Sometimes, in a the middle of an otherwise mundane appellate court opinion, you get a snippet if the flavor of the underlying litigation. In Estate of Kelly, there was just such a whif.
The rule of law should keep most probate attorneys on their toes. Stanley Kelly died leaving an estate of over $1 million. His father, E. George Kelly, petitioned the court for letters of administration (which is what you do so you can probate the estate). George also notified Human Rights Campaign, Inc. (HRC) that it was the beneficiary of several of Sanley's bank accounts. George filed a petition stating that Stanley died without a will or trust (i.e., he died intestate), and asking the court to approve distributing Stanley's estate to himself as the sole heir. HRC responded with a petition to probate a handwritten (or "holographic") will by Stanely leaving his entire estate to them. George claimed that the time period for HRC to admit the holographic will had expired, and so they could not receive Stanley's estate under the will. The court held that the clock never started ticking on the time period for admitting the holographic will because George never gave HRC notice of the petition for letters of administration. George argued that he did six different things that communicated to HRC that he was probating Stanley's estate, all of which effectively notified HRC that he was the administrator. The court was having none of it, and held that Notice means Notice. The only thing that starts the clock ticking for someone to admit a will to probate is Notice using the proper Judicial Council form. Sorry, George, but HRC gets to admit to probate Stanley's holographic will giving his $1 million estate to them.
Now for the interesting part. The factual statement in the opinion contained this passage: "The bigger picture was that the Administrator and his counsel had superfiduciary duties 'not to mislead the court, and they have duties to make sure that the estate is probated and tha tit follows the wishes and intent of the decedent.' The court rejected the argument that counsel for the administrator was placed in an adversarial position; his duty was to probate the estate, not to obtain a distribution for [George] Kelly." In other words, counsel, remember who your client is! The attorney George hired represented the Estate of Stanley Kelly, not George as sole heir. Somehwere along the way, this attorney lost sight of this, and fought for George over the estate. I can't help but think that court was, in part, bringing counsel back in line by using the "strict construction" of the notice requirements of Probate Code section 8226.
Although I love the phrase "superfiduciary duties," I must admit I fear that it is going to start showing up fairly regularly in pleadings.
Showing posts with label wills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wills. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Back with More Trouble from the Astors
Yes, yes, it's like ducks in a barrell, but the Astors have been so good to the world of estate planning and litigation that I feel almost duty-bound to report.
The N.Y. Times today had this article on the similarities between the recent fighting over Brooke Astor's will, and the fight nearly 50 years ago over her husband Vincent's will. Vincent Astor's half brother, John Jacob Astor VI, was left out of Vincent's will, so he contested it. John VI argued that Vincent was unduly influenced to change his will, which Vincent had done 26 times. Allegations of drunkenness, lack of mental capacity, and other sordid behavior flew freely. In the end, John VI, who was born to John Jacob Astor IV's second wife four months after he died in the Titanic, settled with Vincent's estate for $250,000. Vincent's estate was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so the settlement was, really, "go away" money. In fact, Brooke Astor's long time attorney Louis Auchincloss claimed that the $250,000 was less than the cost of the attorney's fees if the matter had gone to trial.
Two-hundred fify thousand dollars in attorney's fees? In 1959!? The very rich are different from you and me.
The N.Y. Times today had this article on the similarities between the recent fighting over Brooke Astor's will, and the fight nearly 50 years ago over her husband Vincent's will. Vincent Astor's half brother, John Jacob Astor VI, was left out of Vincent's will, so he contested it. John VI argued that Vincent was unduly influenced to change his will, which Vincent had done 26 times. Allegations of drunkenness, lack of mental capacity, and other sordid behavior flew freely. In the end, John VI, who was born to John Jacob Astor IV's second wife four months after he died in the Titanic, settled with Vincent's estate for $250,000. Vincent's estate was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so the settlement was, really, "go away" money. In fact, Brooke Astor's long time attorney Louis Auchincloss claimed that the $250,000 was less than the cost of the attorney's fees if the matter had gone to trial.
Two-hundred fify thousand dollars in attorney's fees? In 1959!? The very rich are different from you and me.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Estate Planning During Economic Catastrophe
I'm not an alarmist, but like you, loyal readers, I'm a little freaked by all the economic news. On the TV last night I watched esteemed economics professors using phrases like "classic bank run." And this was on News Hour on PBS!
So, what does this have to do with estate planning? Well, during times like this, you might be inclined to put your estate plan on the back burner. Don't. Here's why: your need for an estate plan doesn't go away because of economic uncertainty. If you don't have a plan, you should still get one. If you do have a plan that is out of date, you should still get it updated.
