Charitable Beneficiaries Play Hardball

When I was a young associate, I handled an estate involving a number of charitable beneficiaries.  Under the decedent's Will, money was also to go to a charity that didn't exist (something like the Pet Society of Chicago), which raised all sorts of questions about the decedent's intent.  Most of the other charities agreed that the money should go to another of the animal-related charities mentioned in the decedent's Will, but one charity (we'll call it ARThur's Institute) resisted.  Essentially, their argument was, "we're not going to leave money on the table -- we want a share of the money that was to pass to the Pet Society of Chicago, even if we're not entitled to it."

I was reminded of that case when I read this article, about the UW (University of Wisconsin) Foundation and the estate of Harold Mennes.  The timeline is fairly clear:

1996: Mr. Mennes executes a Will leaving most of his estate (about $800,000) to UW.  In the Will, he disinherits his daughter, Mary Ellen Jenson, from whom he was then estranged.

2000: Mr. Mennes and his daughter reconnect and are close until Mr. Mennes' death.

2001: Mr. Mennes, in a letter that was notarized and witnessed, leaves his daughter $100,000 from an investment account upon his death.

2004: Mr. Mennes dies.

Did the letter constitute a codicil (amendment) to Mr. Mennes' 1996 Will?  What about the fact that Mr. Mennes got rid of the investment account before he died?

This case was finally settled, although the UW Foundation's tactics have been criticized by the administrator of the estate.   As the article puts it:

The case highlights a dilemma for nonprofit groups: how hard to pursue money they believe is theirs. Fight too hard and they risk antagonizing potential donors, but too soft might mean they lose money for their cause.

Comments

[Joel S.]

A reader who practices law sent me this e-mail, which the reader has allowed me to post here:

I represented Son (about 60). Dad died, penniless, over 20+ years ago.
Prior to his death and knowing that he had terminal cancer, Dad transferred
his one asset, his interest in his home, to his sister. At about that time, he
told Mom (to whom he was no longer married), that he had provided for Son
by instructing Sister (note: Dad's Sister, not Son's) to give Son the proceeds
from the house. After Dad died, Sister sold his interest in the house.

Son only became aware of the facts after Sister's death. There was no
evidence that Sister had ever applied any of the proceeds from the sale of
the interest in the house to the benefit of Dad or Son. In fact, we were able
to determine that other sisters of Dad had paid for his funeral.

Son brought an action for a resulting or constructive trust.

The bulk of Sister's assets, which were substantial, went to a variety of
charities. The liquidated value of Dad's interest in the house, even with
compounded interest to which Son would have been entitled, represented
only a very small portion of the value of Sister's estate. Indeed, the house
was very small and inexpensive.

We were able to elicit only a nominal offer to settle. The executor, acting at
the behest of the charities, took the matter to trial and prevailed.

I recognise, of course, that law is not the same as "Equity" (and here I don't
mean that technical term, but rather the colloquial term that is roughly
synonymous with "Justice"), but I always believed that charities should have
done the "right" thing and offered a reasonable settlement. In that regard, I
was, perhaps, more troubled by their position than I was by the result at trial.

[Defrauded]

GREAT articles and resources, many thanks!

We have just posted http://StealanEstate.com - it is deliberately outrageous and provocative.

Be sure to see About Steal an Estate in the upper right hand corner.

We'd welcome your comments!