What Happened To NFL Player Sean Taylor's Mother When He Died Without A Will And Left Entire $5.7 Million Estate To 18 Month Old Daughter?

An article in the September 30, 2009 Washington Post regarding the death of young NFL Redskin player Sean Taylor reminds us what can happen when someone dies without a will or any type of estate plan.

Sean Taylor was a first-round pick in the 2004 draft, signed a seven-year $18 million contract with the Washington Redskins, and became the team's starting free safety after the third game of the season. He quickly gained a reputation as an outstanding athlete, and in 2006 was named to the 2007 Pro Bowl. He was young and probably did not think about estate planning.

Sean Taylor helped support his mother Donna Junor, and bought her a home. On November 26, 2007, a terrible tragedy happened when an armed intruder broke into Taylor's Florida home and shot the football player in his leg. The bullet struck his femoral artery and, despite several hours of surgery, Taylor died at the hospital on November 27. He never regained consciousness.

Taylor died without a will, and Taylor was not married. Most of Taylor's $5.8 million estate went to his 18-month old daughter (now 3) who lives with her mother. His father took possession of the contents of a $328,000 joint account that he shared with the football player, and Taylor's sister received the proceeds of a $650,000 life insurance policy. His mother, however, received nothing. Nor did his grandmother, great-grandmother, two of his half-siblings or any of the cousins or relatives who had grown accustomed to his financial assistance.

According to the article, Taylor's mother was left with possessions that carry costs and fees that she says exceed her income as a substitute teacher since she cannot find a full-time job. She could not pay the real-estate taxes last year on the townhouse she bought in 2005 with the $222,000 her son had given her. Another tax bill is due at the end of November. Taylor's mother said she doesn't have any of his memorabilia, either. All of it either was auctioned to raise money for the estate, or, she says, collected by Taylor's father or the mother of his daughter.

Taylor sister was quoted in the article stating that she understood the frustration over the way her late brother's assets were distributed since she thought he would have wanted it to be different. The article can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/29/AR2009092902051.html

Attorney Comment: The article painted a picture of financial hardship for the mother and it is hard to say whether anyone should feel sorry for her or not. Nevertheless, the article is a reminder of the necessity for planning especially when there are assets and family members who you want to provide for in the future. It certainly is not wise for the daughter to have access to the entire estate when she turns 18 years' old. Nor does it seem like it would have been Taylor's plan to leave his mother nothing from his estate.

However, it is clear that Taylor could have better protected himself, his daughter, his mother, his family, and his assets by making an investment in his estate plan before his untimely death. It is a reminder for all of us to take the time and energy to engage in estate planning.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Astor's Son Convicted Of Stealing From Mother's $180 Million Estate When She Had Alzheimer's Disease

In a rare criminal case involving a will dispute, Anthony Marshall, the 85 year old son of Brooke Astor (legendary New York society matriarch) was convicted on Thursday, October 8 after a 5 month jury trial.

Mr. Marshall was found guilty of 14 of the 16 counts against him, including: (1) one first-degree grand larceny charge (the most serious he faced); (2) offering to file a false instrument, and (3) conspiracy. A second defendant in the case, Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer who did estate planning for Mrs. Astor, was convicted of forgery charges. Sentencing is set for December 8, 2009 in the New York court.

Jurors convicted Mr. Marshall him of giving himself an unauthorized raise of about $1 million for managing his mother’s finances. Prosecutors contended that Mrs. Astor’s Alzheimer’s was so advanced at age 101 when her will was amended that there was no way she could have consented to this raise and understood the other complex changes to her will and the financial decisions that benefited Mr. Marshall.

Mrs. Astor, whose fortune was estimated at more than $180 million when she died two years ago at 105, was well known for channeling large sums toward New York charities and cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Bronx Zoo.

Defense lawyers had argued that Mrs. Astor was lucid when she bequeathed money to her only child Mr. Marshall, and that he had legal power to give him gifts while she was alive. Mrs. Astor's last will, dated in 2002, left millions of dollars to her favorite charities. Changes to that document in 2003 and 2004 awarded Mr. Marshall all of his mother's property, instead of placing it in a trust as she had initially stipulated.

The jurors heard testimony from prominent friends of Mrs. Astor regarding her Alzheimer's and inability to recognize them. The witnesses included Henry Kissinger, Barbara Walters and Annette de la Renta. The prosecution portrayed Mr. Marshall as driven by his wife, Charlene, to obtain more money and obtain control of the estate.

