My trustee won't give me my inheritance
Finding all of parent's or deceased loved one's assets can be difficult in probate and trust litigation cases
Father's change of title to hold bank account in joint tenancy, not his trust, stops son from inheriting
When your inheritance doesn't arrive on time then do something about it immediately.
It looks like one of Michael Jackson's former lawyers is suing his probate estate for $3 million. It will interesting to find out if this attorney actually knows how to sue a probate estate. Unlike a living person who can be sued quite easily, a claim must be filed with a probate estate before it is sued if the basis for the claim is the decedent (i.e. the person who died) owes a debt to the person suing. This isn't true if the claim is the estate itself owes a debt (e.g. the executor breached a contract.)
Probate estates have been known to stop creditors cold. If the creditor just plunges in by filing suit, that creditor will skip the necessary step of filing a claim with the probate estate. If the claim isn't filed then the executor of the probate estate has a perfect defense.
If the executor knows the creditor (or potential creditor) exists then the executor should send that creditor a notice that informs them of the time they have to file a claim. I have done this in a number of cases where the creditor didn't file a claim in time. (I guess some people don't think the rules apply to them.) When they finally filed they were astounded to find their claim was denied. Some didn't file a claim and were surprised to find the probate had been closed.
Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, fired her to attorneys in her battle over her son's probate estate. Initially Mrs. Jackson didn't hire a probate attorney to represent her a rather attorneys without particular expertise in probate. Mrs. Jackson hired a new attorney, a probate litigator, to represent her. Mrs. Jackson was apparently dissatisfied with the two attorney, she had representing her and decided she needed a tried-and-true probate litigator to represent her in the ongoing battles over her son's estate.
One of the interesting lessons of this episode is one that's lost on so many probate litigants. Mrs. Jackson was dissatisfied with their attorneys and fired them. Far too often, probate litigants trudge along with an attorney that makes them uncomfortable or in whom they have little confidence. No one has to do that. If you are litigating a probate case then take a lesson from Katherine Jackson, get yourself a new probate attorney. If you're not satisfied with the attorney you have now.
This case between a Houston area church and its parishioners over what a deceased parishioner meant when he left money to the church in his will illustrates the difficulty of determining testamentary intent. In this case the parishioner left his money to his church. The church building needs to be repaired. The local archdiocese wants to demolish the church structure but still receive the bequest from the will.
It is unclear from the will itself whether the money was left to the "mother church" or the local church. This intention, if the case was in California, would be all important to determine who will actually inherit under the will. If the decedent meant to benefit just his local church under his will then with the church being shuttered and scheduled for demolition the bequest would likely fail and then pass to the alternate beneficiary or under the laws of intestate succession. If the decedent meant to leave money to the "mother church" through his will then the church gets the money regardless of what they do to any particular structure.
In a California probate litigation the testator's intent is at issue whenever the language of the will is ambiguous or the situation contemplated by the testator has changed in a way that frustrates the terms of the will. In such cases, extrinsic evidence (evidence that is something other than the terms of the will) can be introduced to show what the settlor intended. The probate court judge then decides what was intended and who inherits under the will.
The well publicized and much criticized case of Leona Helmsley's will and trust is in the news again. The examiner.com has a columnist who is outraged that Helmsley's wishes have been ignored. But were they? The columnist's first complaint is Helmsley having disinherited two of her grandchildren. Those grandchildren filed a will contest alleging Helmsley was not mentally competent when she signed her will. The estate's executors decided to settle the lawsuit rather than take it to trial. The columnist is surprised and angry the executors changed the will to include omitted heirs. This view betrays the columnists ignorance. The executors did not change the will. A challenge was brought to the
validity of the will. Had the executors lost the litigation the entire will would have been set aside. Had this happened, the court (not the executors) would have been saying Helmsley was incapable of expressing her true wishes. By settling the case the executors must have thought there was some risk of loss and giving up a piece of the estate was better than having the entire will set aside.
The columnist has a fair point that Helmsley specifically left $12 million for her dog's care and that amount was reduced by the court to $2 million. Typically, will provisions that are specific and clear are carried out to the letter. If in fact this was the case then there is no legitimate reason for the judge to have allowed a departure from those terms. I am not aware of any appeal having been taken from the judge's ruling in that regard which may indicate New York law permits the trustee of an animal trust to not comply with its literal language if its intention can still be carried out through other means.
I was recently contacted by someone who wanted to file a trust contest in San Bernardino County. After discussing the facts of her case with her it became clear that she was unlikely to be able to prove her case. This person then asked me to take her case on a contingency basis. While my firm does take some trust contests on a contingency fee we only do so with cases we believe have merit. This one didn't.
I declined to take this case and the caller asked how to file the trust contest on her own. So, I explained to her how that's done. You can
click here if you want to learn how to start a California trust contest. Having received an explanation I was sure this caller would either contact another attorney or decide not to pursue her case. Instead she asked "where do I get the form." There is no form I replied. Each trust contest has unique facts and those facts have to be plead in your petition. She just couldn't accept this and repeatedly asked what form she should fill out to start her case. She just did not want to accept my explanation. I suppose there is some poor clerk at the probate court who is still trying to explain to her she has to draft a petition because there is no form.
In one of the strangest will contests I have seen Robert Jaeger is suing four of his siblings over his mother's estate. Patricia English has eight children. After being released from the hospital after having surgery her son came to live with her. Jaeger says his mother told him she would leave her entire estate to whomever cared for her. Jaeger stayed for seven years. During that time English says she grew tired of Jaeger making demands of her and allegations were made that Jaeger was isolating his mother from the rest of the family. All of this is pretty typical for a will contest.
This will contest gets strange in that Jaeger filed this will contest while his mother is still alive. After he was removed from his mother's home she changed her will to leave her estate to four of her children, not including Jaeger. Jaeger alleged the new will was the product of undue influence and filed his will contest.
This will contest takes an even stranger turn in that Jaeger is claiming $1,000,000 in damages while his mother says her sole asset is a house with about $130,000 in equity. With five parties involved it would be unsurprising if they collectively spend more than that to take this will contest to trial. The entire story can be found
here.It is surprising the probate court judge in this case is allowing the will contest to go to trial. Mrs. English is still alive so she could change her will again. If she does revise her will then its possible another will contest could ensue. The probate court judge is practically inviting a second will contest over the same probate estate if the will is changed again. That second will contest would be a complete waste of the probate court judge's time and the time and money of all the parties involved.
I don't think this will contest would be allowed to proceed in a California probate court. The probate lawyer defending the will contest would assert it's premature until Mrs. English passes away. If the will contest were allowed to proceed it would be impossible to calculate damages (if the will contest petitioner wins) and its impossible to know who the correct parties to the will contest are.
