Texas Estate Planning

What Is to Be Done with Charles Manson

A messy dispute over the remains of Charles Manson is currently keeping his body on ice, according to Fox News in "Fight for Charles Manson's body is a 'circus,' county attorney says."

At least five people have come forward claiming the right to Manson's remains and his estate.

Two of them were pen pals of his. One claims to have a will making him Manson's sole heir and one of the claimants is Manson's grandson. It is not clear what relation the other two people have to Manson.

The infamous cult leader and mass murder mastermind remained a subject of fascination until he died. A few people were even in awe of the notorious criminal.

Officials are not certain what court has jurisdiction to determine who should be given possession of the remains and to determine who should get Manson's estate.

Until this matter gets settled, officials are required to preserve Manson's remains.

Reference: Fox News (Dec. 21, 2017) "Fight for Charles Manson's body is a 'circus,' county attorney says."

Estate of Las Vegas Killer Appears Locked Up

It is unusual that Las Vegas mass killer Stephen Paddock left behind an estate valued at approximately $5 million. However, it is not unusual to have many claims against the estate under the circumstances, according to Fox News in "Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock's $5M estate to be settled in court, judge says."

There are so many potential claims against the estate that the judge in charge of overseeing it is worried that paying any early claimants might leave later claimants uncompensated.

The judge has ordered that attorneys for the victims develop and plan how the estate can be administered, so all victims and their families are fairly compensated. The plan is due by Jan. 31, 2018.

The court plans to appoint someone to administer the estate in a later hearing.

Paddock's surviving family members have indicated that they want nothing to do with his estate and that the assets should be given to his victims.

Developing a plan to compensate everyone fairly will be challenging for the attorneys. There is not likely to be enough money for everyone to get what they think they should.

Reference: Fox News (Dec. 14, 2017) "Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock's $5M estate to be settled in court, judge says."

When You Inherit an IRA

One of the biggest estate administration mistakes that people make after someone passes away, concerns something that is not technically part of the estate at all. It has to do with inherited IRAs.

Because these accounts are given to beneficiaries directly and they do not go through probate, they are not part of the estate.

However, the importance of IRAs to overall inheritances can be enormous.  Therefore, it is vital that their administration be carefully considered.

If you are the person named as the IRA beneficiary, you have some decisions to make, as the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog discusses in "Practical Issues When an IRA Owner Dies."

The biggest thing to understand is that there are tax consequences for any decisions made about what to do with the IRA. Those consequences are not the same for everyone.

They depend on the relationship between the beneficiary and the deceased. These tax consequences are big enough, that it is important to seek professional tax advice and to do so quickly.

There are penalties, if decisions are not made within certain time limits.

If you are not certain who to talk to about what to do with an inherited IRA, then talk to the attorney who is assisting with the administration of the estate.

The attorney can help direct you to a professional who can assist.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (Oct. 4, 2017) "Practical Issues When an IRA Owner Dies."

When You Inherit an IRA

One of the biggest estate administration mistakes that people make after someone passes away, concerns something that is not technically part of the estate at all. It has to do with inherited IRAs.

Because these accounts are given to beneficiaries directly and they do not go through probate, they are not part of the estate.

However, the importance of IRAs to overall inheritances can be enormous.  Therefore, it is vital that their administration be carefully considered.

If you are the person named as the IRA beneficiary, you have some decisions to make, as the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog discusses in "Practical Issues When an IRA Owner Dies."

The biggest thing to understand is that there are tax consequences for any decisions made about what to do with the IRA. Those consequences are not the same for everyone.

They depend on the relationship between the beneficiary and the deceased. These tax consequences are big enough, that it is important to seek professional tax advice and to do so quickly.

There are penalties, if decisions are not made within certain time limits.

If you are not certain who to talk to about what to do with an inherited IRA, then talk to the attorney who is assisting with the administration of the estate.

The attorney can help direct you to a professional who can assist.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (Oct. 4, 2017) "Practical Issues When an IRA Owner Dies."

