More details:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/05/arts/music/jimmy-buffett-jane-estate-lawsuit.html

"... Matthew Porpora, Mrs. Buffett’s attorney from Sullivan and Cromwell, said in a statement that it was Mr. Buffett’s desire for his wife to be the sole beneficiary of his trust. Mr. Porpora said it was alarming that Mr. Mozenter had taken funds intended for Mrs. Buffett to cover his legal fees “in a brazen and baseless attempt to have her removed from the very trust that was established to protect her,” he said. “Mr. Mozenter is replaceable — Jane is not.”

A hearing on Mrs. Buffett’s petition is scheduled for August...

In 1990, he set up a trust and an estate plan that was amended in April 2017 and again in July 2023, just months before he died at 76 from Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare and aggressive form of skin cancer that he had lived with for four years. His will appointed his wife as executor of his estate.

After his death, all the assets in the first trust were transferred out, the complaint said. Some money went into trusts for the couple’s three children, with each receiving $2 million.

The rest of the assets were transferred to a marital trust with Mrs. Buffett as the sole beneficiary, according to her petition. In addition to several houses, those assets included her husband’s 20 percent interest in Margaritaville Holdings LLC — a large hospitality company that includes vacation clubs, dozens of restaurants, casinos, cruise ships and more than 20 hotels, including one in Times Square.

One month after Mr. Buffett died, Mrs. Buffett met with Mr. Mozenter to request an analysis of the projected income she could expect to receive from the marital trust, according to the complaint. It did not go well, she claimed.

Rather than help his recently widowed client understand her finances, Mr. Mozenter spent the next 16 months stonewalling and making excuses for why he could not yet provide the requested information,” the complaint said.

In February, their relationship worsened when Mr. Mozenter finally did provide an income estimate that would not cover Mrs. Buffett’s expenses. The marital trust’s $275 million in assets would generate less than $2 million in net income for her annually, he informed her, a figure her lawyers called “a remarkably poor return” given the trust’s investments in Margaritaville.

With a projected shortfall, Mr. Mozenter advised that Mrs. Buffett “consider adjustments” to her expenses or sell her real estate to cover the difference..."

What is the point of creating a trust, if an unrelated 3rd party can remove the family from the trust and drain significant amounts of the money?

Here is some more news.

The other trustee transferred Buffet personal property into the trust after he died, allegedly without consulting the wife:

"...Also at issue: Mozenter pushing Jane Buffett to approve his request that Jeffrey Smith be retained as counsel for cotrustees. She takes issue with Smith accusing her of breaching her fiduciary duty to the trust by suggesting that it rely on Irvin Azoff, Jimmy Buffett’s longtime music manager, to negotiate an agreement with a production company over a planned documentary about the singer. The tipping point came when his firm sent her a voluminous draft of the estate’s tax returns and asked her to provide any comments within three days, the lawsuit alleges. Smith, who has since resigned as counsel for the trust, allegedly later threatened to investigate her for defaming Mozenter.

Additionally, the petition targets Mozenter transferring property that allegedly should’ve been left to Jane Buffett personally to the estate. This includes properties in New York, Florida and St. Barthélemy island..."

https://www.buffettnews.com/2025/06/05/32608/

Anonymous wrote:There is another person involved here not mentioned Henry Rosquette who was Buffets accountant for ove4 30 years

What does the accountant have to say?

I have heard nothing but good things about Jane. Never that "she's a dope."

Even if she's not great with money, it's still in a trust and she's perfectly capable of noticing that the trustee has raided most of the value of the trust.

And if she's noticed that, it's entirely appropriate for her to object. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to.

There is another person involved here not mentioned Henry Rosquette who was Buffets accountant for ove4 30 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that before he died buffet told his financial advisor “I love her, take care of her, but she’s a dope - don’t let her ruin what I worked so hard to build!”

And she wasn’t willing to play along - she wanted it all now. Probably has a really nasty entourage of greedy types whispering in her ear that SHE was the one who really earned that money!

Even if that were true (though I have real doubts that it is), you don't get to just say that and then have something opposite in writing filed with the courts. If Jimmy felt that way, he would have protected his estate while he was alive. He was very business savvy. Also, she absolutely did help him build his empire. Are you under the impression that married people don't make decisions together?

As i understand it this is the argument: the trustee is saying “jimmy didn’t want you in full control, he wanted me to be the brakes on your profligate ways” and she is saying “he wanted me to have it all to myself with no control, but for some reason, he said the opposite and he set it up in a way that you could make sure I didn’t spend irresponsibly… weird!”

Of course spouses contribute but, if when he was alive, the money was legally his and he set up his estate to make sure she had someone helping her not blow it all frivolously, then it’s not hers to do what she wants.

The other trusstee is paying himself as much as the estate is giving to the family, refuses to share any details about the trust, and is claiming that Buffet's fortune which was supposedly over a billion when he passed is now only worth 275 million less than 2 years later.

And he refuses to honor the written terms of the trust to transfer most of it to an established trust run by a different company.

He looks to be really sketchy, putting it mildly.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that before he died buffet told his financial advisor “I love her, take care of her, but she’s a dope - don’t let her ruin what I worked so hard to build!”

And she wasn’t willing to play along - she wanted it all now. Probably has a really nasty entourage of greedy types whispering in her ear that SHE was the one who really earned that money!

I don't believe that for a second.

Buffet's trust stipulated that most of the money would transfer into her separate trust run by a different company.

Plus, if you know anything about Buffet, he has spoken many times about how she was the stable force and brains behind his success.

Most likely, Buffet stated that he wanted his wife and daughters taken care of, which is very diffetent from what you repeated that the other trustee is claiming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that before he died buffet told his financial advisor “I love her, take care of her, but she’s a dope - don’t let her ruin what I worked so hard to build!”

And she wasn’t willing to play along - she wanted it all now. Probably has a really nasty entourage of greedy types whispering in her ear that SHE was the one who really earned that money!

Even if that were true (though I have real doubts that it is), you don't get to just say that and then have something opposite in writing filed with the courts. If Jimmy felt that way, he would have protected his estate while he was alive. He was very business savvy. Also, she absolutely did help him build his empire. Are you under the impression that married people don't make decisions together?

As i understand it this is the argument: the trustee is saying “jimmy didn’t want you in full control, he wanted me to be the brakes on your profligate ways” and she is saying “he wanted me to have it all to myself with no control, but for some reason, he said the opposite and he set it up in a way that you could make sure I didn’t spend irresponsibly… weird!”

Of course spouses contribute but, if when he was alive, the money was legally his and he set up his estate to make sure she had someone helping her not blow it all frivolously, then it’s not hers to do what she wants.

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that before he died buffet told his financial advisor “I love her, take care of her, but she’s a dope - don’t let her ruin what I worked so hard to build!”

And she wasn’t willing to play along - she wanted it all now. Probably has a really nasty entourage of greedy types whispering in her ear that SHE was the one who really earned that money!

Even if that were true (though I have real doubts that it is), you don't get to just say that and then have something opposite in writing filed with the courts. If Jimmy felt that way, he would have protected his estate while he was alive. He was very business savvy. Also, she absolutely did help him build his empire. Are you under the impression that married people don't make decisions together?

My understanding is that before he died buffet told his financial advisor “I love her, take care of her, but she’s a dope - don’t let her ruin what I worked so hard to build!”

And she wasn’t willing to play along - she wanted it all now. Probably has a really nasty entourage of greedy types whispering in her ear that SHE was the one who really earned that money!

Anonymous wrote:I don't know but it's worth sorting out because his empire is going to keep making money and it should be managed well. Hope she has good lawyers.

I hope so too.

What is the point of a trust if one of 2 trustees can ignore the stipulation to transfer it to a spouse's trust upon death, siphon all the money off it, and block the spouse/other trustee from knowing how much is in the trust?

I thought trusts were supposed to prevent this kind of thing and protect the beneficiaries.

I don't know but it's worth sorting out because his empire is going to keep making money and it should be managed well. Hope she has good lawyers.

Can someone explain this trust like I am in kindergarten?

How can the advisor refuse to share any trust details with Jimmy's spouse (almost 50 years from when he was in college) and co trustee?

How can he try to remove her from the trust?

Isn't the person who managed the trust required to give the other trustee along with the beneficiaries a detailed annual or quarterly accounting of the trust?

According to this article:

"... The trust had stipulated that the bulk of Buffett’s assets would pass to Slagsvol’s marital trust that she co-administers with an independent party..."

How can the finiancial advisor refuse to folllw the trust's stipulation that the majority of the assets be transferred into her separate trust?

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/what-to-know-about-jimmy-buffetts-estate-drama-after-his-death/


Jimmy was declared a billionaire in 2023 right before he died. Yet 2 years later, his trust is only worth 275 million, with even that amount suspect because the person managing the trust refuses to share what is left in the trust.

Is it possible that the trustee has drained the trust into his personal accounts? I thought trusts were supposed to prevent this from happening.

How likely is she to prevail?

Is this cut and dry given the trust allegedly stating that the trust was to transfer into her separate trust upon his death?

Will the other trustee manage to drain the entire tfust before she is successful?

I am ignorant on trusts, but a huge Jimmy Buffet fan. I admire him and his wife for staying married from college through fame to old age. She isn't a late to the game gold digger or trophy wife. From my uneducated point of view, the trustee seems very sketchy, like he has something to hide wth regards to Jimmy's finances. I really hope she quickly prevails.

I hope all her judges are parrotheads