Crichton’s final plot twist

Crichton’s Last Thriller
Karen Donovan
April 20, 2009
Condé Nast Portfolio.com
http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/portfolio/2009/04/20/Michael-Crichtons-Last-Thriller
When he died in November, the author left behind two unpublished books and one real mystery: Will his widow be able to gain control of a substantial part of his estate against his wishes?

The publishing world is abuzz with news that Michael Crichton, the bestselling author of science fiction thrillers such as Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain, left behind at least one finished novel and part of a second when he died of cancer last November.

HarperCollins plans to publish both novels over the next year and a half as part of a $30 million book deal Crichton signed in 2001.

But the prolific Crichton, who was married five times and also created the hit TV series ER, which ended a 15-year run this month, left behind another, even bigger piece of unfinished business: the fate of a son born three months after the author died.

The son, John Michael Todd Crichton, isn’t mentioned in Crichton’s will, but as an “omitted child” in legal theory, he may nonetheless be entitled to one-third of the writer’s estate. The amount at stake is not known, but may well reach into nine figures: By one account, Crichton earned $100 million a year in his prime.

In a dramatic twist worthy of Crichton himself, his widow—Sherri Alexander Crichton, who signed a prenuptial agreement limiting her share of the estate—is seeking to be named guardian of her son’s property. Success would essentially let her circumvent the prenuptial pact.

Crichton had only one other child, a daughter named Taylor Anne Crichton, whom he had with his fourth wife, the actress and screenwriter Anne-Marie Martin. Taylor is named in Crichton’s will, which was filed in probate petition in Los Angeles on January 26—coincidentally, the day Taylor turned 20.

The will leaves Crichton’s estate plan mostly a mystery: Like many celebrities and wealthy people, he put the “residue” of his estate—legal jargon for everything, essentially—into a family trust. (Documents for the John Michael Crichton Trust, unfortunately, are not public.)

Crichton’s will consists largely of standard boilerplate language, but there are also some pointed instructions aimed squarely at his legion of ex-spouses. The first paragraph, for instance, makes clear: “I have intentionally omitted to provide for Anne-Marie and my other former spouses under the terms of this will.”

Later on, there is a reminder of the prenuptial agreement he signed with Sherri in April 2005, and Crichton instructs his executor “to be bound by the terms” of that deal. So that, apparently, took care of the wives.

But what of the children? Taylor, named in the will, is also listed as one of the beneficiaries of the private trust. What she will get is anybody’s guess. But as an “omitted child,” two-month-old John stands to collect one-third of his famous father’s fortune.

Crichton’s family said the author, who was 66, died “unexpectedly” on November 4 after “a courageous and private battle against cancer.” A long-time smoker, Crichton reportedly died of throat cancer, but the length of his battle with that disease—and whether he knew of his wife’s pregnancy—are a mystery.

It is entirely possible that Crichton never got around to changing his will—which was last amended in October 2007—to address his second child. The law in California and many other states provides for this circumstance, leaving a way for a child born after the signing of a will to claim his or her inheritance as if the parent had died without an estate plan.

“In order to leave your kid out, you have to consciously make that decision,” says Kenneth S. Wolf of Hoffman Sabban & Watanmaker of Los Angeles, a firm that specializes in estate planning. Rules for “omitted” or “pretermitted” children “go back to the Middle Ages,” he says.

But Crichton’s will contains a bit of 20th-century lawyering that may complicate matters. In a provision under the heading, “incontestability,” the will states: “I have intentionally made no provision in this will for any of my heirs or relatives who are not herein mentioned or designated, and I hereby generally and specifically disinherit every person claiming to be or who may be determined to be my heir-at-law, except as otherwise mentioned in this will.”

Given Crichton’s prolific romantic life, this language would seem to block surprise offspring from coming out of the woodwork.

After all, another clause states emphatically that Crichton would disinherit any person making a claim under “common-law marriage” or the theory in Marvin v. Marvin, the 1979 case brought by actor Lee Marvin’s live-in girlfriend, seeking rights to his property.

To make her case for control of her son’s share of the estate, Sherri Crichton has retained Adam Streisand of the Los Angeles office of Loeb & Loeb, a trial lawyer renowned for courtroom victories regarding the estates of celebrities, including Ray Charles and Marlon Brando.

That she has turned to a high-profile litigator may suggest she is gearing up for a courtroom battle to contest the will’s language on unmentioned heirs. Streisand did not return several calls for comment, but other lawyers said Sherri appears to have a good case.

Wolf, for one, described the “incontestability” clause as “a pretty standard clause,” and one drafted in 2007, long before the infant was born and thus not obviously intended to exclude the boy.

Alan Yoshitake, head of the trusts and estates group at Los Angeles’ Seyfarth Shaw, called it a “beefed-up no-contest clause,” but added that his “strong belief” is that the omitted-child statute would let the infant share his father’s fortune.

At any rate, the child has nothing to lose by contesting away, because he’s not a named beneficiary. “The no-contest clause is only useful if you are threatening to take something away,” says Susan House of Hahn & Hahn in Pasadena, California. “Here we have someone who was not even alive at the time the will was executed, and that is in fact the whole point.”

Ironically, had Streisand, Sherri’s lawyer, drafted the will in question, he might have rendered the infant out of luck: In a November 2007 article for The Hollywood Reporter, called “Nine Things Entertainment Lawyers Should Know About Probate,” Streisand observed: “Celebrities tend to be prolific in all things, including having children out of wedlock.”

To avoid heirs claiming their share as omitted children, Streisand wrote, a will or trust should “very specifically” indicate a “clear intention” not to provide for any child not named, “no matter when that child may be born (before or after the execution of the document.)”

Lucky for young John, Crichton’s estate lawyer was not Streisand but Burton A. Mitchell of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro in Los Angeles. Mitchell did not return repeated calls for comment.