What “Sue,” the Tyrannosaurus Rex Skeleton, Teaches us about Estate Planning

A few weeks ago, someone suggested that I write about the family dispute about the Tyrannosaurus Rex, “Sue,” and the fortune the family received from her sale.  I was intrigued because my son has been obsessed with dinosaurs for as long as I can remember. I had a vague recollection of hearing about Sue many years ago and I found the case engaging.   For the unaware, in 1990 fossil hunters discovered the remains of a tyrannosaurus rex on the Cheyenne River Reservation property owned by Maurice and Darlene Williams.  Given the location, several parties claimed rights to the skeleton, although ultimately, the Williamses prevailed and claimed the remains.  Several years later, the Williamses auctioned off the skeleton and netted $7.6 million which translates to $17.8 million in today’s dollars.  Chicago’s Field Museum displays Sue.

Maurice Williams died in 2011 and presumably left the bulk of his estate to his wife, Darlene.  Darlene and Maurice had 4 children, Sandra Williams Luther, Jaqueline Schwartz, Carson Williams, and Brady Williams. The New York Times published an article discussing the conflicting Wills signed by Darlene.  According to the article, Darlene signed a Will in 2017 appointing her daughter, Sandra, as personal representative of her estate and leaving bequests to all of her children and grandchildren with very specific instructions that involved gifting a diamond ring to each daughter and giving each grandchild an equal portion of Darlene’s estate.  In 2020, a mere three weeks before her death, Darlene signed a document that left everything to Sandra while naming her personal representative. Interestingly, this document included a note that Darlene had lived with her children “at odds” for too long and hoped that in her death they would find peace.  It doesn’t take a clairvoyant to know that’s highly unlikely and made even less likely when the last living parent leaves everything to just one of several children.

Jaqueline sued Sandra and alleged that the 2020 Will was illegitimate and the product of undue influence.  She alleged that at the time that Darlene signed the 2020 Will she floated in and out of consciousness and had trouble speaking.  In addition, when Darlene signed the Will, she did so without the benefit of witnesses in the room because of COVID restrictions.  When Darlene signed the 2020 Will, she was 88 and living in an assisted living facility. Darlene needed assistance with some of her daily living activities.  Finally, and perhaps most telling, was the fact that Darlene left everything to just one child without any real explanation regarding that decision.  In August 2021, a judge appointed Jacqueline as the special administrator of Darlene’s estate and confirmed her in that role in February 2022.  As of this writing, no trial date has been set and the case remains open.

It’s always troubling when siblings sue one another, but it makes for interesting reading, great blogs, and valuable lessons.  Jaqueline argues that Darlene’s 2020 Will was the product of undue influence.  What exactly constitutes undue influence?  Simply put, it occurs when someone takes unfair advantage of another individual, usually elderly, especially when the first individual holds real or apparent authority over the elderly person. Simple enough to explain but harder to understand. The American Bar Association indicates that undue influence occurs when an individual in a fiduciary capacity or other confidential relationship substitutes their own desires for that of the influenced person’s desires. Put another way, a person influenced the testator in such a way that convinced the testator to alter his or her Estate Plan, usually in favor of the individual exerting undue influence and to the detriment of the testator’s other beneficiaries. Here, Sandra definitely stood in a confidential relationship with her mother and the 2020 Will left her everything.  While those factors alone may not carry the day for Jaqueline, they provide compelling evidence for her.

Resolution of an undue influence case is fact specific.  Certain facts provide clues that undue influence may have occurred. Where, as occurred in the Williams’ case, an individual leaves their assets in a way that departs from the norm or favors one child to the exclusion of all others, that might be a sign of undue influence. Of course, that doesn’t mean that an individual cannot stray from the norm, it just means that an individual desiring to do that should take additional precautions to protect the plan.  This could mean including a no-contest clause, advising the excluded beneficiaries of their exclusion and why, or telling witnesses of the reasons that certain expected beneficiaries received nothing under the Will.  Anyone creating a Will that deviates from equal treatment of expected beneficiaries should keep the possibility of an undue influence claim in mind.

While intriguing, it’s unfortunate that this matter will play out on a public stage. Reading articles related to this matter make it clear that the family is no stranger to lawsuits and discord.  When intrafamily litigation ensues, only the lawyers benefit. Litigation takes time, costs money, and destroys families, during periods of significant grief. It’s important to evaluate your beneficiaries and understand whether they have expectations regarding an inheritance and how far they might be willing to go if your plan fails to meet those expectations. By consulting an experienced Estate Planning attorney who focuses their practice in the area, you can minimize the risk of a challenge to your Estate Plan based upon undue influence.

Tereina Stidd, J.D., LL.M.
Associate Director of Education
American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys, Inc.
9444 Balboa Avenue, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92123
Phone: (858) 453-2128
www.aaepa.com