MAY 7, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 18
We have written about contracts to make (or not to revoke) a will before. The question comes up infrequently, and usually only in a handful of ways: can you and your spouse make an enforceable agreement that you will leave your respective estates to, say, your children no matter what? Yes, you can — at least in Arizona.
For John and Martha Lindford (not their real names), the question came up during their divorce proceedings. Martha wanted to make sure that the couple’s two children, John, Jr. and Paula, would receive at least a share of John’s estate when he died. When the couple negotiated a property division as part of the divorce, it included a provision that required each of them to “execute a Will leaving fifty percent (50%) of their respective estates in equal shares to the children and twenty-five percent (25%) to each other.”
Eleven years after the divorce was final they both agreed that it was time to modify their first arrangement. John and Martha both signed an amendment that eliminated the requirement that any share of each estate be left to the other, and instead provided that 75% of each ex-spouse’s estate would go to the two children. Six months after that modification, John remarried.
Five years after the second marriage John was diagnosed with cancer, and he began to seriously plan his estate. He amended signed a new will and modified his existing living trust; the new documents specifically left several business entities to his new wife, and provided that she would also receive an additional amount to bring her share of his estate up to 25% if it did not already amount to that much.
In the months after his cancer diagnosis, John also transferred several assets — the family home, several bank accounts and one of the businesses — to his second wife outright. When he died eighteen months after diagnosis, the effect had been to leave his second wife substantially more than one-quarter of his entire estate — although she had gotten a large part of that share by lifetime gifts, not in his will or the trust.
John, Jr., and Paula and first wife Martha filed a claim against John’s estate. They argued that the effect of his gifts and the terms of his will and trust violated the marital property agreement as it had been amended. His second wife acknowledged that she had gotten more than one-quarter of John’s assets, but argued that the agreement only required him to have a will leaving 75% to his children — and that lifetime transfers were not prohibited by the agreement.
After a two-day trial, an Arizona probate judge ruled that John’s actions violated the property settlement agreement with his first wife. The second wife was ordered to return all the assets she had received from John, so that a new division could be made and her share could be capped at 25%. She appealed the ruling.
The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the probate judge, and upheld his ruling. The appellate judges calculated that John had given about $2.5 million — amounting to more than one-third of his entire estate — to his second wife, and that he had done so in an attempt to defeat the agreement he had signed with his first wife. Estate of Lockett, April 26, 2012.
Should John’s and Martha’s original agreement, signed in the course of a divorce nearly two decades before John’s eventual death, effectively tie John’s hands indefinitely, and despite his later marriage, growth of his estate and changes in his family relationships? That question is larger than the legal question posed by his probate case. For good or ill, John and Martha had signed an agreement that compelled them each to leave three-quarters of their respective estates to their two children. That agreement might have turned out to have been unwise or constraining, but it was their agreement.
What formalities are required for such an agreement to be effective, and to bind the parties? Arizona law (and other states may have different provisions, so be careful about generalizing from Arizona’s example) requires a contract to make a will — or not to modify or revoke a will — to meet only very basic formal requirements. Paradoxically, it would seem that a contract which does not satisfy basic will formalities (e.g.: unwitnessed and not in the decedent’s handwriting) might qualify as an enforceable contract, thereby effectively creating a will.
What landmines and roadblocks might people considering such a contract (e.g.: the lawyers representing a couple in a divorce proceeding) reflect upon before signing? Well, the opinion in John’s probate case turned, among other things, on a letter he wrote before the agreement was signed. In that letter John reported that he intended to leave 75% of his “entire estate” to his first wife and children. When the second wife later argued that the agreement necessarily only covered his will and his probate estate (and therefore should exclude property he gave away before his death), both the probate judge and the appellate court pointed to his letter as proof that he meant the contract to include his entire estate. If that is true, it certainly would have been a good idea for the agreement to spell that out in more detail, and to cover the possibility of living trusts, lifetime transfers, creation of limited liability companies or family limited partnerships, and other arrangements.
APRIL 16, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 15
Tax ID numbers for trusts. When we first wrote about this topic, we did not appreciate how interested our readers would be. We thought that the issue was sort of dry, actually, and that most people would have asked their lawyer or their accountant for direction. It has become one of the most enduringly popular topics at the Fleming & Curti, PLC, website.
Imagine our surprise. The questions just keep coming. We can’t and don’t try to answer them all individually — we are not here to give free legal advice based on incomplete information, and most of the questions leave out at least some of the detail we would need. But we do find your questions instructive for purposes of figuring out the level of interest — and confusion — out there.
Here are a few of the questions we have gotten (edited for space, or to focus the question on the area we want to answer). Please, please, please remember that we are not trying to give specific legal advice here — we only want to help you focus your questions for when you talk with your own lawyer, or when you find yourself arguing with the well-meaning but misinformed support person at a major mutual fund company.
The key to determining when a trust needs its own EIN (employer identification number — the correct term for a taxpayer identification number for a non-human entity) is whether or not the trust is a “grantor” trust. While your parents were both living the trust was probably revocable and for their joint benefit; it almost certainly could use one or the other parent’s Social Security Number as its TIN. With the death of your father, the question now is whether the trust (a) is still revocable and (b) contains money that was originally your mother’s.
For purposes of determining the trust’s revocability, we can ignore the fact that your mother may not be mentally able to revoke the trust. The test is whether she would have the legal authority to do so, were she competent to attempt it.
More importantly, if the trust consisted of your father’s property (and not joint or community property), then it may not be a grantor trust any longer. In that case it may need its own EIN.
Whether or not it needs to have its own EIN, it is permissible for you to get one. This is true because your mother is no longer the trustee. Many banks and brokerage houses think that the fact that she is not trustee makes a separate EIN mandatory; they are wrong. But there is no harm in getting one, and it might make it easier to deal with the financial industry. What the tax returns would look like in such a case is a separate question — one you probably ought to pose to the accountant who prepares the trust’s and your mother’s tax returns.
