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 23, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 16
Let us try to demystify probate avoidance for a moment. Note that for the purposes of this description, we are not going to argue with you about whether avoidance of probate is good, bad, desirable or a foolish goal — we start here with the assumption that probate avoidance is important. Another day, perhaps, we will discuss with you whether you ought to be concerned about probate avoidance.
Definition of terms first: probate is the court process by which your estate is settled and distributed to your heirs (if you have not made a valid will) or your devisees (if you have). Confusingly, “probate” is also the term applied (in most states) to the court where probate proceedings, guardianship, conservatorship and sometimes even civil commitment and adult adoptions are conducted. We are not talking here about how to avoid probate court altogether, but just about how to keep your estate from having to go through the probate process upon your death.
Arranged (more or less) from least desirable to most, here are some of the ways to avoid probate of your estate upon your death:
Die poor. In Arizona, an estate consisting of up to $50,000 of personal property can be collected by the people who claim to be entitled to it without the need of a probate court proceeding. The affidavit for collection of personal property is widely available and usually free. Your survivors can use it to transfer title to your auto, or to collect small bank (or other financial) accounts. The statute providing for collection of small estates also provides a mechanism for the surviving spouse to get a decedent’s last paycheck, and for beneficiaries to transfer title to real property up to another $75,000 in value. Most other states have a similar law, but with dollar limits that vary widely.
Give it all away. One sure-fire way to avoid probate: give everything to your kids (or whomever you want to receive your stuff) now. The main problem with this approach should be obvious — what if they won’t let you live in your house any more, or withhold the interest you counted on them returning to you each month? Things change: you might change your mind about leaving everything to that child, or to all your children. The child you transfer assets to might marry someone you don’t trust. Worse yet, that child might die — leaving you at the mercy of his or her spouse and children. Maybe you and the child you give your stuff to will end up disagreeing about when you need to go to a nursing home, or whether you ought to get married late in life, or even take in a roommate.
As an aside, it amazes us how often clients come to us after having given everything to their children. Things so often do not work out as planned. This is a very poor way to handle your estate planning — but it would avoid probate. We hear that those new-fangled strap-on jet packs avoid traffic jams, too — but we don’t recommend them as a means of getting to the doctors office.
Joint tenancy. People often refer to this method of holding title by its formal name: “joint tenancy with right of survivorship.” That makes the value of the title pretty clear — the surviving joint tenant(s) own the deceased joint tenant’s portion of the property upon death of one joint tenant. You can have more than two joint tenants — upon the death of any one, the survivors’ interests all increase. We liken this arrangement to a tontine — a lovely idea that combines the best elements of estate planning and lotteries.
Lawyers generally discourage the use of joint tenancy in estate planning. The problems are less obvious than simply giving away your stuff, but they are still real. You might later decide that the child you established the joint tenancy with should get a larger or smaller share of your estate — but the joint tenancy is always, by definition, an equal ownership interest with all the other joint tenants. People who favor joint tenancy as an alternative to good estate planning invariably, in our experience, seem to think it would be OK to name just one child as joint tenant, and to trust her (or him) to divide the property among siblings. That often works just fine — but it often leads to family disputes when the children have different expectations or understandings.
Other problems with joint tenancy: you subject your property to the creditors, spouses and business partners of the child you put on your title. You lose the power to refinance your home, to cash out your certificate of deposit, or to liquidate your government bonds — more accurately, you lose the power to do those things unless your joint tenant will also go to the title company or the bank with you and sign willingly.
Lawyers tend to dislike joint tenancy, except in one circumstance. Many people own their property in joint tenancy with spouses (homes are especially likely to be titled in that fashion), and we lawyers generally think that is alright. In Arizona, there is another alternative between spouses that we like a little better: community property with right of survivorship. That conveys some income tax benefits to a surviving spouse while still avoiding the necessity of any probate on the first spouse’s death.
Beneficiary designations. You probably have a beneficiary (maybe multiple beneficiaries) named on your life insurance policy, on any annuities you have been talked into buying, and on your retirement account (if there is any death benefit included). Did you know that you can do the same thing with bank accounts, stocks and bonds, and even (in Arizona and a handful of other states) real estate?
POD (payable on death) bank accounts — you can designate a POD beneficiary (some banks use the acronym ITF — “in trust for” — and it means the exact same thing) who has no current interest in your account but receives it automatically upon your death. You can even name multiple POD beneficiaries. And you can do this at banks, credit unions, savings and loans. Caution: if you go to your bank and say “I heard that there’s a way I can put my son’s name on my bank account” the clerk will almost always hand you a joint tenancy signature card. Make clear that you’re talking about POD designations — they are used less commonly but are a better fit for most people.
