The Larry King Trap

Some would posit that Larry King lead a fascinating life pioneering late night cable television talk shows.  Countless others made a career and reached celebrity status following the trail Larry blazed.  His estate planning leaves a quite different legacy.

In 2015, Larry married wife #7 and they together prepared a new estate plan which essentially left everything to #7.  In 2019, Larry prepared a handwritten will supposedly directing that all prior documents be disregarded and left everything to his five children (from previous ex-Mrs. Kings), and excluded #7.  The 2019 “Will” referenced five children but Larry named only four of them; it incorrectly spelled some children names; and it included typos and grammatical errors as the norm.

Passing in early 2021, the battles over control of his estate began before Larry reached room temperature.  #7 claimed that while separated, she and Larry were reconciling in 2021 despite pending divorce proceedings.  #7 asserted that Larry’s children sought to unduly influence an elderly and infirm Larry King.  The children relied on the 2019 “Will” despite all its legal deficiencies.  The children, ranging in ages from 20 to 59, claimed that the 2019 “Will” established that #7 became just like #1 – #6.  Larry King teaches us to take seriously estate planning.  Entire estate plans can be compromised or undone with one hand-written document.  With his health failing at age 87 in 2019, those who encouraged having him draft a hand-written new “Will” had to appreciate that undue influence could become an issue.

The fastest growing segment of society getting married are those over age 70.  These December – December romances result in late in life blended families.  Extra care is needed to address estate planning at this stage, especially to avoid estate contest battles; make certain that your children are protected as you wish; and ensure that no mental capacity issues are in play.  Contact Michael Geiger at Geiger Law to avoid the “Larry King Trap” as well as for all your estate planning needs.

Happy Wife, Happy Life – Then What?

Some couples dismiss estate planning believing that nothing needs to be done as the surviving spouse or significant other will inherit everything and such are their wishes.  These couples may prepare by having the partner to survive designated as the beneficiary on financial accounts and assets.  Issues addressed.  All planning done.

The charm in that approach is that these assets should pass automatically to the survivor.  But what happens if the survivor gets in serious debt or gets in a car accident and is sued?  What if the survivor is disabled with medical care providers and government programs holding medical liens against all of the survivor’s assets?  Those assets meant for the survivor are NOT protected and could be reached by these creditors.  All could be lost.  Alternatively, asset protections and creditor protections could be built into a proper estate plan.

If the survivor gets remarried or in another committed relationship, what becomes of all the assets left outright to the survivor?  All those discussions and considerations of taking care of your children may die when the survivor passes.  Avoid these circumstances and pitfalls with an estate plan which anticipates and plans for such contingencies.  The plan may fully provide for the survivor and any needs which may arise while simultaneously protecting assets for children or others you designate.  

If you fail to fully or properly designate the survivor as the beneficiary, those assets may then need to go through the expensive and lengthy probate process.  The survivor may not be entitled to the asset.  Further, absent addressing these issues with certainty in a Living Trust or Will could allow others to contest your decisions.  

Do not risk the welfare of the surviving spouse or partner.  Create an estate plan to provide for survivor’s needs as you see fit.  And, contact Michael Geiger at Geiger Law for all your estate planning needs.

From Miami to the South Seas

“Here we go. . . .  Here’s your ballgame, folks, as Flutie takes the snap.  He drops straight back . . . has some time, now scrambles away from one hit . . . looks . . . uncorks a deep one to the end zone, Phelan is down there. . . . Oh! He got it!  Did he get it?  He got it!  Touchdown!  Touchdown!  Touchdown!  Touchdown!  Touchdown Boston College!  He did it!  He did it!  Flutie did it!  He got Phelan in the end zone!  Touchdown!  Oh my goodness. . . . What a play!  Flutie to Gerard Phelan! . . . No time on the clock, it’s all over!”

With this call, Dan Davis, longtime Boston College football radio announcer, immortalized the “Hail Flutie” last-second, improbable 47-45 victory of Boston College Eagles over the University of Miami Hurricanes on November 23, 1984.  With Boston College trailing with six seconds on the clock, Boston College quarterback, Doug Flutie, scrambled away from Miami’s defense and launched a Hail Mary pass 63 yards in the air against 30 mph winds.  Miami’s defense allowed Boston College receiver Gerard Phelan to run past them to the end zone where Phelan caught the game winning score.  The Miami defenders later stated that they did not believe that Flutie could throw the football that distance in those conditions.

