How To Divide Your Assets Among Children: What's Really "Fair"?

“That’s not fair!” What parent of youngsters hasn't heard that countless times? It's a complaint that doesn't necessarily vanish when children are adults. In fact, depending on how they feel they've been treated in your estate plan, your kids may be complaining about unfairness even after you are gone, to the detriment of their relationship with one another.

 

Is equal always fair? How can you avoid playing favorites in your estate plan? The most obvious approach is to split everything equally. But suppose your children's circumstances are vastly different? In those cases, treating your children "equally" in your estate plan may not necessarily be the same as treating them "fairly." Here are just a few situations when dividing everything equally may not be the best solution:

• Scenario 1: One child is far more successful financially. Example: Child A is making a killing on Wall Street as an investment banker. Child B, just as hardworking, has made teaching high school English his life’s work. If you split your assets “equally,” B may feel slighted, and miss out on money he could legitimately put to good use. If you give the financier less, he may feel rejected and punished for being successful, despite the fact that he does not need the money.

• Scenario 2: Child A is fiscally responsible. Child B makes bad financial decisions and seems always to be in dire financial straits. B may be immature, or may have a drug of mental health issue. You know that if A gets his inheritance as a lump sum up front, he'll manage it wisely. But you hesitate to give B his inheritance all at once, and would prefer to put it in trust so that the trustee has oversight over how it is used. Will B understand why he is being treated differently? Maybe. Will he resent his sibling who is getting his inheritance up front? Quite possibly.

• Scenario 3: Child A is healthy, but Child B has a disability or lifelong medical issues. Depending on B’s circumstances, you may want to leave him more than you leave A. If you expect B will need federal benefits in the future, you may want to put B’s funds in a special needs trust. Despite the unequal treatment, the need for this arrangement is likely to be understood by both children. But that does not eliminate the issue of who gets to manage child B's trust. Will your healthy child want to be his brother's or sister's keeper, or consider it a burden?

• Scenario 4: Child A has worked since the teenage years, put himself through school and never asked you for a penny. On the other hand, you gave Child B $200,000 for college tuition and room and board, and you recently gave him $50,000 as a down payment for a home. Splitting your assets equally at death between the two of them might be great for B, but is it really "fair"? Instead of equal distributions, you may want to consider the gifts you’ve made to B over the years as a kind of early inheritance, and deduct that amount from what you are leaving B when you pass away. 

• Scenario 5: Over the years Child A has been caring for you, taking you to your doctors' appointments, checking up on you by phone and in person, helping you with your paperwork and with other everyday matters. Child B is no busier than A and lives just as close, but rarely lifts a finger to help. You don't know if A resents B, but you wouldn't be surprised if he does. Is an equal division of your assets between the two really fair, you wonder? How will this play out between the two if you reward A for his efforts by giving him more? 

What are your alternatives? When they were little, all you had to do was split the cookie equally, and problem solved. It's not that easy now. 

How to distribute assets to children with different needs and histories while trying to be even-handed can be a vexing problem. Some parents, unable to find a “perfect” solution, will continuously delay making a plan or never create one, letting the State of Florida's intestacy laws determine who gets what. That will result in each child getting an equal share - but doesn't solve the potential problem of one child feeling resentful in relation to siblings.

Our job as your Florida estate planning lawyers is to help you formulate a reasonable plan that you can live with (and die in peace with), and that your kids are likely to find "fair." Obviously, there is no one solution suitable for every family. We will sit down with you to explore in detail your finances, family dynamics, family history, and your goals. 

 
If you decide not to split everything equally, it is usually a good idea to tell your children about the decision in advance and explain the reasoning behind your decision, so they are not blindsided later on. You should also make brief mention of your reasons in your estate plan. This can go a long way towards fostering a good relationship among your children after your passing - and could potentially even prevent a lawsuit against your estate from an angry child who feels "That's not fair!"

Houston, We Have A Problem

Houston, we have a problem.

Nearly 50 years after becoming the second man to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin is undertaking a more earthly mission: fighting guardianship proceedings  to stay in control of his own affairs.

In May, two of Aldrin’s three children asked a Florida court to grant them guardianship over their father so they can manage his financial affairs and make other decisions for him.  Andrew Aldrin, 60, and Janice Aldrin, 51, claim that their 88-year-old father, now a Satellite Beach resident, has Alzheimer’s Disease and is being manipulated by others and spending money at an alarming rate.

