Demographic Trends Suggest More Estate, Trust And Probate Litigation In The Decades To Come

I have long been interested in demographic trends, emerging technologies, cultural changes, and shifting societal patterns.  For example, 20+ years ago when I was in college I read Alvin and Heidi Toffler's  "War And Anti-War," which while a bit dated now predicts how future wars will be fought (but with an eye toward peace and avoiding such conflicts).   Similarly, about 5 years ago I read George Friedman's "The Next 100 Years:  A Forecast For The 21st Century,"  which was an eye-opening look at how our  nation and world may likely look in the years and decades to come.  I highly recommend either book for some fascinating reading, and it will be interesting to someday see how accurate or inaccurate their predictions were.

 Then,  a couple weeks ago I came across a very interesting article by a Georgia attorney named John J. Scroggin, in Wealth Strategies Journal,  which focused in particular upon 30 positive and negative trends that will impact estate planning over the next several decades:  "Where Is The Estate Planning Profession Going?"    While I focus much of my law practice upon estate, trust and probate litigation---as opposed to estate planning and drafting of wills, trusts, and the like---the article still addressed my areas of interest and I thought I would share a couple excerpts here.  Better yet, lawyers and laypersons   should take the time to read the entire article  which not only encompasses great analysis but also contains good references to other articles, checklists, outlines, etc.

               For example, with regard to estate and trust litigation in general Mr. Scroggin opines that:

               "(9) Estate and Trust Litigation. As a result of the combination of poorly drafted  documents, dysfunctional families, incompetent fiduciaries, greedy heirs, inadequate  planning and poorly prepared fiduciaries, estate litigation has been booming in the last  few decades. This growth will continue.

               One consequence of the increased litigation will be an increased effort by both individual and institutional fiduciaries to make sure estate and trust instruments provide for strong  fiduciary protection. We should anticipate more protective provisions in fiduciary  instruments, including broader indemnity provisions for fiduciaries, modifications of the  normal fiduciary standards and investment polices, broader use of no contest clauses,  limited liability for delegated powers and limits (or increases) on disclosures to  beneficiaries. These changes will increase the need to create counter-balancing powers  designed to protect beneficiaries (e.g., a wider use of Trust Protectors and fiduciary  removal powers). As a result, there will be longer discussions with clients and the  complexity of the documents will increase."

               Related to the foregoing are Mr. Scroggin's thoughts on avoiding estate and trust litigation altogether, through conflict minimization:

               "(10) Conflict Minimization. The corollary to estate and trust litigation is planning  designed to mitigate the potential sources of intra-family estate conflicts. According to  the Wealth Counsel 6th Annual Industry Trends Survey, the top motivation for doing  estate planning was to avoid the chaos and conflict among the client’s heirs. Many clients  have an abiding desire to establish structures which minimize the potential points of  conflict and provide a mechanism to resolve future family conflicts. Clients want to  dispose of assets in a manner designed to minimize family conflict - leaving a legacy of  relationships rather than a legacy of conflict. This is a growing part of the discussion with  clients and a part of their planning documents. Solutions include using personal property  disposition lists, looking at real or perceived conflicts of interest when appointing  fiduciaries, or passing the family business only to the children running the business. As  noted above, attorneys will need to spend more time talking with clients about providing  greater protections to fiduciaries and creating counterbalancing protections for heirs.

 Many individual fiduciaries agree to serve without fully understanding the potential  liabilities and conflict they may be inserting themselves into. Should attorneys provide written materials (perhaps signed by the client and the fiduciary) detailing the  responsibility of the fiduciary, the risk of conflict and the means by which the drafter has  tried to minimize those exposures? Should attorneys more thoroughly advise their clients  on the necessary skill   sets needed by their fiduciaries - instead of just accepting the  client's choices at face value?"

  In sum, as I have written before on this blog, American society is rapidly changing.  The Baby Boomers have begun retiring over the last many years and will continue to do so over the next 2-3 decades.  Large sums of wealth have been acquired and will be transferred to younger generations.  People are living longer, and the aging population will be less competent due to Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia which will lead to conflicts over whether a deceased person had the requisite capacity to execute a will or trust.  These and other trends strongly support the notion that there will be increasingly more estate, trust and probate litigation in the decades to come.

               Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at  mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Family Member Trustees vs. Institutional Trustees

When a trust is formed, one of the many decisions that must be made by the "settlor" (the one who forms the trust) is who will serve as trustee.  The settlor may also select multiple trustees ("co-trustees," who serve with each other) and later ("successor") trustees (who may serve after the original trustee can no longer serve [death, disability, etc.] or for some other reason [resignation, removal, etc. of the original trustee]. 

The selection of trustee is an important one because they have a fiduciary obligation to carry out the terms of the trust and the desires of the settlor.  Because the trustee exercises great power and discretion over money and property, the pros and cons of family member trustees vs institutional trustees should be considered.  Trust disputes often relate back to whom, and how, was selected to serve as trustee.  

FAMILY MEMBER TRUSTEES
Family members such as spouses and children are frequently named as trustees, but this selection occasionally results in trouble down the road due to sibling rivalries and the trustee's lack of knowledge and experience.

Advantages of family member trustees include a familiarity with the beneficiaries, and possibly the trust property as well; and a common willingness to serve with little or no compensation.

Disadvantages of family member trustees include an inability or disinclination to carry out the duties of a trustee; favoritism or unfairness toward certain beneficiaries; the need for a successor trustee at the resignation, incapacity, or death of the trustee; the lack of insurance coverage in case of liability; and tax consequences if the trustee is also a beneficiary.

INSTITUTIONAL TRUSTEES
Institutional trustees include such entities as banks and trust companies, which have their pros and cons as well.

Advantages of institutional trustees include expertise and competence at carrying out trustee duties, such as adherence to the prudent investor rule; impartiality with regard to trust property and beneficiaries; avoidance of the problem of successor trustees; the possibility of additional services such as tax reporting or money management; and sufficient insurance coverage in case of liability.

Disadvantages of institutional trustees include greater administrative costs; a lack of familiarity with the beneficiaries ; and an inability to administer certain types of trust property, such as real estate. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Recent Articles On Alzheimer's Disease, And Trustee/Beneficiary Relationships

There is not much to this post, primarily because the articles referenced below already thoroughly discuss the issues.  Specifically, both articles shed light upon two common problem areas which can often eventually erupt into estate, trust and probate disputes. 

The first article is from the New York Times and addresses the effect of Alzheimer's Disease and dementia upon an individual's ability to control and account for their finances.  Given our aging population and ever-increasing life expectancy, it's recommended reading for everyone as this concern affects innumerable families in this country. 

The second article is from the Wall Street Journal and touches upon the often-tense relationship between trustees and beneficiaries.   It may especially be interesting and insightful for anyone who already acts as trustee or who may eventually act as a trustee in the future.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Frank Talk On Attorney's Fees

One of the first questions that a potential inheritance litigation client quite reasonably asks is some form of the following question: “How much is this ultimately going to cost me?”  While there is unfortunately little or no way of determining on the front end how much a legal matter might cost, how that cost will be calculated generally is capable of early determination.  There are typically three primary ways in which an attorney charges for his or her services, and of course occasionally a couple of these methods can be combined together to create a “mixed” fee arrangement.

1.  HOURLY FEE

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade."  Accordingly, the most common fee arrangement is based upon an hourly fee, i.e., the lawyer charges an hourly rate for their time and the ultimate fee is determined upon how much time the lawyer has to spend on the representation.  For example, if I was retained by the trustee of a trust to defend against claims brought by a beneficiary of the trust, I would charge the trustee an hourly fee and the ultimate bill would be determined upon how much time I had to spend working on the trustee’s case.  The same goes for a beneficiary pursuing claims against the trustee.

Obviously, the more time-consuming the case the more expensive the representation (and vice versa).  Hourly rates in Arkansas are by and large considerably lower than in other, more populated and wealthier areas of the country, especially the East and West Coasts.  There are a number of factors which determine the hourly rate, including but not limited to the complexity of the area of law, the attorney’s experience and reputation, the attorney's location, etc.

