
Battle over Jimmy Buffett's $275 million estate highlights risks of family trusts
A court battle over the late singer Jimmy Buffett's $275 million estate has highlighted the growing litigation over the trillions of dollars in wealth being passed down to spouses and families, experts said.
Jimmy Buffett's widow, Jane Buffett, filed a petition last week in a Los Angeles court to remove her co-trustee, Richard Mozenter, from the marital trust created to support her after the singer's death in 2023. Jane Buffett, who married Jimmy in 1977, alleged that Mozenter has been 'openly hostile and adversarial' toward her and has refused to give her details on the trust and its financials. She alleged Mozenter is collecting 'excessive fees' of $1.7 million a year and that he's mismanaging the trust assets, projecting income of only $2 million, implying annual returns of less than 1%.
Mozenter has filed his own lawsuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging that Jane has been 'completely uncooperative' in his efforts to manage the trust. He said Jane has interfered in business decisions, refused to meet with Mozenter and breached her fiduciary duties by 'acting in her own interest.'
The case has put a spotlight on the estate plans and business empire left by Jimmy Buffett, the singer famous for hits like 'Margaritaville,' 'Cheeseburger in Paradise' and other breezy, beach-vibe hits. Along with his song catalogue, Buffett left homes, cars, planes and a multimillion-dollar stake in his brand business.
Buffett planned carefully for the afterlife. His will, first written more than 30 years ago and amended in 2017 and again in 2023, directed that most of his assets be placed in a marital trust for Jane. The trust was created 'for the wife's sole benefit of her lifetime,' according to legal filings. The three children they shared — Savannah, Delaney and Cameron — are the so-called remainder beneficiaries of the marital trust, which means they will receive any remaining assets left after Jane's death.
Jimmy Buffett also called for a co-trustee to manage the trust with Jane. He appointed Mozenter, an accountant who had also been his business manager and financial advisors for 30 years, as co-trustee.
The assets Buffett left were substantial. A successful businessman and entrepreneur, Buffett built a brand empire and merchandising business that far surpassed his song rights and touring. According to the filings, the assets in the estate included $34.5 million of real property; $15 million of equity in a company called Strange Bird Inc., which held Buffett's interest in various planes; $2 million in musical equipment; $5 million in vehicles; and $12 million in other investments.
One of the largest assets is Buffett's stake in Margaritaville, the chain of restaurants, bars, hotels and merchandising that commercialized the Buffett lifestyle. According to the filings, Buffett's equity in Margaritaville was estimated at $85 million, held though JB Beta. Margaritaville currently has 30 restaurants and bars, 20 hotels, and vacation clubs, casinos, cruise ships and merchandise.
Soon after Jimmy's death, however, the relationship between two co-trustees soured. In her complaint, Jane Buffett said Mozenter refused to provide her with basic financial information about the trust. He 'belittled, disrespected, and condescended Mrs. Buffett' in response to her request for information, she said. She said his fees of $1.7 million a year to manage the trust were 'enormous.' When she asked for her projected income from the trust, Mozenter continued to delay. Finally, after she enlisted the help of her friend Jeff Bewkes, the former Time Warner chief, Mozenter provide her with an estimate of $2 million a year.
According to Jane's complaint, Mozenter acknowledged that Margaritaville had paid distributions of $14 million over the previous 18 months. Yet he declined to make future projections. 'Based on that analysis, Mr. Mozenter told Mrs. Buffett that the Marital Trust's income would not cover her annual expenses and advised that she could 'consider adjustments,'' according to her complaint.
Trust lawyers said the case is part of a growing wave of lawsuits related to inheritances and trusts. Over $100 trillion of wealth is expected to be passed down from older generations to spouses and families over the next 25 years, according to Cerulli Associates. More wealth being passed down means more litigation, since families often fight over who gets what.
The Buffett case has reflected a different, but equally common, source of disputes: dueling trustees. Estate attorneys said Buffett could have made Jane the sole beneficiary as well as the sole trustee. Yet he chose to have Mozenter as co-trustee to help manage and direct the trust.
