A few weeks into the new year, how many of your New Year’s resolutions have already fallen by the wayside?  Exercise more. Eat less.  Spend more quality time with family.  

It doesn’t have to be intimidating! In fact, celebrity stories are a great way to break the ice to remind everyone of what they need to do.

So, with the help of some recent stories in the news, here are Trial & Heirs: New Years Estate Planning Resolutions for 2012.  (We just gave an interview discussing some of these stories, which you can watch here).

1.  Plan Now and Don’t Procrastinate.

R&B legend Etta James was 72 when she passed away last week, after suffering from leukemia, dementia and other problems.  Canadian Olympic skier Sarah Burke was only 29 when she died recently from injuries in a freak skiing accident, despite being one of the top athletes in the world.  It’s a sad reality that accidents and serious medical conditions can affect any of us, at any time.  We all need to be prepared.

While it’s easy to procrastinate doing a will, trust or other legal document, the consequences can be devastating.  Take author Stieg Larsson, whose Girl With The Dragon Tattoo book and sequels achieved global success.  The recent Hollywood movie adaptation has grossed over $140 million worldwide since it was released a month ago.

Larsson died without even a will.  This sparked a huge lawsuit between his live-in girlfriend of 32 years and his brother and father, whom the girlfriend claims were not close with Larsson.  The family members inherited his now-vast estate (conservatively estimated at $40 million) and sued because the girlfriend has possession of a laptop with an unpublished fourth manuscript. You can read about the Larsson Estate lawsuit here, which remains unresolved.

Larsson died unexpectedly at the age of 50 from a heart attack.  His procrastination with his estate planning means he did not get to decide whether his girlfriend or his family members inherited his estate.

Don’t make the same mistake with your estate.  You’ve worked hard your whole life; shouldn’t you decide who receives what, when, and how?  Don’t procrastinate and let the laws in the state you live in determine who receives your property after you pass away.

2. Appoint Medical and Financial Decision-Makers.

Etta James’ final year of life was marred by controversy, between her husband of 42 years and her two adult sons from prior relationships.  Her 2008 power of attorney gave legal authority to one of her sons, but her husband claimed it was signed after James already had dementia and was not competent.  They fought in court over who would make her financial and medical decisions, and even how much money her husband would be allowed to have to pay for her care. You can read our Etta James lawsuit article here.

Luckily, the family reached a resolution a few weeks ago, around the time James’ illness was declared terminal.  The settlement allowed her husband to make her medical and financial decisions as her conservator (called guardian in some states), but only permitted him to control $350,000 for her medical care.

Britney Spears is also under conservatorship, despite being much younger than James … or indeed, the large majority of adults who have conservators or guardians.  Just recently, her father announced that he was going to ask the court to terminate the medical/non-financial part of her conservatorship so she could get married without restriction. Reportedly, he will hang onto the financial control.  We have written before that the reasons for this are suspect, and may be for the purpose of insulating Spears from lawsuits.

Whether you are 30, like Spears, or in your 70′s, like James (or any other age for that matter), it’s critical to have power of attorney and living will documents in place, in case you should suffer a serious medical condition or accident. Without these, your family members — even your spouse — would have no right to make your medical or financial decisions unless they go to court and seek guardianship and/or conservatorship.

As the Etta James case illustrates, this can be a breeding ground for a family fight.  Even when there isn’t family fighting, such as in Britney Spears’ case, these court proceedings are still intrusive, public, expensive and very cumbersome.

It’s far better to keep yourself and your family out of court by having the proper medical and financial decision-makers appointed in your legal documents.  That way you’ll be protected, in case something should happen to you that renders you unable to make your own decisions.

3. Update your Will, Trust and Other Legal Documents.

Think you can stop reading because you already have will, trust and power of attorney documents in place?  Not so fast.  When was the last time you updated your documents?  Have you had a life event like a divorce, the birth of a new child, a new business, or a move between states since then?

