Monthly Archives: August 2025

I came across an article regarding Prince (born “Prince Rogers Nelson”) which got me more interested in his Estate. A small idea took root and as I researched, I discovered that despite the near decade that has passed since his death, Prince’s Estate remains a “Controversy.” Just this week, his former protegee and co-star in the 1984 film, Purple Rain, Apollonia (Patty Kotero) sued Paisley Park Enterprises, LLC accusing the company of using bad faith trademark proceedings to steal her name. According to the lawsuit, while Prince was alive he encouraged Apollonia to use the name professionally. After his death, his Estate undertook to acquire all things related to Prince, including cancellation of Apollonia’s trademarks and ownership of the name. Several sources explore those topics in detail, but that’s beyond the scope of this article. This article will focus on the completely preventable mess that Prince left behind when he died on April 21, 2016, at age 57.

Prince was born on June 7, 1958, and rose to fame as a singer, songwriter, musician and actor. He began releasing albums in the late 70’s and in 1984, he became the first singer to have a number one film, album, and single in the United States, with the release of the film, Purple Rain, its soundtrack, and his first Billboard Hot 100 chart-topping single, “When Doves Cry.” Even today, years after his death, he’s remembered as one of the most influential musicians of his generation. “Nothing Compares 2 U” sounds more poignant meaning now considering the void left behind by Prince who was adept at blending various musical styles, penning provocative lyrics, and playing multiple instruments, all while exuding a flamboyant, androgynous persona. Anyone who has heard him play live knows what he brought to the stage and how much the music industry lost when he died.

Prince’s death stunned many, especially when they learned that he died without an Estate Plan despite having assets valued at well over $100 million (some sources estimated it as high as $300 million). Prince left no surviving spouse and no issue resulting in a six-year legal battle as “Thieves in the Temple” began their plunder. Because Prince died without a Will or Revocable Trust, the laws of intestacy of his state of residence, Minnesota, governed distribution of his vast Estate. Interestingly, Minnesota intestacy laws include half-siblings as heirs, which underscores the idea that “The Beautiful Ones” (your closest loved ones) might not always inherit what you expect. Prince’s sister and five half-siblings spent six years fighting over his Estate, disagreeing over distribution and valuation, and initiating additional lawsuits.  It’s bittersweet to think that behind that brilliance, his own Estate would one day be a storm of “Purple Rain.”

Unfortunately, this type of protracted battle often occurs when an individual dies without an Estate Plan, particularly in situations involving sizeable Estates. Prince amassed tremendous wealth, held unique assets, and owned business interests at his death, yet failed to undertake any Estate Planning whatsoever. Arguably, he had over $150 million reasons to complete the task, yet Prince left no instructions regarding what should happen to his assets upon death.  That failure opened the door for his siblings to fight over his wealth and provided the attorneys handling the matter with considerable fees—perhaps they were the only ones singing “Take Me with U” to the bank. While most individuals don’t have anywhere near the level of wealth that Prince did, modest estates are not immune from these universal issues. Anytime an individual dies without an Estate Plan he or she leaves behind “Chaos and Disorder” rather than a “Kiss.”

A comprehensive Estate Plan goes a long way toward avoiding that confusion and expense.  Those documents – a Living Trust, also known as a Revocable Trust (a “Trust”), a Will, a Property Power of Attorney, a Healthcare Power of Attorney, a Living Will, and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (“HIPAA”) Authorization serve as your personal “Sign o’ the Times” to the world, making clear your wishes. If an individual dies without a Revocable Trust or Will, that’s referred to as dying intestate, which was what Prince did. As we discovered by reviewing his Estate, intestacy statutes determine distribution of assets without any input from the decedent. Those statutes also fail to account for the specific needs of the individual recipients, such as receiving needs-based governmental benefits leaving those individuals to wonder “Why You Wanna Treat Me So Bad?”

Intestate estates need to go through the probate process which requires an individual to petition the court for appointment as executor, personal representative, or administrator. Once that appointment occurs, then the individual has the legal authority to collect and distribute the decedent’s assets pursuant to the distribution scheme in the statute. That individual likely will need to retain an attorney to understand and navigate the complex court system. A judge oversees the many steps involved in this public probate process. Probate makes private matters public—something Prince himself fiercely avoided in life. His privacy, his control, even his mystique—all surrendered to a court record. It’s ironic that a man who once sang “I Would Die 4 U” left behind no blueprint for those he cared about. A little planning could have made his exit as smooth as “Diamonds and Pearls.”

