Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» Fortress, Conseco, Nationwide and more

» MBIA, Evercore and Stifel

» John McCain: The Prenup President?

This short blog entry on Slate regarding John McCain's income taxes is interesting. Not for what it says about Senator McCain's income, but for the following:

John McCain’s released two years of tax returns today to little fanfare. We learn that he earned $405,000 in 2007. We learn that he’s giving his ex-wife $17,000 a year in alimony. What we don’t learn, though, is how much he’s getting from his current wife. That’s because the returns don’t include the assets of Cindy McCain, whose beer fortune is estimated at more than $100 million—a reminder that McCain would be the first president to have signed a prenuptial agreement.

The post goes on to wonder if voters might object to Senator McCain because of the prenup:

Then there’s the moral aspect. In a race that has feature the thrice-married Rudy Giuliani, McCain’s marital situation doesn’t seem particularly controversial. But some Americans might look askance at a prenup, commonly considered leaving the door open for divorce.

I'm not sure about that. A recent poll (results here) doesn't seem to indicate that Americans hate the idea of prenups:

The Thomson West survey found that when asked if they would sign a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, American adults said: -- Yes, definitely (14%) -- Yes, maybe (27%) -- No, probably not (21%) -- No, definitely not (20%) -- Not sure (18%)

While the question is "would you sign a prenup?" and not "would you vote for a presidential candidate who signed a prenup?", I don't see anything here indicating animosity for prenups per se. Only 20% said "no, definitely not," and I'd imagine that only those who feel the strongest about that "no" vote would view Senator McCain's prenup as a deal-breaker.

To me, Senator McCain's marital situation DOES seem like it might be a little bit controversial to social conservatives. The prenup isn't the problem -- the divorce of wife #1 in order to marry (younger, richer) wife #2 might be. The prenup only reminds social conservatives of the prior divorce.

» Cox wants regulatory eye on big banks

» 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.