Maryland Court of Appeals (the highest court in Maryland) were asked to rule about what a key clause in the codicil to Clancy’s will actually meant. While it was close — four votes to three — the ruling marked a decisive victory for Clancy’s widow.
Considering that Tom Clancy is one of the best-selling authors of all time, it is ironic that the fight boiled down to how to interpret a clause in his estate planning documents that was written in an unclear manner.
The dispute centered around a provision in Clancy’s second codicil (which means amendment) to his will. The will, originally signed in 2007, divided Clancy’s assets into three trusts: one-third for his wife, another third for his wife to use while she was alive and then onto his daughter from that marriage, and the last one-third to be split between his four adult children from a prior marriage. You can read more details about his estate and how the dispute started in our prior article, Tom Clancy Estate In Family Fight Due To Poor Estate Planning.
Just weeks before he died at 66 from heart failure, Clancy signed the codicil, which included this key sentence: “No asset or proceeds of any assets shall be included in the Marital Share of the Non-Exempt Family Residuary Trust as to which a marital deduction would not be allowed if included.”
Does this language seem a bit unclear to you? If so, you’re not alone. The seven justices of Maryland’s highest court were closely divided about what this language meant. The four who ruled in favor of Clancy’s widow believed that this clause meant that all estate taxes from Tom Clancy’s Estate would have to be paid by the children’s trust, not the trusts containing her money, because that was the only way to fully protect the martial deduction to federal estate tax laws.
The other three justices sided with the children. They agreed that this clause was meant to protect the marital estate tax deduction yet felt it was not meant to alter another provision in Clancy’s will that stated that the tax bill was to be paid equally from two of the trusts, not from the children’s trust alone. In other words, they felt that the children should only pay one-half the tax bill, not all of it, and this clause did not alter the outcome. These justices felt that Tom Clancy wanted to protect the marital deduction but not to increase it at the expense of what his children would inherit.
Interestingly, the lawyer who drafted this codicil initially acted as executor of Tom Clancy’s estate, and he sided with the children. This certainly suggests that the language was intended to apply as the children contended, but the law turns not on what was intended, but on what the documents actually say.
What does all this mean for Tom Clancy’s heirs? The four children now have to pay an estate tax bill to the IRS of almost $12 million. If they had won, the total tax bill would have been closer to $16 million, but they would have split it with one of the trusts set up for Clancy’s widow. So they lost $8 million, and the IRS lost out on about $4 million.
That’s a lot of money in play over one awkward sentence. Ahh rich people, problems, right? Not so fast.
Clancy built his fortune on weaving words into compelling stories. But with one unclear clause in his estate planning documents — a clause that the drafting lawyer felt said something different than what the Court of Appeals ruled — Clancy’s heirs were forced to battle in court for two years, with millions of dollars on the line. And it all would have been avoided if the language was clear.
Here’s the lesson for all of us (millionaires and non-millionaires alike): What you intend your will or trust documents to say does not matter if they are written differently than what you meant. The wording of the documents, not what you tell your estate planning attorney, is the only thing that matters.
Battles like this do happen on a regular basis across our country. While millions of dollars of estate taxes aren’t usually on the line, it’s very common for poorly-drafted wills and trusts to lead to long, expensive battles among heirs who read the same language in different ways.
So how do you insure that your wishes are followed and prevent a fight like this happening to your heirs? First, work with an experienced estate planning attorney. Attorneys who specialize in estate planning are far less likely to prepare a confusing or contradictory document that those who don’t. This doesn’t mean that mistakes cannot happen, even by the best attorneys, but the chances are greatly reduced. Not all lawyers are the same, just like not all doctors are. It’s far better to work with an estate planning specialist who comes with a strong recommendation.
Second, read your documents carefully before you sign them. Ask questions of your attorney; make sure you understand what everything means. If you have any doubts, you can always have a trusted professional or another attorney give you a second opinion. Taking the time to be careful and thorough is always a good idea, when it comes to estate planning.
