When Alan Thicke unexpectedly passed away in Decemeber, he left behind a living trust — a very specific set of instructions for what he wanted to happen to his belongings after his death.
Unfortunately, the family he left behind is getting into a nasty court battle anyway.
OK, so Alan was married at the time of his death to Tanya Callau. They didn’t have any children together, but Alan has three sons, Brennan, Robin, and Carter.
In Alan’s living trust, he named his brother, Todd, as the trustee, but if Todd declined, then he wanted his oldest sons to be co-trustees.
Todd declined, Brennan and Robin are in charge of the trust, and now they’re claiming that Tanya is trying to get more than what Alan left for her.
It doesn’t get much sadder than this.
In the trust, Alan left his three sons “ownership of the Carpinteria, California ranch that he bought in 1989 and desired to keep in his family forever (the “Ranch”), 75 percent of his personal effects, and 60 percent of his remaining estate,” all to be split equally.
As for Tanya, Alan left her “all of the Ranch’s furnishings, 25 percent of his personal effects, a $500,000 life insurance policy, all of his death benefits from pensions and union memberships,” as well as the other 40% of his estate.
He added that Tanya could live in the ranch after his death “so long as she maintains the property and expenses.”
This was all outlined clearly in Alan’s trust, and apparently in Alan and Tanya’s prenup agreement as well.
And it sounds more than fair, right?
But yesterday, a lawyer representing Alan’s sons filed a new petition in court to “honor the memory of their father, protect his legacy, and prevent his testamentary intentions from being undermined by avarice and overreaching of his third wife, Tanya Callau.”
Translation: Tanya is trying to say that the trust and the prenup are invalid and she deserves more than what was left to her.
“Now that Alan is dead,” the petition states, “Tanya claims there are numerous problems with the Trust and the Prenuptial Agreement.”
“Tanya asserts that there is no chance the ‘Prenup’ could withstand legal challenge and that she has very significant community rights in the Trust’s assets and rights of reimbursement with respect to improvements to the Ranch.”
According to the documents, Tanya is also claiming that she deserves more since she “had to forego opportunities to pursue and advance her own career in order to support Alan and be his companion and partner, including raising Carter.”
What’s worse is that Tanya has allegedly “threatened to make her claims fodder for ‘tabloid publicity’ unless the Co-Trustees agreed to participate in a mediation and succumb to her demands.”
So according to Alan’s sons, Tanya wants more money than Alan left her because she helped raise his son, she stopped working to be with him, and though she never had an issue with the documents before, they’re full of problems now.
How sad is it that things have come to this?