Elderly woman gifts $1 million to neighbors after feeling threatened by family

Netanya family’s claim to a $1 million check gifted by a late elderly neighbor faces fierce opposition from the woman’s heir, who alleges fraud, manipulation and a decades-long scheme

by Tomer Ganon/Calcalist 

A nearly unbelievable story first revealed by Ynet's sister outlet Calcalist over three years ago has taken a new turn — one that appears to hinge on whether the case involves a generous gift or an elaborate fraud.

The saga began in November 2021, when a family from Netanya filed a lawsuit claiming they had cared for and supported their neighbor, G., a widowed and childless woman who lived across the hall from them for about 40 years. 

 

According to the case, during a Rosh Hashanah dinner in 2010, G. handed them an envelope. Inside, to their astonishment, was a check for NIS 4 million ($1 million), allegedly given as a gesture of gratitude for their support.

The father of the family said he hesitated after opening the envelope and soon spoke with G., who allegedly told him it was her final wish for them to have the money and instructed him only to fill in a date and cash it when the time was right. “You are my family,” she reportedly told him. Still, he waited.

Years passed, and G.’s health and mental capacity declined. In March 2017, a court appointed a legal guardian for her after she was deemed unfit to manage her affairs. In June 2021, the neighbor filled in the date and deposited the check. The bank rejected it.

He then approached G.'s guardian, claiming the check was valid and had been held legally. The guardian disagreed, responding in a letter — attached to the lawsuit — that the circumstances suggested “the exploitation of a helpless, lonely elderly woman.”

G. died in March 2022, four months after the lawsuit was filed. Recently, during the ongoing legal proceedings, a man identified as A., the primary heir to G.’s estate under her will, submitted a sworn affidavit. According to official documents, G.’s assets included a rental apartment building in a European country and a pension tied to her dual citizenship.

 

In his statement, A. said he met G. in 2007 while renovating her home. Over time, he claimed, their relationship grew close, with G. eventually becoming a regular guest in his household. He disputed the neighbors’ narrative, asserting they had never cared for her and that G. had in fact spent that Rosh Hashanah holiday with his family, not theirs.

 

According to documents submitted to the court, A. managed G.’s needs after her health deteriorated and did so with her request and the guardian’s later approval. Her will included bequests to others as well — such as her housekeeper and her late husband’s grandchildren from a previous marriage, who each received NIS 100,000 ($25,000).

 

In the will, G. wrote that she had no children and chose not to leave anything to other relatives, saying they had already received “significant property and money over the years” but had shown “no interest in me, other than in a clearly ugly and transparent manner.” 

 

She left the remainder of her estate to A., “who cared for me, looked after my needs and made my final years more pleasant.”

 

A. also pointed to a clause in the will in which G. wrote: “As I’ve recently been harassed by potential heirs and neighbors trying to inherit from me while I’m still alive, I request that a copy of this will be sent to the Israel Police.”

In his affidavit, A. claimed that “in hindsight, she was likely referring to the plaintiff — the neighbor — who tried to extract money from her during her lifetime. This clause, in my view, nullifies any promise or gift, if such a gift was ever even given.”    

Full Article & Source:
Elderly woman gifts $1 million to neighbors after feeling threatened by family

What’s Going On In South Carolina’s Probate Courts?

Funny business in Florence County … and possibly beyond.

by Jenn Wood

Dana Hanna chuckled in 2017 when her mother-in-law, Georgia “Jo” Hanna, asked her for $2.00 for a hot dog. Jo told Dana her debit card wasn’t working, and Dana assumed she was using the wrong card as she was known to do sometimes. Dana wasn’t concerned because Jo had substantial assets and things like that happened from time to time. She told her husband, Craig Hanna, who hopped in his car and drove to Jo’s house to ease her mind.

Craig didn’t realize at the time that what he as about to uncover would initiate a years-long legal battle to protect his mother – a battle that continues to this day.

Jo had been married to Carlos M. Hanna for 44 years when he died on December 14, 2010 — the same year the estate tax briefly expired. Carlos and Jo had two sons — Brad and Craig (Dana’s husband) — and a successful business in Florence County. Carlos founded Coastal Sanitary Supply in Florence in 1969. The business supplied half of South Carolina with janitorial supplies and sanitation equipment – including public entities such as jails, courts and school districts.

In 2004, Carlos underwent a successful heart transplant – after which he recovered and returned to running his business. On December 14, 2010, Carlos took his medicines and started seizing, vomiting, and having diarrhea. Jo called her son, Craig, and informed him he needed to come over immediately as something was wrong.

When Craig arrived, his father died in his arms. 

Carlos was a planner. He left behind detailed wills and trusts created by Gary Crawford, a Florence-based estate planning attorney. Crawford died by suicide on March 19, 2023 – shooting himself in the head in his car, which was parked outside of his law office. We’ll share more of Crawford’s story in a moment, but first let’s get back to the Hannas.

Per Carlos Hanna’s instructions, Crawford prepared two documents … 

• A last will and testament which, at the time of his death, decreed that everything he owned would go to his wife – Georgia “Jo” Hanna. It listed her as the personal representative of his estate.
• “Trust B,” which decreed that if Jo were unable to run the family business in the same capacity as Carlos did when he was alive, it would be placed into a trust to be managed by their sons, Craig and Bradley. This trust would pay Jo’s living expenses through her sons – and with Jo receiving Carlos’ salary. (Craig says his father knew that Jo – who spent forty years as a nurse – had no interest in running the business, so the trust was obviously the document to be followed).

The Hanna assets were significant. In addition to Coastal Sanitary Supply, the estate included a Florence residence, a vacation home, commercial properties, farm, timber, boats, vehicles, and commercial leases which brought in rental income. Carlos also had stocks, bonds, and life insurance. Dana wasn’t concerned on her drive over to Jo’s house, but when she arrived and pulled up her mother-in-law’s accounts, she quickly realized something was wrong.

Dana informed her husband, Craig, and when he began researching further he discovered his brother, Brad, had allegedly taken Jo Hanna to meet with Crawford – and had him transfer all of her assets to him for $5.00.

