Contesting a will

Basically, the (New York) court found that the will was invalid.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Here is the relevant piece:

FWIW, I think it was a pretty shitty thing for the Mother to do -- legal or not.

FWIW, I think it was a pretty shitty thing for the Mother to do -- legal or not. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed. If that was the only defect, I would not have contested the will in the mother's shoes unless I needed the money to survive. The law gives that choice to her, and there are probably good reasons that should be the default rule, but unfortunately it allows results that we might deplore.

FWIW, I think it was a pretty shitty thing for the Mother to do -- legal or not. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed. If that was the only defect, I would not have contested the will in the mother's shoes unless I needed the money to survive. The law gives that choice to her, and there are probably good reasons that should be the default rule, but unfortunately it allows results that we might deplore. Originally Posted by Chevalier

I agree that it was kind of shitty, especially with 20/20 hindsight. But as I understand it, the formality of wills is strictly construed by the courts, for good reason. The number of nefarious acts to sidetrack an estate are almost innumerable, including, but not limited to, forged instruments. Which is why most states require the admission of an originally signed (both by the testator and witnesses) will. Back in those days, I don't think self-proving clauses were all that common as they are now.

Even absent the protest from the mother, the court may have reached the same conclusion. It had a duty to admit a valid will. Not finding one, the court may have been required to determine she died intestate without the protest, and the mother would have gotten everything anyway.

The problem with which the court was faced was not all that uncommon. Most attorneys execute multiple originals to avoid this issue, even today. Having a will with just the testator's original signature is not itself sufficient. OTOH, having a duplicate will with no testator's signature but including the original signatures of the witnesses likewise is not sufficient. The testator and witnesses (2, at least one state may still require 3) signatures must be original for a will to be admitted to probate.

Some states allow holographic wills which need not have witness signatures. But that's a different subject.

As Camille said, Fossey was murdered. Fossey was only 53 or so at the time, so I don't think this would be the issue. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

this is really an interesting discussion. I am also curious about what happened with the money? did the mother get it for herself?

Here is the relevant piece: Originally Posted by pjorourke

thanks for finding that....
it makes me angry to see that this was the reason for contesting the will. It was pretty logical that Fossey wanted it that way and a faked will (like it could have happened ) would have been one that made some other person rich...

@ Camille

The whole will contest story can be found in the International Primate Protection League Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 1, April, 1988, at page 9, here: www.ippl.org/newsletter/1980s/045_v15_n1_1988-04.pdf.

Basically, the (New York) court found that the will was invalid. Since there was no will, per the ruling of the court, Fossey died intestate. Since Fossey left no spouse, children or lineal descendants, her parents took under the laws of intestacy. The Court also ruled that the result would have been the same under Rwandan law or California (Fossey's mother's state of residency) law.

EDIT: The Court held the will did not meet the formalities of a valid will (one of the items I mentioned above).
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

thanks... sad story....did the mother at least give part to the gorillaz?

This story reminds me of the story of how lawyers and politicians conspired to break the terms of Albert Barnes' will and effectively steal the collection of Impressionist Art that Albert Barnes left to the Barnes Foundation. The whole, sordid affair is revealed in the film “The Art of the Steal.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Foundation

"In his three-and-a-half star review of the film, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote, 'It is perfectly clear exactly what Barnes specified in his will. It was drawn up by the best legal minds. It is clear that what happened to his collection was against his wishes. It is clear that the city fathers acted in obviation of those wishes, and were upheld in a court of appeals. What is finally clear: It doesn't matter a damn what your will says if you have $25 billion, and politicians and the establishment want it.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art...eal_%28film%29

Thanks for that IB. I find things like this really interesting. I'm going to read more about that tomorrow...as well as the article that Charles linked.
Thanks also PJ for lifting that section of the article
I agree Nina, this is all very interesting and curious. If I find out more I'll come back to this thread

C xxxxxxxxx

@ Camille

The whole will contest story can be found in the International Primate Protection League Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 1, April, 1988, at page 9, here: www.ippl.org/newsletter/1980s/045_v15_n1_1988-04.pdf.

Basically, the (New York) court found that the will was invalid. Since there was no will, per the ruling of the court, Fossey died intestate. Since Fossey left no spouse, children or lineal descendants, her parents took under the laws of intestacy. The Court also ruled that the result would have been the same under Rwandan law or California (Fossey's mother's state of residency) law.

