Dying Pains

Alan Thicke’s sons, who are trustees of his 2016 trust, filed suit this week against his widow, Tanya Callau. They asked a court to enforce the terms of Thicke’s trust. They contend that Callau, who Thicke married in 2005, is trying to void the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement she and Thicke signed.

The pre-nup provided that at Thicke's death Callau would receive 25% of his estate and 5 acres of a ranch Thicke owned. The trust meanwhile provides that Callau will receive a $500K insurance policy, his pension benefits, and 40% of his estate. If Callau wants to live in the house, she may do so if she pays the mortgage and other expenses. Despite these generous terms, Callau’s attorney claims that the trust is “the worst document ever drafted by an attorney” and “the attorneys should still be writing in crayons.”

Trying to piece together several points:

1. The terms of a trust can override the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement if the trust terms are more generous than what is provided in the pre-nup. That seems to be the case here.

2. The claims by Callau’s attorney about the quality of the trust drafting are obnoxious, but a trust typically would not address insurance policies and pension benefits because those are non-probate assets (i.e. they have their own beneficiary designation) and not included in a trust.

3. Perhaps the attorney who drafted the trust is the same attorney who advised Robin Thicke to foolishly sue Marvin Gaye's estate over "Blurred Lines" which resulted in a $7.2 million judgment against the younger Thicke.

                                          Photo Credit: Matt Baron/BEI/REX/Shutterstock
                                                                  License:  Fair Use/Education 

No Longer "Blurred Lines"

Following up on a previous post, earlier today a California jury awarded the estate of Marvin Gaye over $7 million in damages to be paid by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for their infringement of Gaye's song "Got To Give It Up"  in their "Blurred Lines" hit.  Their song has made $17 million,of which $5.5 million was paid to Thicke and $5 million was paid to Williams.

Two quick points:

1.  I still believe that it was silly of Thicke and Williams to initiate this lawsuit to prove their ownership of the song.  It is usually best to let sleeping dogs lie.

2.  I doubt that Williams will be "Happy" with this verdict.

Let's Get It On

In a slow news period while waiting for info on Joan Rivers' will, let's keep it in the estate arena but mix it with pop music. The estate of Marvin Gaye is battling Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over whether "Blurred Lines" plagiarized Gaye's song "Got To Give It Up."  The case is premised on comments Thicke made that "Got To Give It Up" was one of his all time favorite songs and that he wanted to make a song like it.   After taking credit for "Blurred Lines" in interviews, in his deposition under oath Thicke later pleaded drug and alcohol abuse during the creation of "Blurred Lines" and deferred credit to Pharrell Williams as the primary songwriter.  He and Williams later sued Gaye's estate in a declaratory judgment action that they did not plagiarize the Gaye song.

Several points:

1.   Thicke and Williams should not have sued Gaye's estate.  They precipitated an unnecessary battle - if the estate thought the songs were identical, it could have sued them.

2.  I doubt Williams is feeling "Happy" after Thicke threw him under the bus after Williams gave Thicke the only reason people know him besides being the son of Alan Thicke.

3.  "Got To Give It Up" does not rank in my top 20 Gaye songs.  Thicke must have been drugged and drunk to say it is one of his all time favorites.