Today's New York Times article on this case can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/nyregion/09astor.html

Usually these types of allegations are handled in probate court. The civil case will now proceed now that the criminal case is concluded. One of the core issues in the civil case will be whether Mrs. Astor was mentally competent when she signed the 2002 will, which was amended in late 2003 and again in early 2004. Those later revisions gave her son more control over her estate, and in the process she reduced the amount of money she left to the New York universities, libraries, parks and museums she had spent much of her life supporting. There is an earlier version of the will which directed more money to charity.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

WSJ Article "Transferring Wealth Via The Bank of Mom & Dad" - Low Interest Rate Loans Via SCINs, GRATs & IDGTs

The October 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Transferring Wealth Via the Bank of Mom & Dad." The article addresses in detail some sophisticated estate planning tools (SCINs, GRATs and IDGTs) that are used by closely held family business companies and those who want to transfer more wealth to their heirs tax-free. The article addresses how falling interest rates can be used to transfer more wealth to family members tax-free via intra-family loans and transactions.

A copy of the article can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452042817860431.html

The article gives an example regarding the applicable federal rates in October 2009. Under the rates set monthly by the IRS, you can make a nine-year fixed-rate loan to your child for as low as 2.63%. This allows the child to borrow at a very low rate. In addition, you and your spouse could forgive up to $52,000 of the loan annually ($26,000 if the child is single), reducing their future estate tax liability without triggering current gift taxes. There are numerous rules regarding written agreements, collection of payments and the loan itself that need to be followed so the IRS does not accuse you of planning it as a gift all along.

There are three tools discussed in the article. A Self-Canceling Installment Note (SCIN) is a technique used to sell an asset, usually shares or partnership interests in a closely held family business, in exchange for an interest-bearing promissory note. An appropriately structured SCIN will remove the future appreciation in the family business from the seller’s estate. In addition, if the seller dies prior to the maturity of the promissory note, the then-outstanding principal amount of the note may be excluded from the seller’s gross estate. The article makes a SCIN look simpler than it is and there are numerous requirements that must be met in order for the IRS to respect the validity of the cancellation provision.

A Grantor-Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) may enable you to transfer future appreciation on an asset to your heirs. If you outlive the term of the trust, most commonly two or three years, then a portion of the gain on the assets will move to your heirs free of gift or estate tax. If you die before the term of the trust expires, however, the assets revert to your estate and are taxable.

An Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (IDGT) involves making a partial gift to a trust, which then purchases the rest of the asset in installments. IDGTs (sometimes pronounced "idjits") are sometimes preferred to GRATs, because IDGTs move an asset out of your estate immediately. There are advantages and disadvantages of the IDGT technique which are not addressed in the WSJ article.

The costs and benefits of a SCIN, GRAT or an IDGT must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In appropriate circumstances, these tools provide families and family business owners with valuable estate planning tools to transfer the business or wealth to the next generation.

As with any sophisticated estate planning: do not try this at home or try to do it yourself. These tools demand the expertise of a trust attorney who specializes in estate planning.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive #17, San Marino, CA 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

Posted by Henry (Hank) Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or contact Hank (626) 793-3210 for a complimentary consultation about your own situation. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

The firm is a boutique estates and trust law practice specializing only in Estate Planning, Probate, Trust Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law.

The office is located in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel area located 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The firm represents clients throughout California and its attorneys appears in probate court throughout Southern California (Pasadena estate planning attorney, Los Angeles estate planning attorney, Santa Monica estate planning attorney, Pomona estate planning attorney, Torrance estate planning attorney, Long Beach estate planning attorney, Van Nuys estate planning attorney, Santa Barbara estate planning attorney, Orange County estate planning attorney, Riverside estate planning attorney, San Bernardino estate planning attorney).

California Court Rules Daughter Cannot Annul Father Richard Pryor's Marriage Or Set Aside Bequests To Stepmother After His Death

On September 28, 2009, the California Court of Appeal issued two companion decisions relating to the estate of Grammy award-winning comedian and actor Richard Pryor.

The court rejected an attempt by Pryor's eldest daughter Elizabeth to annul her father’s marriage to stepmother Jennifer Pryor and void certain gifts and bequests to her stepmother. The daughter's goal was to invalidate Pryor's most recent will and reinstate an earlier will in which he split his fortune between his six children. The Pryor probate litigation has been pending for more than four years.