If so, or if you haven’t had your documents reviewed in the last three to five years, you still have work to do.  Heidi Klum and Seal, take notice!  When couples — especially those with children — file for divorce, it’s important to visit your attorney or financial planner and start the process of updating your legal documents.  Would you want your ex-spouse to make your medical decisions or receive your life insurance?  That often happens when documents aren’t updated.

Author Michael Crichton’s estate highlights this point.  He died at the age of 66 from throat cancer, when his wife was six months pregnant.  He never updated his will to include the new child, and in fact, his will had language excluding any new children.  His adult daughter from a prior marriage and his wife fought in court over whether the baby should be allowed to inherit.  You can read about the Crichton Estate case here.

Ultimately, the Judge ruled in favor of the wife, and the baby was allowed a share of the inheritance.  But it never should have gone that far.

4. Get Your Affairs Organized.

This is a critical step in the estate planning process which many people overlook.  What good are properly-drafted wills, trusts, and power-of-attorney documents if no one can find them?  Let your loved ones know where they are stored. And we highly recommend using an estate planning organizer to list out legal and financial documents and assets, so your family members know right where to go if tragedy should strike.

Look at the recent Italian cruise ship disaster.  There were reports of passengers stuck on board, calling loved ones to make sure the kids where going to be taken care of and telling people where to find their wills and other legal documents. Here’s an example.  But, where the will is located is just the start.  What about your life insurance policies, bank accounts, deed to your house, and all that other important information stored in your head that no one else knows?

Don’t wait for a personal tragedy; get prepared now.  Once you organize your affairs and let your trusted loved ones know where your important legal and financial information is located, you can rest easier at night and not worry about protecting your family if something should befall you.

5. Talk With Your Family.

The proper estate planning is an act of love for family members, because family members pay the price when it’s not done or is done improperly.  So talking to your loved ones is an important part of the process.  It’s not a matter of telling people what they will receive — that can certainly be kept private. But it’s very important to let loved ones know you’ve done your planning, where your documents and information are located, and who the professionals are that you work with.

You should also talk to your family members to see if they’ve done their own estate planning.  Not sure how to bring up the conversation?  Celebrity stories are a great way to break the ice and get the dialogue started.  Today we’ve shared just a few stories to get you started; you can visit TrialandHeirs.com for many more.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

Richard Pratt had a colorful life, until he died at age 74 on April 28, 2009.  A former professional Australian rules football player and stage actor, he inherited his father’s small cardboard business in 1969 and grew it into one of the world’s largest privately-owned recycling and packaging companies.  

Pratt peaked on Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires at number 321 in 2005.  Two years later, his fortune was valued by Forbes at $2.5 billion (in U.S. dollars).  His fortune declined from there, and Pratt eventually admitted to a massive price-fixing scheme, paying a record $33 million fine.  Pratt still managed to wind up as Australia’s fourth wealthiest person, leaving behind a $5.5 billion estate (in Australian dollars).

It was well known in Australian society that Pratt enjoyed the company of mistresses, one of whom gave birth to a daughter by Pratt in 1997.  But it’s another mistress who  caused the biggest headache for Pratt’s estate. Madison Ashton (also known as Christine McQueen) was a Penthouse Pet. She sued Pratt’s estate for millions, claiming he reneged on a “business agreement”.

Exactly what type of business agreement?  According to Ashton, Pratt agreed to pay her $500,000 per year if she became his full-time mistress and gave up her lucrative work as an escort.  She claims he also promised her a $100,000 Mercedes Benz, $66,000 per year for her rent and travel expenses, and another $5 million in trust funds for her two children.  Ashton even alleges that Pratt required her to “service” one of his bodyguards so that he wouldn’t spill Pratt’s secrets.

Pratt’s wife of 50 years and the Estate’s legal team said the only thing Pratt ever promised was to help Ashton set up an accessories business.  They feel that Ashton is, shall we say, less than honest.  They claim she was a drug addict who actually settled claims against Pratt before he died, accepting a total of $150,000 after the relationship ended.

