Redkey Gordon P.C.

The Evil Stepmother Stereotype Rides Again!

When people remarry, the dynamics between children and step-parents is never over, even after one of the spouses has passed away. In cases when one spouse was a millionaire, a challenge to the will is almost expected. But one case in New York has an unexpected twist.

Perhaps if Dr. Nathaniel Shafer knew what was to come, he may have made some changes to his will that might have precluded a nasty dispute between his wife and his children from a previous marriage. By leaving a $10 million estate entirely to his wife and her child from a different marriage, Dr. Shafer set the stage for a battle that turned ugly fast.

Problem: Jennifer and Robert Shafer, the children from a previous marriage, are claiming that their stepmother filed a fake will. They want the court to throw that will out and to use an earlier will that leaves half of the estate to them. To prove their claim, the Shafer siblings are asking the court to waive a doctor-patient privilege so a therapist the couple saw can testify about their relationship.

The New York Post reported this story in an article titled "Siblings claim stepmom filed fake will to get $10M inheritance."

Claims of fake wills are not quite as common as claims of using undue influence to have someone create a new will. That might be because wills are not particularly easy to fake. It is not quite as simple as merely forging the deceased's signature. Wills require witnesses for a reason: so they can be called to testify that they did in fact see the deceased sign the will.

The original article does not explain how the siblings plan to get around the witness issue, if the witnesses are able to testify that they saw Shafer sign the will that was filed with the court. As is often the case, there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Reference: New York Post (August 28, 2015) "Siblings claim stepmom filed fake will to get $10M inheritance."

Scam Artists Continue Because it Works

It’s a sad truth that some of the oldest scams around are still around because they work. They work because people are blinded by the possibility of quickly and easily obtaining huge amounts of money. The best way to protect yourself from these scams is to know that they exist and to recognize that, sadly, no one is really giving away millions of dollars to complete strangers.

If you had an email account in the 1990s, you were personally selected to help a Nigerian prince recover his rightfully due inheritance. He may have written to you many times, pleading with you for your help and thanking you profusely in advance for your generosity and kindness. We all got those emails. Some of us got them from different princes or members of African royalty who had been forced to flee their countries. The English was broken, but the message was clear – we were special, we had been chosen to help, and in return, we were going to be rich beyond our wildest dreams.

The basic idea behind the scam was that an extremely wealthy person in Nigeria had his accounts frozen or could not transfer money out of the country without help. The scammer either requested that money be sent or that bank account numbers be sent to facilitate the transfer of the scammer's assets for which the person would be rewarded handsomely later.

That this was a scam seems obvious, as why would some wealthy African need the assistance of random Americans? However, everyone knows about the scam because it worked. The scammer just needs one person out of millions to take the bait. That is true with most common scams. Only one person needs to take the bait to make attempting to scam thousands worth the scammer's time.

Another old scam is still making the rounds, according to the Wichita Eagle, in "A long-lost relative left you money? Beware of inheritance scams."

In this scam, the intended victim is told that a relative has left them an inheritance, but to get the inheritance, the victim must first pay the scammer money to facilitate the transfer. Often this scam can be very personal, as the victim is given the name of a real relative who died or lived in a faraway place as the person who left the inheritance. That makes the scam sound plausible.

The best way to protect against this scam is to know it exists, and if you receive anything that looks like it, to check with other relatives before sending any money to claim the inheritance.

Still not convinced that the scam is a phony? Contact Robert A. Gordon of Redkey Gordon Law Corp, an estate planning attorney to check it out for you.

Reference: Wichita Eagle (August 21, 2015) "A long-lost relative left you money? Beware of inheritance scams"

The William’s Estate Battle Continues

When it comes to battles over personal possessions in estate matters, it is rarely because those involved intend to liquidate the items for revenue. Usually, the fight is rooted in an emotional struggle and centers on long-standing hurts and resentments. That’s likely the case in a battle now underway over the estate of actor Robin Williams.

Ask any divorce lawyer what was the cause of the most intense and bitter fight between a couple, and chances are good they will tell you it was over something ridiculous – a collection of Elvis decanters or a matchbook collection.

The stuff being fought over serves as a proxy because the parties are angry with each other and want to fight over something. The same thing happens in estate law when heirs do not get along and resent each other. The heirs will fight over those very same Elvis decanters.