The most common scenario is this: husband and wife have either a joint revocable trust or reciprocal trusts. In either case, upon the death of the first spouse a separate trust is created for the benefit of the surviving spouse. This trust is irrevocable and contains assets that belonged originally to the now-deceased spouse. As we have described before, this new trust (it might be more accurate to call it a modification of the old trust, which is now irrevocable) needs its own EIN. But what is it called?
The trust document itself might give the answer. Mr. and Mrs. Jones’ trust might say something like “the share described herein shall be set aside into the Jones Family Trust Marital Sub-Trust” or “the Jones Family Decedent’s Trust.” If the document names the new (or sub-) trust, use that name. If not, we usually use language that makes clear — and helps us remember — what kind of trust it is. Perhaps “the Jones Family Trust — Decedent’s Share” is clear enough.
There is no particular magic to the language. Clarity is the key. There are no trust policemen waiting to arrest you for getting the name wrong, and sometimes it is easier to let the broker or banker win these arguments — even when they are wrong. But if you are trustee it IS important that you keep track of which funds belong to which sub-trust if there is more than one, and that you not commingle the money between trusts or, worse yet, with your own money.
Yes, that is what we would do. It likely will work — not so much because there is a clearly right answer, but because there is no easy way for the annuity company to double-check. Their form is wrong to assume that all trusts have an EIN, and you are not even permitted to get an EIN for your revocable trust when you are the trustee and the original owner of all its assets. We encourage you to put your Social Security Number in the xx-xxxxxxx format and see if it works. We have done that before and it has.
She certainly will when you die. Until then, the trust doesn’t really exist, so there’s nothing to apply for now.
This suggests a question not really asked: what happens when you die with a will creating a trust? The first part of the answer: we will need to probate your estate. If your intention was to avoid probate by creating a trust, putting it in your will does not accomplish that. We see much confusion about this point among our clients and audiences when we give public presentations. Sometimes they then say something like: “ah, but we took care of that problem — we named our son as POD beneficiary” (or, sometimes, as joint tenant with right of survivorship). Great — no probate. Also — no trust. If you want your son’s money to pass in trust AND to avoid probate, you will need to talk about creating a living trust, not a testamentary trust. But that’s a lecture for another day.
Those were fun questions, but we’re out of time and space for this week’s newsletter installment. But keep sending them in — your questions help us decide where to focus our future articles. Please remember, however, that we are not here to give specific legal advice — we look for questions that raise larger questions that help us explain legal concepts for a lay audience. We hope we have helped you understand exactly why you need a lawyer for your more specific legal question.
JANUARY 30, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 4
We are frequently surprised by how much trouble people cause for their families and heirs by not taking simple steps to properly plan for their estates. One thread that often recurs involves a fear (or perhaps disapproval) of lawyers, leading to failure to get good legal advice about planning, or about the execution of documents. This week we read about a different reaction, but with the same result. Florian T. Latek didn’t trust notaries.
Mr. Latek owned a small family farm in Indiana, but he lived (and owned real property) in Illinois. In 2009, with the help of a non-lawyer friend, he wrote a letter to the lawyer for a local charity he favored. The letter began “This is my will” and it proceeded to direct distribution of his entire estate to that charity and other recipients. Then he prepared four identical copies of the document, and signed each one.
Apparently Mr. Latek realized he should have the documents notarized, but he wrote that he did not trust notaries; instead, he included his Army serial number with the note that he hoped it would “be good for any legal matters.” Then he had some — but not all — of the copies witnessed by friends, and he secreted one copy (one that had no witnesses’ signatures) behind (not in) a small safe at the Indiana farm. Less than two months later, Mr. Latek died.
Probate proceedings were begun first in Illinois. The Illinois courts initially determined that Mr. Latek had no will; later, when the friend who had helped prepare the document got in touch with the charity named in the letters, the unwitnessed version was found at the farmhouse. When the charity’s lawyer attempted to introduce that will in the Illinois courts, it was initially rejected because it did not meet the Illinois requirements for a will to be valid. Later a copy with witnesses’ signatures was located, but the lawyer could not produce the witnesses to testify about the signing of the letter in the time given by the Illinois court to prove the validity of the will. The result: the Illinois property would pass according to the law of intestate succession, to Mr. Latek’s cousins (he had no children).
Meanwhile, the charity’s lawyer filed one of the letters with the Indiana courts for admission as Mr. Latek’s last will. If admitted, it would control the distribution of the family farm. The personal representative appointed in Illinois objected, arguing that Illinois had already decided that the will was invalid and the Indiana courts were bound by that finding.
The Indiana probate judge disagreed. The will was admitted to probate in Indiana, and the lawyer for the charity was appointed to administer Mr. Latek’s Indiana estate.
The personal representative appointed in Illinois appealed in Indiana. He argued that the U.S. Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the rulings of sister states; once the Illinois courts had rejected Mr. Latek’s letter as a will, according to this argument, the Indiana courts were required to adopt the same ruling. The Indiana Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with that argument, and upheld the Indiana probate court’s admission of Mr. Latek’s letter as his last will. Matter of Latek, January 4, 2012.
What does Mr. Latek’s estate tell the rest of us? A number of things jump out:
It just makes sense to get help with setting up one’s estate plan. Assuming that it will all work out, that one’s Army serial number ought to prove one’s wishes, or that notaries are unreliable are not good ideas when dealing with the legal effect of documents. It is touching to note that Mr. Latek also told the charity’s lawyer that he should “tell the judge that we were classmates and do the very best you can,” but that just makes it harder to understand why he did not consult with a lawyer he obviously knew and trusted. Would the lawyer have charged him? Of course. But his wishes might have actually been carried out, rather than two different proceedings with two different results.
Mr. Latek looks like a classic example of the kind of person who ought to be considering a living trust. Rather than relying on two different probate courts to come to the same conclusion, he could have transferred both his Illinois real estate and his Indiana real estate — along with all his personal property — to a trust that would have been governed by the law of one state or the other. Would that have cost him something to set up? Yes. It would also have permitted his estate to be managed and distributed in a coherent and effective way, at (ultimately) lower cost than two separate probate proceedings in Illinois and Indiana. That would especially have proven to be true when the cost of one appellate case is factored in. If you own real property in two different states, you should particularly pay attention to the outcome for Mr. Latek’s estate.