Richard Pryor married Jennifer Pryor in 1981 and they divorced one year later. Shortly thereafter, Richard Pryor was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and his condition began to deteriorate. His ex-wife Jennifer Pryor became Richard Pryor’s care custodian in 1994. At that time, there was an earlier will in place in which he split his fortune between his six children.

In 2001, Richard and Jennifer Pryor were remarried pursuant to a confidential marriage license. Elizabeth Pryor apparently did not learn of this marriage until after her father died of a heart attack in 2005. By this time -- both before and after his remarriage -- Richard Pryor had revised his estate plan to leave substantial assets to Jennifer Pryor rather than his six children.

After his death, daughter Elizabeth prior filed two actions. First, styling herself as successor in interest to her father, she petitioned to annul the marriage under Family Code Sec. 2211(d) on the grounds of fraud. She claimed her father's signature on the marriage certificate was forged.

Second, she filed a probate proceeding seeking to set aside various gifts, bequests, and transfers of property or assets made by her father to Jennifer between 1994 and 2005. Legally, she was seeking to use Probate Code Section 21350 to presumptively disqualify Jennifer, who was a care custodian, from receiving a donative transfer from a dependent or elder adult. Elizabeth argued that her stepmother Jennifer may not invoke the spousal exception to this presumption because the marriage was the product of undue influence and fraud.

Elizabeth did not win on either ground in the family law or probate courts. The same judge presided over both matters in the superior court. She then appealed.

On appeal, Elizabeth lost both cases. In the family law matter which is the subject of a companion appeal, Pryor v. Pryor (No. B207398), the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Elizabeth's petition to annul the 2001 marriage between Jennifer and Richard on the ground of fraud.

In the probate matter, the Court of Appeal declined to recognize an exception to the rule under Probate Code Section 21350 that a spouse may receive a donative transfer from a dependent or elder adult for marriages allegedly obtained by fraud and undue influence. The appellate court found no support in the language of section 21351, subdivision (a), or in the legislative history, which would make the spousal exception to the presumption of invalidity unavailable to a spouse who allegedly persuaded the transferor to marry through undue influence or fraud.

A copy of Estate of Pryor, CA Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, Div. 4, Case No. B207402 can be found at:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B207402.PDF

Attorney Comments: First, this case brings to light the conflict that can exist between children of a prior marriage and a stepparent. Second, the failure to disclose to the children the marriage and the changes to the will or estate plan can also increase the likelihood of probate litigation.

Third, there are ways to document that there is no incapacity or fraud. For example, doctors can be used to assess the capacity of a person to make a will or trust. In some cases, there can be limited ability to speak (which happens in some advanced muscular sclerosis cases).

Because most trouble arises from disappointed potential beneficiaries, a doctor (such as a psychiatrist or neurologist specializing in geriatrics) as part of his examination should ask whether the testator has ever made a will before and who is now going to be excluded and why. Doctors and attorneys must understand the legal tests for testamentary capacity.

Attorneys can also document these issues and show their client's intent and capacity in that they understand their prior wills, their assets and the proposed disposition. Videotaping may be used to help prevent accusations of forgeries at a later date. In other words, good planning can help minimize the risks of probate litigation after the death of a loved one and provide strong evidence in the event of a challenge.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Estate Litigation: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Children Wrangle In Court Over Estate

Once estate or probate litigation happens, there are probably many silent prayers that there be a peaceful resolution. Litigation among family members is often very stressful, disruptive and sometimes emotionally painful.

It's not often, however, that such prayers become public. On September 29, 2009, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a follower of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. invoked the spirit of the civil rights icon and his wife, Coretta, in praying for a peaceful resolution to the legal battle among the King children. He led dozens of clergy, civil rights veterans and others in prayer at the Kings’ crypt in Atlanta.

If the King family can have a family and legal dispute over the valuable estates of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King -- it shows that anyone can. It is apparent that the lawsuit is embarrassing to those who are intent on preserving Kings' legacy.

In July 2008, the lawsuit was filed in Fulton County, Georgia with two of the siblings claiming that a third has misappropriated money from their parents' estates. Bernice King and Martin Luther King III charge that in late June 2008, their brother Dexter improperly transferred "substantial funds" from Bank of America to accounts he controls. The Bank of America account contains funds from the estate of Coretta Scott King, who died in 2006 at age 78.

Bernice is administrator of her late mother's estate, while Dexter is president of the Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. corporation -- of which the siblings are all shareholders. The operation of that business is in disarray, with the siblings "deadlocked" in its management, according to the complaint, which charges that the company's assets are "being misapplied or wasted."

Lawsuits often result in cross-complaints and this was no exception. Dexter countersued, claiming that his siblings had improperly borrowed office space and company cars from the King Center, an Atlanta civil rights museum. He also accused Bernice of corrupting their father’s legacy by acting as host of an anti-gay-marriage rally at the center.

Recently, on September 14, 2009, Judge Ural Glanville ordered the children of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to meet in their capacity as the sole shareholders of the corporation that manages their iconic father's estate. The three siblings have not held such a meeting since 2004. The removal of Dexter King as the estate's administrator was unlikely because that would require a meeting of the board of directors.

Judge Glanville also ruled in favor of dismissing some of the allegations against Dexter King, but left the question of whether he failed to act in the best interest of his father's incorporated estate to a jury. A trial on the allegation of breach of fiduciary duty could happen as early as next month.

Attorney Comments: First, like many estate lawsuits, this occurred after the death of the children's mother, Coretta Scott King, in 2006 and another sister Yolanda in 2007. The parent or older sibling is often the glue that is holding the family together and informally resolving disputes.

Second, the "breach of fiduciary duty" cause of action alleged against the brother Dexter King is a reminder to all estate trustees that they should appreciate the fiduciary nature of his or her position. The trustee may understand his or her concrete duties and responsibilities -- but when emotions are involved and family or beneficiary disputes arise, he or she may lose sight of their "fiduciary duty."

What is fiduciary duty? A fiduciary's duty requires honesty of course. In addition, it requires the trustee to have undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect. Thus, the trustee must treat each beneficiary with loyalty and protect their interests. This becomes more complicated when the trustee is also a beneficiary. A trustee cannot favor his or her own interest over another beneficiary's interest. The trustee is not entitled to treat the property of the trust as if it were his or her own. The trustee is wearing two hats (trustee and beneficiary) and the trustee hat imposes fiduciary duties of loyalty to the other beneficiaries. The greatest exposure to litigation for a trustee arises from his or her fiduciary duties.

Not even the slightest hint of self-dealing or unfairness is acceptable in the relationship between a fiduciary and those whose interests he or she is to protect. It is sometimes difficult for a fiduciary to recognize a problem when it occurs and it can be more difficult to be truly objective. It is therefore important for trustees to carefully review their financial decisions with experienced counsel in order to insure that they are acting appropriately.

One advantage in using an attorney as counsel rather than an accountant or another professional is the protection provided by the attorney-client privilege. All communications between the trustee and his or her attorney will be privileged and not discoverable in the event of litigation. A communication with the CPA, however, where the trustee/beneficiary writes emails that he will never turn over the family house to another beneficiary without a fight could be discovered in future litigation.

In certain cases, for example, trustee's legal counsel may advise the trustee to obtain a release from the beneficiary or seek a court order before taking certain action. In other cases, the attorney may advise the trustee to immediately dispose of certain real property to a beneficiary so that the estate is no longer liable for that property (taxes, insurance, liability, etc.) and to minimize the risk that the beneficiary will have any future claim against the estate or the trustee.

Posted by Henry (Hank) J. Moravec, III, a partner at Moravecs, A Professional Law Corporation. For a free 30 minute consultation (telephonic or in person), you can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210.

He focuses his practice on Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Administration, Beneficiary and Trustee Representation, Tax Law, and Nonprofit Law. He represents clients throughout Southern California and his office is conveniently located for clients in the Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties.

With respect to probate, Hank Moravec has over 20 years' experience as one of the best Los Angeles probate attorneys and Los Angeles probate litigation attorneys and is available should you need legal advice regarding your own or a family member's situation. For a consultation, You can e-mail Hank Moravec at hm@moravecslaw.com or call him at (626) 793-3210 to request a consultation.

The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/. The firm is located at 2233 Huntington Drive, Suite 17, San Marino, California 91108. There is ample free parking adjacent to the firm's office.

The office is located in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles in the San Gabriel area located 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The firm represents clients throughout California and its attorneys appears in probate court throughout Southern California (Pasadena probate attorney, Los Angeles probate attorney, Santa Monica probate attorney, Pomona probate attorney, Torrance probate attorney, Long Beach probate attorney, Van Nuys probate attorney, Santa Barbara probate attorney, Orange County probate attorney, Riverside probate attorney, San Bernardino probate attorney)

Religious Preference Clause: Illinois Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Couple's Trust That Disinherits Grandchildren Who Marry Non-Jews

Chicago dentist Max Feinberg died in 1986. Prior to his death, he had a standard pourover will and revocable living trust. The trust had an unusual catch: His grandchildren wouldn't inherit a penny if they married someone who wasn't Jewish or whose non-Jewish spouse did not convert within one year. We could call this a "religious preference clause."

More specifically, the trust provided that upon his death, his assets would be split into a standard credit shelter trust and a marital deduction trust. Max's widow, Erla, was the lifetime income beneficiary of both trusts, and had a limited right to withdraw principal.

Upon Erla's death, the property would be distributed to Max's descendants. Fifty percent of the trust estate was to be held in further, separate trusts for Max's grandchildren during their lifetime on a per stirpital basis. The trust provided that any descendant who married outside the Jewish faith or whose non-Jewish spouse did not convert to Judaism within one year would be disinherited.

Feinberg's will gave control of the trusts to his wife, Erla. When she died and the grandchildren were to inherit $250,000 each, she followed her husband's wishes and imposed the same restrictions. By that time, four of the five grandchildren had married gentiles. Erla Feinberg's death triggered a series of disputes. One disinherited granddaughter had argued it was improper for a will to set up conditions that promote religious intolerance in people's marriage decisions or even encouraged couples to divorce.

On September 24, 2009, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Feinberg and his wife were within their rights to disinherit any grandchildren who married outside the faith as long as the method of doing so did not encourage divorce. The court's ruling was based partly on technicalities in the way this estate was arranged. The court did not provide a broad ruling on whether similar religious restrictions would be valid under other circumstances.

The state Supreme Court based much of its decision on the fact that Erla Feinberg's will awarded set amounts of money based on the marriage status of the grandchildren at the time of her 2003 death — either they qualified for the money or they didn't. The court said that meant the will didn't try to control what the grandchildren would do in the future and didn't offer any incentive for a particular couple to divorce.

A will that provided money year after year if the heir did not marry a gentile might not pass muster, the court suggested. That's because it would amount to a dead man trying to control actions for years to come and would encourage divorces so that people could claim an inheritance.

"Equal protection does not require that all children be treated equally . . . and the free exercise clause does not require a grandparent to treat grandchildren who reject his religious beliefs and customs in the same manner as he treats those who conform to his traditions," Justice Rita Garman wrote in a ruling that overturned decisions by two lower courts.

A copy of this interesting decision, In Re Estate of Max Feinberg, can be found at: http://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/SupremeCourt/2009/September/106982.pdf

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

California Attorney General Sues To Stop Los Angeles Nonprofit From Diverting Donations And To Dissolve The Charity

A recent case in California is illustrative of the worst nightmare for any nonprofit or charitable organization. On September 9, 2009, the California State Attorney General's Office filed a civil lawsuit to permanently stop UCLA Professor Gerald D. Buckberg, M.D., and five officers of the nonprofit L.B. Research Foundation from allegedly "diverting donations" from the charity to their own personal business ventures and medical research activities.

Under California law, "no part of a charitable organization's income or assets may inure to the benefit of any director, officer, member or private person." However, the State's lawsuit alleges that since 1997, L.B. Research Foundation's officers have used its funds to finance their own medical research, the research activities of companies in which they had a financial interest and the development of medical devices that they sold.

The State's lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. This lawsuit by the State only sets forth allegations, and L.B. Research Foundation and its officers are entitled to a full defense of these allegations. Simply because these allegations are set forth in a lawsuit, they cannot be presumed to be true. The lawsuit sets forth the following allegations against the charity and its officers:

- Failed to maintain adequate books and records in violation of Corporations Code section 6320;

- Breached their fiduciary duties in violation of Corporations Code sections 5233, 5260 and U.S. Code section 4945;

- Failed to maintain an independently elected board of directors in violation of Corporations Code sections 5210 and 5213;

- Filed and distributed false and incomplete reports in violation of Corporations Code sections 6215 and 6812; and

- Engaged in unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. This allegation is designed to allow the State to recover attorney's fees and obtain injunctive relief.

The State is seeking to recover over $500,000 in misappropriated funds, permanently dissolve the charity, assess civil penalties of over $100,000 and prohibit the defendants from running a charity until they provide accounting statements to his office.

The alleged facts as set forth in the lawsuit are that Dr. Buckberg founded L.B. Research Foundation in 1997. The purpose, as stated in the articles of incorporation, was to assist people suffering from physical and mental disabilities. The Foundation was funded primarily by Dr. Buckberg, although it also received some donations from several other individuals and businesses.

The Attorney General's office launched an investigation in 2007. The investigation allegedly revealed that the foundation has been under the primary control of Dr. Buckberg and L.B. Research has been used primarily to fund Dr. Buckberg's research and development projects and the research of his colleagues and friends. The allegations include the following:

■ The lawsuit alleges that from 1997 through 2004, Dr. Buckberg used $120,000 in donations to produce an educational DVD for use by medical professionals. The rights to the DVD belong to The Helical Heart Company, a for-profit corporation which Dr. Buckberg owns.

■ The lawsuit also alleges that in 2000, $1 million of the charity's funds were donated to UCLA to establish an endowed faculty chair. Dr. Buckberg then purportedly applied for an appointment to the chair and, when that application was rejected, L.B. Research Foundation sued UCLA. Approximately $300,000 of the Foundation's assets have been allegedly used to pay legal fees related to that lawsuit.

■ The lawsuit further alleges that in 2003, Dr. Buckberg used $15,000 of the charity's funds to pay General Theming Contractors, LLC - which he owns -- to build plastic heart models, which he subsequently sold.

■ The lawsuit also alleges that from 2002 to 2006, Dr. Buckberg used over $50,000 of the charity's funds to pay the travel and hotel expenses of physicians whose research benefited a medical device licensed and patented by a for-profit corporation owned and controlled by Dr. Buckberg. The investigation further revealed that not all board members knew they were officers of L.B. Research or that they were even part of L.B. Research's board of directors.

■ Dr. Buckberg allegedly had sole custody of the charity's financial records and checkbook. The State also claims that very few of the board's grant-making decisions were documented and board members failed to understand that the charity's assets could not be used for their personal benefit.

Attorney Commentary: This lawsuit involves Gerald D. Buckberg, M.D., a world-recognized pioneer in the development of life-saving heart surgery techniques, which shows that even well-credentialed persons can be the subject of investigations by the State. The investigation went on for at least two years before the lawsuit was filed. It is during this time in which the nonprofit charity has an opportunity to present the facts and seek to prevent such a lawsuit.

Nonprofits should understand that it is not simply the IRS who regulates them. The California Attorney General's Office regulates charities and the professional fundraisers who solicit on their behalf. The purpose of this oversight is to protect charitable assets for their intended use and ensure that the charitable donations contributed by Californians are not misapplied and squandered through fraud or other means.

Nonprofits should understand that the Attorney General operates a regulatory program and encourages the reporting of "charity fraud. " This reporting can be legitimate or it can be frivolous complaints made anonymously by disgruntled ex-employees or persons who do not have all the facts.

The State Attorney General's Office has a 60-page publication entitled "Guide For Charities" which outlines that office's oversight over nonprofits and summarizes many of the laws applicable to nonprofits. It can be found at:
http://ag.ca.gov/charities/publications/guide_for_charities.pdf

Nonprofits need to ensure compliance with the state law as set forth in the California Corporations Code regarding fiduciary duties, maintaining adequate records, maintaining an independently elected board of directors and other related laws. Compliance and obtaining proper legal advice regarding potential conflicts of interest can prevent or limit any issues arising later. A lawsuit such as the one filed here can often cripple a nonprofit and harm its fundraising even if the case is later dismissed or won in the nonprofit's favor.

Posted by Henry Moravec, III. Any questions or comments should be directed to: hm@moravecslaw.com or (626) 793-3210. The firm website is http://www.moravecslaw.com/

Mr. Moravec has a specialty in representing nonprofits and in nonprofit law. Mr. Moravec was a consultant and chapter editor for California Continuing Education of the Bar, Advising California Nonprofit Corporations, 2nd Edition 1998. In addition, he was the 1998-1999 chair of the Exempt Organizations Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.