Life's Stages Dictate Different Estate Plans
As you travel through the various seasons of life, you may not require the same estate plan. A plan you created in your 30’s could be vastly different from the one you need in your 60’s.
2. Newly Married. Once you are married, you will probably want to name your spouse as agent on your durable power of attorney for finances and advanced health care directive. You should also create a revocable living trust and name spouse as beneficiary of your 401(k), life insurance policies, pension or retirement plans.
3. Married With Children. Now is the time to amend your trust to provide instructions and designate guardians to raise your kids, should something happen unexpectedly to you and your spouse. Beneficiary designations on life insurance policies, pension plans, etc. should also be updated to cover a situation where both parents die simultaneously.
4. The Middle Years. During this time, your trust should be updated as changes occur such as divorce, additional children, changes in financial situation, inheritances or substantial increase in net worth, or death of a beneficiary or trustee.
Continue Reading...Which is Better: a Will or a Trust?
One of the most frequent questions I receive from clients goes to the very heart of estate planning—the difference between a will and a trust. When creating a trust, most individuals also create a will (usually a pour-over will), which further confuses the issue. When a client seeks guidance from me on whether it is better to create a will or a trust, the short answer usually is: it depends.
A will (sometimes called a last will and testament) is a foundational estate planning document and one that should be considered by every individual. The primary purpose of a will is to provide a set of instructions for the probate court to follow after your death. Basic issues that are addressed in a will are your choice of executors (the person who will be in charge of your estate) and your desired distribution of your property at your death. While a will is essential to any estate plan, by itself a will has two key drawbacks: it does not avoid probate; and it does not address the issue of your incompetency.
By contrast, a trust (sometimes called a living trust) is usually designed to accomplish everything addressed in a will (naming fiduciaries and designating where your assets go upon your death) but also usually provides the added benefits of avoiding probate and allowing the management of your incapacity. Most people want to avoid probate because an administration proceeding generally costs between four to eight percent of the gross value of the assets and take a minimum of nine months, if not several years, to administer. In local cities such as Manhattan Beach or Santa Monica, where home values average close to $1,000,000, probate fees and costs can easily exceed $40,000 or more. A trust also allows incapacity management because if you (as the trust creator or ‘settlor’) are deemed to be incapacitated (such as by a stroke), the trust agreement usually allows your named successor to assume control of your trust estate. Thus with a trust your assets can be managed for your benefit without having to file a court proceeding.
In addition to these foundational benefits, trusts can also be designed to create a host of other benefits for the settlor including some protection from estate taxes, delayed and managed distribution of your assets for dependents, and some protection from potential creditors. All of these benefits usually require that a person spend more money preparing the estate plan, but given the various benefits for most people, the investment is usually money well spent.
In summary, a will-based estate plan is frequently ideal for those with minimal non-real estate assets. For those individuals with real property holdings, dependents including minor children, or a reasonable asset base, a trust-based estate plan usually is the better choice.
Do You Have the Right Kind of Trust?
I have written extensively about the importance of creating a living trust (sometimes called an inter vivos trust) as a centerpiece of your estate plan. A living trust provides numerous benefits including allowing your loved ones to swiftly and privately manage your affairs, in the event of your incapacity or demise, without the assistance of the probate court.
Recently I was contacted by old friends who thought it might be time to review and update the trustee designations in their trust. Over the years, I had spoken many times to these friends about the importance of a having a living trust. These friends had repeatedly assured me that they had a living trust (created before they knew me) and had arranged everything many years earlier. I had even helped these friends when they functioned as trustees of another trust and so they were familiar with the operations of a trust and how it was administered. So imagine my surprise when I reviewed their plan and discovered that my friends’ trust was not a living trust, but rather a testamentary trust, or a trust created by a last will and testament.
The differences between a living trust and a testamentary trust are significant. Since it is created by a will, a testamentary trust only comes into existence through a probate proceeding. A testamentary trust thus requires that your executor apply to the probate court to create the testamentary trust. The probate (and trust) estate is then subject to the extensive costs of probate (generally 4% to 8% of the gross value) as well as the mandatory notice periods that require a probate proceeding to remain open for at least eight to twelve months. In many cases, a testamentary trust is the worst of both worlds because the creator will incur the additional expenses of creating a more complex document and force his or her beneficiaries to wade through the probate process. Moreover, the testamentary trust is only created upon your death and therefore does nothing to help manage your affairs if you become incompetent.
Time and time again I encounter clients who assumed that they had created a fully functional estate plan only to discover when it was too late that the plan was deficient. Frequently these mistakes are by “do it yourselfers” but sometimes the deficiencies arise from simply not reviewing an attorney-created plan for numerous years. When was the last time you reviewed your estate plan? Does it operate in the most efficient manner? Does it include sufficient contingency options to deal with the variety of problems we face in life? If you don’t know, now is a good time to review your plan with a professional.
