Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» Buy Out or Sell Out?
These nine pairs of companies have the urge to merge, but which deals will work out?

» Estate Planning and Boston's Freedom Trail

Last week my family visited Boston for a little spring break R&R (is it really spring break when the temp barely breaks 50? better than snow, I suppose).

I'd never been to the city before, and we had a nice time visiting friends and seeing the sights along the Freedom Trail. Surprisingly, a couple of estate planning issues impacted the makeup of the city. The following quotes are from the nice walking guide entitled The Complete Guide to Boston's Freedom Trail, by Charles Bahne:

1. "The [Massachusetts] State House stands on land once owned by John Hancock.... Hancock was the first person to sign the Declaration of Independence.... Hancock's elegant mansion stood on what is now the west lawn of the State House. Hancock wished to give his home to the state, for use as a governor's mansion, but he died before he could sign his will. Year later, his heirs offered to sell the old house to the state, but the price was considered too high. Much to the dismay of all Bostonians, the Hancock mansion was demolished in 1863." (page 8) Ah, the irony of one of the world's most famous "signers" failing to sign his Will.

2. Faneuil Hall is "Boston's town meeting-hall [] where the colonists first dared to speak publicly against British rule.... The building was a gift to the town from Peter Faneuil, 'the topmost merchant in all the town'.... Peter Faneuil inherited his fortune from his uncle Andrew, a prosperous merchant whose ships called at ports around the Atlantic. But Andrew's bequest was subject to one unusual provision: like his uncle, Peter had to remain a bachelor. If he ever married, he would forfeit the money!" (pages 30-31) Peter Faneuil was known around Boston as "the jolly bachelor," which is also a name he gave one of his ships. These days, a "no marriage" provision would possibly be declared void as against public policy.

» Morgan Stanley launches commodity fund

» Bipartisan opposition grows against tax bill

An administration proposal to close what officials call a tax loophole for commercial properties is running into opposition from lawmakers. via The Leaf Chronicle

» Intentional Interference with an Inheritance, and the Ellis Case

Besides an action to contest a Will, a frustrated beneficiary may attempt to proceed with a tort known as "intentional interference with an inheritance." In some cases, this may be the ONLY way in which the potential beneficiary can proceed.

In the Nemeth case (425 N.E.2d 1187), for instance, the decedent's stepdaughter (not an heir of the decedent) filed an intentional interference with an inheritance action against her step-sister because a successful Will contest would have done her no good.

A number of cases have followed, trying to explain the limits and ramifications of the tort. A recent case involves the estate of a woman named Grace Ellis (found here as a PDF). The case was brought by the Shriners Hospital for Children, beneficiaries under a previous Will, against a man named James G. Bauman (who was named as sole beneficiary and executor under the Will that was admitted to probate). Ms. Ellis evidently died in 2003, but the Shriners took no action to contest anything until 2006. Maybe their itty-bitty cars were in the shop all that time? Or (more likely), perhaps the Shriners had no idea that they were named as beneficiaries in a previous Will.

Anyway, the Shriners file their suit, making the same sorts of allegations as you might see in a Will contest (lack of capacity and undue influence). But, of course, they can't file a Will contest, because Will contests must be filed within six months after the Will in question was admitted to probate.

Can you use the intentional interference with inheritance tort to get around the six month period, since it isn't a Will contest? No, says the court.