State laws vary with regard to the formalities of wills. Some states require notarization OR two witnesses. Some states permit unwitnessed wills to be effective, provided that they are signed and in the signer’s handwriting. But here’s a piece of news for do-it-yourself fans: ALL U.S. states would treat a will as effective if it has both two witnesses and a notary. Yes, some states require the signer, the witnesses and the notary to all have been together at the signing — so it just makes sense to do it that way at a minimum.
NOVEMBER 14, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 39
Let’s talk about guardianship and conservatorship proceedings. Before we do, though, let’s remember a couple of important principles:
We only know about Arizona guardianship or conservatorship. Well, OK — we might know a thing or two about other states’ rules and procedures — but we only practice in Arizona. Our observations are not universally applicable. They may not even be universally applicable inside Arizona’s borders.
As always, we simply can’t give specific case-based legal advice here, and you should not rely on this newsletter (or anything you read online or in books) to resolve your case. This is big-picture stuff. We can and do write about how the system works, what the rules look like, and what you might expect if you are involved in a guardianship and/or conservatorship matter in Arizona. Don’t expect to print out our articles, take them to court and argue with the judge, though. She won’t appreciate it, and neither will we. Plus it won’t work. Get good legal advice.
One thing we’ve learned from years of law practice: people think they understand their own cases, but they get blinded to the nuances (or maybe they aren’t told everything about the contrary evidence or opinions) and tend to overgeneralize. We don’t think that means they are stupid, or liars — they are just trying to put the best face on their case, and that’s human nature. But it also means that if you say “aha — he hit the nail on the head and that’s exactly what my worthless brother is trying to do” we’d be likely to tell you (if we were your lawyer): “slow down. It’s not that clear.”
We have written a lot about guardianship and conservatorship. Here’s one of our better (and most comprehensive) articles, a White Paper on guardianship and conservatorship. But it’s a difficult and confusing topic, with lots of information — and misinformation — out there.
Disclaimers aside, let’s talk about guardianship and conservatorship. Let’s start with some definitions of terms.
In Arizona, the word “guardianship” is applied to the court proceedings instituted to acquire legal control over another human beings’ person. In general terms, a guardian is authorized by the court to make placement and health care decisions for that other human being. Not every state uses the same word. Not every state has the same process to get a guardian (or whatever they call the office) appointed. But every state does have some kind of court proceeding in which a person can be appointed to manage the health care and living arrangements of another person.
In Arizona, the word “conservatorship” is applied to the court proceedings instituted to acquire legal control over another human beings’ finances. A conservator usually is authorized by the court to handle checking accounts, real estate, brokerage accounts, businesses, vehicles, horses, airplanes, family photographs, oil and gas leases — you name it. Just to keep the confusion level high, not every state calls this type of court-appointed person a conservator — some, in fact, call them guardians. But in Arizona, the person managing property and finances is a conservator.
Neither guardians nor conservators are “powers of attorney.” In point of fact, powers of attorney are pieces of paper, not people at all. But now we quibble. The person named to manage your property and/or your person in a power of attorney is properly called your “agent” or your “attorney-in-fact.” A guardian or conservator is neither an agent nor an attorney-in-fact. They usually have authority over agents and attorneys-in-fact, though it may require separate court action to make that clear, and it may be possible for the court to determine that the agent (or attorney-in-fact, if you prefer hyphenated names) still has authority even after appointment of a guardian and/or conservator.
Who can have a guardian appointed? Someone who is incapacitated. Their incapacity can be based on their age (minors — those under age 18 — are automatically incapacitated under Arizona law unless they are “emancipated”) or their circumstances. Generally speaking, parents are the natural guardians of their minor children, so they do not need to go to court to secure guardianship. The same is not true for any class of adults. So if your 18-year-old child has a lifelong disability that makes him unable to make responsible decisions, you do not automatically shift from being his natural guardian at 17 to being his legal guardian at 18. A court proceeding is necessary. Same thing if your husband or wife becomes incapacitated — you may need court proceedings to become guardian (if there is no power of attorney and there are things that need to be taken care of). “Incapacity” for adults requires a court showing of (a) a mental, medical or other condition that (b) affects the ability of the person to make and communicate responsible personal decisions and (c) makes it difficult or impossible for them to provide their own food and shelter without assistance. It is also necessary to show that (d) the appointment of a guardian will actually help accomplish that goal.
Appointment of a conservator is based on similar, but slightly different, grounds. First, minority is always considered a legally disabling condition, but parents are not the natural conservators of their children in the way that they are natural guardians. That means if a minor child comes into money, even if they live with both parents and all are harmonious and responsible, there is no way to manage that money without going through the conservatorship process. If an adult becomes unable to manage their money in order to prevent its waste or dissipation, they may have a conservator appointed, as well. Frankly, the definition of when a conservator can be appointed is a great deal less precise than that for guardianships, which can sometimes lead to problems.
An important reality for family members and friends to understand: if a guardianship and/or conservatorship proceeding is initiated, the court has been invoked and will not later simply step aside to let concerned — even appropriately concerned — family members take over. Once the courts are involved, they tend to stay involved.
That means that the cost of securing guardianship and conservatorship can be high. In Arizona, a lawyer is automatically appointed to represent the person who is alleged to be in need of a guardian or conservator. A medical report is required. A court-appointed investigator must go to the residence, conduct an investigation and file a report. There are significant court costs involved. Plus the process is complicated enough that the petitioner is almost always going to hire an attorney. That attorney’s bill is likely to approach half the total cost of getting the guardianship or conservatorship set up.
Much has been written, spoken and broadcast in recent years about the high cost of guardianship and conservatorship. The natural tendency of the system has been to make it more difficult to get guardians and conservators appointed, and to require them to provide more information, more frequently. Though that may be a positive development, it has the (presumably unintended) effect of making the process not only more difficult, but also more expensive.
