In Re Estate of Black a.k.a. Schwartz

In re Estate of Sirius Black a.k.a. Schwartz, xx Wis. 2d yyy (Ct. App. 1997). Unpublished.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District V

The Court today addresses the disposition of the Wisconsin estate, and only the Wisconsin estate, of Sirius Black a.k.a. Schwartz, a subject of the United Kingdom. The estate was probated in the U.K., and also in Milwaukee County Court, Civil (Probate) Division. The persons challenging the Milwaukee County probate are: Mrs. Bellatrix Lestrange, cousin of the decedent; Mr. Remus Lupin, friend of the decedent; Mrs. Narcissa Malfoy, cousin of the decedent; Mrs. Daisy Schwartz, alleged widow of the decedent; and a Ms. Letitia Newcombe, owner of a black Labrador. All these persons are subjects of the United Kingdom.

This case is taken on appeal from the Milwaukee County Court, Civil (Probate) Division. The lower court awarded all of the Wisconsin property to Ms. M. Schwartz, minor child of the decedent, and appointed her mother Mrs. Daisy Schwartz as guardian ad litem. Mrs. Lestrange, Mr. Lupin, Mrs. Malfoy, Mrs. Schwartz, and Ms. Newcombe appealed.

The sequence of events, all taking place in the United Kingdom, is as follows: in 1978, Mr. Black made a will shortly after his majority, signed by him and witnessed by Mr. Remus Lupin and Mr. James Potter (deceased.) The residuary beneficiary was Mr. Black's cousin Narcissa. There is a question as to whether Mr. Black was sincere in his testamentary intent, as some of the bequests in it were quite bizarre, namely "my underwear and hair-gel to Severus Snape," and "all my half-eaten dog chews and anything else I have lying around at my death to my cousin Narcissa." In 1979, Mr. Black married, using the assumed name of Schwartz. There is one child who is the issue of this marriage. Mr. Black was convicted of murder and sentenced to prison in 1980, and held prison in a penal institution where "most prisoners go mad within weeks." (Obviously, the designers of this prison were involved in the design of the Supermax - Judge Rudbek.) Mr. Black escaped from this prison in 1993. In August 1995, Mr. Black made a second will, leaving his personal property to Mr. Remus Lupin. The witnesses were a Mr. Albus Dumbledore and a person named Weasley. However, the exact identity of the second person is unknown; there are five persons named Weasley who could have witnessed the will, and none of them will come forward to testify to the witnessing of the will. Mr. Dumbledore will confirm that the second signature is genuine and that the will was executed in his presence and that of the other witness, but refuses to confirm which Weasley acted as the witness. We do not understand the reluctance of the Weasley witness, but we have no personal jurisdiction over the Weasleys to compel them to testify. Ms. Newcombe claims that in 1995, the decedent fathered a litter of puppies on her purebred black Labrador.

The real property located within the State of Wisconsin is as follows: the Modjeska Theater, and three houses on lots, one between 25^th and 26^th Streets on Upper Wells Street, one on Allis Street (the Giddings House), and a house at 34xx E. Wisconsin Avenue. The Court will assume that there was a mistake in transcription, and that the last property is actually located at 34xx W. Wisconsin Avenue, as otherwise it would be located in Lake Michigan. However, we do note that the property was sold on a quitclaim deed, and so we will ask the Black family for a further description of the property if one is available before issuing a new deed. The Court notes for the attorneys: "In his house at squiggle, Great Cthululu [sic] slept in the light dreaming, "is not an adequate description of the property. All of the above properties were held in fee simple by Mr. Black and thus do not fall under any sort of entail. The State of Wisconsin does not recognize fee entail, and any attempt to create one in an instrument creates a present or future interest in fee simple. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 700.08. The U.K. courts may consider the Wisconsin property as personal property, but in the State of Wisconsin, it is considered real property.

The alleged cause of Mr. Black's death is not one recognized by forensic pathology. The Court attempted to gain an opinion from a forensic pathologist, and was spectacularly unsuccessful. However, since all parties are agreed that Mr. Black is dead, even if none can explain how, the matter is not in dispute.

The Court also considered the fact that there is no corpus delicti, and very few disinterested witnesses to the death. Mr. Longbottom and Ms. Lovegood were two of these disinteresed witnesses. The court referred Ms. Lovegood's deposition to Mr. B., expert in evidence law, a professor at a Midwestern law school (who has requested that his name not be used in these proceedings). The Court also referred the expert witness's report on Animagi to Mr. B. For purposes of our opinion, we shall note only that his summation is contained in the Appendix, and includes his comment that he was not in the habit of swigging Maalox straight from the bottle until he attempted to apply Wisconsin evidence law to this material.

The Court refuses to consider the preposterous claim that Mr. Lupin is a werewolf, and thus in need of a guardian ad litem. If Mr. Lupin himself believes this, perhaps he would need a guardianship, on the grounds that he is not of sane mind. The Court also refuses to consider Ms. Newcomb's claim on similar grounds. Even if a registered Animagus cannot reproduce with a non-magical animal, or a non-registered Animagus can, we do not trust the expert testimony on this matter, and refuse to consider the matter on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The injuries happened in the United Kingdom, and both the injured and the decedent's major estate fall under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

The Court will first consider the validity of the wills. The 1978 will would presumably have been revoked by the 1995 will. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 853.11(1). The 1995 will, however, is tainted by the presumption that the testator was not sane, and was unduly influenced by Mr. Dumbledore, Mr. Lupin, or both. Therefore, the testator may have lacked the testamentary capacity to make a valid will. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 853.01. The Court also notes, with some concern, that all parties involved insist that Mr. Black could turn into a dog. The Court holds that the 1995 will is invalid due to undue influence under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 853.01 and that even if the 1979 will is revived, provision for the surviving spouse and/or issue must be made under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 853.11(2) and § 853.25(1).

