I’m Mike Hackard from Hackard Law.
We are a California-based law firm that focuses
our practice on estate, trust and elder financial
abuse litigation.
As an attorney who has spent many decades
working in the area of trusts and estates,
I wish I could say that it’s possible to
create an iron-clad trust document that will
do precisely what the maker intended.
Sadly, even when the best attorneys draft
such documents for intelligent, practical,
and thoughtful clients, there will always
be unintended and unforeseen circumstances.
That is especially true when there are blended
families that may include ex-spouses, step-children,
half-children, and unmarried partners.
In such cases, Murphy’s Law is almost certain
to prevail.
A prime example is that of the late, great,
comedian and actor, Robin Williams, who committed
suicide in 2014 after he was diagnosed with
Lewy Body Dementia.
Here is a photo of Williams taken shortly
before he died.
With an estate valued at more than $100 Million,
and with access to the best legal and estate
planning professionals a person could reasonably
hope to have, Williams’ attorneys were still
unable to foresee everything that might go
wrong.
As we’ve seen with many celebrity estate
battles, his problems stemmed from complications
in his personal life.
Williams was married three times, first to
Valerie Velardi in 1978, a marriage that lasted
for 10 years, then in 1989 to Marsha Garces,
a marriage that lasted for 11 years, and finally
to Susan Schneider whom he married in 2011,
and who ultimately became his widow.
Along the way, Williams had three children
from his first two marriages.
His estate plan was, by all accounts, thoughtful,
well-reasoned, and generous, and included
multiple trusts set up to benefit his children
and widow.
Had it been foolproof, however, we would never
have known the details, but the actor and
his attorneys failed to anticipate everything
his heirs might care about, which ultimately
led to a dispute and court battle.
We now know that The Robin Williams Trust
was amended in 2012, shortly after Williams
married his third wife.
By provision of that document, his new wife
was to be able to live in their Tiburon house
for the rest of her life, while his children
would inherit his Napa Valley estate and its
contents.
In that document, he explicitly described
the possessions he wanted to leave his children
which were “clothing, jewelry, personal
photos taken prior to his marriage to Susan,”
and also “memorabilia and awards in the
entertainment industry and the tangible personal
property located” in the Napa Valley house.
The problem stemmed primarily from the interpretation
of a single word in the trust, namely “memorabilia.”
What constitutes memorabilia?
Although his widow, Susan, was well taken
care of by provision of the trust, allowing
her to live in a grand house with all of her
expenses covered, she nevertheless felt cash
poor and decided she needed to sell some of
Williams’ possessions to raise capital.
In her opinion, those possessions were not
‘memorabilia’ they were items she believed
she had inherited.
Williams’ three children disagreed.
When she put his collection of bicycles, watches,
and family photos up for auction, Williams
children tried to block the sale.
Those series of actions caused an otherwise
confidential trust document to wind up in
a Probate Court in California.
Susan’s attorneys argued, among other things,
that “memorabilia” should only be items
that were specifically related to her late
husband’s acting career, and also that his
collection of watches should be excluded from
property his children would inherit because
they were in storage outside of either the
Tiburon property and the Napa property.
A year later, the trust challenges and lawsuits
were settled out of court, the terms for which
were confidential.
Susan’s lawyer released a statement saying,
“Mrs. Williams is able to keep the few emotional
items she requested, such as their wedding
gifts, selected clothing items, a watch Robin
often wore, plus the bike she and her husband
bought together on their honeymoon.”
Unfortunately for her, however, it sounds
as if her stepchildren got the greater part
of the settlement.
In a statement, she noted, “While it was
painful to have truckloads of his belongings
removed from our home – it’s the few sentimental
items I get to hold onto that mean everything
to me.
I thank God for this.”
The lesson for all of us is to remember that
trust and estate documents are never foolproof
or iron-clad.
If someone feels that they have been given
a raw deal, and if the sums are large enough,
a legal challenge is nearly always possible.
I often counsel people who ask me about drafting
trust and estate documents that communication
with all interested parties, before, during,
and after the process, even if those conversations
are difficult, is the best way to avoid future
conflict.
Before you go, please let me know if you’d
like to receive a free copy of my book, The
Wolf at the Door.
Just send your address in an email to me at
hackard@hackardlaw.com, and I’ll be glad
to put one in the mail.
I’m Mike Hackard.
Thanks for watching.