If a fortune fight can happen to the estate of a man who made tens of millions of dollars through his words, it can happen to you too! Take your estate planning seriously and hire the best attorney you can … and even then read the documents carefully to make sure they say what you really intend.
Muhammad Ali was never one to shy away from battles. From heavyweight champions in the boxing ring, to the United States Government, and to the ravaging effects of Parkinson's disease, Ali continued to fight. Now there are growing fears that the fight will follow him into the grave, with mounting reports of trouble on the horizon for his estate and his legacy.
The circumstances are ripe for an estate battle. Muhammad Ali fathered nine recognized children (including his adopted son from his most recent marriage) over the course of four different marriages. Estate disputes between the surviving spouse and children from prior marriages are the most common source of trouble in probate courts across our country. Add in the reality of Ali's long-standing struggles with Parkinson's disease -- which can have not only physical effects, but mental as well -- and there is a strong possibility that unhappy heirs may file challenges in court.
And, of course, there is the reality that so much money is on the line. Initial reports are that Muhammad Ali's fortune ranged between $50 million and $80 million. But that could just be the start. As Entertainment Tonight reported, the value of the champ's fortune could increase dramatically now that he is gone, just as happened with Elvis Presley, Whitney Houston, and Michael Jackson.
Prince died without a will. So did Tupac Shakur, Bob Marley, and many other legendary musicians. Snoop Dogg doesn't even want a will.
The question is: Why?
It seems like such a basic concept; everyone needs a will. Otherwise the laws of the state you live in determine who receives your assets and controls your legacy after you die. Without a will, you have no say in what happens, and the chances of a family fight increase dramatically.
Even though a will is relatively simple to create, studies consistently show that between 60% and two-thirds of adult Americans don't have a will. All states recognize a "holographic" will, which is one in your own hand-writing. They are perfectly valid as long as a couple basic conditions are met. This is not to say they are perfect by any means, but usually better than nothing. And most lawyers can create a basic will for a few hundred dollars or even less.
Even when an estate is modest is size, dying intestate -- without a will -- is never a good idea. So why don't more adults have wills -- including a surprising number of the extremely-wealthy?
These musical superstars highlight important lessons about why so many people fail to create a will before they die:
1. Prince: Didn't Trust Professionals
The artist originally known, then formerly known, and then known again as Prince, reportedly developed a deep distrust of professionals, including lawyers. He felt he had been burned earlier in his career by signing legal documents, so a stream of professionals was unable to convince Prince Rogers Nelson to sign important legal documents like a will.
The first battle over the Prince Estate will be to determine who Prince's heirs actually are. This morning, a man named Carlin Q. Willliams filed the first official paternity claim, based on his mother's affidavit saying she met Prince in July of 1976. One thing led to another, and nine months later, Carlin was born. A DNA test will come next, based on blood samples already preserved from Prince's body.
This paternity claim is just the beginning of the long road for the Prince Estate, trying to determine who should receive Prince's money. If Prince had done a simple will, his instructions would have dictated who received what. Paternity tests would not have been necessary.
Sadly, Prince's distrust of professionals means that a large chunk of his fortune will be spent paying legions of professionals while his heirs (both actual and potential) try to sort out the mess he left behind.
Despite the probate process having just begun for Prince's Estate, one thing is clear -- it will be a long and rocky road for everyone involved.
While no one can dispute the artistic and creative greatness of the artist whose real name was Prince Rogers Nelson, the famed singer's business smarts were often overlooked. Prince closely maintained and guarded ownership and control over the rights to his music, including the publishing rights, master recordings, performance royalties, and more. He famously stored hundreds of unreleased songs in his “vault”, to be released only when he wanted them to be made public.
The value of this music cannot be known until the contents of the vault are revealed, but estimates of Prince’s net worth based the earnings and future royalty rights to music already released range from $300 million to $500 million.
Those figures may be too low. His music sales have already soared by more than 16,000% in the days following his sudden death. That bump could only be the beginning.
With so much money in play — not to mention Prince’s musical legacy itself — it is shocking that Prince appears to have died without a will. If that is the case, it is certain that trouble will follow for the Prince Estate.
