Kobe Bryant, long-time Los Angeles Laker and future Hall-of-Famer, is in a bitter feud with his own mother over ownership of memorabilia potentially worth more than one million dollars.  He’s locked in a he-said, she-said dispute about whether he gave the items to his mother or not.  

Family members are split down the middle about who is telling the truth and who is lying. 

Kobe’s mother, Pamela Bryant, signed a Consignment Agreement with Goldin Auctions, in New Jersey.  In doing so, Pamela gave permission to sell more than 100 items from Kobe’s childhood, including his high school game-worn uniforms, NBA championship rings, and high school Varsity letters.  Goldin Auctions, a noted sports memorabilia auctioneer, advanced $450,000 to Pamela, which she used to purchase a house.

The big problem, of course, is that Kobe Bryant says he never gave the items to his mother and that he certainly never authorized the auction.  He sued the auction house in California to stop the sale, just days after the auction house sued him in New Jersey to permit the auction to go forward.

While Kobe is not suing his mother, and she has not sued him, the heart of the lawsuit boils down to a simple point — did Kobe give the items to his mother or not?  She signed a statement under oath, testifying to the fact that he said she could have the items years ago and that he no longer wanted them.

Kobe Bryant and his wife, Vanessa, both signed statements of their own, also under oath.  In them, they testified that Kobe never told his mother that.  To the contrary, they asked Pamela to return the items years ago so Kobe could give them to his children.  Kobe and Vanessa both stated, under penalties of perjury, that his mother’s statements were not true.  Kobe even accused his mother and the auction house of obtaining possession of items that he had in his house, without his knowledge.

ESPN reports that Kobe is devastated by the dispute.  While he wanted to clarify that he was only suing the auction house, not his mother, clearly the central fight is between mother and son.  If Kobe wins, his mother will have to repay $450,000 to the auction house for the advance — which she already spent buying a house.  Plus, Goldin Auctions stated in the lawsuit filing that she has hundreds of additional items, which are collectively worth $1.5 million or more.

Kobe recently posted on his twitter account, “When u give Give GIVE and they take Take TAKE at wat point do u draw a line in the sand? #hurtbeyondmeasure #gavemenowarning #love?”

It’s a sad dispute.  And unless one side or the other gives in, or they reach a quick compromise, the legal battle will not end anytime soon.  First, the two courts have to resolve the issue of jurisdiction — will the case be heard in New Jersey or California?

From there, it will turn primarily on the central issue of who is telling the truth — Kobe Bryant or his mother?  This is a factual question that can only be resolved by a jury after a full trial.  In other words, it will be a long road if there is no settlement.

Kobe may have to contend with a statute of limitations problem, however.  His mother claims he gave the items to her years ago, and even Kobe and Vanessa state they asked for the items back “several years ago.”  So, arguably, Kobe should have sued to get the items back then and not waited until now.  Under the law, he might have waited too long to take legal action to reclaim his property.

Kobe, of course, would contend that he never imagined his mother would hawk his items for cash, especially given their sentimental value to him, and there was no harm to letting her store the items.  So he never had a reason to sue before now.  Again, this will turn on the factual question of who is telling the truth.  It will likely be a long road before this question is answered.

This is the nature of disputed gift claims.  While it’s unusual for a star athlete to call his own mother a liar in court, lawsuits over whether items were actually gifted or not are far from uncommon.  They usually involve family members fighting in probate court about whether or not the person who died gave them something of monetary or sentimental value.

Just like with this case, those fights are usually difficult, emotional, and hard to resolve.  Determining who is telling the truth in a he-said, she-said situation is rarely quick or easy.

That’s why it’s so important for everyone to pass possession of property the right way, through proper estate planning, such as a will or trust.  That way, people can document who they want to receive what, without leaving it up to a fight about who is telling the truth.

We can only hope that Kobe Bryant’s family finds peace and a settlement soon.  This is no way to spend Mother’s Day.

By Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!  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 website, at Barron, Rosenberg, Mayoras & Mayoras, P.C.

Amanda Bynes came into the public eye as one of Nickelodeon’s sweethearts.  Now friends and colleagues are so worried about her recent  erratic behavior that they have been begging for police intervention. Her former publicist, Jonathan Jaxson, tweeted: “I just spoke to @AmandaBynes and she is soooo messed up on drugs and please @NY POLICE find her and help her! I don’t know her address!”  

Jenny McCarthy then tweeted, “Police are at @AmandaBynes house. I hope they get her help. Enough of this circus. She needs help.”

Just over a year ago, Amanda Bynes started down a path that many probably could not foresee. It started with being charged with driving under the influence last year after she hit a police car when she was talking on her cell phone. After that, she was charged with two more hit and run accidents, which were later dismissed. Since then, her behavior has seemed to get more bizarre and erratic by the month.

Can Amanda Bynes meet the standard for a conservatorship as well? Because she’s residing in New York, the proper legal course of action would be called a guardianship instead a conservatorship. They are the same type of legal proceeding, but some states use the term “conservatorship” and others “guardianship.”

Some media outlets are reporting that court intervention isn’t an option for Bynes’ family. This is incorrect. A Fox News article, for example, discusses the legal standard for an involuntary commitment proceeding. But, her family has a much better option to obtain help through a guardianship proceeding. That option is based on the New York guardianship standards.

To begin with, the guardianship law states that Amanda Bynes would need a guardianship to:

“provide for [her]  personal needs, including food, clothing…health care, or safety and/or to manage the property and financial affairs”.

Her strange behavior began to escalate when she was given access to her millions a few months ago. So there doesn’t seem to be any question that she needs assistance managing her financial affairs. In addition, it could be argued that she needs help with her safety and health care (i.e.: DUI as well as her erratic behavior).

The second part of the guardianship requirement is that Amanda Bynes will be likely to suffer harm because of her inability to handle her personal needs and/or manage her property. In addition, she needs to be able to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her inability. The continuation of her erratic behavior would appear to meet this requirement. In fact, the New York statute specifically mentions “alcoholism or substance dependence; and…any medications with which the person is being treating and their effect on the person’s behavior, cognition and judgment.”

Given Bynes’ very public erratic behavior (she’s documenting much of it on her own Twitter account!) it is possible that a New York judge would grant her family a guardianship to protect her. Only time will tell if her parents decide to pursue this option. If they view the situation in the same light as her former publicist, then they certainly should.

If you ever become worried about the safety or well-being of someone–regardless of how old he or she may be–a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding may be the answer. They should be used with caution, and only after consulting with an attorney experienced in these types of cases. When they are granted, the person loses the legal right to make even basic decisions for himself or herself. This level of protection isn’t for everyone–and can sometimes be abused.

But when a person, like Amanda Bynes, appears to be on a crash-course towards destruction, it may be the only thing that can help her.

By Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!  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 website, at Barron, Rosenberg, Mayoras & Mayoras, P.C.

Not many people -- even celebrities -- can claim a record as impressive as Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries.  The marriage:  72 days.  The divorce:  536 days.  But, it's finally over.  

And according to reports, it was Kris Humphries who caved at the last minute to settle the case, just weeks ahead of the May 6 trial date.  Per TMZ, Humphries had been demanding either an annulment based on fraud or a $7 million pay-out.

So why the change of heart for Humphries?  For one, it's seldom easy to prove a case of fraud in court.  It's easy to claim fraud, but in divorce, civil, and probate cases alike, actually finding the goods to prove fraud is not easy.  Humphries' lawyers tried, conducting many depositions and digging through extensive records.  Reportedly, they did not find enough proof that Kim Kardashian tricked Humphries into the marriage or staged it only for publicity.