Mozenter said that during his lifetime, Jimmy 'repeatedly expressed his concerns regarding Jane's ability to manage and control his assets' and was 'very careful to create the trust in a manner that precluded Jane from having actual control over the trust.' He added, 'This fact has made Jane very angry.'
Attorneys said appointing a co-trustee is common. Sometimes the inheritor is ill-equipped to handle the wealth or asset. Sometimes they'd rather leave the details to someone else. Whatever the reason, tensions between the beneficiary and co-trustee often erupt into full-blown hostility.
'These cases almost all turn on the exact same issue,' said Keith A. Davidson, with Albertson & Davidson LLP. 'You've got a beneficiary who doesn't feel like they're getting enough information and doesn't feel like they have any say. And you have a trustee who is being too paternalistic, and they feel like they can give out information what they want. That's a recipe for disaster.'
Emotions run especially high when one of the trustees is a spouse.
'Imagine you're married to Jimmy Buffett for 47 years, you have a say in how you're spending your money and what you're doing and all that goes away overnight,' said Stewart Albertson, also with Albertson & Davidson LLP.
Since the lawsuits were filed in different states, courts will first have to decide where the case will be heard. After that, a judge will start arguments and ultimately decide a path forward. Attorneys said judges have typically sided with the outside trustee (in this case Mozenter). Yet increasingly, they have been siding with spouses — which could mean Mozenter is removed.
More likely, attorneys said, a judge will determine that the relationship between Mozenter and Jane is unworkable and name a new, professional or corporate trustee from a trust company or bank to replace them both.
'My guess is a judge is likely to put in someone as a professional fiduciary,' said Alex Weingarten, managing partner of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP's Los Angeles office and chair of its entertainment litigation practice. 'That would allow the fiduciary to get in and figure out what's going on. It's not what she wants, but it would give credence to her argument.'
Attorneys said Mozenter's $1.7 million fee isn't necessarily excessive, since trustee fees can sometimes be as high as 1% or more of the assets each year. As for the return of $2 million a year on $275 million being proof of mismanagement, attorneys say many of the assets in the trust, like real estate, planes and cars, don't produce income and cost money to maintain. So the actual returns on income-producing assets could be higher.
Still, attorneys said the Buffett case offers two important lessons for families planning wealth transfers. First, they said wealth holders should communicate the plans for their estates before they die so no one is surprised. If Buffett had explained the co-trustee roles to both Jane and Mozenter, perhaps tensions would have been minimized.
'Jimmy did good planning, in that he set these trusts up,' Davidson said. 'But he didn't think about how this was actually going to play out.' He also could have added a 'removal right' in the trust to allow Jane to more easily remove Mozenter if she wished.
The second lesson is that friends or business associates don't always make good trustees. While today's wealthy often name a trusted friend to a family trust, the trustee may have a different relationship with the beneficiary and can see themselves as carrying out the wishes of the descendant — which is not the job of a trustee.
