Wide world of estate looting unmasked

Different scenarios of how estates can be targeted for Involuntary Redistribution of Assets (IRA) or used for enrichment by unintended parties are exemplified in today’s News Archive postings.

In a not surprising move, lawyer Brian Oxman has announced his intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Michael Jackson’s doctor.  Oxman is taking action on behalf of his client, Joe Jackson.  This is hardly Joe Jackson’s first effort to gain financial benefit in the aftermath of his son’s death.

Meanwhile, proceedings continue in Indianapolis as the widow of shopping mall magnate Mel Simon faces an estate contest from one of Simon’s daughters.  Bren Simon is accused of having used undue influence to manipulate her late husband into a last-minute estate plan change that significantly increased her share of the estate while diminishing assets left to Simon’s children and charities.  Unless a settlement is reached, this case is likely to continue for quite some time.

Here’s another column taking its place in the unending flow of commentary (including from EoD) based on the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the estate plan of J. Howard Marshall II against claims started 15 years ago by Anna Nicole Smith and continued today by lawyers representing her estate.  The ending of this particular column provides a disturbing perspective on American property rights and other rights of inheritance:

Thus, for complicated and technical reasons, Anna Nicole’s award of $88 million was vacated.  Sadly, the real loser here is Anna Nicole’s daughter and sole surviving heir, Dannielynn.  This was her last hope for an inheritance, since her mother seems to have frittered away all her other assets during a fast-paced, and unexpectedly short life.

Don’t mistake us as hard-hearted.  The real losers were the Marshall family having 15 years of their lives hijacked by a legal case based upon Anna Nicole Smith’s unsubstantiated claim that J. Howard Marshall II intended her to inherit a portion of his estate.  Dannielynn, a innocent child born into troubled and complicated circumstances, is undoubtedly deserving of compassion and the way in which her mother “frittered away” assets which existed because of generous gifts and career-launching opportunities provided to Smith by J. Howard Marshall II is truly tragic.

Let’s remember, however, that Dannielynn has a life ahead of her.  Others targeted by this legal action will never recover the lost years of their lives spent defending themselves from this frivolous and ultimately malicious-seeming action.

While we’re not lawyers capable of providing a legally intellectualized or an otherwise enlightened point of view, how about injecting a little informed common sense?  First, five years before Dannielynn was born, a Houston jury took seven months to hear testimony and otherwise study evidence.  Their conclusion was that Marshall never intended Smith to be a beneficiary of his estate.  The gig should have been up – over – but gamesmanship on the part of the legal industry kept this case alive for another near-decade.  If integrity were part of our legal system, any effort to peddle Dannielynn as “entitled” to the Marshall estate would be treated as nothing more than a grave robbing effort.

And secondly, “her last hope for an inheritance”?  The child is three.  Maybe someday her father will have earned assets to which she can claim legitimate entitlement.  It hardly seems sensible that a family to which Dannielynn has no connection except for her mother’s brief marriage from 16 years ago should be responsible for the child’s long-term welfare.  But alas, welcome to the Land of the Gimme-Gimmes and the Home of the I-Want-Mores.

One final story about Nashville musician Danny Tate shows the danger of guardianships.  It also illustrates that estates of people with modest means can be targeted for IRA and reminds us how focusing on probate corruption as an eldercare issue misses the real picture that the personal liberty and property rights of all ages of Americans are being threatened.  The Nashville Scene article conveys an important point put forth by Michael Hoskins, Tate’s lawyer:

The Probate Court walked through a gaping hole in Tennessee conservatorship law that shreds constitutionally guaranteed due process rights. Under these circumstances, Tate’s attorney Michael Hoskins figures that just about any local musician with assets and a drug problem could conceivably be stripped of his autonomy based on nothing more than hearsay.

Hoskins is right about the threat to local musicians, but that same threat exists for many people as deeming a person “incapacitated” increasingly becomes a minor administrative act which too many judges arbitrarily rubber stamp yet the result is a loss of the target’s personal freedom and property rights.

We’ll be working to learn more on this case so stay tuned.  Meanwhile, forewarned is forearmed.