Alan J. Pransky

Harry Houdini’s Will: 100 Years After the Magician Died, a Séance Will Be Held

2026-09-29T09:25:22Z

Halloween is a night of ghosts, séances, locked doors, and things that refuse to stay buried. It is hard to imagine a more appropriate day for Harry Houdini to have died. On October 31, 1926, Harry Houdini died at age 52. He had escaped from handcuffs, chains, straitjackets, jail cells, locked boxes, and tanks of water. Death proved to be the one thing from which he could not escape. One hundred years later, on Halloween 2026, people will gather once again to see whether Houdini is finally ready to make one more appearance.

The Man Behind the Magic

Harry Houdini was born Erik Weisz in Budapest, Hungary, on March 24, 1874. He became one of the most famous entertainers in the world—an escape artist, magician, and master showman who understood that performing an impossible feat was only part of the act. He also knew how to create suspense, attract an audience, and turn a stunt into a spectacle people would remember. His escapes made him an international sensation. He repeatedly placed himself in situations where failure appeared to mean imprisonment, drowning, or death. His talents extended beyond escapes. Houdini was also an accomplished magician and illusionist. He accumulated the equipment, books, secrets, and knowledge of a professional magician. His fame, however, came not simply from what he did onstage but from his ability as a showman to make the public want to see what he would attempt next. Later in his career, Houdini became almost as famous for exposing fraudulent spiritualists as he was for performing magic. Spiritualism—the belief that the living could communicate with the dead—had become enormously popular. Mediums conducted séances and claimed that they could deliver messages from deceased relatives. Houdini attended séances, investigated mediums, and demonstrated how supposedly supernatural phenomena could be produced through tricks and deception. Houdini's interest in spiritualism would eventually become part of both his estate and the strange story that followed his death.

Houdini's Final Performance

The events that led to Houdini's death did not begin with one of his famous escapes. They began in a dressing room. In October 1926, while Houdini was appearing in Montreal, a McGill University student named J. Gordon Whitehead visited him in his dressing room. Houdini was known for his ability to withstand blows to his abdomen. Whitehead asked whether this was true and then struck Houdini repeatedly in the abdomen before Houdini had properly braced himself. Houdini was in considerable pain but continued performing. He then traveled by train to Detroit. By the time he arrived for his performance at the Garrick Theatre, he was seriously ill and had a temperature reported at 104 degrees. A physician diagnosed acute appendicitis and advised Houdini to obtain immediate medical treatment. Houdini went onstage anyway. It would be his final performance. Despite his illness, Houdini finished the show. Afterward, he initially returned to his hotel and continued resisting medical treatment. As his condition worsened, Bess insisted that he be taken to Grace Hospital. Surgery revealed that his appendix had ruptured and that he had developed severe peritonitis. Houdini underwent surgery, but the infection had already spread. Harry Houdini died at Grace Hospital in Detroit on October 31, 1926. Halloween. Houdini's death also produced an unexpected financial result for Bess. His $25,000 New York Life insurance policy provided an additional $25,000 if his death was accidental. After investigating Houdini's death, New York Life concluded that it qualified as an accidental death and paid Bess $50,000—twice the face amount of the policy. The insurance proceeds passed directly to Bess and were not controlled by the provisions of Houdini's will.

Houdini's Will

Houdini signed his will on July 30, 1924. It was not a simple document. The will contained 23 numbered provisions and dealt with Houdini's family, his assistants, his books, his magic, his religion, his burial, and the disposition of his property long after his death. His wife, Wilhelmina "Bess" Houdini, received his household effects, jewelry, ornaments, trophies, silverware, personal effects, paintings, and dramatic library. Houdini also remembered the people who helped make his performances possible. He made individual bequests to three of his assistants and a bequest to the Society of American Magicians. I was unable to find a copy of Houdini's actual will available to read online. I did, however, find a detailed analysis that goes through the will paragraph by paragraph, including all 23 provisions and the later codicil. Readers who would like to examine the provisions of Houdini's will in greater detail can read it here: https://abcdocz.com/doc/154823/h--arry-oudini

What Happens to a Magician's Secrets When He Dies?

Houdini left his brother Theodore, better known professionally as Hardeen, his theatrical effects and what the will described as his "new mysteries and illusions," together with the equipment that went with them. He directed that the apparatus eventually be destroyed after Hardeen's death. It was an unusual estate-planning problem, but a very Houdini problem: What should happen to the secrets that helped make you famous after you are gone? His answer was to entrust them to another magician—and ultimately have them disappear.

Even Houdini's Inheritance Came With Strings Attached

Houdini did not simply divide everything among his relatives immediately after his death. His will created a trust for much of his remaining estate. During Bess's lifetime, the trust income was to be divided among Bess and five of Houdini's siblings. The trust contained a provision that would be unusual today and was certainly memorable even in 1926. Houdini was the son of a rabbi, and his will contained an unusual religious condition. His brother Theodore's right to receive his share of the trust income was conditioned upon Theodore's sons being confirmed in the Jewish faith within three months after Houdini's death. Bess was given authority to determine whether the condition had been satisfied. Even the world's greatest escape artist could put strings on an inheritance. After Bess's death, the trust contained additional provisions dividing the principal among members of Houdini's family and their descendants.

Someone Houdini Did Not Want to Inherit

Wills can tell us whom a person loved. Sometimes they also tell us whom the person very deliberately did not want to benefit. Houdini specifically addressed Salie Weiss, who had been married to his brother Nathan and later married another of his brothers, Leopold. His will made clear that she was not to receive any portion of his estate or benefit from it. Whatever the family history behind the provision, Houdini was taking no chances that anyone would misunderstand his intentions. Sometimes an estate plan is as much about identifying who should not inherit as identifying who should.

Houdini Even Planned His Grave

Houdini's attention to detail continued beyond the disposition of his property. He directed that $1,000 be paid to the Machpelah Cemetery Association for the perpetual care of the cemetery lots where he would be buried beside his mother. His will went considerably further. He directed that he be embalmed and buried in the same manner as his mother, that his grave be constructed like hers, and that he be buried immediately beside her. He also restricted other family members, including Bess, from being buried in the same plot. Houdini even directed that a bronze bust of himself be placed at the cemetery. For a master showman, even the final resting place received careful planning.

The Library of Harry Houdini

One of Houdini's great passions was collecting books. He assembled an enormous library containing works about magic, theater, spiritualism, occultism, and psychical research. His collection reflected different sides of his life—the magician fascinated by illusion, the showman fascinated by theater, and the skeptic determined to investigate claims of communication with the dead. His will divided those materials among different recipients. His dramatic library went to Bess. Other material was destined for the Library of Congress. His collection concerning spiritualism and psychical research was originally left to the American Society for Psychical Research. Then Houdini's estate produced one more surprise.

The Codicil That Appeared After His Death

Several months after Houdini's death, Bess reported discovering a codicil dated May 6, 1925. There was just one complication: Houdini's will had already been admitted to probate. The newly discovered codicil changed the disposition of Houdini's collection concerning spiritualism and psychical research. Instead of going to the American Society for Psychical Research, it was to go to the Library of Congress. Bess therefore had to return to court so that the newly discovered codicil could become part of Houdini's estate proceedings.

Houdini's Plan to Communicate After Death

Houdini's story did not end with his death. For all his skepticism about spiritualism, Houdini remained interested in one fundamental question: Could the dead really communicate with the living? Houdini and Bess devised a test. They agreed upon a secret coded message. If Houdini died first and discovered that communication from beyond the grave was possible, he would attempt to send the message to Bess. The code served an important purpose. Houdini knew better than almost anyone how easily people could be deceived. Anyone could claim to have received a message from the dead Harry Houdini. Someone who actually produced the secret code would be much harder to dismiss. Bess waited. Séances were held on the anniversaries of his death. Mediums claimed that Houdini had communicated with them. None provided proof that ultimately convinced Bess that Houdini had returned.

One Last Halloween Séance

Finally, on Halloween night in 1936—exactly ten years after Houdini's death—Bess participated in one last séance. The setting could hardly have been more theatrical. Hundreds of invited guests gathered on the roof of the Knickerbocker Hotel in Hollywood. Houdini's photograph was displayed. A pair of locked handcuffs rested on a silk pillow. Bess and the others waited to see whether the world's greatest escape artist could accomplish one final escape. They waited for Houdini to communicate. Nothing happened. After ten years of waiting, Bess ended the experiment and extinguished the light that had symbolized her vigil for Houdini.

Bess Stopped. The Magicians Did Not.

Bess may have stopped waiting, but the magicians did not. After her final séance, Houdini's brother Hardeen continued the tradition. Hardeen's protégé, magician and Houdini collector Sidney Radner, later took it over and participated in annual Houdini séances for decades. After Radner's death, others continued the tradition. Year after year, on or around the anniversary of Houdini's death, magicians and Houdini enthusiasts have gathered to give the world's greatest escape artist another opportunity to prove that he finally accomplished his greatest escape. In 2026, the tradition will take on special significance. On Halloween 2026, three séances are scheduled to be held inside Houdini's former New York City home. The first is scheduled to begin at 1:26 p.m., the reported time of Houdini's death. Two more will follow that evening. Once again, people will gather and wait for Houdini to return. So far, Houdini has remained silent.

One Hundred Years Later

For a man who made his living escaping the seemingly impossible, Houdini planned his own death with remarkable attention to detail. He planned for his wife. He remembered his brothers, sister, assistants, and fellow magicians. He created a trust. He placed conditions on an inheritance. He specifically excluded someone he did not want to benefit. He decided what should happen to his books and what should happen to his magic. He even planned the care and appearance of his grave. Houdini's will is a reminder that estate planning is not simply deciding who gets your money. It is deciding what happens to the things—and sometimes the secrets—you leave behind. Estate planning can preserve the things you value, dispose of unusual possessions, protect family members, express deeply held wishes, and determine what happens to the pieces of your life that cannot be measured merely in dollars. Harry Houdini died on Halloween, October 31, 1926. This Halloween marks exactly 100 years since the escape artist, magician, and master showman encountered the one thing from which he could not escape. For a century, people have been waiting for him to come back. Still, it is Halloween. Perhaps there is something magical about 100 years. So if a man in a straitjacket approaches you on Halloween night, don't run. Ask him for the secret code.

Shakespeare’s Will: The Bard Gave His Widow His Second-Best Bed

2026-09-23T06:23:46Z

William Shakespeare gave the world Hamlet, Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, and some of the most famous words ever written in the English language.

When it came time to make his own last statement about what should happen to his property, however, Shakespeare produced something much less poetic: a will.

William Shakespeare made his Last Will and Testament on March 25, 1616. He died less than a month later.

One provision in that will, however, has fascinated readers for centuries.

Shakespeare left his wife, Anne, his:

“second best bed with the furniture.”

Was this Shakespeare’s final insult to Anne?

To understand Shakespeare’s will, we first have to stop thinking like people living in the twenty-first century and start thinking like people living 400 years ago.

Shakespeare’s Original Will Still Exists

The original will was submitted to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury for probate and has remained in public custody ever since. Today, the document is preserved by The National Archives in England.

The original document can be viewed online through The National Archives and through the Folger Shakespeare Library’s Shakespeare Documented project.