The Apollo 11 pilot is having none of it. On June 7 the he filed a lawsuit against his children and his business manager, Christina Korp.  “Nobody is going to come close to thinking I should be under a guardianship,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Aldrin requested an evaluation from James Spar, a geriatric psychiatrist at UCLA. According to Spar, Aldrin scored normal to superior on tests of cognitive ability. Spar concluded that Aldrin is "...substantially able to manage his  finances and resist fraud and undue influence."

Aldrin's lawsuit is multifaceted. It accuses his son, daughter and business manager  with elder exploitation and misuse of funds. He claims that Andrew, who is involved with his businesses and nonprofit ventures, has stolen half a million dollars from him and used his credit card without authorization. He alleges that Janice has failed to perform her fiduciary duties. The lawsuit also accuses Andrew and Korp of seizing control of millions of dollars of Aldrin's "space memorabilia" and "space artifacts." Aldrin claims Korp has been taking, without his knowledge, a 5% commission on all the speaking engagements she has booked for him.

Aldrin claims all three have slandered him and his legacy by telling people that he has dementia in order to "...gain further control over Plaintiff's personal relationships, business contacts and assets." He says that his children have taken his passport away from him, and undermined his romantic relationships by forbidding him to remarry. Aldrin is thrice divorced.

Janice and Andrew deny their father's allegations and have pushed back. Through their lawyer, they issued this statement: "We are deeply disappointed and saddened by the unjustified lawsuit that has been brought against us individually and against the Foundation that we have built together as a family to carry on Dad's legacy for generations to come." Interviewed on Good Morning America about the situation, Aldrin called it "the saddest thing that has ever happened in my family." Watch the interview here. 

Aldrin was scheduled for another mental health evaluation on June 26 and 27. At this writing, the results are not yet known. Aldrin says he expects to pass with "flying colors" - an appropriate boast from the former air force colonel who flew to the moon and back. Aldrin remains an outspoken advocate for travel to Mars. In June he occupied a front-row seat when the president announced the formation of the Space Force, the sixth official branch of the military. 


Remember, you don't need to be an astronaut to find yourself the subject of a guardianship. Your best defense doesn't require a visit to the moon - just a consultation with a competent estate planning attorney.

New federal law addresses increasing incidence of elder abuse by court-appointed guardians

The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act became law in October, 2017. The result of rarely-seen bipartisan cooperation in Washington, the law seeks to stem the growing tide of elder abuse and fraud by court-appointed guardians, as well as curb other forms of elder exploitation.

As I noted in a prior post, there is growing concern about elder abuse perpetrated by guardians appointed by the court to handle incapacitated persons' affairs. With lax oversight, an unethical guardian can too easily neglect a ward or plunder his/her assets. Fortunately, most court-appointed guardians are good souls trying to best serve their wards. But, as reports from around the country reveal, not all court-appointed guardians are well-intended, and the problem is getting worse as the population ages.

Florida has introduced some new regulations to better supervise court-appointed guardians. Now, with the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, the federal government is stepping up to the plate, too. The law designates federal resources to help monitor and prosecute elder abuse and exploitation cases. Some of its key provisions are:

• The Justice Department will assign a minimum of one U.S. assistant attorney (an "elder justice coordinator") to every federal judicial district. The individual will have the authority to investigate complaints about wrongdoing by court-appointed guardians, prosecute cases, and train and bring in FBI agents to recognize, investigate and pursue such cases.   

• The Federal Trade Commission will also appoint an Elder Justice Coordinator responsible for "coordinating and supporting the enforcement and consumer education efforts and policy activities of the Federal Trade Commission on elder justice issues." The FTC will be required to submit an annual report to Congress regarding all the cases of elder fraud it handled that year.

• The Department of Justice will post cases of elder abuse handled by the federal law enforcement and publish them on its website.

• To crack down on scammers preying on the elderly, more severe penalties are introduced. These enhanced penalties will apply to cases in which  the victim is over age 55; defrauding is done by telemarketing, email, text message, or instant electronic message; and the scam gets the victim to participate in a business opportunity, commit to a loan, or participate in a medical study. Enhanced penalties include mandatory forfeiture of property or assets the perpetrator has acquired, as well as property the perpetrator used to defraud the victim.