So, what’s the lesson? Don’t leave the “Beautiful Ones” in your life crying in the “Purple Rain.” Whether your Estate is the size of a “Little Red Corvette” or a whole “Paisley Park,” get your Estate Plan in place. Otherwise, the courts and attorneys may be the only ones singing “Take Me With U,” and your loved ones could end up “Delirious.” Estate planning isn’t glamorous, but it’s the best way to keep control of your legacy, protect your privacy, and make sure your wishes are honored—so your family can celebrate your life instead of fighting over it. “Let’s Go Crazy” about planning now, to avoid “Thieves in the Temple” later.

What do “Hulk Hogan” (born Terry Gene Bollea) and Disclaimers have in common? Potentially, Hulk’s daughter, Brooke Hogan (“Brooke”), if sources portray the situation accurately. I recently read an article asserting that Hulk Hogan had his affairs in order and had created a Revocable Trust prior to his death. For the curious, the terms of a Revocable Trust generally do not become public, which means that Hogan’s plan may remain a mystery. That changes if someone initiates a lawsuit. In this situation, that could happen given the discord demonstrated by his family in public.

Let’s start at the beginning, or rather the end, of Hogan’s life. Hogan’s wife of nearly two years, Sky Daily (“Sky”), and his two children, Nick Hogan and Brooke, survive him. Hogan left an estimated $25 million estate that includes his real estate portfolio of $11 million, his Clearwater, Florida compound, several business ventures, a bar, plans for another establishment near Madison Square Garden, along with trademarks and intellectual property related to his wrestling persona. If Hogan failed to update his Estate Plan after marrying Sky, Florida law entitles her to thirty percent (30%) of the elective estate. Of course, Hogan’s plan could give her more than that and unless Hogan’s Estate Plan becomes public, we must guess. While interesting, that’s not the focus of this blog post.

According to several articles, in 2023 Brooke asked Hogan’s financial advisor to remove her as a beneficiary of his estate. Reports indicate that Brooke made this request because she distrusted people in her father’s inner circle whom she believed were taking advantage of him. Here’s the twist, the financial advisor has no power to remove Brooke as a beneficiary, even of the accounts under the financial advisor’s control. Hogan himself would have had to undertake that task. If Brooke wants no part of her father’s Estate, then she needs to execute a disclaimer, it’s her only option, and that’s the focus of this blog post.

One might think that it’s easy to disclaim, in fact, it’s not. Executing a “qualified disclaimer” takes some planning. It’s important to note that a qualified disclaimer means that Section 2518 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) treats the disclaimant as though they predeceased the decedent, thereby avoiding potential gift tax consequences for the disclaimant. A non-qualified disclaimer, on the other hand, results in a gift from the disclaimant to the new beneficiary, which may trigger undesirable tax consequences. To avoid this, it’s essential to meet all the requirements for a qualified disclaimer.

First, the disclaimer needs to be in writing. Next, the disclaimer needs to be irrevocable. It cannot contain any contingencies, be subject to change, be reversed or be qualified in any other way. The disclaimant cannot disclaim based upon any condition, for example, another individual also disclaiming. The disclaimant needs to execute the disclaimer timely, within nine months of the creation of the interest, or within nine months of the beneficiary attaining the age of twenty-one (21). Determining the creation of an interest requires a careful review of the document creating the interest and the facts and circumstances surrounding that creation. In PLR 201407009, a settlor established an irrevocable trust in 1977 for the benefit of the settlor’s descendants. More than thirty-five (35) years later, a descendant who became eligible to receive assets under that trust was approaching the age of majority and inquired whether a disclaimer was possible. The Internal Revenue Service opined that the descendant could disclaim as long as the disclaimer met the other rules under IRC §2518. This PLR demonstrates the importance of understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding the interest sought to be disclaimed.

In addition to the requirements noted above, the disclaimant needs to execute the disclaimer before accepting any benefits from the property. If the disclaimant accepted benefits, then the disclaimant cannot disclaim. Interestingly, it’s possible to disclaim a partial interest in property. Finally, the disclaimant cannot control or direct the property in any way. This means that the disclaimant cannot say, I disclaim to David. That would be a gift. The disclaimant simply disclaims the property, and the document creating the interest directs what happens next and who receives the disclaimed property.

Inexperienced Estate Planning attorneys may not think of a disclaimer even when the situation warrants it. For example, some beneficiaries don’t need the money or property, perhaps the individual already has a taxable Estate without the gift. Perhaps they prefer that the property pass to the next individual in line for the gift, such as an adult child just graduating from college or buying their first home. Disclaimers add yet another dimension to the wild, wonderful world of Estate Planning and give us yet another tool to use. Properly executed disclaimers allow individuals to avoid tax and may help achieve a more desirable result than simply accepting property and then gifting it away.