The story of William Roberts Lindsay is a sad, lonely, and slightly bizarre one.

Lindsay amassed a fortune as a successful investor in Los Angeles and retired to Las Vegas in his mid-50s for the desert climate and low tax regime. He was a bit of a recluse – he never married and named his barber, Elton Marvin, and his pet pug, Midget as his closest friends.

When he died, he left only Midget and some dog treats to Marvin and the remainder of his estate he left to Scotland.

Yes, Scotland. The land of William Wallace, bagpipes, castles, and kilts.

For at least the last 10 years, Lindsay had been supporting Scottish interests. He funded the William R. Lindsay chair in public health at Glasgow University, and two years ago he made a $4 million donation to the National Trust for Scotland, a charitable organization dedicated to preserving Scottish heritage and history. Interestingly enough, he had previously been turned down for another Scottish academic chair because he was believed to be a “crank.”

Yet, Lindsay had never been to Scotland. His entire vision of the country was shaped by the movie Brigadooon, based on the Broadway hit musical of the same name, and staring Gene Kelly as one of two Americans hoping to discover a hidden Scottish village that emerges from the mist just one day every 100 years.

But Lindsay’s ancestors hailed from Scotland and that connection was the last important thing to him, imaginary though the impression was.

He bequeathed his estate – minus the dog – to the NTS before shooting himself in his home in November at the age of 79.

Bi aig fois, a’ Uilleam. (Rest in peace, William.)

James D. Perry

The president and Congress have finally agreed on a tax law…for now. President Obama signed a tax plan that includes new guidelines for the estate tax, but only for the next two years. Congress will have to revisit the tax plan before 2013.

The law includes a historically high exemption of $5 million per individual, and anything over that threshold will be taxed at a historically low rate of 35 percent. Furthermore, the law once against marries the gift tax to the estate tax, so the exemption and tax rate for gifts made after Dec. 31, 2010 will be equal to the applicable estate taxation.

Additionally, the estates of post-Dec. 31, 2010 decedents have the option to transfer any remainder of $5 million exemption to their surviving spouse.

But what matters for the estates of those who died this year is the decision between taking advantage of the zero-percent tax rate of 2010, or electing to file the final tax returns under the new 2011 law.

While a zero-percent tax rate is awfully attractive, under the 2010 law, heirs are required to pay capital gains on inherited assets over $1.3 million, or surviving spouses inheriting over $3 million. Under the 2011 law, these inheritances would be covered under the $5 million exemption.

Any change in rules can be confusing, but if you have questions about handling a 2010 estate or planning your estate for the next two years under the new tax law, I urge you to get in touch with your estate planning attorney.

James D. Perry

The law is full of old rituals that today we would consider ridiculous.

For example, in early Bavaria, to convey real property by sale, by gift, or by will, one had to box the ears of young boys to seal the deal. The idea was that by creating a memory of pain in the child, he would be a good witness later in life if a dispute over the transfer ever arose. Without this formality, the conveyance was ineffective, even where the intended recipient took possession of the land and even if no dispute ever arose.

Thankfully today, the law has done away with such silly rituals. There are, however, three formalities you must follow too ensure that your property transfers upon your death in the manner and to the person your intend.

1) You must create a will. Write down all the property you own and to whom it should go upon your death. Without this basic document, all your property will be sent through the probate court and distributed to your heirs through the rigid state laws of intestacy.

2) You must sign your will. In California, this requirement can be filled one of three ways: you may sign the will yourself; your name may be affixed to the will by some other person at your direction and in your presence; or your name may be affixed by a conservator acting under court order.

3) Your will must be witnessed by at least two people. During your lifetime, at least two people who do not stand to inherit must sign your will as disinterested. Furthermore, they must be present and physically watching as you sign the will and they must be competent of the fact that they are signing your will.

If any one of these requirements is not met, the probate court can determine that you died without a valid will and the land that you wanted to go to your grandchildren may instead go to your son with a nasty gambling habit. Of course, there are some exceptions to these rules, but they too throw your intentions to the scrutiny of the court, which costs your estate time and money.

If you have any questions about the validity of your will, I urge you to talk to your estate planning lawyer.

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

Late-in-life second marriages are becoming commonplace in American society, and with it, anxiety has been rising among stepchildren. Estate planning lawyers have had to pay greater attention to the particular concerns and needs of blended families because also becoming more common is the courtroom brawls between stepparents and stepchildren and stepsiblings.