Reportedly, Kardashian was so surprised by Humphries popping the question that she was too stunned to give a reaction that she felt was camera-worthy.  So they re-shot the scene a second time to better capture her surprise.

Does this make Kardashian and her reality show look bad?  Sure.  Does it prove fraud?  Quite the opposite.

If Kardashain tricked Humphries into proposing or set up the marriage as a publicity stunt, then why wouldn't she have been ready for the big moment on camera?  It sure sounds like Humphries was the one who surprised her.

While this is but one moment from a long discovery process during the year-and-a-half long divorce proceeding, it is telling.  It was up to the attorneys representing Humphries to find compelling evidence of fraud.  Clearly, if they had found it, Humphries wouldn't have dropped both his demand for an annulment and a large cash pay-out.

He clearly wouldn't have walked away with nothing, as TMZ reports that he did.

This is a good lesson for anyone going through a lawsuit, be in it divorce court, probate court, or otherwise.  Suspecting fraud and proving fraud are two very different things.  Trying to do so can be very expensive.

Cases based on fraud are very common in probate court.  For example, many people suspect a will or trust was signed because of undue influence or fraud -- meaning that someone wouldn't have signed the document except for the wrongdoing of someone else who wanted to benefit by it.  While these cases are common, they are rarely easy.

If you or someone you know wants to sue to claim that a will or trust were procured by fraud, be ready for a long, expensive and likely difficult fight.  Sure there are cases of with the proverbial smoking gun, but those cases are the exception not the rule.

If you suspect a case of fraud in connection with a will, trust, estate, or even a divorce, you should consult with an experienced probate litigation attorney, or a family law attorney, and find out what options you have.  Never enter into a case like alleging fraud lightly.

Kris Humphries certainly regrets he did -- now that he walks away with nothing but a legal bill that is reportedly more than $300,000.  Certainly, it could have come out differently if the depositions and documents painted a different picture.  But not many people can afford the high cost to find out, like Kris Humphries.

By Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!  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 website, at Barron, Rosenberg, Mayoras & Mayoras, P.C.

Jury selection began yesterday in the trial of Katherine Jackson and Michael’s children against concert promoter AEG Live.  The Jackson heirs reportedly will ask the jury for $40 billion in damages against AEG Live.  They blame the company for Dr. Conrad Murray’s ill-fated propofol treatment of the late King of Pop. 

What is this trial really about?  Can the concert promoter be held legally responsible for Dr. Murray’ criminal mistreatment of Michael Jackson?

The answers are complicated and will be sorted out over the course of the next two to three months in front of a Los Angeles jury.  The trial will turn on two key questions:  Did AEG Live “hire” Dr. Murray to treat Michael Jackson, and if so, was it foreseeable to AEG that Dr. Murray could overdose Michael?  If the jury determines that the answer to both questions is yes, then it would then have to determine how much blame should be laid at the feet of AEG Live.

Katherine Jackson and her lawyers claim that AEG Live hired, supervised and controlled Dr. Murray, “putting its desire for massive profits from the Tour over the health and safety of Michael Jackson.”  AEG Live says that only Michael hired the doctor and it had no responsibility for how Dr. Murray treated Michael.

The claim of negligent hiring, training, and supervision will be decided by the jury.  The judge determined that, while AEG Live had not entered into a written contract with Dr. Murray to care for Michael (one was prepared but Michael died before it was signed), it may have verbally agreed to hire him as an independent contractor, even before the contract was signed.  For example, the judge noted that AEG Live communicated with Dr. Murray regarding Michael’s care and treatment and included the costs of his services in the tour budget.

The judge also felt that there was enough evidence that AEG Live could have foreseen the harm presented by Dr. Murray to allow the claim to survive the motion for dismissal.  Dr. Murray was deeply in debt and had no other source of income (other than $150,000 per month he was to be paid for treating Michael).  More importantly, the judge pointed to AEG Live’s experience with other “tour doctors” who unethically administered large amounts of drugs to Michael in the past.  The judge ruled that only the jury could determine if AEG Live should have been aware that the strong financial pressure Dr. Murray was under was enough to cause him to potentially put Michael at risk of harm by over-medicating him.

