This is great. Thanks Gerry (thanks also to Neil E. Hendershot of Goldberg Katzman, P.C. and NoSheep.net).
Steve’s will leaves his shield to Stephen Colbert. Mr. Colbert has accepted the shield and has stated, ““Cap? I hope I make you proud.†See Stephen Colbert on the Death of Captain America, March 15, 2007.
S.H.I.E.L.D. (Supreme Headquarters International Espionage Law-enforcement Division) is conducting an investigation regarding the authenticity and/or validity of the will.
There is some speculation that Steve is not actually dead.
A follow-up from Mr. Colbert after hearing from Marvel's Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada:
From the Marvel Press Release:
Cap’s shield has resurfaced and is now in the hands of Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report.â€
As you’ll see in the video below, Colbert claims to have received a letter from Marvel EIC Joe Quesada, presenting the shield to the late night talk show host. Quesada’s letter states that Steve Rogers bequethed the shield to Colbert in his Will, which was read last Friday.
After reading the letter, Colbert’s staff brought out the shield and the bespectacled host hefted the legendary weapon, stating, “Cap? I hope I make you proud.â€
S.H.I.E.L.D. is currently investigating the Will, as well as the validity of the letter. Quesada, admitted “friend of the show†says Colbert’s on the up and up and gave us the full story.
“I must confess that I am the culprit,†states Quesada. After reading Cap’s Last Will and Testament, I quickly snuck out of the Marvel’s offices with the shield. As so many of you know, Steve Rogers was a humble man and wanted his last remaining wishes to be carried out as privately as possible.
“After a small “transfer of power†ceremony occurring on the Avenger’s Quinjet, followed by several intense hours of introspection and deliberation with Mr. Colbert, we both felt it would be best to make a public statement of his inheriting the shield. Not as way of raising Mr. Colbert’s status even further (How is that even possible?), nor as a cheap ratings stunt, but rather to let evildoers across the globe know that even with Cap’s demise, there is no still place for them to hide. A clear message had to be sent that the mantle had been passed and that the Marvel Universe has gained a new (Colbert) Nation and remains secure.â€
Tweet This Post
I’ve posted to Joel A. Schoenmeyer’s Death & Taxes Blog before.
Joel’s last three updates present good summaries of two different kinds of trusts: The simple Pour-Over Trust and not-always-so-simple Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.
They’re interesting summaries right next to each other. The pour-over trust is almost as common in my practice as simple wills. Some local practitioners don’t even bother with wills anymore, however, as Joel explains, its not a perfect world out there and it pays (so to speak) to be safer rather than cavalier with your client’s planning.
In contrast to the pour-over trust his other summaries (here and here, are about ILITs. I use ILITs quite a bit but not nearly as frequently as the pour-over only because they’re usually only needed by client’s facing the specter of the federal estate tax. As usual, Joel does a fine job explaining the operations and implications of both trusts.
Tweet This Post
Kevin Polluck has posted a solid primer regarding the differences between these two available planning devices. Kevin’s article doesn’t offer much advice but that isn’t the point. He wants people to be aware that there are these choices so as to be in a better position to analyze the advice their counsel ultimately gives them. His efforts should not go unappreciated. Thanks Kevin.
Tweet This Post
Though isn’t necessarily the most breaking of news, my Westlaw update arrived this morning with the below summary in my inbox:
The guardian ad litem of the infant daughter of celebrity Anna Nicole Smith would be permitted to determine the disposition of Ms. Smith’s body. Ms. Smith’s mother had contended that she was the only “legally authorized person,” within the meaning of a statute setting priorities among family members to dispose of a person’s remains. However, the statute applied to disputes with funeral homes and medical examiners, rather than to intra-family disputes. Instead, the last ascertainable wishes of the decedent were to be considered, and Ms. Smith had made known her desire to be buried in the Bahamas next to her deceased son. Given the guardian ad litem’s commitment to bury Ms. Smith in the Bahamas, such guardian would be allowed to direct the handling of Ms. Smith’s remains.
