His Old School

Peter Knoll was the heir to the Hans Knoll furniture fortune. After his father died when he was 13. Peter dropped out of Columbia University after a few semesters and allegedly never worked a day in his life. Knoll died earlier this year from hypothermia in his $10 million NY townhouse which was without heat since 2014.

Described as complicated and eccentric, and suffering from diabetes and melanoma, Knoll left $50K to each of his 3 children who reside in Florida and $100K to each of his grandchildren. He also left various sums to other friends and acquaintances and the bulk of his estate to a boarding school he attended in Vermont in his teens. His son is contesting the will alleging that the boarding school unduly influenced him into leaving most of his estate to it.

Three points:

1. Complicated and eccentric does not mean mentally incompetent.

2. Complicated and eccentric people do complicated and eccentric things such as ignoring their children in favor a boarding school they attended long ago.

3. We all know that NY is cold in the winter while Florida is warm, but if the children had visited their dad in the winter and realized he did not have gas in his house, he might have left them more than $50K.

Photo copyright:  Handout (in linked article)

License:  Fair Use/Education

Make It Rain

Micky Liu is described as an HBO IT exec. When he died in 2015, he left his life insurance proceeds, and 401(k) plan balance and other retirement benefits to Veronica Beckham, a stripper he had met 9 months earlier. His sister contested the $223K left to Beckham alleging that Beckham (no relation to David) had seduced Liu. A court ruled against the sister on the grounds that the only person who could contest the beneficiary designation was Liu’s prior beneficiary, an ex-girlfriend.

A few minor points:

1. The court made the correct ruling because Liu had no presumption of leaving the benefits to his sister or any other family member.

2. Undue influence is more difficult to prove in a non-will matter than a will contest.

3. As a rule of thumb, women who hang with Snoop Dogg are not usually romantically interested in IT guys.  

4. $223K total benefits (including presumably 1X salary in life insurance)? The term “exec” has become as watered down as the term “porn star.”

Photo Credit:  Instagram
License:  Fair Use/Education (from linked article)

Unduly Influenced Boss (Sumner Redstone Pt. 5)

Viacom and CBS President, Sumner Redstone, is back in the news this week. He removed Phillipe Dauman and George Abrams, who are directors of Viacom, as Trustees of one of his trusts. They are contesting their removal by alleging he is incompetent. In a huge twist of irony/self-preservation/whatever you want to call it, only six months ago they testified he was competent to remove a girlfriend as his health care proxy.

Three brief points:

1. The stakes in the previous battle involved who could make his health care decisions if he could not (while the real plot was whether he could change his will to disinherit his former girlfriend) while these stakes are who gets to control Viacom and CBS after Redstone's death.

2. I think if Redstone is in a wheelchair, being fed by a feeding tube, and able to communicate only through an aide now, and was in the same condition six months ago, he was likely incompetent at both junctures.

3. Dauman and Abrams have reaped what they have sown. Being close to Redstone is like having an alligator as a pet - it might seem cool, but eventually it (i.e. he) will devour you.

One Disinherited Ex-Girlfriend

The reports of a settlement between Sumner Redstone and Manuela Herzer over her replacement as his health care proxy were premature. There actually was a brief trial over the dispute which ended with the judge dismissing Herzer's suit to remain as his health care decision maker. The judge relied on a 7 minute deposition of Redstone in which the few intelligible sentences he uttered were "Manuela is a ****ing bitch" (twice) and "I want Manuela out of my life. Yeah." Of course Herzer's attorneys have vowed to appeal.

Several points:

1. This case remains about Redstone's will which he changed at the same time as his health care power of attorney. Herzer was reportedly to receive $70 million at his death.

2. Herzer, who smartly declined an offer of marriage from Redstone, has reportedly received $75 million in gifts from him while the woman who did become his second wife only received $10 million because she signed a pre-nup.

3. While Redstone, like the recently deceased Prince, believes he will live forever, at least he has planned for his death by having a will and various trusts.