Of course, the best way to avoid being victimized by an unethical court-appointed guardian is to make legal plans so that you never become the subject of a court-ordered guardianship. At the very least, a well-crafted durable power of attorney and medical surrogate are needed. These plans must be made before incapacity strikes. Check out The Karp Law Firm website for strategies to avoid guardianship.

Read the text of the new law here.

Rule to curb senior financial exploitation coming in 2018

Older Americans are losing $2.9 billion to financial exploitation each year, according to a 2011 Met Life survey. That may be too conservative a figure, given the reluctance of victims to report the crime for reasons that include embarrassment over having been duped; fear of being labeled incompetent; and refusal to implicate family members who may be perpetrators. In fact, family members are often to blame: A 2016 Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of its advisers found that when abuse was suspected, children of the victim were the potential culprits in most instances.

Investment firms (broker dealers) are often on the front lines of this problem. Accordingly, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has introduced guidelines (Regulatory Notice 17-11) for its members to follow when financial exploitation is suspected. These guidelines are scheduled to go into effect February 2018. Briefly, the provisions are:

• When a senior investor opens an account, the institution is required to ask him/her for the name and contact information of a “trusted contact person” with whom the institution may communicate if exploitation is suspected. Existing customers will be asked the same question when their customer profile is updated. However, a customer who does not provide this information is not prohibited from opening an account or maintaining an existing account.

• If an institution suspects financial exploitation of someone age 65 or older, or someone age 18 or older who it is believed cannot protect his own interests due to physical or mental impairment, it can place a temporary hold of up to 15 business days on the disbursement of funds or securities from the account. The rule applies only to suspicious disbursements of funds or securities, not to securities transactions (buying or selling stock within an account).  Once the temporary hold commences, the institution must contact the customer and the trusted contact person to investigate the matter within two business days. 

Some critics allege that the FINRA rule lacks teeth because it does not require firms to contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities and protective services. This contrasts with model legislation proposed by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). That organization's guidelines, already adopted by several states and under consideration elsewhere, has a mandatory reporting requirement. Florida has not yet adopted this legislation.

Read the new FINRA regulation (pdf), click here.

HBO exec left it all to exotic dancer he knew briefly. His family is not happy.

Did exotic dancer Veronica Beckham perpetrate a sweetheart scam on Micky Liu? Manipulate a lonely and sick man into making her the beneficiary of his estate? Or did he leave her his money, free from any pressure and manipulation, purely out of love - even though they knew one another for a very short time? This is the tabloid fodder that leaped from the tabloids and landed in Manhattan Surrogate Court in December 2015, with Lui's sister alleging Beckham coerced her late brother into leaving his estate to her.

Liu, 51, was unmarried and lived alone in New York City. An executive at HBO, he was also an obese alcoholic who suffered from a variety of other ailments, including diabetes and heart disease. He and Beckham, 31, met in July 2014 at Scores in Atlantic City, where she was working as an exotic dancer. They apparently struck up a friendship of sorts. Liu began paying the rent on Beckham's New Jersey rental apartment, and covered the cost of her plane ticket to visit her mother in Florida in August 2014. When Beckham returned from Florida, she gave up her apartment and moved in with Liu for a total of 35 days. On October 2, 2015, she moved out of his apartment and back to Florida in order to assist her ailing mother. 

In his emails to her, Liu professed his love and concern for Beckham, but did not mention that he had made her the beneficiary of his retirement accounts and life insurance policy. He was found dead in his apartment on March 17, 2015. Several months later Beckham collected Liu's retirement funds and $223,000 in life insurance.

This turn of events is not sitting well with Liu's siblings. In the papers filed with the court, his sister May Liu alleges that "Beckham, as a professional exotic dancer, was adept at applying and using coercion and manipulation upon men." She contends that her brother was on heavy medication and very vulnerable, and that Beckham cheated her and her sibling out of her brother's monies that they should have received.

For her part, Beckham denies being a financial predator. She says she did not seduce Liu and never had a sexual relationship with him. His decision to leave her assets, she says, was his choice alone. She was surprised when his financial institutions contacted her about her inheritance. Until then, she never even knew the meaning of the word "beneficiary," she has said.

However this case is eventually decided, it brings into clear focus an alarming and  growing problem in this country and our state: financial abuse of vulnerable adults. The elderly are especially vulnerable, because like Liu, they are often isolated and have physical disabilities that make them an easy mark.

