In large part because of this, his legacy has been marred by fighting among his children over the handling of his estate, including claims of secrecy, mismanagement and misappropriating assets.  Years ago, MLK's heirs formed a corporation to manage King's estate, but then they fought over control over the corporation. You can read Trial & Heirs' coverage of the lawsuit between the King children here.  Luckily, the heirs were able to reach a settlement and ended that round of fighting.

But, that doesn't mean the court battles have ended.  The corporation which operates the estate turned its attention to a television anchor in Southern Mississippi, named Howard Nelson Ballou.  The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc., sued Ballou and claimed he has possession of historic documents relating to King.

These include handwritten letters from King, transcripts of speeches he delivered, statements and newsletters he authored, a handwritten letter by Rosa Parks, and similar writings of great importance to King's efforts in the 1950′s civil rights movement.

Ballou's parents had been close friends with King and his wife, Coretta Scott King.  Ballou's father was King's fraternity brother, and his mother had been King's personal secretary in the 1950′s.  She helped him research, type and edit his speeches, answered his mail and made his travel arrangements.  She says that, through her relationship with King, he gave her the documents.

Ballou's mother, Maude Williams Ballou, now 86 years old, recently said in a sworn statement that King wanted her to keep the documents by giving them to her at different times, and telling her, "[H]ere, Maude, this is for you."  She says she always considered the writings to be her personal belongings, and King never asked for them back between then and the day he was assassinated in 1968.

Ballou's husband stored the documents at Elizabeth City State University, in North Carolina, where he worked until he passed away.  The University found the documents in 2007 and gave them to their son, Howard Nelson Ballou. When a local newspaper story mentioned the discovery of the documents, the King heirs took notice.

They sued Ballou in federal court in Mississippi.  The Ballou family, unlike the King Estate Corporation, likely does not have endless funds available to pay lawyers for a lawsuit over what King really intended.

Howard Ballou is trying to end the lawsuit early.  He filed a motion asking the Judge to dismiss the case, based on the sworn statement of his mother.  The King Estate Corporation is arguing against it, saying it's premature to even think about dismissing the case before its lawyers have been able to question Maude Ballou in a deposition.  Those lawyers have pointed out that that any documents which Maude Ballou came to receive as an employee of King may not qualify as gifts.  The Judge has not yet ruled on the dismissal request.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what Reverend King intended when he gave the documents to Maude Ballou.  Did he want her to hold onto them as an employee, or keep them as gifts?  Obviously, no one really knows, making this lawsuit a difficult one.

That is the nature of lawsuits involving gifts and verbal promises.  They happen to families of all different means, especially when those who passed away failed to make their intent clear in a will or trust.

King could have clarified his intent rather easily by creating even a simple will. Because he didn't, the result is an expensive lawsuit where no one really knows what he intended ... although Maude swears under oath that the documents were gifts to her and remained as personal belongings to her family ever since.

In our law practice, we see fights over personal property such as jewelry, artwork, furniture, and even Christmas ornaments and family pictures.  It's sadly too common, especially considering how easy it is to prevent court battles like this one.

That's why everyone should clearly document their intentions in a will or trust, with the help of an experienced estate planning attorney.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

Huguette Clark was a mysterious and reclusive New York multi-millionairess who passed away on May 24, 2011, a mere two weeks short of her 105th birthday. 

Clark was the daughter, and only surviving child, of William Andrews Clark, who died in 1925 and was believed to be one of the richest Americans at the time.  He built his wealth through copper mining and served as a senator of Montana.  For many years, his daughter was thought to have died long ago.  Indeed, Huguette Clark hadn't been seen in the Fifth Avenue apartment that she lived in (and still owned when she died) in 22 years.

Where was she all that time?  Living in a hospital room, even though she was in good health when she moved there in the late 1980s.  Watched over by a private nurse, her attorney, and an accountant -- who was a convicted sex offender -- Clark was said to have considered her collection of dolls to be her closest companions.  She was isolated from her family members, and the Manhattan district attorney's office has spent months in a lengthy criminal investigation over how her attorney, Wallace Bock, and accountant, Irving Kamsler, managed her vast fortune.

That duo says that she didn't want to see her family members -- all of whom were distant -- and that they merely followed her wishes.  They deny any wrongdoing.

And perhaps they're right.  Relying on reports of the criminal investigation, some of her relatives filed a court proceeding last year, asking for an independent guardian to be appointed to protect Clark.  The judge quickly dismissed the case and found it to be based on nothing but "speculative assertions."

Now that she has passed away, who stands to inherit her $400 million?  MSNBC.com, which has been reporting about Huguette Clark for more than a year, reports that most of her wealth is earmarked to pass to an art foundation that her will created.  Her collection of art, rare books, and musical instruments from her Fifth Avenue apartment and her oceanside Santa Barbara, California home, will go to the new foundation under the terms of her will.  Her Santa Barbara home will house the foundation.

Clark's will left the rest of her fortune to her long-time nurse, Hadassah Peri, and various other individuals, including her attorney and accountant who each stand to receive $500,000 each (despite their criminal troubles), not to mention potential millions more as executor fees and as directors of the new art foundation.  The will also leaves $1 million to the hospital in New York that Clark called home, and a rare Monet painting (said to be worth around $25 million) goes to an art museum in Washington, D.C.

You can read her April 2005 will, signed when she was 98 years old, here.  Reportedly, this was signed around the same point that Clark's attorney cut off contact with her family members.  The will specifically leaves them nothing, noting that Clark only had "minimal contacts" with them over the years.

Interestingly, the attorney who prepared and oversaw the signing of the will works for the same law firm in which Clark's attorney, Wally Bock, is a named partner.  Bock is the attorney who, along with the accountant, Kamsler, is still being investigated for how they managed Clark's fortune.  This is especially curious considering that the attorney named as having supervised the will, Lewis Siegel, is listed on the firm's website as practicing commercial and bankruptcy law, with no mention of estate planning.

Normally an estate planning attorney would at the very least draft a revocable living trust for someone with this amount of wealth, rather than relying on a simple will as was done in this case.  Additionally, many experienced estate planning attorneys would not prepare a will that named a law partner as a beneficiary, due to a potential conflict of interest.

But why the will was created in this fashion is only one of the questions surrounding the estate.  The big mysteries involve how much of Clark's money was spent.  MSNBC.com reports that Bock and Kamsler spent $170 million on behalf of Clark over the last 15 years of her life, when she never left her hospital room.  That works out to $1 million per month, give or take.

The sum includes $3 million spent on dolls and about $2 million on the attorney's favorite charity.  There was even $1.85 million paid to an Israeli settlement in which Bock's daughter lived.  The hospital's price tag was nearly $5 million, which would not seem out-of-line for 22 years of time Clark spent there, except that she was reportedly in good health for most of that time.

Not surprisingly, Clark's distant family members are questioning everything and have filed to challenge the validity of Clark's will.  If they win, 21 distant family members will inherit her wealth, instead of her art foundation and the other named beneficiaries.

In addition to claiming mental incompetency, the challenge undoubtedly will focus on the allegation of undue influence.  That is when a person, or people, uses coercion or other improper means to convince someone to leave them assets (such as through a will) when the person wouldn't have otherwise done so.

This will be a big question in this case, for several reasons.  First, the attorney and accountant held power of attorney over Clark.  Second, there were her odd and isolated living arrangements.  Finally, Bock and Kamsler were both named as will beneficiaries -- not to mention that they stand to receive $16 million or more in executor fees (according to the MSNBC.com report).  They clearly will not have an easy fight on their hands defending themselves and the will.

In New York, as in most states, the law will actually assume undue influence existed in certain circumstances.  This happens where someone had a trusted, confidential relationship with the person in question (such as would exist with a power of attorney or an attorney-client relationship) and that trusted person benefited from the will, especially where the same person or people were somehow involved in the will preparation process. While this law varies from state to state, in New York, it means that Bock and Kamsler will have to present evidence that the will was done without improper influence by them. This is not a simple legal hurdle to clear under the circumstances of this case.

