The iconic figure whose name is almost synonymous with Marvel Entertainment — perhaps the biggest name today in cinema — needs help. Stan Lee is the subject of three separate lawsuits that allege he is the victim of fraud and elder abuse. And these court filings may simply be the beginning of a much larger battle over his estate and the right to profit from Stan Lee’s name, image, likeness and more.
Throughout the lawsuits and surrounding controversy, there is one point that is certain. Stan Lee, now age 95, is susceptible to undue influence. His memory is poor – so bad that a detective’s report noted how he would often forget the name of his closest adviser. He has macular degeneration, leaving him with vision so faulty that he cannot read or drive. On top of that, Lee’s vision is impaired. Clearly, he cannot manage his affairs without help from others. In fact, he recently used social media to ask for help because his Facebook and Instagram accounts had been hacked.
Reality presents a much different image of Stan Lee than the comedic appearances he continues to make in Marvel blockbusters, including Infinity War, Black Panther and the latest movie, Ant Man & The Wasp.
Would comedian Richard Pryor be laughing or rolling over in his grave? When Quincy Jones sat down for a recent interview with Vulture, he casually inferred that Marlon Brando slept with both Marvin Gaye and Richard Pryor.
The comment quickly snowballed when Pryor's widow, Jennifer Lee-Pryor, took to social media to confirm the Richard Pryor tryst with Marlon Brando:
Hey girl: It was the 70's: enough cocaine and good music-one could f*** a radiator and send it flowers in the morning! # noshame https://t.co/Aea0lLDAhG
She commented that Pryor would have no shame about Quincy's comments and was open in his early comedy routines about his homosexual encounters. Jennifer felt that Pryor would have enjoyed Quincy Jones' revelation.
Almost two months after his death, Charles Manson's body remains in limbo as an unusual legal battle heats up over control of — and the potential to profit from — his estate.
This of course raises questions. Why would anyone bother to fight over the estate of a man who spent almost five decades in prison? Even if he was one of the most infamous serial killers of all time, what could there be worth fighting over?
And if there is money to be had, how could someone claim profits generated by a man who became famous for committing profound acts of evil, and still sleep comfortably at night?
Those questions don't seem to be slowing down three combatants vying for control of the Charles Manson estate and legacy. An avid collector of Manson memorabilia, named Michael Channels, became pen pals with Manson after sending him about 50 letters, leading to a meeting in prison in 2002. Manson then wrote and signed a purported will, naming Channels as his executor, authorizing his body to be released to Channels, and bequeathing all of this property to Channels.
This 2002 will specifically directed that Channels was to receive all of Manson's music and royalty rights to the songs Manson wrote, as well as his image and publishing rights. That same will specifically disinherited anyone claiming to be a child of Charles Manson and all other relatives.
It's a growing Hollywood trend ... tens of millions of dollars gone? Sue the guy who handled your finances! But, legally, who should shoulder the blame -- and more critically, pay the price -- when a celebrity once worth hundreds of millions sees most of it disappear? And what lessons are there for those of us whose net worth hasn't quite hit eight or nine figures?
Johnny Depp is the poster child for this dilemma after his reported net-worth of $200 million dwindled to a small fraction of what it once was. But Depp is far from alone. This summer, Alyssa Milano filed a $10 million lawsuit against her former business manager claiming financial ruin. And Lisa Marie Presley recently announced, through her attorney, that she is in the same boat, preparing to sue her former business manager for $100 million in losses.
The Depp lawsuit appears to be the most heated at the moment. Recently, Depp's former financial managers and advisors added a new lawyer to an already-ugly legal battle by filing to foreclose against two of Depp's houses, including his primary residence. The lawsuit alleges that when Depp was in deep financial trouble, his financial management company, TMG, came to his rescue with a five million dollar loan. TMG says it loaned the money on a short-term basis, to pay off another bank loan that was about to come due in late 2012. Depp agreed to sell off some his assets, including his beloved yacht (which he purchased for $10 million and spent another $8 million renovating) and repay TMG shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit.
When most people think of Hugh Hefner, they picture the famous Playboy bunny logo, young and buxom blonde women by his side, and his ever-present robe and captain's hat. But people should also think of his smart business and planning sense. After all, Hefner started a unique business with $8,000 in 1953 and grew it into a massive global enterprise.
How Hefner used the resulting wealth to plan for his golden years and beyond was as unique and innovative as the way he lived his life. It certainly isn't a road-map for everyone, but it worked out well for him.
It started at least as far back as 2010, when Hefner and his second wife, Kimberley Conrad, finalized their divorce after a 12- year separation. At this time, records from his divorce pegged his net worth at about $43 million plus the value of his Playboy Enterprises stock and real estate. Those records also revealed his yearly income to be nearly $3.5 million, with his expenses topping out at just over $1.3 million annually.
