1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why oh why didn’t they resolve the Pam issue at the end of the original series?

Discussion in 'Dallas - The Original Series' started by Grangehill1, Jun 25, 2020.

  1. stevew

    stevew Soap Chat Dream Maker EXP: 8 Years

    Threads:
    74
    Messages:
    1,764
    Trophy Points:
    1,194
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +1,212
    Medals:
    1
    Member Since:
    Jan 2012
    Bobby loved her regardless and finding out Pam is alive, without any further details, we don’t know why she’s away from him. The point being is it doesn’t ruin his character to go after her and give up everything in the process to get to the woman he loves. If it help you I suppose they could have spent some time developing the idea he finds out she’s been kidnapped. I’m just not sure how much lead time the writers had to know that the final episode was the final episode. The idea is to give something to the fans that didn’t feel this was a settled story line. You’ve been clear that you felt it was. I’ll be clear, I felt it was. But obviously it was NOT to many, or at least not settled to their liking.

    Well obviously you are not a lawyer, neither am I but I’m aware of the basics of such things. And while you might not think it’s right the law dues not work on your individual feelings about right right and wrong. You can put all kinds of stipulations on your estate, depending on how you set it up. A famous example is Doris Duke who tried to disinherit an adopted daughter (adopted late in life) which she felt conned her. Her father’s will did not allow her to do so. Kind of the opposite of my scenario. I have stipulations to my estate I put in place which would not let my children do what ever they want with part of it. This is what I said about Miss Ellie and protecting South Fork land without just giving it to Bobby, who if he does the same eventually the land won’t be protected. You don’t have to agree but this is the reality of estate planning and it is believable that Herbert did such a thing that Rebecca ignored and no one caught her in.
     
  2. Kenny Coyote

    Kenny Coyote Soap Chat Star EXP: 12 Years

    Threads:
    168
    Messages:
    2,565
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Rock Guitarist
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +2,676
    Medals:
    2
    It looks like a good way for lawyers to be able to get rich for doing a lot of extra work, but all they'd be doing is making it harder for Rebecca to see to it that Pam and Cliff get some of the money. It's not her money, because if it's hers, then she can do what she wants with it. It's not his, because he's dead. Exactly whose money is it?

    It makes it so she can't will "the money", neither Rebecca's nor Herbert's money, to anyone but Katherine. He's going to be dead, but he still wants it treated as if it's his money and he''s just letting Rebecca use it in certain ways? It's so convoluted! Lawyers must love it.

    It doesn't stop Rebecca from spending it while she's alive. If one year she decides to give Pam and Cliff half a billion dollars each for their birthday presents, then there won't be much left to will to Katherine.

    The idea of willing someone money but then stipulating that it's not really her money because she can only spend it as he sees fit to be a ridiculously convoluted way of doing things. I like the direct approach. Keep it simple and there's less to go wrong with it. I'd will the amount to Katherine that I want her to have.
     
  3. stevew

    stevew Soap Chat Dream Maker EXP: 8 Years

    Threads:
    74
    Messages:
    1,764
    Trophy Points:
    1,194
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +1,212
    Medals:
    1
    Member Since:
    Jan 2012
    You do not understand estate planning. Giving away money like that is not so simple. Of course it’s a way for lawyers to make money but it’s also a way for a person to make sure their wishes are carried out - and it’s not all cash but also tangible assets. Like Doris Duke’s dad wanted to make sure his grandchildren and future grandchildren were taken care of. He made the arrangements with assets he was free to do what he wanted. His daughter was of course free to turn down they money.

    I did not say that was the story on Dallas but that it is a possible idea - Katherine finds a copy of her father’s estate papers that she didn’t see before and realizes what her mother did. It is possible. And yes there could be ways to stop her from “spending it.” It’s unlikely he left her a billion in cash but shares in his company, which he could prevent her from selling.

    Your way doesn’t work. There are issues of taxing as well as issues of control. The simple way might work for someone looking for quick entertainment, but often the truth is much more complicated and interesting for those of us who want something more. The wealthy use classes of stock, foundations, trust funds and the like to control companies, hold onto money and create dynasties. The simple approach leads to a dynasty dying out, old money people without any money or power left. An example, the Ford Family controls Ford Motor Company over a hundred years later despite only owning about 2% collectively. It’s complicated. I and others find complicated interesting. In fact I find unrealistic and oversimplification insulting - unless the story is fantasy.
     
  4. Kenny Coyote

    Kenny Coyote Soap Chat Star EXP: 12 Years

    Threads:
    168
    Messages:
    2,565
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Rock Guitarist
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +2,676
    Medals:
    2
    There is complicated and then there is convoluted for the sake of it. You say my way doesn't work but I can assure you it already has for other people. The parent directly wills their money to the child instead of willing to the spouse and then telling the spouse to give to the child. It works extremely well.

    My way wills the money to whom I want it to go to and doesn't prevent them from spending it as they see fit. Well whose money is it? It's either their money or it's not. I don't go for the approach of "it's sort of your money, in a certain way, but you can't spend it the way you want."

