mr. racine.
this is miles hardin of morris and dale in miami.
as you know, we represented edmund walker.
yes, well, mrs. walker has submitted the new will you wrote up there.
and frankly, mr. racine, i think we may have a problem.
well, i'd rather discuss it in person. in fact i think it might be best if we could all get together down there. that is, if you wouldn't object.
good. we have a relationship with a firm in west palm -- shiller, hastings.
i've arranged to have the use of their offices. i thought we might try to make it tomorrow, say ten o'clock. would that be possible for you?
good. mrs. walker told me she would be back down there by then.
and i've asked mrs. kraft, mr. walker's sister, to join us, also. i'll see you then.
good-bye.
miles hardin, mr. racine.
i don't think you know mrs. kraft.
you know mr. lowenstein.
i asked mr. lowenstein to join us because he's handling the inquiry into edmund's death for the county prosecutor's office. he and i have discussed this matter and he's made is possible for us to speak very frankly here today. off the record, so to speak.
as i've told mrs. walker, i was more than a little surprised by the existence of this new will. edmund hadn't mentioned anything about it to me.
mrs. walker explained to me that when she and her husband decided to make some minor changes, they just took care of it up here for simplicity's sake. and, indeed, as you know, the new will is almost identical to the old but for the disposition of a few items. at the risk of oversimplifying, the thrust of the will is to divide the estate in almost equal parts between heather kraft and mrs. walker. would you agree with that assessment, mr. racine?
mmmm. and you witnessed the signing by edmund walker along with this miss -- -- mary ann simpson on july twenty- first. apparently, it will be impossible for us to contact miss simpson.
edmund walker's death was not standard.
no, there doesn't seem to be any problem here. this is edmund walker's last will and testament. i'm afraid the problem is elsewhere.
would anyone mind if i smoked?
everything's in order up to there. the problem comes in the language of the bequest to heather. it's a technical matter.
in writing the will, i'm afraid mr. racine violated what's known as "the rule against perpetuities.
it's a small thing, but it's the law. it forbids an inheritance to be passed down indefinitely for generations. many general practitioner lawyers don't fully understand it. it doesn't come up much for them, because wills this complex are usually handled by estate departments in larger firms. handled by lawyers who specialize in this type of work.
i know this is terribly confusing, but if you'll bear with me.  i spotted the problem right away, but since edmund's intent was clear, i thought it in everyone's best interest to try and get the will admitted into probate anyway, even though it was technically incorrect. i knew that a probate judge in miami would spot the mistake right away. that's all they do all day, they're expert. so i thought i'd bring it up here to okeelanta county -- since edmund had the residence here -- and see if i could get lucky with a judge who didn't know estate law quite so well.  perhaps find one with the same kind of training as mr. racine.
unfortunately, my plan backfired. i ran into a judge who'd had other dealings with mr. racine. a judge costanza.
in fact, it seems there were problems with an estate in a case four years ago. very different problems, it's true. but on a will mr. racine prepared. it was quite a mess. accusations of carelessness, a malpractice suit.  i think he called it the gourson case?
it means, i'm afraid, that edmund's will is invalid. edmund walker died interstate, as though there were no will at all.
you don't know?
perhaps mr. racine would like to tell you.
though that was clearly not your husband's intention.
he intended heather to benefit --
as you can imagine, mrs. walkers given the circumstances of edmund's death, none of this is going to happen.  how should i say it.  simply.