Your Mother Always Said: Don't Leave a Mess!
I was contacted by a young woman in her early 30s after the passing of her beloved grandmother. She described herself as grandma’s favorite and the only member of her family that grandma would trust to administer her estate. Grandma had left a car, an apartment complex and a home full of possessions. And while grandma has no minor children, she is the sole means of financial support for two minor grandchildren who have lost their parents. The young woman searched high and low but cannot find grandma’s Will. The young woman believed that the Will may be in a safe deposit box, but until she is appointed administrator, the bank will not allow her access to the box.
We commenced a probate proceeding only to discover that the young woman’s cousin has filed a competing petition. The young woman confided in me that her cousin was ‘troubled’ and probably stole many of grandma’s possessions. But the cousin has filed a competing petition for probate and to the young woman’s surprise she was being wrongly accused of improper conduct. She returned to grandma’s residence only to discover that the locks have been changed and the car was gone. The tenants refused to pay rent because they didn’t know who was in charge, the support payments to the minor child stopped and chaos ensues.
After several hearings the court appointed a professional special administrator to open the safe-deposit box but unfortunately, it contained no estate planning documents. Without a Will, the two relatives had equal standing and the probate court was forced to sort through the competing allegations of misconduct. In the end, neither the young woman nor her cousin were allowed to serve and the court appoints a stranger—an independent attorney who served as a professional fiduciary. The battle between the relatives had resulted in months of delay, thousands of dollars in legal fees and probable financial losses associated with the disrupted tenants.
Much of these problems could have been avoided if grandma had simply taken the proper steps to protect her Will. As explained in a recent Wall Street Journal story, survivors can face numerous problems when a deceased family member fails to organize her affairs and leave them in a manner that can be readily accessed by the survivors. In addition to lost Wills, heirs can lose financial accounts if they are not located and timely claimed. I have seen thousands of dollars in stock certificates stuffed in drawers which could have easily been discarded but for the actions of an alert administrator.
The lesson learned from these tales is timeless: don’t leave a mess!
Parents Should Review Guardian Nominations Annually.
A fundamental principle in life is that things change; as our society becomes more interconnected and technologically advanced, the speed of change seems only to hasten. In response to this change, most of us regularly conduct annual reviews of important areas in our lives. For instance, most large employers review employees annually; many people schedule the traditional annual physical; and most financial advisors recommend annual portfolio reviews. But one area most people neglect a regular review is arguably the one most important: a review of guardianship nominations for their minor children.
The recent loss of musician Michael Jackson has focused attention on this most important issue. Upon his death, there were a number of individuals who could have had standing or a desire to serve as guardian to Mr. Jackson’s children, including Debbie Rowe, his ex-wife and mother to two of the children, his parents and his numerous siblings. Without instructions to the probate court, all of these parties could have petitioned to serve as the guardians. If more than one had petitioned the probate court for the appointment, the matter could have been highly contentious and resulted in an extended legal battle.
Fortunately, Mr. Jackson’s advanced planning prevented the stress and trauma associated with such court proceedings. In his Will, Mr. Jackson designated his mother as guardian for his children and named Diana Ross as a back-up guardian. Mr. Jackson’s decision to nominate these individuals appeared to facilitate the settlement, which was approved by the probate court on August 3, 2009. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, “Neither side made any demands that were rejected, the source said, and the arrangement was agreed to without contentious negotiation.” In short, Mr. Jackson’s plan appeared to have worked as it should have and his children will be raised by Katherine Jackson, the guardian he designated in his Last Will and Testament.
In selecting guardians, most people designate those individuals they believe will best be capable of raising their children in their absence. But as time passes, circumstances change: couples divorce; parents age; and people relocate. When was the last time you reviewed the guardians for your minor children? Are you still close to the guardians? Do you still believe that they share your values? Are your nominees still healthy and capable of raising your minor children? If you cannot remember the last time you reviewed your guardian nominations, or who you nominated, it is time to review your estate plan.
Adjusting Your Expectations
I was speaking with a dear friend recently who consulted me about a concern she had regarding “her” inheritance. She explained to me that her grandparents, who were quite wealthy, had always led her to believe that she would receive a substantial bequest. As it turned out, the entire estate had been left first to another relative with the unwritten ‘understanding’ that the remainder of it would be subsequently distributed among the grandchildren. Unfortunately, the manner in which the distribution had been made gave her relative complete power over the estate with no binding obligation to leave anything to my friend or the other grandchildren. The grandchildren were now waiting for ‘their inheritance’ from their senior relative which created an atmosphere of uncomfortable tension among the grandchildren.