View Shakespeare’s original will at The National Archives: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/william-shakespeare/source-1/

The original will is handwritten in an early seventeenth-century legal hand and can be very difficult for a modern reader to decipher. Fortunately, a typed transcription of the complete will can also be found online:

Read a transcription of Shakespeare’s complete will: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_last_will_and_testament

This transcription is particularly useful because it largely preserves the words and spelling found in the original rather than silently converting them into modern English. Thus, a reader encounters spellings such as “gyve,” “wiefe,” “goodes,” “jewles,” and “household stuffe.”

The unfamiliar spelling should not be mistaken for poor spelling by Shakespeare. English spelling had not yet become standardized in the way it is today. The same word—and even a person’s name—could appear in different forms. Shakespeare’s own name survives in several spellings. Indeed, on the will itself his signature is transcribed as “William Shakspeare.”

It is also important to understand that although this was Shakespeare’s will and he signed each of its three sheets, the surviving document is not believed to have been written out in Shakespeare’s own hand. The handwriting does not match that of his lawyer, Francis Collins, either, and scholars believe that a clerk probably prepared the document.

The will tells us about Shakespeare’s wealth, his family, his property, and the people he wanted to benefit after his death.

But understanding what it tells us about Anne requires understanding the very different legal world in which Shakespeare lived.

A Will From a Very Different World

A modern reader approaching Shakespeare’s will naturally brings modern ideas about marriage, property, and inheritance.

The legal world of 1616 was very different.

Property rights within marriage bore little resemblance to modern law, and household goods were not necessarily jointly owned marital property in the modern sense. Most importantly for understanding Shakespeare’s will, a surviving spouse could have legal rights that existed independently of anything written in the will.

That distinction is particularly important in understanding what Shakespeare actually left Anne.

Anne Was Not Necessarily Left With Just a Bed

The fact that Anne received relatively little expressly under Shakespeare’s will does not mean that Shakespeare necessarily left her with nothing except his second-best bed.

A widow had important dower rights under English common law.

Generally speaking, common-law dower gave a widow a life interest in one-third of the qualifying real property her husband owned during the marriage and to which dower rights applied, although the rules contained important exceptions.

That right arose by operation of law rather than from a provision in the husband’s will.

In other words, Shakespeare could make provisions concerning real estate in his will while Anne could nevertheless retain dower rights in property to which those rights applied.

But dower did not mean that Anne automatically received one-third of everything Shakespeare owned.

Dower principally concerned real property. It should not be translated into a modern rule that Anne automatically inherited one-third of Shakespeare’s money, furniture, silver, household possessions, and other personal property.

So the fact that Shakespeare’s will expressly gave Anne only the second-best bed does not tell us everything she received as his widow. Her legal rights in qualifying real estate existed independently of the will.

What Happened to Shakespeare’s Other Possessions?

Shakespeare’s will itself provides some of the best evidence of what happened to his personal possessions.

Shakespeare carefully distributed particular possessions: his plate to his granddaughter Elizabeth Hall, except for a silver-gilt bowl given to his daughter Judith, and his wearing apparel to his sister Joan.

And then there was Anne.

Shakespeare’s will states:

“Item I gyve unto my wiefe my second best bed with the furniture.”

The word “furniture” did not mean a bedroom set in the modern sense. It referred to the furnishings associated with the bed, including such things as its curtains and bedding.

After payment of his debts, legacies, and funeral expenses, Shakespeare left the remainder of his personal estate—including his:

“goodes Chattels Leases plate Jewels & household stuffe whatsoever”

—to Susanna and John Hall.

The second-best bed was therefore specifically carved out of Shakespeare’s personal property and given to Anne, while his remaining “household stuffe” passed under the residuary bequest to Susanna and John Hall.

Was the “Second-Best” Bed an Insult?

For generations, people have interpreted the provision as evidence that Shakespeare disliked his wife.

The theory is understandable.

Imagine reading a modern will stating:

I leave my wife my second-best bed.

It does not exactly sound romantic.

But the phrase did not necessarily carry the meaning a modern reader might give it.

Beds were valuable pieces of property. Contemporary wills regularly identified “best,” “second,” “third,” “fourth,” and even “worst” beds. Those descriptions could simply identify which particular bed the testator meant rather than express affection or contempt for the person receiving it.

One explanation frequently offered is that the best bed in a prosperous household might have been reserved for guests, while the second-best bed was the bed actually used by the husband and wife.

If that was true in Shakespeare’s household, the gift could have had considerable personal significance.

But we do not know that it was.

There is evidence that calling something a “second-best bed” was not inherently insulting. There is no evidence establishing exactly why Shakespeare chose this particular bed for Anne.

The Bed Was Added to the Will

There is one detail that makes the mystery even more interesting.

The provision for Anne was inserted between lines of the will.

It was not originally written as part of the continuous text surrounding it.

That has naturally produced speculation.

Did Shakespeare suddenly remember that he wanted Anne to have the bed?

Was it particularly important to her?

Was it their marital bed?

Did the bed have some private significance that everyone in Shakespeare’s family understood but that disappeared with them?

Was the provision added on the advice of the person preparing the will?

Was the provision always supposed to be in the will but mistakenly omitted by the person who prepared the document?

Four hundred years later, we simply do not know.

Who Received the Rest of Shakespeare’s Property?

Shakespeare’s principal beneficiary was his older daughter, Susanna Hall.

His will placed extensive real property in a succession beginning with Susanna, including New Place, the substantial Stratford house where Shakespeare lived, together with other houses, barns, stables, orchards, gardens, lands, and property interests.

The will then attempted through a complicated series of limitations to keep much of the property within Shakespeare’s descendants.

His younger daughter, Judith, received substantial financial provisions.

His granddaughter Elizabeth received his plate, except for the silver-gilt bowl given to Judith.

His sister Joan received money, his clothing, and an interest in the Stratford house where she lived.

Friends, relatives, the poor of Stratford, and others also received gifts.

After the specific gifts, debts, funeral expenses, and other obligations were satisfied, the remaining personal property—including Shakespeare’s “household stuffe”—passed under the residuary clause to Susanna and John Hall, whom Shakespeare named as executors.

The Missing Inventory

One document might have answered many of our questions about Shakespeare’s possessions.

Unfortunately, it has disappeared.

We know that an inventory of Shakespeare’s goods was presented in connection with the probate of his estate, but the inventory itself has not survived.

It was probably among the Prerogative Court of Canterbury probate inventories lost in the Great Fire of London in 1666.

If we still had it, we might have a much clearer picture of what was inside New Place when Shakespeare died: his furniture, beds, linens, kitchen equipment, silver, clothing, and other personal possessions.

Instead, we have the will.

And the will itself expressly included Shakespeare’s remaining “household stuffe” in the residuary estate passing to Susanna and John Hall.

We just do not know exactly what that household property included.

Do Not Read a 400-Year-Old Will as Though It Were Written Today

Shakespeare’s will offers an important lesson for anyone interested in old wills.

The words themselves are only half the story.

The other half is the law under which those words operated.

You also need to understand the customs that existed when the words were written.

A modern reader sees “second best” and hears an insult.

A seventeenth-century reader might simply have heard an ordinary method of identifying which valuable bed Shakespeare meant.

A modern reader sees that Anne received relatively little under the written will and may conclude that Shakespeare left her almost nothing.

But Anne possessed legal rights as Shakespeare’s widow that existed independently of his will.

Understanding the document therefore requires more than translating Shakespeare’s spelling into modern English.

It requires translating an entire legal world.

The Modern Estate-Planning Lesson

Four hundred years later, Shakespeare’s will still teaches a surprisingly modern lesson.

A will does not necessarily tell you everything a surviving spouse will receive.

Today, property may pass outside a will because it is jointly owned, has a designated beneficiary, is held in trust, or is subject to statutory rights of a surviving spouse.

Lawyers generally discuss a will as only one part of an “estate plan.” A complete estate plan should consider property independently owned by the surviving spouse, jointly owned property that passes by right of survivorship outside the probate estate, property that passes by contract or beneficiary designation, such as life insurance, and property that passes under the will.

Shakespeare lived under a very different legal system.

But the analytical lesson remains useful.

You cannot determine what someone receives at death merely by finding that person’s name in the will and reading the sentence next to it.

You have to determine what the decedent actually owned, what property was controlled by the will, and what rights the survivor possessed independently of it.

That is particularly important when reading Shakespeare’s famous provision for Anne.

So What Did Shakespeare Mean?

We will probably never know.

The second-best bed may have been the bed William and Anne shared, it may have had some other private significance, or it may simply have been a valuable possession Shakespeare wanted Anne to have.

Four hundred years later, whatever meaning the gift had for Shakespeare and Anne has been lost to us.

What we should abandon is the simplistic story that Shakespeare left everything to his daughter and humiliated his wife by tossing her an inferior piece of furniture.

The law was more complicated than that.

Anne had legal rights as Shakespeare’s widow that existed independently of his will. At the same time, Shakespeare expressly included his remaining “household stuffe” in his residuary estate while specifically carving out the second-best bed for Anne.

That makes the bed provision more interesting, not less.

William Shakespeare spent his career writing words that people would debate for centuries.

Appropriately enough, he managed to do the same thing with one sentence in his will.

O.J. Simpson’s Last Will: The Debt That Followed Him to the Grave

2026-09-17T15:49:36Z

O.J. Simpson was once one of the most famous athletes in America.

He won the Heisman Trophy at the University of Southern California, became an NFL superstar, and later built a successful second career as an actor, television personality, and advertising spokesman. His fame extended far beyond football.

Then everything changed.

On June 12, 1994, Simpson’s former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman were found murdered outside Nicole’s home in Los Angeles. Simpson quickly became the principal suspect.

What followed became one of the most famous criminal cases in American history.

On June 17, 1994, millions of Americans watched live television coverage as police followed a white Ford Bronco carrying Simpson along the highways of Southern California. In a low-speed chase, the Bronco moved slowly down the freeway while police vehicles followed behind. Television networks interrupted their regular programming, and spectators gathered along overpasses and highways to watch.

Simpson was eventually arrested and charged with the murders.

In 1995, after a sensational televised trial, a jury found him not guilty of the murders.

But that was not the end of the legal proceedings.

The Civil Case Changed Everything

The families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman pursued civil claims against Simpson.

In 1997, a civil jury found Simpson liable for the deaths. Ronald Goldman’s parents received $8.5 million in compensatory damages, and the estates of Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were each awarded $12.5 million in punitive damages, bringing the awards to approximately $33.5 million. The California Court of Appeal later affirmed the judgments.

Simpson had been acquitted in the criminal case, but the civil judgment created an enormous financial obligation that would follow him for the rest of his life.

And unlike the criminal prosecution, that financial obligation did not end when Simpson died.

O.J. Simpson’s Last Will

Simpson signed his Last Will and Testament on January 25, 2024. He died on April 10, 2024, at the age of 76.

His will was subsequently filed with the Clark County District Court in Nevada.