The big open question, of course, was: What was the Playboy stock worth? In 2011, Hugh Hefner partnered with a private equity group to purchase the Playboy stock and take the company private, for a total package worth $207 million. When the dust cleared, Hefner ended up with a 37% ownership interest in the new company along with an employment contract that paid him one million dollars per year, gave him editorial control over the Playboy brand, and the right to remain in the famed Playboy mansion practically rent free for the rest of his life.
Princess Abigail Kawananakoa, known to her friends as Kekau, is true Hawaiian royalty. Now, a bitter court battle rages over the questions of whether she is mentally capable of managing her vast fortune and whether she is the victim of physical abuse and financial exploitation.
Princess Kawananakoa, age 92, is a direct descendant to the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii. When the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, it ended the reign of Queen Lili’uokalani, Kawananakoa's great-grand aunt. As the closest living relative, Kawananakoa is considered to be the heir apparent who would have assumed the throne if the monarchy had been restored.
Kawananakoa was also the beneficiary of a large fortune, thanks to her great-grandfather, James Campbell. Campbell, a 19th-century sugar cane industrialist who made his fortune in Hawaii, died in 1900 with an estate worth $3 million at the time. The Campbell Estate has grown since then, topping out over $2 billion in 2007 when the Estate was converted into corporate holdings. Kawananakoa inherited $250 million, mostly in the form of stock in the James Campbell Corporation. Today, her trust is estimated to be worth $200 million.
This trust fund is at the heart of the dispute, which pits her once-trusted attorney against her long-time domestic partner. The attorney, James Wright, petitioned the probate court to remove Kawananakoa from controlling her trust. His petition was initially granted by the probate court judge, but now is challenged in court. Wright alleged that Kawananakoa suffered an acute stroke leaving her unable to manage her health, self-care, or financial matters. Wright based his filing on the determination of two physicians.
When British pop star George Michael, 53, whose full name was Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou, died on Christmas Day, 2016, he was discovered by his lover, Fadi Fawaz. Tensions have been building between Fawaz and Michael's surviving family members, which include his two sisters and his father, ever since that day.
According to reports from England, Michael's family members want nothing to do with Fawaz, to the point that he is not even welcome at the funeral. After months of delays before Michael's body was released, during which time it was determined he died of natural causes related to a heart condition, Michael's sisters are planning a small, private ceremony at a 30-seat chapel.
Fawaz has complained that the family left him out of funeral plans and felt that he was being blamed for George Michael's death, until the final determination of how he died was made public. George Michael's cousin said it was Fawaz who snubbed the family, not the other way around. Reportedly, Fawaz was paid more than £10,000 a month to be with Michael.
The real battle will be over George Michael's London townhouse, estimated to be worth £5 million. Fawaz has been residing in the house ever since Michael died, even though Fawaz reportedly is not named as a beneficiary in Michael's will. The family is said to be contemplating legal action to remove Fawaz from the home, which Fawaz claims he should be allowed to use.
Specifically, Fawaz believes that he had an agreement with George Michael to use the property for the foreseeable future. This apparently was based on a conversation, not a written agreement.
If that is the case, then Fawaz would not have a legal leg to stand on. In England, as in the U.S., agreements involving real estate must be in writing to be valid. So if George Michael did agree that Fawaz could stay in the home -- either as part of a business arrangement or due to the personal relationship -- that would not be binding on the Estate without a written statement that spelled out the terms.
But this doesn't mean that Fawaz will go away quietly. Because he has been living in the home, and has a claim that he is entitled to stay, the family would have to initiate legal proceedings to evict him. Once in court, Fawaz would certainly argue that the verbal agreement gives him the right to occupy it. And there is no telling what else Fadi Fawaz may say to complicate the matter. That legal proceeding could turn ugly and embarrassing for Michael's family.
While the specifics of George Michael's estate plan have not yet been made public, he reportedly divided his estate -- estimated to be worth in the neighborhood of £105 million (or roughly $130 million) -- primarily between his two sisters, through a will. If that is the case, then George Michael's last will must be publicly filed and processed through probate court, which will allow it to be easily obtainable by members of the British media or anyone else. (When wills are probated, they become public documents for anyone to read.)
So far George Michael's will has not been filed for probate because the family has focused on the funeral, which was delayed by the investigation into his cause of death. Once it's filed, we'll know for certain who is to receive what and what assets Michael had. We'll also find out if Michael wanted Fawaz to receive anything, including the right to stay in the London home.
George Michael's estate highlights why it is much better to rely on a living trust rather than a will. Living trusts, when properly drafted and funded during one's lifetime, can help families avoid probate court. They can also spell out specifically who receives what, when and how, without the necessity of probate court, where disputes are more common.
For example, if Michael did want Fawaz to be able to occupy the London home for a time after he died, that could have been spelled out in a private trust document, free from media scrutiny.
It's not only celebrities who benefit from detailed and thorough estate planning, including living trusts. Anyone who wants to protect their heirs from the increased expense, hassle, and public nature of probate court should talk to an estate planning attorney about whether a living trust makes sense for them.