2.  CONTINGENCY FEE

A second, but less common, fee arrangement in inheritance disputes (and other litigation for that matter) is a “contingency fee.”  This is an arrangement which is necessarily only used by the person bringing the lawsuit, as opposed to the person defending the action.  Specifically, the lawyer and the client agree that the lawyer will accept a percentage of whatever amount is recovered (if anything) as the lawyer’s fee for the representation.  A common percentage is anywhere from 25-50%, and rarely will the percentage stray outside of that range.  Usually the lawyer and the client will come to an agreement on the front end regarding who will pay for the various costs (filing fees, deposition expenses, copies, postage, etc.) and sometimes the lawyer will advance those expenses and then take them “off the top” in the event of any recovery.

As one can tell, under this arrangement the more favorable the recovery, the higher the lawyer’s fee.  However, there is also added risk for the attorney because if there is little or no recovery, or if the client prevails but the judgment is uncollectible as a practical matter (the defendant has no money, etc.), then the lawyer loses just like the client.  Given the fact that litigation can often take years, essentially the attorney is working for free for a long period of time before recouping out-of-pocket expenses much less any fee for the work performed.

This type of arrangement can be beneficial in situations wherein an individual might not be able to afford an hourly arrangement.  Again, the potential downside is that, unlike a rear-end collision wherein liability in a personal injury case might be very clear, liability in estate, trust, or probate litigation can often be quite unclear and unpredictable.  Therefore, in cases where liability is unclear or in cases in which the defendant could potentially have counterclaims against the plaintiff, contingency fee arrangements will probably not be the ideal arrangement.  Occasionally, a lawyer will be willing to combine a lower hourly fee (perhaps charging 2/3 of their regular hourly rate) with a lower-than-usual contingency percentage (perhaps 25% instead of 33% or more), therefore creating a mixed hourly/contingency fee arrangement.

 3.  FLAT FEE

Finally, the third and least common type of fee arrangement is simply a “flat fee” paid for a certain amount of services.  In other words, the lawyer and the client agree that a certain type of service or a certain number of actions will be taken by the lawyer to represent the client (drafting a certain amount of letters, preparing an agreement, etc.).  For that finite amount of services the lawyer and client agree on a specific fee.  This gives both the lawyer and the client a greater degree of predictability, but it is an often impractical arrangement in estate, trust and probate disputes because litigation is unpredictable and can rarely be reduced to only a certain number of actions.  However, in certain situations it can be used effectively and should not automatically be discarded.

In conclusion, the best fee arrangement in a particular situation will necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances.  While the free market has resulted in lawyers no doubt being expensive, when it comes to the amounts of money and high stakes involved in inheritance litigation, many times the lawyer’s fee can be a mere drop in the bucket.  For example, if a plaintiff potentially goes without recovering some or all of a large inheritance that they were otherwise supposed to receive, then hiring an attorney can even be construed as a wise investment.  Likewise, if a trustee could potentially be removed from her office or is wrongfully accused of harming the trust and causing substantial damages, hiring representation is a necessity rather than a luxury (incidentally, sometimes trustees' attorney fees can be paid out a trust or reimbursed by a trust).  In certain situations (breach of contract, breach of trust, etc.) the prevailing party also may be able to recover some or all of their attorney’s fees expended.  In essence, every situation is different and unfortunately there are simply no guarantees when it comes to the outcome of a legal matter nor the attorney fees necessary to handle that legal matter.

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Inheritance Hijackers: Who Wants To Steal Your Inheritance And How To Protect It

At the recommendation of a client, I have recently started reading a fascinating book entitled Inheritance Hijackers:  Who Wants To Steal Your Inheritance And How To Protect It (Ovation Books 2009) written by a Florida attorney named Robert C. Adamski.  The book is primarily written for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of an inheritance.  Mr. Adamski's book sets forth an extensive discussion of the growing phenomenon which he calls "inheritance theft," and which of course is a primary component of what I do in my own law practice as well (representation of beneficiaries, but also fiduciaries such as trustees andexecutors, in estate, trust and probate litigation).  "Inheritance theft" is defined on page 2 of the book as "the act of diverting assets from the intended recipient to another person[.]" 

While the book is available for sale at Mr. Adamski's own website, Amazon.com, and I'm sure other places, a good overview of the phenomenon can be found below which is directly from a prior post by Mr. Adamski: 

1.  Who steals inheritances?

Inheritance theft is a crime of opportunity committed by those we place our trust in. These are family members, close associates, care givers and others we depend on as we grow older. Inheritance hijacking is always a surprise to the victim, who never expected a trusted family member or friend to betray their trust.