The jury will be asked to wade through mountains of evidence, including thousands of pages of documents, witness testimony from dozens of witnesses, and more.  For example, AEG Live will focus on Michael Jackson’s troubled past, including his child molestation trial, in an effort to shift the blame onto Michael.  Its legal team will try to focus on Michael’s drug addictions and say he — not AEG Live — was responsible for compelling Dr. Murray to administer so much propofol.

The Jackson heirs will rely heavily on key e-mails between AEG executives, including ones that stated that AEG, not Michael Jackson, was paying Dr. Murray, and another that stated that AEG had checked out Dr. Murray, who was “extremely successful”.  Further, other emails showed that someone within AEG was so concerned with Michael’s health and well-being in the months leading up to his death that he recommended immediate psychological intervention.  That request was denied by the head of AEG Live.

AEG Live’s lead counsel told CNN that they are confident that AEG Live will win if the jury focuses on the facts, not the emotions.  He questions why the Jackson lawyers plan to call Michael’s children — Prince and Paris — as witnesses during trial.  The Jackson attorneys, in turn, believe that the emails and other evidence paint a compelling picture of AEG Live pressuring Dr. Murray with fear of losing his lucrative job, so that he would do anything to get Michael ready for the tour, despite his fragile health.  They feel that the one claim that survived dismissal is the cleanest and easiest claim to present to a jury during trial.

The trial promises to be emotional, heated, and dramatic.  At times, Michael Jackson’s oddities and personal demons will take center stage.  Other times, it will be the corporate executives’ desire for profit — even in the face of concerns over Michael’s health.

Until the evidence is revealed, it is too close to call at this time who is likely to come out on top.  But it will be a fascinating ride along the way.

By Danielle and Andrew 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 and Google+.

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.

Arturo Gatti, the former world-champion boxer, died violently while on vacation in Brazil, in 2009.  His wife, Amanda Rodrigues Gatti, was arrested for murder, only to be released after the police ruled the death a suicide.  Now, almost four years later, Brazilian authorities have re-opened the investigation and the case may soon return to court.  

It’s the latest chapter in a long line of legal struggles that started after Arturo Gatti’s death.  Gatti’s mother, brother, and the mother of his first child have always believed that Rodrigues was responsible for his death.  Gatti was found strangled by Rodrigues’ purse strap, and she reportedly was in the room with his body for ten hours without realizing he was dead.

Rodrigues has consistently maintained that Gatti committed suicide.  She points out that autopsies have been done in both Brazil and Montreal — where the couple lived — and both determined that Gatti killed himself.

They feel his true wishes were captured in a will and trust from 2007 — just prior to his marriage.  But, no signed copies of those documents were ever located.

The Arturo Gatti estate dispute made it’s way to trial in front of a probate judge in Montreal.  In December of 2011, the Judge ruled in Rodrigues’ favor, finding not only that the will was valid, but also that Gatti signed it voluntarily and free of undue influence.  The estate, originally valued at $3.4 million, passed entirely to Rodrigues.  She says she only cleared two million by the time the probate process was over.

Gatti’s mother and brother said they fought so that Gatti’s fortune would pass to his two children — both the son born to Rodrigues as well as a daughter from a prior relationship. Even though they lost, Gatti’s daughter still receives a college fund and trust account that Gatti had previously created for her (and which passed to her outside of his will).

While the Arturo Gatti estate battle has ended, the family may be back at it again if new criminal proceedings are brought based on Gatti’s death.  Reportedly, a court hearing is scheduled in March to address whether the prosecutor will proceed with the case.

The mother of Gatti’s daughter previously filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Rodrigues in New Jersey.  The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  It could likely be filed again in either Montreal or Brazil, but whether that comes to pass may depend on whether a criminal case is brought against Rodrigues. Until a final decision is made about that, Rodrigues and the Gatti family will continue to live with the uncertainty of what will happen.