Ohio has recently (10/05) adopted a statutory form (pursuant to 2108.70) that allows for a person during their lifetime to appoint another to carry out the wishes of the decedent regarding the disposition of their remains as specified in the form. The individual named in the form has superior rights over all other individuals including the decedent’s family members. Here then is another example where proper planning (where such planning is allowed) could have prevented litigation.
Tweet This Post
Legacy By Design writes:
Though estate tax planning is an important element of a comprehensive succession plan, in a decision-making process it should not become the tail that wags the dog.
And I couldn’t agree more. The blog also posts to an article by Maureen Farrell of Worth magazine last December 2006 entitled: “Slipping Past The Estate Tax.” Its worth a read.
Tweet This Post
Gerry W. Beyer of the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog posts to an article by Browne C. Lewis (Professor, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law) (posted on SSRN) entitled One Size Does Not Fit All: A Proposal to Create a Flexible Intestacy System that Equitably Balances the Interests of the State, Marital Children and Non-Marital Children.
All state intestacy statutes give preference to spouses and children. After the spouse has taken his or her share, the remainder of the decedent’s estate usually goes to his or her children. Thus, the statutes have to define who is a legal child for inheritance purposes. Traditionally, identifying a decedent’s legal children was a simple process because only marital children had the right to be the heirs of their parents. Since nonmarital children were considered to be the heirs of no one, they could not be included in the definition of legal children.
As the number of children born out of wedlock increased, their presence in society became more acceptable. Consequently, the United Supreme Court took steps to eliminate the discrimination suffered by those children. The states justified the differential treatment of non-marital children on moral grounds. By preventing nonmarital children from inheriting from their parents, the states hoped to deter persons from having children without the benefit of marriage. The Supreme Court condemned the states for punishing non-marital children for just being born. As a result, the Supreme Court issued several decisions mandating that non-marital children be given an equal opportunity to inherit from both of their parents. The states reacted by passing intestacy statutes permitting non-marital children to inherit from their mothers without restrictions and to inherit from their fathers as long as they follow the procedures to prove paternity.
Currently, the intestacy system in this country is fractured and complicated. The interests of the states, the non-marital children and the marital children would be better served by the implementation of a uniform intestacy system that is flexible enough to balance the interests of the state, the non-marital child, and the marital child, while carrying out the presumed intent of the decedent.
Tweet This Post
Deidre Watchbrit previously posted to tell us about MetLife‘s annual efforts to track the cost of assisted living across the severl states. Performed by the MetLife Mature Market Institute® “the numbers can be helpful for families planning to provide for a person with developmental disabilities who may not be able to live without 24 hour care.”
The study is available for download here:
Tweet This Post
Kreig Mitchell wrote recently about an IRS Private Letter Ruling that stated that this particularly requested unitrust modification of a decedent’s trust would “not result in Trust losing its exempt status for GST tax purposes.”
Mr. Krieg ID’d the PLR as “15529705.” I couldn’t find that one but I did find PLR 200705025.
The facts of this partcular PLR are as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of Decedent’s last will and testament, all the residue of Decedent’s estate was transferred to the trustee of a testamentary trust established under Paragraph NINTH of the will (referred to herein as “Trustâ€).
Paragraph NINTH, subsection (a) provides that the trustee shall pay to Spouse the entire income of Trust in periodic installments. Spouse died on Date 2.
Paragraph NINTH, subsection (b) provides that upon Spouse’s death, the trustee shall continue to hold all property in trust for the benefit of Daughter and shall distribute to Daughter the entire income of Trust in periodic installments.
Mr. Krieg writes:
The unitrust election is not a new concept[.] [...] Unitrust payments eliminate [the] conflict of interest between current income beneficiaries (such as the taxpayer’s children) and the future income beneficiaries (such as the taxpayer’s children’s descendants).
If the trust document does not provide for unitrust payments (or provide the trustee with the discretion to opt to start paying unitrust payments), the current income beneficiary (with the consent of the future income beneficiaries) must ask a court to alter the trust so that such payments can be made. This type of court intervention is very common[.]
Because making a unitrust modification cures the potential conflict between current and residuary beneficiaries I use it frequently in trust litigation also. The point is that its a very flexible tool that should not be forgotten as one of the many tools available to the estate planner or the fiduciary litigator.
Tweet This Post