Grandma Murders, Grandkids Inherit Millions (Pt. 2)

Ben Novack was the son of the builder of Miami's Fountainebleu Hotel.  Both he and his 86 year old mother were murdered at the behest of his wife of 18 years, a former stripper, within 3 weeks of each other in 2009 to collect his $10 million estate.  His wife was convicted of his murder in 2012 and is now serving life in prison.  His wife was designated as the primary beneficiary of his 2006 will, but is prohibited from inheriting due to Florida's Slayer Statute.  An appeals court recently held, though, that her daughter and grandsons may inherit his $4 million estate as his contingent will beneficiaries because the Slayer Statute does not apply to them.  Novack's cousins and other distant relatives (including Steve Wynn's wife, Andrea Wynn) are still claiming that his wife unduly influenced his will and that it should be thrown out.

Several quick points:

1.  The undue influence argument should be a non-starter because after a marriage of 15 years, a husband will always leave his assets to his wife and then her children if they do not have their own children.

2.  Novack violated one of my tenets - never marry a stripper.   Another tenet is never marry someone you met in rehab.

3.  Attorney fees are the only thing that outpaces  appreciation of South Florida real estate if Novack's estate declined in value by $6 million over 6 years.

4.  Andrea Wynn must have a punitive pre-nup with her hotel magnate husband, billionaire Steve Wynn, if she feels compelled to chase the few remaining millions of her murdered cousin.

Love Thyself and Love Thy Shrink

Amy Blumenthal moved to NYC and started seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Susan Turner, to fulfill her prescriptions.  Six months later Turner allegedly dropped Blumenthal as a patient, started dating her, and soon moved into her apartment.  Blumenthal eventually re-wrote her will to leave her $7 million estate to Turner.  Blumenthal died 3 1/2 years after starting the romantic relationship with Turner.  Blumenthal's brother, a hedge fund manager and owner of a swimwear line, is challenging the will on the grounds that Turner unduly influenced his sister in the preparation of her will.

Several quick points:

1.  Although it is unethical for a psychiatrist to date a patient whom the psychiatrist is treating, it is not unethical for the psychiatrist to be named as a beneficiary of the patient's will although an argument can be made that the psychiatrist unduly influenced the patient.

2.  When a woman leaves her estate to her girlfriend of 3 1/2 years while ignoring her brother the hedge fund manager who is presumably well off, it is difficult to prove undue influence.

3.  I thought that hedge fund managers only cared about billions, not single digit millions.  I also did not think that they had sideline swimwear businesses.

Daddy Knows Best (And His Daughters Are Resentful)

Following up on the most recent post.  The 21 and 17 year old daughters of Maurice Laboz, who left them each $10 million in trust but provided that they can receive the funds earlier if they meet certain conditions, are reportedly going to court this week to challenge the list of conditions. Their mother is also set to contest the will of her estranged husband.

Several quick points:

1.  As stated ad nauseam here, the grounds for contesting a will or trust are two:  lack of mental capacity or undue influence.  The detailed conditions imposed by Mr. Laboz show a clarity of thought which rules out lack of mental capacity.

2.  Infrequently, the terms of a trust can be challenged because they are against public policy such as when a trust prohibits a beneficiary from marrying a person from a different faith or race.

3.  Rather than being against public policy, some would argue that it is good public policy to keep millions out of the hands of 21 and 17 year old beneficiaries.

4.  Others would also argue that it is good public policy to prohibit teens and 20-somethings from adding to the national tattoo epidemic.

Let's Litigate Two!

In playing his entire Hall of Fame career for the Chicago Cubs, Ernie Banks became the most famous and beloved player in Cubs history.  At the time of his death last month, he had been estranged from his third wife for 7 years.  He revised his will several months before his death to leave all of his assets to his caregiver of several years and to nominate her as his executrix.  His sons are questioning the validity of his will while his ex-wife has gone to court to prevent the caregiver from cremating his body and spreading his ashes in Wrigley Field.  His sons and estranged wife both allege he was suffering from dementia prior to his death.  The funeral home which handled his funeral and the cemetery where he was supposed to be buried both state that they have no knowledge about the location of his body.