The first concern I hear from clients is often related to the financial security of the parents. If Mom moved into Stepdad’s home, what’s to keep Stepdad’s kids from kicking her out of the house if Stepdad were to die first?

The second concern is for the adult children’s prospective inheritance from their natural parent. Many state elective share laws dictate that when a person dies, the spouse naturally inherits a certain share of the estate, which will certainly cut into how much, if any, is left to the decedent’s natural children after the spouse dies.

In California, community property laws can be both a blessing and a nightmare for the adult children of a blended family. On one hand, generally, a surviving spouse doesn’t have a claim over to any property or account kept separately and in the deceased’s name.

However, any property that was held jointly (i.e., homes, common bank accounts) is presumed to be community property and, unless that presumption is rebutted in court, it passes entirely to the surviving spouse. And, even separate property may pass in whole or in part to the surviving spouse if the deceased partner leaves no will.

Older adults bring a greater amount of personal wealth into new relationships and, experts say, they are more practical about the financial realities their late-in-life marriage presents.

A prenuptial or postnuptial agreement can keep Mom in the house owned by Stepdad until her death at which point it passes solely to his children. Keeping property separate in trust accounts can prevent it from being transmuted into community property. And a clause inserted into Dad’s will can ensure that the separate property in his name passes to his children, not his spouse upon his death.

After you die, you could either be rolling in your grave because of the nasty legal battle you left your blended family or resting in peace.

James D. Perry

In this digital age, you probably have at least one email account. Perhaps two. And maybe a Facebook page to keep in touch with your grandkids, and a LinkedIn account to stay networked with your professional colleagues. You might even have a blog.

What will happen to all that online information after you die? To the account holder’s benefit, many sites refuse to grant access to anyone other than the account holder. Or, the companies have cumbersome hoops for heirs to jump through to gain control of those accounts, which might include getting a court order. And, the government has very little regulation stipulating how online accounts are to be disposed of upon the account holder’s death.

You will first want to inventory your digital assets: you email accounts, blog, social media and networking accounts (Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.), and any information stored on employer intranets or computers.

Then, determine the worth, if any, of your digital property. A popular blog or Twitter account with many followers may be worth money. Computer files of your manuscript about the history of railroads, or your ornithological research may have educational value. Photographs and other personal assets may or may not have monetary value, but they almost certainly have significance to your heirs.

Most of us fiercely guard our passwords and account information because of warnings against hackers, viruses, and identity theft. But once you’ve listed all your accounts, you need to decide who will be in charge of each of them (or all of them).

Then, write out your instructions and keep them with your estate planning documents. Otherwise, the decision may end up in the hands of the courts or the website administrators.

James D. Perry

My profession is estate planning. Clients come to me for help on how to preserve their life’s accumulations of wealth and how to pass it on to their loved ones.

What I do for a grandfather and grandmother through legal documents will hopefully convey through transfer of financial assets, a lasting memory of their love and appreciation in the eyes of their children and grandchildren.

But the greatest material wealth my clients possess is not nearly as vast as the richness of knowledge, morals, and wisdom that they hold in their hearts for their families.

A person’s legacy is not solely in the assets they leave behind, and one tradition dating back to biblical times – the ethical will – lives on to provide a vehicle for an individual’s intangible fortune.

An ethical will, or legacy letter, is a document designed to pass on ethical values or life lessons from one generation to the next. It is drafted by you, not me or any other attorney. There are examples of early ethical wills written throughout the Christian Bible, the Jewish Torah, and they are even contained in the oral traditions of Native Americans.

Ethical wills often contain meaningful family stories, personal values and beliefs, statements of faith, blessings, advice, and expressions of love. They may even share regrets, apologies, and final requests. There are no rules or laws about the length or content of an ethical will. It can be a few lines, or paragraphs or many pages in length…this is a case where it really is the thought that counts.

Your ethical will may be kept in a separate document with your last will and testament. However, as much as you hope your heirs follow your sage words and honor your legacy, there is no binding legal authority behind the contents of your ethical will.

Every ethical will is unique. And, while there is no standard format for writing one, there are resources available (books, audio CDs, DVDs and podcasts) to help you write your own.

I urge you to provide for the security of your family by crafting a solid estate plan. But, I also encourage you to be just as generous with your life experiences and values, leaving your loved ones more than just your material possessions.

James D. Perry

In 2008, the federal government collected in excess of $25 billion on individual estates via the estate tax, sometimes called the “death tax.” It’s been six months since the tax lapsed as part of legislation enacted under President George W. Bush in 2001.

