Did you ever see that Peter Seller's classic film "Begin There"?
In the storyline, the gardener of an extremely wealthy fellow inherits the entire estate.
If you have not taken in that flick, then I highly commend it to your must-sees sooner rather than later list.
Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?
That is the question.
In the case of a wealthy California divorcee, a large share of her $8.5 million estate is now the property of her gardener after a state Court of Appeals decision confirmed folks can bequeath their estates to anyone they choose.
Family relationships notwithstanding.
It would seem life is imitating art.
The decedent Constance Doolittle left a large amount of her estate to her gardener Juan Ramon Amador. Doolittle's daughter Susan Doolittle was not a happy camper.
Consequently, Susan alleged that her mother was manipulated into the bequest by Juan and sought a halt in the payout until she could prove financial elder abuse.
However, The Press Democrat, in an article last month titled “Big legal fight after Kentfield woman leaves part of $8.5M estate to gardener,” reported that a three-judge panel rejected Susan's argument. The panel found no legal basis existed justifying withholding any funds without ruling on the merits of her elder abuse claims.
In the end, the Court of Appeals ordered that the decedent's written instructions to defend her trust must be carried out.
“If a parent truly wants to leave something to someone who is not their natural heir, they can provide for the defense of that gift in the event the heirs attack it,” Santa Rosa attorney Lewis Warren told the paper in its article. Warren represents the bank.
So, what is Susan claiming?
That her mother was suffering dementia when she hired Amador in 2004 to maintain her landscaping.
Susan further alleges that Amador tricked Constance into thinking he had affections for her.
As a result, Constance added him to her will and spent tens of thousands of dollars investing in coffee plantations in his home country of Nicaragua.
If the trust is carried out, the gardener will get about $3 million.
While adding Amador as a beneficiary of her estate, Constance also decreased the inheritances of her two daughters by $500,000 each and made Exchange Bank her trustee.
The daughters were estranged from their mother. (There is always more to a story like this, isn't there?)
It appears Constance envisioned attacks on her competence.
So, what preemptive action did Constance take?
She had herself examined by a psychologist who determined that Constance had sufficient mental capacity to make financial decisions.
Shortly thereafter, Constance signed her legal documents as prepared by an estate planning attorney who confirmed her decisions were not the product of fraud.
Game, set, match.
Constance died in February 2014, and Susan sued a few months later.
“Connie obviously anticipated the possibility of a challenge after her death and there is no logical reason why she would have wanted her representatives to be compensated less generously” than before she died, the judge wrote.
I am extremely impressed with the planning brilliance, let alone the competency of Constance Doolittle.
If you anticipate any estate planning challenges by your heirs based on your competency, take a page from the play book of Constance Doolittle.
Remember: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” When making your financial, tax and estate plans, do not go it alone. Be sure to engage competent professional counsel.
Reference: The (Santa Rosa, CA) Press Democrat (October 23, 2015) “Big legal fight after Kentfield woman leaves part of $8.5M estate to gardener”
Comments