01 Mar Little Richard’s Brother Says “good Golly, Miss Molly”
Little Richard’s Brother Says “good Golly, Miss Molly” After Being Removed as Co-executor and Losing Share of Estate
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that Little Richard’s brother lose a share of the publicity rights to Little Richard’s estate after thwarting a proposed sale of Little Richard’s intellectual and publicity rights.
Little Richard (whose real name was Richard Wayne Penniman) gave the rights to his royalties (including compensation from songs, recordings and uses of name, image likeness) to nine beneficiaries in his Will. His attorney and brother were named as Co-Executors.
The Will provided the executors could only distribute the estate after the majority of the beneficiaries agreed upon a plan for managing publicity rights. The executors were required to enact the plan of the majority of beneficiaries. Any beneficiary who prevents the implementation of the plan will lose his or her share of the publicity rights under the terms of the Will.
Five of the nine beneficiaries agreed to accept an offer from Primary Wave Entertainment although they requested their attorney to attempt to get a larger amount from Primary Wave.
Little Richard’s brother, Peyton, opposed the deal thinking the publicity rights were worth more than offered by Primary Wave. He sent an email to all the beneficiaries, the other co-executor and an employee of Primary Wave claiming elder abuse, racism and a threat to go public since he thought the offer was insufficient.
As a result, Primary Wave withdrew its offer since it didn’t want to be involved in a family dispute. A comparable offer was never received after that to the detriment of all beneficiaries.
The trial court then removed Peyton as an executor (a breach of fiduciary duty) and ordered that his share of the publicity rights be forfeited under the terms of the Will since he prevented the sale (by copying Primary Wave on the email) notwithstanding approval by the majority of the beneficiaries.
Peyton appealed stating Primary Wave’s offer wasn’t detailed enough to be a plan under the Will. The appeals court disagreed since the Will said “any plans.” The executor had to follow the decision of the majority of the beneficiaries (who agreed to accept the first offer) and Peyton didn’t.
The court also considered whether a beneficiary could be disinherited for contesting the Will. The court determined this was not a Will contest – it was simply a prevention of the sale for failing to follow the agreement of the majority. If it had been considered a Will contest, then it could determine whether Peyton acted in good faith. The appeals court supported the trial court’s decision of Peyton forfeiting his share of the publicity rights and removing him as an executor since Peyton did not act with requisite reasonable care, skill and caution when he included an employee of Primary Wave on his email.
If interested in learning more about this article or other estate planning, Medicaid and public benefits planning, probate, etc., attend one of our free upcoming Estate Planning Essentials workshops by clicking here or calling 214-720-0102. We make it simple to attend and it is without obligation.