Is Angelos' family legal issue close to resolution?

[eddie83]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

That's kind of how I'm reading it. I'm highly skeptical of any source who claims to know the Orioles will be going up for sale. It sure seems like everyone assumes that to be the case, and I definitely get why. I just haven't seen any big definitive, sourced info about that. 

-We should be getting news soon about the lease. 
- then news about the lawsuit getting resolved.

- can’t take care of the selling part until the first two are dealt with which the first one should be this month. 
 

After the first two are dealt with, then need to hear what if anything John Angelos has to say and any media reports. 

[Ohfan67]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Perhaps, I really don't have a good feel for the power structure within the Ravens organization. If what you're saying is right, then that's one more reason why I think Bisciotti needs to go. 

The organization is way too comfortable. 

If you guys keep posting Ravens stuff in the Orioles section, then I will have to report you to the moderators. The head guy is a a real harda@@ and will set you straight. 

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, eddie83 said:

I was shocked Terps won yesterday. 
 

I am willing to give Willard some time. Terps Basketball was such a big deal from about 93-2003. Been mediocre and blah since. Talk about not meeting expectations. 
 

I do think there is a part of the fan base who after 15 years of Harbaugh is just ready for a change. As great as Gibbs 1.0 was he was there for about 12 seasons. 

Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have lumped in Willard with Turgeon just yet.  

[Number5]

3 hours ago, eddie83 said:

I am willing to give Willard some time. Terps Basketball was such a big deal from about 93-2003. Been mediocre and blah since. Talk about not meeting expectations. 

I guess that would depend on your definition of mediocre.  I'd say quite a few schools would be happy with the Terps' 20-year record.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/maryland/

[eddie83]

10 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I guess that would depend on your definition of mediocre.  I'd say quite a few schools would be happy with the Terps' 20-year record.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/maryland/

I don’t think the fan base is pleased. This is a basketball school. No real runs in the tourney. Maryland expects more. 

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

If you guys keep posting Ravens stuff in the Orioles section, then I will have to report you to the moderators. The head guy is a a real harda@@ and will set you straight. 

 

Interesting the guy that laughed at you allowed you to break a rule in this very post.  Can you guess what it was/is?

[SteveA]

5 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Interesting the guy that laughed at you allowed you to break a rule in this very post.  Can you guess what it was/is?

Using the wrong punctuation?   Two dollar signs would have made the meaning more clear than two at signs.

[Roll Tide]

33 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Using the wrong punctuation?   Two dollar signs would have made the meaning more clear than two at signs.

Either is a violation, No?

[Ohfan67]

59 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Interesting the guy that laughed at you allowed you to break a rule in this very post.  Can you guess what it was/is?

I know the rules and broke one to make a joke about rules being broken by the rule maker. If that bothered you, then I don’t know what the at sign is wrong with you?
 

ps. Smiley and laughing face emojis are not working. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Ohfan67

[Roll Tide]

4 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

I know the rules and broke one to make a joke about rules being broken by the rule maker. If that bothered you, then I don’t know what the at sign is wrong with you?
 

ps. Smiley and laughing face emojis are not working. 

Doesn’t bother me….I was simply pointing out the irony. The emojis have little to do with my point.

[sevastras]

My take as someone who owns, buys, sells businesses and real estate, not that anyone cares much. 
 

If I were in the position to buy a franchise, I don’t care one bit what is going on between the family and if anything will use that to negotiate a discount on said business. That may be tough to get a discount, as there are others waiting for the opportunity to own said business as well. 
As far as the lease goes, the state can sit tight. They have zero leverage for a long term lease because who else are they going to lease the stadium to?  I don’t know the terms of the lease, but I would imagine a 5 year extension is favorable to the Orioles. If not, just let it sit and string along a one year kicking the can down the road until an internal resolution is found or a new owner takes over. I did read something a while back on the Orioles paying for the reconfigured outfield and they were to be paid back over X amount of years through tax abatements or rent. I forget which, but either way, the Orioles aren’t going anywhere until that is paid back. 

[SemperFi]

13 hours ago, Number5 said:

I guess that would depend on your definition of mediocre.  I'd say quite a few schools would be happy with the Terps' 20-year record.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/maryland/

I prefer Gary but you have to give Lefty his due, those 71-81 teams were elite, if the NCAA allowed more than one team per conference MD very well might have won a another national championship.  I was young but IMO the talent and excitement was at a different level then even Gary's early 2000's teams.  Coverage too; multiple covers of SI, front fold on the Post-quality writers too Kornheiser and Wilbon.  I'm an Oioles/Terps/Redskins fan and nothing beat the pure passion, anticipation and energy of Cole when Lefty came out to hail to the chief.  "The roar from 34", the lower stands at RFK bouncing to "Hail to the Redskins", "R&R part 2" were all close.  