Prince died with no known children, spouse, or living parents. His closest relatives are his sister, Tyka Nelson, and five half-siblings. Nelson recently filed a petition in the Minnesota Probate Court claiming that Prince died intestate, meaning he did not have a will. Since then, media reports suggest that the Prince heirs are already arguing.
The first probate court hearing was held on May 2, 2016. It was a brief, procedural hearing that lasted only about twelve minutes long. Despite how short it was, eleven different lawyers attended.
Likely Court Fight Over The Prince Estate Begins
The only thing of substance made clear at the first hearing is that the search for a will or trust is ongoing, but so far, has come up empty. With each passing day, uncovering an estate planning document such as a valid will, grows more and more unlikely. However, it's still possible one may exist.
When Michael Jackson passed away, his mother Katherine Jackson filed a similar petition as the one that Nelson filed. Katherine asked for a probate estate to be opened for her son believing that he died intestate. To her surprise, however, Michael Jackson actually had both a will and a revocable living trust. Jackson’s estate planning documents did not place any family members in charge of his estate or his trust, which led to years of fighting in court.
Hopefully, Prince did some form of estate planning, including a will as well as a revocable living trust. If Prince had a trust, and used it properly, then his financial affairs should remain private and outside of the public eye. This wouldn’t be surprising considering how private Prince was during his lifetime. A trust is the best way to insure that someone’s wishes are followed and the legacy is protected, usually without court intervention.
On the other hand, if Prince truly died with neither a will or trust, then his estate will have to address many complications, including who will inherit.
Prince's sister and half-siblings stand as heirs of his estate, as of now. Under Minnesota law, when someone dies without a will, and with no spouse, children or parents, then the individual’s siblings become the heirs entitled to receive the assets in the estate. Half-siblings are treated as full siblings under the state law, so Prince’s five half-brothers and sisters would be on equal footing with his full sister, Nelson.
This means each would receive an equal share, regardless of how close they were with Prince when he was alive. Each, of course, would stand to inherit tens of millions of dollars, at least.
But first the question of children will have to be addressed. Without a will or trust, Prince’s estate would potentially pass to anyone who could prove that he or she was a biological child of Prince. This opens the doors to potentially dozens, if not hundreds, of people coming to court asking for paternity tests to try to win a golden ticket to the Prince lottery. In fact, someone would not even have to be a biological child of Prince to share in the inheritance. If someone could prove biological relationship as a brother, sister, or possibly even a niece or nephew of a deceased sibling of Prince, then that person could be an heir as well.
At the initial court hearing, no one came forward claiming to be a long-lost child or other relative. But it is very early in the probate process, and there is plenty of time for that to happen. In fact, early media reports demonstrate that heir-hunting companies have been swamped with people contacting them claiming to be a Prince heir. It's only a matter of time before someone files a claim with the court.
There is also the question of who will control Prince’s legacy. With no will, the court would name an executor of the estate, with authority to conduct business involving all of Prince’s assets. Would Nelson be named the executor? Does she have the ability to handle a multi-million dollar estate? If so, will Prince’s half-siblings fight her in court?
With uncertainty, answering questions like these often result in extended and expensive family fights in probate court. And probate court is open to the public, which could lead to a media circus. In fact, the initial court hearing was swamped with dozens of media members, despite the fact that nothing of substance was decided by the judge.
In fact, the only real decision made was to confirm that Bremer Trust, a trust company related to a banking institution, has been named as the Special Administrator to manage the assets of the estate. This is a temporary position only, allowing the company to oversee the Prince estate until an executor is ultimately determined and appointed by the probate judge.
Reportedly, Prince had a relationship with the bank for many years, so it makes sense that the bank’s trust entity would be in the best position to take control of the estate as the probate court process begins. In her petition to start the probate process, Nelson asked for Bremer Trust to be appointed so it could fulfill many important roles, including determining who the heirs are, where they are located, and managing Prince’s ongoing business and financial affairs.
