Monthly Archive for May, 2008

“The Disadvantages of Not Being Married”

The title is taken from an article I’m reading today by Robert B Larson and Stephen J. Larson, PhD, CFP, in the Journal of Financial Service Professionals. I may be doing a presentation on some of these topics at a conference on estate planning for “non-traditional” families and thought a summary of the article was relevant here.

  1. Family Medical Leave: The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows employees to receive up to 12 weeks/year of unpaid medical leave for specific reasons. These reasons include the birth of a child (both mother an father are entitled to family leave), placement of a foster child (again both mom and dad are similarly entitled), caring for a sick spouse, child or family of the employee.
  2. Health Care Decision Making: If one’s partner becomes disabled, state law will determine who has the right to make decisions for him/her (absent an appropriately drafted durable power of attorney). State laws typically follow the order of intestate succession – the spouse has the first right, followed by any children, parents, siblings, etc.
  3. Loss of Consortium and Wrongful Death: Loss of Consortium is a civil claim where one can sue an alleged wrongdoer for causing them the loss of companionship, comfort, protection and sexual relations. Though this is a state-by-state issue, many states do not allow loss of consortium claims between partners unless they were married at the time of the loss.Wrongful death is also a civil claim where one spouse sues over the loss of the other and can thereby obtain an economic relief to cover the economic support lost when the other spouse died.
  4. Crime Victim Recovery: Similar to the above except this is a criminal remedy awarded to the surviving spouse.
  5. Martial Privilege: There are two parts to the privilege. The first prevents a husband or wife from being compelled to testify against the other spouse. Should a spouse choose to testify then he or she is not permitted to disclose confidential marital communications – this is the second part of the privilege. This is anything said between spouses that was intended to be confidential (and where no third party was present).
  6. Problems with Insurance (including COBRA and Workers’ Compensation and Employer Health Care Benefits): Spouses and children are often automatically covered under an employee’s homeowner’s policy. The same is true for group health care coverage.
  7. Federal Income Taxes: Unmarried persons can obviously not file joint returns.
  8. Residential Real Property Capital Gains: Married persons who file jointly can exclude up to $500,000 of gain when they sell their home but those who file individually can only exclude $250,000. The current capital gains rate on real estate held for more than one year is 15%
  9. Social Security: The spouse of an employee who has been paying into the system is entitled to receive benefits when the working spouse becomes disabled, retires or dies.
  10. Retirement Plan Survivorship Benefits: Sometimes the benefits of certain plans are only available to spouses – you’ll have to read your plan to find out.
  11. Intestacy Laws: Non-married persons cannot inherit under the laws of intestacy in any state. A robust estate plan is required to pass property.
  12. Estate Taxes and The Marital Deduction: Spouses enjoy an unlimited deduction on property gifted between them both during their joint lives and after the death of one of them.
  13. Gift Taxes and The Marital Deduction: Kind of the same as above. Non-married individuals can also not enjoy the benefits of gift-splitting to reduce the sizes of their estate to further avoid the federal estate tax.

There are 1,138 recognized legal rights and privileges associated with marriage. These are just some of the ones that I deal with everyday when planning for families both “non-traditional” and otherwise.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Trust Mills Happenings – A Summary by The Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog

Referencing a post of mine from a while ago, David Goldman of the Florida Estate Planning Lawyers Blog has a very complete survey of actions against trust mills from other states.

1. Texarkana Arkansas Living Trust Seminar Class Action suit
2. California Living Trust Mill Judgment
3.Texas Bar story reported by Professor Beyer of Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog- Living trust Scams and Senior Consumer
4. Michael Bonasera wrote an article titledLiving Trust Scams/Trust Mills/Elderlaw Planning Seminars – STAY AWAY! where he Ohio’s history with Trust Mills and cites a case Ohio Trust Mill Case of Cleveland Bar v Sharp Estate Services, Inc. which seems to have ended Trust Mills in Ohio.
5. Minnesota Sues “Trust Mills” on Consumeraffairs.com
6. Beware of Trust Mills when Estate Planning - by Randall Armour, CA Lawyer- reported on by Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog
7. Don’t Trust the “Trust Mills”, Traci D. Ellis Esquire

Thanks David. This is a great idea whose time has come. I’ll send you any updates I find.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Increasing Amount of Guardianship Litigation

While not directly on point, the above from Legal Antics nonetheless got me thinking more about this post by Philip Bernstein at The New Your Probate Litigation Blog about the increase that he is seeing in family fights over whom should/will care for mom and dad’s last illness.