This legal dispute is very reminiscent of one we include in our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!, involving the heir to the Bloomingdale fortune, Alfred S. Bloomingdale.  His mistress, Vicki Morgan, similarly sued his estate after Bloomingdale died in 1982.  Morgan claimed Bloomingdale promised her financial support as his mistress, but the case was thrown out. Broke at the time, Morgan moved in with a psychologically-disturbed roommate, who tragically murdered her in 1983.

Morgan’s son then appealed the lost lawsuit and eventually won a $200,000 judgment against the Bloomingdale Estate. How did Morgan’s son win the case?  Morgan had saved letters written by Bloomingdale promising a lifetime of support, which proved to be the difference in the lawsuit.

So could Ashton’s case have similar success?  The newspaper coverageincluded no mention of similar evidence to the Bloomingdale letters.  Without something strong to corroborate her story, Ashton faced an uphill battle.  On the other hand, Ashton’s case did survive attempts by the Pratt Estate to have the case dismissed, so maybe she could prevail.

To her dismay, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled this week against Ashton.  This time the judge dismissed her case, not doubting that conversations took place in which Pratt said he would support her.  Instead, the Court determined that no legally binding agreement was made.  The judge also ruled that even if there had been a valid claim, Ashton already accepted two settlements which meant she did not have the right to sue for a third payday.

Stories like these do have a lesson, even for those without billions of dollars or mistresses.  Far too many people make the estate planning mistake of relying on verbal or written promises that contradict the will or trust.  Lawsuits involving whether the person who died promised something are never easy for either side, because proving or disproving what the person said is not easy.

That’s why putting those promises in writing can undermine what someone really intended with the will or trust, at least where the writing differs from the estate planning documents. Everyone should work with their legal and financial professionals to properly document their wishes, and not rely on verbal or written promises.

If you are a billionaire with mistresses on the side, no amount of estate planning can prevent a lawsuit like this one.  But for the rest of us, more-common estate battles can usually be avoided.  Comprehensive estate plans, prepared the right way, are the best way to prevent lawsuits over your estate when you pass away.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation. 

Seventies beauty icon Farrah Fawcett died in June of 2009 at the age of 62, following a terrible battle with cancer.  She did the proper estate planning, complete with a will and a trust.   [You can read the trust here].  So why are there not one, but two lawsuits over one of her assets?  

Fawcett’s trust provides that her art collection passed to the University of Texas, her alma mater.  The University received one of the two Warhol paintings, but not the other.  So where is it?

In the possession of Fawcett’s  former on-again, off-again boyfriend, Ryan O’Neal … and he doesn’t even dispute that he has it.  So the University of Texas sued O’Neal, claiming the painting belonged to Fawcett when she died and should now belong to it.

O’Neal denies it.  He says he was friends with Warhol even before Fawcett, and Warhol gave him the painting.  He’s so incensed about the lawsuit that he started one of his own … against a man named Craig Nevius.

Nevius is a Hollywood producer.  At one time, he was working with Fawcett to develop a TV documentary about her struggle with caner.  He and O’Neal already sued each other before, about the Fawcett documentary, and each claimed the other exploited Fawcett as she was dying with cancer.  Nevius gave up the lawsuit because, he said, he couldn’t afford to fight O’Neal.  It’s clear to say the two men do not like each other.

That’s why, O’Neal says, Nevius told lies about him and the painting.  O’Neal sued Nevius for defamation, blaming him for causing the University to sue O’Neal. O’Neal claims that Nevius falsely said O’Neal stole the painting, when O’Neal says the truth is that he owned it all along.

So far, O’Neal is winning the lawsuit.  Last week, a Los Angeles judge refused Nevius’ request to dismiss the case.  She pointed out that Nevius denies having told anyone that O’Neal stole the painting, but apparently he had sent an email to the University saying that O’Neal’s ownership of the painting was a “fraud” and a “theft.”  The Judge was clearly bothered by Nevius’ inconsistent statements.

