Death and Taxes - The Blog

Leopold Bloom, Frustrated Beneficiary

I finally finished reading James Joyce's Ulysses yesterday, and boy, is my brain tired!  It's not always fun to read, but I think it's a great book, and a book that really rewards in-depth study.  Let me give an example relating to (appropriately) probate and Wills.  (Page numbers below are to The Gabler Edition of the text.)

The story centers on two characters, Leopold Bloom and Stephen Dedalus.  Throughout the book similarities between the two characters often become apparent (such as: each has rejected the religious beliefs of a parent; each is in some sense homeless because he is without his key and has been rejected by his "roommate"). 

Bloom and Dedalus finally meet near the end of the book, and in the Ithaca chapter, written in a style Joyce referred to as a "mathematical catechism", we (and they) learn of another link between the two (page 556):

Did their conversation on the subject of these reminiscences reveal a third connecting link between them?

Mrs. Riordan (Dante), a widow of independent means, had resided in the house of Stephen's parents from 1 September 1888 to 29 December 1891 and had also resided... in the City Arms Hotel... where, during parts of the years 1893 and 1894, she had been a constant informant of Bloom who resided also in the same hotel....

Apparently Bloom performed "special corporal work of mercy" for Mrs. Riordan: "[h]e had sometimes propelled her on warm summer evenings... in her convalescent bathchair with slow revolutions of its wheels as far as the corner of the North Circular road opposite Mr Gavin Low's place of business...."  (pages 556-557) We also find out that one of Bloom's memories of Mrs. Riordan is of her "suppositious wealth."  (page 557)

Was Bloom attempting to ingratiate himself with Mrs. Riordan so that he might be named as one of her beneficiaries?  It certainly seem so.  Here's Molly Bloom, Leopold's unfaithful wife, talking about Mrs. Riordan in her famous soliloquy in Penelope, the book's last chapter (page 608 -- I've added forward slashes to make it easier to read):

Yes/because he never did a thing like that before/as ask to get his breakfast in bed with a couple of eggs/since the City Arms Hotel/when he used to be pretending to be laid up with a sick voice/doing his highness to make himself interesting for that old faggot Mrs Riordan that he thought he had a great leg of/and she never left us a farthing/all for masses for herself and her sould/greatest miser ever was...

A couple of notes here:

1. "Faggot" is being used here as a term of abuse or contempt applied to a woman.

2. "Had a great leg of" apparently means something like "had the favor of."

The book is more explicit about Bloom and Mrs. Riordan in the Circe chapter.  This chapter is written like a play and, according to Vladimir Nabokov (pretention alert!), represents not the dreaming of any one character but instead shows that the book is dreaming.  In the chapter Bloom is put on trial for his various "crimes" (mostly perversions), and Mrs. Riordan makes a brief appearance:

MRS RIORDAN

(tears up her will) I'm disappointed in you! You bad man!

Ask Amy Tackles Prenuptial Agreements

This morning's Ask Amy column (available without registration through the Washington Post, here) addresses  prenuptial agreements.  Here's a portion of the question:

I am engaged to a woman whom I have been dating for 18 months. We plan to get married next year. We each have children from previous marriages, are 50 years old and are well-paid professionals. I am financially secure, and she is tens of thousands of dollars in debt because of poor spending habits.

I told my fiancee that I want a prenuptial agreement. I will ay off a portion of her debts and take care of all of our common living expenses -- housing, cars, food, utilities, insurance, etc., so that she can pay off her debts with her income, then put away some savings for herself. We will keep our finances separate. I can do whatever I see fit with my money; she can do the same with hers.

I told my sons about my marriage plan and my intention of leaving them a portion of my money if something happens to me. I will also leave some to my fiancee and some to my ex-wife to give her a bit of a financial safety net should she need it....

When my fiancee found out what I told my sons, she became very upset. She bitterly complained that it was not fair to her and that she was being slighted. I have no doubt that she loves me, and I love her. We really do enjoy being with each other.

I do think that she is not being gracious enough.

I think Amy's answer is a good one.  Prenuptial agreements are a negotiation, and involve two parties.  There is no way a prenup (or a marriage?) is going to work if the one party makes all the decisions and forces them down the other party's throat.

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.

Blogging Break

Blogging will be light the rest of the week, so as not to interfere with my turkey brining, pie making, etc. etc. 