All of this happened without any notice to Craig …

In 2018, without Craig knowing, Jo Hanna was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and Brad Hanna petitioned the Florence County probate court have her declared as incapacitated. That petition was approved by Florence County probate judge, J. Munford Scott. A sheriff’s deputy served Jo Hanna with a notice of the hearing to declare her incapacitated. In an effort to protect her, Craig petitioned to obtain guardianship of his mother to ensure her health and safety were being monitored as his brother and his wife only saw her a couple times a year.

When this petition was approved, he gained access to Jo Hanna’s medical records. Upon reviewing those records, he discovered a 2017 document which revealed that Brad’s wife – Cassie Powers Hanna, a pharmacy doctor – had taken Jo in for a neuropsychology evaluation that same year. The evaluation indicated Cassie had concerns about Jo’s cognitive skills going as far back as 2012 – prior to her signing her assets over to Brad for $5.00.

While Craig was relieved he could now ensure his mother’s health and well-being, the guardianship didn’t give him any money for this purpose. At same time Craig petitioned to be his mother’s guardian, he also requested a third-party conservator be appointed to oversee what remained of his mother’s finances. The judge immediately granted Craig’s guardianship request, but held back on the decision regarding the conservatorship for few months. 

Florence County, S.C. court house (Will Folks/ FITSNews)

Shortly before he retired, judge Scott quietly appointed Bradley Hanna to serve as the conservator for Jo Hanna. This decision placed one brother in charge of Jo’s health and safety – and the other in charge of her finances.

Upon learning his father’s probate estate was still open from 2010, Craig sought to be appointed as a successor to the personal representative of Carlos Hanna’s estate. That was done so he could attempt to close the estate file which had remained open. On November 16, 2022, his petition to be appointed in this role was approved by Florence County probate judge Jesse Cartrette.

Craig went to the Florence County probate court and pulled his father’s file. It soon became readily apparent why he wasn’t receiving any information concerning the estate. The address Crawford’s office listed for him on the “notification to heirs and devisees” was incorrect. When he dug deeper into this address, he realized it didn’t even exist. For years every notification regarding his father’s estate had been sent to an address that never existed — leaving him unaware that everything in the estate was being fraudulently transferred, allegedly, by Craig’s brother and his attorney, Gary Crawford.

On February 7, 2023 – four-and-a-half months ago – a letter was submitted by judge Cartrette indicating his prior approval of Craig as successor had been in error due to a conflict of interest. Cartrette recused himself and recommended the case be transferred out of Florence County owing to the conflict. Jo Hanna’s guardianship and conservatorship case had already been transferred to Darlington County probate court under judge Marvin Lawson and Carlos’ estate was transferred by order of the S.C. Administrative Law Court (SCALC) and S.C. chief justice Donald Beatty to Georgetown County probate court. 

Lawson made some interesting moves in Jo’s case – appointing Darlington County treasurer Jeff Robinson to serve as her conservator and S.C. state representative Cody Mitchell to serve as her guardian. This removed her son and strongest advocate, Craig Hanna, from his role. It also erected significant roadblocks for Craig if he hoped to continue advocating for her and protecting her assets moving forward.

As all of this was unfolding, Craig contacted Gary Crawford’s law office to obtain the files for his father’s estate. When he learned of Crawford’s death by suicide, he grew even more concerned. Crawford’s law firm changed its online status to “permanently closed,” and his office staff told Craig they would have to get back to him regarding his request.

He has yet to receive a return call – or any of the files he requested.

Back to Crawford: Every licensed attorney in South Carolina is required by law to have a clear plan of succession in place detailing what is to happen in the event of their death or disability. Successor attorneys identified on each lawyer’s annual license fee statement. Gary Crawford was no exception – listing Brown Johnson of Florence as his successor. According to a notice on Facebook, though, Johnson’s entire law firm resigned on May 18, 2023 – this past Thursday – further complicating things for former clients of Gary Crawford, many of whom are still trying to obtain their files from his office.

Craig Hanna recently hired a new attorney – Tucker Player of Columbia, S.C. Last week, Player issued subpoenas to Gary Crawford’s office on behalf of a number of clients attempting to obtain their case files. According to Player, his process server was surprised when Crawford’s wife, Becky Crawford – his longtime office manager and paralegal – refused service.

Last week, Player filed a motion in Darlington County probate court to vacate an order issued by judge Lawson allowing for the sale of Jo Hanna’s primary residence. This motion detailed some aspects of what many believe to be a broader scheme to defraud multiple victims. Jo’s primary residence, a stately brick home in Florence on a beautiful tree-lined street in a prestigious neighborhood, was approved for sale by judge Lawson. According to Player’s motion, though, Lawson “issued an unconstitutional and illegal order providing for the sale of the most valuable tangible asset of (Jo) Hanna without providing any notice or opportunity to be heard to the parties in this action.”

Attached to Player’s motion was a letter from Charles Ipock – an attorney with the Haynesworth Sinkler Boyd law firm – requesting judge Lawson’s order be issued “without notice, as allowed under the South Carolina Probate Court.”

Wait … what? Such lack of notification is permitted under state law?

When Player examined the statutes cited in the order, he realized one did not exist and the other “specifically prohibits” such notices. According to Player, without required notice to the parties in this case the court had no legal right to issue its order.

Player noted Lawson’s order was issued on April 18, 2023 – just hours after Craig Hanna appeared at a judicial reform press conference at the S.C. State House with solicitor David Pascoe. While at the press conference, Hanna saw his former attorney – S.C. senator Gerald Malloy – and his mother’s guardian, representative Cody Mitchell, numerous times in passing. Neither made any attempt to speak with him or acknowledge him, according to Craig, which he thought was bizarre.

According to Player, “the motion to sell Georgia Hanna’s real estate, and its accompanying correspondence requesting the petition be granted without notifying any other party, was mailed to this court on the exact same day. Unless the United States Mail Service has developed instantaneous transporters, the motion could not have reached this Court until April 19, 2023. This court received the motion, considered the motion, drafted an order granting the motion, and filed the Order within 24 hours of receipt.”

Lawson’s order allowed for the sale of Jo Hanna’s home with zero notice to the parties with interests in that real estate. Player said in his quarter century of practicing law, he has never seen an order issued in this manner as even “first year law students are aware of the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and its fundamental requirement of notice.”