The fact is that estate plans can be expensive, and during times like these, you probably want to hang on to as much cash as you can for security. Here are some tips for keeping as much of that cash as possible, while still getting a plan in place:
Get a Will Instead of a Trust
Estate planning attorneys like to recommend trusts because they are more flexible than wills, they avoid probate (which can be expensive, time consuming, and is a public court record), and they can be set up to assist you if you become incapacitated. Because they can do so much more than a will, they are much more complicated documents. Because they are much more complicated documents, they are more expensive to prepare. If you want an estate plan, but cannot afford a living trust, a will might do for now. Let's look at the following scenario:
A married couple in their late 30s with two children under the age of 5. They own their own home worth about $550,000 (titled as community property), each have about $100,000 in separate 410(k) plans from current and previous employers, and each have $500,000 life insurance policies with 30-year terms naming the other as beneficiaries. They also have about $35,000 in checking and savings accounts. All of their assets are in California and are community property.
In a perfect world, an estate planner would recommend a living trust that is split into two trusts on the death of the first spouse (one for the surviving spouse, and another funded with the deceased spouse's estate that bypasses the surviving spouse to ensure something for the children), and trust for the children that will pay the money outright to them when they turn 25 or graduate from college. Such a plan would avoid probate, would ensure that there is some money to be inherited by the children when the surviving spouse dies, and would ensure that they children don't get the money before they are ready to handle it. In the world of living trusts, this is a more simple plan, but it is still a pretty complex document. It can also be very expensive to prepare.
Can you achieve the same result with a will? Not really, but you can come close. With the wills, you can create a trust with your estate, but you cannot split the estate into two trusts on the death of the first spouse. Because the assets are all community property each spouse's estate is half of each asset. That becomes tough to split when it is not held in cash (like the house). Although each spouse could leave their estate to their children in trust (rather than to each other), it would likely result in the liquidating of the estate assets in order to properly fund the trust. Since the surviving spouse would probably want to stay in the house, each spouse should give their estate to the other spouse. The house would automatically transfer to the surviving spouse because it is titled as community property. The surviving spouse would receive the insurance proceeds and 401(k) as beneficiary.
Their might not necessarily be a probate on the death of the first spouse. Assets held jointly (like the house) do not go through probate. Assets with beneficiary designations (like the life insurance and the 401(k)s) also don't go through probate. If a person's probate estate is less than $100,000, then probate can be avoided. Here, the actual assets subject to probate are less than $100,000, so probate can be avoided on the death of the first spouse. (The surviving spouse will probably not be able to avoid probate because the house will no longer be held jointly, and the proceeds from the life insurance will be held by the surviving spouse alone.)
To keep the will-based plan as simple as possible, they could leave their estates to each other, and if their spouse does not survive them to their children in a California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (CUTMA) account. This holds the money in an account, and distributes the money to them outright when they reach an age between 18 and 25. The will can also name guardians for their children while they are still minors. They can execute durable powers of attorney for financial decisions in the event they become incapacitated, and advance health care directives for their medical decisions.
This is much more simple, and less expensive, to prepare than a living trust. It has some drawbacks, but it is far better than no plan at all.
If you are considering an estate plan, but are uncomfortable with the expense of getting a living trust, a will may be a good alternative. Once the ecomony picks up, and you feel better about spending the money on your estate plan, it can always be amended to include a trust.
Don't let economic uncertainty keep you from putting together that you know you should have.
So, what does this have to do with estate planning? Well, during times like this, you might be inclined to put your estate plan on the back burner. Don't. Here's why: your need for an estate plan doesn't go away because of economic uncertainty. If you don't have a plan, you should still get one. If you do have a plan that is out of date, you should still get it updated.
The fact is that estate plans can be expensive, and during times like these, you probably want to hang on to as much cash as you can for security. Here are some tips for keeping as much of that cash as possible, while still getting a plan in place:
Get a Will Instead of a Trust
Estate planning attorneys like to recommend trusts because they are more flexible than wills, they avoid probate (which can be expensive, time consuming, and is a public court record), and they can be set up to assist you if you become incapacitated. Because they can do so much more than a will, they are much more complicated documents. Because they are much more complicated documents, they are more expensive to prepare. If you want an estate plan, but cannot afford a living trust, a will might do for now. Let's look at the following scenario:
A married couple in their late 30s with two children under the age of 5. They own their own home worth about $550,000 (titled as community property), each have about $100,000 in separate 410(k) plans from current and previous employers, and each have $500,000 life insurance policies with 30-year terms naming the other as beneficiaries. They also have about $35,000 in checking and savings accounts. All of their assets are in California and are community property.
In a perfect world, an estate planner would recommend a living trust that is split into two trusts on the death of the first spouse (one for the surviving spouse, and another funded with the deceased spouse's estate that bypasses the surviving spouse to ensure something for the children), and trust for the children that will pay the money outright to them when they turn 25 or graduate from college. Such a plan would avoid probate, would ensure that there is some money to be inherited by the children when the surviving spouse dies, and would ensure that they children don't get the money before they are ready to handle it. In the world of living trusts, this is a more simple plan, but it is still a pretty complex document. It can also be very expensive to prepare.