'In terms of problem cases, the ones we see, they rarely involve professional trustees,' Albertson said. 'It's almost always somebody who's a friend. That tends to be the worst. Your role is to follow the trust terms.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
3 days ago
- NBC News
Battle over Jimmy Buffett's $275 million estate highlights risks of family trusts
A court battle over the late singer Jimmy Buffett's $275 million estate has highlighted the growing litigation over the trillions of dollars in wealth being passed down to spouses and families, experts said. Jimmy Buffett's widow, Jane Buffett, filed a petition last week in a Los Angeles court to remove her co-trustee, Richard Mozenter, from the marital trust created to support her after the singer's death in 2023. Jane Buffett, who married Jimmy in 1977, alleged that Mozenter has been 'openly hostile and adversarial' toward her and has refused to give her details on the trust and its financials. She alleged Mozenter is collecting 'excessive fees' of $1.7 million a year and that he's mismanaging the trust assets, projecting income of only $2 million, implying annual returns of less than 1%. Mozenter has filed his own lawsuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging that Jane has been 'completely uncooperative' in his efforts to manage the trust. He said Jane has interfered in business decisions, refused to meet with Mozenter and breached her fiduciary duties by 'acting in her own interest.' The case has put a spotlight on the estate plans and business empire left by Jimmy Buffett, the singer famous for hits like 'Margaritaville,' 'Cheeseburger in Paradise' and other breezy, beach-vibe hits. Along with his song catalogue, Buffett left homes, cars, planes and a multimillion-dollar stake in his brand business. Buffett planned carefully for the afterlife. His will, first written more than 30 years ago and amended in 2017 and again in 2023, directed that most of his assets be placed in a marital trust for Jane. The trust was created 'for the wife's sole benefit of her lifetime,' according to legal filings. The three children they shared — Savannah, Delaney and Cameron — are the so-called remainder beneficiaries of the marital trust, which means they will receive any remaining assets left after Jane's death. Jimmy Buffett also called for a co-trustee to manage the trust with Jane. He appointed Mozenter, an accountant who had also been his business manager and financial advisors for 30 years, as co-trustee. The assets Buffett left were substantial. A successful businessman and entrepreneur, Buffett built a brand empire and merchandising business that far surpassed his song rights and touring. According to the filings, the assets in the estate included $34.5 million of real property; $15 million of equity in a company called Strange Bird Inc., which held Buffett's interest in various planes; $2 million in musical equipment; $5 million in vehicles; and $12 million in other investments. One of the largest assets is Buffett's stake in Margaritaville, the chain of restaurants, bars, hotels and merchandising that commercialized the Buffett lifestyle. According to the filings, Buffett's equity in Margaritaville was estimated at $85 million, held though JB Beta. Margaritaville currently has 30 restaurants and bars, 20 hotels, and vacation clubs, casinos, cruise ships and merchandise. Soon after Jimmy's death, however, the relationship between two co-trustees soured. In her complaint, Jane Buffett said Mozenter refused to provide her with basic financial information about the trust. He 'belittled, disrespected, and condescended Mrs. Buffett' in response to her request for information, she said. She said his fees of $1.7 million a year to manage the trust were 'enormous.' When she asked for her projected income from the trust, Mozenter continued to delay. Finally, after she enlisted the help of her friend Jeff Bewkes, the former Time Warner chief, Mozenter provide her with an estimate of $2 million a year. According to Jane's complaint, Mozenter acknowledged that Margaritaville had paid distributions of $14 million over the previous 18 months. Yet he declined to make future projections. 'Based on that analysis, Mr. Mozenter told Mrs. Buffett that the Marital Trust's income would not cover her annual expenses and advised that she could 'consider adjustments,'' according to her complaint. Trust lawyers said the case is part of a growing wave of lawsuits related to inheritances and trusts. Over $100 trillion of wealth is expected to be passed down from older generations to spouses and families over the next 25 years, according to Cerulli Associates. More wealth being passed down means more litigation, since families often fight over who gets what. The Buffett case has reflected a different, but equally common, source of disputes: dueling trustees. Estate attorneys said Buffett could have made Jane the sole beneficiary as well as the sole trustee. Yet he chose to have Mozenter as co-trustee to help manage and direct the trust. Mozenter said that during his lifetime, Jimmy 'repeatedly expressed his concerns regarding Jane's ability to manage and control his assets' and was 'very careful to create the trust in a manner that precluded Jane from having actual control over the trust.' He added, 'This fact has made Jane very angry.' Attorneys said appointing a co-trustee is common. Sometimes the inheritor is ill-equipped to handle the wealth or asset. Sometimes they'd rather leave the details to someone else. Whatever the reason, tensions between the beneficiary and co-trustee often erupt into full-blown hostility. 