Contesting a will

In another thread, I mentioned the American Zoologist Dian Fossey.
For those that don't know, she was slaughtered to death back in the mid 80's at the age of 53. Her life's work had been dedicated to studying primates. The book and film"Gorillas in the Mist" was based on her life.

In her will, Fossey stated that all of her money should go towards funding anti-poaching patrols via the digit fund she created. Her mother, Kitty Price, contested the will and won.

How do people feel about this?
Should people (relatives or otherwise) be able to contest a will regardless of the circumstances for doing so?
Should a deceased person's wishes be overlooked assuming they were of sound mind when they wrote it?

C

Hi Camille,
Thanks for posting this.
To put it simple, i am against the contest of a will.

What triggers my interest here is how it was legally possible to contest her will? I am sure it was not so easy. What were the hooks of her will? What is the will about now?

Are you using this case for a discussion of the intent of the will, or do you want a discussion of this case specifically? I ask this because the Fossey case presents some conflict of law considerations, and I don't know all the questions, so making a guess on the answers to this specific case is really hard.

OTOH, if it's a general discussion you want, what a court is supposed to decide is what the testamentary intent of the deceased was, and to enforce that testamentary intent. Most US wills have a clause that in them that says that any beneficiary of the will who challenges the will does so at his/her peril.

So, which discussion did you want?

There must have been ome very strong mitigating circumstances Nina...because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Fossey specifically sold the movie rights of her book (a few months before she died) to secure long term funding for the Digit fund. She was quite open publicly about this. So to the lawyers out there...what kinds of things could undermine that wish?
Would, for example, her mother living off state welfare impact the wishes of Fossey?
I know little to nothing about on what grounds it was contested..so hopefully someone can shed some light on possible reasons for a will to be successfully contested. Other than the mother having a prior personal lien/investment that had yet pay dividends I don't understand this process. Love to hear from those in the know...

C x

Should people (relatives or otherwise) be able to contest a will regardless of the circumstances for doing so? Originally Posted by Camille

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.

Should a deceased person's wishes be overlooked assuming they were of sound mind when they wrote it? Originally Posted by Camille

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.

Are you using this case for a discussion of the intent of the will, or do you want a discussion of this case specifically? I ask this because the Fossey case presents some conflict of law considerations, and I don't know all the questions, so making a guess on the answers to this specific case is really hard.

OTOH, if it's a general discussion you want, what a court is supposed to decide is what the testamentary intent of the deceased was, and to enforce that testamentary intent. Most US wills have a clause that in them that says that any beneficiary of the will who challenges the will does so at his/her peril.

So, which discussion did you want? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Just to mix it up Charles, how about both?
Can you explain the Fossey outcome given what I just posted above about her specific reason for selling the movie rights?
And anything in general would be of interest to me also.
Pick one..or be bold and double up lol. JK

C xxxxxxxxxx

There must have been ome very strong mitigating circumstances Nina...because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Fossey specifically sold the movie rights of her book (a few months before she died) to secure long term funding for the Digit fund. She was quite open publicly about this. So to the lawyers out there...what kinds of things could undermine that wish?
Would, for example, her mother living off state welfare impact the wishes of Fossey?
I know little to nothing about on what grounds it was contested..so hopefully someone can shed some light on possible reasons for a will to be successfully contested. Other than the mother having a prior personal lien/investment that had yet pay dividends I don't understand this process. Love to hear from those in the know...

C x Originally Posted by Camille

I would think that the contestants would have needed to show that someone (a trustee running the fund, or a manager of the fund, etc) used undue unfluence on an elderly (a maybe somewhat addled) giver to put the monies under their control...even if austensibly for the beneift of primates. It would also seem that if they could show that the gift was of such a ridiculous nature (for instance, $1MM to DG's guppy) for the source object...that they might also be able to undue some of the provisions of the will.