Now, the death of one American billionaire, oil magnate Dan L. Duncan, is casting a spotlight on how much the federal government is not collecting.

Duncan’s fortune was estimated to be worth $9 billion, ranking him as the 47^th wealthiest person in the world. Had he died in December 2009, any part of his estate not left to his surviving spouse would have been taxed at a rate of at least 45 percent – at most, $4 billion for the federal government.

The House and Senate failed to come to any consensus last year on legislation that would have prevented the repeal. But, the Senate Finance Committee wants to reinstate the estate tax – the only question being whether the final legislation on the matter will include provisions to collect on the estates of those who have already died this year.

Advocates of the tax point out that the U.S. is home to more than 50 of the world’s billionaires over the age of 80, and claim that the repeal amounts to an unconscionable tax break for the ultra-wealthy in very lean times and historical income disparity. Opponents argue that the tax is unfair because it taxes the same income twice – once when it is earned and again when it is passed on to heirs.

Lawyers agree that any attempt to apply the tax retroactively to the Duncan estate will be met with well-funded legal opposition and arguments that a retroactive tax is unconstitutional.

Congress has another six months to figure out what to do with about Tax-Free 2010. The tax returns at a rate of 55 percent in January 2011.

James D. Perry

Over their lives, people tend to accumulate a lot of “stuff”: furniture, clothing, knick-knacks, books, personal collections, etc. And when they die, that stuff gets passed on to their loved ones, taking up space in their garages, looking oddly out of place in their dining rooms, or sitting in storage simply because the heirs can’t bear to part with it.

It’s not uncommon as an estate planning and probate lawyer to see how people who inherit furniture and other material wealth tend to unnecessarily cling to those physical items. Even I have been dealing with this in the wake of my father’s death: I just do not want to let some things go.

A recent New York Times article highlights the power we give these material objects over our lives, and points to the problem of hoarding, which has become fodder for reality television shows. Hoarding is a serious compulsion, and most people don’t accumulate stuff to that extreme.

But seeing that extreme can force us to look at how we may be hanging on to unnecessary material things when all we really want is the memory that thing evokes.

The trinkets we’ve been given or that we’ve picked up somewhere special become the physical manifestation of the memory of the giver or the context in which it was gained. But “your mother or grandmother didn’t plan for you to become overwhelmed by them,” says Jamie Novak, a professional organizer and author of “Stop Throwing Money Away.”

Organizing experts suggest that you pass on the memories instead of the goods. And, if you already have Aunt Sally’s armoire taking up space in your living room, take a picture of it before donating it to charity.

You don’t have to hold on to the stuff letting it clutter up you life, when you can more easily hold on to the memories.

James D. Perry

See Jim’s review of Jamie Novak’s book “Stop Throwing Money Away” (John Wiley & Sons) in the Summer edition of the Perry Estate Planning Newsletter.

The daughter of oilman Alfred C. Glassell Jr., founder of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., is contesting his will in a Texas probate court saying he was manipulated by his lawyers to leave most of $500 million fortune to charity.

Glassell executed a will in 1998, which left his daughter, Curry, and her two sons more than $100 million. But she is challenging his 2003 will, believed to be the final one Glassell signed before his death last year, which transfers most of his money to Houston’s Museum of Fine Arts and to a family foundation run by Curry’s younger half-brother.

The probate lawyers trying the case told the jury panel that Glassell must be declared mentally incompetent at the time he signed the 2003 will for it to be invalidated.

This is a big risk for Curry as the 2003 will contains a broad no-contest clause. If Curry doesn’t win her fight in probate court, she forfeits her entire inheritance, which is roughly one-tenth the size of the one bequeathed to her in the 1998 will – still a sizable chunk of change.

The state of California gives full force to no-contest clauses with a few exceptions, and they can be especially beneficial where family dynamics are tumultuous.

A no-contest clause is a provision in a will, trust, or other estate-planning instrument to the effect that a beneficiary who contests the instrument forfeits any gift made by the instrument. It is intended to reduce litigation by disappointed beneficiaries.

California law includes probable cause exceptions for menace, duress, fraud, or undue influence where a beneficiary who challenges the document with probable cause would not be subject to forfeiture under the clause.

Curry doesn’t have that protection. If she prevails in her challenge, she may nullify his 2003 will and have the 1998 will declared valid.

Or she could lose everything.

James D. Perry.