As a trust and estates practitioner, my friend asked me what could be done to protect ‘her inheritance’. I had the unfortunate job of explaining to my friend that under these circumstances there was little that could be done because given the way the estate plan had been structured, she had no right to ‘her’ inheritance. Unfortunately, my friend’s attitude is not unusual.
Many people are surprised to learn that, with the exception of a spouse and minor or disabled children, there is generally no ‘right’ to inherit. In California, a person retains the right to dispose of property at death as he or she chooses. Generally, as long as proper formalities are observed and the parent or grandparent has adequate capacity, he or she is free to dispose of his or her assets in any manner—no matter how bizarre the testamentary decision. A recent illustration of such capriciousness was Leona Helmsley’s decision to disinherit her grandchildren and instead leaving millions to her dog Trouble.
Moreover, in the absence of fraud, undue influence or competency issues, there is little chance the court system will remedy your perceived slight. In California, will or trust contests are disfavored proceedings with rigid evidentiary requirements; a relatively low percentage of contests are successful. In fact, a challenge to an estate plan is one of the few areas where the California Legislature has eliminated the right to a jury trial.
Are you ‘expecting’ an inheritance? Without a formal and binding contract, you have no legal right to your expectation. In most instances an inheritance is a gift, not a right, and you should consider adjusting your expectations.
Does Your Estate Plan Anticipate the Bereavement Effect?
Families are a complex system of support. No matter the generation, there is usually a division of labor between the principals. In the United States, the stereotypical model envisions a husband employed outside of the home while the wife manages the child care and/or household. Increasingly we are seeing a multitude of models, including the wife functioning as the primary earner or the spouses sharing the roles equally.
Whatever the division of labor, it is not unusual for these roles to change within a family overtime. Perhaps one spouse assumes more responsibility for child care when the other spouse returns to school. Or when one spouse loses his or her job, it is not unusual for the other spouse to become the primary earner. It is this flexibility present in most families that serves as a foundation of strength.
Unfortunately, this foundation of flexibility and support can be severely challenged when one spouse dies. Medical research tells us that when illness or death strikes one spouse, there is an increased likelihood that the other is going to face serious medical problems. Referred to as the “bereavement effect”, researchers have found that your health frequently becomes interdependent on the health of your spouse. In a 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors concluded that an elderly surviving spouse had between a 17% and 21% of dying within the first year following the death of the first spouse.
Many individuals delay or ignore estate planning assuming it is unnecessary because all of their assets will be inherited by the surviving spouse. A number of planning tools—especially the use of joint tenancy—makes the assumption ostensibly reasonable. But what happens in the event when there is a systematic failure in the family? I have counseled numerous families where the spouse that handled the business affairs passes suddenly, and the surviving spouse is unable to assume all of the management. I have also assisted families where the surviving spouse doesn’t know all of the couple’s assets or how they are managed.
Good estate planning anticipates the bereavement effect by attempting to plan not just for death also but multiple contingencies. Good estate planning allows the surviving spouse to find the assets and assume responsibility for the management of them immediately. If the surviving spouse is not capable of the management role, good estate planning includes contingency plans that allow others to assume the management responsibilities. Good estate planning uses tools—living trusts and durable powers of attorney—to avoid the cost and delay associated with probate court. Does your estate plan anticipate the bereavement effect?
Kids Protection Workshop
On May 2, 2009, learn how to protect your family, preserve your weath and leave a legacy for your loved ones. Schomer Law Group will be hosting a workshop at Color Me Mine in Mahattan Beach, California. Participants will be eligible to win a $200 gift certificate from Collen Berg Jewelry. To register, call Schomer Law at (310) 337-7696.
The Ultimate No-Contest Clause--Russian Style.
A no-contest, or in terrorem, clause, is frequently used in wills, trusts and other estate planning documents to minimize the likelihood of a disgruntled beneficiary challenging the estate plan. The phrase ‘in terrorem’ is Latin meaning ‘to frighten’ or ‘terror’. The basic concept is that if a beneficiary launches an attack on the estate plan and is not able to convince a court to change it, then that beneficiary loses any gift under the estate plan. A typical no-contest clause might reduce an expected intestacy gift (perhaps 50% of the estate), down to something smaller, perhaps 10% of the estate. Under this hypothetical, if the beneficiary accepts the estate plan, he receives the 10% gift, but if he challenges the plan (hoping to receive 50%) and loses, he receives nothing. No contests clauses are quite common in California and have been the subject of evolving legislation and extensive litigation.