Can you achieve the same result with a will? Not really, but you can come close. With the wills, you can create a trust with your estate, but you cannot split the estate into two trusts on the death of the first spouse. Because the assets are all community property each spouse's estate is half of each asset. That becomes tough to split when it is not held in cash (like the house). Although each spouse could leave their estate to their children in trust (rather than to each other), it would likely result in the liquidating of the estate assets in order to properly fund the trust. Since the surviving spouse would probably want to stay in the house, each spouse should give their estate to the other spouse. The house would automatically transfer to the surviving spouse because it is titled as community property. The surviving spouse would receive the insurance proceeds and 401(k) as beneficiary.
Their might not necessarily be a probate on the death of the first spouse. Assets held jointly (like the house) do not go through probate. Assets with beneficiary designations (like the life insurance and the 401(k)s) also don't go through probate. If a person's probate estate is less than $100,000, then probate can be avoided. Here, the actual assets subject to probate are less than $100,000, so probate can be avoided on the death of the first spouse. (The surviving spouse will probably not be able to avoid probate because the house will no longer be held jointly, and the proceeds from the life insurance will be held by the surviving spouse alone.)
To keep the will-based plan as simple as possible, they could leave their estates to each other, and if their spouse does not survive them to their children in a California Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (CUTMA) account. This holds the money in an account, and distributes the money to them outright when they reach an age between 18 and 25. The will can also name guardians for their children while they are still minors. They can execute durable powers of attorney for financial decisions in the event they become incapacitated, and advance health care directives for their medical decisions.
This is much more simple, and less expensive, to prepare than a living trust. It has some drawbacks, but it is far better than no plan at all.
If you are considering an estate plan, but are uncomfortable with the expense of getting a living trust, a will may be a good alternative. Once the ecomony picks up, and you feel better about spending the money on your estate plan, it can always be amended to include a trust.
Don't let economic uncertainty keep you from putting together that you know you should have.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Witness Requirement for California Wills relaxed
Wills are relics of an ancient era, and the laws surrounding them are often incompatible with our modern world, and sometimes internally inconsistent. For example, if you print out your will from a computer or pre-printed form, it must be signed by you and two other people, who either saw you sign the will or can acknowledge your signature, and who know that the document they are signing is your will. You can also handwrite your own will. If you do, then you don't need anyone to witness your signature. Also, if you execute a living trust, your signature doesn't necessarily need to be witnessed by anyone in order be valid. Why is the law so much more strict for pre-printed wills?
The State of California recently took steps to make my rhetorical question moot. On July 1, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger (I am never going to get used to that) signed into law a revision of Probate Code section 6110 relxing the formal witnessing requirements of a pre-printed will. In the latest issue of the California Trust and Estates Quarterly, published by the State Bar of California's Trust and Estates section, Silvio Reggiardo III writes about the changes. Basically, a pre-printed will no longer has to be signed by two witnesses in order to be valid, if the person trying to enforce the will (usually the executor) can show by clear and convincing evidence that the person who wrote the will intended that the document be their will despite the lack of witness signatures.
Here's how it would work: Joe prints out a will using a pre-printed will drafting program. He signs it, but no one signs the will as a witnesses, even though two if his friends saw him sign the will. Joe dies, and the executor of the will submits the will to the court for probate. The executor presents the evidence from the two friends who saw Joe sign the will, and there is no evidence of any other document that was intended to act as Joe's will. It is up to the judge to determine whether this meets the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which is greater than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in civil courts, but less than the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard in criminal courts. If the judge decides that the evidentiary standard is not met, then the will is not valid, and Joe's estate is distributed per California law applying to people who die without a will.
While this change in the law helps modernize will execution standards, it is still more onerous than the standard for executing a trust. This is yet another reason why a living trust is superior to a will. Trusts are much more flexible, and are less likely to be invalidated on arcane technical grounds.
The State of California recently took steps to make my rhetorical question moot. On July 1, 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger (I am never going to get used to that) signed into law a revision of Probate Code section 6110 relxing the formal witnessing requirements of a pre-printed will. In the latest issue of the California Trust and Estates Quarterly, published by the State Bar of California's Trust and Estates section, Silvio Reggiardo III writes about the changes. Basically, a pre-printed will no longer has to be signed by two witnesses in order to be valid, if the person trying to enforce the will (usually the executor) can show by clear and convincing evidence that the person who wrote the will intended that the document be their will despite the lack of witness signatures.
Here's how it would work: Joe prints out a will using a pre-printed will drafting program. He signs it, but no one signs the will as a witnesses, even though two if his friends saw him sign the will. Joe dies, and the executor of the will submits the will to the court for probate. The executor presents the evidence from the two friends who saw Joe sign the will, and there is no evidence of any other document that was intended to act as Joe's will. It is up to the judge to determine whether this meets the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which is greater than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used in civil courts, but less than the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard in criminal courts. If the judge decides that the evidentiary standard is not met, then the will is not valid, and Joe's estate is distributed per California law applying to people who die without a will.
While this change in the law helps modernize will execution standards, it is still more onerous than the standard for executing a trust. This is yet another reason why a living trust is superior to a will. Trusts are much more flexible, and are less likely to be invalidated on arcane technical grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)