Nevius’ attorney vows to appeal the Judge’s ruling.  He says that Fawcett always had two Warhol paintings hanging in her house, repeatedly told people she owned them, and O’Neal took possession of the painting after Fawcett died, despite not being a beneficiary of Fawcett’s will or trust.  Nevius feels the truth will come out, likely in the University of Texas lawsuit, and Nevius will be vindicated.

So it really all comes down to one question:  Did Fawcett own that painting, or did O’Neal?  It shouldn’t be that hard to determine, because a painting with substantial value like this one (which a BBC article claimed was worth in the neighborhood of $30 million) should have been insured while Fawcett was alive. If so, there would be records of whether Fawcett or O’Neal was the one to insure the painting.

Even if it was not insured, there would presumably be pictures or other evidence to establish whose house it really was hanging in.  Fawcett and O’Neal separated, according to most reports, in 1997 (although O’Neal said they remained close thereafter).  Regardless of the nature of their relationship, determining whose house the painting really hung in can’t be that big of a mystery, can it?

We’ll find out.  And in the meantime, there is a lesson which all families can learn from this celebrity estate.  Items of personal property with significant monetary value should be specifically mentioned in a will or trust, or in a separate written document that is mentioned in the will or trust, so there is no confusion over who owns what, and who receives what.  While it is not necessary to list out every item of personal property, something of unusual value should be listed out in accordance with a complete estate plan.

It’s a sad reality that many families fight over personal property, usually accompanied by claims of “Mom gave it to me” or “Dad said I could have it.” These can turn into ugly and expensive lawsuits, and often shatter family relationships. Full and complete estate planning is the best way to prevent a fight like this from happening to your family after you pass away.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

She ranks as one of the greatest civil rights icons of all time, all starting with a seemingly simple act of refusing to move from a bus seat.  Rosa Parks passed away at age 92 in 2005, living in a modest apartment in Detroit, Michigan.  Her estate was modest too. Officially valued at $372, 624 in monetary terms, but of course priceless in terms of memories and historical significance.  

On the eve of trial, the parties settled with a confidential settlement agreement that upheld the will and trust as valid, re-instituted Steele and the retired Judge as the executors, and gave the nieces and nephews additional rights and royalties related to Parks.  This left Steele in control of Rosa Parks’ Institute.

That didn’t end the fighting though — far from it in fact.  The parties continued to battle in court over the amount of fees charged by the two attorneys who still, despite the settlement, were allowed to remain in charge of the estate and trust.  The fee dispute went to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

It was at that stage that an attorney representing Steele and the Institute was accused of violating the confidential settlement agreement by revealing certain information in open court in front of a newspaper reporter.  The probate judge was so incensed at this that he ordered that Steele and the Institute both forfeit all rights to Rosa Parks’ property and royalties.  This meant that Rosa Parks’ express wishes as set forth in her 1998 Trust were completely changed by the judge … all because he felt an attorney disclosed something about the confidential settlement agreement in a court proceeding.

Steele and the Institute filed appeal after appeal, and finally the case worked its way up to the Michigan Supreme Court.  Just last week, the Court ruled:

The reference by counsel for the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute for Self-Development and Elaine Steele, during the course of oral argument in the Court of Appeals, to the respective percentages of the fees charged by the court-appointed fiduciaries for which he believed the parties to the appeal would be liable, without referring to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, did not constitute a breach of the Settlement Agreement’s confidentiality provision …

The Court  ordered that Steele and the retired Judge were to be restored to their positions in charge of the estate and trust, and all of Parks’ wishes as expressed in her trust were to be, once again, followed, in accordance with the settlement agreement.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was only a page and a half long.  The seven judges found the probate judge’s prior ruling to be “clearly erroneous.” They slapped the hand of the probate judge and mandated that Steele and the other executor be put back in place within 30 days, or the judge would have to explain to the Supreme Court why that could not be done.