Michael Hutchence's Estate

When the former lead singer of INXS committed suicide in 1997, his family was shocked to learn that he had almost no assets. His bank accounts were nearly empty. Real estate he had told them he owned, turned out to belong to other people.

It was not clear what happened to the rights to his music either.

However, now his family thinks Hutchence's daughter, known as Tiger Lily, could inherit millions when she turns 21 in the next few weeks.

Before he passed away, Hutchence set up a trust fund. The family thinks the trust now has assets for Tiger Lily to inherit, according to the Daily Mail in "Michael Hutchence's daughter Tiger Lily is set to 'inherit millions' on her 21st birthday next week through a trust fund set up by her INXS musician father."

It is not entirely clear why the family has this belief,  since many details about the trust are not public and the family does not control the trust. It could be that the rights to Hutchence's music were placed into the trust, which would give it a regular income that could be given to beneficiaries.

Similar things can happen anytime an estate has a valuable asset that can earn a continual income.

For these types of estates, it is important to make sure that the people in charge of them know how to maximize the potential of the assets, in order to get the most income out of them.

We may learn soon whether the Hutchence's estate does have those people in charge.

Reference: Daily Mail (July 16, 2017) "Michael Hutchence's daughter Tiger Lily is set to 'inherit millions' on her 21st birthday next week through a trust fund set up by her INXS musician father."

Valuing Intellectual Property

Today, we often take intellectual property rights for granted. We think of them almost as natural rights.

It just seems obvious to most people that someone who created something should naturally have ownership of it. However, this was not always the case.

Intellectual property rights are relatively new.

For example, copyrights started as nothing more than a way for English printers' guilds to decide which member had the right to print which pamphlets or books. Even 100 years ago, intellectual property was often something of an afterthought.

Nevertheless, these rights have been expanded so much, that now they are often the most valuable assets that an estate has.

The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog points this out in "Article on Practical Considerations for Valuing Intellectual Property Assets in Estate Planning."

What this means is that executors, trustees, and the lawyers who help them need to be very careful when dealing with intellectual property rights.

If an estate has a patent, for example, then it needs to be able to determine how much that patent is worth for estate tax purposes and it needs to know if the patent is co-owned with other people who could have a say in how it is used.

The estate must also take affirmative steps to protect the intellectual property rights, when necessary to do so.

Because these assets can be so valuable, it is very important for estates to seek out professional advice on how to handle them.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (July 15, 2017) "Article on Practical Considerations for Valuing Intellectual Property Assets in Estate Planning."

Carrie Fisher's Estate

The details of the late actress Carrie Fisher's estate plan have recently been made public in court filings.

The actress had established a living trust and her only daughter, Billie Lourd, is the sole beneficiary of that trust. The estate is worth millions of dollars.

It includes a multi-million dollar home, valuable Star Wars memorabilia and the rights to Fisher's famous image and likeness. However, even though Fisher had a trust, part of the estate might still need to go through probate court.

People reported on this in "Carrie Fisher's Final Assets Revealed, Billie Lourd Named Beneficiary of the Estate."

At the time of her death, Fisher had not placed all of her assets in the trust. Under basic estate law, that means that any assets not in the trust need to go through probate court.

However, attorneys for the estate have asked the court to allow all of the assets to be placed in the trust, since that is what Fisher intended. If the request is granted, then probate will not be necessary.

In this case, the request is likely to be granted, since the final result of probate would likely be that the assets would all be inherited by Lourd. If she has no objections, then the court is likely to allow the estate to avoid the costs and time associated with going through probate.

There is still some danger for the estate here, as someone else could possibly make an objection to the request.

The best thing to do is to place everything in a trust, in order to completely avoid this type of situation.

Reference: People (July 7, 2017) "Carrie Fisher's Final Assets Revealed, Billie Lourd Named Beneficiary of the Estate."

Jenner Sisters Threatened with Lawsuit

It is not exactly clear what Kendall and Kyrie Jenner are famous for. They just are.

Every month or so, the Jenner sisters just pop into the news over something or other. If other people did the same thing, no one would care. It would not be newsworthy.

