 By Attorney Kelly Jesson
When Dolly Parton passed away last month, along with all of the tributes pouring in from every corner of the world, came a question estate planning attorneys hear all the time: who gets everything? Weeks later, we still don't have a clear answer. And according to the lawyers speaking to the press, we may never get one. Parton's fortune has been estimated at $450 million, built from decades of songwriting royalties, Dollywood, and a sprawling collection of businesses and intellectual property. Her husband predeceased her last year, and the couple never had children. By the usual math, that should mean a very public, very complicated probate proceeding, with a courthouse full of records for every reporter and curious fan to comb through. Instead, nothing has been filed: no will identifying beneficiaries. No probate inventory listing assets. Estate lawyers quoted in the days after her death gave a simple explanation: much of what she owned was very likely never in her name to begin with. It was already sitting inside one or more trusts. That's not a loophole. It's one of the main points of having a trust. A properly funded trust never goes through that process at all. The trustee simply carries out the instructions the trust already contains, privately, without a filing, a docket number, or a stranger's ability to read who got what. None of this happened by accident. In interviews going back to at least 2020, Parton spoke about deliberately getting her affairs in order with an estate attorney, citing the very public, very messy situations left behind by other entertainers who died without a plan. She wanted to spare her family exactly the kind of scramble and exposure that a will-only plan invites. This is exactly what we help our clients build. You don't need a music catalog or a theme park to benefit from the same structure. Every trust-based plan we put in place for a client accomplishes the same three things Parton's apparently did: keep the details of what someone owned and who received it out of the public record, avoid a court process that can take months (or years) to resolve, and let a trustee step in and carry out clear instructions immediately, without waiting on a judge's calendar. Contact Jesson & Rains if you want to protect your legacy for your family outside of the public view.
0 Comments
 By Associate Attorney Ashley N. Bonomini
If you’ve ever signed an employment agreement, it may have included a restrictive covenant. Restrictive covenants can include agreements not to compete with a former employer or business for a certain period of time after leaving a job (a “non-compete”), an agreement not to solicit former customers or current employees of a former employer or business (a “non-solicitation” agreement), or agreements not to use or divulge proprietary or confidential information of a business learned through prior employment (a “confidentiality agreement”). Although non-competes are no longer valid or enforceable in some states, North Carolina still permits reasonable non-compete agreements when they are narrowly drafted and designed to protect a legitimate business interest. In general, a non-compete must be in writing, supported by adequate consideration, and reasonable in its duration, geographic scope, and the activities it restricts. North Carolina law does not establish a specific maximum duration or geographic area for non-competes. Instead, the restriction must be reasonable considering the employer's business and the employee's position on a case-by-case basis. For example, a local business would have difficulty justifying a restriction covering the entire state. Non-competes should be carefully tailored to protect the employer's actual legitimate business interests. Protecting customer relationships, confidential information, trade secrets, and business goodwill can be legitimate interests. However, simply wanting to prevent an employee from working for a competitor isn't enough. Before starting the process to enforce a non-compete clause, an employer should consider whether such actions are worth it. Enforcing a restrictive covenant can be expensive. If an employee leaves and immediately begins working for a competitor, an employer may need to seek a court order to stop the employee from engaging in the restricted activity. The employer is typically responsible for paying its own attorneys fees and costs, so the damage the employee is likely to cause must justify the expense. Employers should also be cautious about assuming that a court will simply rewrite an overly broad provision. North Carolina courts have historically been reluctant to "blue pencil" or rewrite unreasonable restrictive covenants. For that reason, employers should think about enforceability and practicality when drafting the agreement, not only after a dispute arises. Despite their popularity, a non-compete is not always the best way to protect a business. An employer may be better served by a confidentiality agreement or a non-solicitation provision. In many situations, these restrictions may provide adequate protection for the business without significantly limiting an employee's future employment opportunities – making such provisions easier to enforce against a former employee. However, enforcement of a non-compete may be particularly valuable when an employee has significant customer relationships, access to highly sensitive information, or other knowledge that could cause substantial harm if used by a competitor. For example, if your lead software designer leaves your company to work for a direct competitor in the same role, then seeking injunctive relief or enforcing the terms of a non-compete may be necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. A confidentiality agreement or non-solicitation agreement may not be sufficient in this example. Whether you're an employer considering adding a non-compete clause to an employment agreement or an employee who has been asked to sign one, the attorneys at Jesson & Rains, PLLC can help you understand your rights, obligations, and options so you can make an informed decision. |
Subscribe to our newsletter.AuthorKelly Rains Jesson Categories
All
Archives
October 2026
|
- Home
- Practice Areas
-
Team
- Edward Jesson - Attorney
- Kelly Rains Jesson - Attorney
- Jeneva Vazquez - Senior Associate
- Nicole M. Perozzi - Associate Attorney
- Ashley N. Bonomini - Associate Attorney
- Mercedes DeFeo - Paralegal
- Shelyce Fitzgerald - Paralegal
- Michelle Goldman - Paralegal
- Hana De Oro - Front Desk Coordinator
- Sydney Stephan - Director of Business Development + Marketing
- Sue Lambert - Office Manager
- News & Blog
- Contact
- Testimonials
- Free Resources
- Newsletter
RSS Feed
|
SERVICES |
SUPPORT |
©Jesson & Rains, PLLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.