Before this recent Supreme Court ruling, Rosa Parks’ belongings were scheduled to go to auction.  Now the Institute she created will be in control of them, as Parks wished (according to her trust) all along.

It’s a sad reality that the final wishes of someone who died are not always followed, and instead, often lead to expensive court fights.  The best prevention is good estate planning, done early, before there is a question of someone’s mental competence or whether they are being unduly influenced.  Too many people think that only “old” people have to do their estate planning, so they wait.

Rosa Parks was in her mid-80′s when she created her trust.  Her nieces and nephews feel strongly that the trust was not what she really wanted.  Because of this, they filed a challenge that ultimately caused Rosa Parks’ wishes to be undermined for years.

It’s a good lesson for professionals and family members alike to share with their clients and loved ones.  Encourage others to take care of their estate planning, with an experienced estate planning attorney, early, and not wait until they are “old”.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

There is no doubt about the greatness of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Unfortunately, his estate planning wasn’t so great.  In fact, King made a mistake that too many people make everyday in our country … he procrastinated with his legal planning and died without a will.  

In large part because of this, his legacy has been marred by fighting among his children over the handling of his estate, including claims of secrecy, mismanagement and misappropriating assets.  Years ago, MLK’s heirs formed a corporation to manage King’s estate, but then they fought over control over the corporation. You can read Trial & Heirs’ coverage of the lawsuit between the King children here.  Luckily, the heirs were able to reach a settlement and ended that round of fighting.

But, that doesn’t mean the court battles have ended.  The corporation which operates the estate turned its attention to a television anchor in Southern Mississippi, named Howard Nelson Ballou.  The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc., sued Ballou and claimed he has possession of historic documents relating to King.

Ballou’s parents had been close friends with King and his wife, Coretta Scott King.  Ballou’s father was King’s fraternity brother, and his mother had been King’s personal secretary in the 1950′s.  She helped him research, type and edit his speeches, answered his mail and made his travel arrangements.  She says that, through her relationship with King, he gave her the documents.

Ballou’s mother, Maude Williams Ballou, now 86 years old, recently said in a sworn statement that King wanted her to keep the documents by giving them to her at different times, and telling her, “[H]ere, Maude, this is for you.”  She says she always considered the writings to be her personal belongings, and King never asked for them back between then and the day he was assassinated in 1968.

Ballou’s husband stored the documents at Elizabeth City State University, in North Carolina, where he worked until he passed away.  The University found the documents in 2007 and gave them to their son, Howard Nelson Ballou. When a local newspaper story mentioned the discovery of the documents, the King heirs took notice.

They sued Ballou in federal court in Mississippi.  The Ballou family, unlike the King Estate Corporation, likely does not have endless funds available to pay lawyers for a lawsuit over what King really intended.

Howard Ballou is trying to end the lawsuit early.  He filed a motion asking the Judge to dismiss the case, based on the sworn statement of his mother.  The King Estate Corporation is arguing against it, saying it’s premature to even think about dismissing the case before its lawyers have been able to question Maude Ballou in a deposition.  Those lawyers have pointed out that that any documents which Maude Ballou came to receive as an employee of King may not qualify as gifts.  The Judge has not yet ruled on the dismissal request.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what Reverend King intended when he gave the documents to Maude Ballou.  Did he want her to hold onto them as an employee, or keep them as gifts?  Obviously, no one really knows, making this lawsuit a difficult one.

That is the nature of lawsuits involving gifts and verbal promises.  They happen to families of all different means, especially when those who passed away failed to make their intent clear in a will or trust.

King could have clarified his intent rather easily by creating even a simple will. Because he didn’t, the result is an expensive lawsuit where no one really knows what he intended … although Maude swears under oath that the documents were gifts to her and remained as personal belongings to her family ever since.