Improbable?  Perhaps.  But the Miami defenders just witnessed a game with 919 yards of passing offense (Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie – 472 yards; Miami quarterback Bernie Koser – 447 yards).  The game included total offense output of 1,282 yards under hurricane like conditions.  Gerard Phelan alone, who caught the Hail Flutie pass, accounted for 227 receiving yards.  The quarterbacks combined for 84 pass attempts.  No defender should have taken either offense for granted, especially these quarterbacks on that day.  Improbable or not, this college football game between two top-ranked teams playing before a national television audience the day after Thanksgiving, remains a defining moment in both the legend of Boston College football as well as among the most memorable sports moments ever.

Yet, I suggest that the Boston College football program played a much more consequential game decades before on November 28, 1942.  Boston College entered the big game in 1942 against then rival, Holy Cross.  Boston College, then ranked No. 1 in college football and posting a record of 8 wins and 0 losses, remained heavily favored to easily dispose of Holy Cross at Fenway park.  Holy Cross stood as Boston College’s sole obstacle to an invitation to the national championship game in the Sugar Bowl.

This 1942 Boston College squad deserved high praise.  In reaching a record of 8-0, Boston College outscored all adversaries by a combined score of 249-19.  Boston College scored more than 31 points per contest while limiting challengers to fewer than 3 points each game.  Of the eight wins, Boston College shut out five opponents.  After defeating Wake Forest on October 24 by a score of 27-0, the sports section of the Raleigh, North Carolina News & Observer ran the headline: “Baptists Beaten in Boston Battle”.  Great alliteration, but try to get away that headline today!

Preparations were in place for this lead-in game to an invitation to the Sugar Bowl.  After the Holy Cross game, the celebration would continue throughout Boston culminating at the Coconut Grove nightclub.  Coconut Grove, the multi-story Polynesian themed nightclub could accommodate the anticipated crowds of fans as well as the sailors on leave from the Naval fleet docked a few blocks away in Boston Harbor.  The Boston College football team would show up late that evening to the anticipated cheers and adoration of all.  What could possibly go wrong?

Apparently, no one advised Holy Cross of the invincible nature of the 1942 Boston College Eagles.  Holy Cross embarrassed Boston College by a score of 55-12 thereby dashing all national title aspirations.  All celebrations were abruptly cancelled, including the alumni, fans, students and football players gathering at the Coconut Grove.

Not to worry at the Coconut Grove.  19 naval vessels remained at port in Boston Harbor providing ample patronage for the nightclub.  The crowds would even be larger as many enjoyed some time off for the Thanksgiving weekend.  Having lived in Boston for a number of years, I speculate that at least some Boston College fans might still seek to attend the festivities at establishments such as the Coconut Grove even with a Boston College football loss.

Indeed, on Saturday night, November 28, 1942, as many as 1,000 people packed Coconut Grove to enjoy the South Seas ambience.  Coconut Grove offered large dining rooms, dance areas, and cocktail lounges.  Floor shows would begin about 10:30 p.m. to make certain that guests remained well-entertained into the night.

The basement level of the Coconut Grove housed the Melody Lounge.  At about 10:15 p.m., a small fire started in a corner of the Melody Lounge.  Once flames hit the South Seas paper decorations and fake palm trees, fire raced up the walls and across the ceiling covered with additional, flammable decorations.  Heavy black smoke filled the basement with both smoke and flames quickly traveling upstairs to the street level and the main dining room.

As shouts of “Fire!” rang out, electricity at the club was lost.  A witness who survived the fire, Navy Lt. John Edwards, noted: “it seemed that when the lights went out, everybody’s intellect went with them.”  Unfortunately, it appears that Coconut Grove included only two operational exits:  the main revolving door and an inward opening door.  The revolving door became jammed almost instantly overwhelmed by the rush of hundreds of patrons trying to escape.  The second exit did not fare any better with the wall of people pushing to flee through limited space.

With billowing black smoke, many could not even get out of the basement level Melody Lounge.  Smoke filling the main levels added to the chaos in the darkness.  492 people died in the Coconut Grove fire.  The cause of death of most – asphyxiation.  For those trapped in the Melody Lounge, extreme burns caused the most deaths.  Yet, many died due to injuries suffered while trying to escape.  These victims were trampled to death by their fellow patrons.

The occupancy limit at the Coconut Grove nightclub was fewer than the 492 people who lost their lives that evening.  On that fateful night, 1,000 patrons packed in Coconut Grove.  Coconut Grove did have additional doors.  However, to maximize the areas for paying guests, these other doorways were blocked or obscured for club operation.  One door with a “panic” lock designed to release in the event of emergency had been bolted shut.