Three quick points:

1.  A will revised by an individual immediately prior to death which leaves assets to a care giver instead of children is ripe for contesting on the grounds of both lack of mental capacity AND undue influence.  I doubt this will work out in the favor of the care giver.

2.  It is possible that the body of Mr. Banks is located with the head of Ted Williams.

3.  Steve Bartman wishes he could have vanished as effortlessly as the body of Mr. Cub.

The Big Messy (Part Deux)

As I posted the other day, Tom Benson, the owner of the New Orleans Saints and the New Orleans Pelicans, recently changed his estate plan to leave his ownership interests in his teams to his 3rd wife instead of his granddaughter. His granddaughter and other relatives filed suit alleging that he is incompetent and that his changed plan should be barred by the court. Among other allegations, his family claims that when questioned he thought the current U.S. President was Reagan or Truman. He also allegedly lives on "candy, ice cream, sodas, and red wine" and forgot his daughter's birthday. The lawsuit portrays his wife, Gayle Benson, as a gold digger. She allegedly has removed all photos of his daughter and grandchildren from their house while he has changed all of his previous medical care providers. 

Several points: 

1. Grounds for contesting a will/trust are absence of mental incapacity (not knowing what one is doing and who one's heirs would usually be) and undue influence (one person convinces another to leave assets to him/her due to proximity to that person). 

2. On the surface, it seems like there is some evidence of both a lack of mental capacity and undue influence in this matter. 

3. Don't we all wish that we could live on "candy, ice cream, sodas,and red wine" and that Ronald Reagan was still president? 

4. It would be more appropriate if Gayle Benson were in line to inherit the 49'ers because they are named after real gold diggers.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

The NYT blogged about a woman who left her estate to her daughters while disinheriting the children of her son who predeceased her.  Although she was suffering from dementia, two weeks before her death she re-affirmed a prior will which included the grandchildren from her dead son.  She then changed her mind five days later and excluded the grandchildren.  The grandchildren challenged the will and eventually settled for a small amount to be shared among them.   The protagonist granddaughter decried that she wished her grandmother had conversed with her about the will and that she wished her grandmother had left her wishes in a letter.

Several points:

1.   Wills may be challenged on the grounds of undue influence ("Mom, leave it to us, our dead brother's kids are never around") and lack of mental capacity (i.e. dementia).  Both grounds seem to be present in this case.  It seems that they could have fought longer for their father's share.

2.  When one's parent dies and one wishes to inherit the deceased parent's share of a grandmother's estate, constant contact, e-mails, visits, thinking of you cards, and holiday gatherings are time well spent.

3.  Contrary to the granddaughter's naive wishes, clients never tell someone they are are being disinherited much less express those wishes in a writing.  The will serves as that written document.  The woman, Kate, was smart to not use her last name lest she and her naivete be subject to ridicule by those who met her.

It's All About Francesca

Julie Harris, the 5 time Emmy Award winning actress, died in August.  Her will named a minor soap opera actress, Francesca Rubino, as the co-executor of her estate.  Her will also contained a codicil stating that if her son, who lived on her property and who is to receive the bulk of his estate, threatened to harm the co-executor, he would be disinherited.  The son was unable to see his mother the last 3 years of her life.  Friends of Ms. Harris claim that Ms. Rubino wormed her way into Ms. Harris' life and fired all of her long time employees including the gardener, housekeeper, and attorney. The new attorney, who presumably would earn $100,000 as co-executor, maintains that they are merely disgruntled former employees.

Several points:

1.  Wills can generally be challenged on the grounds of lack of mental capacity or undue influence.  An indicia of undue influence is where a non-relative receives money to the exclusion of children or one child receives a disproportionate amount.

2.  The son has standing to contest the validity of the will, but if he still receives most of the estate and the only issue is who will serve as executor, he might not be inclined to contest the will and lose money in legal fees.

3.  I have never seen a codicil threatening to disinherit someone, much less a child, for threatening anyone.  Codicils usually change the amounts to be received by a beneficiary.

4.  Who can blame the son for making a threatening gesture to someone described as "very alluring but very manipulative" and "who had a saintly look that was overboard"?