So — guardianship and conservatorship can be difficult, expensive, even ineffective. Not always, of course, but there is a possibility and it proves to be the case too often. What can beleaguered family members do?
Most lawyers practicing in the field spend the first portion of any contact with a new client talking about how to avoid guardianship and conservatorship proceedings. Did your family member sign a health care power of attorney, a financial power of attorney, a living will, a living trust? Are there other ways to get done what needs to be done? What bad things will happen if we (that is, the family and the lawyers acting together) simply do not file a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding, even if one is warranted? Are there ways to get agreement from all the family members in advance, in order to hold down legal costs?
One important concern, at least in the case of adult guardianship and conservatorship: we will ultimately need to be able to prove that your family member has a medical, mental, emotional or other problem that prevents them from making their own personal or financial decisions. We will need medical evidence. Have you spoken with your family member’s physician, or psychologist, or other member of their treatment team? Can you get a letter from that person describing diagnosis, prognosis and any functional limitations? Without that, we may not be able to proceed. With that in hand, though, the process may be significantly streamlined.
Getting guardianship or conservatorship can be expensive, emotionally wrenching, and sometimes even ultimately unsatisfying. Sometimes, however, it is absolutely necessary. We just need to be sure you are prepared for the cost, the procedures, the limitations, and the possibilities in this type of legal proceeding. That’s why you hire a lawyer, after all.
JUNE 27, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 23
We have written before about Arizona’s new Trust Code, and the Uniform Trust Code on which it is based. The “new” law (it became effective on January 1, 2009, so it’s not that new any more) included a number of changes to the way trusts have worked in Arizona for decades. One of the minor, but interesting, provisions is the formal creation of a position called “trust protector.”
To be clear, there was nothing prohibiting inclusion of a trust protector before the new law. So far there are no court cases to help flesh out the powers and duties a trust protector may be given. But we do now have a statute — Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-10818 — which gives clear authority for inclusion of this unusual beast.
So what is a trust protector? The person establishing a trust is permitted to include someone who would have the authority to make changes to the trust even after it becomes irrevocable — even, in fact, after the death of the original trust creator. That means you could name your sister (or your father, or your best friend from college, or your lawyer or accountant) to be the person who could make changes to the trust after your death, to protect the beneficiaries from unintended consequences — or from themselves.
There are no very serious limitations on the trust protector’s possible authority. The Arizona statute gives a handful of illustrations of the powers you might give the protector, but it doesn’t limit you to those ideas. Here are the powers the legislature thought you might want to consider:
The power to remove the trustee and appoint a new one. Worried that the bank might become too bureaucratic, or too expensive? A trust protector can help take that worry off your plate. Worried that your son might not be equipped to really handle the trust after your death? Trust protector to the rescue.
The power to change the applicable state law. Do you think Iowa, or Oregon, or Georgia might be a better state to allow your trust’s purposes to be carried out (or reduce state income taxes, or extend the time for the trust to continue after your death)? We suggest those states precisely because they are not now noted for especially trust-friendly rules — but who knows what might happen in the future? A trust protector could monitor those developments and make a change when it makes more sense.
Ability to change the terms of distribution. What if your daughter is embroiled in a messy divorce just at the time your trust is scheduled to dissolve and pay out to her? Or if your son is just about to declare bankruptcy? Or your grandson has just been diagnosed as mentally ill, and really needs a special needs trust to handle the inheritance you have left him? A trust protector could be given the power to change the date of distribution, or to establish a special needs trust, or whatever needs to be done.
Amend the trust itself. You can even give a trust protector the power to amend the trust’s terms. That might include taking advantage of future tax alternatives, or giving a larger share to a grandchild who really needs help, or reducing the inheritance of a child who doesn’t need a full share.
These powers are illustrative, not mandatory. In other words, you can tailor your trust protector’s powers and duties to your own situation and your personal comfort level.
A trust protector can be very powerful, very helpful and very dangerous. It should be obvious that not everyone will want to establish such a super-powerful position in their trust. For those concerned about the difficulty of planning for an uncertain future, however, the trust protector might just be a very comforting and useful tool.
That all begs the question asked in our headline. Do you need a trust protector? Perhaps. We think maybe the first question should be: is there someone (other than your trustee) whom you completely trust to “get” exactly what you want done with your estate after your incapacity or death? If not, your trust is probably not a good candidate for inclusion of a trust protector. But if you do have that person in mind, then let’s talk about how to use them.
JUNE 6, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 20 Last week we answered a pair of questions from our readers and solicited others. Almost immediately we received an excellent question:
What are the factors you look at to determine if a client is best served w/ a will and durable power of attorney or a living trust? In other words, what are the key factors that would lead you to recommend a living trust?
Let us start with a quick disclaimer: the answer to this question is significantly different from state to state. What is true in Arizona may not be the same in other states — and some states will be wildly different. Even for lawyers in the same state there is significant difference of opinion; we are fond of saying that if you ask ten lawyers for their opinions you are bound to get at least fifteen strongly-held, well-reasoned views. Disclaimers aside, what follows is our take on the question.
We think most people do estate planning for one or more of these four reasons:
To minimize taxes. Usually, but not always, that means estate taxes.
To avoid probate, or (more broadly) to simplify matters for their heirs or successors.
To control the way their assets are used after their death.
To make it easier for someone to handle their affairs in the event of their own incapacity or disability.
Which does better at each of those tasks, a will and powers of attorney or a revocable living trust? In almost every case the trust will handle each of those tasks better than a will and powers of attorney. But that is not really the right way to address the question. Since trusts are somewhat more expensive to prepare (assume your lawyer will charge from three to ten times as much for preparation and “funding” of a trust as for a will and powers of attorney) and involve some extra effort, the analysis really becomes one of cost vs. benefit. Will the extra expense and effort of creating a living trust generate enough savings of time or money for heirs that it will turn out to be the right choice?
