Florida Probate Attorney and Florida Inheritance Lawyer Florida Probate Attorney Blog

James Brown Trusts and Estates Litigation Settled

After years of disputes and litigation regarding the terms his trusts and will contests a settlement to distribute the trust and estate assets was reached.

His charitable trust will receive 50% of the assets and help needy kids in South Carolina and Georgia.

Tomi Rae Hynie Brown was determined to be his wife which had itself been litigated since it was argued she had not been properly divorced from her prior husband so it was argued that the marriage with James Brown should have been invalid. She however received 25% share along with her son James Brown II who was a minor and there had been questions of whether that had even truly been James Brown son. Neither one had been provided for in prior wills and trusts which they contested and were disputing in the litigation. They had rights as pretermitted heirs since the marriage was after the will and so was the birth of the child. This would allow them to receive their intestate share. Even if the will had not provided for her and was done after the marriage she would have rights to his property as an elective share unless there had been a prenup she would have elective share rights as a spouse.

James Browns 6 adult children split the remaining 25%.

The estate reportedly has limited assets currently though and had held an auction which raised $850,000 in order to help pay debt of the trusts and estates.

There have been reports of breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees who reportedly have not given full accountings and are said to have mismanged the trust assets. They did not approve of the settlement and are appealing. 

His wife and her attorney mentioned that the family and charity were happy to move forward after the trust litigation battles of the past few years and just wanted to work together to continue to enhance his image. The image of the godfather of soul will likely be the most significant estate asset. The estate of his friend Elvis Presley for example earned $52 million last year despite his death decades ago. By contrast even some of the biggest celebrities who are alive and actively earning such as Justin Timberlake and Madonna made ten or more million less according to the annual list of top earning deceased celebrities in Forbes.  

This trust and estate settlement proposal had been worked out months ago and submitted to the probate  court for approval although the probate judge in South Carolina overseeing the case finally reviewed and approved it. Unless it is impacted by the appeal of the trustees all the litigation concerning the trust and estate can finally be put to rest. In this case as with some other large celebrity cases there had been numerous lawsuits which needed to be resolved as well as determining what the will and trust said then all the parties agreeing to settle the disputes.

As James Brown liked to say and those who have finally been able to settle the trust and estate litigation disputes that had been in probate court would likely have said "It feels good".

Will Contest Litigation and Will Disputes on the rise globally.

Information from this post comes from Sheena Hastings Battle of Wills...why the recession is leaving a new legal of legal conflict which appeared in the United Kingdom's Yorkshire Post and from Florida Probate Attorney and Co chair of the Broward County Probate and Trust section David Luber who compares some information in this article re will contests in England with Florida Will contests.  

One London Probate Litigation law firm found that there were 228 will disputes dealt with by the High Court in London in 2008 compared with 83 in 2006 and the figures would be substantially higher since most will contest and probate litigation cases are settled. 

Even before the economic slump she pointed out that society was increasingly resorting to probate and estate litigation with disputes over wills but as the values of many estates drops even more challenges and contests are being fought. 

When the economy was strong with real estate and the stock market skyrocketing there were more estates worth fighting over. Now people are more desperate to inherit because of their own situations so despite the values of the estates falling the number of disputes and will contests has risen.

The downturn in the economy is further magnified by the fact that people are living longer and the costs of medical care has significantly increased so there is less in the estate. Additionally family situations are becoming increasingly complex and more people seeking to provide something for charity as well.

A solicitor there which the US would refer to as an attorney says that wills can be challenged based on the testator not understanding what they were doing due to mental incapacity or "because those with reasonable expectations of being beneficiaries (including spouse, partner, civil partner, children or other dependents) have not received anything or not enough. It is not seen as equiptable to ignore people who've had those kinds of relationships with you in your will."

While this is an interesting comment and may be the law in England as a Florida Probate Attorney I know that lack of mental capacity is a frequent reason to challenge a will and justifies bringing a Florida will dispute but that other than homestead rights of a minor children to a parents residence which is in the sole name of a parent children have no rights to estate assets merely by being children, spouses only have a right to a life estate in the primary residence if it is in the spouses sole name and may have an elective share right to 30% of the gross estate (including probate and non probate items) if there is no prenuptial agreement but otherwise there is legal basis for a wills contest merely since someone felt they did not get enough. Additionally a civil partner or adult dependents who are not named in a will have no right to receive any property from the decedent. A frequent cause of action in Florida is undue influence where a person is coerced by another they have a relationship of trust and confidence who then receives a larger share and the document becomes the influence of the other person not the one who is giving away there property. While a further discussion of undue influence is beyond the scope of this post it is interesting that they mentioned challenging based on not feeling they had received enough but not for that reason. 

An additional issue the article brings up is the danger of using specific devises and the importance of revising a will if there is a significant change in circumstance. A case the womans law firm handled involed where the decedent intended their child to receive the majority of the estate and then provide for a charity so $40,000 in English currency was provided to go to the charity and the residue to the child. However the mom needed medical care and her home and some assets needed to be sold as a result leaving just $40,000. This is a reason it can be safer to use percentages, revise the will while the client still has capacity or at least provide after a certain amount goes to the primary beneficiary then it would have gone to charity. In this type of case if the decedent had been asked if they would have wanted that to happen and whether they would like to do a new will it is almost certain she would have but after the passing it is obviously to late. Had it said for example 80% goes to son though and 20% goes to charity then even if the estate had shrunck significantly as it did the son would still get the $32,000 pounds or whatever she wanted him to have. 

Interesting to hear the stats and information from the United Kingdom although as mentioned a wills contest and estate dispute is handled differently in some respects in Florida and while a non contest clause seeking to prevent someone from disputing or contesting a will in Florida probate court is not enforceable a legal cause of action is required such as lack of mental capacity or other reasons not merely reasonable expectations or a sense that because someone fell into one of the categories mentioned would be entitled to sue for a share of the estate on some type of equitable ground. Estates pass to whom the decedent - testator provided for if there was a valid will or who the state of Florida provides if there is no valid will and expectations do not give the right to sue.