Don’t think for a second that these fights are truly over who wants to help mom from her bed to the bathroom, no, its all about money… Reasoning that those children who assist mom or dad in the last illness will get more from their parent’s estate, some kids seem willing to throw their relationships with their siblings out the window. Its something we worry about constantly here when doing guardianships… By statute the court has to ask whether the guardianship applicant seeking to be appointed for mom or dad is the best person to be in that position but Phil is right to counsel greater caution. So we regularly ask the client – is anyone going to object to your appointment? Its not like any of this can kept secret. The other siblings are going to get notices from the court. If there is a way to preemptively mediate any potential disputes over the client’s appointment (to the extent that our duty of loyalty to our clients let us), such efforts are well spent if the goal is avoiding litigation. That saves everyone a great deal of time and money.

I do wonder whether the increasing amount of guardianship litigation really is the result of a change in the landscape itself, or if there are just more guardianships in the aggregate now that the boomers are “at that age.”

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Abolish The Bluebook? I’m all for it.

From Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy on May 2, 2008:

Abolish the Bluebook completely, and replace it with a much simpler citation system, such as the University of Chicago’s Maroon Book. It may indeed be an “exciting task” to revise the Bluebook yet again. But I for one would be much more excited to be freed from Bluebook drudgery permanently; so would a great many law students.

How right he is.

I’m sure there’s a great scholarly debate to be had on the the Bluebook’s merits – its long life and entrenched standards throughout the hundreds of thousands of legal opinions published since its inception… You won’t find such discussion here.

I just hated this thing in law school. For all its byzantine and arbitrary rules I just never saw the benefit. Uniformity is arguably the most obvious and, while I agree that a standard form of citations of some kind is necessary, there’s got to be an easier way people!

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

In Ohio Beneficiaries (Still) Cannot Sue Decedent’s Attorney For Negligence

In a decision that us estate planning geeks have been waiting on for a while now, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously upheld its adherence to the rule that, for one to bring a suit against an attorney for malpractice, one must be in privity with the attorney. This rule was established in the Zipperstein case back in the late 80′s and carries some obvious problems, specifically: If you’re attorney screws up drafting your will and you die, there is no one left in privity with the attorney and s/he is effectively immune from civil liability from their mistake. Many people, myself included, don’t think thats fair to the citizens of Ohio.

The case is Shoemaker v. Gindlesberger and the slip opinion is available here.

Paul L. Caron of the Tax Prof Blog, quotes the below in his post:

The appellants’ argument rests on two public policy grounds. They advocate for a change in what some refer to as Ohio’s antiquated rule on privity, arguing that Ohio law should grant beneficiaries standing to sue an attorney who allegedly was negligent in providing services to a decedent. In support of their position, they present a survey of several jurisdictions that allow beneficiaries to bring malpractice claims. It is true that Ohio is in the minority of states retaining a strict privity rule, but Ohio was also in the minority of states when Zipperstein was decided over 20 years ago.

Appellants’ second reason for asking for an exception to the privity rule is the need to have attorney accountability in the area of estate planning and wealth transfer. Because any mistakes that an attorney makes in drafting a will or giving advice about an estate plan generally do not arise until after the death of the client, the harm from an attorney’s errors will most likely befall the intended beneficiaries. The appellants argue that an attorney who drafts a will for a client is aware that his or her professional competence affects not only the client but also those whom the client intends to benefit from the will. They argue, consequently, that they should be permitted to maintain a suit against an attorney who negligently drafts or supervises the preparation of a will, to hold the attorney accountable for negligence.

Public policy justifies adherence to the rule, as stated by courts in jurisdictions that apply the strict privity requirement. … We decline the appellants’ invitation to relax our strict privity rule. … While recognizing that public policy reasons exist on both sides of the issue, we conclude that the bright-line rule of privity remains beneficial.