2.  Who are the victims of inheritance hijacking?

There are always two classes of victims. The first is the person who intended to give the inheritance. The second is the person or persons who were the intended recipient of the inheritance. As we age we are all potential victims because we become weaker in our physical and mental ability. We then are forced to rely upon and put our trust in others. This gives the trusted persons the opportunity to hijack our inheritance.

3.  How are inheritances hijacked?

The hijacker's bag of tricks includes undue influence, duress, forgery, theft by an administrator, marriage, and more. Administrators of probate estates and trusts are common hijackers. They have the opportunity and ability to take advantage. Marriage is the 'Silver Bullet" in the world of inheritance theft because it is all but impossible to overturn a marriage which hijacks an estate. Care givers earn the trust of their victims and as a result are often inheritance hijackers. An important element of inheritance theft is the trust which is gained by the hijacker and later betrayed. Without that element of trust it would be very difficult to hijack an inheritance.

4.  How can I determine if my inheritance is at risk?

Take the Inheritance Risk Quiz at www.ProtectYourEstate.Net to determine the risk to the inheritance you intend to give or the inheritance you expect to receive.

5.  How do I protect the inheritance I intend to give or the inheritance I expect to receive?

Self education and proper estate planning are the first steps. But it does not end there. It is vital to understand how inheritances are hijacked and how to guard against inheritance hijacking. The book, INHERITANCE HIJACKERS: Who Wants to Steal Your Inheritance and How to Protect It, was written to help people protect their families from inheritance theft. Learn more about the book at www.ProtectYourEstate.Net

**********

I have not yet finished Mr. Adamski's book, but can already tell that I will be recommending it to beneficiary-clients, and potential clients, who anticipate possibly receiving inheritances.  The book contains an immense amount of valuable information for a very reasonable price. 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Removal Of A Trustee Under Arkansas Law

My previous blog post generally discussed principles associated with the removal of executors or personal representatives of an estate.  This post is similar except that it analyzes this issue in the context of trusts rather than estates.  Every trustee of a trust, and every beneficiary of a trust, should be aware of these principles as well.  

To remedy a breach of trust under the Arkansas Trust Code, the Court may:

(1) compel the trustee to perform the trustee’s duties;

(2) enjoin the trustee from committing a breach of trust;

(3) compel the trustee to redress a breach of trust by paying money, restoring property, or other means;

(4) order a trustee to account;

(5) appoint a special fiduciary to take possession of the trust property and administer the trust;

(6) suspend the trustee;

(7) remove the trustee as provided in § 28-73-706;

(8) reduce or deny compensation to the trustee;

(9) subject to §28-73-1012, void an act of the trustee, impose a lien or a constructive trust on property, or trace trust property wrongfully disposed of and recover the property or its proceeds, or

(10) order any other appropriate relief. 

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-1001(b).

Also, section 706 of the Trust Code further elaborates on the removal of an trustee:

(a) the settlor, a co-trustee, or a beneficiary may request the court to remove a trustee, or a trustee may be removed by the court on its own initiative.

(b) A court may remove a trustee if:

(1) the trustee has committed a serious breach of trust;

(2) lack of cooperation among co-trustees substantially impairs the administration of the trust;

(3) because of unfitness, unwillingness, or persistent failure of the trustee to administer the trust effectively, the court determines that removal of the trustee best serves the interests of the beneficiaries;

(4) there has been a substantial change of circumstances or removal is requested by all of the qualified beneficiaries, the court finds the removal of the trustee best serves the interests of all of the beneficiaries and is not inconsistent with a material purpose of the trust, and suitable co-trustee or successor trustee is available.

See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-706(a) and (b) (emphasis added).

So, as one can tell the grounds for removal of a trustee are very broad.  Accordingly, similar to estates, those administering trusts in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of a trust should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the trustee to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove trustees where the facts and circumstances warrant it. 

Removal Of An Executor (Personal Representative) From An Estate Under Arkansas Law

As previously discussed on this Blog, an executor, also known as a personal representative, is a person who is charged with the responsibility of administering an estate after another person has passed away.  They will typically do things like collect and inventory the deceased's assets, manage the property, pay the debts, and distribute property according to any will or the intestacy laws (setting forth distribution priorities for those dying without a will).

