Pennsylvania Fiduciary Litigation : Pennsylvania Trusts and Estates Lawyer & Expert Witness : Patti Spencer Law Firm : Fiduciary Litigation, Planning : Lancaster, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

I love this post from Gerry Beyers' Wills, Trust and Estates Prof Blog:

Testamentary gift conditioned on method of body disposition.

It reminds me of the Jewish Halachic Will which utilizes exactly the same methodology: the testator getting his way by using his will to impose a legally enforceable severe financial penalty for not following his wishes.

Background:  The primary scriptural sources for the laws of inheritance will be found in the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy (Parshas Pinchas (Numbers 27, 1-11) and Zelophehad's daughters). The second census of the population of the individual tribes took place just before entering the Land of Canaan (see Numbers, Chapter 26), and portions of the Promised Land were to be allocated, by lot, to each tribe in accordance with their population.

The tribes of Reuben and Gad were permitted to "inherit" and settle the land East of the Jordan River due to their great "multitude of cattle" (see Chapter 32). Each sub-tribal "family" was to be given a specific portion of land for a perpetual inheritance. In this context, the collective "petition" presented by the daughters of Zelophehad resulted in the promulgation of specific statutes comprising the earliest inheritance law in the Bible.

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 13^th book, the Book of Civil Law (Sefer Mishpatim) contains five treatises, the fifth of which is entitled "Laws Concerning Inheritance.

The order of inheritance is as follows (taken from The Code of Maimonides, Book Thirteen, The Book of Civil Laws, translated from the Hebrew by Jacob J. Rabinowitz, New Haven: Yale University Press 1949. The Order of Inheritance is stated in Treatise Five: Inheritance, Chapter I, p. 259 - 260.):

1.      If a person died, his children shall inherit him, and they are prior to everyone else, and males are prior to female.

2.    A female never shares in the inheritance with a male. If the decedent left no children, his father shall inherit him; but by a rule derived from Tradition a mother does not inherit her children.

3.     Whosoever is prior in the order of inheritance, his issue is also prior. Therefore, if a person, whether a man or woman, die leaving a son, the son shall inherit everything. If there be no son living, we look to the son’s issue. If there be a son’s issue, whether male or female, even a son’s daughter’s daughter’s daughter, to the end of time, they shall inherit everything. If there be no son’s issue, we resort to the daughter. If there be no daughter living we look to the daughter’s issue. If there be a daughter’s issue, whether male or female, to the end of time, such issue shall inherit everything. If there be no daughter’s issue, the inheritance resorts to the decedents father. If the father is not living, we look to the father’s issue, that is to the decedent’s brothers. If there be a brother of the decedent or a brother’s issue, he, or they, shall inherit everything. If there be no issue of a brother or of a sister, seeing that there is no issue of the decedent’s father, the inheritance resorts to the father’s father. If the father’s father is not living, we look to the issue of the father’s father, that is to the decedent’s father’s brothers. The males are prior to the females and the issue of the males are also prior to the females, just as in the case of the issue of the decedent himself. If there be no brothers of the decedent’s father no issue of such brothers, the inheritance shall resort to the father’s father’s father. And in this manner the inheritance continues to ascend up to Reuben. {Query: why Reuven?] . . . ."

4.    The first-born takes a double portion in his father’s property. For it is written To give him a double portion (Deut. 21:17).

5.     " . . . . The daughters right to maintenance is one of the rights of the ketubbah. When the amount of property left the father is large, the daughters are entitled to their maintenance and the sons inherit everything, except that the daughters are to be endowed with one tenth of the value of the property each, in order to enable them to wed. When the amount of the property is small the sons take nothing and everything goes for the maintenance of the daughters.

