At the suggestion of several clients, I recently read John Grisham’s 2025 novel, “The Widow.” The book has numerous estate planning references, most of which are accurate. In this month’s advisory update, I summarize three estate planning issues referenced in “The Widow,” but without spoiling the suspense of the story line.
Joint Tenancy
Ms. Eleanor Barnett is the 85-year old widow who inherited significant wealth following the death of her husband, Harry Korsak. Before Harry died, Harry signed a Will implementing a marital trust for Eleanor’s benefit. As I’ve summarized previously, a marital trust is a trust for the benefit of a surviving spouse, first, before distributing assets to remainder beneficiaries following the death of the surviving spouse. According to Harry’s Will, the remaining assets in the marital trust were to be allocated to Harry’s two sons, who were not Eleanor’s children, following Eleanor’s subsequent death. As we often see in real life, Harry’s estate planning objectives were not achieved because Harry likely misunderstood that joint ownership effectively thwarted the legal applicability of the marital trust. By reason of joint ownership, Eleanor became the individual owner of the assets following Harry’s death, and Harry’s Will had no legal effect.
No Contest Clause
In creating her own Last Will, Eleanor informed her attorney Simon Latch that she desired to leave her assets to charity, not Harry’s two sons. Latch suggested to Eleanor to give each of the two step-sons a gift of $100,000, but also include a provision in the Last Will called a “no-contest clause.” A no-contest clause is intended to penalize a beneficiary for contesting the validity of the Will by removing whatever gift the beneficiary would have otherwise received. Under Minnesota law, a “no-contest clause” will not be enforced against a contesting beneficiary if a court finds that the beneficiary had “probable cause” for starting a legal action for contesting terms of a Will.1 If this fictional case arose under Minnesota law, either of the sons would have had probable cause for initiating any legal action. In Eleanor’s situation, the use of the no-contest clause would have been inappropriate under Minnesota law.
Professional Fees and Charitable Deductions for Estate Taxes
In the book’s fictional tax environment, Eleanor dies in a year when there was no federal estate tax. The book references the lack of a federal estate tax as a motive in Eleanor’s death. Grisham fails to understand, however, that all distributions directed under Eleanor’s Will to charity, and all of Latch’s professional fees as trustee are completely deductible regardless of the estate tax rules. While we can give Grisham a pass on this issue (after all, he is a novelist and not an estate tax expert), these facts are important for our wealthier, charitably-inclined clients.
Just as this book review presents a disjointed set of estate planning issues, our firm is happy to assist clients who have a myriad of different estate planning issues. While we don’t often represent clients in Eleanor’s position, I am certain that we would have provided better legal representation than Simon Latch—and certainly to a better result.
Leave a Reply