TOD (transfer on death) for stocks and bonds — there is a designation similar to the bank POD account for stocks, bonds, brokerage accounts and mutual funds. It is usually referred to by its acronym, TOD. It is actually more flexible than the POD designation available to banks — it allows you to designate what happens if a TOD beneficiary should die before you, for instance. Talk to your stockbroker about this titling arrangement if you think it might be a good idea for you — but talk to your lawyer first.
Beneficiary deeds for real estate — this one is available in only about a dozen states, but Arizona is one of those. It is like a POD or TOD designation for real estate — including your home. It only works on real estate located in Arizona or one of the other beneficiary deed states. The beneficiary deed conveys no current interest in your property, but avoids probate and vests directly in your beneficiary upon recording of your death certificate. You and your spouse can, for example, own your home as community property with rights of survivorship but upon the second death automatically transfer to your children in equal shares (with provisions about what happens if one of them should not survive both of you) upon the second death. We have written about beneficiary deeds in Arizona before, and our earlier explanations are still valid (even though our newsletter style has been updated).
What’s wrong with these beneficiary-based devices? Two things, at least: (1) they don’t provide for what happens if you make life changes that effectively adjust your estate plan (if, for instance, you live off of one account that was to go to one or two children, and thereby reduce their share of the estate) and (2) they make it hard to change your estate plan (if you decide to disinherit a child, for instance, you have to make sure to change all of the operative documents and titles). But in the right circumstance, beneficiary designations can effectively transfer your estate without probate — they act as a sort of a “poor man’s” trust.
Trusts. Which gets us to the most efficient way to avoid probate for most people — the living trust. To be clear, the trust doesn’t really avoid probate at all — but your trust assets do not have to go through the probate process and so anything you have transferred during life to the trust will avoid probate. It is the “funding” of the trust that avoids probate, not the trust itself.
So there you have it. Probate avoidance in a nutshell. But wait — what’s not on that list? Did you notice? There is so much confusion about the missing item, which does not avoid probate:
Making a will. Preparing and signing your will is a good thing to do. It avoids intestate succession, which might not be right for you. It designates who will be appointed by the court to act as your personal representative. It can name the person who will be your children’s (or your incapacitated spouse’s) guardian. It can even create a trust. But it does not avoid probate.
Your will is instead instructions to the probate court. It has no effect unless and until it is admitted to probate, which another way of saying that a court has determined that it really is your last will. Clients frequently say: “thank goodness I’ve signed my will today. Now I can sleep better knowing my children won’t have to go through probate.” We say: “sit down. We have some more talking to do. Obviously we have failed to get you to understand the distinction between wills and probate avoidance.” Then we talk about living trusts.
Did that help? Do you have a better idea for probate avoidance (we’ve left a couple of less common methods off)? We’d love to hear from you.
FEBRUARY 20, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 7
OK — you’ve signed your will and paid the big lawyer’s fee. Now you want to make a change. Do you know how to modify your will? Can you do it without incurring another fee? Shouldn’t it be easy to make the change?
All that might have been going through Donald Wolf’s mind when he made changes back in 2005. You see, he had written a clearly valid will in 1995. In it, he left half of his estate to a married couple who had been long-time friends. A quarter of his estate was to go to another friend, and the final quarter to a fund to assist AIDS patients. He named the wife of the married couple as his personal representative. Then he gave an unsigned copy of the will to the woman named as personal representative.
In 2005, when he was thinking about making a change, Mr. Wolf talked with the couple to whom he was leaving half of his estate. Then he took THEIR copy of his will, crossed out the bequest for AIDS patients and wrote that instead that quarter of his estate would be divided between two other friends. He dated and initialed the changes, but no one signed as witnesses. At some point — perhaps during that same meeting, but his friends could not clearly recall — he did the same thing on the signed original will, as well.
Was Mr. Wolf’s will amendment effective? We’ll give you a minute to think about it, and try to decide what you think. Wait — we’ll give you one more clue: the probate court decided that the attempt to amend his will was ineffective, and ordered that the AIDS fund was still a one-quarter beneficiary.
One of the two friends named in the hand-written amendment appealed the probate court’s decision, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the finding. Arizona permits “holographic” wills and amendments; if the material provisions of a will are in the decedent’s handwriting, they do not need to be witnessed. The appellate court decided that Mr. Wolf’s amendment was a holograph, and that it should be given effect. Estate of Wolf, February 7, 2012.