A copy of the filed will can be viewed on the KTNV Channel 13 website:

O.J. Simpson’s final will filed in Clark County, estate executor tells Channel 13 what could happen next

https://www.ktnv.com/news/o-j-simpsons-final-will-filed-in-clark-county-estate-executor-tells-channel-13-what-could-happen-next

The will did not make individual gifts of particular amounts or percentages to Simpson’s children. Instead, it directed his property to the trustee of the Orenthal Simpson Revocable Living Trust, which Simpson created on the same date as the will.

Simpson Was Survived by Four Children

Simpson was survived by four children.

Arnelle and Jason Simpson were his children from his first marriage to Marguerite Whitley. Sydney and Justin Simpson were his children with Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson and Whitley had another daughter, Aaren, who died as a young child.

The will itself does not tell us how Simpson wanted the property placed in his trust ultimately divided. That information was contained in the separate trust rather than in the publicly filed will.

Later litigation, however, revealed the answer.

In a 2025 lawsuit brought on behalf of Simpson’s estate, the estate alleged that the trust provided that Simpson’s property was to be divided equally among his four surviving children: Justin, Sydney, Jason, and Arnelle. The complaint also described Simpson’s will as a pour-over will transferring his property to the trust.

Thus, although the will itself prevents us from learning how Simpson intended his estate ultimately to be distributed to his heirs, subsequent litigation disclosed his plan: his four children were to share equally.

The Orenthal Simpson Revocable Living Trust

Simpson created the Orenthal Simpson Revocable Living Trust on January 25, 2024, the same day he executed his will.

His will is what estate-planning lawyers commonly call a pour-over will. Instead of distributing the probate estate directly to the ultimate beneficiaries, the will directs the remaining property to the trustee of a trust, where it is then administered according to the terms of the trust.

In Simpson’s case, the intended progression was essentially:

Probate Estate → Trust → Four Children

But there was a major obstacle between the first and second steps.

Simpson had creditors.

The Trust Does Not Get the Probate Estate First

This is perhaps the most interesting part of Simpson’s estate story.

Under the pour-over will, whatever remained in Simpson’s probate estate was to be distributed to the trustee of his revocable living trust.

But the trustee does not receive the probate estate before the estate’s obligations are addressed.

Nevada law establishes a specific order for payment of the debts and charges of an estate. Expenses of administration are first. Funeral expenses, expenses of the last illness, family allowances and several other statutory categories follow. Significantly for Simpson’s estate, Nevada expressly includes judgments entered against the decedent during his lifetime among the claims that must be paid in the statutory order of priority.

Only the probate property remaining after the estate’s obligations have been satisfied is available for distribution under the will.

Put more simply:

The estate’s administration expenses and valid creditor claims must be dealt with before the remaining probate assets can be distributed to the trustee for the beneficiaries.

The Goldman Judgment Followed Simpson Into Probate

This created an enormous problem for Simpson’s estate.

The original civil judgment had remained largely unpaid and had accumulated interest for decades.

In 2025, Simpson’s estate accepted Fred Goldman’s creditor claim for approximately $58 million. Acceptance of the claim did not mean that Goldman received $58 million. Goldman’s attorney explained that acceptance established the claim as valid but did not constitute payment.

The estate apparently had nowhere near enough money to satisfy the claim.

Simpson’s estate representative said that he hoped to assemble only approximately $500,000 to $1 million in total assets.

That produces a remarkable contrast.

Simpson had an estate plan providing for his property to pass through a trust and ultimately be divided equally among his four children.

But the Goldman judgment alone vastly exceeded the apparent value of the probate estate.

Creditors receive assets before beneficiaries.

More precisely, Nevada law requires the estate’s expenses and claims to be handled according to statutory priorities before the remaining estate can be distributed to the trustee under Simpson’s will.

Did Anything Actually Pour Over Into the Trust?

That leads to the question at the heart of Simpson’s estate plan:

Was there anything left to pour over?

The publicly available information does not establish that a final distribution of probate assets has been made to Simpson’s trust.

The estate has instead been attempting to identify, recover and liquidate assets while dealing with its debts and expenses. One particularly interesting example involves Simpson’s Las Vegas residence.

In 2025, Simpson’s estate sued a company owned by his son Justin concerning the ownership of the property. According to the estate’s complaint, Simpson had contributed money toward the purchase, lived there, paid expenses associated with the property and treated it as his home, even though title was held by Justin’s company. The estate sought to recover the property or its financial interest in it. These are allegations in litigation, not adjudicated facts.

The litigation illustrates the administrator’s problem: before anything can be distributed under the will, the estate first has to determine what Simpson actually owned.

Then it has to deal with the estate’s expenses and creditors.

Only then can any remaining probate property pass to the trustee.

Given the enormous disparity between Simpson’s apparent probate assets and the creditor claims against his estate, there may ultimately be little or nothing from the probate estate left to pour into the trust.

A Will Does Not Guarantee an Inheritance

This is what makes Simpson’s will such an interesting estate-planning document.

A person can carefully prepare a will. He can create a trust. He can specify exactly who should ultimately receive his property.

But those documents do not guarantee that the beneficiaries will actually receive an inheritance.

Simpson’s trust called for his property to be divided equally among his four surviving children.

His probate estate, however, was confronted by administration expenses and a civil judgment that had followed him for decades.

The estate plan may have said:

Estate → Trust → Children

Probate law effectively inserted another step:

Estate → Expenses and Creditors → Whatever Is Left → Trust → Children

And when the debts and expenses exceed the available probate assets, the words “whatever is left” can mean nothing at all.

The Estate-Planning Lesson

O.J. Simpson’s will is interesting not because it contains an eccentric bequest or unusual final request.

It is interesting because it demonstrates the difference between deciding who should receive your property and actually having property available for them to receive.

Simpson created a revocable trust for the benefit of his four children and executed a pour-over will directing his probate property to the trustee. Later court filings revealed that the trust called for his property to be divided equally among those children.

But Simpson also died owing an enormous civil judgment.

His civil judgment followed him for the rest of his life—and then followed his estate into probate.

That makes his will a particularly useful estate-planning lesson.

A will can tell everyone who you want to receive your property.

It cannot guarantee that there will be any property left for them to receive.

How to Destroy a Marriage: Lessons from Broadway

2026-09-16T12:29:18Z

Broadway has given us some wonderful lessons about love and marriage. It has also given us a remarkably good instruction manual for destroying one. Musicals are filled with marriages and relationships damaged by adultery, neglect, resentment, selfishness, misplaced priorities, anger, and betrayal. The characters may sing beautifully while doing it, but their mistakes are very real. So, if you want to know how to ruin a marriage, Broadway has some suggestions.

“Burn” — Hamilton

Commit Adultery

Few things can destroy a marriage as quickly as adultery. In Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton has an affair with Maria Reynolds and then, in an effort to protect his political reputation, publicly reveals the affair. His wife, Eliza, is humiliated not merely by the betrayal itself but by having the most private part of their marriage exposed to the world. Adultery is more than a bad decision or a moment of weakness. It is a violation of one of the most sacred trusts of marriage. And the damage often extends far beyond the affair itself. There are lies to conceal it, excuses to justify it, and sometimes public humiliation when it becomes known. Broadway's lesson is simple: if you want to destroy trust in a marriage, betray it.

“She Used to Be Mine” — Waitress

Make Your Spouse Lose Herself

A destructive marriage does not always end with a dramatic betrayal. Sometimes the damage happens gradually. Jenna looks at the person she has become and barely recognizes herself. Her marriage to Earl is controlling and abusive, and over time her confidence, independence, and sense of possibility have been worn away. That is another way to destroy a marriage: make the other person smaller. Control the money. Dismiss dreams. Undermine confidence. Make your spouse feel that his or her needs, ambitions, and identity no longer matter. A healthy marriage should allow both spouses to grow. A destructive one can cause a spouse to disappear.

“We Do Not Belong Together” — Sunday in the Park with George

Put Your Work Before Your Partner

George is devoted to his art. Dot loves George, but she is increasingly forced to compete with his work for his attention. The problem is not simply that George works too much. His art consumes him. Even when Dot is physically beside him, George's attention is often somewhere else—on the painting, on his ideas, on what he is trying to create. Dot wants more than proximity. She wants to feel that she matters to him. Their confrontation in “We Do Not Belong Together” shows two people who care about each other but want very different things from the relationship. Dot wants George to notice her, listen to her, and make room for her in his life. George cannot—or will not—give her the kind of attention she needs because doing so would require him to take some of his attention away from his work. That problem is hardly confined to artists. A demanding career, a business, a hobby, a cause, or even a smartphone can become the third person in a marriage. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious or passionate about your work. The danger comes when your spouse repeatedly receives whatever time, energy, and attention remain after everything else has been satisfied. Eventually, the neglected spouse may stop asking for attention. That does not necessarily mean the problem has been solved. It may mean that the spouse has given up trying to get it. George does not have to choose between loving Dot and loving his art. His mistake is behaving as though only one of them deserves his full attention. You do not have to abandon your spouse to lose your spouse. Sometimes you just have to keep choosing something else.

“Could I Leave You?” — Follies

Take Your Spouse for Granted Until She Has Had Enough

By the time Phyllis sings “Could I Leave You?,” years of disappointment and resentment have fundamentally changed the way she feels about Ben. Leaving him is no longer an unthinkable threat. She tells him that, emotionally, she left the marriage long ago. Ben has spent much of their marriage absorbed in himself. He has enjoyed professional success and the admiration that comes with it, while Phyllis has spent years playing the role of the successful man's wife. He has been unfaithful, emotionally distant, and remarkably confident that Phyllis will continue to be there despite his behavior. He has taken both his wife and his marriage for granted. Now Phyllis wants him to understand the consequences. The song is deliberately cruel. She sarcastically considers whether she could possibly leave Ben and then catalogs the things about him and their marriage that she has come to despise. She attacks his vanity, his weaknesses, his behavior, and the life they have built together. This is no ordinary marital argument. It is years of accumulated resentment being delivered all at once. Ben's great mistake has been assuming that because Phyllis stayed yesterday, she will stay tomorrow. But remaining in a marriage is not necessarily the same thing as remaining committed to it. Resentment can accumulate quietly until affection has been replaced by contempt. And Sondheim does not give Ben—or us—a simple answer about what Phyllis will actually do. That is part of the sting. She has made one thing clear: Ben can no longer assume that she will stay.

“Sue Me” — Guys and Dolls

Keep Making Promises You Don't Keep

Adelaide has waited fourteen years for Nathan Detroit to marry her. Fourteen years of promises. Fourteen years of excuses. And fourteen years of Nathan putting gambling and his floating crap game ahead of the life he has promised her. By the time Adelaide sings “Sue Me,” she has already decided that their relationship is over. This is not another warning designed to persuade Nathan to change. She has had enough. Nathan apologizes and admits his faults, but Adelaide is no longer looking for another apology. She has heard promises before. Her anger comes from realizing that Nathan has had years to change and has repeatedly chosen not to. That is what makes the song more than another argument between them. Nathan is pleading his case to someone who has already reached her verdict. There is a dangerous lesson here for any long-term relationship. Do not assume that because your partner has tolerated the same behavior for years, he or she will tolerate it forever. Repeated apologies eventually lose their value when nothing changes after them. Sometimes the final argument is not another warning. It is the announcement that all the previous warnings have expired.