But before I go, let me share my Top 5 recent searches by which people wound up at this blog:

steven+spielberg+cheated+on+amy+irving

health+references+in+shakespearean+plays

federline+prenup+arrangement (and numerous variations thereon)

dumb+laws+in+Virginia

how+can+the+probate+system+be+abused

Timeframes and Cook County Probate

Once a probate estate is opened, is there any timeframe for getting it closed?  Generally, the answer is no.  Each estate's timeframe is going to vary depending on whether there's litigation, whether an estate tax is due, and other similar factors.  Of course, judges LOVE to dispose of estates, and are always moving the attorneys toward the end of the process. The desire to wrap up estates has led the Cook County Probate Court to require a 14-month "checkup."  Essentially, when you open a probate estate in Cook County, you also have to set up a date -- approximately 14 months later -- on which the estate representative will (1) file a final report, (2) file an accounting, or (3) appear in court to explain why the estate is still open.  The hope is that this provision -- which is found in the court form for an order appointing an executor (paragraph 4), but which also applies in cases of intestacy -- will light a fire under estate representatives and their attorneys.

Missing Persons and the Illinois Probate Act

One of the most essential elements of a probate -- the death of the person whose estate you are trying to open -- requires no outside proof under Illinois law.  Instead, the petition for probate includes a statement by the petitioner that the person died, along with the particulars (where, when).

But what if you aren't sure whether the person died?  In some cases, facts and circumstances can create a presumption of death.  Illinois law has specific procedures for handling these cases.  Section 6-20 of the Illinois Probate Act addresses a petition to admit will to probate on presumption of death of testator; §9-6 deals with the same issue in the case of a person who died without a Will (i.e. intestate).

In Terrorem (No Contest) Clauses

Bankrate.com has a nice article (here) summarizing what an in terrorem (or "no contest") clause can do for you:

The in terrorem provision, known less formally as a "no-contest" clause, is a paragraph or more of legal boilerplate aimed, as its Latin name implies, to scare off legal challenges by heirs who don't feel they've been given their fair shares of               the enchilada.

In essence, the provision states that if you contest this will or trust, you forfeit your inheritance. In fact, to continue with the spooky theme, typical language instructs the court to consider contentious heirs as having died childless before the deceased.

The article also presents some interesting differences in state laws.  Evidently in terrorem clauses are not recognized (or enforced) by Florida courts, and in a few states you can actually have your Will declared valid while you are still alive.

I previously blogged about in terrorem clauses here.

Creditor as Administrator

Section 9-3(j) of the Illinois Probate Act allows a decedent's creditor to act as the administrator of the decedent's estate (but only if there's no one else able and willing to act).  I don't know of many cases where a creditor would want to assume this burden, but it's important to realize that, in doing so, the creditor-administrator assumes all of the regular duties of an administrator.  For instance, the creditor-administrator owes a duty to ALL beneficiaries and creditors of the estate, not just himself.  That includes a duty to maximize the value of estate assets.  A funeral director in Connecticut who was named administrator of a decedent's estate (presumably to get his own bill paid) ran into problems with this issue, as described here:

Bridgeport Probate Judge Paul J. Ganim made clear Monday that he plans close scrutiny of Coventry funeral director Kevin K. Riley's administration of an estate in which a deceased woman's home was sold for $175,000, then resold less than four months later for $305,000.

Stealing a Decedent's Property

On an almost daily basis I hear stories about how this grandson or that daughter walked off with a decedent's property immediately after the decedent's death.  The biggest problem in most of these situations is one of proof -- you may know what grandson or daughter did, but can you prove it?  The executor in this case went to the police, who quickly connected the dots in the case of grandma's missing furniture:

The antique furniture was reported missing from the residence of the late Margaret Christian, 208 Center Ave., Surgoinsville [Tennessee], on Nov. 6 by the executor of her estate, her son Elbert Christian Jr.

Surgoinsville Police Department Officer Scott Fink said he interviewed Elbert Christian, who suspected that the burglary might have been committed by a relative. Fink said it was just by chance that the next relative he interviewed, Christopher Todd Christian, 34, 2114 Main St., Surgoinsville, admitted to taking the furniture with two accomplices.

Fink said he then went to speak to the two alleged accomplices, Mike Thomas Head, 54, and Ronald Keith Nunley, 48, both of 114 Henderson St., Surgoinsville, at their home and found the majority of the stolen antique furniture there.

The three men were arraigned today.  Bravo to the executor, for not letting the grandson get away with this, and bravo to the police for pursuing the wrongdoers.

Death and Taxes the Movie: Stranger Than Fiction?

I took in the new Will Ferrell movie, Stranger Than Fiction, over the weekend.  I don't want to give too much away, but the movie's plot centers on a novel entitled Death and Taxes, whose main character is an IRS agent. 

The film is kind of like a mashup of The Truman Show and a (more accessible version of a) Charlie Kaufman movie.  I liked the "debate" between good art and living a good life, although I felt like the film didn't make a lot of sense, and wasted some of its actors (especially Queen Latifah).  I'd probably give it 6 stars out of 10.

Also interesting: the movie was filmed entirely in Chicago.