'These cases almost all turn on the exact same issue,' said Keith A. Davidson, with Albertson & Davidson LLP. 'You've got a beneficiary who doesn't feel like they're getting enough information and doesn't feel like they have any say. And you have a trustee who is being too paternalistic, and they feel like they can give out information what they want. That's a recipe for disaster.' Emotions run especially high when one of the trustees is a spouse. 'Imagine you're married to Jimmy Buffett for 47 years, you have a say in how you're spending your money and what you're doing and all that goes away overnight,' said Stewart Albertson, also with Albertson & Davidson LLP. Since the lawsuits were filed in different states, courts will first have to decide where the case will be heard. After that, a judge will start arguments and ultimately decide a path forward. Attorneys said judges have typically sided with the outside trustee (in this case Mozenter). Yet increasingly, they have been siding with spouses — which could mean Mozenter is removed. More likely, attorneys said, a judge will determine that the relationship between Mozenter and Jane is unworkable and name a new, professional or corporate trustee from a trust company or bank to replace them both. 'My guess is a judge is likely to put in someone as a professional fiduciary,' said Alex Weingarten, managing partner of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP's Los Angeles office and chair of its entertainment litigation practice. 'That would allow the fiduciary to get in and figure out what's going on. It's not what she wants, but it would give credence to her argument.' Attorneys said Mozenter's $1.7 million fee isn't necessarily excessive, since trustee fees can sometimes be as high as 1% or more of the assets each year. As for the return of $2 million a year on $275 million being proof of mismanagement, attorneys say many of the assets in the trust, like real estate, planes and cars, don't produce income and cost money to maintain. So the actual returns on income-producing assets could be higher. Still, attorneys said the Buffett case offers two important lessons for families planning wealth transfers. First, they said wealth holders should communicate the plans for their estates before they die so no one is surprised. If Buffett had explained the co-trustee roles to both Jane and Mozenter, perhaps tensions would have been minimized. 'Jimmy did good planning, in that he set these trusts up,' Davidson said. 'But he didn't think about how this was actually going to play out.' He also could have added a 'removal right' in the trust to allow Jane to more easily remove Mozenter if she wished. The second lesson is that friends or business associates don't always make good trustees. While today's wealthy often name a trusted friend to a family trust, the trustee may have a different relationship with the beneficiary and can see themselves as carrying out the wishes of the descendant — which is not the job of a trustee. 'In terms of problem cases, the ones we see, they rarely involve professional trustees,' Albertson said. 'It's almost always somebody who's a friend. That tends to be the worst. Your role is to follow the trust terms.'


Telegraph
08-05-2025
- Telegraph
Warren Buffett's greatest lessons for ordinary investors
No one should have been surprised by Warren Buffett's quiet resignation last Saturday. He will, after all, be 95 years old when he steps down at the end of the year. But it still came as a shock. A bit like Bob Dylan, he has just always been there. I was only two when he took over an ailing Massachusetts textile mill in 1965 and turned it into the world's most consistently successful investment company. The remarkable track record is the measurable bit of Buffett's legacy. According to Berkshire Hathaway's latest report and accounts, he grew the per-share value of the company by 5,502,284pc between 1964 and 2024. That's what happens when you grow at an average of 19.9pc a year for six decades. The S&P 500 index, by comparison, managed 10.4pc a year over the same period, an overall gain of just 39,054pc. Buffett delivered 140 times more than the world's most successful stock market. But his legacy is much bigger than the money. Much more important than what Buffett achieved, is the way he did it. With integrity, wisdom and humility. As he said at last week's farewell shareholder meeting in Omaha, Nebraska: 'Be kind and the world is better off. I'm not sure the world will be better off, if I am richer.' He continues to live in the same house he bought in his home town in Nebraska in 1958. He capped his salary at $100,000 (£75,000). He has never taken a share option because that would have diluted the holdings of the other owners of the company. He is worth around $160bn. There are a few reasons why Buffett has been so successful. But one that's easy to underestimate is simply that he kept at it for a very long time. The power of compounding starts to look miraculous after six decades, but it requires a unique temperament and character to stick to your principles for so long. Buffett's greatest lesson to ordinary investors is the importance of focusing on the