“The Trust (What is a Revocable Living Trust?) and the will both included ‘no contest’ clauses, with the Trust’s clause stating, as follows: ‘Any beneficiary who directly or indirectly voluntarily participates in any proceeding or action in which such person seeks to void, nullify, or set aside (1) any provision of this instrument; (2) any provision of the Settlor’s will; or (3) any amendment of this instrument or codicil of the Settlor’s will shall be considered to have predeceased the execution of this instrument without surviving descendants[.] The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any disclaimer by any person of any benefit under this instrument. The Trustee is authorized to defend any contest or other attack of any nature on this instrument or any of its provisions.’”

The court reasoned that the settlor did not intend “to disinherit his only son in the event that [the son] contested the Trust while still a minor,” even though a “guardian or guardian ad litem is not a party to the action; instead, he or she is a representative of record of a party who lacks capacity to sue.” Thanks to Professor Beyer for bringing this case to my attention.

Probably the best way to find an estate planning attorney or lawyer in San Diego is to go through the personal referral process – simply ask a friend if they have used an attorney and whether they were satisfied with the service.

The San Diego County Bar Association has a phone number that you can call and they will refer you to a lawyer. You can find out more about the Lawyer Referral and Information Service here. The first 30 minutes of the consultation with the lawyer will be free.

The Wisconsin Slayer Statute (Read here about California’s Slayer Statute – Will I Inherit from My Parents if I Kill Them? Part I) prohibits those who “intentionally kill” another from inheriting from the person. California’s statute has basically the same language, and it is not clear what the result would be on the same facts here. The wife and daughter were embattled in probate litigation (See What is Probate?), and the case will likely be heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. You can read the full story here.

For more on the current state of asset protection trusts, read:

Eight Signs Your California Tax Shelter or Offshore Asset Protection Trust Is Actually Tax Evasion

Criminal Tax Evasion - Trouble Ahead for San Diego Asset Protection Lawyers and Attorneys?

Offshore Trusts and Asset Protection Trusts Are Among 10 Things Millionaires Won’t Tell You About

The only way to avoid the penalty is to show that the failure to file was due to “reasonable cause” and not “willful neglect.” Reasonable cause is established where, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, a taxpayer is unable to timely file. Willful neglect is a “conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference.” Reasonable cause may be established by relying upon the advice of an attorney. “However, a taxpayer’s reliance on the advice of an attorney with respect to matters such as meeting filing deadlines generally does not constitute reasonable cause.” Estate of Gertrude Zlotowski, Docket No. 22150-04 (July 24, 2007). In addition, relying solely on an attorney’s advice is likely an impermissible delegation of your duties as a personal representative of the estate.

“Congress has placed the burden of prompt filing on the executor, not on some agent or employee of the executor” except in a very narrow range of situations (such as erroneous advice that a return was not needed at all). United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 249-250 (1985). If you are preparing to assume the duties of a California personal representative, it is important that you consult with a San Diego probate lawyer who can provide guidance on return preparation, filing deadlines, and other issues that could land you in hot water should you fail to spot them.

The opinion is an interesting read on the creation and promotion of Superman, and also goes into some detail about the treatment of Siegal (and his co-creator Joseph Shuster) by the companies. Apparently, DC Comics had given them very little money in return for the copyright – until a 1961 New York Times article pointed out they were nearly “destitute” and living with “threadbare furniture” in “cramped apartments.” You can find the opinion here Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098, (C.D. Cal., 2008), thanks to Professor Beyer for highlighting the article.