- 27 -
indicative.” Mr. Gulig established the entities using Fortress
documents with little, if any, input from other family members.
The contributed property included the majority of decedent’s
assets in general and his investments, a prime concern of estate
planning, in particular. Decedent was advanced in age and
suffering from serious health conditions. Furthermore, as
discussed in Strangi I at 485-486, the purpose of the partnership
arrangement was not to provide a joint investment vehicle for the
management of decedent’s assets, but was consistent with
testamentary intent.
Moreover, the crucial characteristic is that virtually
nothing beyond formal title changed in decedent’s relationship to
his assets. Mr. Gulig managed decedent’s affairs both before and
after the transfer. Decedent’s children did not obtain a
meaningful economic stake in the property during decedent’s life.
They raised no objections or concerns when large sums were
advanced for expenditures of decedent or his estate, thus
implying an understanding that decedent’s access thereto would
not be restricted.
In face of the foregoing realities, the estate argues that
whatever possession or enjoyment of the contributed property
decedent may have experienced was neither “retained” by means of
a contemporaneous agreement nor “with respect to the transferred
property”. As regards the first point, the estate contends that
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011