September 23, 2009

Michael Jackson's Estate, Part 8 -- More on the Allowance

A couple of things have happened recently in the Michael Jackson case, both of which favor his mother, Katherine (a link):

1. Katherine (individually and as guardian of the minor children) was given a monthly allowance of more than $86,000 (yes -- you read that right). That breaks down as $26,804 for her and $60,000 for the children. Surprisingly, the biggest line item ($4,722 per month, about $57,000 per year) for Katherine relates to her assistant -- curious that someone without a job or any visible means of support (besides her son's largesse) would need "assistance."

2. The Judge also ruled that Katherine may contest Michael's appointment of executor (that is, such a contest does not violate the Will's "no contest" clause). I would typically agree that a no contest clause shouldn't be enforced (or should be enforced rarely), but we aren't really talking about a dispositive provision here. Furthermore, Michael named the co-executors AND left most of his estate to his mother in his trust. It seems to me that either the entire estate plan is invalid, or none of it is. Why does Katherine get to cherry pick, keeping the provisions favorable to her and challenging the provisions that aren't favorable?

| Share
September 21, 2009

Illinois Right To Life and "Patient Protection"? Not Really

This document, prepared by Illinois Right to Life, was provided to me recently. They consider it a "life-affirming version of the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care," and indicate that it is a response to "the current medical and legal climate that actively promotes euthanasia and assisted suicide for the disabled and terminally ill." That's surprising, since the document:

1. allows for termination of life AND

2. actually can allow for termination of life in many more cases than the Illinois statutory short form power of attorney.

For one thing, the document states that "I wish food and fluids provided to me either orally, intravenously, by tube, or by other means to the full extent necessary to both preserve my life and to prevent death by dehydration and/or starvation," but also grants an exception ("unless death is truly imminent from an underlying fatal disease, or unless I am unable to assimilate foods or fluids"). Note that the Illinois statutory form allows you to choose what type of life-sustaining treatment you wish to receive, including the following:

I want my life to be prolonged to the greatest extent possible without regard to my condition, the chances I have for recovery or the cost of the procedures.

Notice that there are no exceptions in that statement.

| Share
September 18, 2009

Convenience Accounts

Here's a piece of legislation that might actually help(!).

For a long time there's been an issue involving a decedent and joint accounts. Mom is elderly, and you (daughter) help her out with her banking. Mom adds you to her checking account with a $50,000 balance. Did Mom mean for you to...

1. Simply write checks on her behalf, for her convenience? OR

2. Inherit the account upon her death?

You might say #2; your siblings might say #1. In any case, it's a mess. But maybe P.A. 96-123 will help. As estate planning and probate guru Patricia Brosterhous explains it:

Effective January 1, 2010, a “depositor” (primary account holder), can create such an account for the purposes of permitting a “convenience depositor” access to pay or deposit funds for the convenience depositor. Deposits made to such an account will not affect the title, the depositor shall not be considered as having made a gift, and the convenience depositor shall not have any right of survivorship in the account.

| Share
September 3, 2009

Nipsey Russell's Estate

The Onion nails it, here -- talk about a pro-active literary executor!

| Share
September 2, 2009

Problems with Wrongful Death in Probate

Legislators aren't very good at drafting legislation. And they are especially bad at drafting legislation when more than one area of law is affected. For instance, take the Wrongful Death Act (740 ILCS 180 et seq.) and the way it intersects with probate. Consider Section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act (the "Act"):

Sec. 2. Every such action shall be brought by and in the names of the personal representatives of such deceased person, and, except as otherwise hereinafter provided, the amount recovered in every such action shall be for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin of such deceased person.

There's a reference to how an action in wrongful death is "for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin [i.e. heirs] of such deceased person." But let's say you have three children, and are estranged from one of them -- why should that child benefit from a wrongful death settlement? That's what happens, even if your Will disinherits that child.

There's also a disconnect between the personal representative (administrator or executor), who brings the action, and the people who benefit from the action. You can't have a wrongful death suit without having a probate (that's where the personal representative is appointed). But the Act is pretty vague about how the person who pays to initiate the probate gets reimbursed. It's clear how reimbursement occurs if there's no surviving spouse or next of kin, but not if there IS a surviving spouse and next of kin. Who is the person who initiates the action (and his or her attorney) to be reimbursed and/or paid? The Act doesn't say.

| Share