EDIT: The Court held the will did not meet the formalities of a valid will (one of the items I mentioned above). Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charles, I'm just re-linking this as you missed the end bit off

http://ippl.org/newsletter/1980s/045...-04.pdf#page=9

Furthermore, I am really disgusted at her parents now I read this article in full.
It states that in the Will (that was ruled invalid because it was signed by Dian only and no witnesses) Dian left the bulk of her money to the Digit fund and some small amounts to close friends. Her mother, at the trial said, " Contrary to the testimony at the trial, we were very fine parents to Dian."
Well it doesn't seem that Dian thought so since she bequethed her mother and step-father squat in her will. What kind of parent goes against a their deceased child's wish? Ugh.

C

Yes. That's distinct, of course, from the question of whether they should be successful. But I'm leery of the idea of being able to narrow the right to contest a will without inadvertently closing the courthouse door to some deserving contests.



Not sure. But hopefully: (a) the law (whether statutory or caselaw) establishes an appropriate distinction between what reasons will allow a will to be overturned and what reasons won't; and (b) the judge applies the law correctly. Without knowing more about the law surrounding wills and the specific basis for the court deciding in favor of Price -- without knowing more than what is presented here -- I'm reluctant to take a position either way concerning whether this was or was not the right result. I like mountain gorillas as much as the next guy (maybe more), but I suspect courts do not overturn a will's provisions lightly. Was it an appropriate reason here? There sometimes are legitimate reasons that the decedent's intent should be ignored. Was it a technicality, required by the law for legitimate reasons but which results in occasional misjustices? Was Fossey not actually of sound mind when she wrote the will? *shrug* I don't know. And that makes it difficult to have a useful discussion. Originally Posted by Chevalier

I agree the contesting part is tough. There have to be some guidelines so that frivolous contests are not thrown out there willy nilly and legitimate concerns can be considered..and as Charles pointed out, it seems there are. However, in a situation like this where it was no secret that Fossey was selling film rights to fund the Digit organization I'm really disappointed that they were looking at stuff like whether she was domiciled or not. It seems pretty adbsurd to me that because she wasn't that involved with the Rwandan community (fuck me, would you have been had you been her?) the NY court considered that to be only a place of employment and not a place of residence. What? Are 18 straight years there with no property in the US? That smacks of clutching at straws. Worse still, because she studied for 3 yrs in NY...some 3 decades before her death...that was considered her domicile. At least give a better reason for picking her residence than that. Good grief. I wonder if this was appealed. it sounds about as shaky to me as her parents. Sorry, but this has really bothered me...

C

FWIW, I think it was a pretty shitty thing for the Mother to do -- legal or not. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agreed. If that was the only defect, I would not have contested the will in the mother's shoes unless I needed the money to survive. The law gives that choice to her, and there are probably good reasons that should be the default rule, but unfortunately it allows results that we might deplore. Originally Posted by Chevalier

Amen! xxx

Just to add a little perspective . . . the mother's intention here may not have been entirely selfish.

I can't speak directly to it because I don't know the mom, but I will say that both Fossey and the Fossey Gorilla Fund are not the most beloved characters among conservation scientists. She definitely contributed to the field and she was an outstanding leader in anti-poaching efforts in the beginning, but she definitely was not the glamorized version that was seen in the movie. In fact, she was pretty much scorned by the science community and had most of her funding cut off in the end. I give her props for a solid body of work, but she was no Jane Goodall or Richard Leakey when it came to either science or politics.

The same can be said of the Fossey Fund. A lot of people think that they're doing more harm than good to the cause. They're considered a fringe group by the scientific community - sort of the whale warriors of the jungle. Fossey's scientific funding was cut in part because she went so far radical and did things that seriously crippled other anti-poaching efforts.

So while it may look on the surface that this was just a greed grab by momma keep in mind that there may well be more to it. Her mom may have done this more to keep the money away from the fund than to stuff her own pockets. It would be interesting to know exactly what happened to the cash before we go crucifying people for it. This may have been politics, not economics.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Slaughtered to death, you don't hear that every day.

Thanks for that IB. I find things like this really interesting. I'm going to read more about that tomorrow...as well as the article that Charles linked.

C xxxxxxxxx Originally Posted by Camille

Your best option is to watch the film. It is very one sided, so you’ll certainly agree with Ebert by the time the film is over. Barnes’ will was broken by politicians seeking to enhance their personal careers.