The CBS show, 48 Hours Mystery, aired an extensive piece on the controversy surrounding Gatti’s death, which you can read about here.  It suggests that there is not sufficient evidence of murder and that Gatti most likely committed suicide.

That’s what Rodrigues has been saying all along.  She recently moved back to Montreal, opened a clothing boutique store, and is trying to get on with her life.  She’s even tried to reach out to Gatti’s mother, hoping to repair the fractured family.

But, Gatti’s mother fears to be alone in the same room with Rodrigues.  Clearly, everyone involved will be anxiously awaiting the decision of the prosecutor in Brazil, to see if charges will be brought.

While a story of a famous athlete who died under mysterious circumstances may not relate to most families, there are still estate planning lessons from this controversy that everyone can learn from.  Gatti signed a will and trust before he married Rodrigues, but those documents were never found.  He then waited years after his wedding to create a new will, only weeks before he died.

These circumstances made the difficulties surrounding his estate much worse.  It is critical for anyone who gets married — especially a second marriage — to update their estate planning documents early, and not wait.  If Gatti had created a new will soon after marrying Rodrigues, there would not have been questions about whether she unduly influenced him.

And, all estate planning documents should be stored in a safe place, where people who you trust can find them after you pass away.  Much of the estate battle centered around what happened to Gatti’s prior documents.  Gatti should have made certain that the trustee of his trust and executor named under his will had access to the documents.

By Danielle and Andrew 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 and Google+.

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.

The battle over the estate of the Godfather of Soul started not long after James Brown died of heart failure and pneumonia on Christmas Day, 2006, at the age of 73.  Now, more than six years later, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that may finally lay the epic feud to rest.  

James Brown, February 1973, Musikhalle, Hamburg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Brown was both physically and mentally strong when he signed his estate planning documents.  His legal documents included clear instructions that he did not want anyone else to benefit, including past or future spouses, or others who may or may not be his children.  He directed his trustees to vigorously fight anyone who contested his wishes, and he considered any type of legal challenge to the validity of the documents as an affront to his wishes.

Under South Carolina law, as with other states, a spouse married after estate planning documents were created, as well as an after-born child, can claim a portion of the estate.  But, if the will or trust shows a clear intent that these types of heirs should still be excluded then the claims would fail.  Additionally, Hynie and Brown signed a prenuptial agreement, through which Hynie disclaimed any rights to make a claim against his estate or trust.

To make Hynie’s claims even murkier, there was a big question of whether Hynie and Brown were legally married.  Hynie was previously married before Brown, and had that marriage annulled (claiming the man only married her for a green card).  But that marriage was annulled years afterHynie and Brown said their weddings vows.  Brown filed to annul his marriage to Hynie when he learned of the other marriage.  That case was settled, and Brown and Hynie had an on-again, off-again relationship until he died.

Hynie’s claims, as well as those of the other heirs who alleged undue influence, created enough confusion to attract the attention of the South Carolina Attorney General.  His office is charged with the legal responsibility of protecting charitable trusts like the one created by Brown.  The Attorney General interceded and brokered a settlement that recognized Hynie and her son as legitimate heirs (without even a DNA test).  The compromise awarded approximately 25% of Brown’s assets to Hynie, another 25% to Brown’s six children as named in his will, plus James Brown II, with only one-half remaining for charity.  The Attorney General’s settlement also gave his office the power to control the administration of the charitable trust.

This settlement was approved by the probate judge, after a series of court hearings to determine if the settlement was appropriate, in early 2009.  Through the settlement, the two acting trustees of Brown’s charitable trust were removed from their position.  They appealed, arguing that the settlement was against Brown’s clear wishes.