    Keeping things simple and direct avoids all sorts of complications. Your own story has a complication - Katherine would have to pay a lawyer to go after her money. Then instead of Katherine getting as much money, she has to give the lawyer some of it. That's inefficient and wasteful.
     
  5. stevew

    stevew Soap Chat Dream Maker EXP: 8 Years

    Threads:
    74
    Messages:
    1,764
    Trophy Points:
    1,194
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +1,212
    Medals:
    1
    Member Since:
    Jan 2012
    Its not convoluted for the sake of it but to accomplish specific tasks, like to make sure money and assets are preserved for multiple generations. I should have said you way dies not work for the wealthy in this country. You can go for your way but you’re not talking a large estate than and Herbert Wentworth was. It seemed his tool and die business was sort of like the Hughes fortune which would name him a billionaire. Howard Hughes is an exception to the rule I’m talking about and his estate ended up in court for years and years being fought over. I’m sure there are other exceptions but I can’t think of any. The Walton’s haven’t remained the nation’s richest family because they were afraid of convoluted.

    The money Katherine would give a lawyer would be very small compared to the billions she’d get back in her hands. If my scenario were true she wouldn’t have had any issue if Rebecca had followed her husband’s estate plan. But if my scenario were true and Rebecca did try to circumvent Herbert’s estate plan, Katherine would have had the ability to make her case. These things happen all the time and they’re even contested and depending on the laws of the state or county (rich people move around a lot) very odd things can happen. Like here in Michigan a husband can leave property just in his name to anyone he wants, except 1/3 belongs to his wife at the time of his death so she has a claim to 1/3. The same doesn’t work the other way around. A woman can leave a piece of property to anyone she wants and her husband at the time of her death has no claim - of course unless he can prove its communal property. It’s the law. Things get complicated. It’s no contrived fit the shake of it. It’s how governments work, words and interpretations and points of view.
     
  6. stevew

    stevew Soap Chat Dream Maker EXP: 8 Years

    Threads:
    74
    Messages:
    1,764
    Trophy Points:
    1,194
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +1,212
    Medals:
    1
    Member Since:
    Jan 2012
    I’ll give you a real example. I know a woman who died about a year ago. She had a home and property much like Miss Ellie that she wanted preserved. She had already done things like separated the mineral rights (natural gas in Michigan) and her estate put the property in trust so all her descendants can use it. It cannot be sold unless every living agrees and then the liquidation of the trust gives all the money to Children’s Hospital. It was her way to preserve the asset for her children, grandchild and so forth’s benefit. It is very detailed as to who makes decisions and what changes can be made. That is just one piece to her estate, a very complicated plan. Some funds are totally up to the heir. Other things are restricted. You can say she’s power mad or so thing but all but one of her heirs were very happy with her set up. She also protected money from taxes and gave away what she felt was best to give away. Convoluted? Maybe to someone not in her situation. But I think most in her situation would not find issue with it at all. Then again some complain about anything as if the world is made up of right and wrong.
     
  7. Rove

    Rove Soap Chat Mega Star EXP: 3 Years

    Threads:
    30
    Messages:
    3,037
    Trophy Points:
    1,632
    Location:
    Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
    Ratings:
    +4,903
    I couldn't have explained it better. My frustration with Dallas continues to this day...including TNT Dallas. The ambiguity surrounding Pam's demise I can now live with as this was explained in TNT Dallas. But low and behold the writers did it again by leaving us with a cliffhanger whether Christopher died in that car explosion. It's like history repeating itself.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Kenny Coyote

    Kenny Coyote Soap Chat Star EXP: 12 Years

    Threads:
    168
    Messages:
    2,565
    Trophy Points:
    1,098
    Occupation:
    Rock Guitarist
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +2,676
    Medals:
    2
    I think of it this way: Pam surviving that explosion was not believable. Maybe she was that one in a million who for some fluke reason, survives. Whatever. It would be really cheesy to have her son also survive a huge explosion, wouldn't it? So they wouldn't do that again. Except it's not them anymore; it's TNT Dallas. They would absolutely love to do something that cheesy. That would be exactly their style.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Seaviewer

    Seaviewer Soap Chat Enthusiast EXP: 18 Years

    Threads:
    41
    Messages:
    2,272
    Trophy Points:
    4,327
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    Medals:
    3
    Member Since:
    14 September 2001
    In fairness, it wasn't their choice to end it that way. Although, you could make a case that they should have known better than to think the stunt wouldn't get them renewed.
     
  10. Swami

    Swami Soap Chat Supreme EXP: 16 Years

    Threads:
    679
    Messages:
    12,848
    Trophy Points:
    5,142
    Occupation:
    Civil Servant
    Location:
    Ballymoney, Co Antrim
    Ratings:
    +11,083
    Medals:
    7
    Member Since:
    April 2006
    When I watched that episode, I never thought of that connection. I suspect perhaps that was more coincidence than anything else, after all TNT's knowledge of the whole Dallas back story was a bit patchy, to say the least.

    Swami
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page