Home of Jo Hanna. (Provided).

Player further noted there is nothing in the file to justify the sales price of the home other than “an approved but an unsworn hearsay statement from some realtor.”

“There is no appraisal, no repair estimate, no pictures, no testimony, nothing that is required of an acting fiduciary to dispose of property owned by another.”

The sale of this property leaves Jo Hanna with only one asset remaining in her name – her cemetery plot. To date, over $20 million worth of assets have reportedly been transferred from her estate.

Among the questions the Hannas and their attorneys are hoping to answer: Why are motions and orders being issued with an ostensibly concerted effort to avoid all parties knowing about the sale of these properties? Who is benefiting from these property transfers? And was the sudden death by suicide of Gary Crawford tied to any of these actions?

And perhaps the biggest question of them all: Are there other cases like this one?

This news outlet has been told to expect a motion early next week which will answer many of these questions – and likely rock the already scandal-scarred South Carolina legal community to its core.

In the meantime, I would remind everyone reading this article that FITSNews has an open microphone policy – one which encourages any individuals named in our reports to address our audience directly. (Click to continue reading)

Full Article & Source:
What’s Going On In South Carolina’s Probate Courts?

Frequently Asked Legal Questions

• Do I need a Will?  If you do not have a Will, the laws of the State of Colorado determine who is entitled to your assets and they determine who has priority to be your personal representative (executor).
  
  
• How long is my Will good for?  Wills do not expire.  Unless you change or revoke a Will it remains in effect until you die.  Therefore, if your wishes change you must update your Will.
  
  
• Can I write my own Will?  Pursuant to Colorado Law, you may write your own Will.  It will be valid if it is signed by you and if all the material provisions of the document are in your handwriting.  There may be many problems with writing your own Will, because it may not be clear and it may not include all of the provisions that a Will should contain.

• Do I need to go through probate?  In Colorado, if you own any interest in real estate (a home), or if you own other assets which are valued at more than $80,000 your estate must be probated, whether you have a Will or not. 

• What is probate?  Probate is a court process whereby the court appoints a personal representative to administer your estate.  Probate is a process that includes filing an inventory of the estate assets, publishing a notice to creditors in a newspaper, accounting for estate income and expenses and disbursing the estate.

• What documents are included in a good estate plan?  A person should have a Last Will and Testament or a Revocable Living Trust, a health care power of attorney, a general durable power of attorney and a living will.

• I am the agent under a power of attorney, isn’t that all I need to take care of things?  A power of attorney will no longer be valid after the death of the principal.  In addition, it may not be valid once the principal becomes incapacitated unless it has the right language.  You must examine your power of attorney to see what powers it includes and under what conditions the agent may act. 

• What is a trust?  There are many types of trust.  A trust is generally a document which establishes an arrangement whereby property is transferred to a trust with the intention that it be administered by a trustee for someone’s benefit.  A trust may be established for your own benefit.  The biggest advantage for setting up a trust for your own benefit is to avoid probate. 

Tamra K. Waltemath

This article was written by Tamra K Waltemath of Tamra K. Waltemath, P.C.  This information is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  For specific questions, you should consult a qualified attorney. Tamra K. Waltemath is an elder law attorney focusing on wills, trusts, estate and trust administration, probate and non-probate transfers, guardianships and conservatorships. 

 

Full Article & Source:
Frequently Asked Legal Questions

Idaho couple accused of contributing to the death of champion Utah speedskater

By: Adam Herbets

COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, Utah — A married couple from Idaho is facing charges, accused of exploiting and contributing to the death of a decorated speed skater in Cottonwood Heights.

Boris Leikin was 68 years old. Police say he died in July from a form of mad cow disease.

People who knew Leikin say he took his health very seriously and was in great physical shape, until he met Marina Billings online and started dating her.

Marina Billings is a corrections officer in Pocatello, Idaho.

Police say Billings left Idaho and moved in with Leikin at his home in Cottonwood Heights. That's when people said they started to notice Leikin's health quickly declining.

At least at first, Leikin did not know Billings was married, according to police.

Investigators now believe Marina Billings and her husband, Robert Billings, were trying to take advantage of Leikin - by getting him to sign a will that would name her as the beneficiary as his health was deteriorating.

Police are still trying to figure out if the couple intentionally got Leikin sick.

Jeff Hall, the chief deputy at the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office, explained why the couple is being charged with financial exploitation and aggravated abuse, rather than murder.

"In a murder charge, we would accuse someone of directly causing the death of someone else and doing that unlawfully," Hall said. "In this instance, the allegation is that these people created circumstances that compromised a vulnerable adult's health, not necessarily that they directly caused a death."

Hall advised it's especially important for friends and loved ones of vulnerable individuals in cases like this to keep an eye out for anything peculiar.

"Any time there is anyone that is new to the family, new to the person, where there's not been a long-shared history... that should raise a lot of question marks, a lot of red flags as to what's going on," he said.

Leikin was one of the oldest athletes to compete in the US Olympic Trials. He was a Masters World Champion and even set a Masters world record in 2006.

Friends say Leikin was also an incredible man off the ice, with a big heart.

Full Article & Source:

Idaho couple accused of contributing to the death of champion Utah speedskater

A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders

By: Tiffany Bentley & Ann Hetherwick Cahill

Welcome to the story of the Smiths and the Alexanders — made-up people with a wild accumulation of fictional (but factual) circumstances that raise all kinds of probate and fiduciary litigation issues. What potential problems do you spot here? What are the arguments to be made on all of these contentious issues? Stay tuned to Beyond the Will throughout November and December as we dig deep into this family’s saga.

---

Johnny Smith and Jocelyn Smith were married in 1983 in Massachusetts. They had two children, Randall Smith (born January 1, 1985) and Twyla Smith (born March 3, 1987). Unfortunately, Jocelyn died in a tragic car accident in 1995 with no estate plan in place.

At the time of her death, Jocelyn had a gross estate of approximately $5,000,000 consisting primarily of individually held investments that she had inherited from her parents. She also had a few minor accounts held jointly with Johnny but no retirement accounts or life insurance policies.