In our law practice, we see fights over personal property such as jewelry, artwork, furniture, and even Christmas ornaments and family pictures.  It’s sadly too common, especially considering how easy it is to prevent court battles like this one.

That’s why everyone should clearly document their intentions in a will or trust, with the help of an experienced estate planning attorney.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation. 

While being widely loved for spreading reggae music throughout the world, Bob Marley stood for more than just music. His songs promoted freedom for poor and oppressed people throughout the world, social equality, and justice.  Marley even won the 1978 United Nations Medal of Peace.

Sadly, events surrounding his estate have been anything but consistent with his musical legacy.  2011 marked the 30-year anniversary of the day Marley died of cancer, at the age of 36, on May 11, 1981.  In those 30 years, his estate has seen far too many court fights, lawsuits and money-grabs to count.  And that legacy of fighting over money doesn’t seem likely to end any time soon.

Just last week, a corporation owned by his widow, Rita Marley, and his nine children, sued Richard Booker and two corporations he owned. Who is Richard Booker?  Bob Marley’s half-brother.  Among other Jamaica-based business ventures, Booker operates musical festivals and a company which gives tours of the village where Marley was born and is now buried.

These lyrics from Marley’s song, Guiltiness, from the famed Exodus album are particularly appropriate:

These are the big fish
Who always try to eat down the small fish,
Just the small fish.
I tell you what: they would do anything
To materialize their every wish.

Indeed, fish are at the heart of this legal dispute.  One of the primary targets is Booker’s effort to trademark the term “Mama Marley” for use in marketing a series of good and services.  What goods and services?  The lawsuit identifies them as being, “fish; fish and chips; fish cakes; fish croquettes; fish fillets; fish mousse; fish sausages …”  Well, you get the idea (not that we have any idea of what a “fish sausage” is).

This fishy family fight is only the most recent in a very long list of legal battles involving Marley’s wife and children, as they aggressively control commercial uses of Marley’s image, name, lyrics, and almost everything else associated with the man who rose humbly from very-poor roots in Jamaica to be one of the most well-respected musicians of all time.

Marley was said to be worth about $30 million when he died.  He was far from naive about his finances, having set up a number of corporations to manage his assets.  The problem was that Bob Marley never had a will, even though he knew he was dying of cancer for at least a year before he passed.

Why not?  Reportedly, Marley’s Rastafarian faith prohibited him from recognizing his mortality, and therefore, from creating a will.  That meant his assets would pass under Jamaican intestate law when he died.

Those laws were not as favorable to his widow, Rita Marley, and some would have liked.  Under Jamaican laws, she stood to receive 10% of his assets, plus the use of another 45% throughout her life.  The balance would pass onto his numerous children (about 11, although that number is subject to some debate).  Several of the kids were born to Rita, but others were not.

A pair of Marley’s closest advisors — his attorney and his accountant — decided to help craft an estate plan after Marley died.  There’s a big problem with this approach … there is no legal way to accomplish this.

Instead of allowing the assets to pass under Jamaican law, the duo convinced Marley’s widow, Rita Marley, to forge his name to a series of documents, and predate them to before he died.  This was done to transfer control of the large majority of Marley’s corporate holdings, along with much of his royalty rights and money, to herself.

One of Marley’s former managers uncovered the scheme, which led to a series of long legal battles.  In the end, the attorney and accountant were found guilty of a RICO conspiracy (meaning an illegal and criminal organization), fraud, and other wrongdoing, to the tune of about $6 million.  Rita Marley eventually confessed to the scheme and said she merely acted on the attorney’s advice.  She was removed from control of the estate as one of the administrators.

So why is Rita Marley able to fight with Marley’s brother after her role in this fraudulent scheme?  In the early 90′s, the Jamaican Supreme Court determined that the exclusive right to use Marley’s name, likeness and image for commercial purposes would pass onto his heirs.  So she and all of Marley’s children did indeed end up with the rights to profit from — and sue  to stop others from profiting from — Bob Marley’s name, likeness and image.