Back to our original questions: assuming you want to change your will, does the Wolf case stand for the proposition that it is as easy as taking your original will out, scribbling the changes, initialing and dating (which Mr. Wolf did) and putting it back away? Emphatically, NO. Here are some reasons why you should NOT use Mr. Wolf’s method for changing your will:
You might live in, or move to, a state where holographic wills are not permitted. Not every state in the U.S. allows holographic wills and codicils, and they are disfavored in other jurisdictions — even in English-speaking countries, where the idea was once embedded in English law. Even where they are permitted the rules vary. It is never a good idea to rely on a holographic will, codicil or amendment.
Even if the handwritten notes are admitted as part of the will, the intent and meaning is usually subject to interpretation and confusion. Is it possible that Mr. Wolf was making notes about possible changes that he meant to discuss with his lawyer — but never got around to completing? Apparently not, but very slight differences in testimony can lead to significant differences in result.
Holographic documents are much more likely to result in litigation — and in delay and additional cost.
The cost of making changes in your will is usually surprising slight. Go ahead — ask the lawyer who prepared your will how much he or she will charge for making changes. You are likely to be surprised at the answer. Why would it be inexpensive? Because a significant part of the cost of preparing your estate plan comes from the time it takes to understand your assets, family situation, goals and intentions. Much of that has already been done, and so amending your will is likely to cost quite a bit less than the original cost of preparing the will. That is true even though most lawyers would rather simply write a new will than prepare an amendment or codicil.
There is a side benefit to meeting with your lawyer to amend your will. Laws change, your situation changes, the world changes — and your lawyer can point out things you ought to be thinking about in addition to the changes you want to make. In fact, you should be visiting with your lawyer once every five years or so — more if your situation is more fluid, or your assets are significant — just to see if you need to update documents.
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.
JANUARY 2, 2012 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 1
Two weeks ago we detailed some of the statutory changes facing guardians, conservators and other fiduciaries in Arizona beginning with the new year. At the same time the legislature was working on those changes, the Arizona Supreme Court was considering changes to the rules and procedures governing probate court. That means more changes affecting guardianship, conservatorship, probate, and trust administration.
The Supreme Court rules changes have been adopted, but they are not effective at the same time as the statutory changes described in our earlier newsletter. Most of the rule changes become effective on February 1, 2012; a few of them will be delayed until September 1, 2012. Since some of the changes require continuing review and modification by the courts, some may be changed or delayed even beyond that later effective date.
Here are some of the probate court rule changes (all effective February 1, 2012, unless otherwise indicated):
Every conservator must file an inventory within 90 days of appointment. That has not changed. What has changed is that (beginning in September, 2012) the inventory must also include a budget (unless the Court in individual cases waives this new requirement). The budget must be updated with each annual account. Expenditures in excess of budgeted amounts are not prohibited, but may require an update to the budget or even prior Court approval. Failure to follow the budget may subject the conservator to higher liability at the time of the annual account.
At the same time that the inventory and each annual account is filed, every conservator of an adult must calculate whether it appears that the conservatorship assets will outlast the person subject to the protective proceeding. The precise calculation does not have to be shared with interested persons, but the result does; the conservator is required to explain what he or she anticipates will happen if the money is not sufficient to take care of the protected person for the rest of his or her life expectancy.
The rules introduce the legal concept of “vexatious conduct.” If a litigant has been found to have filed repetitive pleadings for the purpose of harassing others, the court may enter an order limiting their ability to file future pleadings. Such an order might, for example, require the vexatious litigant to get the court’s approval before filing any new pleadings, or relieve the other litigants of any obligation to file responsive pleadings until the court has made an initial review of the vexatious litigant’s filings. Another new rule permits a party who thinks a given filing is repetitive to respond by simply pointing out that the pleading is repetitive; once that is done, no further response is required until after the court determines whether the filing is in fact repetitive.
When a guardianship or conservatorship is filed, an attorney and a court investigator are normally appointed (to represent the subject of the proceedings and to report to the probate court, respectively). That does not change with the new rules. There are several changes about how those appointments will work, however. First, court-appointed attorneys, court investigators and guardians ad litem must undergo a training program to be devised by the courts (this is one of the requirements that is implemented on September 1, 2012). Second, court-appointed attorneys and guardians ad litem are disqualified from serving in cases where the proposed fiduciary is a client of theirs in other matters, even if unrelated. Third, it is now impermissible for the court appointees to end up serving as the guardian or conservator.
Speaking of guardians ad litem, the new rules spell out in more detail what that position entails and when a GAL may be appointed. The request for appointment of a GAL must detail why special expertise is needed, and any order appointing a GAL must spell out the limits of the appointee’s authority.