Fire investigators could not assign a specific cause to the Coconut Grove fire.  Suspicion followed busboy Stanley Tomasewski who was in the area of fire origin to change a decorative light bulb.  Tomasewski admitted to lighting a match to assist with light bulb replacement in a dark corner, but denied starting the fire.  The fire department could not connect Tomasewski’s actions with the fire.

Even greater suspicion followed Coconut Grove club owner Barnett Welansky.  Despite failure to meet fire codes concerning occupancy limits and intentionally blockading exits, no actions were initially taken against Welansky.  Welansky remained close to Boston Mayor Maurice Tobin with this association bringing into question the zeal with which officials “investigated” the fire.  In addition, Welansky, a lawyer, possessed a long-standing relationship with his client Charles Solomon.  Upon his death a few years earlier, Solomon, a known mafia boss, transferred ownership of Coconut Grove to Welansky.  Close ties to top politicians and mob bosses with no real investigation pursued?  Tough to believe.

Nonetheless, removed from these local pressures, the Navy conducted its own, independent investigation determining that fault rested with Welansky in failing to comply with fire codes.  Further, the Navy found that Welansky expanded Coconut Grove without building permits or authorization from City officials.  These expansions failed to meet minimum code requirements and played into the poor safety conditions already in place.

With these public findings by the Navy and corresponding public outrage, the state opened a criminal investigation into Welansky.  A grand jury returned an indictment charging that Welansky failed to comply with building standards and allowed overcrowding.  A trial resulted in the conviction of Welansky on 19 counts of manslaughter.  Charged to serve 15 years, Welanksy spent but months behind bars only to be released for his supposed “failing health”.

The state charged nine others including a Boston firefighter lieutenant, police captain, building inspector and employees of the nightclub.  These officials and employees secured acquittals.

The fire commissioner did propose various measures to improve safety in public buildings designed to enhance the chances of escape in the event of emergency.  Chief among the these recommendations were installation of automated sprinkler systems and use of powered, illuminated EXIT signs.  Those recommendations served as the basis for establishment of new public safety codes adopted by municipalities and states over the next decade.

Doug Flutie’s 63 yard, last-second pass to Gerard Phelan will remain “The Pass” for college football fans.  This 1984 victory over Miami rightfully resides at the zenith of Boston College football lore.  And yet, Boston College’s 55-12 loss to Holy Cross in 1942 proves more impactful.  Absent that 1942 loss, hundreds of additional patrons would have been in attendance at Coconut Grove on that Saturday evening.  Many students and perhaps even the entire football team would have been present at the ill-fated nightclub.  Additional loss of life, while difficult to imagine, surely would have been a reality.

Wooden theater houses existed since the late 1590s, illuminated with open-flame oil lamps.  Movie houses existed since the early 1900s.  Certainly, it should have dawned on someone prior to 1942 that well-placed, illuminated EXIT signs should be mandatory in public settings.  It is of little solace to the families of the 492 who perished in the Coconut Grove tragedy that this loss served as the impetus for part of the modern public safety system.

In Estate Planning, we do consider legacy impacts.  None of my clients will throw a 63 yard Hail Mary pass on national television to salvage a victory in a flash moment establishing their legacy.  Nonetheless, some of these clients encountered the pain of tragedy as did the family members of the 492 Coconut Grove victims.  These clients desire to do something, anything, to seek to prevent their own tragedy being repeated for others.

For these clients, we consider charitable gifting to organizations and institutions to tackle the underlying problems.  We also evaluate establishing longer lasting foundations with educational, research, or action goals to address these issues.  For these clients, seeking solutions to, and prevention of, their own tragedies represents a step on the path forward.  These efforts become their own legacy, just as important and impactful as any football contest.

Doug Flutie won the Heisman Trophy in 1984.  The voting for the Heisman concluded prior to the Boston College vs University of Miami football game.  Even so, this Miracle in Miami cemented Flutie’s legacy.  Years later, Doug Flutie reflected on the Hail Flutie pass.  Flutie opined: “Without the Hail Mary pass, I think I would have been very easily forgotten.  We would have gone to the same bowl game, the Heisman voting was already in, and the direction of my career set.  Everything would have been the same, except that pass put this label on me as ‘it’s never over ’till it’s over’ guy.”