The sad part is that if Clark did indeed want to benefit a charitable foundation rather than her distant family members, precautions could have been taken to protect those wishes. If her will is ultimately stricken based on undue influence by her attorney and accountant, then none of the wishes in her will would be followed.

This is a valuable lesson, even for those with fortunes of far less value than $400 million. Whenever there is a will or trust done under circumstances that are questionable or which could lead to a lawsuit later, extra care should be used to make sure that the documents are done the right way.  This can include getting a neutral law firm involved, or even videotaping the will or trust execution to show that the person really did intend what the document says.

These lawsuits are never fun for anyone, no matter how much is involved, so the more care that can be taken to prevent them, the better.

Update --MSNBC recently posted a new court filing by Huguette Clark's family members, which included an earlier will dated only six weeks before the April 2005 will.  This prior will left $5 million to Clark's nurse, Hadassah Peri, and the rest to her family members.  Interestingly, Wally Bock prepared and supervised this prior will, which is as different from the newer will as night and day.

Why the sudden change of heart over the course of six weeks?  That's what Clark's family members are asking.  This certainly makes their undue influence case that much stronger, and deepens the mysteries that will surely be explored through the litigation.  This also calls into serious question whether Clark did indeed wish to create an art foundation, managed by Bock, Kamsler and an additional attorney, as spelled out in her most recent will.

Certainly people can and do change their final intentions, even in a short time frame, but the circumstances surrounding the two wills is very interesting, to say the least.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

Bettencourt suffers from "mixed dementia" and "moderately severe" Alzheimer's disease, according to a medical report relied on by the Judge in making her decision.  Her mental decline sparked a family court fight.  It began three years ago when Bettencourt-Meyers started a lawsuit to protect her mother from photographer Francois-Marie Banier, who she claimed had charmed the elder Bettencourt out of assets worth almost one billion euros (about 1.4 billion dollars).  She also named Banier as sole heir in a new will and as beneficiary to vast life insurance policies.

Bettencourt was so furious with her daughter for the lawsuit that she vowed never to see her again.  She said that Banier was a close friend and nothing was wrong with the gifts.  She felt she was still mentally sharp.

During the course of the lawsuit and related court proceedings, it was revealed that Bettencourt had hundreds of millions of dollars in Swiss accounts and was not paying taxes on the money.  This became a national scandal because the wife of  France's finance minister helped invest Bettencourt's assets.  The minister, Eric Woerth, lost his position.  Even France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, was dragged into the scandal when it was alleged Bettencourt gave illegal cash donations to his election campaign.  Sarkozy denied the allegations.

Eventually, in late 2010, the legal proceedings filed by Bettencourt's daughter were settled.  Banier agreed to renounce the life insurance and Bettencourt agreed to redo her will.  She promised to have nothing more to do with the man described by many as  "dandy" and a "charmer".  The family reconciled and agreed that Bettencourt's lawyer, Pascal Wilhem, would manage her financial affairs and protect her.

A few months ago, the family feud returned to court when Bettencourt reportedly invested 170 million euros in a company belonging to the Wilhem's client.  This prompted Bettencourt-Meyers to again file legal proceedings to protect her mother.  Wilhelm was said to have encouraged the deal, which Bettencourt-Meyers felt was a conflict of interest.

The Judge must have agreed and shared the family's concern, because her ruling yesterday gave control over the vast financial holdings to Bettencourt-Meyers and her sons.  In doing so, she removed Wilhem from managing Bettencourt's fortune.

How vast is that fortune?  Forbes last pegged Liliane Bettencourt at #15 on its list of the world's billionaires.  Her net worth was estimated at $23.5 billion dollars.  She is the largest shareholder of L'Oreal, which was founded by her father.  Now the family will manage that fortune instead of outside advisers accused of "scheming" against Bettencourt.

Bettencourt's lawyer vows that she will appeal the decision.  Bettencourt recently said in an interview that she would leave France rather than allow her daughter to take control of her life.