At the May 2nd hearing, all of the heirs agreed with Bremer Trust acting in this capacity and the probate judge confirmed it formally. So, as of now, Bremer Trust is in charge of the Prince legacy, but how that will be handled will be sorted out well down the line. First and foremost, Bremer Trust will be searching high and low for any sign of a will, determine if there are any other potential heirs, and of course securing whatever may be in Prince's vault, so that the Prince estate assets can be secured and protected.
Bremer Trust is merely getting things started. The person or company with ultimate control will not be determined for many months or even years.
There have been many fights in the celebrity world over control of high-profile estates. The executor typically oversees the royalty rights, licensing, and image usage as well as decides on what contracts are signed on behalf of the estate. In Prince’s case, of course, this means having the keys — and controlling the rights — to whatever is stored within the vault. This reported treasure-trove of unreleased music could be used to justify millions in dollars of fees to the executor. So a fight for control is a near certainty.
And that’s not even the biggest problem that will arise if Prince died with no will or trust. Even more troubling is the reality that Prince would have had absolutely no say in who will control and benefit by his legacy, image and likeness rights, brand, and his musical creations. This is a common problem, repeated time and time again, with musicians who die young or unexpectedly.
The best example was Jimi Hendrix. He passed away at the age of 27 with no will or trust, so everything passed to his father under New York intestate law. When his father died years later, it led to a long and expensive court battle over who would control the Hendrix legacy, brand, and music. Ultimately, the adopted half-sister of Jimi, whom he only met a couple of times before he died, won control. Is this what Jimi would have wanted? His brother that he toured with and shared a close relationship with has no control over, and did not benefit financially from, Jimi’s legacy.
Hopefully unlike Jimi Hendrix, Prince did the proper estate planning so that the people or charities he wants to benefit from, and control, his musical and financial legacy will be able to do so. If not, his estate will be tied up in probate court for years, resulting in many millions of dollars being paid to attorneys, administrators, executors, and others. Even more distressing, Prince’s music, image, and likeness may be used in any number of ways that Prince may not have wanted, no matter how privately he guarded them when he was alive.
That’s the problem of dying without a will or trust. The wishes and intent of the person who died no longer matter. Plus ugly and expensive estate battles are much more common.
With someone as iconic as Prince, that would truly be a shame.
Only a very few pop artists enjoyed lasting careers as diverse, colorful, and successful as David Bowie. He remained fascinating and on the cutting-edge, up until the very end, in ways that extended far beyond making music.
Bowie, whose real name was David Robert Jones (and who didn't want to be confused with Davy Jones), passed away from liver cancer a mere two days after the release of his latest album, Blackstar, on his 69th birthday. Knowing that his cancer was terminable, many people believe Bowie intended his last album -- featuring lyrics about mortality -- to be a farewell. In fact, the song Lazurus begins with the line, "Look up here, I'm in heaven," and ends with, "Oh, I'll be free ... Just like that bluebird ... Oh, I'll be free ... Ain't that just like me?"
It's fair to say there was no one else like David Bowie. He was truly one-of-a-kind, from his iconic music, various personas, and his ever-adapting image, to his finances.
What better way to start the new year than by counting down Trial & Heirs Top Ten Celebrity Legal Battles of 2015, complete with lessons?
1. Bill Cosby vs. many woman - Andrea Constad is one of dozens of women who have sued Cosby for defamation, accusing the comedian and actor of lying when he denied sexually abusing them years ago. In Constad's civil lawsuit, Cosby's deposition was unsealed, revealing that he admitted giving women quaaludes and having intercourse with them. He says both the drug use and sex were consensual. Recently, a Pennsylvania district attorney brought charges against Cosby for sexual assault based on the 2004 encounter with Constad.
Lesson: When victims of assault or other injuries wait too long, they lose the right to sue under the statute of limitations. The specific length of time varies based on what state the events happened in and what type of claim is brought. That's why most of the accusers are suing Cosby for defamation, rather than sexual assault. Even criminal cases have a time limitation on when cases can be brought. This new criminal case against Cosby was brought not long before the 12-year statute of limitations expired. Anyone who feels they have a claim to sue, for assault or any other reason, should act promptly and not wait until it is too late.