When your inheritance doesn't arrive on time then do something about it immediately.
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.
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.