For most people, the answer is unclear. There are a handful of our clients for whom the trust is unquestionably the right technique, and another handful for whom the trust is not harmful but simply too much legal help for a problem that doesn’t exist. But most of our clients fit into the large middle ground — it would not be foolish of them to opt for a living trust, and it would not be foolish of them to avoid the expense and trouble now and let their heirs deal with it later.
So how do those four estate planning goals relate to the will vs. living trust question? Here’s what we think:
Taxes. Few people need to worry very much about estate taxes these days. With a federal exemption set at $5 million, and no Arizona state estate tax at all, only a tiny fraction of clients have estates large enough to make their decisions on the basis of tax effect.
It is true that the federal estate tax is scheduled to return to the $1 million level in 2013. It is also true that the Arizona legislature could decide to reimpose an estate tax (though most people think that highly unlikely). But for most people, even a taxation level set at $1 million would not make any difference in their planning.
But that’s not the end of the inquiry about taxes. Even if your estate is large enough for you to worry about estate taxation, there is no inherent tax benefit in living trusts. There used to be a way for married couples to lower their combined estate tax bill if their total estate was over the taxation level, but even that has changed (though of course it might change back in 2013). Bottom line: estate tax concerns simply do not drive the trust vs. will question in 2011 the way they did in, say, 1999. And if you are unmarried, or if you are married and your combined estate is less than about $1 million, you simply do not care about estate tax considerations.
Probate avoidance. Arizona’s probate process is not nearly as complicated as its reputation would suggest. It is also not nearly as expensive. Have you read stories about estates that have gone entirely to the lawyers because of a messed-up probate system? Yes, it does happen — but not really because of the system so much as because of family disputes over the validity of documents (including, increasingly, living trusts).
That said, most people will say that even a modest probate cost and time spent in lawyers’ offices would be something worth avoiding. What you need is a solid estimate of what it would cost to probate your estate if you relied on a will instead of a living trust, so that you can compare that cost to the cost of opting for a living trust. It is too hard to generalize about either expense, but we are prepared to go this far: in Arizona, the cost of preparing a living trust (and “funding” it — transferring all your assets into the trust’s name) will almost always be less than the cost of probating your estate later. But not necessarily by much.
There are some other points to be made here. If you own real estate in more than one state, your will must be probated in each of those states (unless you create a living trust or other probate-avoidance mechanism for some or all of those properties). That can drive the expense up considerably, and certainly complicates things for your family. On the other hand, if you have less than $50,000 worth of personal property and no real estate at the time of your death, no probate proceeding is likely to be needed anyway, since there is a “small estates” affidavit mechanism to avoid the probate process.
In general terms, larger estates tend to be more complicated to administer. More complex estates are better candidates for a living trust. So if you are wealthy, probate avoidance is more likely to be a concern for you — and especially if you have unusual assets, or real estate in multiple states, or other uncommon kinds of property issues.
One special consideration here: if you are married, you are probably comfortable putting most or all of your assets in “joint tenancy with right of survivorship” or designating your spouse as beneficiary. You might not feel the same way if you are single; it is not quite as easy (or advisable) to put your children or other beneficiaries on your bank and stock accounts as joint owners. So single people are usually better candidates for living trusts as a means of avoiding probate.
Control. We use the word advisedly. That’s what you might want to do with your funds, even after your death. Are you in a second marriage, with children from the first marriage, and a desire to provide for your spouse but ultimately pass most of your estate to those children? Maybe you have a spendthrift son (or a son who has married a spendthrift). Perhaps your daughter is disabled, and receiving government benefits she would lose if you left her an inheritance outright. Or maybe you want your money to be a retirement fund for your children, or to encourage your grandchildren to get an education, or some other laudable goal you are trying to achieve.
How can you address all of those issues? By putting your money in trust, with a trustee who has been instructed on how you want the money to be used.
You don’t have to create a living trust to put your money in trust. Instead you can create a trust in your will — what we lawyers call a “testamentary” trust. But it will cost you more, and the difference between the cost of a will (with your testamentary trust) and a living trust will shrink. So if you need (or just want) to control the uses of your funds after your death, you will be a better candidate for a living trust.
Your own incapacity. This is why you should sign a power of attorney. It is simultaneously one of the most important documents in your estate plan, and the single most dangerous one. But the cost of going through the courts (in a probate-like proceeding called a conservatorship) is almost always high and the invasion of privacy significant.
There are some times when a power of attorney just won’t solve the problem, though. Plus it is hard to predict when those times arise. Banks, title companies, the federal and state governments — none of them are required to accept the power of attorney. If you sign a living trust and transfer all of your assets to it, though, the problem becomes simpler and narrower: if your successor trustee can show the item the trust calls for (like a letter from your doctor, for instance), then the successor trustee just takes over. There will probably be somewhat fewer problems administering your affairs with a living trust than with a power of attorney.
We don’t want to overstate this benefit, however. It is almost never valuable enough to justify creating a living trust all by itself. As far as we are usually willing to go on this score is to suggest that, if one or more of the other categories make you a good candidate for a living trust, this one might put you over the top.
There’s one more category of living trusty candidates we can suggest: those who are more likely than others to (how can we say this gently?) “use” their estate plans in the next few years. In other words, the older you get the better of a candidate you become for a living trust.
So who should be considering a living trust as part of their estate plan? Look over the explanations above, and you will see that you are a better candidate for a living trust if you:
are older
are not married
are wealthy
have children who are not children of your spouse
have complicated assets, and especially if you
have real estate in more than one state
have beneficiaries with special needs, inability to handle money or other similar considerations
Again, we caution you against putting too much stock in these descriptions or applying them to your situation without good legal counsel. But look over this list of considerations and think about what they say about your estate planning needs. Share them with your own lawyer and ask for a thoughtful, critical evaluation. Your family and heirs will be glad you did.
MAY 9, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 17
Let us give you some insight into how hard it can be to figure out how to interpret estate planning documents. At the same time we hope to explain why it is important to keep your own estate plan up to date.