While it took three years of fighting in court, and public scrutiny that sparked multiple political scandals, Francoise Bettencourt-Meyers did what she had to do to protect her elderly mother from what she felt was extreme financial exploitation.  It's an epidemic in our country as well, where there are an estimated 5 million cases of financial abuse of seniors each year.

How can you protect your elderly family members?  Here are the National Center on Elder Abuse's 10 Warning Signs and Symptoms to watch out for.  Awareness is the first step towards prevention.

Unfortunately, if you feel that you have an elderly family member who may be a victim of financial abuse, you may have to follow the footsteps of the Bettencourt family and seek conservatorship or guardianship in court for protection.  The key is to act quickly, before it is too late.

Even though your family fortune may not be worth billions, the danger of financial exploitation is still very real.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

Soon after the tragic news broke of the passing of Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder and innovator extraordinaire, people began wondering what would become of his fortune.  Forbes recently estimated Jobs' wealth at $7 billion.  

ABCNews.com recently interviewed Danielle Mayoras on this very topic.  It reported how Jobs, the largest single shareholder of Disney (which of course owns ABC News), has received $242 million in Disney stock dividends alone, since 2006.  How much is his Disney stock worth?  $4.4 billion, for 138 million shares, good for 7.4 percent of the total Disney stock.

As Danielle pointed out in the interview, usually people with that much wealth do the proper estate planning, including using living trusts, charitable bequests, and more.  Not only does this keep their affairs private, it can help minimize estate taxes.  Topping out at 35%, the current estate tax laws -- while much lower than in years past -- will obviously take a big bite out of Jobs' family fortune.  That comes out to almost $2.45 billion in taxes, if Jobs did not do the proper planning.

Ultimately, we are unlikely to ever discover the full extent of planning Jobs did to minimize his taxes.  When living trusts are used the right way -- and assets are funded into them before death -- families are protected by privacy.  Wills must pass through probate court to work, which means they are public record.  Trusts, on the other hand, when properly funded before death, remain out of the public eye, unless there are problems, like a lawsuit.

Reuters reported that Jobs did use living trusts.  Real estate records in California show that in March, 2009, which was about two months after Jobs took his second leave of absence from Apple, Jobs and his wife transferred three real estate properties into two different trusts.  This means he funded those trusts with that real estate.  Funding a trust is key to using it correctly.

Does this mean Jobs funded all of his assets, such as his Disney stock, into his trusts too?  We don't know.  But with someone as intelligent -- and private -- as Jobs was, the smart money is on him having done so.   The only way we'll find out for sure, though, is if someone files his will in probate and opens his estate.  If that happens, it would be reported what assets have to pass through probate, which would only include assets that were not funded into the trusts during his life.  Jointly-held assets, such as joint bank accounts with his wife, and assets with beneficiary designations, like insurance, also would not have to pass through probate in most cases.

The proper estate planning is extra important when there are complicated family dynamics, such as second-marriages or with siblings who do not get along.  In Job's family, his first child was born out-of-wedlock to another woman, before his marriage, so doing the right legal planning was even more important for him.  A child does not have an automatic right to share in the inheritance, so how much Jobs chose to leave her -- and his other children -- was up to him.  When people don't make their intent clear in their estate planning documents, families often fight over their wishes, especially when there are children of different parents involved.

So many rich and famous people fail to do the proper estate planning.  Michael Jackson, James Brown, Gary Coleman, Sonny Bono, Jimi Hendrix, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Stieg Larsson are just a few that we have written about through Trial & Heirs, to help teach people about doing the proper planning to protect their family fortunes.

It's refreshing to write about a celebrity who apparently did things right.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

Family fights over wills, trusts and estates are far too common, not only in our country, but elsewhere.  Sometimes, those fights reach a whole new level.  This has certainly been the case with a tragic story from Panama which harmed those most in need ... millions of impoverished and starving children.

Wilson C. Lucom / PHOTO La Estrella

A Florida attorney, Richard Lehman, takes center stage in the dispute.   He recently sued political officials throughout Panama -- including three Supreme Court judges -- charging corruption, bribery, theft, and much more.  The fight involves the estate of Lehman's former friend and client, Wilson Lucom.