I suspect Flutie may be correct in this self-assessment.  Everyone knows Doug Flutie.  A few can name Gerard Phelan as the trivia answer to who caught The Pass.  No one can readily name other players from the 1984 Boston College football team.  No names from the 1942 Boston College football team immediately come to mind.  No legend or legacy plays capped a comeback against the underdog, Holy Cross.  The Boston College faithful crowds had no reason to gather at the Coconut Grove nightclub on November 28, 1942.  Losing that football game is a legacy for the 1942 Boston College football players worth cheering.

Can Your Social Media Life Ever Get Laid to Rest?

Facebook.  Twitter.  WhatsApp.  Snapchat.  Instagram.  LinkedIn.  Just how many social media and information sharing sites are among those for which you have an account?  We can only imagine the number and diversity of future social media sites which will arise over the next ten years.  Some of these listed sites may be relegated to the attic of the internet collecting dust next to your Myspace page.  Yes.  Your Myspace page still exists and others can still access it!

What happens to your electronic life upon your demise?  The short answer is that it lives on without you.  Your immediate response may be: “So what?  I have moved on.”  But perhaps there may be information and data among these sites which you no longer would want shared.  There could be family-related information or photographs at issue.  There may be business interests which are no longer anyone’s business.

Many established social media sites, but certainly not all, have matured to include steps to deal with legacy (i.e., after death) user concerns.  Most newer sites incorporate such measures as part of their platform.  Yet, dealing with each of these sites remains a painful and lengthy process for loved ones.  You can help to ease that burden.

Consider appointing a Digital Executor to address your on-line existence in the event of death or incapacity.  A Digital Executor can more readily access sites and follow your expressed wishes.  Also consider using a password management service which protects and stores your passwords and provides one log-in for you to access accounts.  Your trusted Digital Executor can then easily access accounts to comply with your directives.  Be sure to use a password management service with a digital legacy feature to provide a “how to” roadmap for the Digital Executor.

Proper estate planning can act in your stead, including how to address your digital legacy.  To learn more about comprehensive estate plans, contact Michael Geiger at Geiger Law.  

Blended Families Are Special

Remarriage rates after divorce are over 75%.  As a result, blended families are simply part of the fabric of our culture.  Each spouse may bring children from a prior relationship.  The blended couple may have their own biological children.  The new blended family may appear as the Brady Bunch with all kids of the same age or there may be vast age differences between the children.  Older couples embarking on remarriage may place their grown children in instant relationships with newly minted 40-something-year old stepbrothers and stepsisters.  

While all circumstances are unique, by and large, the estate planning goals of blended families remain fairly consistent: 1) provide for the surviving spouse; 2) provide for the children; and 3) preserve the estate for the children and their descendants.  There may (does) exist inherent tension or conflict among these goals.  The good news is that proper estate planning tackles these issues directly; establishes a structure to achieve each of these goals; provides clarity and certainty for all family members; and reduces the potential for future conflicts.

The process begins with careful listening to, and exploring, the expressed desires and goals of couples in a blended family.  Quite often, one spouse may place greater emphasis on preservation of assets for children of prior marriages.  One spouse may want to ensure that the surviving spouse’s needs will always take priority.  One spouse may desire that the biological children of the blended couple come first.  A candid, and perhaps even difficult, discussion is necessary to understand not merely the goals, but also the blended family dynamics, already existing conflicts, and potential future areas of conflict.  Only then can a proper estate plan be crafted with appropriate protections.

Assets can be held and managed in different fashion within living trusts allowing for distributions to the surviving spouse or children while still providing creditor protections, asset protections and wealth preservation.  For example, the blended couple may agree that certain assets should be “locked up” in trust for the children, but could still be used by the surviving spouse for emergency situations.  

Where appropriate, certain assets may intentionally be left to pass beyond a living trust to ensure “minimum” distribution amounts to beneficiaries.  A life insurance policy could designate the children of one spouse as beneficiaries thereby providing an amount certain to those children upon the death of that spouse.  401(k) plans can be utilized in a similar fashion.  However, care must be taken in this approach as those assets may become subject to creditors of the designated beneficiaries.

As importantly, structures may be established to lessen or eliminate future entanglements between the surviving spouse and stepchildren, or among the different families brought together in the blended family.  Professional trustees may be used to ensure independence in trust administration.  Separate trusts may be established to address the assets of each spouse so that the separate families need not involve each other on estate administration matters.

Numerous methods remain readily available to accomplish the oft-times complex goals in the blended family situation.  It all starts with the honest discussion and evaluation and prioritization of those goals.  Michael Geiger can help with his experience in estate planning.  Contact Michael at Geiger Law for assistance with all your estate planning needs, including assistance with your own Brady Bunch blended family.