When a guardian or conservator is appointed by the judge, that fact alone does not give them any authority to act. The clerk of the court must first issue “letters” evidencing the appointment (which may require that the appointee file additional documents). The new rules imposes several changes involving the “letters.” First, every court order appointing a guardian or conservator must include a warning that the appointment is not effective until the letters have been issued. Second, every conservator must record a certified copy of his or her letters with the County Recorder in the county where the protected person resides and in every other county where the protected person owns real property. Third, a conservator’s letters must include specific language if sale of real property or access to other assets (like bank accounts, for instance) has been restricted by the court.
Every person or entity appointed as guardian, conservator or personal representative must undergo a training program either before or shortly after appointment. This provision is not effective until September 1, 2012 (in order to give the courts time to create an appropriate training program). It does not apply to professional fiduciaries who have been licensed by the Supreme Court (they already have testing, training and continuing education requirements) or banks acting as fiduciaries. It does apply to family members who act as fiduciaries. There are no exceptions for people who have been named as personal representative in a will, for example, or for parents who act as conservator for a minor child whose assets are all in court-controlled bank accounts.
Any lawyer or fiduciary who expects to be paid from a ward’s (or prospective ward’s) funds must first give everyone in the case notice of how his or her fee is to be calculated. The Supreme Court has directed that some sort of fee guidelines be adopted in the future; those guidelines will govern how attorneys may charge in guardianship and conservatorship matters.
Annual accounts must be in the form prescribed by the Supreme Court. That form has not yet been adopted (it is one of the items that will have a September 1, 2012, effective date to give the Court time to finalize the forms), but preliminary forms have been circulated. They are quite different from the accounting forms approved by the Court for the past four decades, and will require significant retooling of accounting practices and software. Details are not yet settled, but will be adopted over the next few months.
Alternative dispute resolution is encouraged. In contested proceedings, the parties are required to notify the Court within 30 days about their efforts to initiate mediation, arbitration or other resolution efforts.
When a guardian has been appointed for a minor, the guardian has an affirmative duty to notify the court on the minor’s reaching majority, getting married or adopted, or upon the minor’s death. If there is no conservator appointed, the guardian’s notification must include a list of any property the guardian believes may belong to the child — and that information must be provided to the Court as well as the subject of the guardianship.
Attorneys for guardians, conservators and other fiduciaries are required to encourage their clients to do as much of the fiduciary work as they can without involvement of the lawyer. Complaints have been made in the past about lawyers overseeing their clients’ work too closely, and at too high a cost. The new rules make clear that the responsibility is the fiduciary’s, not his or her lawyer’s.
Can we generalize about the effect and value of these changes? Not yet — or at least we can not generalize about how much they will actually improve the practice or lower costs. We can make a few educated guesses, though — and we will:
It seems likely that the cost of most guardianship and conservatorship matters will increase slightly, as compliance with the new (and more detailed) rules requires more work.
We expect fewer family members will be willing to take on what was already a difficult task, and will now become somewhat more difficult. That means more cases moving to professional fiduciaries.
Our estate planning clients will be reminded again and again how important it is for them to execute living trusts, powers of attorney and other arrangements to avoid any need for guardianship or conservatorship proceedings. One small irony: even as the process for handling decedent’s estates has been streamlined over the past several decades in response to public and consumer complaints about costs, delays and legal micromanaging, the guardianship and conservatorship process have become more expensive, slower and more subject to Court micromanagement. That may have been necessary to protect a vulnerable population, but it certainly is an example of the doctrine of unintended consequences.
Contentious family members and friends will have more access to the Courts, not less. Contested proceedings will likely become somewhat more frequent in guardianship and conservatorship cases. It is likely that the same effect will not be seen in decedent’s estates and trust administration cases, but we could be wrong about those predictions.
Here’s our final (and, we think, safe) prediction: the effect of these changes will be less profound than either practitioners fear or reformers hope. We will all learn the new rules over time, and many of us will refer fondly to the good old days, before 2012, when people just seemed to get along better and the process did not seem to get so bogged down in minutiae and micromanagement. We will be wrong about our glowing, Rockwellesque memories.
Want to read the new rules yourself? It’s a little hard to find and read them. First, the Arizona Supreme Court’s site for proposed rule changes is confusing and impenetrable, and does not distinguish well between recent changes and proposals and those from prior years (or, we assume, prior decades — once the kludgy system gets to be ten years old). Second, as of this writing, the “official” rules page does not show the changes (which admittedly will not be effective for another month). We will give you our best bet for temporary review; we will try to remember to update the online version of this article once the final rules make it to the official rules page. Look at the Arizona Supreme Court’s Rules of Probate Procedure page, and remember that you have to actually open and integrate three PDFs to figure out which rules are effective on what dates and where each change is located.