It's plausible that their skill at getting that media attention, is what they are most famous for doing.

However, the sisters recently learned that there are bad ways for them to use that skill, because it can get them sued by an estate.

TMZ reported on this in "Notorious B.I.G. Estate Warns Kendall & Kylie Jenner Lawsuit's Coming, Unless."

The sisters created T-shirts with the images of deceased rappers Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G.

Problem?

They superimposed their own images and logo over the rappers' images and offered the shirts for sale on their website.

It is not clear why they thought they could do this, since they did not seek permission from the artists' estates to use the images.

Notorious B.I.G.'s mother was deeply offended. His estate's attorney sent the sisters a cease and desist letter with a deadline to stop selling the shirts or face a lawsuit. The Jenners quickly complied and took the shirts out of their store.

The lesson for the sisters here and for anyone else, is that just because a person has passed away, you cannot use his or her likeness in your own commercial enterprises without permission.

The estate of the deceased holds the rights to that likeness and can sue for infringement.

Reference: TMZ (June 29, 2017) "Notorious B.I.G. Estate Warns Kendall & Kylie Jenner Lawsuit's Coming, Unless."

When Is an Executor Better off Not Acting?

When a person passes away, there is a gap in time before a court officially appoints a personal representative, also known as an executor. However, there are often estate actions that take place during that time.

In many states, the personal representative can retroactively authorize those actions after his or her appointment, if doing so would be beneficial to the estate.

Wealth Management recently discussed a Florida case holding that a personal representative is not required to exercise that authority.

The article is titled "Estate Not Liable for Car Accident After Decedent's Death."

In this case, the decedent's adult daughter had lived with him. Although she had a car of her own, she often used her father's car with his permission. She was driving her deceased father's car, when she got into an accident and struck another vehicle.

Subsequently, the decedent's stepson was appointed to be the personal representative of the estate.

Under Florida law, if the daughter was driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner, then the owner could be held liable for any damages, which in this case would be the estate.

Occupants of the other vehicle in the accident sued the estate. However, the personal representative of the estate declined to retroactively authorize the daughter's use of the vehicle.  Therefore, the estate would not be liable for any damages.

The case turned on whether the personal representative was required to exercise that retroactive authority. The court ultimately ruled that he was not.

Consequently, the personal representative is not required to do something that would be harmful to the estate, even if authorized to do so.

Reference: Wealth Management (June 23, 2017) "Estate Not Liable for Car Accident After Decedent's Death."

The Undead Son

Frank Kerrigan, an elderly California man, knew that his son had problems. He had a lot of problems.

The son suffered from mental illness and was homeless.

Therefore, it probably was not that big of a surprise to Kerrigan, when he received a phone call from the Orange County, California coroner's office to inform him that his son had passed away. Kerrigan asked the coroner if he could see his son's body and personally identify him.  However, he was told that was unnecessary since the coroner had confirmed the deceased's identity using fingerprints.

Kerrigan arranged a funeral for his son and spent $20,000.

Other family members flew in from out of state to attend the funeral. However, 11 days later, Kerrigan received a phone call from a family friend who informed him that not only was his son not dead, he was standing right there.

Kerrigan then spoke to his son on the phone, as the Daily Mail reports in "Outrage as father is told his homeless son is dead and buries him in $20k funeral - only to be told 11 days later that it was a mistake by the coroner and that his son is very much ALIVE!."

Kerrigan is suing the coroner's office for damages that he suffered due to the false identification.

Cases of authorities mistakenly identifying a deceased person do not happen all that often.  However, they do happen. Because they do, it is important that someone who knew the deceased person view the body and confirm the identity.

Families should insist on it.

In this case, the family only held a funeral. Other cases of mistaken identity have been discovered during or after an estate administration, which creates even more legal difficulties.

Reference: Daily Mail (June 24, 2017) "Outrage as father is told his homeless son is dead and buries him in $20k funeral - only to be told 11 days later that it was a mistake by the coroner and that his son is very much ALIVE!."