6.     One may not constitute as an heir him whom the Law does not constitute as his heir; nor may one remove the inheritance from an heir - although this is a matter pecuniary - because in the division of Scripture treating of inheritances it is said And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgement (Num 27:11), that is to say: this Law is not subject to change and a condition qualifying it is not valid. Whether the decedent gave his instructions while he was in heath or while he was lying sick, whether orally or in writing, they are not valid.

7.     All this applies only if he uttered his words in the language of inheritance, but if he gave by way of gift, his words shall stand. Therefore, if one divided his property among his sons by word of his mouth while he was lying sick, giving more to one and less to another, or giving to the first-born a share equal to that of the other brother, his words shall stand. But if he utters his words in the language of inheritance, they are of no effect

It has been clear since talmudic times that Jews have wished to deviate from this stated succession wish to will assets to wives, daughters, charities and friends. Today, the influences of secular culture on the Jewish community and the modern idea of private property and individual rights has made this more common.

This is one of the ways for a testator to comply with halacha and yet distribute his estate the way he wants:

In a technique commonly referred to as a "Halachic Will." the testator creates an indebtedness in favor of those he wishes to benefit, e.g., wife and daughters, by executing a promissory note in their favor. Under halacha, this note is valid even if no loan was given. A debt for a huge sum, well in excess of the total value of the estate is created, but does not mature and is not payable until one hour before death. The huge sum is not going to be paid, but will be used as leverage for carrying out the terms of the will. The note, by its terms, gives to the halachic heirs (the sons) the option of paying the debt or receiving a stated legacy in lieu of having to discharge the debt. The legacy is the amount willed to the chosen beneficiary who holds the note.  Thus, the halachic heirs chose to be beneficiaries under the will which deviates from the Jewish law of inheritance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

High-profile Allentown PA defense attorney John P. Karoly Jr.,  was indicted September 25, 2008 by a federal grand jury on charges he and two others conspired to defraud his brother's and sister-in-law's estates of millions using fake wills.

John J. Shane, a doctor Karoly often used as an expert witness and Karoly's son, John P. Karoly III, were also named in the indictment.  Each of the three is charged with single counts of conspiracy and two felony counts of wire fraud, according to federal authorities.

As reported at www.lehighvalleylive.com:

"Karoly's brother and sister-in-law, Peter Karoly, and Lauren B. Angstadt, died Feb. 2, 2007, in a Massachusetts plane crash that also killed the pilot. Peter Karoly was a prominent Allentown attorney, and Angstadt was a dentist.

The couple had no children and each left multi-million-dollar estates. Shortly after their deaths, authorities allege the three defendants conspired to create fake wills dated June 2, 2006, intended to supercede authentic wills prepared in 1985."

Karoly has won multimillion-dollar settlements in brutality and misconduct suits against the Bethlehem and Easton police departments.  His attorney, Robert Goldman, says he thinks Karoly has been targeted because of these successful suits against police officers.

Karoly's deceased brother was also a lawyer and they used to practice together.  In 1986 they had a rift and split up their law practice.

According to the indictment, as reported by Matt Birkbeck for Of The Morning Call:

"Nine days after the crash, John Karoly told family members that Peter gave him a sealed package in June 2006 to place in storage.

When John Karoly learned that Peter's authentic will, filed in 1985, was submitted for probate to Northampton County Court on Feb. 15, 2007, Karoly created fraudulent wills for his brother and sister-in-law and subsequently enlisted Shane to sign them as a witness.

Karoly also tried to get a family member from South Carolina, identified only as ''J.F.,'' to sign the fraudulent wills as a witness but J.F. refused.

The indictment continues:

On Feb. 20, 2007, Karoly began notifying family members, including sisters in Florida and New Jersey, that he had found the ''original will'' of Peter Karoly inside the sealed envelope that was in storage, and that it bequeathed the bulk of his estate to John Karoly, along with gifts to his two sons and various nieces and nephews.

