In 2013, Rolling Stone magazine ran an article about the estate of Marvin Gaye suing someone for plagiarism. What’s interesting about this is that Marvin Gaye passed away in 1984, more than 30 years ago.
My question is: How long can estates “operate”? While it makes perfect sense that there are legal matters which have to resolved after a person has died, shouldn’t there come a time when all the affairs of a deceased person have been settled for good which would, for instance, in the case of Mr. Gaye include transferring copyrights to his heirs or maybe to a company or foundation?
(I claim total ignorance in American law, so please bear with me if this is a stupid question :o )
The George Gershwin Estate is still in business; Gershwin died in 1937.
The answer is “for as long as there is anything of value that brings in money to the estate.” For long-lived estates, that usually has something to do with intellectual property: Gaye’s songs are still under copyright and still bring in money to his heirs. Once the copyrights expire, his estate will dissolve.
His heirs could transfer the copyright to a trust or other entity – indeed, they may actually have done so – but that would be referred to informally as his estate.
I noticed yesterday that the death of actress Lauren Bacall was first announced by the estate of her deceased husband, Humphrey Bogart - who died in 1957. So apparently his estate is still going strong (I see they even have a Facebook page).
Who is the person who has been dead the longest but still has an active estate? Are there active estates for people who died in the 1700’s? 1600’s? Can I sue the estate of George Washington? George Washington’s paternal great-grandfather? Oliver Cromwell? William Wallace? Joseph of Aramathea? St. Augustine?
You therefore won’t find equivalents going back in history. The law was passed specifically to give protection to the movie industry, which has huge political power in California. It can be applied elsewhere, of course, but the circumstances of its origin were special.
There is no point in suing an estate unless it has assets in it, and it is not possible to sue an estate unless there is an executor or other personal representative to name in your suit. (And, once the estate has no more assets, there is no reason to appoint an executor to replace the first one who must, eventually, die.)
In theory an estate could continue indefinitely. As Bizerta points out, in common law jurisdictions the rule against perpetuities normally prevents an estate from running indefinitely, but there are exceptions to the rule - e.g. trusts for charities. If I provided in my will that my executors were to manage my property to generate income, and to pay the income to one or more charities, but not to transfer capital assets to them, I’d hazard a guess that there would be some jurisdictions in which that would be valid, and the arrangement is at least in theory capable of lasting indefinitely.
In practice I would probably set up a distinct structure to manage the funds, and leave my property to them. That’s pretty much what Alfred Nobel did, or Joseph Pulitzer. In substance, the Nobel Foundation is basically the estate of Alfred Nobel, carrying out the instructions in his will. But, as a matter of form, it’s a foundation established by his estate.