Which gets us back to the fishy feud.  Does this right extend not only to the name “Bob Marley”, but “Mama Marley” as well?  The lawsuit claims that the family uses the Marley name for restaurant services, food and beverages, hotel and spa services, and of course, music, entertainment and merchandise.  They don’t want Marley’s brother to do anything that might interfere with their commercial endeavors.

The family also doesn’t want brother Booker to use the Bob Marley name to hold music festivals (which he’s done for almost 20 years).  This is particularly interesting because the Bob Marley music festival is scheduled to feature three of Marley’s children as performers … even though they are three of the children who own the corporation that filed the lawsuit.

Before this new lawsuit, there have been dozens of other lawsuits involving the use of the Bob Marley image, name and lyrics.   Apparently, there have been too many fish swimming around the Marley pond for comfort.

Is this the legacy that Bob Marley would have wanted?  We don’t know. Maybe he would have approved of his wife and children suing others to stop them from profiting from his hard work.  Or maybe, he would have wanted all that he built over his career to benefit as many people as possible.  He did, after all, believe in the Rastafarian notions of equality and rejection of the modern western world due to the corruption.

In the end, it wasn’t up to Marley though, because he didn’t create a will. This simple fact opened his estate to the corruption — by his former attorney and accountant — and years of expensive lawsuits and related legal proceedings.  It also meant that Bob Marley had no say over who managed his estate or legacy after he died.

It’s a good lesson for everyone.  Too many people suffer from poor or non-existent estate planning.  Studies show that as many as two-thirds of adult Americans don’t even have a will.  With the lack of good estate planning, the chances of a family fight over inheritances are dramatically increased.

For Marley, not doing estate planning was a conscious choice.  For many others, it’s one of avoidance, procrastination, and naïveté.

Stories like this one serve as compelling reminders why estate planning is important for everyone with assets, of any amount.  Estate fights are not limited to the wealthy and elite — far from it.

But it’s stories of the celebrity estate errors and the dramatic fights they cause that can help you convince others to not make the same mistakes.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.

That duo says that she didn’t want to see her family members — all of whom were distant — and that they merely followed her wishes.  They deny any wrongdoing.

And perhaps they’re right.  Relying on reports of the criminal investigation, some of her relatives filed a court proceeding last year, asking for an independent guardian to be appointed to protect Clark.  The judge quickly dismissed the case and found it to be based on nothing but “speculative assertions.”

Now that she has passed away, who stands to inherit her $400 million?  MSNBC.com, which has been reporting about Huguette Clark for more than a year, reports that most of her wealth is earmarked to pass to an art foundation that her will created.  Her collection of art, rare books, and musical instruments from her Fifth Avenue apartment and her oceanside Santa Barbara, California home, will go to the new foundation under the terms of her will.  Her Santa Barbara home will house the foundation.

Clark’s will left the rest of her fortune to her long-time nurse, Hadassah Peri, and various other individuals, including her attorney and accountant who each stand to receive $500,000 each (despite their criminal troubles), not to mention potential millions more as executor fees and as directors of the new art foundation.  The will also leaves $1 million to the hospital in New York that Clark called home, and a rare Monet painting (said to be worth around $25 million) goes to an art museum in Washington, D.C.

You can read her April 2005 will, signed when she was 98 years old, here.  Reportedly, this was signed around the same point that Clark’s attorney cut off contact with her family members.  The will specifically leaves them nothing, noting that Clark only had “minimal contacts” with them over the years.

Interestingly, the attorney who prepared and oversaw the signing of the will works for the same law firm in which Clark’s attorney, Wally Bock, is a named partner.  Bock is the attorney who, along with the accountant, Kamsler, is still being investigated for how they managed Clark’s fortune.  This is especially curious considering that the attorney named as having supervised the will, Lewis Siegel, is listed on the firm’s website as practicing commercial and bankruptcy law, with no mention of estate planning.