That will and a fictitious Angstadt will were submitted to Northampton County Court on Feb. 22, 2007. The eight-page Peter Karoly will, dated June 2, 2006, left all of Peter's money and property to his wife. But if she died, the majority share of the estate would go to John Karoly, including all cases, clients, awards, verdicts, monies and receivables from Peter Karoly's law firm.

John Karoly was also left Peter's law practice and law office at 1511-25 Hamilton St. in Allentown, all investment and brokerage accounts owned by Peter Karoly and his wife, and control of eRAD, a medical imaging company based in Greenville, S.C., that Peter Karoly founded and ran as chief executive officer.

Peter Karoly's 1985 will liquidated the law firm and divided all property and money among family members of Peter Karoly and his wife, The Morning Call reported in 2007.

Soon after being notified of the new will, Karoly's sisters protested, claiming it was fraudulent. FBI agents raided John Karoly's home in May 2007, seizing boxes of documents and computer files."

Blogging credit to Prof. Gerry Beyer at Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog.

Here is Neil Hendershot's post when the wills were contested in April 2007.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Neil Hendershot has a terrific post on his blog called "Liquid Trust" or "Living Trustworthiness"?   With tongue in cheek, he talks of buying trust in a bottle (like Love Potion No. 9) to solve the nation's financial crsis.

"Liquid Trust is the world's first Trust Enhancing Body Spray, specially formulated to increase trust in the wearer.

Scientists have recently discovered a chemical that makes people trust each other. For the first time, you can have the world in the palm of your hands...It all starts with Trust."

On a more serious note, what Neil points out is that in the midst of the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression, we find ourselves in a world without integrity, without honesty and accountability. 

As David Francis says, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, when "so many people engaged in so many aspects of finance have lost their ethical compass and put their short-term personal gains above other considerations, such as was the case in the subprime mortgage market in the US, it can have a "profound macroeconomic impact." In other words, the broad economy gets hurt by greed and selfishness as ensuing financial losses mount and trust fades."

Which brings me to the current Congressional debate over whether Washington should enact an extraordinary bailout of the country's financial system.   

Sen. Sherrod Brown, (Ohio-D), said calls from his constituents about the plan have been universally negative. He told the story of one constituent who drove to Washington:

"He quite rightly asked why we were rushing to bailout companies whose leaders got rich gambling with other people's money,"

There is plenty of blame to go around for the current crisis.   Part of being trustworthy is being accountable. 

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it:  If the bailout passes, "The party is over for this compensation for CEOs who take the golden parachute as they drive their companies into the ground. ... The party is over for financial institutions taking risks [and] at the same time privatizing any gain they may have while they nationalize the risk, asking the taxpayer to pick up the tab,"

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Did you know you can turn in tax cheats for bounty?

Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes payments for detecting underpayment of tax and detecting and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws or "conniving" (love that word) at the same.

As pointed out by Timothy W. Maier, writing forInsight on the News, offering cash incentives for information about alleged criminals is a time-honored technique. In addition to the IRS, which collects about an additional $100 million from tax cheats annually by paying out rewards anywhere from $2 million to $5 million, the FBI, according to Meier, claims to have captured 140 suspects through its 53-year-old "Most Wanted" program as a result of offering millions in cash. And look at the success of the TV program America's Most Wanted in bringing criminals to justice.

Maier reminds us that "[r]ewards paid by authorities date back to the Bible when Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. They were common in England in the 18th century when thieves were paid for police tips, and they continued to be popular in the Wild West where bounties routinely were offered and paid to gunmen such as Bob Ford, who for $10,000 shot the notorious outlaw Jesse James in the back on April 3, 1882. Today, rewards even are announced to try to throw off police or deceive the public as O.J. Simpson may have done when he offered $1 million to find the "real killers" of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman."

If you want to report suspected tax fraud, use IRS Form 3949-A, Information Referral. It can be downloaded at IRS.gov, or ordered by calling 1-800-829-3676. The report needs to include specific information about who is being reported, the suspected fraud being reported, how the fraud became known, when it took place, the amount of money involved and any other information that might be helpful in an investigation. You are not required to identify yourself , although it is helpful to do so. The IRS says that your identity can be kept confidential.

You may be entitled to a reward, but keep in mind it is completely discretionary whether you will be given a reward. You have no legal right to a reward. In order to apply for a reward you must file Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information. The quality of your information is critical because the IRS is swamped with leads - many of them vindictive - things like reports of tax fraud by former spouses and former bosses. The IRS has limited resources and, of course, pursues leads with the best chance of bringing in substantial revenue.

According to IRS Policy Statement 4-27, while the amount of the rewards and whether one is payable at all is completely discretionary, in general , the Service will follow these guidelines:

•  For specific and responsible information that caused the investigation or, in cases already under audit, materially assisted in the development or identification of an issue or issues and resulted in the recovery, or was a direct factor in the recovery, the reward shall be 15 percent of the amounts the Service recovers, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million.
• For information that caused the investigation or in cases already under audit, caused an investigation of an issue or issues, and was of value in the determination of tax liabilities although not specific, the reward shall be 10 percent of the amounts the Service recovers, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million.

• For general information that caused the investigation, but had no direct relationship to the determination of tax liabilities, the reward shall be 1 percent of the amounts recovered, with the total reward not exceeding $10 million. 

How likely are you to get a reward? IRS senior program analyst says "We determined from a study that one in 10 informants actually asks for a reward and approximately one in 10 of those gets one." In fiscal 2002, the IRS paid $7.7 million in rewards that led to $66.9 million in additional collections. There were 6,982 reward claims filed during that period and only 215 rewards allowed in full. Don’t start spending your reward money until you get it.

Just about any word used to describe this behavior has a negative connotation: stool pigeon, tattle-tale, snitch, rat, squealer, informant, fink, whistle-blower. Should you turn in a cheat and a fraud?

Much has been written about the issue in connection with business ethics. Look at the treatment of people who expose wrongdoing in their companies in the media. People who report wrong-doings by their companies are subjected to persecution, pariah status, and blacklisting. They often are ostracized by co-workers, lose their jobs and can't find work in the same industry.

According to Jim Hillesheim, Professor of Education at The University of Kansas, it is a social fact that honest employees rarely report theft committed by unscrupulous coworkers or managers. Psychologists and behavioral scientists offer various explanations, but the most prevalent one is that the hesitation to report theft is due to fear of being thought of as a tattletale. Reporting a theft or other wrongdoing is seen as a violation of a deeply entrenched code of conduct that demands that one not be thought of as a snitch.

Children get the message that they should not be "tattletales." Years later as adults, when they should be seeing the world in adult terms they are still afraid to come forward. As Hillesheim says, "we need only to ponder how horrible society would be if no one, having witnessed a crime, would step forward to help police, because he or she did not want to be thought of as a tattletale.

Remember, you can come forward with information and not claim reward. What is your motivation, after all?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reserve Primary Fund (Ticker RFIXX), a money market fund with $62 billion in net assets, today wrote off $785 million of debt issued by the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers, reports Christopher Condon for Bloomberg.com.

The Board of Trustees of The Reserve Primary Fund issued a news release today (September 16, 2008).  In the release they stated that the $785 million write-off in Lehman Brothers debt brought their net asset value to $0.97 per share.  "Effective today and until further notice, the proceeds of redemptions from The Primary Fund will not be transmitted to the redeeming investor for a period of up to seven calendar days after the redemption.  The seven-day redemption delay will not apply to debit card transactions, ACH transactions or checks written against the assets of the Primary Fund provided that any such transaction from an investor, individually or in the aggregate, does not exceed $10,000." 

The Reserve, according to their website,  is "a leading  cash management provider for institutions, banks, brokers, advisors, and individual investors."  They created the world's first money market fund in 1970.   The Reserve Primary Fund is currently rated AAAm by Standard & Poor's (that's their highest rating) and Aaa by Moody's (also their highest rating).