In general, I think the court should try to follow the will of the testator...and I believe, in general, they do. But there are always facts and circumstances that can muddy up the water.

It would also seem that if they could show that the gift was of such a ridiculous nature (for instance, $1MM to DG's guppy) for the source object...that they might also be able to undue some of the provisions of the will.
Originally Posted by Rudyard K

DG will be gutted you think his guppy isn't worth that Rudy
Seriously though, the rest of what you said makes sense.
There must have been something that was considered a bit dodgy somewhere...?

DG will be gutted you think his guppy isn't worth that Rudy Originally Posted by Camille

OH NO! Ya think!!

Just to mix it up Charles, how about both?
Can you explain the Fossey outcome given what I just posted above about her specific reason for selling the movie rights?
And anything in general would be of interest to me also.
Pick one..or be bold and double up lol. JK

C xxxxxxxxxx Originally Posted by Camille

The facts that I don't know that may well control the outcome of any will contest:

• Where was the will drawn (US v. Africa)
• Where was it probated (the also includes conflict of law issues: if she was a resident of Rwanda, it might be subject to those laws; if still a legal resident of US, it might be subject to US laws [which state?]; the will could state under which laws it would be construed [but if probated in Rwanda, it could still be probated under US law])
• What was the legal basis of the challenge (did that legal basis hold any special result where it was probated [some normal bases: the testator is incompetent to make the will; there was a fraud involved; the bequest was illegal under the law; the will did not meet all the formalities of a legal will]
• Were there any codicils, oral, holographic or otherwise
• Did Fossey make an oral statement, a writing, or do any other act that could be inferred as a rejection (not the right word) of the will

These are just a few general items that might specifically have an impact on this case.

I've always been somewhat intellectually enchanted with conflict of laws issues, so I was attracted to this more than I normally would have been.

I remember the story, and saw "Gorillas in the Mist" long ago.

I would think that the contestants would have needed to show that someone (a trustee running the fund, or a manager of the fund, etc) used undue unfluence on an elderly (a maybe somewhat addled) giver to put the monies under their control...even if austensibly for the beneift of primates. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

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.

There must have been ome very strong mitigating circumstances Nina...because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. Fossey specifically sold the movie rights of her book (a few months before she died) to secure long term funding for the Digit fund. She was quite open publicly about this. So to the lawyers out there...what kinds of things could undermine that wish?
Would, for example, her mother living off state welfare impact the wishes of Fossey?
I know little to nothing about on what grounds it was contested..so hopefully someone can shed some light on possible reasons for a will to be successfully contested. Other than the mother having a prior personal lien/investment that had yet pay dividends I don't understand this process. Love to hear from those in the know...

C x Originally Posted by Camille

Other than....well, that's kind of a big deal.

(I'm just reacting to the thread, not suggesting I've researched the specific case)

If Mom (or anyone else for that matter) had "invested" in her projects or research, they become commerically successful and she is totally cut out of the proceeds, that's a pretty good reason to try to contest a will. In fact in this case it appears the judge agrees.

The reason we have these long probates is to give people time to "stake their claim"...what if it wasn't "Mom" but some long ago "angel investor" (& for the sake of argument, say the terms of the agreement were vague) would we think this was less dodgey? Some people live long lives and enter into varied and complex relationships, even if it it just a promise to do something.

Aside from that assuming one is of sound mind, as a general rule, their wishes should be adheared to (even if the division is not "fair" or defies normal convention). As with this sport (I think that sounds better than "hobby") or expensive watches or anything else, who am I to tell someone else how to spend (or give) their money???

ATL, I don't think Camile was saying Fossey's Mom had a lien -- she was just offering that as an example of when it would make sense to override a will. Apparently you agree with her on that point.

@ 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).

@ PJ. Thanks, that's exactly what I was saying

@ Charles. Ahh...so it was a formality? Hmmm. Interesting. Thank you for the link...I will look later when I have laptop rather than BB access xxx

C xxx