The Florida Department of Children and Families defines adult financial exploitation as follows:  

Exploitation may result in loss of property, money, or income. Exploitation means misusing the resources of an elderly or disabled person for personal or monetary benefit. This includes taking Social Security or SSI (Supplemental Security Income) checks, misusing a joint checking account, or taking property and other resources.

Sometimes the elderly or disabled become isolated or ill and do not have someone who is willing and able to help meet their basic needs.

If you have an aging parent or an incapacitated loved one you believe is,  or may be the target of financial exploitation, a key preventive step is to stay in touch with the person. Involve yourself in the person's life, concerns and care, stay on top of things, and enlist neighbors and other family members to crack through the isolation. If you think someone is being taken advantage of, contact Adult Protective Services at 800-96-ABUSE or online here.

Latest scam: Seniors hounded to pay for medical alert systems they don't want, never ordered

Seniors and families, be on the lookout: US Today (May 2, 2015) reports that scammers are suckering growing numbers of seniors into buying medical alert systems they never ordered or never wanted. Unsolicited callers tell the victim that the device has already been ordered by a relative and must be paid for. In other instances the victim is told the device is free, but is subsequently billed. Or the caller may say the cost is small -  $20, say - but the caller never tells the victim that that is the monthly charge.

Older people living alone at home are obviously the most vulnerable. Even when they discover they've been defrauded, victims may not tell anyone about it because they don't want their loved ones to think they are "losing it."

The Federal Trade Commission has caught one particularly egregious scam operating out of Brooklyn. Instant Response Systems, Inc. shipped medical alert devices to consumers without their consent. Then a letter came requesting payment. If the consumer did not pay, he/she was harassed. The company also placed calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The company is now required to pay back $3.4 million it garnered in "unjust gains."
 

Be very careful about who you talk with on the phone and skeptical about anything you receive in the mail! Better safe than sorry. You can also report suspected scams and fraud to the Federal Trade Commission by clicking here or calling 877-382-4357.

Watch out for IRS scams

Tax filing season brings with it a spike in scams designed to steal personal information from taxpayers. As these scams become increasingly sophisticated, so must you! The bad guys are out for your identity and your money.

One scam involves sending a taxpayer a "phishing" email that seems authentic. The email states either that you owe money, or are entitled to a refund and may direct you to an "IRS" website that looks very much like the real thing. But remember, the IRS will not contact you by email, phone text or social media. If you receive an email that purports to be from the IRS, don't open it. Don't click on any links or attachments. Don't provide any information. Instead, alert the IRS by forwarding the message to:  phishing@irs.gov.

 

Phone fraud is another potential problem. In fact, fake IRS phone calls top the list of the agency's "Dirty Dozen" tax scams for 2015. The caller will claim to be from the IRS, and the caller ID information may lead you to believe he's telling the truth. The caller often demands money or will leave an "urgent" message requesting that you return the call. Don't call back, and provide no personal information. Report the call to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 800-366-4484 or at its website.

For more information on how to protect your personal information from tax scams, click here. 

Veterans applying for aid and attendance need more protection from scams

One bright light in a generally dismal Washington landscape where political parties rarely work together: Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have introduced legislation to better protect veterans from predatory financial practices. The Veterans Care Financial Protection Act would amend the National Defense Authorization Act and would take aim, among other things, at unscrupulous "financial advisors" who often use V.A. Aid and Attendance benefits to get their hands on a veteran's finances.

Veterans Aid and Attendance benefits help veterans and their surviving spouses with the high cost of long-term care, whether at home, in a nursing home, or in an assisted living facility. It is NOT a service-connected benefit, meaning that a veteran does not need to have been injured during military service in order to qualify. Among the eligibility requirements: the applicant must be 65 or older and served during a wartime period; net income may not exceed a given level once unreimbursed medical expenses are deducted; and assets must also fall below a certain maximum (currrently $80,000).  

There are several common veterans scams. Watch out for them:

Almost all financial predators start their pitch by offering to complete the veteran's application for Aid and Attendance benefits. But under federal law, it is ILLEGAL for anyone to charge for this. 

Senator Warren also notes instances in which frail veterans have been enticed into moving to a nursing home because unscrupulous staff all but guarantee that the individual will qualify for Aid and Attendance benefits. If the individual does not qualify after moving in, often because the value of his/her assets is too great, the nursing home then demands payment and ends up draining the veteran's assets.