Last week, almost four years later, the South Carolina Supreme Court dropped its bomb on the Attorney General’s office.  It ruled that the settlement was not “just and reasonable” and in fact the heirs’ claims that started the legal battle were not made in good faith to begin with.  The Supreme Court ruled, “The compromise orchestrated by the AG in this case destroys the estate plan Brown had established  in favor of an arrangement overseen virtually exclusively by the AG.”   The Court determined the Attorney General’s actions were unprecedented and contrary to his legal duty to protect and enforce charitable trusts.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote a separate opinion that accused the Attorney General of “effecting a total takeover of James Brown’s estate.”  He feared that allowing this sort of compromise would “undermine any confidence citizens may have in their ability to do with their personal assets as they wish, leading to a chilling effect on future testators” who wished to leave bequests to charity.

This ruling marks an important victory for those who value the right of individuals to leave their property to who they want, how they want, and when they want, through proper estate planning.  While courts often favor settlements as the preferred way to end a legal dispute, settlements should not come at the cost of undermining the wishes of the person who died.

It’s truly sad that James Brown’s wishes have been undermined for so long.  The amount of money spent on legal fees (which easily will reach into the millions), and the time lost to needy children in South Carolina and Georgia, cannot be replaced.  Brown’s wishes have sat unfulfilled for more than six years now.

It’s especially troubling that this entire fight could have been avoided.  While Brown did many things right with his estate planning — creating a detailed and specific set of documents and a prenuptial agreement when he wed Hynie — he still could have done more.

Brown should have updated his documents after marrying Hynie and after James Brown II was born.  If his wishes were consistent with his original documents, he still could have signed simple amendments indicating that he did not wish Hynie or the son to inherit.  If he did want them to receive something from his estate, he could have made that clear as well.

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling also discussed how the estate planning attorney and the three people Brown originally named as trustees all had turned out to be ethically questionable, to put it mildly.  The drafting attorney landed in jail for unrelated violence.  The three original trustees were removed from their positions, and were found to lack credibility, amid misappropriation of trust assets and other misdeeds.  The Supreme Court was troubled by these circumstances, but did not view them as substantial enough to create a valid reason to change Brown’s estate planning documents.

This underscores the importance of working with the right estate planning attorneys and choosing trustees and executors who are — above all else — trustworthy.  While Brown may not have known of the ethical problems of these four advisers, there are too many instances of people trusting the wrong people to serve in these important roles.  This problem afflicts the rich and famous, as well as those of more modest means, far more often than it should.

Everyone can draw lessons from this story.  Estate planning documents always should be updated with important life events like marriages or the birth of children, and choosing the right estate planning attorney and trustees are critically important — even for those who don’t have millions.

By Danielle and Andrew 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 and Google+.

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.

How many people would jump at the chance to trade places with 15-year-old twins who stand to inherit one billion dollars in six years?  Don’t raise your hands too fast.  

Doris Duke

Georgia Inman and Walker Patterson Inman III would seemingly have a charmed life, being the only living heirs to the Duke family fortune.  That’s right — Duke, as in Doris Duke, Duke University, and Duke EnergyCorporation.Yet Georgia and Walker were recently suspended from a private school in Utah for about $25,000 in unpaid tuition and late fees.  Perhaps one billion dollars doesn’t buy as much as it used to.

The sad reality is that Georgia and Walker have spent most of their lives caught in the middle of various legal battles. Their mother is Daisha Inman, who now has custody of them.  She’s been battling in court against JPMorgan Chase for the last several months over the twins’ trust funds.

The twins’ late father, Walker P. Inman, Jr., was Doris Duke’s nephew.  During his divorce proceedings with Daisha, he reported to a court that Georgia and Walker would inherit around one billion dollars when they turn 21.

JPMorgan fears that it has to be cautious with the trust distributions.  It stated in a court filing that if it grants all of Daisha’s financial requests, the trust funds will be depleted long before the children turn 21.  The bank requires extensive documentation of every request.

And some of those requests have been extreme.  In 2010, Daisha asked for $50,000 for Christmas gifts, including a trip around the world for the twins.  She also wanted $6,000 for a Halloween party.  She says she spends $1,000 per month for her children to eat out, especially at Starbucks.

Records show that she receives more than $16,000 per month for living expenses, plus tuition, medical insurance, and more.  Yet, Daisha claims this pales in comparison to the $180,000 that the twins’ father used to spend on their care before he died of a methadone overdose in 2010.

At first blush, it seems odd that the bank would be so tight-fisted with such a large amount of money.  If the childrens’ trust funds total a billion dollars, then one year’s worth of interest alone, at a conservative two percent, would equal twenty million dollars.  In other words, there would be more than enough money to spend on every request without coming close to tapping into the principal.

In reality, we suspect that the trust funds are a lot smaller than the one-billion figure that Walker Inman, Jr. reported — a figure that has been widely reported since then.  Walker, Jr., while a very wealthy man, was not a direct heir to the Doris Duke fortune, other than receiving about $350,000 per year while he was alive.  Doris Duke was the only daughter of tobacco and energy magnate James Buchanan “Buck” Duke and almost all of her share of the Duke fortune went to charity when she died.

Of course, Walker, Jr., and his kids both inherited through his grandmother, Nanaline Holt Inman (who was Doris Duke’s mother).  Walker Jr.’s father and Doris Duke were half-siblings.  Here’s an article showing the Duke/Inman family tree.

Reportedly, the twins’ share of the Nanaline Holt Inman Trust is worth around $28 million.  There are other Duke family trusts for them as well, but chances are pretty good that the one-billion dollar figure is over-stated.  Otherwise, the bank would have no fears about depleting the trust assets in the next six years.

Either way, the actual value of the trust funds for the twins would still be substantial.  So the big question remains, why is JPMorgan Chase being so cautious with the money?  Even at $28 million, it would be hard to use up all of the trust funds.

The real reason may be due to the twins’ mother, Daisha.  When she and Walker, Jr., divorced in 2000, they embarked on a ten-year war for custody, visitation, and everything else having to do with the twins.  Walker, Jr. won custody of the children and appeared to do everything in his power to prevent Daisha from visiting with them.  Their epic court battles reached the Wyoming Supreme Court twice.  The court process revealed how the twins needed extensive therapy and there were significant concerns with Daisha’s judgment and commitment to a relationship her children.

The post-divorce fight ended with Walker, Jr.’s death in 2010.  His widow (and fifth wife) then picked up the custody battle, trying to prove that Daisha was too unfit to have custody of her children.  Reports of that court case state that Daisha was a former topless dancer with psychological problems including paranoia and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Nonetheless, in August of 2010, the children were returned to Daisha’s custody, and immediately began intensive counseling to help them rekindle their relationship with their mother, from whom they had been separated for long periods of time.  During the sessions, the children reported being physically abused and neglected while living with Walker, Jr. and his fifth wife.  Those allegations have been contested by the widow, who says Daisha planted those thoughts in the twins’ heads.

While the children are no longer subject to custody battles (at least, not at the moment), they are obviously still paying the price for all the fighting.  JPMorgan clearly does not want to release more money to Daisha than it has to, even when its caution results in the twins being suspended.

It’s sad that the children have never known a time when they were free of court battles.  But it may not be a surprise.  The Duke family fortune has been subject to legal struggles like these ever since James Buchanan Duke died in 1925.   His estate, as well as the estate of Doris Duke, were both marred by fighting over control of the large family fortune.  We detail the scandals behind the Doris Duke estate in our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!.

Fighting over control of trusts and estates is not limited to billion-dollar fortunes.  That’s why the choice of whom is to serve as executor or trustee is always a critical component of proper estate planning.  When the wrong person is chosen, trust funds can be depleted in a hurry, to the detriment of all the heirs.

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 and Google+.

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.