DECEMBER 19, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 43
It is not exactly a secret that the Arizona probate court system has been widely criticized over the past two years or so. The Phoenix-area newspapers have been filled with stories about alleged abuses of the probate process. Many of those stories have focused on practices in the guardianship and conservatorship systems, which in Arizona are controlled by the probate courts. During last year’s Arizona legislative session a number of changes were adopted; most of those take effect on January 1, 2012.
At the same time the legislature was acting, a committee of the Arizona Supreme Court was considering many of the same (or similar) changes. The courts have now released their final changes; some of them will take effect on February 1, 2012, and some on September 1, 2012. We will describe some of those changes, and what effect they are likely to have on existing and future clients, in a later newsletter. For now, we focus on the changes adopted by the legislature. They include:
Fiduciaries are now expressly required to consider costs when making decisions about how to act, and to make reasonable decisions to limit those costs. The notion of a cost/benefit analysis, which we all apply to business and personal decisions in our own lives, has been adopted for guardianship, conservatorship, probate and trust administration proceedings. See Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-1104.
Unreasonable litigants — including those who repeatedly file the same kinds of pleadings despite successive decisions against them — can now be prevented from running up probate costs, and can even be charged with some or all of the costs they do incur. The probate court has the express power to prohibit further court filings by an unreasonable party, and to summarily deny repetitive motions without requiring others to answer or argue. See Arizona Revised Statutes sections 14-1105 and 14-1109. The court rules which become effective a month later, incidentally, include a concept of “vexatious conduct” that is similar but somewhat more expansive.
Arbitration of probate disputes is encouraged — but not (yet) required. Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution are also permitted. See Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-1108.
Guardians, conservators and attorneys must now provide written information about their fees — how they are going to be calculated and at what rate or rates — at the beginning of their involvement. Failure to do so will mean that they are not permitted to collect fees from the ward in a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding. The probate court has been given wider latitude to determine when a professional fee is reasonable and necessary. See Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-5109. Another fee-related change: attorneys are not permitted to wait until the conclusion of a case (or some later event) to submit their bills. Any bills not submitted within four months of the services are waived. See Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-5110.
It should be easier for the subject of a guardianship or conservatorship — or his or her family — to seek appointment of a new guardian and/or conservator. This change reflects the legislature’s concern that even when family members are unable (or unsuitable) to serve, they should have some say in selecting the fiduciary. There are limits on how often the ward and family members may ask for changes, and the court retains the final say on any substitution, but the statutory changes will probably lead to more changes of fiduciary, at least in contentious cases. See Arizona Revised Statutes sections 14-5307 and 14-5415. The notion that family members — even family members who can not themselves serve — should have a greater say in selecting and monitoring guardians and conservators is sprinkled through other sections of the new law.
Although most of the new law deals with guardianship and conservatorship changes, there are a few changes in probate proceedings and at least one in trust administration matters. The principal change for trusts: the beneficiary of a trust has the ability to direct appointment of a new trustee — at least if the trust was originally established by the beneficiary. See Arizona Revised Statutes section 14-10706. This section will not apply — at least not directly — to trusts established by someone else for the benefit of the beneficiary. It will apply to self-settled special needs trusts and other irrevocable trusts established by the beneficiary.
What effect will the statutory changes have on guardianship and conservatorship practice? It is hard to be certain until there is more experience. A few likely effects, including some that might be categorized as unintended consequences:
The cost of probate court proceedings is likely to go up in most cases. This is a paradox, since one of the original motivations behind the changes was to control costs, and especially legal fees. In some very expensive cases in recent years, that might well be the effect. In the vast majority of cases, however, increased requirements and a higher burden on fiduciaries and their attorneys will likely result in at least a small increase in costs.
There are likely to be fewer private fiduciaries willing to get involved in difficult or contentious cases. That, in turn, is likely to mean an increase in caseloads for the Public Fiduciary in each county. Not only will the Public Fiduciary see an increase in cases, but it is likely that the complexity of the average Public Fiduciary case will increase.
Some private professional fiduciaries may leave the field, or change their practices significantly. We predict (on the basis of no empirical data whatsoever) that another paradox is likely to be an increase in the number of licensed fiduciaries — and that both the average case load and the professional training and experience of private fiduciaries may well be lower in future years.