When he died in June of 2006 at the age of 88, Lucom was an expatriate American living in Panama.  One year before he died, Lucom signed a will generously leaving the majority of his $50 million fortune to a trust fund to benefit the poor and needy children of Panama.  That fortune includes ocean-front real estate which has appreciated in value, so that Lucom's estate is now valued at more than $150 million.

Lucom's widow, Hilda Piza Lucom, was well-connected in Panamanian political circles.  In fact, she used to be married to the son of a President of Panama.  Lucom's will left her a monthly allowance of $20,000 and the right to live in and use the marital home throughout her life.  Her children also received specific bequests (Lucom had no children of his own).  But Hilda wanted more ... much more.

Hilda sued to challenge the will and claimed that Lucom's attorney, Richard Lehman, had coerced Lucom into creating it so he could manage the charitable trust, which the will named as the primary beneficiary to Lucom's vast estate.  Through the lawsuit, a court in Panama removed Lehman as the estate's executor, but ultimately found the will valid.  Hilda then appealed to another court, which again found the will valid.

Finally, she appealed again to the Supreme Court of Panama.  That Court, acting through three judges, issued a strange decision which upheld the will but at the same time ruled that Lucom really wanted to benefit his "beloved wife."   The judges overturned the distribution of the bulk of Lucom's fortune to his charitable trust fund and instead named Hilda as the "universal heir."

Several different people, including the notary who signed the will and even a prosecutor, filed challenges to the Supreme Court's decision.  In the face of those legal challenges, the entire Supreme Court of Panama decided to review the case a second time.  For the last year, the case has been in a holding pattern, until the Supreme Court issues another ruling.

In the meantime, the Florida attorney, Lehman, is tired of waiting for the money to be released to help the poverty-stricken children in Panama.  It is estimated that 20% of Panamanian children suffer from malnutrition and more than one-half of children under the age of five live in poverty.  Lehman says he wants the children to finally benefit from Lucom's wishes.

So Lehman recently filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida, accusing Hilda, some of her adult children from her first marriage, and various Panamanian judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and others, of being part of a massive, criminal RICO conspiracy.  RICO is a set of United States federal laws used to combat organized crime and corruption.

In his lawsuit under the RICO laws, Lehman accuses the three Supreme Court judges of accepting bribes in the amount of $1.5 million, each.  He says Hilda and others acting on her behalf caused numerous false criminal charges to be asserted against him -- including one for murder -- in an effort to prevent him from acting as estate executor and to inhibit him from fighting against them in court.  He even suggests that the conspiracy led to a murder attempt on the life of one of Lehman's allies.

The RICO lawsuit seeks $732 million in damages on behalf of Lehman and the charitable trust that Lucom created to implement his directive to benefit poor children in Panama.  You can read the complaint that recently started this lawsuit here.

Lehman said, in an interview with Thompson Reuters, that "every word" in his RICO complaint is true and he wants the whole world to know about the corruption in Panama and the effect it's had on the starving children there.

His opponents think that this is nonsense.  One of the attorneys fighting against Lehman, Matias Dorta, emailed us a copy of the Florida's judge's ruling, which referred to Lehman as, "a covetous opportunist using the ancillary estate assets ... seeking personal advantage and control of assets in the $25-50 million domiciliary estate."  Dorta says that Lehman's new claims were already raised and dismissed in a previous lawsuit.

Clearly, there are two sides to the story, and both sides accuse the other of foul play.  You can read the Florida Judge's decision against Lehman, here.

Regardless of whether Lehman's more-shocking allegations are true, the fact remains that Lucom signed a will wanting to benefit those in Panama who most needed help.  While some question whether Lucom really had these charitable intentions, the case does present a lesson.  This lengthy and expensive probate court fight could have been largely avoided.

How?  There was no reason for Lucom to rely on a will and force his assets to pass through the court system, which had been accused by many of being corrupt.  While Lucom created a trust -- in Panama -- to implement his wishes (at least, according to Lehman), that trust was never funded with his estate assets before he died.