[spiritof66]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:30 AM, Aristotelian said:

I believe the team is now in a trust and the issue concerns control of the trust. There is also the question of power of attorney while Peter is incapacitated.

Sorry to inTerprupt the Ravens/Maryland discussions. Nevermore will I do that.  But I made a mistake the other day, and correcting it leaves a few issues hanging about the Angelos family and the future of the Orioles. 

I went back and read Lou's complaint closely once again. You were right, and I was wrong -- I should know better than to rely on my memory. Give me some time and I'll figure out a way to blame it on Covid. 

According to Lou's complaint, in October 29, 2020 Georgia Angelos transferred Peter's interest in the Orioles to Peter's 2017 irrevocable trust. But that doesn't change anything of significance so far as I can tell -- with one hard-to-imagine qualification I'll get to. The main point is that the transfer to an irrevocable trust doesn't affect where Peter's interest in the Orioles will go -- to John and Lou, according to Lou's complaint -- and doesn't affect the estate taxes that have to be paid.

More than you want to know department: Those planning for disposition of their estates, especially those with great wealth, complicated assets and/or public prominence, increasingly use revocable trusts rather than wills (sometimes both, but the will is just a catch-all for assets missed in the living trust). Here's how it generally works. The creator of the trust puts all his or her assets into a revocable trust (often called a living trust), with the assets distributed upon his or her death. The trust can be changed (it's "revocable") until the trust creator dies, at which point the trust cannot be changed (it becomes "irrevocable"), and the assets are distributed according to the terms of the trust. The use of a living trust obviates the  need for a will to cover the trust creator's known and identified assets; those assets can be distributed to heirs without going through the probate process, which can cause delay and lead to public disclosures about the  will and the assets. Living trusts are useful where there's a concern that the owner of extensive assets may be headed toward legal incompetence, as a way to deter arguments about mental capacity at a later time while providing a structure for further decision-making about those assets. https://www.estateplanning.com/understanding-living-trusts These trusts first became popular in Florida and New York, where probate of a will can be especially burdensome or slow. They apparently work in Maryland, though I don't know about the frequency of their use there, or any limits on or problems with that use. https://trustandestateslawyers.com/maryland-trusts-and-estates-lawyer/trusts/revocable-living-trusts/ 

The Peter Angelos revocable trust. There's lot we (or at least I) don't know about Peter Angelos's revocable trust. I don't know for sure that the trust, which was signed on October 31, 2017 (when Peter was, it's apparently agreed, still competent) created a living trust, but it appears to me that it did, or something very similar. Lou's complaint talks about Peter's revocable trust, and an allegedly void amendment to it, as controlling his and John's inheritance. I haven't seen any references to a will or another trust document (other than the ones created for individual inheritors).  

Here's a possible snarl that could lie ahead, but I don't think it can be significant. According to Lou's quotation of the revocable trust, it requires decisions by the trust to be made by a majority of the three trustees (Peter's wife and sons). I guess there could be some  problems if one of the three dies or resigns. A decision then would require unanimity by the two remaining trustees. Lou could try to make life difficult for the surviving trustee and the Orioles, but I can't imagine that kind of crap deterring interested buyers. Indeed, a prolonged rassling match that adversely affects the team might lead to increasing MLB's pressure on the Angeloses to sell and lead to a sale of the team sooner, conceivably even before Peter dies. If any MLB owners otherwise would approve a transfer to John and Lou, having Lou (or either of the other co-trustees) tie up the team's decision-making just to be difficult would probably destroy any possible support for continued Angelos ownership. And it won't help that it's been disclosed that the family's only significant source of funds outside of the Orioles (and MASN) is dead.

The bottom line continues to be that when Peter dies, the team is going to be sold pretty promptly. I believe MLB already has each of the Angeloses committed to that in writing, probably with an arbitration clause. Even if they haven't, MLB will block a transfer of control of the team to John and Lou. They will see in a nanosecond or two, if they haven't already, that when Peter dies the Angeloses will have a choice between selling the team or defalcating monies that belong to the government for estate taxes. They can't do both, and the other MLB owners are not going to allow them to try to operate the team.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the powers of attorney granted to Georgia. According to Lou's complaint, Peter signed the powers of attorney, along with the revocable trust, on Halloween 2017. Again, I haven't seen the documents and would like to, but I know of no suggestion that Peter was incompetent then. His later incompetence would not affect the validity or enforceability of the powers of attorney for any reason I can think of. 

[Aristotelian]

27 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Sorry to inTerprupt the Ravens/Maryland discussions. Nevermore will I do that.  But I made a mistake the other day, and correcting it leaves a few issues hanging about the Angelos family and the future of the Orioles. 