This is the first time since 1994 that a money-market fund's net asset value has fallen below the $1 per share level.

Jon Markham warned about this in December 2007.  See his article "Your 'Safe' Money Isn't So Safe"  at MSN Money.  Markham, who was prescient indeed, says:

"Brokerages have pledged to shrink their exposure to SIVs [Structured Investment Vehicles] and tacitly pledged to support money market funds' values in the event that the mortgage-backed securities in which they are invested go belly-up. But they are not obligated to do so -- and in a doomsday scenario, which is not all that hard to imagine, brokerages will have a snowball's chance in hell of making good on their winks and nods, considering more than $3 trillion is at risk."

What is a money market fund?

A money market fund is a mutual fund that pools investors’ money and invests in short-term, high-grade debt obligations issued by corporations, banks and the U.S. government. The fund manager aims to keep the share price at $1.00. The yield fluctuates over time.

I’ll bet you think of it just like a checking account that pays more interest than you can get at the bank. If you read the prospectus, you would have read something like this: "An investment in a money market fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although the fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in the fund." Do you understand what that means? If you have $10,000 in a money market fund, market fluctuations could cause your investment to be worth less than that - maybe $9,900. Maybe $8,500. Did you realize that this is possible?

What happens when a money fund's yield is less than its management fee? They can only pay out what they take in, minus expenses. Many money funds have been waiving expenses in the current low-interest rate environment. When a money market fund’s share price falls below $1  it is called  "breaking the buck."

Not so long ago - in early 2004, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, referring to "breaking the buck,"  said:  "I don't think anyone would do that."  Why? It would break investors' trust in the $2.2 trillion industry, prompting many to take their money elsewhere. John Bogle and others like him thought that the fund companies would opt to close out the fund altogether and return money to shareholders rather than risk the net asset value falling below $1. The safety and security of the entire money fund industry would be called into question. Any fund company allowing their money market fund to break the buck would have a public relations nightmare on their hands.  That was 2004, now here we are.

Nevertheless, the point is, if you had read and understood the money market funds prospectus, you would have known that losing money in the fund was a possibility. And it could happen.

Note: A money market mutual fund is not the same as a bank money market deposit account. A bank money market deposit account is not a mutual fund - it’s a bank deposit and it is insured by the FDIC. Its yield is whatever the bank chooses to pay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers.  What's next?

And what about all the trust portfolios that are headed down?   Remember, the standard of care under the Prudent Investor Act is not measured by portfolio performance -  it is a standard of trustee conduct measured by how the trustee monitors, responds, and follows good procedures.

Click here for Alan Greenspan's view.

Worst economy he has ever seen.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dan was a single guy living at home with his father and working in the
family business. When he found out he was going to inherit a fortune when
his sickly father died, he decided he needed a wife with whom to share
his fortune.

One evening at an investment club meeting he spotted the most beautiful
woman he had ever seen. Her natural beauty took his breath away. "I may
look like just an ordinary man," he said to her, "but in just a few years,
my father will die, and I'll inherit 20 million dollars."

Impressed, the woman obtained his business card and three days later, she
became his stepmother.

Women are so much better at estate planning than men.

Blogging credit to Greg Herman-Giddens at North Carolina Estate Planning Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've heard it said that there is not a remedy for every wrong, but it has always troubled me that a person "done out" of an inheritance had no recourse.  Unless the person could fit themselves into the very limited circumstances of a third party beneficiary, most of these "disinherited" persons had no remedy agaisnt the person who wronged them.

There is new law in Pennsylvania and this is no longer the case.  In a tremendous victory for the disinherited, the PA Superior Court has affirmed the existence of a tort for tortious interference with inheritance.