“The Honeymoon Is Over” — I Do! I Do!

Let Affection Turn Into Hostility

Honeymoons end. That does not mean the marriage has to. But in “The Honeymoon Is Over,” the end of the honeymoon becomes a comic catalogue of just how badly a marriage can deteriorate. Romance has given way to criticism, irritation, boredom, suspicion, infidelity, and thoughts of leaving. The humor comes from exaggeration, but the progression is recognizable. The little things that once seemed charming become annoying. Spouses stop laughing with each other and start criticizing each other. Affection is replaced by sarcasm. Attention begins wandering outside the marriage. Eventually, the question is no longer how to make the marriage happier, but whether it is worth continuing at all. That is a very different problem from simply discovering that married life is not a permanent honeymoon. Every long marriage eventually exchanges some excitement for familiarity. Familiarity can become intimacy, comfort, and companionship. Or, if spouses allow every irritation and disappointment to accumulate, familiarity can breed contempt. The danger is not that the honeymoon ends. The danger is allowing everything that came after it to become something neither spouse wants to live with.

“Days and Days” — Fun Home

Let Your Spouse Give Away Her Life to the Marriage

Helen Bechdel's marriage has required years of accommodation, silence, and sacrifice while she lives with the consequences of her husband's secrets and behavior. There is a difference between compromise and surrender. Every marriage requires sacrifice, but the sacrifices cannot continually flow in only one direction. If one spouse's ambitions, problems, secrets, or desires determine the shape of the entire family, the other spouse may eventually realize that years—or decades—have disappeared. Helen looks back at all the ordinary days she surrendered to the marriage: the routines, responsibilities, compromises, anger, and consequences of Bruce's behavior. What makes the song so painful is the realization that a life is not usually given away all at once. It disappears one day at a time. A marriage should involve building a life together, not one spouse consuming the other's life.

“Cell Block Tango” — Chicago

Let Anger, Jealousy, Betrayal, and Revenge Take Over

The women of Chicago offer perhaps Broadway's most extreme collection of relationship problems. Each has a different grievance, but together they provide a fairly comprehensive list of ways people can make their partners miserable. Liz has simply had enough of Bernie's irritating habit of popping his gum. She repeatedly tells him to stop. He does it again, and she shoots him. It is an absurdly disproportionate response, of course, but underneath the joke is something recognizable in long relationships: one partner repeatedly doing something that drives the other crazy despite being asked to stop. Annie's problem is deception. Ezekiel tells her that he is single, but she eventually discovers that he is married—and not merely to one other woman. He has six wives. Annie responds by poisoning his drink with arsenic. Her story turns dishonesty and betrayal into an excuse for revenge. June's husband, Wilbur, accuses her of having an affair with the milkman. According to June, he becomes so jealous that he comes at her in a rage. She is holding a knife, and somehow Wilbur manages to run into it ten times. Her wonderfully implausible explanation turns a killing into something that sounds almost like an unfortunate accident. Velma discovers her husband, Charlie, with her sister Veronica. She describes an enormous double betrayal: both her husband and her sister have betrayed her. Velma says that she blacks out and cannot remember what happens next. Her next memory is of washing blood from her hands. Mona has been remarkably tolerant of Alvin Lipschitz while he supposedly tries to “find himself.” Unfortunately, he keeps finding other people instead. His repeated affairs finally become too much for her. Mona's explanation turns repeated infidelity into the provocation for what she does. Then there is Hunyak. From a lawyer's perspective, this is where “Cell Block Tango” becomes particularly interesting. The other five women essentially admit what they did, but each immediately supplies an explanation designed to excuse or minimize it. Liz characterizes the shots she fired as warnings. Annie was deceived by a man with six wives. June's husband somehow ran into her knife ten times. Velma cannot remember what happened after discovering her husband with her sister. Mona finally endured one affair too many. It almost sounds as though they have all received the same excellent legal advice: if you are going to admit the killing, give the jury a reason not to convict you. Their stories are not simply confessions. They are defenses. Each woman gives the listener a reason to sympathize with her, excuse her conduct, question her intent, or at least understand how she reached the point where the killing occurred. Whether any of these explanations would actually constitute a legal defense is another matter, but they certainly give a defense lawyer something to work with. Hunyak apparently missed the legal-strategy meeting. She does not claim provocation, accident, betrayal, jealousy, or loss of control. She does not admit the killing and then explain why it should be excused. She insists that she did not do it. Speaking almost entirely in Hungarian, she maintains her innocence. When she is asked directly whether she committed the crime, her defense could hardly be simpler: “Not guilty.” Ironically, Hunyak's insistence on innocence seems to contradict the excellent legal advice everyone else appears to have received. The others admit what happened but give the listener a story that might produce sympathy and, ultimately, an acquittal. Hunyak simply denies the accusation. And in the strange legal universe of Chicago, where telling the right story can matter more than telling the truth, Hunyak may be the only woman telling the truth—and apparently the only one who did not get the memo about how to sell her story. Of course, none of this is good relationship advice. Cheating, lying, betrayal, jealousy, disrespect, and repeatedly ignoring a partner's feelings can destroy a relationship. Murder is not an acceptable response to any of them. So don't take marital advice from “Cell Block Tango.” If you decide to end your marriage, hire a lawyer. Don't hire a hit man.

“Not a Day Goes By” — Merrily We Roll Along

Betray Someone Who Still Loves You

One of the cruelest forms of betrayal occurs when the person being hurt still loves the person doing the hurting. Beth's pain is powerful precisely because love has not disappeared. Her marriage to Frank is ending after his infidelity, but her feelings for him have not conveniently disappeared with it. That is why betrayal can be so devastating. Divorce lawyers regularly see people who are simultaneously furious with their spouses and still deeply attached to them. Those emotions are not contradictory. A marriage may legally end long before the emotional relationship does. Someone can know that the marriage must end and still miss the person who caused the pain. Anger and love can exist at the same time. Love does not necessarily disappear when trust is broken. Sometimes it remains—and makes the betrayal hurt even more.

“The American and Florence” — Chess

Use Your Partner's Weaknesses Against Them

Every long-term relationship creates vulnerability. Partners learn each other's insecurities, fears, failures, family histories, and sensitive spots. That knowledge can create intimacy—or provide ammunition. In Chess, Florence confronts Freddie about his behavior. Instead of simply addressing what she is saying, Freddie turns the argument toward one of the most painful subjects in Florence's life: Hungary and the loss of her father. He knows where the wound is, and he presses on it. That is an extraordinarily effective way to destroy a relationship. When couples argue, they often know exactly which words will cause the most pain. The temptation is to use them. An insecurity revealed privately, a painful childhood experience, a family tragedy, an old failure, or a fear shared in confidence can suddenly become a weapon because one partner wants to win an argument. But there is a price for winning that way. Your partner trusted you with information that the rest of the world may never know. Using that knowledge against the person teaches a dangerous lesson: being vulnerable with you is unsafe. You may win the argument. You may also make sure your partner never trusts you with that vulnerability again.

Broadway's Guide to Marital Destruction

Broadway makes destroying a relationship look wonderfully dramatic. There are soaring melodies, clever lyrics, beautiful costumes, and usually an orchestra available at exactly the right moment. Real marriages generally fall apart more quietly. Commit adultery. Put work ahead of your spouse. Take your spouse for granted. Make promises you never keep. Let affection turn into hostility. Allow one spouse to sacrifice years of his or her life for the other. Turn arguments into opportunities to wound each other. Betray someone who still loves you. Learn your partner's vulnerabilities and then use them as weapons. Do enough of those things and you probably will not need a Broadway orchestra. You may need a divorce lawyer. So enjoy watching Broadway explain how to destroy relationships. Then go home and do the opposite.

Alfred Nobel’s Will: The Will That Created the Nobel Prize

2026-09-09T03:43:29Z

Most wills distribute property. Alfred Nobel’s will created something much larger. When Nobel died in 1896, the Swedish inventor and industrialist left most of his enormous fortune not to his family, but to a fund that would reward people whose work provided the greatest benefit to humanity. The result was the Nobel Prize. Today, Nobel’s name is probably better known because of his will than because of the inventions that made him wealthy in the first place.

Who Was Alfred Nobel?

Alfred Nobel was born in Stockholm in 1833. He became a chemist, engineer, inventor and businessman and ultimately held 355 patents. His best-known invention was dynamite. His business interests became international, and by the end of his life Nobel had accumulated an extraordinary fortune. But Nobel was interested in considerably more than explosives. He also had strong interests in science, medicine, literature and questions of war and peace—the subjects that would eventually appear in his will.

The Will

On November 27, 1895, Nobel signed his last will and testament in Paris. The document begins conventionally enough. Nobel made specific gifts to nephews, nieces, friends, employees and others. Among them were substantial bequests to members of the Nobel family, pensions for servants, and gifts to people in several different countries. Then came the provision that changed his legacy. Nobel directed that his remaining assets be converted into safe securities and placed in a fund. The income was to be distributed each year as prizes to people who had provided the greatest benefit to humankind. He divided the awards into five categories:

Physics
Chemistry
Physiology or Medicine
Literature
Peace

Nobel even identified the institutions that would select the winners. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences would award the physics and chemistry prizes; the Karolinska Institute would award the medicine prize; the Swedish Academy would select the literature recipient; and a five-person committee selected by the Norwegian Parliament would award the peace prize. Nobel also included an unusually international instruction. Nationality was not supposed to matter. The award was to go to the person considered most worthy, whether Scandinavian or not. For a wealthy nineteenth-century industrialist, this was an extraordinarily ambitious estate plan.

How Much Money Did Nobel Leave?

A great deal. Approximately 31 million Swedish kronor from Nobel's estate ultimately funded the prizes. The Nobel Foundation estimates that his original fortune would be worth approximately 2 billion Swedish kronor in today's money. Rather than simply distributing that fortune, Nobel created an endowment. The capital would remain invested. Its earnings would finance awards year after year. That distinction is important. Nobel did not simply make five enormous charitable gifts. He designed a mechanism intended to continue carrying out his wishes after everyone who knew him was dead. And it worked. The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901.

There Was One Problem: Nobel’s Will Was Not Easy to Carry Out

Nobel had a grand idea. He did not, however, leave behind a fully developed organizational structure for implementing it. There was no Nobel Foundation when he signed the will. The institutions Nobel named had not necessarily agreed in advance to assume the responsibilities he assigned them. His property was scattered internationally. His relatives had interests of their own. And authorities in several countries had questions about the estate. Some members of Nobel's family challenged the plan, arguing among other things that its terms were too vague to implement. It took approximately four years of legal work, negotiations and conflict before the plan could be put on a secure institutional footing. The Nobel Foundation was established in 1900. The Nobel Prize therefore provides an important estate-planning lesson: Having a great idea for your estate is not the same thing as creating a great estate plan. Someone still has to make the idea work.