Timothy M. Donovan was a successful New Hampshire businessman. Beginning in the 1980s he started his own company, Optimum Manufacturing, and built it into a leading manufacturer of optical housing, mirror blanks and satellite components.
At age 52, Mr. Donovan was married for the second time. He had no children from either marriage, but he had close relationships with his mother, his brothers and a niece and nephew.
In 2005 he signed a will and a living trust. The terms of his will were straightforward: he left all of his personal property, real estate — almost everything he owned — to his wife. There was one huge exception, however: he left his stock in Optimum Manufacturing, the real estate on which the plant was located, and any other interest in Optimum to his living trust.
Apparently Mr. Donovan had wrestled with what to do about the company he had built. His trust included detailed provisions about what was to happen to Optimum Manufacturing. His trustee was to continue to run the business for a short time, and then arrange for its sale. If possible, it was to be sold to employees of the company. If not, it was to be put on the market. Once the company was sold, the proceeds were to be divided into percentages. Forty-five percent would go to his wife, twenty-five percent to his mother, twenty percent was to be divided among his brothers, niece and nephew, and ten percent would go to the trustee. After distributing the Optimum sale proceeds in those percentages, everything else in the trust was to go to his wife.
So far, there is nothing extraordinary about Mr. Donovan’s estate plan, and it looks like it would be easy to understand and implement. But in 2008, things changed. Mr. Donovan sold his company to Corning Specialty Materials, a subsidiary of the giant Corning, Inc. The sales price: $15 million. The proceeds from the sale went into Mr. Donovan’s name individually, and not to his living trust.
Just under a year later Mr. Donovan (who was also an avid and accomplished pilot) died,tragically, in a glider crash. He had not updated his estate plan, and so questions now arose about what should happen to proceeds from the sale of Optimum Manufacturing.
You be the probate judge for a moment. Assume for the sake of your ruling that all the Optimum proceeds were held in one or more identifiable accounts, and that they had not been commingled with other funds (we don’t know that to be true, but let’s keep the legal issues simple for a moment). Assume, also, that Mr. Donovan’s wife’s name has not been put on those accounts. Tell us, judge: what happens to the $15 million?
You want some precedent? How about the recent case of Estate of Donovan, decided on April 28, 2011, by the New Hampshire Supreme Court? It would be hard to find anything more clearly on point.
The legal term for what happened in Mr. Donovan’s case is ademption. When property is sold, lost or no longer part of the estate at death, it is said to be “adeemed,” and a specific bequest of that property therefore fails.
In some circumstances the identifiable proceeds from a sale of specifically named property must be distributed as if the original gift still operated. That can be true when the “ademption” is involuntary, for instance — such as when the state condemns a parcel of property that has been listed in a will and the proceeds from that condemnation are still held in a separate account. But that was not the situation in Mr. Donovan’s case.
The problem is made slightly more interesting by the fact that Mr. Donovan had signed both a will and a trust. Since the sale proceeds were still in his name, they were governed by the will — which said that everything but Optimum Manufacturing was to go to his wife. That was what the probate judge decided, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed.
Imagine, though, that Mr. Donovan had put the sale proceeds into an account titled in his trust’s name. Would the result have been any different? No, said the Supreme Court. His trust also left everything but Optimum stock to his wife, and the ademption principles would apply to the trust just as they did to Mr. Donovan’s will and estate.
There is no grade, nor any reward, for correct answers, but how did you do as a probate judge?
FEBRUARY 21, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 6
We get asked plenty of general legal questions. We try to give helpful answers, recognizing that we can not give specific legal advice to non-clients (and particularly to questioners from outside Arizona, where we are licensed to practice law). Often our best answer is “check with a local lawyer familiar with the appropriate area of law.” Unsatisfying, but it really is the right answer in many cases.
Still, we want to get general legal concepts out to the public. Why? Because we think it makes non-lawyers recognize when the legal problem they face is too complex for self-help, and it even helps make the questioner a better client when they do get to the lawyer’s office.
What kind of legal questions can we answer? very general ones. Like these, which are some of our most common questions:
Does my living trust need a new tax ID number? The best way to answer this is probably to explain when a trust doesn’t need its own “Employer Identification Number” (EIN — even if the trust isn’t an “employer,” that’s the kind of tax ID number it will get).
General rule: every separate entity requires its own TIN, whether that is a Social Security number (for you) or an EIN (for your corporation, trust, LLC, or whatever). First major exception to the general rule: if your trust is revocable, and you are the trustee, for tax purposes it is not a separate entity at all — you don’t need an EIN and, in fact, you shouldn’t get one.
Now let’s make it a little more complicated. If your trust is irrevocable, or you are not the trustee, the rules are a little harder to parse. The key question is whether your trust is a “grantor” trust. If it is, and if there is only one grantor (or one married couple), then it does not need an EIN. If it is not, or if there are multiple grantors, it must have its own EIN.
Note that whether or not the trust needs (or is even permitted to get) an EIN is not the same question as whether it has to file a separate tax return. That one is more complicated, and we’ll save it for another day.
Can a revocable trust be named as beneficiary of an IRA? Yes, but be careful. This is something you should discuss with your attorney or your accountant (or both).
Before we talk about naming your trust as the beneficiary, we have a question for you: what are you trying to accomplish by naming the trust as beneficiary? If your trust divides equally and distributes outright among a fairly small number of beneficiaries upon your death, why not just name those beneficiaries on the IRA as well as in the trust? Then you don’t have to figure out the rules on naming a trust as beneficiary, and you don’t have to keep wondering if you’ve done it right.
Maybe you have a child who is ill, or a spendthrift, or needs to have his inheritance placed in trust. In that case — and in a few other cases — it can make sense to name your trust as beneficiary of your IRA. Now you need to become familiar with the difference between what lawyers usually call “conduit” trusts and “accumulation” trusts. The former require distribution of any money received from the IRA’s minimum distribution requirements each year, and the latter allow (but do not require) the IRA distributions to accumulate. The distinction is important; the accumulation trust will require distributions on the basis of the oldest possible beneficiary of the trust. That is the result in most cases where a trust is named as beneficiary.
