Tag Archives: Wills

Do-It-Yourself (Holographic) Wills – Knowing Your Options in the Age of Quarantine

This article provides basic information on what a holographic will is and how to create one that is valid and enforceable in the State of Nevada.

The term “holographic will” refers to a document that sets forth an individual’s last will and testament and which that individual has created on their own. In this context, the person making the will is referred to as a “testator.” In Nevada, a holographic will is valid and enforceable if all of the following requirements are met:

          1. The signature and date set forth in the will are written by the hand of the testator.

          2. The material provisions set forth in the will are written by the hand of the testator.

          3. The testator is of sound mind.

          4. The testator is over the age of 18.

A holographic will that meets the statutory requirements is valid and enforceable regardless of whether at the time it is made, the testator is physically located in or out of Nevada.

PLEASE BE ADVISED that when an individual establishes a testamentary transfer of an asset to a beneficiary by holographic will, the asset becomes a part of the individual’s probate estate upon death, and in order for the beneficiary to obtain legal ownership of the asset, it will be necessary to submit the holographic will to the appropriate probate court and obtain its authorization to effect the transfer. Furthermore, where a testator disposes of an asset by holographic will, the asset is chargeable with the payment of the testator’s debts. In our firm’s experience, holographic wills are challenged in probate court with greater frequency than last wills and testaments prepared by an attorney.

We wish our clients and community safety and health during this time, in particular the most vulnerable, and we continue to stand ready to assist with your needs, questions, and concerns.

Knives Out

knives-out

My husband and I went to see Knives Out in the theater, before the theaters were closed. The movie is glorious—stunningly beautiful cinematography and wonderful performances by an all-star cast, old favorites and newcomers alike.

Harlan Thrombey, celebrated mystery writer, is dead. His housekeeper finds him in his upstairs study the morning after his 85th birthday party, throat slit with a knife—a death worthy of any of his wildly popular novels. The police have concluded it was a suicide, but they come back to the house to interview Harlan’s family members, just to make sure they aren’t missing anything. Each family member sits in the interview chair with a giant piece of artwork behind them, a thousand knives and daggers arranged in circles around a sort of empty donut hole in the middle—an objet d’art that is wonderfully expressive of the movie’s “who dunnit and why?” theme. While the police ask their questions, a gentleman lounges behind them, listening to the testimony and occasionally playing a single note on the piano. He tries to remain in the background and let the cops do their job, but he cannot stay quiet and eventually jumps up and begins questioning the witnesses.

The gentleman sleuth is Benoit Blanc, who was hired to look into the matter by—we don’t know whom. He received an envelope with cash and a newspaper article about Harlan’s death. After the unsatisfying testimony of Harlan’s children and their spouses (dissemblers, all), Blanc enlists the help of Harlan’s nurse, Marta Cabrera, to help him look into the facts and events surrounding Harlan’s death.

I will not spoil the plot for you. (Well, not much, anyway). There are two things I want to talk about. The first is the setting. In the vein of Midsomer Murders, Harlan’s mansion is every bit one of the characters. The film was shot in Massachusetts in the fall, partly at the Ames mansion and partly at an undisclosed private home. The mansion is all mahogany and stained-glass windows and filled with marvelous period pieces like a carved wood sea captain on the stair case landing, a bronze sculpture of two German shepherds, vintage magic posters, a “stash clock” on the mantlepiece, and so on. I seriously need the set decorators from this movie to give our house a makeover.

The second is, of course, Harlan’s will. Harlan’s attorney arrives at the mansion for the reading of the will, something which I guess used to be a “thing” in estate law practice but has gone the way of all flesh, as far as I can tell. Blanc tells Marta to forget the drama of the reading, to think of it instead as being like a “community theater production of a tax return.” Ha ha—wills are a lot more exciting than tax returns, I dare say. And indeed, the reading of the will is pretty exciting. Before they even get that far, Harlan’s children, their spouses and children literally get into a fist fight.

The lawyer “sets up” and summons the family in. He produces and reads aloud two documents: the first is a short statement written by Harlan and addressed to his family members, encouraging them to accept his will—“It’s for the best.” The second is the will itself, which appears to be a one-page document with no witness signatures evident and which the lawyer says Harlan drafted himself and delivered to the lawyer’s office the previous week. (Wow—really? Exactly what did he hire the lawyer for? Document storage?) Harlan needed a good estate planner: No witnesses, no trust, no named executor; just a big load of estate taxes and probate fees.

But the film, as you may imagine, centers on the big surprise Harlan had up his sleeve, one that does not please his progeny: they have all been disinherited. His children press the lawyer for help—how can this be set aside? The lawyer—who (ethics alert!) was Harlan’s lawyer even if he did not draft the will—gives them advice: if he was of sound mind, you not liking it doesn’t make it invalid. But what about undue influence, one of them asks. “Did you just Google that?” shoots back the lawyer. But there is no basis for this either—Harlan left everything to a person who impressed him by having a good heart and working hard. All they have left is the Slayer Rule: which (in Nevada, anyway) provides that one who intentionally and feloniously kills another cannot benefit from the killing by inheriting from the deceased victim. But Harlan committed suicide, the lawyer points out. No good either. Or…is it?

Go see the movie. It’s really good. Ebert gives it the thumbs up: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/knives-out-2019. I bet you Siskel would have liked it too.

Morris Presents on Benefits of Trusts

View More: http://jessilemay.pass.us/woodburnwedgeThe free, semi-annual Family Estate Planning workshop series, sponsored by the Community Foundation of Western Nevada, begins on Wednesday, September 19, 2018. The eight-week workshop series features different presenters addressing all topics related to estate planning.  The workshops are held every Wednesday at the Sierra View Library at 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Jason Morris has presented since the program’s inception in 2010.  He will speak on the benefits and advantages of trust planning on October 10, 2018.  Call 775-333-5499 to register for the workshop series now.