On January 18, 2012, Fleming & Curti, PLC, will host a training session for our clients who act as guardian, conservator or personal representative. We will invite fiduciaries who are not our clients, as well. Those in attendance will likely include both family members handling a single case and professional fiduciaries with large and complicated case loads; both kinds of fiduciary will need to know what the changes mean for them. We will cover both these legislative changes and the Supreme Court’s changes in rules and accounting requirements (and forms). If you are interested, you can pre-register by calling Yvette in our office (520-622-0400) and leaving your name and e-mail address. We will be sending out formal invitations in the upcoming week.
NOVEMBER 21, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 40
Paternity testing has come a long way in the last few decades. You might reasonably think that it is now so easy to establish parentage that probate court disputes about the subject would be largely a thing of the past. If you thought that, you’d be wrong. Just ask Thomas Powell.
Mr. Powell’s experience in probate court began with the death of Oklahoma resident Valatus Merral Dicksion. Mr. Dicksion had been married, but his wife had died before him. He and his wife had two adult daughters. Mr. Dicksion left a four-page handwritten will, which originally had named one of his daughters as administrator of his estate. Someone had crossed out that portion of the will.
Mr. Dicksion’s brother filed the handwritten will with the probate court. He listed the two daughters as heirs, and described the will as being in his brother’s handwriting and signed by him. The court appointed him as personal representative.
A few months after the probate proceeding was initiated, Mr. Powell filed a petition seeking recognition of his status as a son of the decedent. He argued that the decedent had a relationship with Mr. Powell’s mother, and that his mother put him up for adoption shortly after his 1952 birth.
Mr. Powell and the decedent’s brother both agreed to DNA testing to see if paternity could be confirmed. The paternity testing results were conclusive: Mr. Powell was in fact the decedent’s biological son. The probate court then entered an order determining that he was an “unintentionally omitted” heir, and awarded him the same share of the decedent’s estate that he would have received if Mr. Dicksion had died without signing a will at all.
As the probate estate was wrapping up, Mr. Powell joined his half-sister in objecting to the validity of the handwritten will and sought removal of the decedent’s brother as personal representative. The probate court denied his objections and approved the final accounting of the estate. The probate judge also denied the personal representative’s request that Mr. Powell be ordered to pay the estate’s additional attorney’s fees incurred in responding to his requests.
Mr. Powell appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, which ruled (among other things) that the DNA testing should not have been used to determine paternity after Mr. Dicksion’s death — that paternity must be established before an alleged father’s death. Mr. Powell then appealed that result to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The state high court rewrote the outcome substantially in Mr. Powell’s favor. First, the justices decided that post-death paternity testing CAN be used to determine heirship, at least in Oklahoma. Then they ruled that an Oklahoma law preventing a decedent’s business partner from being appointed to administer an estate should have been applied to Mr. Dicksion’s brother. Finally, they ruled that the contest of Mr. Dicksion’s alleged will should have been formally resolved before the estate could be closed. In Matter of the Estate of Dicksion, November 15, 2011.
The decision was not unanimous. Of the nine members of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, five voted to uphold Mr. Powell’s paternity determination and four argued that prior Oklahoma court decisions should have been followed (which would have prevented the DNA tests from being used). The four dissenting justices did not address questions about the appointment of Mr. Dicksion’s brother as personal representative, or the status of the unresolved will contest.
Mr. Dicksion’s family situation and probate proceeding make for an interesting story. They also cast a little light on how probate contests can sometimes arise, and how resolution of disputes can be difficult and unclear (witness the 5-4 decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court). It would be a mistake, however, to generalize too much from the result in this case.
All three parts of the Oklahoma Supreme Court holding are dependent on the peculiarities of Oklahoma law. The statute for determining paternity (and its effect on a will not mentioning a previously unknown child) is unusual in Oklahoma, and unlike that in Arizona. The prohibition on business partners being appointed as personal representative (unless mentioned in a will) is also unique to Oklahoma, and does not have an Arizona counterpart. Finally, Oklahoma is one of the minority of states which permits a “holographic” will to be valid (Wikipedia reports that 19 of the 50 U.S. states permit holographic wills — we haven’t checked that assertion, but it sounds about right to us). Arizona, like Oklahoma, does recognize holographic wills; in Arizona, a valid holographic will must have the signature and “material provisions” in the testator’s handwriting.