I went back and read Lou's complaint closely once again. You were right, and I was wrong -- I should know better than to rely on my memory. Give me some time and I'll figure out a way to blame it on Covid. 

According to Lou's complaint, in October 29, 2020 Georgia Angelos transferred Peter's interest in the Orioles to Peter's 2017 irrevocable trust. But that doesn't change anything of significance so far as I can tell -- with one hard-to-imagine qualification I'll get to. The main point is that the transfer to an irrevocable trust doesn't affect where Peter's interest in the Orioles will go -- to John and Lou, according to Lou's complaint -- and doesn't affect the estate taxes that have to be paid.

More than you want to know department: Those planning for disposition of their estates, especially those with great wealth, complicated assets and/or public prominence, increasingly use revocable trusts rather than wills (sometimes both, but the will is just a catch-all for assets missed in the living trust). Here's how it generally works. The creator of the trust puts all his or her assets into a revocable trust (often called a living trust), with the assets distributed upon his or her death. The trust can be changed (it's "revocable") until the trust creator dies, at which point the trust cannot be changed (it becomes "irrevocable"), and the assets are distributed according to the terms of the trust. The use of a living trust obviates the  need for a will to cover the trust creator's known and identified assets; those assets can be distributed to heirs without going through the probate process, which can cause delay and lead to public disclosures about the  will and the assets. Living trusts are useful where there's a concern that the owner of extensive assets may be headed toward legal incompetence, as a way to deter arguments about mental capacity at a later time while providing a structure for further decision-making about those assets. https://www.estateplanning.com/understanding-living-trusts These trusts first became popular in Florida and New York, where probate of a will can be especially burdensome or slow. They apparently work in Maryland, though I don't know about the frequency of their use there, or any limits on or problems with that use. https://trustandestateslawyers.com/maryland-trusts-and-estates-lawyer/trusts/revocable-living-trusts/ 

The Peter Angelos revocable trust. There's lot we (or at least I) don't know about Peter Angelos's revocable trust. I don't know for sure that the trust, which was signed on October 31, 2017 (when Peter was, it's apparently agreed, still competent) created a living trust, but it appears to me that it did, or something very similar. Lou's complaint talks about Peter's revocable trust, and an allegedly void amendment to it, as controlling his and John's inheritance. I haven't seen any references to a will or another trust document (other than the ones created for individual inheritors).  

Here's a possible snarl that could lie ahead, but I don't think it can be significant. According to Lou's quotation of the revocable trust, it requires decisions by the trust to be made by a majority of the three trustees (Peter's wife and sons). I guess there could be some  problems if one of the three dies or resigns. A decision then would require unanimity by the two remaining trustees. Lou could try to make life difficult for the surviving trustee and the Orioles, but I can't imagine that kind of crap deterring interested buyers. Indeed, a prolonged rassling match that adversely affects the team might lead to increasing MLB's pressure on the Angeloses to sell and lead to a sale of the team sooner, conceivably even before Peter dies. If any MLB owners otherwise would approve a transfer to John and Lou, having Lou (or either of the other co-trustees) tie up the team's decision-making just to be difficult would probably destroy any possible support for continued Angelos ownership. And it won't help that it's been disclosed that the family's only significant source of funds outside of the Orioles (and MASN) is dead.

The bottom line continues to be that when Peter dies, the team is going to be sold pretty promptly. I believe MLB already has each of the Angeloses committed to that in writing, probably with an arbitration clause. Even if they haven't, MLB will block a transfer of control of the team to John and Lou. They will see in a nanosecond or two, if they haven't already, that when Peter dies the Angeloses will have a choice between selling the team or defalcating monies that belong to the government for estate taxes. They can't do both, and the other MLB owners are not going to allow them to try to operate the team.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the powers of attorney granted to Georgia. According to Lou's complaint, Peter signed the powers of attorney, along with the revocable trust, on Halloween 2017. Again, I haven't seen the documents and would like to, but I know of no suggestion that Peter was incompetent then. His later incompetence would not affect the validity or enforceability of the powers of attorney for any reason I can think of. 

As I read it, on p. 39 it says that Georgia signed the two amendments using power of attorney while Peter was incapacitated but questions her authority to do that. The amendments give her the power to disinherit Lou and remove a trustee (I assume Lou) as MLB control agent.

[Frobby]

36 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

Sorry to inTerprupt the Ravens/Maryland discussions. Nevermore will I do that.  But I made a mistake the other day, and correcting it leaves a few issues hanging about the Angelos family and the future of the Orioles. 

I went back and read Lou's complaint closely once again. You were right, and I was wrong -- I should know better than to rely on my memory. Give me some time and I'll figure out a way to blame it on Covid. 