"Sometimes people marry for money, and sometimes people kill for money. But when someone has done you out of an inheritance, can you sue for money? That, in a nutshell, is the question of tortious interference with expectation of inheritance."    -   Thus begins  Diane J. Klein in her article, "A Disappointed Yankee in Connecticut (or nearby) Probate Court: Tortious Interference with Expectation of Inheritance - A Survey with Analysis of State Approaches in the First, Second, and Third Circuits"   University of Pittsburgh Law Review Vol. 66:235.

She says of Pennsylvania at p.275: 

"In a pair of recent Pennsylvania Superior Court cases on appeal from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Zoran Popovich has held that Pennsylvania recognizes the tort, although not in its Restatement (Second) Section 774B formulation.212 Instead, apparently relying on the 1904 case of Marshall v. De Haven, [58 A. 141 (Pa. 1904)] Judge Popovich has identified a Pennsylvania specific version of the tort, available exclusively when the tortious conduct prevents the execution of a will in favor of the plaintiff. This specific version of the tort remedies the specific injury of one who lacks standing to challenge a will, or would not benefit from such a challenge because the instrument under which he or she would benefit was never executed.. . . . until Judge Popovich, apparently no other Pennsylvania jurist regarded Marshall v. De Haven (or Mangold v. Neuman, or Cole v. Wells, other cases cited by Judge Popovich) as recognizing the tort. "

The two cases are: 

Cardenas v. Shober, 783 A.2d at 319-20,  and

 McNeil v. Jordan, 814 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).

The elements of the tort, as set for by the court in Cardenas, are:

     (1)     The testator indicated an intent to change his will to provide a described benefit for plaintiff,

     (2)     The defendant used fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence to prevent execution of the intended will,

    (3)      The defendant was successful in preventing the execution of a new will; and

    (4)       But for the Defendant’s conduct, the testator would have changed his will.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You gotta see this:

Juan Antunez's post on the Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog --

Probate lawyers arrested for representing client disinherited by Georgia's Slayer Statute.

Antunez writes:  "When it comes to staying out of trouble, spotting your risk exposures is half the battle (it's the "unknown unknowns" that will get you).  The Georgia case gives probate attorneys something else to worry about (as if we didn't have enough already). If your fees could in any way be characterized as tainted by criminal conduct, you need to assume the worst and take appropriate precautions.  As the Georgia lawyers learned, just because you're the friendly neighborhood probate attorney (and not some high profile criminal defense attorney), doesn't mean you can't get put in jail for doing your job."

Here is Professor Gerry Beyer's summary of what happened posted on Wills, Trust & Estates Prof Blog:

• Debra Post allegedly murdered her husband, Jerry Post, in 2002.
• Debra hired Candice Rader and Valerie Cooke to defend her.
• As payment for their services, Candice and Valerie accepted assets valued at over $320,000 from Debra to which Debra was not entitled because of the slayer statute (that is, proceeds of Jerry's life insurance and some real property).
• Subsequently, Debra pled guilty to felony murder and was sentenced to life without parole.
• A Douglas County Georgia grand jury indicted Candice and Valerie on August 21, 2008 for knowingly taking assets which were "covered" by the slayer statute.
• The attorneys were arrested

Under Georgia's "Slayer's Statute," a murderer isn't entitled to profit from his or her victim's estate.  Since the attorney's were paid from the victim's estate, they, well, what did they do?  They were charged with  six counts of theft by taking and one count of theft by receiving.  They were taken to jail after their arrest and released the next day on $100,000 bond each (according to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution).

Were they really probate lawyers?   Or were they criminal defense lawyers?    What's the difference between. . . . . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You can shuck corn, too.  And peas and beans.  Bet you never thought of this:

Jerry Orbach's son, Chris, says his stepmother, Elaine Cancilla-Orbach is a "double-dealing, lying, scheming, miserable fool."  All he got from his dad's estate was "a few CD's, two sweaters, a pool cue and a pocketknife."