These same rules apply, by the way, for other tax-qualified accounts, like 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Some advisers will tell you it is not even permitted to name a trust as beneficiary of an IRA or qualified plan. They are wrong, but the rules are a little difficult to figure out in individual cases. Also, some account custodians (that is, the bank or financial institution where the money is held) may limit or even prohibit trusts as beneficiaries.
How does community property work in Arizona? Nine U.S. states are usually listed as the “community property” states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. In addition, Puerto Rico recognizes community property, and Alaska allows couples to choose community property treatment of their joint assets.
But what does it mean to have property held as community property? In Arizona, it means that the property is jointly owned, that each spouse has an equal interest, and that either spouse has the right to manage the property on behalf of the community.
When one spouse dies, his (or her) half int0erest in the community property normally passes according to his will or, if he did not sign a will, to his children (including those who are also children of the surviving spouse). To avoid that result couples are permitted to specifically designate their property as “community property with right of survivorship.” If that title has been used, the surviving spouse receives the entire community asset on the first spouse’s death. Note that the different community property states treat the right of survivorship differently, and we are only describing Arizona’s approach here.
It is also possible for a portion of an asset to be subject to community rights. This might happen, for example, if one spouse brought the property into the marriage but mortgage payments were made during the period of marriage from community income or assets. This kind of calculation is usually much more important in divorce proceedings than upon the death of one spouse.
Property received by inheritance or gift, and property owned before the marriage, are not community property — they are the separate property of the recipient or owner. Couples can choose to convert their community property into separate property, and can even agree that property acquired in the future will be treated as separate property.
Thanks. But I have a different question to ask. Go ahead — pose your question as a comment here, and we’ll try to answer it. Don’t be too surprised if we tell you that it is too specific, or requires knowledge of another state’s laws, or we can’t answer it for some other reason. But we’ll try to be helpful.
One word of caution: do not give us a detailed fact pattern and ask us for advice. We simply can not provide individual legal advice — free or even for a fee — based on unsolicited e-mails or comments. You will not have any lawyer/client privilege for your recitation of the facts, and we will not be able to help with that kind of inquiry. We do welcome your general questions that give us a chance to explain legal principles, though.
DECEMBER 27, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 40
Kenneth Boyd established a revocable living trust in 2002. He named his daughter Carol Boyd as trustee, and directed that the trust be divided, upon his death, into three shares. One share each was to go to Carol, to Kenneth’s mother Elizabeth Boyd, and to Carol’s son Ben Scott. So far nothing is remarkable or unusual about Mr. Boyd’s trust arrangements.
Elizabeth Boyd entered a nursing home in November, 2007. Kenneth Boyd died a month later. When it came time to divide the trust estate among the three beneficiaries, Carol Boyd simply wrote checks to each one, and sent Elizabeth Boyd’s share to her in care of the agent under her durable power of attorney.
The agent refused to cash the checks. Putting the money into an account in Elizabeth Boyd’s name, she argued, would simply make her ineligible for Medicaid assistance with her nursing home costs, and assure that a third of Kenneth Boyd’s estate would go to nursing home care for Elizabeth. If Elizabeth Boyd’s share could stay in trust, it could benefit her during her life, allow her to remain eligible for Medicaid, and assure that there would be something to pass on to her heirs on her later death.
It seemed obvious to Elizabeth Boyd’s attorney-in-fact that the continued trust would be in her best interest. Language in the trust could be construed to permit Carol Boyd to do just that — to turn the distribution from the trust into a “third-party” special needs trust. Elizabeth, through her attorney-in-fact, ultimately filed suit in California, asking the court to compel Carol to continue to hold the funds in trust for Elizabeth but not distribute any proceeds outright to her.
Carol Boyd pointed to the language of the trust, which gave her the power to do what was asked but did not direct her to do so. She insisted that her father would have wanted his money to support his mother until her death (or until the money ran out), and she declined to establish a special needs trust. So the legal question became whether Carol had an obligation to do so.
In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals ruled that Carol did not breach her duty to Elizabeth by failing to segregate her trust distributions into a separate, third-party special needs trust. It was not completely clear to the appellate judges whether such an action would even be effective; in any event, the opinion makes clear that Kenneth Boyd’s trust gave Carol the power, but not the duty, to modify the distribution terms. Boyd v. Boyd, December 16, 2010.
As is so often the case, there were a number of complicating issues in the Boyd case. They help point up the importance of communicating clearly with the lawyer who prepares your estate planning documents, and keeping those documents updated. Among the complications:
Kenneth Boyd’s trust actually left a larger share to his brother, James, who was scheduled to receive 40% of the remaining funds on Kenneth’s death. James, however, died just a year before Kenneth did, and the trust did not provide that his share would pass either to his surviving wife or his step-daughter. Despite the fact that James’ marriage was of long standing, he had never adopted his step-daughter — if he had, she would have taken his share of the trust as his child. Since he died without any legal “issue,” his share lapsed and was divided equally among the other three beneficiaries (Carol, Elizabeth and Ben).
Carol Boyd was actually the adopted daughter of Kenneth Boyd. That makes no legal difference, and probably was explained to the lawyer who drafted the trust at the time. But the adoption had been completed when Carol was 32 years old, and she had never met Kenneth’s mother Elizabeth, his brother James or his wife.
Kenneth and Carol lived in California. Elizabeth, James and his wife lived in New York. Consequently, the California courts had jurisdiction over the trust interpretation — but they had to consider the effect on New York Medicaid eligibility and trust law. Interstate proceedings often create additional confusion and difficulty.