So what useful information is in the appellate decision in Mr. Dicksion’s probate case? Well, we might generalize a handful of principles:
Know the local law, and update your estate planning if you move. While we might not be too concerned about the possibility of unknown descendants in Arizona, Oklahoma law appears to be significantly different. Whenever a client moves to another state, we urge them to meet with a lawyer in their new state to see if there are differences in state law that they should be aware of. This is the sort of difference we sometimes see and always caution about.
Deal with contingencies in the planning documents, even if it seems unnecessary. If Mr. Dicksion’s will had included a provision that said “I intentionally omit any person not specifically named herein” (or similar language) would the result have been different? Perhaps not — but it might have strengthened the argument that an unknown child should not share in the estate. Of course, this is exactly why lawyers’ documents tend to be much longer and more complicated than non-lawyers think is absolutely necessary.
NOVEMBER 7, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 38
A woman has been diagnosed as suffering from dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, and she resides in an assisted living facility. She has short-term memory loss, is frequently forgetful and has difficulty with tasks like playing cards and operating her television set. Can she sign a new will?
That is the legal question posed by Clara Marsh’s will, which she wrote out in longhand and signed in 2006. Ms. Marsh died two years later, and her son and daughter ended up in a legal battle over whether the will was valid.
To be more precise, Ms. Marsh’s will actually presents two related but independent legal questions. First: was she competent to sign the will on the day she did? Second: if she was competent, did her son and daughter-in-law exert undue influence on her in connection with the new will?
A brief background is in order. Ms. Marsh had a 1996 will that left everything equally to her two children. When she moved into a condominium in 2003, she wrote to the children telling them that she intended to leave her new home to her son Richard. He had helped her with the purchase, and she explained to the children that she had placed her new home in joint tenancy (with right of survivorship) with Richard. She did not, however, sign a new will at that time.
In 2006 Ms. Marsh moved to an assisted living facility, and the condominium was sold. The proceeds from that sale then became a bone of contention between her son Richard and her daughter Elaine Grayson. Richard thought the proceeds should be put into an account in his and his mother’s names as joint tenants; Elaine insisted that the proceeds be placed in an account in Ms. Marsh’s name alone.
As the two siblings (and their respective spouses) debated how to handle the sale proceeds, Elaine’s husband John filed a guardianship petition. He alleged that Ms. Marsh had Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Richard opposed the guardianship petition, and the relationship between the two couples deteriorated.
A month after the guardianship was filed Ms. Marsh prepared a one-paragraph will in her own handwriting. It said:
Because of all the legal problems Elaine and John are causing, I am afraid my final wishes will be ignored. To prevent this from happening, this is my new will: I leave everything to my son Richard and his wife Sam. I love you all very much.
This new will was witnessed by Ms. Marsh’s priest and the church secretary. She apparently did show it to Richard shortly after she signed it (he says he told her to “hide this someplace” and think it over), but she did not share it with Elaine or her husband John.
After Ms. Marsh’s death in 2008, Richard filed the handwritten will with the Ohio probate court. Elaine objected, arguing that (a) Ms. Marsh had been incompetent at the time of the will’s signing, and (b) Richard and his wife had exerted undue influence over Ms. Marsh to get her to disinherit Elaine. The probate court granted summary judgment to Richard, thereby dismissing the objections raised by Elaine.
The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with the probate court on the first issue, but sent the dispute back to probate court for further proceedings regarding the undue influence count. Despite a diagnosis of dementia, and despite forgetfulness and confusion, the appellate court agreed that Ms. Marsh appeared to understand the things needed to make a valid will. She knew who her children (and in-laws) were, and even though she may not have known the precise nature of her assets she did understand what was involved with her estate. She knew she was making a will, and the effect of doing so. Summary judgment was appropriate on the question of her legal capacity to sign a will. Despite her limitations, despite her diagnosis and despite her living situation, she was able to make her new will.
But it still might be possible to show that she was subjected to undue influence, and the appellate court took pains to distinguish the two concepts. Undue influence, the court noted, is not the same as general influence — even “strong and controlling” influence. To be “undue,” influence must be so pervasive and effective as to result in the document reflecting the wishes of the influencer and not those of the signer. That is a high barrier for a will challenger to cross, but Elaine should be given a chance to introduce evidence to support her claim, ruled the Court of Appeals. In Re Estate of Marsh, October 28, 2011.
Other than the obvious (“don’t exercise undue influence over seniors”), what lessons can we take from Ms. Marsh’s story to guide our actions when working with seniors like her? We might submit a couple for your consideration:
Don’t forget that, while you and other family members dispute how best to handle the senior’s finances (or life), he or she may have some strong opinions and may actually feel affected by your decisions, arguments and tactics.