One scam I have seen often and up close and personal, involves annuities. If an applicant has assets exceed the maximum allowable level, a financial advisor recommends that the veteran put excess funds into a "veterans annuity" in order to qualify for benefits. Annuities are rarely a good idea for an older person, who loses control over the asset and, if he/she ever needs the money, will face outrageous penalties for withdrawing it. In a recent meeting, Senator Warren took note of one incident in which a veteran who had been talked into buying an annuity would not get any payout until he was well into his 90s! Moreover, here in Florida, if you have purchased an annuity and then apply for Medicaid benefits for long-term care, you will be required to name the state as a beneficiary.

Be careful that you or your loved one don't fall for these schemes. There are more than 40,000 agencies nationwide that purport to provide financial advice to veterans. Some are reputable, but, as Senator Warren put it, many are like "sharks swimming in the water." 

Financial institutions encouraged to report suspected financial fraud of elderly

Financial abuse of the elderly is a widespread and growing problem. Only 1 in 44 cases are ever reported, according to The National Adult Protective Services Association. While financial institutions are in a unique position to detect such abuse, they can be reluctant to report it for fear of running afoul of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999, which safeguards customer privacy.  

Recognizing the growing threat against older Americans, several federal agencies recently clarified parts of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act with the goal of encouraging banks and brokerages to do a better job of reporting suspected cases of financial abuse and fraud against the elderly. The clarification states that disclosing a customer's information to local, state or federal authorities for the express purpose of reporting suspected abuse is an exception to the general non-disclosure rule under Gramm-Leach-Billey. You can read the clarification in its entirety here.  

The clarifying memo also lists several red flags that could indicate someone is being financially abused. The list is directed to personnel at financial institutions, but I am excerpting it here as my readers may be in a position to notice some of these red flags, too:

• A caregiver or other individual shows excessive interest in the older adult's finances or assets; does not allow an older adult to speak for himself/herself; or is reluctant to leave the older adult's side during conversations.
   
• The older adult shows an unusual degree of fear or submissiveness toward a caregiver, or expresses fear of eviction or being placed in a nursing home if money is not given to a caregiver.

• Erratic or unusual banking transactions, or changes in banking patterns.

• Frequent large withdrawals, including daily maximum currency withdrawals from an ATM.

• Sudden non-sufficient fund activity.

• Uncharacteristic nonpayment for services, which may indicate a loss of funds or access to funds.

• Debit transactions that are inconsistent for the older adult.

• Uncharacteristic attempts to wire large sums of money.

• Closing of CDs or accounts without regard to penalties.

• The financial institution is unable to speak directly with the older adult, despite repeated attempts to contact him or her.

• A new caretaker, relative, or friend suddenly begins conducting financial transactions on behalf of the older adult without proper documentation.

• The older adult moves away from existing relationships and toward new associations with other “friends” or strangers.

• The older adult's financial management changes suddenly, such as through a change of power of attorney to a different family member or a new individual.

•  The older adult lacks knowledge about his or her financial status, or shows a sudden reluctance to discuss financial matters.

Florida residents, watch our for meaningless "senior" designations when choosing financial advisor

Florida residents looking for a financial professional should know that all those letters after the names of financial advisors do not guarantee good advice. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, many letter designations do not necessarily reflect superior - or any - training, education or experience. Like a spoonful of alphabet soup, the letters may not spell anything meaningful. 

The letter "s" - for "senior" - seems to have a particular place of honor in many designations. Why seniors? Well, as Willie Sutton replied when he was asked why he robs banks: "That's where the money is." According to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the largest independent regulator for security firms, older people are indeed more likely to retain a financial advisor who has the word "senior" in his/her designation. Unfortunately, at least 35% of those designations are phony, says Jack Waymire, founder of an advisor-rating site called Paladin Registry. The designations are “designed to trick seniors into believing advisers are more knowledgeable than they really are,” he says.

That is not to say that all credentials are phony or meaningless. Some really do reflect substantive training and experience. To make sure of that, you have to do your homework. Check out the Investor Watchdog website that allows you to check out how rigorous (or ridiculous) the requirements are for any particular designation. Also visit the website of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, where you can look up any financial advisor's credentials and disciplinary history. 

I don't want to scare you off all financial advisors. Everyone, particularly those approaching or in retirement, would do well to seek professional advice. Just don't fall for the alphabet soup approach. You've worked and saved too hard to entrust your funds and security to just anyone. In skepticism there is safety.

Even your deceased loved one's identity can be stolen: here's how to prevent it from happening

Identity theft is not just for the living. In fact, it is often easier for thieves to get their hands on information about a deceased person than a living one. Once they do, thieves can use the information to fraudulently get loans and credit. According to a March 2013 article in AARP, thieves tap information such as obituaries, the Social Security Death Index, and Florida probate records. (In Florida, a will becomes public record once it is filed; protecting family privacy is one reason some Florida residents prefer to use a living trust, rather than a will, as their primary estate planning vehicle.)

Sadly, identity theft is not the purview of professional criminals only. An angry and dishonest relative can use "inside" information to steal the decedent's identity and commit fraud.

While it's unlikely that the family or the estate of a deceased person can be held liable for fraudulent debts, the family of a decedent whose identity has been stolen may start getting calls from collection agencies, and will have to devote time and effort to straighten things out. This is the last thing a grieving family needs.

It is important to realize that credit reporting agencies and other financial institutions are not automatically notified when someone dies. Thus, there is a window of time in which thieves can operate with near impunity. The sooner you notify the appropriate parties about your loved one's passing, the more protection you have.

Our Florida probate attorneys advise our clients about these issues. Here are additional valuable tips from the excellent Identity Theft Resource Center to prevent scammers from getting their hands on information about your deceased loved one:

Don't include too many details in the obituary.  
Of course you want to honor the life of your loved one. But do not include details like mother's maiden name or exact date of birth.


Once death certificates are available, notify the appropriate parties.
The personal representative or the trustee of the estate will have the authority to communicate and make requests of the appropriate parties. Entities to notify include:

Credit Bureaus:
Notify by certified mail the major credit bureaus of the death, and include the death certificate. Request that the file be flagged, credit not be issued, and ask to be notified of any requests for credit. The three major credit reporting bureaus are:


Equifax 
PO Box 105069
Atlanta, GA 30348
888-766-0008

Experian
PO Box 9530
Allen, TX 75013
888-397-3742

TransUnion
PO Box 6790
Fullerton, CA 92834
800-680-7289

The Identity Theft Resource Center has a model letter which you can use to send to the credit bureaus. 

Other institutions:
Also contact other financial institutions with which the deceased had a relationship, requesting that they make a notation that the account holder has passed away. Do this if the account was owned solely by the decedent or held jointly with someone else. Contact:

Pension issuer

Credit card companies

Stores

Insurance company

Bank

Brokerage house

Social Security Administrator

Credit unions

Veterans administration

Some experts also suggest that you contact the Division of Motor Vehicles to prevent the agency from issuing a duplicate license. 

Check out the Identity Theft Resource Center's exhaustive guidelines on decedent identity theft.  

Warning: Affordable Care Act sends scammers into action

The Supreme Court's stamp on the Affordable Care Act has some scammers seeing gold. It didn't take long for them to start working the phones. Check out the details here.

Astor estate finally settles

Socialite and philanthropist Brooke Astor died at age 105 in 2007, leaving behind a $200 million estate, a Will executed in 2002, a raft of later codicils, and a pitched legal battle over who should get her fortune. On March 28, 2012, the Westchester County, NY Surrogate Court brought the saga to an end.

The Court threw out Astor's several post-2002 codicils. These were codicils that Astor signed while already mentally incompetent, at the behest of her son and agent under her Power of Attorney, Anthony Marshall, giving Marshall a bigger cut of her fortune. In 2009, at age 85, Marshall was convicted of  stealing from his elderly mother, abusing his authority as her Power of Attorney, and persuading his mother to make changes to her Will that greatly benefited him. Marshall, now 87, is still appealing the conviction.

The March 28 ruling leaves most of the estate to the New York charities and institutions Astor loved and supported during her lifetime, among them the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Carnegie Hall. The ruling leaves Marshall with $14.5 million, but with what he owes in legal fees and the cost of his still-pending criminal appeal, he walks away with "just" $3 million. I say "just" not because it isn't a lot of money - it surely is for most of us - but because it's a pittance compared to the $70 million he would have inherited if he had not tried to exploit his elderly mother for more. 

Read more about the settlement.