Lucom could have transferred his assets into his trust during his lifetime.  Or, better yet, he could have created a trust somewhere other than Panama (like Florida for example), transferred his assets into it, and avoided the Panama court system entirely.

Creating and a funding a revocable living trust -- early, before there is a question of mental competency or undue influence -- is the best way to prevent a family fight over your estate.  By making this change late in life, and failing to use a trust to avoid probate, Lucom made it much harder for his wishes to be followed.

It's a sad lesson that everyone can learn from.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.

Simon Cowell, the former American Idol judge famous for freezing contestants in their tracks with his biting critiques, now says he wants to freeze more than that ... his body. After he dies, of course.  

In this recent interview with GQ Magazine, Cowell explains why he'd like to have his body cryonically frozen:

"It's an insurance policy.  If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.  If it does work, I'll be happy.  If it's possible, and I think it will be, why not have a second crack?  Does that sound crazy?  I think it's a good idea.

I have a feeling that if I don't do it now, I could regret this in 300 years' time."

Setting aside the moral, ethical, and practical considerations of freezing someone's body in case medical research can ever find a way to restore life, what kind of legal complications can this cause for the family?

Plenty.  How does this effect his estate planning?  Will he want his money and assets held in trust so that he can use them if he is ever revived?  Who is going to manage his family fortune for the next 300 years or so?  And will they even have black t-shirts available that far into the future?

On a more serious note, wanting one's body to be cryonically frozen can have more serious legal implications for the family. Remember what happened when famed baseball slugger Ted Williams passed away in 2002?  His story is one we share in our book, Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights!

When Williams died at the age of 83, one of his daughters wanted to follow his final wishes as spelled out in his 1996 will. The will stated that he wanted his body cremated and his ashes spread off the coast of Florida where the waters run deep.  Sounds like a pleasant final resting place.

Williams' two other children from a later marriage, however,  had a different idea.  They wanted his body frozen and stored.  Why?  They felt that those were his true wishes, based on a grease-stained note from 2000 that Williams and those two children signed, while he was in the hospital.  The note said they wanted  a chance to be together again in the future in case medical science could bring them back to life.

The eldest daughter was appalled.  She fought a lengthy court battle to enforce the will as opposed to the grease-stained note, which she felt was forged and didn't reflect Williams' actual wishes.  She even accused her half-brother of wanting to freeze the Red Sox star's body so he could sell samples of Williams' DNA.

How did the fight end?  The daughter fighting for cremation ran out of money and had to give up the battle, so Ted Williams was suspended in liquid nitrogen.  According to Wikipedia, he's one of only about 200 people who have used Cryonics, which is what Cowell says he wants to do too.

In most states, the law requires families to follow properly-recorded written burial and funeral instructions of the person who passed, or at least allows the deceased person to name an agent in writing to carry out those wishes.  In other states, the next-of-kin makes the decisions, but generally they still follow someone's final wishes even when they aren't legally required to do so.

Additional questions are raised when the instructions over disposing of the body are unconventional.  They can be challenged based on forgery, mental incompetence or undue influence, as we saw in the Ted Williams controversy. Certainly, when someone elderly or infirm writes bizarre instructions -- as with Williams -- it invites a fight over whether the instructions are valid.

People who want to use more creative or controversial funeral or burial methods should be sure to record those wishes sooner rather than later.  The older someone is, the greater the chance is that someone can contest their wishes based on lack of mental soundness.

Certainly very few people have the inclination -- or the money (it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to cryonically store a body indefinitely) -- to follow Williams and Cowell's freezing plan.  But everyone should think through their burial and funeral wishes and properly document them. Whether you want to pursue cryogenic freezing or a more traditional burial and funeral plan, visit a good estate planning lawyer to properly safeguard your final wishes.

Fights caused by improper estate planning can cause even the warmest families to freeze over.  Don't let that happen to your family.

By Danielle and Andy Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights!, husband-and-wife legacy expert attorneys, and hosts of the national television special, Trial & Heirs:  Protect Your Family Fortune! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update.  You can "like" them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter.