Court overturns US tycoon's will Court overturns US tycoon's will that left fortune to Panama's poor

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Court overturns US tycoon's will that left fortune to Panama's poor
Accusations fly after judges rule that Wilson Lucom's $50m to set up foundation for poor children should go to his family instead
Rory Carroll in Panama
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 3 October 2010 17.43 BST

http://static.guim.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/3/1286114987234/panama-slum-lucom-donatio-006.jpg

A slum in Panama City – areas like this would have been helped
by Wilson Lucom's $50m donation. Photograph: David Levene

It was going to be the largest single charitable donation in Panama's history: more than $50m (£32m) for poor children.

Wilson Lucom, a US tycoon, left most of his estate to a foundation to help the neediest people in the country where he lived until his death in 2006, aged 88.

Now, four years later, after a bitter legal battle, the fortune is going to one of Panama's most powerful dynasties – including the ambassador to Britain – and the children have been left without a cent.

Panama's supreme court declared Lucom's will void in August, it has emerged, giving the entire estate to his widow, Hilda, the ailing, octogenarian matriarch of the Arias family, which has extensive media, property and financial interests.

Her five children from a previous marriage – scions of a family which boasts former presidents as well as ministers and diplomats – are expected to inherit the money after she dies.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/03/wilson-lucom-panama-court-ruling

[grilled onions]

1. What Is The Point Of A Will If Judges Can Overturn Them?

Just what money needs is to go back to even more money! So sad to see the poor kids suffer--still.

[Matariki]

3. You know what they say: Where there's a will, there's a family.

Ask me I know. I had two wicked step-parents that outlived my parents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. If it's more than you need to live, better to give while you're still alive

That way you can make sure it gets there. I'm sure this guy could have managed without most of the $50m.

[timtom]

9. Actually, that's an excellent point!

[No Elephants]

10. Some wills SHOULD be overturned. Wills made at gunpoint would be an extreme example.

Forgeries would be another. A will made by someone who is mentally incompetent (or drunk) at the time is another.


This sound suspicious:


"His widow – whose son Gilberto is Panama's current ambassador to Britain – protested. She hired a prominent lawyer, Héctor Infante, who challenged the validity of the will and claimed the tycoon had been manipulated by advisers.

The widow launched a legal battle against Richard Lehman, Lucom's longtime lawyer and trustee of the would-be foundation. Lehman was charged with 15 criminal charges including negligent homicide in Lucom's death, forgery, extortion and perfidy. He and a colleague were placed on an Interpol list. Lehman said it was a smear campaign, who is based in Florida. "It's amazing what they did to me."

Sounds as though the guy's lawyer planned on being the main beneficiary of the will. At a minimum, he would have had a lifetime job. Or, if he was so inclined, he could have lived high off the hog until he died. Who would have looked over his shoulder? Panama's orphans?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The justification for overturning this looks pretty thin, though

It seems to boil down to the used of 'beloved' to describe his wife; the higher court said that must mean that he wanted all his money to go to her, rather than just $20,000 a month.

[No Elephants]

12. I think the court believed the lawyer had been crooked.

I edited my post before seeing yours. Please see what I quoted from the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The description of the court decision said nothing about the lawyer

It said:

"Several lower courts upheld the will as reflecting Lucom's last wishes but Panama's supreme court declared it void last month, arguing that Lucom's reference to his "beloved wife" showed he really wanted her to inherit the estate, not poor children."

If you have another report that said the supreme court thinks the lawyer had been crooked, it would be useful to see. But the report that we have says the decision was because of 'beloved'.

[No Elephants]

19. I never said it did. My post said "I think the court believed...." And I gave a quote from the OP

in a prior post to explain why I believed as I did.

I never said a word about what was or was not in the Panamanian court's opinion. So, I am at a loss to understand why your reply to my prior post suggests I furnish another article about the court's opinion to justify my post about my own belief about what may have been in a Panamanian judge's mind.

As to the OP story, the slant of the Guardian writer against the widow is fairly blatant. (My version would not make as good a story as orphans being screwed.

Still, he does mention the sleaziness of the deceased's lawyer, as I quoted upthread. And even the Guardian writer does not say the court disagreed with the charges against the lawyer. And, I'm guessing it was not one sentence court opinion, either.

I did not read the Panamanian opinion, let alone the whole history of the case, nor was I in court to observe the witness--and the judges. I doubt the Guardian reporter had that depth of knowledge, either. And we don't know which issues were presented in Panama or what Panamanian law required the reviewing court to limit its review to.

However, I do know for certain that judges are human. Hence the saying "Hard cases make bad law." When your gut very much wants you to decide one way, but applicable law may, for example, say you can only consider the wording of the will, your may decision may well set bad precedent. (That's only an example to explain the saying. I have no idea what Panama law is, or if Panama uses precedent as law, as we do.)

If I were sitting on the bench in Panama, I would, of course, want Panama to see the money. However, if I knew the lawyer acted improperly, as the U.S. had found, and the money might well stay in his wallet in Miami, I might grasp at any evidence applicable law allowed me to consider. Another possibility is that judges were bribed. the Guardian story, however, no evidence at all of that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I can't think why you're 'at a loss'

You have said you think there was something in a judge's mind, when nothing about that has been said in the report we've read. Instead, as I pointed out, the report says the supreme court made the decision because of the 'beloved' description. Asking you to point to any evidence seems quite reasonable. You "never said a word about what was or was not in the Panamanian court's opinion"; yes, that was your problem. You just guessed, based on the accusations made by the widow, and ignored what we do know.

You accuse the Guardian writer of bias, with no reason. You ignore the bias of the widow, who stands to gain millions of dollars. You say "the Guardian writer does not say the court disagreed with the charges against the lawyer"; you omit that the charges were dismissed. The lawyer was criticised, not found guilty of anything. Since the charges has already been dismissed, why should the court make that part of their ruling, or the article mention it?

There is someone in the article who is completely independent: Hector Avila, head of a children's charity. He says ""That money could have helped a lot of children. If that family keeps it God will not forgive them ... In this country political and economic forces weigh more than justice."

[Angry Dragon]

2. Courts screw you over even after you die........

To hell with the poor and needy the rich do not have enough..............they need more

[No Elephants]

13. Maybe, but please see Reply #10. It may really have been widow v. lawyer, not orphans v. widow.

[boppers]

5. Messy.

I guess $20,000 a month wasn't enough for his widow.

[No Elephants]

14. Please see Reply #10.

[bluesmail]

6. UnEffingBelieveable! Absolutely the rights we thought we had even at death

are an illusion.

[No Elephants]

15. Wills have been overturned for centuries--and some SHOULD be

I don't know if this will should have been overturned but it sure sounds as though the deceased's lawyer is a sleaze.

[Octafish]

7. No es gallina fina.

The Tailor of Panama -- Custom Fit for Today's USA.

[Judi Lynn]

18. That's a wonderful OP. Glad I saw it this time, missing it the 1st.

NO ONE should miss watching the Panama Deception. It contains vital newsfilm, and information which our corporate media refused to share with the American public over what their elected President did to the people of Panama.

It's worth seeing again, regularly, to refresh one's own mind. Once you know about it, you want to make sure you never forget.

Thank you, Octafish.

[Octafish]

21. You are most welcome, my Friend. From Samy and Sandra...

One never forgets a good story -- especially when it has relates to matters of life and death, as well as liberty and servitude.

Usted eres una Gallina Fina, Doña Judi Lynn.

PS: Have you met my minders?

[zehnkatzen]

8. I sure hope the additional money helps the Arias clan get by ...

... we all know how tough it is to pay the bills these days.

And those poor kids would've just spent it on a meal or some medicine or something. Clearly a waste.

Wealth is wasted on the poor; just ask any rich person.

[No Elephants]

17. The kids may never have seen much (or any) of the money anyway. Please see Reply 10.

It may have been a choice between making the widow richer or making the deceased's lawyer richer.