• Markets in Estates

    As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, is paying the IVF costs for women who want to have his biological children. He is said to have more than 100 children currently. He has promised that his estate, currently worth approximately $17 billion, will be divided among his heirs, which would be $170 million per child.

    I suspect a lot more than 100 people will claim to be his children. What if he changes his mind? Is he bound by a contract? How many countries’ laws would be involved in the distribution of the estate?

  • Book Review: Replaceable You

    I have heard of Mary Roach’s books before but never read them until I read Replaceable You. Interesting book; not for the easily squeamish. Two things I didn’t know beforehand: (1) Removing one’s teeth and getting dentures for a time was considered to be a cosmetic procedure, (2) Half of Earth’s pigs are in China.  

  • Recent Case: Timmons v. Herring (NC Court of Appeals)

    The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision filed December 17, 2025, addresses the concept of standing in power of attorney disputes. Here, mother had three children and named one of her children as her agent under a durable power of attorney. The other children thought that the sibling serving as the agent was distributing mother’s assets to benefit himself and his immediate family members. The siblings sued, asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, requesting an accounting of mother’s assets, and asking that the power of attorney be declared invalid. During the discovery phase, the agent, now the defendant, failed to respond to discovery requests. The other siblings, now plaintiffs, asked that the defendant be held in contempt for failure to respond to discovery requests. The defendant responded that the plaintiff did not have initial standing, and that therefore the discovery requests were invalid.

    The Court, however, disagreed. Relying on explicit statutory language in N.C.G.S. 32C-1-116(c)(5), proceedings brought pursuant to the North Carolina Power of Attorney Act may be brought by “any other interested person, including a person asked to accept a power of attorney.” Since the Mother’s remaining two children argued that they have an interest in the assets the defendant was alleged to be mishandling, the Court said that the plaintiffs are interested persons and have standing. Although the case is unpublished, it is worth noting the court here ruled that the siblings qualified as “interested persons” under the statute.

  • Saga of Tony Hsieh

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the family of the late Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh has filed a motion seeking to invalidate a purported Last Will and Testament. According to the filing, forensic experts concluded that the signature is not authentic, and the attorney named in the document allegedly never met Hsieh. A linguistics expert said that no trained legal professional drafted the Will.

    The purported will also contains a no contest clause providing that any beneficiary who challenges the will forfeits their inheritance. Clauses of this type are designed to deter litigation, but they are always a calculated gamble, particularly in cases of forgery. In many jurisdictions, courts do not enforce no contest clauses when the contest is supported by probable cause.

    This reminds me of the many discoveries of the Wills of Howard Hughes.

    Incentives matter.

  • Recent Article: Reforming Grantor Trusts to Raise Revenue

    In a recent article, “Reform the Grantor Trust Rules” by Jay A. Soled, 50 ACTEC Law Journal 249 (2025), he argues that Congress should reform the Grantor Trust rules to generate more tax revenue. According to him, when Congress set the trust income tax bracket at the highest marginal level in 1986, that largely eliminated the original income shifting purpose behind the Grantor Trust rules. In his view, Congress should have a narrower definition of what constitutes a Grantor Trust, and Congress should look to how it currently classifies foreign trusts as Grantor Trusts as a guide.

    Interesting argument if you believe Congress does not tax enough.

Recent Posts