https://library.estateessentials.com/ 2026-05-18T09:33:33+00:00 https://library.estateessentials.com/ https://library.estateessentials.com/lib/tpl/dokuwiki/images/favicon.ico text/html 2023-05-03T14:00:00+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:craig_commentary-ambiguous_deadlines_destroy_estate_plans_2017&rev=1683122400&do=diff Document-Mill Attorneys No Deadlines One of the worst probate cases I litigated many years ago centered around the following sloppy provision in a trust: “distribute my assets as soon as possible.” The primary asset was Mom’s home. The dictator trustee administering Mom’s trust interpreted the phrase “as soon as possible” to mean at least four years after Mom’s death. The dictator would have delayed even longer than four years if we had not taken over the case three years after Mom’s death and… text/html 2023-05-03T14:06:32+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:ellsworth_v._huffstatler_summary-utah-second_marriages-planning_a_disaster_2016&rev=1683122792&do=diff SECOND MARRIAGES: PLANNING A DISASTER—CASE SUMMARY (ELLSWORTH V. HUFFSTATLER) Second marriages and children from first marriages always pose a serious challenge in estate planning. The Ellsworth case proves this point. Ellsworth v Huffstatler (2016). When Elmer Ellsworth and Barbara May married around 1991, they each had children from their first marriages. Together, Elmer and Barbara created a trust. The Trust indicated that upon the death of the second spouse, their children would each recei… text/html 2023-05-03T14:08:33+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:iacono_v._hicken_summary-utah-failed_amendment_provisions_2011&rev=1683122913&do=diff Attorney Malpractice—Failed Amendment Provisions In Iacono v Hicken, the parents of Julie Iacono (“Iacono”) created a trust that named them as the trustees and beneficiaries, leaving the residue at their deaths in equal shares to their four children. The trust contained a provision that made it irrevocable upon either parent’s death. text/html 2023-05-03T14:09:40+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:seventy_percent_of_estate_plans_fail_2017&rev=1683122980&do=diff Seventy Percent of Estate Plans Fail Seventy percent (70%) of estate plans fail. This is the conclusion of an extensive study conducted by Roy Williams and Vic Preisser, and described in their book, Preparing Heirs, Five Steps to a Successful Transition of Family Wealth and Values (San Francisco, Robert D. Reed Publishers, 2003). text/html 2023-05-03T14:39:45+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:smith_v._kirkland_analysis-utah-trustee_fees_and_the_terrestrial_kingdom_of_god_2017&rev=1683124785&do=diff TRUSTEE FEES AND THE TERRESTRIAL KINGDOM OF GOD This brief analysis refers to the case Smith v Kirkland (2017). This case is summarized in a previous blog titled: “TRUSTEES: CHOOSE WISELY--CASE SUMMARY (SMITH V. KIRKLAND).” To best appreciate the following analysis, read this previous blog. (Hover over the title with your cursor and click.) text/html 2023-05-03T14:44:44+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:smith_v._kirkland_summary-utah-trustees-choose_wisely_2017&rev=1683125084&do=diff TRUSTEES: CHOOSE WISELY—CASE SUMMARY (SMITH V. KIRKLAND) In 1993, Steven E. Kirkland created a Trust which he called the “Terrestrial Kingdom of God Trust.” Unfortunately, Mr. Kirkland’s poorly-drafted Trust has only been fodder for a fight in outer-darkness hell, as his named beneficiaries and trustees continue to fight each other after more than eleven years in the Utah courts. text/html 2023-05-03T14:48:41+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:smith_v._smith_analysis-utah-divorce_inheritance_and_estate_planning_2017&rev=1683125321&do=diff Divorce, Inheritances, and Estate Planning This brief analysis refers to the case Smith v. Smith (2017) that is discussed in our previous blog titled “Divorced Husband Demands Portion of Ex-Wife’s Inheritance.” The problem in Smith was not the husband. The real problem was the attorney who drafted the Smith Family Trust. text/html 2023-05-03T14:52:34+00:00 Anonymous (anonymous@undisclosed.example.com) https://library.estateessentials.com/doku.php?id=utah_court_cases:poor_planning:smith_v._smith_summary-utah-divorced_husband_demands_ex-wife_s_inheritance_2017&rev=1683125554&do=diff Divorced Husband Demands Ex-Wife's Inheritance What happens when a wife receives a large inheritance from her Mom and then files for divorce from her husband? In the case of Smith v. Smith, the husband sued and tried to take half of his ex-wife's inheritance.