However, conflicts will sometimes arise between the executor of the estate and the beneficiaries of that estate, the latter of whom are generally supposed to receive bequests or property from the estate.  Perhaps the executor is alleged to be operating under a conflict of interest, is improperly personally benefitting from the property of the estate, or is simply not carrying out their duties.  In Arkansas, there is a specific statute that governs these conflicts and sets forth the grounds for when an executor can be removed from his or her office.  For anyone who currently is or ever anticipates administering an estate in Arkansas, or who is or ever will be the beneficiary of an estate,  it is worth getting familiar with the removal statute.

Specifically, under the Arkansas Probate Code of 1949, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-1-101 et seq., the Court appoints and issues letters testamentary to a personal representative to manage and preserve the property and rights of the decedent until distribution according to the testamentary document or appropriate intestate statute. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-102. It is well-established that "[t]he personal representative occupies a fiduciary position toward the heirs, and it is his duty to act toward them, as the beneficiaries of the trust administered by him, with the utmost good faith." Price v. Price, 253 Ark. 1124, 1137, 491 S.W2d 793, 801 (1973). The personal representative generally continues in that office unless removed due to one or more of the grounds set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-105.

Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-105(a) (emphasis added) provides that:

(a)(1) When the personal representative becomes mentally incompetent, disqualified, unsuitable, or incapable of discharging his or her trust, has mismanaged the estate, has failed to perform any duty imposed by law or by any lawful order of the court, or has ceased to be a resident of the state without filing the authorization of an agent to accept service as provided in § 28-48-101(b)(6), then the court may remove him or her.

(2) The court on its own motion may, or on the petition of an interested person shall, order the personal representative to appear and show cause why he or she should not be removed.

With this in mind, Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-107(a) (emphasis added) provides that "[w]hen a personal representative dies, is removed by the court, or resigns and the resignation is accepted by the court, the court may, and, if he or she was the sole or last surviving personal representative and the administration is not completed, the court shall, appoint another personal representative in his place upon the motion or petition of an interested person."

Separate and distinct from the statutory grounds for removal of a personal representative, multiple Arkansas cases also shed light on this issue. For example, in Robinson v. Winston, 64 Ark.App. 170, 175-76, 984 S.W.2d 38, 40-41 (1998), the evidence was deemed sufficient to warrant removal of the personal representative due to her attitude toward a person interested in the estate that created a reasonable doubt as to whether she would act honorably, fairly, and dispassionately in her trust, and because the tension and her continuance in the office would likely render administration of the estate difficult, inefficient, or unduly protracted. See also Matter of Guardianship of Vesa, 319 Ark. 574, 579-82, 892 S.W2d 491, 494-95 (1995) ("unsuitability" of ward’s sibling to serve as guardian of the estate, justifying removal on probate court’s own motion and appointment of neutral successor, was established by evidence of family friction among ward’s siblings which adversely affected administration of estate).

Likewise, in Guess v. Going, 62 Ark. App. 19, 23-25, 966 S.W2d 930, 932-33 (1998), testimony of the personal representative that "mother’s love" precluded her from challenging a land sale agreement that was extremely favorable to her daughter, even though the terms of the agreement made it unlikely that the heirs of the estate could ever benefit from what would have been the estate’s largest asset, established a conflict of interest making the executrix unsuitable and warranting her removal. See also Price v. Price, 258 Ark. 363, 378, 527 S.W.2d 322, 332-33 (1975) (wherein a personal representative who had persistently acted in furtherance of her own interests in a manner to deprive her step-children of any benefits from their rights of the father’s property, and who had been recalcitrant about compliance with her fiduciary responsibilities and directions of the court, was deemed unsuitable for discharge of the trust involved in acting as personal representative of the estate such that removal was appropriate).

In sum, those administering estates in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of an estate should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the executor to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove executors where the facts and circumstances warrant it.

Videotaping As Possible Way To Preclude Estate, Trust & Probate Litigation

You may remember a movie from 15 or so years ago called "My Life," starring Michael Keaton and Nicole Kidman, in which a terminally ill man films a video for his unborn child to watch after the man passes away after a fight with cancer.  The father essentially wanted the child to know who the father was and what the father had learned in his own life, since he would not be around when the child was growing up. 

