We never read about a perfect celebrity estate plan. An estate plan that can smoothly transfer assets is not newsworthy, and happy relatives rarely sue.

From what I have read, esteemed film actor Dennis Hopper made every attempt to create a solid estate plan. Unfortunately, his name and estate plan have been in the papers because of a singular unforeseen problem: one angry widow.

Early this year, Hopper filed for divorce from his wife of 18 years, Victoria Duffy. She responded by filing a complaint in court claiming Hopper had cut her out of his will at the behest of other family members. She claimed he lacked the mental capacity to change his will, a charge his doctors emphatically denied despite his declining health due to inoperable and terminal prostate cancer.

Because Duffy and Hopper were still married at his death, she stands to inherit a quarter of his sizeable estate and a $250,000 life insurance property, but a clause in their prenuptial agreement may strip her of all inheritance. According to the document, the couple must have been “married and living together” on the date of Hopper’s death.

The prenuptial agreement categorized any property purchased or acquired by Hopper during the marriage as separate property. Just prior to his death in May, Hopper signed an affidavit under oath accusing Duffy of stealing more than $1.5 million in valuable artwork from him – artwork that was considered his separate property.

Hopper had created a revocable living trust and funded it with assets including works from his art collection. Now his trust is suing Duffy, asking a court to compel her to return the property so it can be properly distributed to his named beneficiaries.

Hopper took the responsible steps executing a will, creating a trust and funding his trust. But, all the planning in the world won’t deter a person with enough money for a lawyer and a nasty grudge.

James D. Perry

One of the most frequent questions I get from my clients is “Why should I spend the money to create a trust?”

The easiest answer to that question is that for the price you pay now, you save far more money down the road. But that answer doesn’t satisfy everyone. So here is one serious money-sucking situation that might make you think twice before dismissing your need for a trust.

In the event of your incapacity, the court may impose a conservatorship because the individual can no longer handle his or her own finances. Anytime you have to initiate court proceedings, you’re looking at a significant investment of time and money – more of both if the proceedings are contentious.

Also, nearly anyone can petition the court to become your conservator if they can show that you no longer have the capacity to manage your affairs. We have seen this most recently where an advocacy group for child actors, A Minor Consideration, petitioned the court to take control of the finances for the 14 children of OctoMom, Nadya Suleman. An Orange County judge has given the green light to the group to proceed with their case.

However, you might become incapacitated for any number of reasons in your life having nothing to do with the Hollywood scene, including dementia, illness, disease, or accident.

By creating a revocable living trust, you designate ahead of time a successor trustee who you want to be in charge of your affairs should you become incapacitated. Moreover, you can designate exactly what property that person can control and choose different individuals to manage multiple assets. Most people transfer the title to their house into a living trust so that the successor trustee would be able to manage the affairs of the home.

Your life is probably not as crazy as the OctoMom’s, and you may never have Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears’ problems (both have battled conservator petitions in court), but you may one day be struck by Alzheimer’s disease, or an accident or illness resulting in a coma, any one of a number of mundane real life disasters that strike regular people.

You and your estate planning attorney have tools available to prevent confusion in your family and keep them from fighting for control should you become incapacitated.

James D. Perry

In yet another development in the sensational saga spanning 15 years, a court of appeals recently ruled that none of J. Howard Marshall’s billions will go to the estate of his late-in-life bride, Anna Nicole Smith.

The former Playboy model challenged her late husband’s will in a Houston probate court alleging that his son, E. Pierce Marshall, had illegally coerced his father to exclude her. She claimed that Howard had promised to leave her more than $300 million.

The court found, though, that Howard was mentally fit and under no undue pressure when he wrote the will that left nothing to Anna Nicole.

The two met in a strip club and were married in 1994, Howard at the age of 89 and Anna Nicole, 26. Howard died a mere 14 months later and in his will left nearly all of his $1.6 billion estate to Pierce.

Since the legal battle began, both Pierce and Anna Nicole have died leaving their respective estates to duke it out in court. Pierce is succeeded in the litigation by his heirs, a wife and two sons, and Smith left a daughter, now 3, fathered by an ex-boyfriend.

The case has already bounced around both state and federal courts in bankruptcy and probate, and has been through numerous appeals, even getting a day in the U.S. Supreme Court on a question of jurisdiction.

Unsatisfied, though, Anna Nicole’s probate lawyer is already planning to appeal the latest ruling.

James D. Perry

Joe Jackson is reported to be seeking “some manner” of support from the Michael Jackson estate.

Michael Jackson’s father is seeking an allowance from his son’s estate to help cover expenses that exceed $15,000 a month, according to court documents filed Friday.  The request seeking an unspecified amount for Joe Jackson was filed by lawyer Brian Oxman, who said there was no apparent reason for the administrators of the estate to not seek an allowance for the Jackson family patriarch.

The King of Pop’s 2002 will, however, omitted any mention of his father.  The two had an often-strained relationship, and Michael said at one point that he would get physically sick — as a child and as an adult — at the sight of his father.

The singer’s private trust calls for money to be paid to his mother, Katherine, his three young children, and various charities when his estate is distributed.

Under California Probate Law, during the time Michael’s case is still pending in the probate court, prior to final distribution to the named beneficiaries, family members may petition the court for a “family allowance.”  Top priority for family allowances go to a surviving spouse and minor children, but parents, and sisters and brothers can also ask for a temporary allowance.

It’s totally up to the probate court judge to decide if someone deserves a monthly family allowance.  The judge is allowed to a give an allowance if his or her discretion determines an allowance is necessary for the family member’s maintenance according to his or her circumstances. An allowance is possible if it can be shown that a parent of the decedent was actually dependent in whole or in part upon the decedent for support.

The filing claims that Joe, who suffers from diabetes, was supported by Michael before his sudden death through payments made to the singer’s mother, Katherine,  — Joe’s wife  — which were passed on to Joe.??Joe says his expenses exceed $20,000 per month, but his income from U.S. Social Security is a mere $1,700.

“Mr. Jackson’s circumstances require a family allowance because he is 81 years old and Michael Jackson supported him in the same manner as his wife, Katherine Jackson, who was Michael’s mother and who the court granted a family allowance on October 2,” says the petition.

If the court gives Joe an allowance it will be interesting to see if Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon, Rebbie, LaToya, Randy, and Janet follow with their own petitions to the court.

Stay tuned, a decision on Joe’s request comes on for hearing in January.

James D. Perry