It is extremely hard to know what Kenneth actually would have wanted in the facts as they developed. That is why estate planning lawyers go through the almost ghoulish routine of asking clients to imagine unusual sequences of family deaths and disability. The reality is that Kenneth Boyd died just a year after his brother’s death, and a month after his mother entered the nursing home (and qualified for Medicaid). If he had discussed the family situation with his lawyer during the year after his brother died, he might have made changes in his trust language. At least he might have clarified his wishes, so that the issue would not have to be decided by court proceedings.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 VOLUME 17 NUMBER 36
Our clients usually have similar goals in their estate planning. They want to take care of their children. They may want to leave something to charity. They usually want to minimize taxes that they, their estate or their beneficiaries might have to pay. And they often tell us they want to make sure there is no quarrel among their beneficiaries, and that the process will not be contentious. We tell our clients that we understand, and that we will do what we can to meet those goals, but that the last one is hard to assure. We have no control over what the beneficiaries might do, and we simply can not promise that there will be no contest or litigation.
Will contests are actually quite rare. Contests over living trust provisions are even rarer. There are three good reasons that they are rare:
The wills and trusts are usually valid, and any contest would be frivolous. It’s actually hard to win a proceeding contesting a well-drafted estate plan.
Most people leave the bulk of their estate to the same heirs who would receive it if they did not prepare a valid estate plan. No one has any reason to contest your will if they would get exactly the same amount even if they could prove the will was invalid.
The amount of money involved is most often not worth the legal expense — particularly if the likelihood of success is not good.
Sometimes, though, the amount of money, the change in distribution plans and the circumstances lead one or more beneficiaries to challenge the validity of a will or a living trust. They usually do not prevail — especially if the documents were carefully drafted and executed under the supervision of a competent attorney. But they may still raise the challenge.
That was what happened with the beneficiaries of Mercedes Kibbee’s estate. Ms. Kibbee lived in the small town of Sheridan, Wyoming. Her late husband Chandler Kibbee had been an important business executive, and the couple had ranched in Wyoming for years. In fact, Ms. Kibbee was worth about $32 million.
In 1996, after her husband’s death, Ms. Kibbee signed a trust which (at her death) would have left a trust for her daughter paying $50,000 per year, and divided the rest of her assets between trusts for her son and for her granddaughter (her daughter’s daughter). Her son and granddaughter had powers of attorney to handle both financial and health care issues for her, and were named as successor trustees. That would have exposed her estate to a substantial estate tax liability (depending, of course, on the year in which she died) of as much as half of the total estate.
In 2005 Ms. Kibbee fell and broke her hip, and ended up in a nursing home for rehabilitation. She wanted to return home, and she believed she had plenty of resources to provide whatever care she needed in her home. Her son and granddaughter thought she should stay in the care facility, and they arranged to take over as trustees of her trust and to keep her at the nursing home.
With the help of a long-time secretary and bookkeeper, Ms. Kibbee made contact with a local Wyoming attorney, Deb Wendtland. Ms. Wendtland helped Ms. Kibbee revoke the powers of attorney and remove her son and granddaughter as co-trustees of her trust. Instead she named herself and a local bank as co-trustees, and she returned to her home. The bank officer and Ms. Wendtland discussed her estate planning with her, and pointed out that she would be liable for a huge estate tax bill if she did not make changes to her documents. She was very disturbed by that prospect and asked the two to contact an estate planning lawyer to help organize her plans.
Robert H. Leonard, an experienced estate planning lawyer from Laramie, Wyoming, began visiting with Ms. Kibbee. Mr. Leonard was chosen because he was recognized as an authority on estate planning; he is, for example, a Fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC). At about the same time Ms. Kibbee asked her local lawyer, Ms. Wendtland, to make contact with Ms. Kibbee’s daughter and get her to visit and help with arrangements.
After many visits and much discussion, Ms. Kibbee signed a series of documents prepared by Mr. Leonard and Ms. Wendtland. She adopted a fairly complicated estate plan, which included charitable remainder trusts for her son and daughter, charitable lead trusts for her granddaughter and great-grandson, and a charitable foundation to receive much of her estate. Each document was carefully explained to her before signing, and her questions indicated that she understood them and agreed. Each document was reviewed with one or both of the attorneys and her bank trust officer. The entire plan was explained to her children and granddaughter as it was adopted.
Notwithstanding all of those careful plans, Ms. Kibbee’s son filed a challenge. He objected to the change in his mother’s estate plan, and particularly alleged that her daughter had unduly influenced her to make the changes. He argued that by the time of the signing she had become incompetent, and that the plan reflected her daughter’s wishes rather than her own. He filed his action while his mother was still alive, and argued that the successor trustee provisions should become effective immediately.
Ms. Kibbee, through her lawyers, answered the allegations and countered that she was fully competent and the planning reflected her own wishes. Unfortunately, Ms. Kibbee died just two months after her son filed his challenge.
It took more than two years to frame the legal issues for resolution, but in 2009 the trial judge dismissed all of the son’s allegations. He appealed, but the Wyoming Supreme Court agreed with the lower court and let the dismissal stand.
The preparation of Ms. Kibbee’s estate plan was comprehensive, thoughtful and reflective. It involved two different lawyers discussing her wishes with her, as well as a trust officer who was very familiar with her finances (and, by that time, with her family). She expressed her wishes clearly and consistently. On some issues, when she wasn’t sure how she wanted to proceed, she asked thoughtful questions and had heartfelt discussions with her advisers. In short, it is hard to imagine how a physically frail but mentally alert elder could have done better at addressing a complicated and difficult subject. The contest was not successful, but it was not prevented, either.
Two vignettes stand out in the Wyoming Supreme Court’s recitation of the case:
When Ms. Kibbee was considering whether to leave significant sums to the local YMCA for the benefit of youth programs, her advisers arranged for a group of children to visit her ranch house. They played in the pool, enjoyed a barbecue and chatted with Ms. Kibbee as she sat on her terrace in her wheelchair. She asked if they could return the next weekend.
When her attending physician was asked about her mental status, he described an inquisitive, playful, alert elderly woman who not only answered his questions but also challenged him. “…she had wit and intelligence, and I thought that she had kind of an ironic sort of personality where she would be almost like she was testing me,” said her doctor. “I was the so-called tester, and she was testee; but she had turned it around.”
Kibbee v. First Interstate Bank, November 5, 2010.