What Does a Surviving Spouse Receive if Omitted from the Will?

Wedding ring

In my previous blog regarding lost wills, I discussed a client whose husband’s original will was lost. One discerning reader asked what happened to the client—wouldn’t she inherit everything from her husband anyway? In that case, I wish it had been so. Unfortunately for the client, that was not the case, even though it had been her husband’s intention.

Since the later will could not be offered for probate, we had to go back to his previous will, which was made before his marriage and left everything to his siblings. All was not lost, however. Where a person marries after making a will and his spouse survives him, Nevada law provides that the will is “revoked as to the spouse,” provided that the deceased spouse did not make provision for the surviving spouse by marriage contract or otherwise make it clear in the will that he intentionally omitted her.  The technical term for the inadvertently omitted spouse is a “pretermitted spouse”, from the verb “pretermit” which means to leave undone or to neglect. The law also provides for pretermitted children, i.e., children born after the deceased makes his or her last will.

The term “revoked as to the spouse” does not mean that the wife received all of the deceased’s property. The rule about a pretermitted spouse has to be read together with Nevada’s laws regarding persons who die without wills. In my client’s case, her husband owned the property in question before their marriage; it was his separate property. Since he died without surviving parents or children, one half of his separate property was allocated to her as his pretermitted spouse, and the other one half was allocated as provided in the will he made before their marriage.

That was not the end of the story. We contacted the relatives, explained the situation to them and requested that they disclaim their interest to our client, since that was her husband’s intent per his later, lost will. One of the deceased’s siblings was willing to do so. The rest refused; they thought they were going to get a big windfall. Since our client had maintained the property for twenty years, paid all taxes and maintenance, and born all losses, we obtained court approval to shift their share of the proceeds of the sale of the property to her in compensation for her labor and out of pocket costs. All’s well that ends well, I suppose; but the loss of the husband’s true last will and testament caused a huge legal mess that could have been avoided if the original had been maintained.

If you have a question about your rights under a will as a pretermitted spouse or child, contact a qualified probate attorney.

Bleak House

Bleak House Jarndyce

“There are two motives for reading a book; one, that you enjoy it; the other, that you can boast about it.” -Bertrand Russell

As both a lover of great literature and a probate lawyer, I put Bleak House by Charles Dickens on my “to read” list years ago. My father had mentioned it to me several times, noting with amusement that the estate lawsuit at the heart of the novel didn’t end until the money ran out. At 989 pages, it’s not what you’d call a weekend read, but I finally hunkered down and plowed through it. While it is anything but a positive reflection on lawyers and the legal system of nineteenth century England, it is wicked funny and a great read. (Plus, I can boast about it.) G.K. Chesterton is quoted on the back cover as saying it was “Perhaps his best novel…when Dickens wrote Bleak House he had grown up.”

The novel opens on the fog that engulfs the Chancery Court in London where probate cases were adjudicated. The case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce has been in probate for generations; people literally are born into the suit and die before it is resolved. Dickens is pretty vague about the particulars of the case. One character tells us, “‘Why, yes, it was about a Will when it was about anything. A certain Jarndyce, in an evil hour, made a great fortune, and made a great Will. In the question how the trusts under that Will are to be administered, the fortune left by the Will is squandered away; the legatees under the Will are reduced to such a miserable condition that they would be sufficiently punished, if they had committed an enormous crime in having money left them; and the Will itself is made a dead letter.”

Many of the novel’s characters are beneficiaries under the will and spend their lives waiting for the lawsuit to be resolved. One unfortunate young man, Richard, drives himself to an early grave in his obsession to see the suit completed. Miss Flyte, another beneficiary, keeps a series of birds locked up in a cage, intending to let them free when she is free of the lawsuit and receives her inheritance.

Dickens is merciless about the purpose of all the delay: “The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.” Thus, as one character dryly remarks, “Equity sends questions to Law, Law sends questions back to Equity; Law finds it can’t do this, Equity finds it can’t do that; neither can so much as say it can’t do anything, without this solicitor instructing and this counsel appearing for A, and that solicitor instructing and that counsel appearing for B; and so on through the whole alphabet, like the history of the Apple Pie.”

Let’s just say it will not endear you to lawyers or the legal system; but mercifully, the 21st century American probate court little resembles its 19th century English counterpart. Our system is geared toward the timely resolution of disputes; and to the extent it fails, I have found that it is generally because angry litigants—not courts—want to use the legal system to wage Pyrrhic battles.

While the lawsuit in Bleak House forms the backdrop of the case, and gives Dickens the opportunity to train his savage wit on the English legal system, the heart of the story is not really about the lawsuit itself. Bleak House offers a wonderful panorama of characters and richly interwoven plots and subplots. It is partly narrated by Esther Summerson, one of the main characters, an orphan whose family origins are shrouded in mystery. It features unforgettable characters such as Lady Dedlock, the proud and aristocratic wife of Sir Leister Dedlock, who harbors a painful secret; Mr. Tulkinghorn, Sir Leister’s scheming lawyer who spends much of the novel hot on the tracks of Lady Dedlock’s secret, and whose death late in the narrative briefly turns the novel into a murder mystery; and Mr. Skimpole, the financially improvident rascal who remorselessly sponges off others while feigning a child-like innocence about the ways of the world.

Bleak House is well worth putting on your bucket list. And if you don’t want to invest the time reading it, I am informed that it was turned into a brilliant mini-series by BBC, though I have not seen it—yet. I’m putting it on my “to watch” list.