However, in estate law these battles do not make it to court as often as they do in divorce law because divorcing couples are already in court. Most of the time heirs feuding over junk find it cost prohibitive to hire attorneys. Robin Williams' estate might be an exception.

His personal property might be valuable to collectors. So even though the real reason his heirs are fighting is probably not out of any great desire to have his bicycle collection or books, those items are issues in his estate. Issues that the court might have to settle were recently the subject of an ABC7 report titled "Robin Williams’ Bikes Are An Issue In Estate Battle."

What does this means for estate planning purposes? If you suspect your heirs might have lingering disputes with each other, then it is a good idea to spell out who gets what property as specifically as possible. While you think there is nothing worth fighting over, any heirs who have a bone to pick may pick a fight over your “stuff” after you are gone.

Contact Robert A. Gordon of Redkey Gordon Law Corp, an estate planning attorney to help you avoid (and prevent) petty feuds over your estate.

Reference: ABC7 (August 28, 2015) "Robin Williams Bikes Are An Issue In Estate Battle."

Another Bad Hit to Ernie Banks' Estate

If the bitter feud between the estranged wife of baseball legend Ernie Banks and his estate wasn’t bad enough, the latest development in this odd case is likely to leave everyone involved empty-handed.

The epic battle over a small estate of Ernie Banks between his estranged wife and the caretaker who was named as his sole heir has developed a new wrinkle. By the time these three parties come to a resolution, it is likely there won’t be anything left to divide.

Now, Banks' friend, Shirley Marx, has entered a claim against the estate for $80,000. Marx claims this is the amount she loaned to Banks while he worked for her family's moving company. However, the loans were not documented, which will make it difficult for Marx to prove her claims.

The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog reported on this in "Estate of Ernie Banks Faces New Challenge As Creditor Steps Forward."

The problem? If Banks was so cash-strapped that he had to borrow $80,000 from a friend, then his estate is unlikely to have enough assets to cover the costs of all of this litigation and still have assets left over to distribute to whoever the eventual winner of these battles turns out to be.

This is a common problem with estates that seem just large enough to fight over. By the time the fighting is over, the only people left with anything are the attorneys.

That does not mean that you should not hire an attorney or not fight over an estate against which you have a legitimate claim. On the other hand, it does mean that when fighting over an estate, you need to be mindful of the attorney's fees the estate is paying.

In the end, Robert A. Gordon of Redkey Gordon Law Corp, an estate planning attorney, can help you make a more informed decision about when it is best to settle the case instead of continuing to fight over an ever-dwindling sum.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (August 29, 2015) "Estate of Ernie Banks Faces New Challenge As Creditor Steps Forward."

Changing a Will Definitely Not a Do-It-Yourself Project

It may seem that revoking a will should be a pretty straightforward process, but it is not. In more cases than you can imagine, people who think they have done all the right things end up leaving their assets to unintended heirs. Writing a will or making changes to a will are one thing – properly executing them is another.

Stories of people who change their minds after their wills have been executed are common. They often tear up the pages or write all over the will. There are many different ways to revoke a will. But without the guidance of an experienced estate attorney, a prior and properly executed will trumps a do-it-yourself will.

A recent article from Elder Law Answers, "Efforts to Change Will Using Photocopy and Then Downloaded Form Are Ineffective," describes a case decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in August 2015, that proves that it is possible to “fail to revoke” a will.

Esther Sullivan had a will created in 2006. It was a properly executed and valid will that left half of her estate to a former employee. In 2008, she had a change of heart. She photocopied the will and made handwritten changes to it, all of which she initialed. She also wrote that the 2006 will was void. This new document removed the former employee and left half the estate to someone else.

Later, in 2010, Williams downloaded a form will off the Internet, filed in the blanks and signed it believing it was to be her new will. The court, however, ruled that her 2006 will was still valid. The reason? Neither the 2008 document nor the 2010 document were properly executed.

Consequently, neither “new will” could by law revoke the 2006 will.

Even though it is clear that Sullivan wanted to revoke her will and no longer wanted the former employee to get half of her estate, her failure to properly revoke the 2006 will means that the former employee will get the inheritance.

Be sure to work with Robert A. Gordon of Redkey Gordon Law Corp, an estate planning attorney whether you want to create, change or completely redo your estate plan.

Reference:  Elder Law Answers (August 2015) "Efforts to Change Will Using Photocopy and Then Downloaded Form Are Ineffective"