The Executors Who Made Nobel’s Plan Possible

Nobel appointed two engineers, Ragnar Sohlman and Rudolf Lilljequist, as executors. They inherited an extraordinary assignment. Nobel's assets were scattered among banks, investments, real estate and business interests in several countries. His will itself identifies property and financial accounts in places including France, Scotland, Germany, Russia, Sweden and Italy. Sohlman and Lilljequist had to bring those assets together and turn Nobel's relatively brief testamentary instructions into a functioning international prize system. One episode sounds more like something from a movie than the administration of an estate. Concerned that French authorities might prevent Nobel's securities from leaving France, the executors traveled among Paris banks by horse and carriage collecting Nobel's stocks, bonds and other financial documents. They packed the documents into crates and sent them to Sweden from the Gare du Nord as registered luggage. Imagine being the executor responsible for an enormous international estate and having a substantial part of it sitting in crates on a train. Yet the executors succeeded. Sohlman became instrumental in establishing the Nobel Foundation and arranging its relationship with the organizations responsible for selecting Nobel laureates.

Nobel’s Will Was Surprisingly Short on Details

One of the most interesting things about Nobel's will is how much it accomplished with relatively little detail. The critical provision tells the executors to convert the remaining property into safe securities, create a fund and distribute the investment income through the five prizes. But Nobel did not write hundreds of pages of rules governing the prizes. Many questions therefore had to be answered after his death. What exactly qualified as a contribution to physics or medicine? How should the prize-awarding institutions operate? How should the money be managed? What administrative organization would oversee the fortune? Those details ultimately had to be developed through the Nobel Foundation and its statutes. Nobel provided the vision. Other people had to build the machinery.

What Nobel’s Executors Did Right—and What a Modern Estate Plan Might Do Differently

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the story is that Nobel's plan succeeded despite the weaknesses in the document itself. Nobel apparently drafted the will without the assistance of a lawyer. One significant problem was that although he directed that his fortune be used to create a fund, he did not clearly identify a legal entity that would own and administer that fund. The Nobel Foundation did not yet exist. His executors therefore had to negotiate with Nobel's heirs, governments and the institutions he had selected to award the prizes before his intentions could actually be carried out. Nobel was extraordinarily fortunate in his choice of executors. Sohlman and Lilljequist did not simply collect assets, pay bills and distribute an estate. They spent years turning Nobel's idea into a functioning institution. A modern estate plan attempting something similar would ordinarily try to resolve many of those questions before the person creating the plan died. The charitable organization or trust could be created or clearly identified, trustees could be given detailed powers, investment and distribution standards could be established, successor trustees could be provided for, and procedures could be included for circumstances the person creating the plan could not anticipate. In other words, Nobel's will teaches two different lessons. First, choose your fiduciaries carefully. The best drafting in the world still depends upon people capable of carrying out the plan. Second, do not make your fiduciaries solve problems after your death that you could have solved while you were alive. Nobel's executors performed remarkably well. A good estate plan should try to make their job considerably easier.

A Will Can Control Wealth Long After Death

Nobel's will is a dramatic example of one of the fundamental powers of estate planning. A person cannot live forever. But properly structured property can continue carrying out that person's purposes for generations. Nobel died on December 10, 1896, in San Remo, Italy. More than a century later, money derived from the fortune he accumulated continues to support prizes bearing his name. His executors and the Nobel Foundation transformed his fortune into an institution capable of surviving economic crises, wars, inflation and enormous changes in science and society. That is an extraordinary testamentary legacy.

One Last Unusual Provision

Nobel's will contains another provision that would probably surprise most people who know him only from the prizes. He gave explicit instructions concerning his body. Nobel directed that after his death his arteries should be severed. Only after doctors confirmed unmistakable signs of death were his remains to be cremated. Even the man who trusted future generations to select the world's greatest scientific achievements apparently wanted to make absolutely certain that he was dead before they cremated him.

Read Alfred Nobel’s Will

The Nobel Prize organization has published the complete English translation of Alfred Nobel's November 27, 1895 will. It can be read here: https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/will-full.html The will is worth reading. It is surprisingly short considering that its instructions ultimately created one of the best-known international institutions in the world.

The Estate-Planning Lesson

Alfred Nobel's will demonstrates that estate planning is not merely about deciding who gets your property. It can also be about deciding what you want your property to accomplish. Nobel could have divided his fortune among relatives and friends. Instead, after making specific gifts to people he cared about, he devoted most of his wealth to an idea. The execution of that idea was difficult. His will was challenged. His assets were spread across several countries. His executors faced years of legal and administrative problems. And much of the organizational structure necessary to accomplish Nobel's wishes had to be created after his death. Yet the essential testamentary direction survived. More than a century later, scientists, physicians, writers and advocates for peace still gather each year to receive prizes funded because an inventor sat down in Paris in 1895 and decided what he wanted his fortune to do after he was gone. Most wills distribute a person's estate. Alfred Nobel's will created his legacy. The direct address above is the Nobel Prize organization's official English translation of the will. Read Alfred Nobel’s full will

The Will That Frightened Parliament: Peter Thellusson and His Attempt to Create a Fortune for the Future

2026-09-02T06:33:06Z

Most unusual wills create family disputes. Peter Thellusson’s will did something much more remarkable: it helped cause the English Parliament to change the law.

Thellusson was an extraordinarily wealthy eighteenth-century merchant and banker. When he died in 1797, instead of simply leaving his fortune to his children and grandchildren, he directed that much of it be invested and accumulated for decades. The income would be reinvested, generating still more income for the benefit of future generations.

The plan was legal. It was also so controversial that Parliament decided future testators should not be permitted to do the same thing.

Who Was Peter Thellusson?

Peter Thellusson was born in Geneva in 1737 and eventually became a successful merchant and banker in England.

His will, dated April 2, 1796, made various provisions for his wife and family but placed the bulk of his remaining property into an extraordinary trust.

Contemporary accounts describe Thellusson as leaving more than £600,000 in personal property, in addition to substantial real estate. In terms of purchasing power, £600,000 in 1797 would be roughly equivalent to $80 million in today’s U.S. dollars.

The Fortune That No One Could Spend

The trustees were directed to collect the income from much of Thellusson’s property and use it to acquire still more property. The process would continue during the lives of specified descendants.

Only after the last survivor of those designated people died would the accumulated estate finally be divided, principally among qualifying male descendants of his three sons.

Thellusson was essentially trying to use compound growth to create an even larger fortune for future generations while preventing the intervening generations from spending it.

How Large Could the Fortune Become?

The possibilities fascinated—and alarmed—Thellusson’s contemporaries. Some calculations predicted that the estate could eventually grow to tens of millions of pounds, the equivalent of a multibillion-dollar fortune today.

Whether those projections were realistic was less important than the concept. Thellusson was attempting to use time and compound growth to transform an already enormous fortune into something vastly larger.

His family challenged the will.

The Family Goes to Court

The resulting litigation became known as Thellusson v. Woodford.

The principal Chancery decision is reported as Thellusson v. Woodford (1799) 4 Ves. Jr. 227, 31 Eng. Rep. 117, and the matter later reached the House of Lords. A report of the case can be read here:

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/thellusson-v-woodford-woodford-805682377

The family attacked the accumulation scheme, but there was an important problem: however unreasonable the arrangement might appear, that did not necessarily make it illegal.

The courts concluded that the will remained within the boundaries imposed by the rule against perpetuities, and the House of Lords ultimately upheld the essential validity of the arrangement.

What Is the Rule Against Perpetuities?

The rule against perpetuities is one of the most famously complicated rules in property law, but its basic purpose is relatively simple:

A person cannot control the ownership of property forever.

Under the traditional common-law rule, a future interest generally had to become certain to vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after the death of a relevant person who was alive when the interest was created. Lawyers commonly summarize this as:

“A life in being plus 21 years.”

The rule was intended to prevent people from tying up property indefinitely and controlling its ownership many generations after their deaths.

Thellusson’s will pushed that rule close to its limits.

How Thellusson Stayed Within the Rule

Thellusson did not simply direct that his fortune remain in trust for 100 or 200 years.

Instead, he tied the trust to the lives of specified people who were alive when he died. The accumulation would continue until the last survivor of that group died. In legal terminology, the people whose lives determine the permissible duration of such an arrangement are often referred to as “measuring lives.”

Because those measuring lives were people already alive at Thellusson’s death, the courts concluded that the arrangement did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

But there was a loophole of sorts. The rule against perpetuities restricted how long future ownership could remain unsettled. It did not adequately restrict how long the income from property could be accumulated instead of distributed.

Thellusson had therefore found a way to comply with the rule against perpetuities while still requiring his fortune to grow untouched for decades.

That prompted Parliament to act.

Parliament Responds: The “Thellusson Act”

In 1800, Parliament enacted the Accumulations Act 1800, 39 & 40 Geo. III c. 98, commonly known as the Thellusson Act.

The new law restricted how long someone could direct trustees to accumulate income rather than distribute it to beneficiaries.

Importantly, Parliament did not invalidate Thellusson’s own will. The legislation instead prevented future testators from using the same type of arrangement.

Peter Thellusson therefore accomplished something very few people manage through estate planning:

He wrote a will so controversial that the legislature changed the law.

Did His Plan Work?

Not as spectacularly as Thellusson may have envisioned.

The trust continued for decades, but so did litigation over the estate. Legal disputes and administration expenses consumed substantial amounts of money that otherwise could have continued accumulating.

There is an obvious irony: Thellusson designed his estate plan to take advantage of compound growth, but his complicated will also produced decades of compound litigation.

The Rule Against Perpetuities Today

The traditional rule against perpetuities became notorious for its complexity. Determining whether an interest might vest too remotely could require lawyers and judges to analyze hypothetical events that were extremely unlikely ever to occur. A drafting mistake could invalidate a provision even though the problem might not become apparent for many years.

As a result, many American states have modified or replaced the traditional common-law rule by statute.

Modern statutes often substitute a fixed period of years, or provide an alternative fixed period, rather than relying exclusively on the old formula of “a life in being plus 21 years.” The permitted period varies considerably from state to state, and some jurisdictions have gone much further by permitting trusts to continue for hundreds of years or, in certain circumstances, indefinitely.

Massachusetts has also modified the traditional rule by statute. The modern law therefore differs substantially from the common-law rule that governed Peter Thellusson’s will.

The basic policy question, however, remains the same: How long should someone who has died be permitted to control property that will ultimately belong to future generations?

What Peter Thellusson’s Will Can Teach Us Today

Thellusson’s extraordinary will provides several lessons that remain relevant to estate planning today.

Just because an estate plan is legal does not mean it is wise. Thellusson succeeded in creating an arrangement that complied with existing law, but it produced decades of family conflict and litigation.

Control from the grave has limits. Trusts can control how and when beneficiaries receive property, but the law may limit how far into the future that control can extend.

Complexity can be expensive. An elaborate estate plan intended to preserve wealth can instead generate disputes and legal expenses that diminish it.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that a good estate plan should not be judged solely by whether it is legally permissible. It should also be practical, understandable, and designed to transfer wealth without creating unnecessary conflict.

Peter Thellusson succeeded in creating one of history’s most famous wills—but that does not necessarily mean he created a successful estate plan.

Custody Orders Don’t Cover Injury Cases

2026-08-28T03:37:03Z

If you are divorced and your child is injured at the pool, on a playground, or in a car accident, you may wonder who handles the child’s injury claim. There are two common assumptions when an accident occurs: either the parent with primary custody handles it, or the parent who was at the scene handles it. However, as a personal injury lawyer can explain, your child’s injury case is handled by a different court and under different rules than the custody order.