While the movie was not focused upon an estate or trust battle, I was still reminded of "My Life" yesterday when reading the December 7, 2009 post on the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, which had an interesting link to a December 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article written by Kristen McNamara and entitled "Lights, Camera . . . Last Words."  The article discussed videos as a way of allowing the dying to say a few last words and also possibly prevent legal disputes regarding property division after death.  Here is an excerpt from the Blog and the article itself:

"Some individuals have found a way to breathe life into dry estate-planning documents: They're supplementing them with personal messages via video.

With guidance—and caveats—from attorneys and financial advisers, some elderly and terminally ill individuals, and even some young parents, are picking up video cameras or hiring professional videographers to share their life stories, express hopes for younger generations and explain why they're leaving certain assets to certain family members. * * *

[E]xperts say that while videos can head off disputes, if not carefully executed, they also can backfire. * * *

A video may make sense if you are concerned that an heir will claim you weren't competent when you signed estate-planning documents or were pressured to distribute your assets a certain way, estate-planning attorneys say. Videos in which lucid individuals review their wills with their attorneys and answer questions that demonstrate their understanding of the documents and confirm they weren't coerced into any decisions can be useful in rebuffing challenges, they say. Such videos are typically filmed during a will-signing in an attorney's office and are kept by the attorney, along with the estate-planning documents. * * *

Attorneys generally caution against homemade videos, saying they are more likely to cause problems than those produced in consultation with an attorney. A video filmed by a beneficiary, for example, could give rise to conflict-of-interest questions. And, whether filmed professionally or not, a video in which a person looks ill or uneasy could raise questions about his or her cognitive abilities."

My personal view on this is that---overall---technology is a good thing and if it can be used to help rather than hinder in the course of estate planning, then it should be considered as part of the process.  After all, there is little doubt in the criminal context that many a disputed traffic stop, questioned search and seizure, and controversial police station interrogation could be averted if such proceedings were videotaped to ward off the "he said, she said" nature of these events.  Likewise, it seems that if an individual had a video camera and (vis-a-vis an objective, detached cameraman) proceeded to film a will or trust signing ceremony, held up each page of the document to the camera, interviewed or showed the witnesses and other participants, videotaped the actual signatures and notarizations, and otherwise allowed the individual to talk at length during the proceeding, that this could conceivably preclude many a disputed proceeding involving fraud, undue influence, and the like. 

Legendary College Football Coach's Son Sues Stepmom Over Trust Obligations

We're in the heart of the 2009 college football season and the Arkansas Razorbacks are having a better year than last year under second-year Coach Bobby Petrino (thank goodness), although losing against the Florida Gators a couple of weeks ago still stings.  Transfer Ryan Mallett had a fantastic game yesterday against the South Carolina Gamecocks, and it is interesting that his former coach at Michigan, Rich Rodriguez, is having a fairly mediocre year in his second year leading the Wolverines. 

This serves as a nice little segue into my latest blog post about a story involving legendary Michigan Coach Bo Schembechler.  Before passing away in 2006, according to the university's website he coached the Wolverines for 21 seasons and had a winning percentage of .796 overall and .850 in the Big Ten Conference.  Although he was never able to win a national championship while at Michigan, he took the Wolverines to 17 bowl games and won 13 conference titles. 

Given his success as a college football coach, and given the money that head football coaches make at major Division I universities, there is no doubt that Coach Schembechler accumulated some substantial assets over the years.  It appears that there is now a family dispute with respect to those assets, as a recent article discusses how Schembechler's son has sued his stepmother (his father's third wife) in Ohio federal court over her alleged failure to provide quarterly statements about the trust under which he is evidently a beneficiary. 

This is one of the most common types of disputes in trust litigation, because one of the very reasons that people form trusts is because of confidentiality concerns, and yet at the same time the beneficiaries of that trust desire and to some extent are entitled to certain information about the trust (depending upon each state's laws).  It will be interesting to see whether this particular conflict evolves into a larger dispute over trust administration and assets or is resolved quickly once the accounting issue is straightened out.