Mr. Caron also quotes an interesting bit of extra analysis from my good friend Professor Myron Grauer of Capital University Law School (my alma mater) here in Columbus:

There is an interesting portion of the opinion in which the Ohio Supreme Court leaves open the question of whether the personal representative (executor or administrator) who stands in the shoes of the decedent would have standing to bring a malpractice action for estate tax planning negligence. In fact, one could even read that portion of the opinion as intimating that the personal representative might indeed be the proper person to bring the case. However, in this particular case, the person who brought the malpractice action was both the executor and a beneficiary, but he brought the suit only in his capacity as a benficiary. Maybe this is a case of compounded malpractice :-) because given Ohio’s adherence to the privity requirement, it is difficult to understand why the suit wasn’t brought by the decedent’s personal representative in his capacity as personal representative in the first place.

Thanks Paul. And thank you Professor Grauer as well!

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Family LLCs Still Work… If You’re Careful

While the caveat in my title applies to [probably] all estate plans, it is especially true for family LLCs which have been steadily declining in popularity because of the IRS’ “enforcement” (read: limitation) over the last 8-10 years. But this post by Mirowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-74. March 26, 2008 (PDF).

Mrs. Mirowski was the widow of the inventor of the heart defibrillator implant and created a trust for each of her three daughters in 1992. She funded these trusts, during her lifetime, with portions of her interests in her late husband’s patent licenses. In 2001, she formed a single member LLC and transfered substantial assets to it. “Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Mirowski gifted a 16% interest in the LLC to each of the trusts. A mere four days later, she died unexpectedly.”

The IRS sought to include the assets she trasnferred to her daughter’s trust in her estate, thus invalidating the transfer based on Section 2036(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. They argued that Mrs. Mirowski retained the right to income or enjoyment of the gifted property, so that it was included in her taxable estate.

The estate argues that Section 2038′s “bona fide sale” exception applied, so that the transferred assets were not subject to estate tax.

The tax court agreed holding that “the LLC’s activities do not have to be equivalent to those of a ‘business’ for the bona fide sale exception to be applicable.

Some key points for Family LLCs to hold up for gift and estate tax purposes:

  • Strictly follow the terms of the Operating Agreement
  • State the reasons for the LLC in the Operating Agreement
  • Have the Agreement reviewed by separate counsel for all initial members
  • Leave enough assets outside the LLC to live on and pay taxes
  • Don’t mingle LLC assets with personal assets
  • File the proper tax returns each year
  • File the necessary documents with the Secretary of State each year
  • Don’t put your personal residence in a Family LLC
  • Make sure the senior generation does not have the power to allocate profits and losses
  • Require annual distributions
  • Have the junior family members (or their trusts) make initial contributions to the LLC to provide for the pooling of assets
  • Don’t wait until the senior family member is near death

The bottom line is that Family LLCs remain a viable and attractive option for transfers of family wealth, while also providing asset protection and management advantages. Just make sure you use an attorney experienced in forming Family LLCs to assist you, and carefully follow all of his or her instructions.

UPDATE:

Also see this post by David Goldman about In re Estate of Hjersted, 175 P.3d 810 (Kan. 2008) specifically regarding Family Limited Partnerships and discounts in relation to an elective share, and this one by Mitchell A. Port about The Estate of Virginia A. Bigelow (PDF).  Both cases rest on the court’s analysis on IRC 2036.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Appointing An Agent To Dispose Of Your Remains

… Its catching on. Ohio did this recently with enactment of 2108.70 and it looks like Iowa is the newest state to allow something similar.

Matt Garnder of the Iowa Law Blog writes:

Governor Chet Culver signed SF 473 into law on April 11, 2008. Effective July 1, 2008, this new chapter to the Iowa Code (chapter 144C) authorizes an individual to designate an individual to make decisions over the disposition of their bodily remains following their death. The designation does not indicate how a person wants their body remains to be handled, only who has the authority to make those decisions that are “reasonable under the circumstances”.

Read the rest of Matt’s post (which includes the historical reasons for drafting the law) here.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

California Supreme Court Strikes Down State Same Sex Marriage Ban

This is everywhere already but its also relevant here…

[T]o the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

The issue as framed by the court (which is interesting in and of itself) was:

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

The court further wrote, as if to preempt those who would complain about judicial activism:

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution. We are aware, of course, that very strongly held differences of opinion exist on the matter of policy, with those persons who support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage maintaining that it is unfair to same-sex couples and potentially detrimental to the fiscal interests of the state and its economic institutions to reserve the designation of marriage solely for opposite-sex couples, and others asserting that it is vitally important to preserve the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, even as the state extends comparable rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples. Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions.

