Gore Vidal – The Importance of Considering Alternative Beneficiaries Early on in the Planning Process
The author Gore Vidal died in 2012 at the age of 86. In his original will, Vidal had left his entire estate (reportedly worth well over US$40 million when future royalties from his books were included) to his long-time partner, Howard Austen, who ended up pre-deceasing Vidal, dying in 2003. Vidal changed his will in 2011, leaving his entire estate to Harvard University, a school he was apparently accepted into but which he never attended. His surviving family members, some of whom challenged the will, received nothing. Vidal's long-time housekeeper and chef, Norberto Nierras, also received nothing. He was reported as having said: “I'm 60 years old and had planned to stay with Mr. Vidal until I retired. I will have to go back to the Philippines, I cannot afford to stay in America. I didn't expect he'd leave me anything – other people are surprised he didn't. If Mr. Vidal did leave me something, I would be very, very grateful as it would help with my retirement in the Philippines, as I have a small pension.”
Vidal, in his later years, was in a seriously declined physical and mental state, and according to members of his family, was suffering from dementia and other maladies with symptoms that included confusion and hallucinations.
The Maharajah of Faridkot – Can You Trust Your Trustees?
The Maharajah of Faridkot was depressed after the death of his only son. When he died a short time after, his daughters, the princesses, were stunned to learn that a will their father had ostensibly signed left them virtually nothing. The princesses had expected that the Maharajah would leave them his lands, forts, palaces, jewelry, precious stones, classic cars, and other assets worth several billion US dollars.
All of the assets of the Maharajah were apparently left to a group of trustees, with the eldest daughter of the Maharajah, the child who would have been thought to receive the largest portion of his estate, receiving nothing under the trust. Similarly, each of the Maharajah's widow and surviving mother received nothing under the trust arrangements. The youngest princesses, under the trusts, received a monthly allowance of US$20 and US$18, respectively.
Finally, after lengthy litigation, and by then in their 80s, the Maharajah's daughters succeeded in showing that the will had been forged by their father's “trusted” aides, who named themselves, together with the Maharajah's lawyers, officials, and other servants, as “trustees” of the Maharajah's estate, taking control of his wealth. In the 20 years of litigation, one of the princesses had already died, and part of the Maharajah's estate had been squandered by his self-appointed trustees who threatened to continue the case, claiming that the will putting them in control of the Maharajah's wealth was valid.
These are a few true stories among, sadly, many reported in the press on a regular basis.
In the case of Jessica Schrader, pressured into changing her will at the age of 96, a house worth less than US$500,000 was what destroyed her family and her last years. Is it not a reality that those with less to pass on to the next generation have, in today's world, an even greater responsibility to ensure that what they do is not destructive? A small family business, a nest egg of savings, a piece of jewelry… all can have enormous importance to the younger generation and apart from value can carry with them perceived “messages” from the older generation that, if not sensitively handled, can leave generations of unhappiness. But did Jessica Schrader do anything wrong, leaving her home to her two sons in equal shares under her will? How could she have avoided coming under pressure to change things at a late stage in her life? Would an earlier transfer of the house to her sons, with Jessica keeping the right to live in it for her lifetime, have been safer?
The Chadhas had billions; the Schraders a few hundred thousand in the value of their mother's house. In both cases, families and relationships destroyed. For every family dispute we read about, many, many more take place outside the press. And how many situations have arisen where assets have been stolen, diverted, misplaced, or lost and no one in the family ever even found out?
If one child is a caregiver to an elderly parent and the other is not, is the caregiver entitled to a greater share of the inheritance? Are they able to abuse a position of trust and influence their parent into destroying family relationships, as occurred when Nick Schrader unlawfully influenced his mother to change her will?
The Nina Wang case fascinated Hong Kong and the world as it unfolded over the years. The press reported the kidnappings of Teddy Wang, the second of which was even rumored to have been engineered by Nina herself. Nina's alleged extra-marital affair, which had resulted in Teddy excluding her from benefitting under his will, also became a topic of gossip. But stripping away the dramatic elements of the story leaves a number of clear questions. What did Teddy Wang ultimately want in terms of where the family business he owned, which had been started by his father, would go in the event of his death? Were there steps Teddy, or perhaps better, his own father, could have taken to keep the business away from Nina if that was their intention?
Nina ended up being a good steward of the business after Teddy's death. Despite her eccentricity, the value of the business grew to over US$4 billion by the time she passed away. But could she have also considered succession plans that would have made it less of a risk that her Fung Shui master and companion would get it all by forging her signature on a will purporting to leave everything to him? As it...