Johnny began dating Moira Alexander in 2000. Moira had two children of her own, Alexis Alexander (born February 5, 1985) and David Alexander (born October 8, 1989).

In 2005, Moira, Alexis, and David moved into the Smith home with Johnny, Randall, and Twyla. They appeared to have minimal issues as far as blended families go. Their children got along and each accepted the other adult as a parental figure. As the children graduated and moved out of the family home, they remained in frequent contact with both Moira and Johnny and returned home for holiday and birthday celebrations.

Moira and Johnny met with an estate planning attorney, Attorney Mullens, in March of 2013 in order to have estate planning documents prepared including wills, revocable trusts, health care proxies, durable powers of attorney, and HIPPA waivers. Moira and Johnny were planning on eloping the following month and thus told Attorney Mullens that they were already married.

Attorney Mullens prepared estate planning documents for each of Johnny and Moira. Each will stated that the testator was married and left tangible items to the surviving spouse and otherwise to the surviving children in equal shares. Children under both wills were defined to include Randall, Twyla, Alexis, and David. The residue under Johnny’s will poured over to The Johnny Smith Trust. The residue under Moira’s will poured over to The Moira Alexander Trust. Moira was named as Personal Representative under Johnny’s will followed by Randall as a successor. Johnny was named as Personal Representative under Moira’s will with Alexis named as successor. Through Johnny’s will, he exercised a limited power of appointment that had been granted to him in a Family Trust established by his parents, directing that income from that trust be paid to his spouse, Moira, for her lifetime. That trust, by its terms, would terminate upon the last to die of Johnny and his four siblings, at which time the remaining principal would distribute outright to the issue of Johnny and his siblings by right of representation.

Johnny was the Donor and Trustee of The Johnny Smith Trust. Johnny was the beneficiary of The Johnny Smith Trust during his lifetime. After his passing, the Trust was structured to minimize potential Massachusetts and Federal estate tax while providing for Moira’s sole benefit during her lifetime. After Moira’s death, any remaining assets would divide into equal shares and would be distributed outright to each of Randall, Twyla, Alexis, and David. Moira and Attorney Mullens would serve as successor Trustees after Johnny’s death. After Moira’s death Attorney Mullens (or another attorney from his firm) would serve as sole Trustee.

The provisions of The Moira Alexander Trust mirrored those of Johnny’s Trust. Moira was the Donor and Trustee of her Trust and the beneficiary during her lifetime. After her passing, the Trust would minimize potential estate taxes while providing for Johnny during his lifetime (if Johnny survived) and otherwise the assets would be divided into equal shares and distributed outright to all four of the children. If Johnny survived, he would serve as a Trustee along with Attorney Mullens (or another attorney from the law firm).

Finally, Moira was named as agent under Johnny’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney, followed by Randall. Johnny was named as agent under Moira’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney, followed by Alexis.

Moira and Johnny signed their wills and trusts in early April of 2013. Although Attorney Mullens encouraged them to sign all of their documents, Johnny and Moira neglected to sign their health care proxies and durable powers of attorney. They wanted to give more consideration as to whether they wanted a child to serve as a co-attorney-in-fact with the other spouse under the durable powers of attorney, and whether they wanted language concerning the life-sustaining treatment in their health care proxies.

Moira and Johnny postponed their plans to elope after Moira, a doctor, had worked long hours caring for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Unfortunately, Johnny began exhibiting signs of early-onset Alzheimer’s in late 2017. His health deteriorated rapidly and by mid-2018 Johnny was unable to function independently. Moira cared for Johnny to the extent possible at their home and hired an in-home nurse to assist as necessary.

That holiday season, Randall gave Twyla one of the newly-released ancestry testing kits hoping that it might shed some light on their father’s disease and their potential risks down the road. Twyla took and submitted the ancestry test, set up an online profile and ultimately forgot about it with everything else that was going on in her life.

In February of 2019, Twyla decided to surprise Moira and Johnny and made an unplanned visit to her childhood home while in town for a bridal shower. Twyla became concerned when she saw a brand new Mercedes SUV sitting in the driveway. Twyla inquired and Moira explained that it was a “gift” and not to ask so many questions. Twyla mentioned this to Randall who at the time was roommates with David. He noted that David, an avid baker, had recently come home with a brand new collection of Le Creuset cookware. Randall hadn’t given this much thought but after his conversation with Twyla wondered how David, a struggling artist, could afford to spend that much money on items that simply supported a hobby.

Randall and Twyla became more concerned with how they believed Moira was spending Johnny’s money. After Moira avoided their questions multiple times, Randall and Twyla sought the advice of their own attorney, Attorney Budd. Attorney Budd advised that they could petition the court to have an independent conservator appointed to handle Johnny’s finances. After filing a petition, and over Moira’s objection, the court-appointed an independent conservator and independent guardian for Johnny.

The relationship Randall and Twyla had with Moira and her children continued to deteriorate as their father’s health grew worse. After one particularly difficult evening in February of 2020, Johnny had to be rushed to the emergency room after he was completely unresponsive and had labored breathing. The doctors advised that he likely had only a few hours to live unless he was placed on life support. Moira believed that Johnny did not want life-sustaining treatment and advised the doctors to give him medicine to simply make him comfortable. When Randall arrived he demanded that the doctors put his father on life-support. Unfortunately, before any decision could be made, Johnny passed away.

Johnny died with a gross estate of $7,000,000 consisting of his Massachusetts residence and a variety of investment and bank accounts titled in his name, individually, a bank account with approximately $75,000 held jointly with Moira, a life insurance policy payable to his Trust with a death benefit of $500,000 and a 401k account in which Moira was named the primary beneficiary followed by the four children equally as contingent beneficiaries.

Moira turned to Attorney Mullens to probate Johnny’s estate and prepare any necessary tax filings. Attorney Mullens was shocked to discover that despite what he had been told and what was provided in their wills, Moira and Johnny had never actually married. Attorney Mullens filed a Petition in Probate Court to have Moira appointed Personal Representative of Johnny’s Estate. Both Randall and Twyla filed objections. In addition, Randall and Twyla engaged Attorney Budd to present an argument that all provisions for Moira under the will and trust should be disregarded given the fact that she was not actually their father’s spouse, that their father’s tangible items should be distributed in equal shares to them, and that the remainder of their father’s estate should pass outright to the two of them (to the exclusion of Alexis and David).