The case is available for download (PDF) here.

More thoughts after I read the whole opinion.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

A Retraction/Amendment

I very recently blogged here about the case of Fairchild v Fairchild in which a biological mother is arguing that Ohio’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage should invalidate the custody agreement she previously enterered into with her former partner.

I misread one of my sources for the post and wrongly attributed the arguments of counsel for the biological mother as those of attorneys Danny Bank and Laurie McGaughan from Capital University Law School (who were appointed to represent the child). Capital is my Alma Matter so the position Capital takes in this case is interesting to me on more than just a purely legal level. I have edited the offending post to correct my mistake but since many people have visited the site since it was originally posted, I thought a retraction/amendment was necessary to preserve the accuracy of the record-at-large.

In actuality, the article does not specify what Capital’s current position is with regards to the child so I was wrong to chastise Capital. I have requested clarification from one of the attorneys in the case re what Capital’s position actually is and will let you know what she says – I do not have any of the pleadings yet.

Thank you to a very good friend of mine who sensitively pointed out my mistake.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

“Adopted-Out” Child Loses Out On Millions From Jell-O Fortune

This interesting read at Trusts & Estate.com tells the story of Elizabeth McNabb of Longview, Wash.:

In 1889, Orator Francis Woodward purchased the rights to JELL-O gelatin for $450. In 1926 and 1963, his daughter Florence created two irrevocable trusts for the lifetime benefit of her daughter, Barbara Woodward Piel, and upon Barbara’s death, for the benefit of Barbara’s “descendants” and “living “child[ren]”.

Barbara died in July of 2003. In October 2004, Fleet Bank instituted proceedings for judicial settlement of the trusts’ final accounts. The total amount of trust principal at stake was about $9.7 million.

Barbara had three daughters. The first, Elizabeth McNabb, was born out-of-wedlock in 1955—the result of an affair with a married man. Within days of the birth, Barbara relinquished her parental rights and consented to Elizabeth’s adoption by strangers. (There was no evidence presented that the grandmother Florence Woodward knew of Elizabeth’s birth or adoption.) Barbara’s other two daughters, Stobie Piel and Lila Piel-Pullman, were born of her marriage to Michael Piel.

According to news reports about the case, Elizabeth began her quest to locate her birth family in 1974. She finally uncovered her birth mother’s identity, Barbara Woodward of Rochester, New York, in 1988 when she located a copy of her birth certificate. She then telephoned every Woodward in a Rochester telephone book, ultimately locating her mother’s cousin who provided Elizabeth with her mother’s married name. Elizabeth contacted Barbara, and they developed a relationship. After Barbara’s death in 2003, Fleet Bank contacted Elizabeth and requested proof of her relationship with Barbara. But the bank apparently later decided that Elizabeth was not entitled to a share of the trusts benefiting Barbara’s children.

The story ends with In the Matter of the Accounting by Fleet Bank, as Trustee of the Trust f/b/o Barbara W. Piel, 2008 WL 656471 (N.Y.), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 02082, March 13, 2008 and a ruling that Ms. McNabb is not entitled to receive any of the trusts’ income or principal.

The court emphasized the public policy considerations underlying Best of “fully assimilating the adopted child into the adoptive family and . . . the importance of keeping adoption records confidential.”

The court also expressed concern regarding the “lurking possibility” of “secret out-of-wedlock” children compromising the finality of judicial verdicts. Whereas, in this case, Elizabeth proactively intervened in the trustee’s accounting action, in other cases, the family might not know of the adopted child, thereby placing an “onerous” burden on a trustee to search out unknown potential beneficiaries.

The court said its ruling did not depend on Elizabeth’s status as a non-marital child and therefore did not implicate any equal protection concerns. It also said that to side with the appellate court would create two classes of adopted persons: those that could inherit from both biological and adoptive parents because the instrument was executed prior to 1964 when state law changed, and those cut off from the biological family because the instrument was executed after that date.

Google Buzz

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post