A Child Cannot Bring A Claim On Their Own

Anyone under the age of 18 lacks the legal capacity to file a lawsuit or even to sign a settlement. If something like a car accident occurs and that young person has a claim, an adult has to stand in for them as "next friend." This is for the injury lawsuit only, and it ends when that case ends. It is not custody or guardianship, and it does not affect the parenting arrangement. Now the question comes to: who gets to be the "next friend?" How is that determined?

Only One Parent Can Run The Case

Either parent can be the "next friend." Joint legal custody does not mean both parents get to fulfill or even share this role. If both parents petition to take over this role, the judge will decide who gets it based on the child’s best interests. It is important to note that if either parent has a conflict of interest, they cannot serve as the "next friend." For example, if a parent was driving while the child was hurt, they cannot fulfill this role. This is because the parent is a potential defendant; suing yourself on your child’s behalf does not make sense. In a case like this, the other parent or a neutral third party will step in to take over.

The Judge Reviews The Settlement

When a minor is involved, a settlement above a certain amount is not binding until a judge approves it, even if all parties agree. The court holds a hearing to review whether the amount is reasonable given the circumstances. The judge considers the child's medical costs, the expense of ongoing care such as physical therapy, the attorney's fees, and how the money will be held. The judge may reject a settlement that the "next friend" already agreed to if they feel it is not in the child’s best interests.

The Money Does Not Go To Either Household

As our friends at Cohen & Cohen can share, settlement money for a child is held in a way that keeps it out of both households. For larger amounts, the court may require a conservator to be appointed to manage the funds. The money may instead be placed in a structured annuity that pays out over time, or in a trust if the child has ongoing needs. The child can access this when they turn 18 or on the schedule the court sets. If it is a larger amount, neither parent can spend it on rent, groceries, or even the child’s day-to-day expenses. It is important to note that a parent who paid their child’s medical bills out of pocket may have their own claim to have those costs covered, but that claim belongs to the parent, not the child, and is handled separately. There are many nuances to a minor’s injury case, so if your child has recently been injured due to the negligence of another party, contact an attorney near you for help immediately.

Broadway’s Best Advice for a Happy Marriage

2026-08-25T16:40:43Z

Broadway has given us countless songs about falling in love. But falling in love is the easy part. Staying happily married for decades is considerably harder.

What does Broadway have to say about that?

Quite a lot.

Some of Broadway’s best songs are not really about finding love. They are about what happens afterward—when two people have lived together long enough to know each other’s habits, faults, moods and weaknesses. They remind us that successful marriages require affection, respect, effort, fidelity, partnership and the willingness to keep choosing each other.

Here are some lessons about marriage that Broadway has been singing for years.

“Do You Love Me?” — Fiddler on the Roof

After twenty-five years of marriage, Tevye suddenly asks Golde whether she loves him.

It is not an easy question for her to answer. Their marriage was arranged, and they met on their wedding day. Instead of talking about romance, Golde thinks about what their twenty-five years together have actually involved.

She has lived with Tevye, worked beside him, raised their children with him, shared his bed, argued with him, struggled through poverty with him and remained beside him through difficult times. When she considers everything they have shared and everything she has done for him, she realizes that perhaps there is only one reasonable conclusion: she does love him.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Love is more than something you feel. It is something you do.

Long marriages are built from thousands of ordinary acts of caring, sacrifice and companionship that may not seem romantic at the time. Cooking dinner, raising children, earning a living, caring for someone when things go wrong, arguing and making up, and simply staying beside one another through life’s difficulties can become expressions of love.

But there is another lesson here as well. Even after twenty-five years of demonstrating love through actions, Tevye still wants to hear the words.

Sometimes showing your spouse that you love them isn’t enough.

Sometimes you should say it.

“People Will Say We’re in Love” — Oklahoma!

Curly and Laurey spend this song pretending to warn each other against all the little behaviors that might cause people to think they are in love.

Don’t give me flowers. Don’t praise me too much. Don’t take my arm. Don’t look at me that way.

Of course, what they are really doing is describing affection.

Although Curly and Laurey are not yet a long-married couple, the behaviors in the song may be even more important after years of marriage than they are during courtship.

One danger in a long marriage is that spouses stop doing the little things they did naturally when they were first together.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Keep flirting with your spouse.

Compliment each other. Hold hands. Sit close together. Look at each other affectionately. Don’t allow familiarity to eliminate romance.

“How to Handle a Woman” — Camelot

King Arthur is bewildered by Guenevere and asks Merlin’s famous question: how do you handle a woman?

The answer turns out to be remarkably simple.

You don’t manipulate her, command her or devise some clever technique for controlling her. You love her.

The lesson works equally well regardless of which spouse is asking the question.

Marriage is not about learning how to “handle” another human being.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Don’t try to control your spouse.

You married a partner, not a subordinate. Respect, affection and kindness will usually accomplish far more than criticism, pressure or attempts at domination.

“Being Alive” — Company

Bobby begins Company as a committed bachelor surrounded by married friends. By “Being Alive,” he has begun to understand that a meaningful relationship is not simply companionship when convenient.

Real intimacy means allowing another person into your life deeply enough to affect you.

That can be uncomfortable. A spouse can challenge you, frustrate you, interrupt your routines and see parts of you that you might prefer to keep hidden.

But avoiding vulnerability also means avoiding intimacy.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Let your spouse know the real you.

A successful marriage requires allowing another person to know your fears, weaknesses and uncertainties—not merely the version of yourself you show to the rest of the world. Intimacy requires vulnerability.

“The Little Things You Do Together” — Company

Joanne’s description of marriage is wickedly funny because many of the “little things” she describes aren’t particularly romantic. Married couples argue, annoy one another, interrupt each other and know exactly which buttons to push.

Yet beneath the cynicism is an important truth.

Marriage is mostly made up of little things.

Anniversaries and vacations are memorable, but they occupy only a tiny fraction of married life. Most marriage happens over breakfast, errands, television, household chores, conversations in the car and deciding what to have for dinner.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Pay attention to the ordinary days.

A happy marriage is not created only by grand romantic gestures. It is created by how spouses treat one another on an ordinary Tuesday.

“Love Isn’t Everything” — I Do! I Do!

I Do! I Do! follows Agnes and Michael through decades of married life. That makes it particularly appropriate for an article about what happens after the wedding.

Their marriage must survive far more than romance. There are children, careers, household responsibilities, disappointments, disagreements and all of the practical realities of building a life together.

The song recognizes something that newlyweds may not always want to hear: love is enormously important, but love alone does not solve every problem that marriage presents.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Love by itself isn’t enough to sustain a marriage.

A lasting marriage requires more than emotion. It requires effort, responsibility and a willingness to work through the decidedly unromantic parts of sharing a life.

Love may be the reason two people choose each other. What they do after making that choice helps determine whether the marriage lasts.

“Make Someone Happy” — Do Re Mi

“Make Someone Happy” offers a beautifully simple idea: instead of concentrating entirely on your own happiness, make the happiness of someone you love important to you.

That is particularly good advice for marriage.

It does not mean surrendering your own identity or accepting responsibility for every emotion your spouse experiences. It means recognizing that your words and actions have an enormous effect on the person with whom you have chosen to share your life.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Make your spouse’s happiness important to you.

Kindness, encouragement, affection, consideration and support don’t require extraordinary effort. But repeated over years, they can become extraordinary.

“A Miracle Would Happen” — The Last Five Years

Marriage does not make other attractive people disappear.

Jamie discovers that success brings attention from women who are interested in him, even though he is married to Cathy. The song treats the situation humorously, but the underlying issue is serious.

Long-term fidelity does not depend upon never encountering temptation. It depends upon what a married person does when temptation occurs.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Protect your marriage from temptation.

Faithfulness is not merely an emotion or an intention. It involves choices. Maintaining appropriate boundaries with other people is one of the ways spouses protect the marriage they have chosen.

“I Love My Wife” — I Love My Wife

The musical I Love My Wife takes a comic look at two married couples during the sexual revolution of the 1970s. Its premise is hardly conventional marriage counseling, but that is precisely what makes its title song useful.

Marriage does not necessarily prevent curiosity, temptation or attraction to other people. Long-term commitment is meaningful precisely because alternatives exist.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Remember whom you chose.

A successful marriage requires more than saying “I do” once. There will be opportunities over a lifetime to make choices that either strengthen or weaken the relationship. Commitment means continuing to choose your spouse.

“It Takes Two” — Into the Woods

The Baker and his Wife begin their journey with different ideas about their roles. He initially wants to handle their problem himself. She insists upon participating.

As their adventure continues, they discover that each has abilities the other lacks. Together, they are more capable than either is alone.

That is a pretty good description of a successful marriage.

Broadway’s marriage advice: Be partners.

One spouse should not have to carry the marriage, household, parenting or emotional responsibilities alone. Good marriages make use of the strengths of both people.

When there is a problem, it should not be “your problem” or “my problem.” Whenever possible, it should become our problem.

Broadway’s Marriage Advice

Broadway cannot guarantee a happy marriage. Neither can a lawyer.

But these ten Broadway songs offer some surprisingly practical advice.

Show your love instead of merely assuming your spouse knows it. Keep flirting. Don’t try to control each other. Allow yourself to be vulnerable. Pay attention to the little things. Remember that love alone is not enough. Make your spouse’s happiness important to you. Protect your marriage from temptation. Remember whom you chose. And work as partners.

Perhaps the common thread running through all of these songs is that a successful marriage is not something that simply happens because two people once fell in love.

It is something two people do.

Day after day and year after year, spouses make small choices that either strengthen or weaken their relationship. They choose whether to show affection, listen, forgive, compromise, remain faithful, share a burden, make time for one another or simply pay attention.

A wedding may begin a marriage.

Conduct is what makes it last.

Perhaps Broadway's best advice is simply this:

Keep talking. Keep listening. Keep laughing. Keep noticing the person you married.

And every once in a while, buy two tickets to a show.

Elvis Presley’s Will: Who Inherited Graceland and the King’s Fortune?

2026-08-26T05:34:18Z

When Elvis Presley died at Graceland on August 16, 1977, at only 42 years old, he left behind far more than a famous mansion.

He left music royalties, contracts, personal property, real estate and one of the most valuable names in entertainment history.

He also left a will.

Unlike some celebrities who die without an estate plan, Elvis had signed his Last Will and Testament only a little more than five months before his death. Although the will is relatively short, it created a structure for managing an estate that would continue to generate income and attract public attention for decades.

You Can Read Elvis Presley's Actual Will Online

One of the purposes of this series about historic and famous wills is to allow readers to see the actual documents whenever they are available.

The full text of Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament is reproduced by the OpenLab at New York City College of Technology, part of the City University of New York (CUNY).

Read Elvis Presley's Last Will and Testament:

https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/elvis-presley/2015/04/14/last-will-and-testament-of-elvis-a-presley/

The document contains 15 separate sections dealing with such subjects as Elvis's real estate, personal property, family trust, royalties, spendthrift protection and the powers of his executor and trustee.