long term. He has held some of his most successful investments – American Express, Coca-Cola – not for years, but for decades. At the same time, he has been unafraid to not invest at all. Berkshire Hathaway currently sits on $350bn of cash. He has always waited for the 'fat pitch', the moment in baseball when the risk and reward ratio is most favourable. He is unusually patient. Buffett is a great advertisement for what my colleague Andrew Oxlade calls 'Chill'– career happiness, inspiring longer lives. He exemplifies the adage that if you do what you enjoy you will never work another day in your life. One of the ways he did that was by surrounding himself with good people. Buffett did this in two important ways. He was fortunate in finding a business partner in the late Charlie Munger who was both a friend and an important intellectual sounding board – alerting Buffett early on to the importance of quality alongside value, for example. But he also hired well, and then trusted his business leaders to get on with it. It is impossible to distil Buffett's wit and wisdom into one short column. The 60 annual letters to shareholders are a better starting point for anyone seeking to learn from the master. But here are three things that I have found helpful. First, the importance of knowing when to swim against the tide and when to go with the flow. Buffett steered clear of the internet bubble a generation ago and he remarked that investors would have been better off if someone had shot Orville Wright at Kitty Hawk in the early 1900s. But his contrarian streak was always tempered by flexibility. Last week, he complained, tongue in cheek, that Tim Cook had made more money for Berkshire Hathaway shareholders than he ever had. Buying into Apple in 2016 was a rare foray into tech for Buffett and one of his most successful investments. His great insight, of course, was that Apple is not really a tech company at all but the creator of a product that many consumers find indispensable.


Daily Mail
05-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Reeves falls for the crypto poison and exposes us all to becoming victims of a global scam, warns ALEX BRUMMER
When it comes to sound investment judgment, there is no more reliable voice than Warren Buffett. At the age of 94, after 60 years at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway, it should come as no surprise that he is stepping back from the fray. His lair in Omaha, Nebraska, is far away from New York's bright lights. But down the decades, he has been a lender of last resort at times of disruption. When the investment bank Salomon Brothers ran into difficulties in 1990, amid a trading scandal, Buffett stepped in as chairman and cleaned up. In 2008, when Goldman Sachs came within a whisker of collapse, Buffett proffered $5billion of temporary capital to propel it back to safe land. As Joe Biden was beating a hasty retreat from fossil fuels, Buffett showed his hand by snapping up Occidental Petroleum. The Oracle of Omaha has an unalloyed view of cryptocurrency. Buffett describes it as 'probably rat poison squared' and asserted shareholders could be assured that Berkshire would not invest in crypto. It would be wonderful if Chancellor Rachel Reeves had been listening. In an example of financial lunacy, she has vowed to back the builders of the fintech and crypto space, while ensuring strong financial protection. Backing UK fintech is a great prize as it builds on British creative leadership in the space. The list of UK fintech successes is impressive and growing. Worldpay blazed a path which others, such as payments outfit Wise and internet banks Monzo, Revolut and Atom have followed. Crypto is entirely different. The perpetrators of current ransomware attacks on Marks & Spencer and the Co-op, causing deep anxiety for employees and customers alike, inevitably demand payment in crypto. It is the favoured medium of exchange for financial hooligans, crooks and terrorist groups such as Hamas. Anonymity allows it to be moved surreptitiously from crypto accounts, known as wallets, to repositories in exotic locations. The bezzle was exposed by the Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX saga in 2023. Just how murky the crypto world has become is illustrated by a weekend headline. It recounted that French police are investigating the kidnappings of people linked to cryptocurrency after a 60-year-old man had his fingers chopped off by attackers demanding a ransom. This is the new, fast-growing area of investment, which Reeves looks keen to embrace. She has been inspired by a desire to stay in lockstep with the zealots dominating US financial regulation and a Trump dynasty building crypto billions. The UK's approach is to bring crypto assets, including stablecoins (ostensibly backed by real money), within the regulatory framework. Until now, the approach of the Financial Conduct Authority has been to warn consumer and investors away from snake oil sales people offering crypto investment. The paradox is that by creating a framework, it will confer legitimacy to an asset class with no transparency. Central banks, including the Bank of England, mostly want no truck with crypto. It has no more relationship to real currency, as a store of value, than the paper money on a Monopoly board. Regulation is meant to protect the consumer. Crypto governance exposes us all to becoming victims of a global scam.