This argument enraged Moira and she engaged a new estate planning attorney, Attorney Brewer, to prepare a new estate plan with the intent to disinherit Randall and Twyla. Moira’s new will provided for tangible items to be divided equally between her children, Alexis and David. Moira amended and restated The Moira Alexander Trust and provided that after her death, all assets would be divided into equal shares and distributed outright to Alexis and David.

Meanwhile, Attorney Mullens was working to prepare the Massachusetts Estate Tax Return for Johnny’s Estate. He wished to utilize the tax planning methods that had been provided for through Johnny’s will and trust and take advantage of the spousal deduction that could be taken on any assets that passed to Moira as the surviving spouse either outright or as held under Johnny’s trust for her benefit during her lifetime.

Around the same time, Stevie Jenkins, a young woman living in Colorado, contacted Twyla after her own ancestry test results indicated that she and Twyla could be half-sisters, sharing Johnny’s genetic profile. Twyla, although shocked at the discovery, was interested in getting to know Stevie but was concerned about whether Stevie might have any rights to Johnny’s assets under his own estate plan or under the Family Trust that Johnny’s parents had established.

Full Article & Source:

A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders 

Financial Exploitation and the Authority of a Conservator

Ann Hetherwick Cahill

To best enjoy this post, please be sure to first read A Family History of the Smiths & Alexanders.

In this last discussion of the Smith and Alexander families, we examine financial exploitation, its impact on suitability in appointing a conservator, and steps that a conservator can take if there is evidence of prior financial exploitation. As background, Johnny developed Alzheimer’s, and Moira cared for Johnny at their home, with the help of an in-home nurse. When Randall and Twyla were concerned with how Moira was spending their father’s money, they appropriately filed for a conservatorship. Randall and Twyla asked for an independent conservator to be appointed over Johnny, to which the court agreed, despite Moira’s objection.

Moira likely objected because she wanted to be appointed as conservator over Johnny. Remember that Johnny and Moira never signed the health care proxies and durable power of attorneys prepared by Attorney Mullens (they did sign their Wills and Trust). Johnny’s health care proxy and durable power of attorney named Moira as the agent, followed by Randall. Had Johnny signed his durable power of attorney, Moira would have had top priority for consideration for the appointment as conservator under the governing statute. Otherwise, she lacks any priority for the appointment. Moira might still argue that the unsigned durable power of attorney evidences Johnny’s intent for her to serve as conservator. That would be a tough argument, though, given that Johnny never actually signed the durable power of attorney, and he was still thinking about whether he wanted to name one of his children to serve as co-attorney-in-fact with Moira.

Importantly, the court would likely not appoint Moira as conservator for Johnny because she is unsuitable to serve in such a fiduciary position. Based on the facts, it seems like the conservator need arose out of Moira’s lavish spending of Johnny’s money. The governing statute ensures that lack of qualification or lack of good cause overrides any person’s priority for the appointment. Here, with Moira’s history of using Johnny’s assets, there is a solid argument that she should not be appointed.

With a neutral conservator in place, the conservator is protecting Johnny from future exploitation and standing in Johnny’s shoes to pursue any necessary investigation and/or claim against Moira or any other wrongdoer. A conservator is explicitly empowered to “commence, prosecute or defend actions, claims, or proceedings in any jurisdiction for the protection of estate assets,” pursuant to M.G.L. c. 190B, § 5-423(c)(26). Once appointed, the conservator likely learned from Randall and Twyla of their concerns about Moira’s spending. Then the conservator has the power to review bank account statements, hire counsel, and file any claim to recover any assets if necessary. As shown by Moira, often, the fight over a person or estate stems from wanting to remain in control and to limit someone’s own potential liability for bad acts.

If you have concerns about the financial exploitation of a loved one, you should consult with a skilled attorney who specializes in this area of the law.

Until next time!
Hether

Full Article & Source:

Financial Exploitation and the Authority of a Conservator

Panel urges disbarment over conflict of interest

By Sarah Mansur

A Woodstock attorney who received nearly $400,000 from his mother’s assets after redrafting her will six years before she died should be disbarred, an Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission panel has found.

The ARDC hearing board decided Jeffrey J. Keck had a conflict of interest when he drafted a new will for his mother, naming himself as the sole beneficiary and disinheriting his sibling.

It also found Keck, a sole practitioner, made false statements while testifying in probate proceedings related to his mother’s estate.

Keck denied allegations of misconduct, but he did not participate in the disciplinary hearing before the board.

Keck prepared wills for both his parents in 1980, according to the ARDC hearing board report filed April 27.

His father’s will left his entire estate to Keck’s mother, Margaret. If Margaret predeceased her husband, the estate was to be divided between Keck and his only brother, William.

Margaret’s will was similar, according to the report.

In April 2004, Margaret executed a new will that named Keck as the sole beneficiary, the report states. The new will does not list an attorney, nor does it state Keck or his brother were present.

William testified he only became aware of the new will after his mother died in May 2010.

Shortly after her death, Keck submitted a claim to AIG as the sole beneficiary of his mother’s life insurance policy. In July 2010, AIG paid Keck $252,343.90, the entire amount under the policy.

In December 2010, William filed a petition for probate and proof of his mother’s will. Several months later, he contested her will in court.

Keck testified in a deposition for the probate matter in July 2011 that he didn’t know who drafted his mother’s 2004 will, according to the board report.

When the dispute over her will went to trial in January 2014, Keck testified he prepared a draft will for Margaret in 2004 and that the draft appeared to be the same will that was executed in 2004.

In February 2014, a Kane County judge set the will aside on the grounds of undue influence, according to the hearing board report.

The court also revoked Keck’s status as executor and appointed Patrick M. Kinnally as the administrator for the estate.

In November 2015, Kinnally’s accounting showed the estate assets totaled $115,014.84. After payment of fees and expenses, the net assets totaled $42,601.30, of which Keck and William each received $21,300.65.

The hearing board’s report states Keck also received $88,500 from Margaret’s checking account and more than $47,000 from the value of her stocks.

All told, Keck received at least $387,843.90 from his mother’s assets, while his brother netted roughly $21,300, according to the report.

“When we consider all of the foregoing evidence, we conclude that [Keck] abused his position of trust and influence with respect to Margaret to dishonestly convert funds from her during her lifetime and to obtain sole possession of the proceeds of her life insurance policy and other assets after her death. We also find that he engaged in dishonesty based upon his involvement in the presentation of false insurance beneficiary documents,” the hearing board report states.

The hearing board — which consisted of James B. Pritikin, Nancy Hablutzel and Audrey Hauser — recommended Keck be disbarred.

Keck was licensed to practice in Illinois in 1978. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Findings by the hearing and review boards are strictly recommendations. Any discipline is decided by the Illinois Supreme Court.

This case is In re Jeffrey Joseph Keck, 19PR0027.

Full Article & Source:
Panel urges disbarment over conflict of interest

Elder Law: Will you plan now or pay later?

By Wesley E. Wright and Molly Dear Abshire

Estate planning attorneys will agree, it’s better to die with a properly drafted Will than to die without one. If you don’t have one, consider getting one. You will want to direct your assets to those persons whom you wish to receive a legacy as opposed to relying on the alternative, which is a default plan arranged for you by the State of Texas.

You will also want to name an independent executor along with successors in the event the first executor fails, refuses, or becomes unable to serve. You may also want to include special trusts to provide for family members who are disabled as well as trusts for minors and perhaps adult children.

Here are three big considerations you may not have thought of before that may require changes to your estate plan or motivate you to get one. Years ago, the exemption equivalent, which allows a person to leave a certain amount of money to beneficiaries tax-free was much smaller.

The law required a person to either use it or lose it. For example, if in 1987, when the exemption equivalent was $600,000 per taxpayer, a couple was forced to use a by-pass trust in order to shelter the first $600,000 upon the first to die in order to take advantage of the exemption. The exemption will be $11.58 million in 2020. Additionally, the law has changed regarding “use it or lose it”. While there may still be relevant reasons to use a forced by-pass trust in a person’s Will, in some cases, it may be time to eliminate it.

Secondly, consider implementing planning to exercise some control over your assets after you pass away. Let’s say George and Martha have three children. George dies leaving his assets to Martha, then Martha dies leaving all of her assets to their three children. One of the children, Susan, dies after her mother. Susan’s Will leaves all of her assets to her husband, Frank. Frank later remarries. The new bride may be spending Frank’s money and depending on the circumstances, may burn up all of the assets, leaving nothing for Susan and Frank’s children. Would George and Martha want their assets to be used by a stranger instead of going to their own grandchildren?

Thirdly, you could have a heart attack, a stroke, or an unfortunate incident, such as an auto accident. Those events can happen suddenly with no warning. You were healthy and then suddenly you become severely disabled. We should all plan like it might happen to us. Why would a person want to pass up the opportunity to prepare documents such as powers of attorney for property, powers of attorney for health care, living wills and medical privacy documents?

Becoming the subject of a court supervised guardianship proceeding which becomes a matter of public record for all the world to see, not to mention the unnecessary expense and frustration of a guardianship that could have been avoided had you just taken care of preparing the appropriate documents. And why would you want to procrastinate making a Will and then die suddenly not ever having taken time to make your Will? Now your family will have to pay more for a more costly probate proceeding.

Full Article & Source:
Elder Law: Will you plan now or pay later?

Judge could consider handwriting expert for Aretha Franklin's will

FILE - In this Tuesday, May 17, 2011 file photo, Aretha Franklin performs during a star-studded double-taping of "Surprise Oprah! A Farewell Spectacular," in Chicago. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)

PONTIAC, Mich. (AP) — A judge is expected to consider a request for a handwriting expert to examine wills discovered in couch cushions after Aretha Franklin's death.

A hearing is scheduled Tuesday in Oakland County Probate Court, north of Detroit.

A handwritten 2014 document shows Franklin apparently wanted her son, Kecalf Franklin, to serve as the representative of her estate, which might be worth millions.

But lawyers for Franklin's estate have said "there is no basis" to believe Kecalf Franklin has those skills.

After Franklin's death last August her heirs agreed to put the estate in the hands of Franklin's niece, Sabrina Owens, who is a university administrator. Attorneys for Theodore White II said in a court filing that White should be named co-executor, along with Owens.

White and Owens' names appeared in a 2010 handwritten will, but were crossed out in the 2014 document.

Full Article & Source:
Judge could consider handwriting expert for Aretha Franklin's will

Three wills purportedly written by Aretha Franklin found in late singer's home

Aretha Franklin purportedly had three different wills

By Sandra Gonzalez

(CNN)The family of Aretha Franklin is headed to court over three wills purportedly handwritten by the late singer. 

The so-called "holographic wills" were discovered earlier this month by Sabrina Owens, the personal representative of the Aretha Franklin Estate. They contained within them what the estate called "potential areas of protest."

 

Attorneys for Franklin's four sons were unable to resolve the issue and are therefore headed to court to determine if the wills are admissible to probate.

 

Two of Franklin's sons are opposing the admission of the wills. The documents are dated June 21, 2010; October 20, 2010 and March 31, 2014, according to a court filing regarding the matter.

 

CNN has reviewed the documents. The will dated June 2010 makes reference to Franklin's high blood pressure and a mass on her pancreas.

 

The singer died August 16, 2018 from pancreatic cancer. 

 

"As this new development is also a family matter, [Owens] remains neutral and wishes that all parties involved make wise choices on behalf of their mother, her rich legacy, the family and the Aretha Franklin Estate," a statement from the estate read. 

 

According to the court docket, a hearing is expected Thursday at 10 a.m. in Oakland County, Michigan.

Full Article & Source:
Three wills purportedly written by Aretha Franklin found in late singer's home

See Also:
Aretha Franklin's estate in turmoil as police investigate theft

Aretha Franklin's lack of a will could make things rocky for heirs

Aretha Franklin left no will or trust, court records show

Florida Woman Accused of Killing her Mother After Being Left Out of Her Will

A Broward County woman reportedly killed her 85-year-old mother after she learned she was left out of her will, authorities said.

Gabriela Perero, 53, learned she was the only one of her siblings left out of her mother's will and wouldn't be getting an inheritance.

A police report said she became angry at this news, pushed her mother, Luisa Perero onto the floor last Thursday, grabbed her arms and "ripped her skin off."

The Associated Press reported that she cleaned her mother up after, put her into her bed and called 911. Her mother died the next day.

Police say she was charged with premeditated murder and aggravated battery on a person over 65.

Source:

Authorities: Broward County woman kills mom after being left out of her will

A Struggle Back to “Financial Independence” After a Brain Injury

While in a coma, Harvey lost his civil rights and all control over his own money, due to a court-ordered conservatorship. A durable power of attorney could have prevented this nightmare situation.

On a beautiful June day in 2009, Harvey was riding his motorcycle up the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Malibu as he had many times before. He enjoyed the scenery and the feel of the open road. However, he has almost zero memory of this particular day.

As he neared the Malibu Pier, a woman driving a sedan ahead of him suddenly made an illegal U-turn — turning directly into his motorcycle. Thankfully, he was wearing a helmet that surely saved his life. The highway was shut down and Harvey was airlifted to UCLA hospital where he spent the next two months in a coma.

Harvey had suffered a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) along with many physical injuries, and he would spend the next six months in hospitals. From UCLA he was transferred to Kindred Hospital in Culver City, and then to the Bakersfield Centre for Neuro Skills residential program.

It was in those first few weeks while Harvey was in a coma that his independence and civil rights would be terminated through a court-appointed conservatorship. 

Harvey and his wife Sheila had been married for 16 years and had a six-year-old daughter. Having been born into privilege, Harvey had considerable wealth that he had not co-mingled with his wife’s accounts. Additionally, Harvey and Sheila had never prepared a will, power of attorney, or health care directive. Harvey felt that he was a healthy 40-year-old, and he would handle those legal things when he was older.

Sheila and their daughter were living in their family home, where she was responsible for a hefty mortgage, even though she had limited access to Harvey’s money. She hired an attorney and applied for conservatorship of Harvey and his assets. The case was heard by Judge Reva Goetz — who has handled such famous conservatorship cases as Britney Spears and Mickey Rooney.

Sheila was denied conservatorship over Harvey because they had recently separated and were living under different roofs. Even though she immediately rushed to his side in the hospital and resumed her role as his wife, the court decided that they couldn’t be certain whether or not Harvey would want Sheila to have continued access to his money.

Eventually Harvey’s father and his attorney were awarded co-conservatorship and were able to pay general bills such as real estate and income taxes, utilities, groceries, etc. Harvey would eventually be awarded a monthly “allowance” to spend on whatever he wanted, making him feel like he was being treated like a child.

Once you’ve been put into a conservatorship, you can’t hire an attorney, so one is appointed for you by the court. This attorney is called a Probate Volunteer Panel (PVP) attorney. Harvey’s PVP attorney bragged at an initial meeting with Harvey and the family that she enjoyed causing friction between husbands and wives. She felt it was her duty to decide what was best for her client (Harvey) no matter what he or his family members might say to the contrary.

Harvey had a hearing every six months or so to monitor how things were going. He was supposed to be advised by his PVP attorney, however, she kept falsely telling the court that Harvey wanted a continuance of the conservatorship. Harvey wanted his wife Sheila to be conservator, but the PVP attorney would not allow it, and argued for the continued humiliation of the court-monitored allowance. 

At the hearings, the lawyers — which by this point consisted of an attorney for his wife, an attorney for his father, Harvey’s PVP attorney, and eventually a court-appointed attorney for his minor child (known as “guardian ad litem”) — and judge would talk about him as if he were a child (because basically without any of his rights, he sort of was) and they would never refer to him by name — only as the “conservatoree.” Harvey said it was very dehumanizing to be treated this way. 

As Harvey began getting better and better, it was becoming obvious that the conservatorship had to come to an end, but doing so was harder done than said. He had to have a “capacity declaration” performed by a physician. The problem is that when a large amount of money is at stake, doctors are reluctant to say yes, because if they said yes and he lost it all the next day, the doctor’s decision would be questioned.

Eventually Judge Goetz gave him the name of a specific doctor that she trusted. Harvey would endure two days of rigorous testing, and in January 2011, the doctor eventually wrote a declaration that Harvey was responsible enough to control his own life. In March of 2011 the judge terminated the conservatorship and Harvey was once again granted all of his civil rights. After the hearing was over, the court reporter approached Harvey and told him she had sat in on thousands of cases like his, and his was only the third one she had ever seen terminated — it is that rare to have a conservatorship overturned.

However, his nightmare did not end there.

The court-appointed PVP attorney was supposed to charge at a reduced rate; however, she solicited the judge to bill at her full rate, and was granted permission. This frustrated Harvey, as he felt the lawyer really never had his best interests in mind. Harvey had to file for separate counsel to fight the fee petition, which added two more attorneys’ fees. In addition to his PVP attorney’s fees, he also received a bill from his father’s attorney, the attorney who was acting as co-conservator, the guardian ad litem for his daughter, as well as his wife’s attorney — despite the fact that she had dropped her petition to be named conservator 18 months prior. Harvey had to pay legal fees, bonding fees, and mandatory accounting fees.

In total, this cost him just over $1 million dollars — all because Harvey did not know he should have a durable power of attorney for health care and financial matters — which created a situation where others took advantage of his health crisis.

Right after the conservatorship was lifted, Harvey told Sheila he wanted to go to Vegas and gamble…”because it was his money, damnit!” She looked at him and said, “NOT WITHOUT A WILL FIRST!” So in April 2011, Harvey wrote a holographic (handwritten) will in his own handwriting on a piece of paper that said, “Everything goes to my wife.” Shortly afterwards, he hired a law firm to implement all of their trusts, wills, power of attorney, etc.

Harvey wants everyone to understand the importance of having a durable power of attorney drawn up NOW, no matter your age or health because you never know when life takes a drastic turn like Harvey’s did. This durable power of attorney is a simple form you file with your attorney for a few hundred dollars, and it directs who is responsible for you and your estate should you become incapacitated. Had he had one, it would have saved him the humiliation of losing his civil rights, as well as causing his loved ones time and grief — and of course — $1 million in attorney and other fees.

Full Article & Source:
A Struggle Back to “Financial Independence” After a Brain Injury

Arizona: Financial Exploitation of Seniors is Difficult to Prove

Page Giacin became suspicious of the man who was taking care of her terminally ill father last summer. The caretaker was a cowboy the family had known for years, a cowboy Giacin's father, Don Steinman, did not always agree with. But because Giacin and her brother lived far away from their father's Arizona ranch, they understood why Steinman had chosen the cowboy.

Steinman died in August, at around the same time Giacin's stepmother, Barbara, was diagnosed with cancer. The cowboy, whose name we are not disclosing because he is not charged with any wrongdoing, stuck around to take care of Barbara.

"She told me she was scared of being alone and he was willing to stay," Giacin said.

Barbara Steinman died in January. Giacin learned that Barbara had written a will before she died and left the ranch to the cowboy. Now, Giacin and her brother had hoped to keep their father's property in the family for generations.

"This was his legacy to his grandchildren, to all of us," Giacin said. "He's buried on the land. In order to visit the grave, I have to be able to go onto the property."

What caused Don and Barbara Steinman to leave the property to their caretaker is unknown. The attorney who created the latest will told CBS 5 Investigates that Barbara Steinman visited his office in October and appeared competent.

Investigators said it is often difficult to tell the difference between a gift to a caretaker or family member and financial exploitation.

Full Article, News Video, and Source:
Financial Exploitation of Seniors Difficult to Prove

A Brownstone and the Bitter Fight to Inherit It

Bill Cornwell and Tom Doyle lived in a brownstone in the West Village for over five decades. They were artists, neighborhood fixtures and committed partners. Their enduring love never seemed to them to need codification — not to mention that for most of their relationship, gay marriage was illegal.

Mr. Cornwell died two years ago at age 88. Now, his will, in which he bequeathed the small apartment building to Mr. Doyle, is in dispute, leaving his partner with no clear claim to his home of 55 years. The property, on Horatio Street, is an extremely valuable asset, and several of Mr. Cornwell’s nieces and nephews have claimed it as their inheritance, rejecting the notion that their uncle wanted it to go to Mr. Doyle. They put the building up for sale, and it is now under contract — for over $7 million.

“I’m not so concerned about the money, I’m more concerned about a roof over my head for the rest of my life, and I wouldn’t have to be in a nursing home,” Mr. Doyle, 85, said, as he sat outside the cluttered one-bedroom apartment he shared with Mr. Cornwell. “As long as I am here, I have all the familiar surroundings. It’s almost as if Bill is still here.”

The dispute has now shifted to court.

Mr. Cornwell set down his final wishes about a decade ago. All his possessions, including the three-story, four-unit building of which he was the sole titleholder, should go to his longtime partner, the will stipulated. But the document’s signing was witnessed by only one person, not two, as required in New York State, making it legally invalid. Mr. Doyle attributed the error to a simple oversight, perhaps because of both men’s advanced age.

Without a valid will, the law requires that all of Mr. Cornwell’s assets go to his next of kin, two nieces and two nephews. Carole DeMaio, one of the nieces, said her uncle never took the necessary steps to make sure everything went to Mr. Doyle, including not marrying him, because he did not want to.

“He had 50 years to put Tom’s name on any of these papers,” Ms. DeMaio said. “The will was never a valid will.” Ms. DeMaio suggested that perhaps the two men were just “friends” or “great companions.”

Full Article and Source:
A Brownstone and the Bitter Fight to Inherit it

What Issues are Raised When an Inheritance Passes Outside the Family?

Anytime a person not related by blood is named as a beneficiary, lawsuits are a possibility.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people can be selfish and dishonest.

The result?

Whether you are receiving or giving assets to a non-relative, you must be cautious, very cautious.

This topic was taken up by the New Hampshire Magazine in an article titled “Navigating Non-Relative Inheritance.”

So, what is one of the biggest concerns?

Elder abuse.

And elder financial exploitation is on the rise.

Consequently, you must do everything possible to protect yourself and your senior loved ones from predators or opportunists.

Even if the beneficiary has pure motives, an estate could still be in trouble.

Why?

By naming an individual other than a natural heir as a beneficiary you can raise suspicions at best and trigger anger at worst—especially because assets are typically left to family or a beloved charity.

On the other hand, you must also exercise caution when receiving assets from an estate.

To protect yourself from false accusations and lawsuits, you should be take protective actions.

How?

Remove yourself from suspicious situations and circumstances.

If a person could interpret your actions as selfish or manipulative, they could work against you.

Be sure to have an expert determine and record the capacity of the non-family member wishing to benefit you.

This evidence will be useful in determining the validity of will, trust or other arrangement if (and when) later challenged.

Ultimately, there is a tension between following the wishes of the person choosing to distribute assets to his or her chosen non-family member beneficiary and protecting that same individual from elder exploitation.

The rights of each individual to distribute wealth according to his or her wishes - and to be defended from thieves - must both be taken seriously.

It is shame this is an issue at all.

For advice in preserving your rights and protecting your estate, work with an experienced estate planning attorney.

So, how do you find an "experienced" estate planning attorney?

First, ask around. Friends, family and other professional advisors are trustworthy sources.

Second, conduct an "organic" search on "Google" for "estate planning" near you (e.g., "Estate Planning Anytown MoKan").

Third, either way, verify! Check out the education, experience, ratings and client reviews of any attorney before you contact him or her.

How?

Two helpful online resources are just a mouse click away to assist with your due diligence:  Avvo.com and Lawyers.com.

Check any Avvo ratings, client ratings/testimonials and attorney endorsements on Avvo.com and any "peer ratings" by judges/other attorneys and any client ratings/testimonials on Lawyers.com.

In fact, I use both of these services to thoroughly vett attorneys before referring members of our "client" family for legal help in other areas of law or for matters in jurisdictions outside Kansas or Missouri.

Remember: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” When making your financial, tax and estate plans, do not go it alone. Be sure to engage competent professional counsel.

Full Article & Source:
What Issues are Raised When an Inheritance Passes Outside the Family?