Normally an estate planning attorney would at the very least draft a revocable living trust for someone with this amount of wealth, rather than relying on a simple will as was done in this case.  Additionally, many experienced estate planning attorneys would not prepare a will that named a law partner as a beneficiary, due to a potential conflict of interest.

But why the will was created in this fashion is only one of the questions surrounding the estate.  The big mysteries involve how much of Clark’s money was spent.  MSNBC.com reports that Bock and Kamsler spent $170 million on behalf of Clark over the last 15 years of her life, when she never left her hospital room.  That works out to $1 million per month, give or take.

The sum includes $3 million spent on dolls and about $2 million on the attorney’s favorite charity.  There was even $1.85 million paid to an Israeli settlement in which Bock’s daughter lived.  The hospital’s price tag was nearly $5 million, which would not seem out-of-line for 22 years of time Clark spent there, except that she was reportedly in good health for most of that time.

Not surprisingly, Clark’s distant family members are questioning everything and have filed to challenge the validity of Clark’s will.  If they win, 21 distant family members will inherit her wealth, instead of her art foundation and the other named beneficiaries.

In addition to claiming mental incompetency, the challenge undoubtedly will focus on the allegation of undue influence.  That is when a person, or people, uses coercion or other improper means to convince someone to leave them assets (such as through a will) when the person wouldn’t have otherwise done so.

This will be a big question in this case, for several reasons.  First, the attorney and accountant held power of attorney over Clark.  Second, there were her odd and isolated living arrangements.  Finally, Bock and Kamsler were both named as will beneficiaries — not to mention that they stand to receive $16 million or more in executor fees (according to the MSNBC.com report).  They clearly will not have an easy fight on their hands defending themselves and the will.

In New York, as in most states, the law will actually assume undue influence existed in certain circumstances.  This happens where someone had a trusted, confidential relationship with the person in question (such as would exist with a power of attorney or an attorney-client relationship) and that trusted person benefited from the will, especially where the same person or people were somehow involved in the will preparation process. While this law varies from state to state, in New York, it means that Bock and Kamsler will have to present evidence that the will was done without improper influence by them. This is not a simple legal hurdle to clear under the circumstances of this case.

The sad part is that if Clark did indeed want to benefit a charitable foundation rather than her distant family members, precautions could have been taken to protect those wishes. If her will is ultimately stricken based on undue influence by her attorney and accountant, then none of the wishes in her will would be followed.

This is a valuable lesson, even for those with fortunes of far less value than $400 million. Whenever there is a will or trust done under circumstances that are questionable or which could lead to a lawsuit later, extra care should be used to make sure that the documents are done the right way.  This can include getting a neutral law firm involved, or even videotaping the will or trust execution to show that the person really did intend what the document says.

These lawsuits are never fun for anyone, no matter how much is involved, so the more care that can be taken to prevent them, the better.

Update —MSNBC recently posted a new court filing by Huguette Clark’s family members, which included an earlier will dated only six weeks before the April 2005 will.  This prior will left $5 million to Clark’s nurse, Hadassah Peri, and the rest to her family members.  Interestingly, Wally Bock prepared and supervised this prior will, which is as different from the newer will as night and day.

Why the sudden change of heart over the course of six weeks?  That’s what Clark’s family members are asking.  This certainly makes their undue influence case that much stronger, and deepens the mysteries that will surely be explored through the litigation.  This also calls into serious question whether Clark did indeed wish to create an art foundation, managed by Bock, Kamsler and an additional attorney, as spelled out in her most recent will.

Certainly people can and do change their final intentions, even in a short time frame, but the circumstances surrounding the two wills is very interesting, to say the least.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

For legal help in Michigan, visit Andy and Danielle's law firm's websites, The Center for Elder Law and The Center for Probate Litigation.