State v. Marshall ends after six month trial.

“Money is like manure; it’s not worth a thing unless it’s spread around.”—Brooke Astor

I have previously written about Meryl Gordon’s recent book Mrs. Astor Regrets: The Hidden Betrayals of a Family Beyond Reproach as an outline of what can happen when wealth meets the dysfunctional family. As readers may know, the late philanthropist Brooke Astor’s probate estate was the subject of litigation and criminal charges in New York.

Brook Astor inherited over $60 million when her husband died in 1953. Amazingly, between then and 2003, she changed her last will and testament no less than 38 times. Evidently, Ms. Astor detested her son, Anthony Marshall’s third wife, Charlene, and began making changes to her will at the end of her life to insure that Charlene did not inherit any of the family fortune.

Prosecutors charged in an eighteen count indictment that Anthony and his lawyer, Francis Morrisey, conspired to make changes to Ms. Astor’s last will and testament long after she had the mental capacity to understand what was happening. Mrs. Astor, who had Alzheimer’s disease, was 105 when she died in August 2007. There has also been evidence introduced in the trial suggesting that Marshall and his lawyer forged Ms. Astor’s name on the last will and testament so as to shift almost $200 million to Marshall and Charlene. (more…)

Comity Act

Part I

Nebraksa and Florida probate courts involved in a jurisdictional showdown.

Comity, or legal reciprocity, refers to the legal presumption that different jurisdictions recognize the validity and effect of their respective judicial acts.

Last week the Second District issued an opinion highlighting some strain on the courtesies generally connected with comity, and clarifying some jurisdictional boundaries in Kountze v. Kountze, –So.3d–, 2009 WL 3320200, 34 Fla.L.Weekly D2142a (Fla.2^nd DCA, October 16, 2009).  Kountze involved a complicated factual and procedural backdrop, even for a probate litigation dispute.  Basically, the dispute involved an inter vivos heirloom trust as part of a marital settlement agreement between the decedent and his former spouse.  The parties to the lawsuit were the remainder beneficiaries of the Trust.  

In 2005, Edward Kountze, (“Edward”) as personal representative of the estate, deposited the decedent’s last will and testament in Collier County, Florida, where the decedent lived at the time of his death.  The heirloom trust, however, had Nebraska as its principal place of administration.  Thus, in 2006, Charles Kountze (“Charles”) filed a petition for trust administration in Nebraska. (more…)

Fourth District confirms that attorneys may be liable to intended beneficiary of legal services.

Florida courts traditionally limit attorney liability for negligence in the performance of professional duties to clients with whom the attorney shares contractual privity. An exception is recognized, however, where it can be demonstrated that the apparent intent of the client in engaging the services of the lawyer was to benefit another.  For the beneficiary of a last will and testament to state a viable cause of action, the testamentary intent as expressed in the will must be frustrated by the attorney’s negligence. Rosenstone v. Satchell, 560 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1990).  Thus, an attorney may be held liable for breach of his duties to one who engages his services or to one who he knows is the intended beneficiary of his services.  Last week, the Fourth District relied on this precedent in forming its opinion reversing a Broward County probate judge in Wells v. Wells 34 Fla.L.Weekly D1897b (Fla.4^th DCA, September 16, 2009).  (more…)

What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine…prenuptial agreement, joint property and hand grenades

Sharyn and Leslie Turchin, like many couples these days, entered into a pre-marital agreement prior to their marriage ceremony whereby they both renounced any ownership rights to the other person’s property in case there was a termination to their marriage by divorce or death.   Thereafter, Leslie Turchin, using his premarital assets acquired two residences, one described as the Coconut Isle and the other as the Aqua Vista. He recorded title with both his name and his wife’s.  Both properties were subsequently sold during the marriage. The proceeds from the sale of the Coconut Isle property were deposited in the parties’ joint checking account. Thereafter, the husband withdrew most of the funds in order to satisfy his personal obligations with the balance of the withdrawn funds being deposited in the husband’s individual bank account. As part of the purchase price of the Aqua Vista property, the buyers executed a mortgage in favor of both the husband and wife.  Leslie Turchin died testate and his estate planning documents directed that the remaining balance on the Aqua Vista mortgage be forgiven. (more…)