Elvis Signed His Will Five Months Before His Death

Elvis signed his Last Will and Testament on March 3, 1977.

He died on August 16, 1977.

The will was admitted to probate and ordered recorded in Shelby County, Tennessee, on August 22, 1977.

Elvis appointed his father, Vernon E. Presley, as both executor of his estate and trustee of the trusts created by the will.

Perhaps most importantly, Elvis did not simply leave everything outright to his nine-year-old daughter, Lisa Marie.

Instead, most of his estate went into a trust.

Who Were the Beneficiaries of Elvis Presley's Will?

Under Item IV of the will, Elvis placed the residue of his estate into a trust.

The trustee was authorized to use trust income and principal for the health, education, support, maintenance and welfare of:

Elvis's daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, and any other children Elvis might have;
his grandmother, Minnie Mae Presley;
his father, Vernon E. Presley; and
certain other relatives who needed emergency assistance.

Elvis's daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, and any other children Elvis might have;

There was an important limitation on that last category.

Assistance to other relatives could be provided only if it would not interfere with the trust's ability to provide for Lisa Marie, Vernon and Minnie Mae. Upon Vernon's death, those other relatives ceased to have an interest in the trust.

The provision combined two goals. Elvis wanted to provide for his immediate family while also giving his trustee some flexibility to help other relatives who genuinely needed assistance.

What Did Lisa Marie Presley Inherit?

Lisa Marie Presley was Elvis's only child and was just nine years old when her father died.

Elvis's will did not give his fortune directly to her.

Instead, the will created a sequence for determining who would ultimately receive the remaining trust property.

During the initial trust period, the principal beneficiaries were Lisa Marie, Vernon and Minnie Mae. Vernon died in 1979. Minnie Mae died in 1980. Lisa Marie therefore became the surviving member of that group of principal beneficiaries.

The will then provided for the property to remain in trust for Elvis's children until the applicable child reached age 25. Because Lisa Marie was Elvis's only child, she ultimately became entitled to the remaining trust property when she reached that age.

In other words, Lisa Marie's eventual ownership was not the result of a simple gift saying, "I leave everything to Lisa Marie." It resulted from the distribution formula Elvis established in his will and the family circumstances that actually occurred after his death.

Lisa Marie turned 25 on February 1, 1993.

This illustrates an estate-planning decision that parents still face today.

Reaching age 18 may make a child a legal adult, but that does not necessarily mean a parent wants the child to receive a substantial inheritance immediately. A trust can permit money to be used for a child's education, support and other needs while postponing the child's unrestricted control over the inheritance.

Elvis chose 25.

Other parents might choose 25, 30, 35 or provide for distributions in stages.

Did Elvis Leave Graceland to Lisa Marie?

Not directly.

It is commonly said that Lisa Marie "inherited Graceland from Elvis." That is true as a description of the eventual result, but it oversimplifies what Elvis's will actually did.

There is no provision in the will stating, "I leave Graceland to my daughter, Lisa Marie."

Instead, Item III placed Elvis's real estate within the broader estate plan and authorized his executor and trustee to hold real estate as an investment or sell it if doing so was considered to be in the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries.

Graceland therefore became part of the property governed by the trust provisions of Elvis's will.

The will established a formula rather than making a specific gift of Graceland. It identified a group of beneficiaries, provided for their support from the trust, established what would happen as members of that group died, and ultimately directed distribution of the remaining property to Elvis's children or their descendants under the circumstances specified in the will.

What happened after Elvis's death determined how that formula operated.

Vernon died. Minnie Mae died. Elvis had no additional children. Lisa Marie survived and eventually reached age 25.

The result was that Lisa Marie ultimately became entitled to the remaining trust property, which included Graceland.

This distinction matters.

A will can determine the eventual owner of property without naming that person as the direct recipient of the particular asset. Estate plans frequently use trusts, survivorship provisions, contingent beneficiaries and distribution formulas precisely because the person making the will cannot know who will survive whom or what the family's circumstances will be years later.

What Happened When Elvis's Father Died?

Vernon Presley died in 1979, less than two years after Elvis.

Fortunately, Elvis's will anticipated the possibility that his father might be unable to continue serving.

Item XI authorized Vernon, through his own will, to appoint a successor executor and successor trustee. Elvis's will also named the National Bank of Commerce in Memphis as a fallback successor if necessary.

Under Vernon's will, successor co-executors and co-trustees included the National Bank of Commerce, accountant Joseph Hanks and Priscilla Presley.

That last name deserves attention.

Priscilla Wasn't a Beneficiary — But She Still Became a Trustee

Elvis and Priscilla Presley divorced in 1973, approximately four years before Elvis died.

Priscilla was not a beneficiary under Elvis's will.

Yet after Vernon died, Priscilla became one of the people responsible for administering the trust that held property ultimately intended for Lisa Marie.

There is nothing inherently improper about that arrangement. Priscilla was Lisa Marie's mother, and her later management of the estate played an important role in preserving Graceland and the value of the Elvis estate.

But the circumstances illustrate an estate-planning issue that divorced parents should consider carefully.

A divorced parent may spend considerable time deciding what a child should inherit without giving equal consideration to who may control that inheritance while the child is young.

If you do not want your former spouse involved in administering property you leave for your children, do not assume that leaving the former spouse out as a beneficiary necessarily accomplishes that objective.

If your intention is that an ex-spouse who is the parent of your children have nothing to do with the administration of your estate or any trust created for your children, the estate-planning documents should expressly address that intention. Subject to applicable state law and the particular circumstances, the documents can identify who is to serve as executor and trustee, provide successor fiduciaries, and expressly state that the former spouse is not to serve in those fiduciary capacities.

This can be especially important when minor children are beneficiaries.

A former spouse may receive nothing personally from an estate and yet potentially become involved with property inherited by the children because the former spouse is their surviving parent. Careful estate planning can separate two very different questions:

Who should benefit from my property?

and

Who should control and manage that property for my children?

They are not necessarily the same person.

Elvis's estate provides an unusual example. Priscilla received no beneficial interest under Elvis's will, yet she later became a fiduciary involved in managing the estate for Lisa Marie.

For Elvis's estate, that ultimately proved consequential in a positive way. For someone who emphatically does not want an ex-spouse involved, however, the lesson is to say so expressly and create a workable alternative fiduciary structure.

Graceland Presented a Problem — and an Opportunity

An estate can be extremely valuable on paper and still have serious cash-flow problems.

Graceland cost money to maintain. Taxes, employees, security, repairs and other expenses did not disappear when Elvis died.

The people managing the estate therefore faced a major decision: what should be done with Graceland?

One possibility would have been to sell it.

Instead, Graceland was opened to the public in 1982.

That decision transformed Elvis's former home into an income-producing attraction and helped preserve it for future generations of Elvis fans.

It also demonstrates a broader estate-planning principle.

Sometimes an unusual asset is worth more if it is preserved and managed than if it is immediately sold.

The same problem can arise on a much smaller scale with a family business, rental property, intellectual property, valuable collection or other asset that requires active management.

Elvis's Will Specifically Addressed His Trophies and Personal Property

One of the more distinctive provisions appears near the beginning of the will.

Elvis anticipated that his estate would include tangible personal property of many different types and values, including trophies and other items accumulated during his professional career.

Rather than attempting to identify and distribute every item individually, he gave his executor broad discretion over their disposition, provided the executor acted in good faith and in the best interests of the estate and beneficiaries.

For an entertainer such as Elvis, those possessions were not necessarily ordinary household objects.

Clothing, awards, jewelry, automobiles, stage-related items and memorabilia associated with a famous person can eventually have enormous historical and financial value.

The provision demonstrates why estate planning should take account of the nature of a person's property rather than treating every estate as though it consists only of a house and bank accounts.

Elvis Also Planned for His Royalties

Elvis's will specifically addressed money received after his death for services he had performed during his lifetime.

Item X refers to payments arising from matters such as royalties, concerts, motion-picture contracts and personal appearances.

For most people, death largely ends their ability to generate new income. A major entertainer can be different. Music, films and other intellectual property may continue producing revenue long after death.

Elvis could not have known how commercially valuable his legacy would become, but his will recognized that money connected with his career could continue arriving after his death.

Elvis Included a Spendthrift Provision

Item IX contains another provision commonly used in trusts: a spendthrift provision.

It generally prevented a beneficiary's interest in trust principal or income from being transferred or encumbered and sought to protect that interest from creditors and legal process while the property remained in trust.

A trust therefore can accomplish more than delaying an inheritance.

Depending upon applicable law and the circumstances, it may also provide a degree of protection for inherited assets while they remain in trust.

What Happened When Elvis's Trust Terminated?

The trust created by Elvis's will was not intended to last forever.

Item IV provided that when a child reached age 25 — assuming both Vernon and Minnie Mae had already died — the trust for that child would terminate and the remaining assets would be distributed to the child outright and free of further trust.

Vernon died in 1979 and Minnie Mae died in 1980. Lisa Marie was Elvis's only child.

When Lisa Marie turned 25 on February 1, 1993, the trust created under Elvis's will terminated and the remaining assets became hers.

That included the estate's interest in Graceland and other assets that had been managed for her benefit.

But termination of Elvis's trust did not mean that Graceland had to be sold or that the business built around Elvis's legacy had to be dismantled.

Lisa Marie chose to establish a new trust, The Elvis Presley Trust, to continue management of the estate. Priscilla Presley and the National Bank of Commerce continued as co-trustees.

This provides another useful estate-planning lesson:

The termination of a trust does not necessarily mean the end of the assets or businesses that were held in it.

Once a beneficiary becomes entitled to property, the beneficiary may keep it, sell it, place it into another trust or use another legal structure to manage it.

In Elvis's case, the testamentary trust accomplished its purpose. It preserved and managed the inheritance while Lisa Marie was young and transferred the property when she reached the age Elvis selected.

The history of Graceland continued after Lisa Marie became its owner. Rather than follow all of those subsequent transactions here, readers who want to know how ownership and management developed after Lisa Marie can consult the Official Graceland History of the Elvis Presley Estate:

https://www.graceland.com/about-graceland

Elvis Planned for Children He Never Had

Although Lisa Marie was Elvis's only child, the will did not assume that she would necessarily remain his only child.

It repeatedly referred to his children and descendants and expressly contemplated "any other lawful issue" Elvis might have.

Elvis never had another child, but the language meant that his estate plan could accommodate another child if circumstances changed after he signed the will.

That is sound estate planning.

A will should not merely work on the day it is signed. Whenever possible, it should anticipate reasonably foreseeable changes that might occur before the person has an opportunity to sign a new one.

Estate-Planning Lessons From Elvis Presley's Will

Elvis Presley's will provides several lessons that remain relevant today.

Do not automatically give a young beneficiary an inheritance outright. Elvis used a trust and delayed outright distribution until age 25.

Decide who will control a child's inheritance. For divorced parents, deciding who inherits is only part of the planning. If a former spouse is not to participate in managing the estate or a child's trust, that intention should be expressly addressed and appropriate fiduciaries and successors selected.

Choose your executor and trustee carefully. The people administering an estate may confront problems the person making the will could never have anticipated.

