Battle over Jimmy Buffett 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.”