Category: Estate Administration

My aunt named me “POD” beneficiary of a bank account before she died, but the bank refuses to give me the money!

Posted on | by Tom

Decedent had a bank account in her own name worth $50K. She named her nephew as a “Payable On Death” or POD beneficiary of this account, unbeknownst to her spouse and children. He was her favorite nephew, who’d cared for her a lot during her lifetime, and she had hoped he could quietly liquidate the funds upon her death and use the funds to pay back some of his college fees.

Little did she know, this little act of love would cause so many adverse ramifications, and the series of events that unfolded next were nothing short of a nightmare for the poor nephew.

The nephew was dealt a nightmare because New Jersey imposes an inheritance tax for assets more than $500 passing to all non-Class A beneficiaries. The nephew in this case would be a Class D beneficiary, who would be required to pay a 15% tax on the amount passing to him, minus the $500 exemption.

Worse, the bank would put a freeze on the account until he was able to produce a waiver from the State of NJ Tax Branch, and the only way to secure this waiver would be if the Executor of the Estate (or Administrator, if there was no Will) files a NJ Inheritance Tax Return (ITR) with the Tax Branch reporting the distributions from the estate. All of this must be accomplished within eight months of the date of death. NOTE: There is a blanket waiver that allows the nephew to receive 50% of the assets in the account (i.e. $25K) immediately, but he would have to wait for the balance after the estate administration was completed and final waivers issued.

Had the aunt consulted with an estate planning attorney before her death, she would have learned that gifting during her lifetime would have no gift tax ramifications in New Jersey (NJ does not have a gift tax), and apart for a minor reporting requirement on a Form 709 to report gifts over $15K per year, she could have effectively transferred the funds over to her nephew achieving the very objective she was trying to accomplish. Better even, if she had paid the college directly with the amount, it would not have been deemed a gift at all.

It is critical to consult with an attorney before making significant decisions to ensure that these choices do not morph out of control and cause unintended consequences that could have easily been avoided.

Attorney-Client Confidentiality with Aging Clients

Posted on | by Tom

Although the subject of attorney-client confidentiality and its nuances are drilled into every aspiring law student throughout law school and beyond, most clients don’t have an understanding of what exactly this means in the context of the attorney-client relationship. To them it’s vague, and they only have a simplistic understanding of this concept.  A few clients even believe that attorneys have the discretion to disclose confidential client communication. Complications arise when a prospective client wants one or more of their children in an initial meeting, or when they want a non-attorney professional advisor in the room. Sometimes the client’s financial advisor, in his or her eagerness to provide a holistic approach to their clients’ wealth management, expresses an interest to the client and the attorney to be included in these initial discussions. All these situations make it challenging for the attorney to educate their clients about confidentiality and explain the risks of disclosure. Clients do not realize that they are the only ones protected and the only ones authorized to waive this protection.

Because attorneys have special ethical responsibilities, it becomes more complicated and challenging when representing clients with diminished capacity. Here, attorneys are bound by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC 1.14) and have a duty to maintain (as far as possible) a normal attorney-client relationship with such clients and ensure they are treated with the same degree of respect and attention that any other attorney-client relationship is afforded.

For example, earlier we stated that complications are possible when a client wants one or more of their children in an initial meeting. Some of the risks of waiving confidentiality with respect to the presence of only one child in the room with a mother or father could be that the other children could bring an action of undue influence, where they could assert that the child in the room pressured the mother or father to disproportionately change the disposition of assets.

It is important for the attorney to utilize different interviewing techniques during the meeting to maximize client capacity and his or her participation in the discussion. Attorneys have to be on high alert to make sure the client is not facing any substantial physical, financial, or other harm, by someone else, who could often be a close family member. In such cases, it becomes the attorney’s ethical duty to consider disclosure of confidential information to other certain individuals or entities who may be able to take action to protect the client from such harm.  At the same time, the attorney needs to be extremely careful that such disclosure is only what they believe is necessary to protect the client.

One potential conflict we face when we have concerns about the client’s capacity is to choose between the client’s wishes or the client’s best interest. Here we need to consider several factors to resolve the conflict – type of representation sought, forum in which the services are to be provided, involvement of other parties in the matter, etc.

Ultimately, its critical for attorneys to balance the client’s needs for decision-making assistance with the clients’ other interests, including autonomy, safety, independence, financial well-being, health care, and personal liberty.

Revocable Trusts – Common Misconceptions

Posted on | by Tom

A few days ago, I was explaining the concept of “funding” to clients who were new to the world of estate planning, and I was struck by the fact that what I’d always thought were commonly understood concepts were actually the cause of significant gaps in the clients’ understanding of what trusts do and how they operate. The two main areas of confusion appear to be in: 1) figuring out exactly how trusts differ from wills; and 2) the mechanics of how accounts are transferred into trusts, which make the trust the “new owner” of those accounts. This article hopes to shed light on these two seemingly simple (or so I thought!) concepts: trusts and trust funding.

We’ve heard people use the word trusts in different settings and under different circumstances. Many mistakenly believe that all trusts offer asset protection. However, not all trusts are made equal – trusts can either be living (i.e. inter-vivos trusts set up during the lifetime of the Settlor or Grantor) or testamentary (i.e. those that become effective upon the death of an individual). All testamentary trusts are irrevocable, but living trusts can be revocable or irrevocable.