According to Lou's complaint, in October 29, 2020 Georgia Angelos transferred Peter's interest in the Orioles to Peter's 2017 irrevocable trust. But that doesn't change anything of significance so far as I can tell -- with one hard-to-imagine qualification I'll get to. The main point is that the transfer to an irrevocable trust doesn't affect where Peter's interest in the Orioles will go -- to John and Lou, according to Lou's complaint -- and doesn't affect the estate taxes that have to be paid.

More than you want to know department: Those planning for disposition of their estates, especially those with great wealth, complicated assets and/or public prominence, increasingly use revocable trusts rather than wills (sometimes both, but the will is just a catch-all for assets missed in the living trust). Here's how it generally works. The creator of the trust puts all his or her assets into a revocable trust (often called a living trust), with the assets distributed upon his or her death. The trust can be changed (it's "revocable") until the trust creator dies, at which point the trust cannot be changed (it becomes "irrevocable"), and the assets are distributed according to the terms of the trust. The use of a living trust obviates the  need for a will to cover the trust creator's known and identified assets; those assets can be distributed to heirs without going through the probate process, which can cause delay and lead to public disclosures about the  will and the assets. Living trusts are useful where there's a concern that the owner of extensive assets may be headed toward legal incompetence, as a way to deter arguments about mental capacity at a later time while providing a structure for further decision-making about those assets. https://www.estateplanning.com/understanding-living-trusts These trusts first became popular in Florida and New York, where probate of a will can be especially burdensome or slow. They apparently work in Maryland, though I don't know about the frequency of their use there, or any limits on or problems with that use. https://trustandestateslawyers.com/maryland-trusts-and-estates-lawyer/trusts/revocable-living-trusts/ 

The Peter Angelos revocable trust. There's lot we (or at least I) don't know about Peter Angelos's revocable trust. I don't know for sure that the trust, which was signed on October 31, 2017 (when Peter was, it's apparently agreed, still competent) created a living trust, but it appears to me that it did, or something very similar. Lou's complaint talks about Peter's revocable trust, and an allegedly void amendment to it, as controlling his and John's inheritance. I haven't seen any references to a will or another trust document (other than the ones created for individual inheritors).  

Here's a possible snarl that could lie ahead, but I don't think it can be significant. According to Lou's quotation of the revocable trust, it requires decisions by the trust to be made by a majority of the three trustees (Peter's wife and sons). I guess there could be some  problems if one of the three dies or resigns. A decision then would require unanimity by the two remaining trustees. Lou could try to make life difficult for the surviving trustee and the Orioles, but I can't imagine that kind of crap deterring interested buyers. Indeed, a prolonged rassling match that adversely affects the team might lead to increasing MLB's pressure on the Angeloses to sell and lead to a sale of the team sooner, conceivably even before Peter dies. If any MLB owners otherwise would approve a transfer to John and Lou, having Lou (or either of the other co-trustees) tie up the team's decision-making just to be difficult would probably destroy any possible support for continued Angelos ownership. And it won't help that it's been disclosed that the family's only significant source of funds outside of the Orioles (and MASN) is dead.

The bottom line continues to be that when Peter dies, the team is going to be sold pretty promptly. I believe MLB already has each of the Angeloses committed to that in writing, probably with an arbitration clause. Even if they haven't, MLB will block a transfer of control of the team to John and Lou. They will see in a nanosecond or two, if they haven't already, that when Peter dies the Angeloses will have a choice between selling the team or defalcating monies that belong to the government for estate taxes. They can't do both, and the other MLB owners are not going to allow them to try to operate the team.

I'm not sure what you're saying about the powers of attorney granted to Georgia. According to Lou's complaint, Peter signed the powers of attorney, along with the revocable trust, on Halloween 2017. Again, I haven't seen the documents and would like to, but I know of no suggestion that Peter was incompetent then. His later incompetence would not affect the validity or enforceability of the powers of attorney for any reason I can think of. 

Thanks for the lengthy explication.  Revocable trusts are common in Maryland; even I have one.  As you note, it is not a tax avoidance device, it merely avoids the hassle of having to go through the probate process in order to distribute whatever assets are in the trust.   

I’d love to know the details of the proposed 2020 two-step sale Lou refers to that could have avoided some of the tax burden.  I know there have been some transactions where a 49% interest in a team was sold, with the buyer having an option on the other 51% upon the death of the seller.  I believe that’s how Biscotti bought his interest in the Ravens from Art Modell, and how Ted Leonsis bought his intetest in the Wizards from Abe Pollin.  What the tax ramifications were of those deals, I don’t know, but I’d assume there were tax reasons behind those structures.