Sunday, April 23, 2017

Faking Amnesia Does Not Pay

Tommy Thompson is a treasure hunter known for locating the wreck of the SS Central America.  The ship, laden with 3 tons of gold, sank in 1857 off the coast of South Carolina killing 425 passengers.  Thompson, with the backing of 160 investors, located the wreck in 1988 and was able to bring some items to the surface.  The value of what remained underwater was reported to be $400 million making it the most valuable ship wreck discovery in history.

By the early 2000s, some of his investors sued him claiming that Thompson had sold the gold and kept the profits to himself.  An arrest warrant was issued in 2012 but he was able to stay on the lam until early 2015.  As part of a plea deal, Thompson said that some gold was in a trust account in Belize.  He now claims to have no knowledge of the location of the gold.  A federal judge has ordered him held in prison for the past 16 months for contempt of court.  The judge has asked him to sign a power of attorney so attorneys for the investors can examine trust documents.  Thompson has refused to do so.

One wonky point, one consequence, and one observation:

1.   The trust is what is known as an asset protection trust.  It is used by people to shield their assets from creditors.  There is likely a provision in the trust that prohibits the trustee from revealing anything about the trust without the consent of the grantor.  Thompson has refused to give that consent so the terms remain private.  And he remains in jail.

2.  Asset protection trusts are great in concept until a court forces the grantor to reveal the contents of the trust or to bring the assets back to the U.S.  They then became no more valuable than the paper they are written on.

3.  Salvage operations and justice both move equally slowly.



Photo Credit:  AP File Photo/Delaware Sheriff's Office
License:  Fair Use/Education

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Don't Be Like John B. (Estate Planning Tips From “S-Town”)

“S-Town” is the critically acclaimed successor podcast to “Serial.”  The anti-hero, John B, lives in a Faulkner-esque house on 128 acres in Woodstock, Alabama with his octogenarian mother who suffers from dementia.  He is a genius horologist (clock repairman), builder of a “Shining” type maze on his property, hypocrite about tattoos, and so obsessed with climate change and other problems that he makes Thomas Malthus seem optimistic.

John B. was thought to be worth a large amount of money by residents of Woodstock.  During the podcast he mentions that he wants to leave $20,000 to his friend, Tyler.  He also tells Tyler (spoiler alert) on the night that he commits suicide that Tyler can have his property.  Sadly, John B. died without writing a will or without having a plan for someone to take care of his mother.  Mystifyingly, John B. claims to have been unbanked which led Tyler and others to search his property for locations where he could have buried gold and cash.  He did leave instructions with a friend about what to do and whom to contact after his death.

Several points:

1.  If one has to choose between leaving a will or instructions about what to do after death, one should choose a will.

2.  Embrace the power of “AND”.  One should be able to leave a will AND instructions about what to do after death.

3.  Without a will, John B’s assets if found legally will go to his mother.  Without a health care power of attorney, the care of his mother will go to a relative willing to serve as guardian.

4.  Being unbanked might make sense for someone of little financial means.  For someone who might have made hundreds of thousands dollars annually and is prone to suicidal threats, being unbanked can only lead to one’s property looking like a scene from “Holes.”    

 
Photo Copyright:  James Breeden for Daily Mail (?)
License:  Fair Use/Education

College Visits

Just back from some college tours with Jack. South Carolina, Clemson and Tennessee specifically. Post about a podcast I listened to to follow shortly.


Sunday, April 2, 2017

It Is Always About Trump Even When It Is Not

Phyllis Schlafly was a noted conservative icon known primarily for opposing the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution in the 1970's.  She died last September at the at age of 92 survived by her six children.  Her daughter, Anne, is contesting the last revision to her will which provided that any legal challenges to the will are to be paid out of the share of the person bringing them. Her brothers claim that Anne’s legal challenges have already cost $1 million in legal fees.  

Three brief points:

1.  A standard no contest clause in a will usually provides that if someone contests the will, he  will lose his entire inheritance.  This is why it is advisable to leave more than $1 to a disinherited heir.

2.  This disputed clause seems to be more lenient than the typical no contest clause and definitely does not seem worth challenging.

3.  Only in the world of our Trump obsessed media, would Schlafly’s support of President Trump garner the headline and two paragraphs in this article that has nothing to do with the President. 


                                                                      Photo Copyright:  David R. Usher/Facebook
                                                                      License:  Fair Use/Education