Therefore, the Court turns to the Wisconsin laws of intestate succession to determine who takes the Wisconsin property. If there is no surviving spouse or issue of the decedent, the issue of the decedent's grandparents takes per Wis. Stat. Ann. § 851.01. The Court is troubled by the fact that Mrs. Lestrange apparently caused the death of Mr. Black. Since this killing can be described as "unlawful and intentional," we affirm the county court's holding that she is ineligible to take under the intestacy statutes. Wis. Stat. § 854.14. Whether she committed first-degree intentional homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide (manslaughter), or second-degree reckless homicide (homicide by reckless conduct) is immaterial for the purpose of 854.14. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06. Therefore, Mrs. Malfoy and Ms. (Andromeda or Nymphadora) Tonks would take per stirpes, under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 852.01(f).

The third consideration is the marital status of Mr. Black a.k.a. Schwartz, and the status of Ms. M. Schwartz. If the marriage was valid and existing at the time of Mr. Black's death, Mrs. Daisy Schwartz takes the entire estate if all her children are also the issue of Mr. Black. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 852.01(1)(a)(1). Thus, if the marriage were both valid and existing at the time of Mr. Black's death, Mrs. Daisy Schwartz would take all the property. The Court notes that Mrs. Daisy Schwartz filed for divorce on the grounds of desertion in 1987. The Court notes that a U.K. court ruled she was a widow on the common-law principle that disappearance for seven years was proof of death. Mr. Black's desertion, or the separation for five years without Mrs. Schwartz's consent, is also grounds for divorce in the U.K. Therefore, Mrs. Daisy Schwartz does not take as a surviving spouse. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 767.21(2).

If the marriage were valid, Ms. M. Schwartz then takes as the presumed issue of the decedent. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 851.01. Even if the marriage was not valid, Ms. M. Schwartz would be entitled to take if she can establish that she is Mr. Black's non-marital child by adjudication by "a court of competent jurisdiction, by [Mr. Black's] admission in open court, or by an acknowledgement in writing signed by [Mr. Black.]" Wis. Stat. Ann. § 852.05. We will affirm the county court's holding that the U.K. court orders for child support are in fact "a final order or judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction." Wis. Stat. Ann. § 852.05. The Court therefore holds that Ms. M. Schwartz is entitled to take as Mr. Black's issue. Ms. M. Schwartz is also entitled to take even if one of the wills is valid, under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 853.25(1)-(2).

Held: Ms. M. Schwartz takes the Wisconsin property by intestacy as Mr. Black's surviving child, due to the dissolution of the marriage by desertion. The final disposition of the 34xx E/W. Wisconsin Avenue property is remanded to the Milwaukee County Court, Civil (Probate) Division, for further proceedings. The appointment of a guardian ad litem for Ms. M. Schwartz is also remanded to the Milwaukee County Court, Civil Division, with the proviso that someone other than Mrs. Daisy Schwartz be selected. Mrs. Lestrange's claims are dismissed under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 854.14. Mr. Lupin's claims are dismissed on the grounds of invalidity of the 1995 will. Mrs. Malfoy's claims are dismissed on the grounds that (1) Ms. M. Schwartz is the issue ofBlack, and thus takes priority under the Wisconsin intestacy statutes; and (2) that the 1978 will is invalid. The claims of the dog breeder, Ms. Newcombe, are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All claims to the English real property are dismissed as not falling under this Court's jurisdiction.

The Court notes that our European brethren have a coherent body of law dealing with such matters. Here, we have only the precedent of the Salem cases, which, while they have never been overturned, are generally felt to have been unfortunate.

Dissent -- Judge McCarthy. I dissent. If you'd burned him at the stake the first time he turned into a dog, none of this would have happened. Whatever happened to baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?" It's all a Communist terrorist pinko plot, I tell you! This entire proceeding demonstrates the loss of the culture wars, the perversion of family values, the abandonment of long-standing, deeply rooted moral tradition, and the presence of goats in holy places.

Judgment: The Milwaukee County Court, Civil (Probate) Division is affirmed in part and remanded in part for further consideration per our holding.

For the Court. Judges K. Rudbek, B. Brooke and T. J. McCarthy in camera.

This decision is not to be published, referred to or quoted. [Any lawyer imprudent enough to remind the Court that this case exists will be summarily disbarred from practice in the State of Wisconsin and referred to mental health professionals forthwith. You hear that, Westlaw and Lexis? This time, we really mean it!]

Author's notes:

The Wisconsin statutes are accurate and correctly cited as far as my effort can make them, and yes, we do have four different legal classes of homicide here. We are also a community property state, so our inheritances can get a little messy. If Melanie's mother had given birth to another child who wasn't issue of Sirius Black/Schwartz, things would get very complicated indeed with sorting out what was marital property and what was personal property. If Sirius had inherited the Milwaukee properties after his marriage, they would have been individual property under Wis. Stat. Ann. § 766.31(7)(a). Then Melanie and her mother would have split that property upon his death. IIRC: if, on the other hand, he had purchased it, it would be deemed marital property, and thus Melanie's mother would have a half interest in it, plus a split of the interest that was from Sirius, so Melanie's mother takes 3/4 of the property upon Sirius' death, and Melanie gets 1/4.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/ for the free Wisconsin statutes on-line if you really want to know more....

Of the properties I named, the first three are reputedly haunted. Wells Street and the property on 34xx West Wisconsin Ave. are not in good neighborhoods. Any property listed as being more than 1400 East Wisconsin Avenue is indeed located in Lake Michigan.

T.J. McCarthy: none other than good old "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy.