Every so often, a celebrity estate dispute shines the light of media attention on our area of law.

Aretha Franklin was initially thought to have been yet another celebrity who had failed to turn her mind to estate planning before she died. In the wake of her death, her long-time lawyer had spoken of his repeated unsuccessful attempts to convince her to make a will. Because she apparently died intestate, her estate was to pass to her four children equally (she was divorced from her second husband).

However, in May 2019, a few months after her death, two handwritten documents were found at Franklin’s home: one (dated 2010) in a locked cabinet, the other (dated 2014) in a spiral notebook under a couch cushion.

On Tuesday, a Michigan jury decided after less than an hour that the later document was her valid last will.

The 2010 will divided the estate more or less equally between Franklin’s sons. However, under the 2014 will, three of her sons, not including Clarence (who is under disability), stood to benefit from Franklin’s estate, sharing income related to her music. Her son Kecalf would also inherit his mother’s Michigan home, valued at more than $1.1 million at the singer’s death, and her cars.

None of the parties disputed the 2014 document’s authenticity (i.e. whether Franklin had written the document). The dispute was whether the 2014 will met the criteria to be considered a valid will. Under Michigan law, a holograph will is valid if it is signed and dated, and the material portions are in the testator’s handwriting.

At trial, counsel pointed to the first line of the 2014 will, which had been blown up on posters for the jury: “Says right here: ‘This is my will.’ She’s speaking from the grave, folks.” The jury also seemed convinced by the pitch: “Why would anyone sign a document if it was just a draft?”

In a sense, it was not surprising that the later will governed. But the significant difference between the two wills and the circumstances in which they were found pitted the competing beneficiaries against each other. At the end of the day, the jury applied a test that was analagous to the test in Ontario under the new s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act which finds validity if a document records “a deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of the deceased’s property on death”. 

As is often the case in the U.S. legal system, a jury, and not a judge was the fact finder. Note that in Ontario, estate disputes are tried before a judge alone.

Thanks for reading,

David Morgan Smith