“Winning” may not be as important in family disputes as figuring out a way to get along. The cost of this particular dispute: thousands of dollars in legal fees, irreparable damage to family relationships and (and not least) psychic injury to the individual everyone was trying to protect.
Family disputes are sometimes about the best interests of a vulnerable family member, sometimes about dollars, sometimes about pride, and sometimes about control. In our professional experience, those last are often the most difficult ones to resolve.
OCTOBER 31, 2011 VOLUME 18 NUMBER 37 Floyd Spence, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina, was a long-time survivor of a heart-lung transplant and a (separate) kidney transplant when he died in 2001, at the age of 73. He was survived by his second wife, Deborah Spence, and four adult sons from his first marriage (his first wife had died in 1978).
As Congressman Spence lay dying in a Mississippi hospital, Mrs. Spence realized that she might need legal counsel to sort out what she would receive from his estate and his congressional life insurance policy. She consulted Kenneth B. Wingate, a prominent lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina. They discussed the fact that she had signed a prenuptial agreement prior to marrying Congressman Spence, that he had initially named her as one of five beneficiaries (along with her stepsons) on his $500,000 life insurance policy, and that she believed he had changed the beneficiary designation to name her alone.
Mr. Wingate advised Mrs. Spence that she should consider entering into an agreement with her stepsons about how the estate would be divided upon Congressman Spence’s death, since there were uncertainties arising from his two different wills, the beneficiary designation and her possible rights under South Carolina law. She agreed, and a settlement of any possible dispute was quickly negotiated and signed. Congressman Spence died, as it happened, the day after the settlement was finalized. The settlement provided for a trust, to be funded with one-third of Congressman Spence’s probate assets and paying its income to her for the rest of her life.
About two weeks later, Mr. Wingate visited Mrs. Spence and informed her that he had been retained to represent the Estate of her late husband. He did not tell her that there might be a conflict of interest in that representation, and he did not ask her to acknowledge any conflict or sign a waiver. In fact, he told her that she would no longer need separate counsel, since the possible conflicts had all been resolved.
Over the next few months Mrs. Spence began to think that she had made a bad bargain. She became convinced that she would have received more from either her husband’s last will or South Carolina’s laws providing for surviving spouses. At a family meeting with her four stepsons and Mr. Wingate, however, her former attorney suggested that she should forgo her right to receive the entire life insurance policy in order to make the boys “whole again.” She did not want to agree, arguing that they should not alter her late husband’s wishes.
After the family meeting Mrs. Spence called Mr. Wingate and asked him to put his hat back on as her attorney and counsel her about the life insurance proceeds. He declined but, according to her, he did not tell her that she ought to seek new counsel or take any steps to protect her interest in the life insurance.
About a year after the Congressman’s death, Mrs. Spence filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside the agreement Mr. Wingate had negotiated for her. He promptly withdrew from representation of the Estate. Eventually the court set aside the agreement.
Mrs. Spence then sued Mr. Wingate, arguing (among other things) that he had breached his fiduciary duty to her as a former client by taking on a new client with an adversarial position. Particularly she argued that Mr. Wingate breached his duties to her in connection with the life insurance policy.
The trial judge dismissed that part of her complaint. Since the estate did not have any interest in or right to the insurance proceeds, the judge decided, Mr. Wingate could not breach any duty to her with regard to the policy. The South Carolina Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. The possibility of a breach of fiduciary duty would depend on the evidence at trial, ruled the appellate judges. The case should be returned to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether there was in fact a breach of duty.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has now rendered its opinion on Mr. Wingate’s duties to Mrs. Spence. The state’s high court agreed with the Court of Appeals that more facts are needed, but made clear that the existence (or non-existence) of a fiduciary duty is a question of law for the trial judge to decide. In other words, the dispute was returned to the trial court for further hearings, and with an instruction to the trial judge to make a finding about whether Mr. Wingate owed a fiduciary duty to Mrs. Spence with regard to the insurance proceeds. If the judge decides that a duty has been shown, then a jury can determine whether Mr. Wingate breached that duty. Spence v. Wingate, October 17, 2011.
The decision of the Supreme Court was not unanimous, incidentally. Two of the five justices would have found that no fiduciary duty existed with regard to the insurance policy, and would therefore have upheld the partial summary judgment originally granted by the trial judge.
Is there a broader lesson in this story? Let us guess that Mr. Wingate today wishes he had declined to take on representation of the Spence estate, and stayed available to counsel Mrs. Spence as to her rights and her agreement. He may ultimately be vindicated, but that will be a less desirable outcome than never having been accused of breaching his duty in the first instance.
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.