Now from Russia comes penalty that exceeds anything dreamed up by the most creative estate planner. On February 12, 2008, Badri Patarkatsishvili, described as a post-Soviet Oligarch, died of a massive heart attack leaving an estate allegedly valued at billions of dollars. According to his family, Mr. Patarkatsishvili did not leave a will. In a recent Los Angeles Times article, a Russian-born New York lawyer named Emanuel Zeltser appeared at Mr. Patarkatsishvili’s wake and advised the grieving widow that her late husband had signed a secret will naming him and a half-cousin as executor. During the following month, attorney Zeltser and the half-cousin sought access to Mr. Patarkatsishvili’s global investments. Mr. Patarkatsishvili’s family sued in U.S. federal court, accusing the two Americans of trying to loot the huge estate with forged documents. The family called Zeltser's documents "invalid …" noting that several "appear to be forgeries".
According to the Los Angeles Times, attorney Zeltser had a very colorful background. Born in Siberia, Zeltser immigrated to Texas in 1974 and in 1990, was admitted to practice law in New York. During his time in the United States, Zeltser has been sued at least three times for alleged fraud including one New Jersey case where a jury concluded that Zeltser had wrongfully seized a business and was ordered to pay more than $2 million in damages. In 1993, attorney Zeltser was retained by a Russian bank, but was later accused of using his position to steal as much as $6 million of investment accounts. An attorney for the bank declared that Zeltser was a "career con man" who "forges documents on a routine basis."
In early March, Zeltser met several times with Boris Berezovsky, another Russian oligarch and former business partner of Mr. Patarkatsishvili. While Mr. Berezovsky backed Mr. Patarkatsishvili’s widow, Zeltser allegedly proposed they work together instead and drafted an agreement to secretly divide most of the assets between them, leaving only 15% for the family. On March 11, 2008, the offer was rejected when Messrs. Zeltser and Berezovsky shared a meal at a London restaurant. After the meal, Zeltser allegedly boarded Berezovsky's private jet believing that he was heading to Miami, but instead landed in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Zeltser was arrested at the airport and charged with economic espionage and using false official documents to defraud Mr. Patarkatsishvili’s estate. After a closed-door trial, Zeltser was sentenced to three years in Penal Colony #15 in eastern Belarus, where he remains to this day.
I can think of at least a few clients over the years that would love to include such a clause in their estate planning documents. While not possible in the United States, attorney Zeltser’s case certainly presents a cautionary tale for those fighting over estate planning documents in other jurisdictions.
Does it make sense to file probate to save a failing asset?
The shrinking values in the real estate market are truly frightening these days. I have received reports that values are falling less to approximately 25% of peak values (i.e. a 75% decline in value). I have even seen reports of homes being listed for as little as $100.00 in certain parts of the country. In recent weeks, I have encountered several situations where precipitous valuation declines impact the decision of whether to commence a probate proceeding.
The typical situation involves a decedent-borrow who was struggling to remain current on his mortgage and/or found himself with an ‘underwater’ property (i.e. a property where the loan balances exceed the fair market value). With the death of the borrower, it is not usual that the loan is not being paid and frequently there are few resources available to make such payments. Sometimes the loan is already in foreclosure and literally weeks away from auction.
Recently, I encountered one situation where, at best, the estimated fair market value of a condominium was approximately $200,000 with equity remaining of approximately $10,000. With the mortgage several months in arrears and the foreclosure process already started, the heir wanted to know if the property could be ‘saved’ or somehow the foreclosure process could be stopped. While it is within the probate court’s power to temporarily stop an asset sale, most courts are reluctant to issue an injunction if it will be a useless act. With little cash in the estate it was not clear that filing a probate proceeding to save the real property from foreclosure would be a productive exercise.
Using this situation as an example, if the property would be sold, typical property sale commission and closing costs are approximately five percent of the gross sales price or, in this circumstance approximately $10,000. Moreover, to process the probate, the costs and statutory fees alone, which are measured on the gross value of the asset (not the equity), would exceed $15,000.00. With more in minimum costs and fees to handle the matter, what would remain in the estate? Under these circumstances, nothing would be left for the heirs or beneficiaries. Worse yet, the executor could easily lose money filing the proceeding, especially if non-probate assets (such as the administrator’s personal assets) are used fund the administration process.
It is entirely possible that other assets justify or require a probate filing. It is also possible that an administrator can negotiate to reduce outstanding loan balances which would warrant a probate filing. Painful as it may seem, however, sometimes the best course of action may be to do nothing. Naturally, such an important decision should never be made without deliberate consideration, counsel and an understanding of the personal risks associated with electing to lose the real property to the lender.