As reported by Vicki Hyman for the Star-Ledger -  "He's also angry that his stepmother permitted someone to harvest his father's eyes, although Cancilla-Orbach says her stepson simply didn't know Orbach okayed the donation. "Having to leave my father's deathbed so that some guy with an ice box could shuck his eyes out while they were fresh still makes me sick and furious to this day."

Now that puts organ donation in a different light, doesn't it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 Writing your will is not a do-it-yourself project.

Words are important. The words that are in your will are very important. That is one of the reasons you should not try to write your own will. Even preprinted forms and computer programs can lead to problems. Take the case of Mr. Tate, recently decided in Somerset County.  Tate Estate (O.C.Div.Som.), 28 Fiduc. Rep. 2d 264.

Mr. Tate died leaving an estate consisting of $700 in household goods, certificates of deposit, a checking account, money market account, life insurance policy dividend and cable refund with a total value of $39,300.

Mr. Tate died leaving a will that was apparently prepared by a local notary (practicing law without a license) who used a pre-printed form and filled in the blanks. Mr. Tate’s will said: "I give, devise and bequeath all my personal property, jewelry and furniture, to my niece, Valarie Nichols." . . . "I give, devise and bequeath all the remainder of my estate, which I may own at the time of my death or to which I may thereafter become entitled, to my friend, Janet Geisel."

So what’s the problem? The question is who gets the $39,300 - Valarie Nichols or Janet Geisel? Why is this a question? Because personal property, as understood in the law, means any kind of property other than real property. Thus, bank accounts, certificates of deposit and other cash items are personal property.

The will says all personal property goes to niece Valerie Nichols - which would mean she would get all of the assets - bank accounts, certificates of deposit, etc. Janet Geisel, the other beneficiary disagreed. She said that since the decedent had no real estate she would get nothing and that what the decedent meant was tangible personal property should go to niece Valarie and everything else should go to friend Janet..

The first point I want to make is that if there has to be a lawsuit over a $39,000 estate, how much do you think is going to be left for any beneficiary? 

What do you think? What did Mr. Tate intend? And how do we know? We can’t ask him.

In this case, the court applied a doctrine of construction called "ejusdem generis" to reach their holding. "Ejusdem generis" is Latin for "of the same kind." As applied to Mr. Tate’s will, this phrase means that "where general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated." In other words, since the will said "all my personal property, jewelry and furniture" the general words "personal property" should be interpreted to mean property of the same type as jewelry and furniture.

So Janet Geisel gets the $39,300. . . . minus the costs of the lawsuit.

Moral of the story: Writing wills is not for amateurs. You may think youa re being clear, covering all the possiblities, and complying with all the legal requiresmtns. And maybe youa re - but there is no way you can know for sure that what you have written willa ccomplish what you want.

Thank you to the editors of he August 2008 issue of Fiduciary Review, 60 East Penn Street, Norristown, PA 19404 (610) 275-8200.  The August 2008 issue of Fiduciary Review contained a report on the Tate Estate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Trustees of Pennsylvania trusts have until November 6^th to comply with the new notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Trust Act (PA UTA). This new legislation requires notice to beneficiaries and interested parties of the existence of trusts. 

Until now, there have been many "secret" trusts in Pennsylvania. In other words, many beneficiaries of a trust don't even know that the trust exists. A trustee had no duty to tell beneficiaries about the existence of the trust they managed or to provide any information to beneficiaries about the trust, its investments or provisions.

In order to help you meet these new disclosure requirements we provide a handy reference guide to the PA UTA changes:

click here:      Handy Cheat Sheet

I have a limited number of these available that have been laminated.  Please e-mail me at patti@spencerlawfirm.com if you would like us to send you one. 

Also, here is a copy of a recent article I wrote on this topic, published in the Intelligencer Journal.

click here:      Reproducible Article

These items may be reproduced for further distribution "as is" (that means with no changes and including attribution). 

The cheat sheet:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks