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

I read a news story from Wisconsin about a man who was accused of killing his parents in May. The man apparently had petitioned to be a co-representative with his sister of his parents’ estate.

The court found that he was incapable of being an executor because he was jailed on $1 million bond, but the article also noted that, if convicted of their murder, he also wouldn’t inherit.

Many states have these so-called “slayer rules” prohibiting murderers from profiting off the estates of their victims. These rules seem like common sense, fitting into our sense of justice, but they also serve to combat elder abuse and spousal murder.

Under California’s probate code, anyone who intentionally and feloniously kills a person is barred from inheriting any property or property interest from his victim regardless of whether the murderer is named in the will or whether the victim dies intestate.

Essentially, the murderer is treated as if he or she died prior to his victim, cutting off the possibility of inheritance. The murderer’s allotted share is redistributed to other heirs as directed by the will or by intestate law.

Sometimes, probate and estate law can be painfully complex, but sometimes the law just makes sense.

James D. Perry

At the end of May, parties claiming deceptive business practices by LegalZoom filed a class action lawsuit in California against the online legal document preparation service. They argue that LegalZoom’s advertisements give consumers “a false sense of security that people do not need hire a traditional attorney.”

In July 2007, Anthony Ferrentino asked his niece, Katherine Webster, to help him use LegalZoom to prepare a will and living trust. But, when Katherine went to transfer her uncle’s assets into the trust, she found that the financial institutions that held his money refused to recognize the LegalZoom documents as valid. Katherine tried to get help from LegalZoom’s customer service representatives to no avail, and the trust was still not funded when Anthony died in November 2007.

Katherine is now one of the plaintiffs in the suit against LegalZoom suing on behalf of herself and on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, advance directive for health care, or power of attorney.

The internet has brought a lot of convenience to our lives with its wealth of information, online shopping, and the ease of staying connected to our loved ones. But sometimes convenience means cutting corners, and the one area you don’t want to cut corners is in protecting your loved ones and your property.

These legal document preparation services are not the same as going to an actual attorney, but they do not clarify that in their user agreements. And, customer service representatives may look over your documents, but they cannot dispense legal advice, identifying problem areas or correcting mistakes. The documents are customized with your personal information, but they are not tailored to your needs.

After her uncle’s death, Katherine hired an estate planning attorney to petition the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust and to convince the banks to transfer the funds. The attorney also discovered that Anthony’s will was never properly witnessed.

Correcting the mistakes ended up costing Anthony’s estate thousands of dollars. Doing it right the first time would have saved time and money, and a lot of emotional stress. In the end, the “convenience” simply wasn’t worth it.

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

An Alameda Superior Court judge decided this month not every felony conviction will disqualify you from helping the elderly or disabled.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger originally wanted to ban everyone with a felony record from working in the In-Home Supportive Services program (IHSS). As the law stands, workers are barred from the program for 10 years if they have been convicted of child abuse, elder abuse, or defrauding MediCal or any patient.

Outside those restrictions, though, Judge David Hunter says in-home patients can employ anyone they want.

IHSS helps pay for in-home care to 430,000 low-income elderly and disabled Californians. It allows patients to remain in their homes under the care of individuals of their choosing, as approved by the state, to render help with daily tasks, such as bathing, house cleaning, meal preparation, laundry, grocery shopping, personal care services, accompaniment to medical appointments, and protective supervision for the mentally impaired.

The state argues that its interest is protecting Californians and preventing fraud.

One of the plaintiffs to the suit is a Sacramento woman who provides in-home care for her 90-year-old-mother. She was initially disqualified under the governor’s plan because of a 1976 conviction for felony grand theft.

The program costs about $5.5 billion annually, half of which is paid for by the federal government, 35% by the state, and 15% by individual counties.

“We are following the court order, but we do not believe convicted felons should be eligible to care for elderly and disabled Californians in their homes,” said Lizelda Lopez, spokeswoman for the Department of Social Services.

The state could appeal the ruling, and Ms. Lopez says the Department is already reviewing it.

This is tricky ground. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens and taxpayer dollars, but how long should it punish people for their crimes at the expense of the elderly and disabled?

James D. Perry