Florida Probate Attorney and Florida Inheritance Lawyer Florida Probate Attorney Blog

Probate Litigation may be avoided with mediation for Rosa Parks Estate

Probate Litigation Avoided - Mediation is scheduled in Parks case

The Will Contest and Probate Litigation may be avoided as the estate litigation attorneys and the beneficiaries of the Rosa Parks estate, their clients have agreed to try to mediate the estate dispute. The article reporting this can be found here Despite the other side waiving the potential conflict of interest it does seem strange though that an interested party as one of the two personal representatives for the estate would serve as the mediator for this dispute. 

Adam Shakoor and Elaine Steele were chosen by Rosa Parks to represent her estate.

Both sides in a probate dispute and will contest over the estate of civil rights icon Rosa Parks agreed Tuesday to have former Detroit District Court Chief Judge Adam Shakoor mediate in hopes of avoiding a probate estate litigation trial disputing the will and seeking to establish or disprove undue influence.

The decision to have Shakoor conduct the May 17 mediation was reached at a meeting Tuesday attended by lawyers and Wayne County Probate Judge Freddie Burton Jr.

Parks' nieces and nephews planned to pursue a will contest of her 1998 will, which designated the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute as the recipient of most of her estate. Its vice president is Elaine Steele, Parks' longtime caregiver, whom Parks designated as co-personal representative of her estate.

Parks' relatives say their aunt, who suffered from dementia before her death last year, was unduly influenced by Steele. Parks' estate attorney and an estate litigation attorney for Steele have denied the charges.

Although Parks also designated Shakoor as a co-personal representative, a lawyer for the family, Lawrence Pepper, expressed confidence that he would be a fair mediator.

Will Contest Litigation - Inability to afford Attorney does not excuse untimely Will Challenge

In a Probate Administration or Probate Litigation contest the system is setup to help pay the final expenses, taxes, gather the assets of the estate, determine the validity of the will and make distributions of the probate assets so the beneficiaries can receive their inheritance and the estate can be moved along in a timely manner. There are due process requirements of beneficiaries having a set amount of time to bring a will contest and creditors having a period of time to bring claims against the estate but an important aspect of the probate is being able to establish finality and it is of significant importance that people act without the timeframes allowed or their case can be barred as this case illustrates.

It is the opinion of this probate attorney and Florida-Probate.blogs.com that a Florida Will Contest Attorney or Florida Will challenge lawyer would not be able to bring this as a Florida Probate Litigation Case just as it was not allowed as a New Jersey will contest litigation case after proper service to a beneficiary and their failure to act caused as a result merely of failure to afford an attorney. While the specific time frames and probate procedures would differ among Florida Probate Litigation and New Jersey the result would likely be the same and the will contest litigation would be dsimissed for failure to bring the case in a timely manner.   

Inability to Afford Counsel Does Not Excuse Untimely Will Challenge (NJ)

The decedent's will was admitted to probate over the objection of her son, who appeared at the hearing, told the judge that he had evidence that his mother suffered from dementia, and insisted that there were police reports and witnesses who would support his position. After continuing the hearing twice to allow the son to retain counsel and file proper pleadings, the probate judge denied his objection and admitted the will. Eight months later, after having secured a loan from his grilfriend with which he retained counsel, the son filed a complaint alleging that the will was the product of undue influence. The probate judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that any challenge to the probate of the will had to have been filed within four months of the original order.  The appellate court affirms the dismissal, albeit on different grounds from the trial court determination.

The Estate Litigation Attorney hired to challenge the will was unable to bring the probate litigation lawsuit and contest the will because it was not done within the statutory time frame for a will contest lawyer to bring the undue influence complaint disputing the validity of the will. A link to the estate litigation and will contest case can be found here. In the matter of Estate of Schifftner. Superior Court of New Jersey Appelate Division.

Probate and Trust Litigation Anna Nicole Smith

On Thursday November 17 "Primetime Live" the ABC news show discussed the Anna Nicole Smith Probate and Trust Litigation case, her relationship with her husband who was 63 years older than her (89 and 26) and showed some of the video from the court cases that have spanned from Texas to California bankruptcy court, probate court and federal court.

Two of the aspects of the show that were particularly of interest were first that that J. Howard Marshall was not just an oilman who happened to get lucky and make billions of dollars but that he had been an attorney and not merely an attorney but a trusts and estates attorney as well as a professor. In fact he taught trusts and estates at Yale law school. With that being mentioned it is reasonable to assume that if he wanted to provide for her his documents would have done so. Although that further raises the question of the conflict in his failing to follow up with a post nuptial agreement or having done a prenuptial before they were married in order to avoid her right to an elective share and community property from the time they were married which she presumably has the right to in Texas. In Florida there is no community property but is an elective share that a surviving spouse would be entitled to.

Second was a video in which he had clearly said what he would like Anna Nicole to have. She seemed to be pushing him to express his intentions and he does so clearly and with no apparent problems in his capacity but far from the alleged one half of everything he owns he merely provides for a home, a car and the gifts he has previously given her. During his lifetime he gave her gifts of around $6-$7 million dollars and they were married for just 14 months. Click here or the video link above to hear the video about the case and his intentions regarding what he would leave her. His will and trust which Anna has challenged with a decade of litigation in probate court essentially left the same thing which she heard him intend to leave at the time he prepared the home video.

The Supreme Court will next be deciding whether a federal judge has jurisdiction in a probate matter.

An interesting article from back in 2000 which gives a detailed background of the case can be found here. The Supreme Court case will be Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole's formal legal name) v. E. Pierce Marshall, (J. Howard Marshall's son who is the personal representative and trustee. The case number is 04-1544.

Rosa Parks Probate Litigation

A lawsuit filed about the Outkast song "Rosa Parks" publicly showed that Rosa Parks herself was suffering from Dementia and required a guardian. At the time their was litigation regarding who should serve as the guardian. Now that she has passed the litigation has resumed in a probate litigation context and likely a trust dispute.

A Nephew Cited failing health and undue Influence to challenge the will and seek to be named as the Personal Representative. 

The link to Article from the Detroit Free Press on November 16 setting out who the participants in the litigation are and the background of the case is here. An Article the next day from the Detroit News Online indicated an estate settlement was possible.

It also raises two interesting issue by stating: By law, Parks' relatives could stand to lose whatever she intended for them if they unsuccessfully  challenged her living trust. That's because such documents can include specific instructions to exclude beneficiaries if they contest the trust.

First being that Michigan must have a law which allows no contest provisions. In Florida a no contest provision is unenforceable by statute so an individual can challenge or dispute with will and trust litigation and not risk losing any property they are left. This is a matter of public policy which the legislature of Florida clearly has a different view than Michigan and could have a significant impact for the beneficiaries in this and other estates.

Also while most of the articles and coverage has been about a will contest and who is named the Personal Representative those issues may be of significantly less importance given that Ms Parks has a trust. Depending on how her property interests both tangible property and use of her name and likeness and any other property she may have owned or had a right to were titled it may be of little consequence who Personal Representative is if all her assets were properly titled in her name to avoid probate and she was determined to have had capacity and not been impacted by undue influence in the preparation of the trust. Given that all the will said is everything passes to the trust presumably the contest or litigation should be over who serves as the trustee of the trust given that is how the assets will pass or be controlled for the future. As the article also states this is not merely about the money but how her name and likeness will be used in the future. The person who is the trustee or has the rights to make those decisions will have a significant impact on how she is remembered.

An interesting audio tape in which she recounts what happened to make her famous and another recent song written to have others thank her can be heard by clicking on the link here.