Plan for successor fiduciaries. Elvis's father died less than two years after Elvis, making the succession provisions particularly important.

Give fiduciaries enough flexibility. Elvis gave his executor and trustee substantial discretion to manage property as circumstances required.

Use formulas when appropriate. Elvis did not have to predict exactly which family members would survive him for many years. His will established a distribution structure that could operate as family circumstances changed.

Consider unusual assets. Royalties, intellectual property, memorabilia, a business and unique real estate may require very different planning from ordinary financial accounts.

Think about property management, not merely property distribution. Graceland demonstrates that deciding whether to hold, sell or develop an asset can be just as important as deciding who ultimately inherits it.

A Will Is More Than a List of Who Gets What

Perhaps the most valuable lesson from Elvis Presley's will is that a will does much more than identify heirs.

It creates a structure.

Elvis's will identified beneficiaries, established trusts, selected fiduciaries, provided for successor fiduciaries, addressed real estate and personal property, protected trust assets, dealt with royalties and gave the people managing the estate broad powers to respond to circumstances that Elvis himself could not predict.

It also demonstrates why estate planning frequently relies upon formulas and contingencies rather than simply giving particular assets to particular people.

Elvis could not know which of his beneficiaries would survive the others. He could not know whether he would have additional children. He could not know that his father would die less than two years after him.

His will nevertheless provided a mechanism capable of responding to those events.

Elvis could not have known in March 1977 that he had only a few months to live.

Nor could he have predicted what Graceland or his name would be worth decades later.

But the legal structure he left behind could continue functioning after he was gone.

And when the trust had served its purpose, it ended as his will provided.

That may be the most important estate-planning lesson from the King's will:

A good estate plan does not merely determine who receives your property when you die. It provides a plan for what happens next.

Read the Full Will

The full text of Elvis A. Presley's Last Will and Testament is available through the OpenLab at New York City College of Technology, City University of New York:

https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/elvis-presley/2015/04/14/last-will-and-testament-of-elvis-a-presley/

For the subsequent history of Graceland and the Elvis Presley estate, see the official Graceland website:

https://www.graceland.com/about-graceland

Dating After Divorce in Massachusetts: What Changes Legally—and What Does Not

2026-08-13T10:07:36Z

Dating after divorce can feel very different from dating before marriage. You may be rebuilding your social life, discovering how dating has changed, and deciding when—or whether—to introduce a new partner to your children.

The legal situation also changes once your divorce becomes final. As discussed in my article, “Dating While Getting Divorced in Massachusetts: What You Need to Know,” dating during a pending divorce can complicate custody, property division, negotiations, and the emotional tone of the case. After the divorce, you are legally free to date. However, decisions about dating can still create problems with your former spouse, children, friends, and extended family. A new relationship can also become relevant in court if it affects the children or violates an existing parenting order.

Dating Alone Usually Has No Legal Effect

A Massachusetts court generally will not become involved merely because a divorced person begins dating. Your former spouse does not have the right to choose whom you date, approve your new partner, or prevent you from having a relationship. Ordinary dating generally does not change custody, parenting time, child support, or the terms of your divorce judgment. The issue is usually not whether you are dating, but whether your decisions adversely affect your children or interfere with your existing obligations. For example, dating could become relevant if you repeatedly give up parenting time to see a new partner, leave the children with someone who is unsafe, violate restrictions in your parenting plan, or expose the children to inappropriate conduct. If a relationship eventually develops into cohabitation, additional issues may arise for a person receiving alimony. During the early stages of dating, however, the more immediate concerns are usually privacy, parenting, and the effect of the relationship on family and friends.

Dating May Change Relationships With Friends and Family

A divorce often changes more than the relationship between two spouses. Mutual friends may feel pressured to choose sides. Relatives may remain angry about the divorce or may continue to hope that the couple will reconcile. A new dating relationship can bring these tensions to the surface. Some friends may be supportive, while others may criticize the relationship or relay details to your former spouse. Even people with good intentions may repeat private information that increases conflict. Be selective about whom you trust with details about your dating life. You do not need to hide the fact that you are dating, but you also do not need to provide friends and relatives with a running account of the relationship. Avoid discussing:

Private information about the person you are dating;
Intimate details about the relationship;
Comparisons between the new partner and your former spouse;
Complaints about your former spouse;
Plans that have not been discussed with your children; and
Information that could be repeated out of context.

Assume that anything you tell a mutual friend could eventually reach your former spouse.

Relationships With Former In-Laws May Become Complicated

If you have children, you may continue to have a relationship with your former in-laws. They are still your children’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, even though your marriage has ended. A new relationship may be uncomfortable for them. They may see it as evidence that you have replaced their family member, or they may worry that the new partner will interfere with their relationship with the children. You are not required to obtain your former in-laws’ approval before dating. Nevertheless, unnecessary displays or detailed discussions about your dating life may damage relationships that remain important to your children. Be courteous, but maintain reasonable boundaries. Conversations with former in-laws should generally focus on the children rather than your romantic life. Do not ask them to keep secrets from your former spouse, defend your decisions, or act as messengers between the two of you.

Expect That Information May Reach Your Former Spouse

After a divorce, some people discover that their social circle has become an informal information network. Friends, relatives, neighbors, and even children may repeat where they went, whom they saw, and what they did. You cannot control everything other people say. You can, however, avoid conduct that predictably creates misunderstandings or unnecessary conflict. For example:

Do not post provocative photographs intended to upset your former spouse;
Do not discuss the new relationship at children’s activities or family events;
Do not use mutual friends to communicate information about your dating life;
Do not ask your children to conceal the relationship;
Do not engage in public arguments involving your former spouse and new partner; and
Do not allow the new partner to confront or criticize your former spouse.

The goal is not to live in secrecy. It is to keep your personal life from becoming another source of conflict.

Introduce a New Partner to the Children Carefully

The entry of a new person into the family can be difficult for children, even after the divorce is over. Children may still hope that their parents will reunite. They may also believe that accepting a new partner would be a betrayal of the other parent. There is no universal timetable for introducing a romantic partner. The decision should depend upon the child’s age, maturity, emotional adjustment, and the stability of the new relationship. Before making an introduction, consider:

Whether the relationship is likely to last;
Whether the children have adjusted to the divorce;
Whether the introduction is being made for the children’s benefit or the parent’s convenience;
Whether the new partner understands appropriate boundaries;
Whether the children are already dealing with other major changes; and
Whether the timing will unnecessarily expose the children to adult conflict.

Early introductions can cause children to become attached to someone who may soon disappear from their lives. Repeated introductions to different dating partners may also make children feel that their home life is unstable. Children should not be asked to keep the relationship secret, deliver information to the other parent, or choose between a parent and the new partner.

Do Not Force a Relationship Between Your Children and Your New Partner

Introducing a dating partner does not mean that the children must immediately accept or develop affection for that person. Children may need time to adjust. A new partner should not attempt to become a substitute parent or take control of discipline. During the early stages of a relationship, the child’s parent should remain responsible for rules, discipline, and communication with the other parent. Children should be expected to behave respectfully, but they should not be required to call the new partner “Mom” or “Dad,” display affection, or treat the person as a member of the family before they are ready. Listen to the children’s concerns without encouraging them to be disrespectful. A child’s initial discomfort does not necessarily mean that the relationship is harmful, but serious or persistent concerns should not be ignored.

Keep the New Partner Out of Co-Parenting Disputes

A new partner may want to be supportive, especially if you are having difficulties with your former spouse. However, that person should not become directly involved in custody or parenting disputes. The new partner should generally avoid:

Sending messages to your former spouse;
Participating in arguments at parenting exchanges;
Criticizing your former spouse in front of the children;
Reviewing or responding to co-parenting communications;
Making decisions reserved for the child’s parents; and
Posting comments about the divorce or custody arrangement online.

Allowing a new partner to become involved can make the former spouse feel threatened or replaced and may intensify a disagreement that the parents could otherwise resolve.

Review Your Parenting Plan and Divorce Agreement

Some divorce agreements contain provisions addressing romantic partners. These may regulate overnight guests, introductions to the children, substance use, or communication concerning adults who regularly care for the children. Before introducing a new partner or arranging an overnight visit while the children are present, review your divorce agreement and parenting plan. Do not assume that a provision has disappeared merely because the divorce is final. The enforceability of a particular restriction can depend upon its language, the circumstances in which it was adopted, and whether enforcement remains consistent with the children’s best interests. If you are uncertain about what a provision means, consult an attorney before acting. Even when an agreement contains no dating provision, parents must continue following all custody and parenting orders. A new relationship does not excuse a parent from observing the parenting schedule, providing required information, or communicating appropriately with the other parent.

Protect Your Privacy and Personal Safety

Dating today often involves applications, text messages, email, and social media. These forms of communication create records that can be copied, saved, and shared. Be cautious about giving a new acquaintance personal information about your finances, children, custody schedule, home, or former spouse. You do not need to recount every detail of your divorce on an early date. Repeatedly discussing your former spouse can cause a new relationship to revolve around the old one. It may also result in private information being shared with someone you do not yet know well. Take reasonable safety precautions when meeting someone for the first time. Meet in a public place, tell a trusted person where you will be, and avoid giving a new acquaintance immediate access to your home or children.

Be Careful About Social Media

Posting photographs of a new relationship may appear harmless after divorce, but social media can still create problems. Posts may be offered as evidence that:

A parent is exposing the children to unsafe conduct;
Someone is violating a parenting order;
A parent is traveling after claiming to be unavailable for parenting time;
A person misrepresented financial circumstances;
A new partner is interfering with the co-parenting relationship; or
A dating relationship has developed into cohabitation that may affect alimony.

Social media can also create conflict without ever becoming court evidence. A photograph that appears innocent to you may upset your children, former spouse, or former in-laws. Posting a relationship publicly before discussing it with your children may cause them to learn about it from someone else. Before posting, assume that your former spouse, your children, your former spouse’s attorney, and a judge could eventually see it. Privacy settings do not guarantee privacy. Friends can save, copy, and forward screenshots. Discuss social media expectations with the person you are dating. Ask that nothing about the relationship be posted without your knowledge, particularly while the relationship is new. If the relationship becomes established, agree that each of you will consult the other before posting photographs or personal information involving the relationship or the children.

Do Not Use Dating to Compete With Your Former Spouse

Sometimes one former spouse begins dating before the other. This can create feelings of jealousy, rejection, or competition. Do not begin or publicize a relationship merely to show that you have “moved on.” Likewise, do not pressure yourself to date because your former spouse is dating. Competing over who finds a new partner first is likely to produce poor decisions and unnecessary conflict.

Move Forward Without Recreating the Conflict

Dating after divorce can be an important part of rebuilding your life. Your former spouse generally cannot control whether you date or whom you choose to see. At the same time, the freedom to begin a new relationship does not eliminate your continuing responsibilities to your children or your obligations under the divorce judgment. The best approach is usually to keep the new relationship separate from disputes with your former spouse. Introduce a partner to the children carefully, maintain appropriate boundaries, comply with your parenting plan, and be thoughtful about what you share with friends, relatives, and social media. Patience, discretion, and good judgment can help ensure that a new beginning does not become a new source of conflict.