Showing posts with label intestacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intestacy. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Lawyers at Fault for Not Effectively Marketing the Importance of Wills?*


An article titled “Marketing Wills” is raising a mild stir among some bloggers. The article that appears in the Elder Law Journal, Volume 16, No. 1, 2008, suggests that many people die without wills because attorneys are not doing a good job of marketing them to the public. The authors, Michael McCunney and Alyssa DiRusso, propose that estate planning attorneys learn marketing basics and consult marketing experts.

This premise received a fair amount of attention on some legal blogs and at least one law firm marketing blog. The authors of these blogs disagree on the value of law firm marketing. I tend to take a more “middle of the road” view on the subject. Marketing the importance of wills might motivate some people to make an appointment with their estate planning attorney; however, for others it will fall on deaf ears. I agree with the view of the Legal Blog Watch to the extent that it states that most people are already aware of the need for a will. I disagree that the underlying reason that people do not have wills prepared is the cost. In most instances, it is not that expensive to have a will prepared.

As an estate planning attorney, I am aware of prospective clients who have mentioned the need for having a will, but have not followed through. They are aware of the importance. The cost is not prohibitive to them. It is just not high enough on their list of priorities. It may be that they do not see the urgency or it may be that they do not want to plan for their own death. It is not unusual to have a client make an estate planning appointment right before taking a long flight (overseas flights are very motivating for some reason).

* Thank you to David S. Bloomfield, Jr., Esq. for bringing this to our attention.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Do It Yourself Projects Should Not Include Will Preparation

Although it may be an infrequent occurrence, some parents intentionally disinherit their children. Today’s Columbus Dispatch included a Cleveland Plain Dealer article by James F. McCarty that provided a good example. The story, Son Who Tried to Kill Parents to Get $500,000,[1] relates why Walter and Mildred Sowell decided to leave Martin, their only child, just $50 of their $500,000 collective estates. It seems that Martin, at age 17, tried to kill his parents by lacing their tea with cyanide. When Mr. Sowell spit out the tea, Martin opened fire on his parents with a .38-caliber pistol, shooting his mother three times in the back. Mr. Sowell was lucky enough that the three shots intended for him missed. All things considered, when the Sowells signed their wills two years later, the $50 bequest to Martin was generous.

Mrs. Sowell died in 2007. Mr. Sowell died in July 2008. The Sowells had reciprocal wills that left everything (other than the $50 to Martin) to the other. Their wills did not name a contingent beneficiary in the event that there was no surviving spouse. The result of not having an effective dispositive provision in the will means that the estate will pass to the closest next of kin, in this case Martin. The Chief Magistrate of the Cuyahoga County Probate Court was quoted as saying, “[i]t’s a mess, a classic example of what happens when you don’t update your will.” It is also an example of what happens when people try to prepare their own wills. Had the Sowells seen an attorney to prepare their wills, they almost certainly would have included a provision to avoid this from happening.

As an aside, the news article also recounted that, although Martin did not attend the funeral of either parent, he appeared in the Probate Court two days after his father death, seeking to be appointed fiduciary of his father’s estate.

[1] The Columbus Dispatch, November 24, 2008, Page B3.