Living trusts are typically stand-alone entities that become effective immediately upon the signing of the trust agreement. Those that are revocable are called Revocable Living Trusts, RLTs, or Will substitutes. These RLTs allow a Grantor (also called a Settlor or Trustor) to set up the trust and retain full control of the trust assets as a Trustee, while enjoying the full benefits of the trust assets as a beneficiary. There are several benefits for setting up an RLT, but more notably, RLTs are meant to avoid probate upon death and the associated hassle-ridden probate process in some states.

In contrast, Irrevocable Living Trusts cannot be changed once established. The Grantor transfers assets into trust by assignment, sale, gift, or loan, and then completely gives up control over the assets. The two main benefits of irrevocable trusts are: 1) assets are removed from the Grantor’s estate upon his or her death, thereby avoiding estate taxes; and 2) assets are protected from both the Grantor’s creditors as well as the creditors and predators of the beneficiaries. Properly designed trusts may even escape Medicaid recovery and preserve assets for the Grantor’s ultimate beneficiaries should the Grantor be receiving public benefits. Regardless of which irrevocable trust is used, these trusts are typically sophisticated planning techniques established as part of an individual or married couple’s advanced planning. They should always accompany a robust foundational plan complete with a Will and/or an RLT, a General Durable Power of Attorney, and Advanced Healthcare Directive. For more information on the benefits of an RLT, check out our earlier posts on this subject.[1]

When it comes to “funding” trusts though, it is important to note that this term of art refers the act of transferring accounts into the trust or retitling assets into the name of the trusts and has nothing to do with refinancing or getting loans to trusts. The following comparison may help provide a better understanding of how RLTs[2] actually “receive” assets.

If you think of your trust as a cookie jar, then our firm would work with you to take your cookie jar from concept to design to setup. Once you sign the trust agreement, your cookie jar is now ready to be filled with assets or “cookies.” And because your trust is like your alter-ego, it can do almost anything you can do. This means that if you have five bank accounts, each at a different bank, and you want to continue to bank at these five banks, then you can open five trust accounts at these banks. Our office would then provide you with the necessary documentation you need to present to your bank representative, who will then open a new trust account and give you a new account number. Depending on the type of trust you are setting up (revocable or irrevocable), the account will either be associated with your social security number or have its own separate tax identification number (or EIN#) for income tax reporting moving forward. This process of funding may involve several back-and-forth communications with institutions and can sometimes be challenging, especially if the bank representative is unfamiliar with trusts. This is when your choice of law firm becomes critical, so the firm can coordinate with you and the institutions to see this process through to the end. Our hope is that as trusts become more and more mainstream, funding becomes less daunting on Grantors, who can then leave their organized estates to their loved ones in a smooth manner, completely free of the probate process.

This article would not be considered complete if we did not address funding in connection with real property, businesses, and accounts with beneficiary designations. Here is a quick synopsis of how these assets are funded:

  • REAL PROPERTY: Real property must undergo a title change (i.e. the deed needs to reflect the new owner as the trust) in order for this to properly avoid probate. This deed must be recorded at the county clerk’s office just like any other deed. So long as the property is being transferred into an RLT, and the Grantor continues to reside in the property, a lender holding mortgage to the property cannot trigger the due on sale clause as the Grantor is protected by statute.
  • BUSINESSES: Depending on how a business is structured (LLC, S Corp., C Corp.), a Grantor-owner’s interest could be assigned to the RLT.
  • ACCOUNTS: Accounts passing by beneficiary designations, typically retirement accounts, life insurance policies. and/or brokerage and investment accounts with beneficiaries, must be amended to ensure the RLT (or its subtrusts for the various beneficiaries) is the primary beneficiary of these accounts.

While funding is relatively straightforward and may be handled by the Grantor on his or her own, it is always best to do so under the guidance and counsel of the drafting attorney (or even let the drafting attorney’s office handle the funding process for an extra fee) to ensure the transition is completely correctly and efficiently.

 

[1] Benefits of Revocable Living Trusts: https://estateelderplanning.com/2020/09/01/why-revocable-living-trusts-should-not-be-getting-such-a-bad-rap-in-new-jersey/ and Revocable Living Trusts Misunderstood: https://estateelderplanning.com/2018/02/26/legal-tip-of-the-week-22518/

[2] Our focus in this article is to address funding challenges with Revocable Living Trusts and only briefly discusses Irrevocable Living Trusts in passing.

My special needs child is about to turn 18 – What should I do?

Posted on | by Tom

Children with special needs, who are under the age of 18, are considered minors in the state of New Jersey. Until then, parents have full authority to act on behalf of their child(ren) when it comes to making important decisions. But once the child turns 18, parents are often caught off guard when they discover that although the child continues to be dependent on his or her parents long after they turn 18, parents no longer have the same authority as before, as the children are now deemed adults under the eyes of the law. Financial, legal, and healthcare decisions can no longer be made as before, and in the unfortunate situation when one or both parents pass away, assets passing to the child as an inheritance could trigger adverse consequences if the child has been receiving critical government benefits.

So what can you do now to avoid a disaster from occurring?

As a first step, you will need to begin the process of a guardianship (typically, this should be started a few months before the child turns 18). This involves filing a Verified Complaint with the courts, requesting your (and your spouse, where applicable), appointment as legal guardian of your child.  While it is rare for a judge to deny guardianship to a parent, the formalities of the guardianship process still need to be adhered to. 

The application must include, among other things, certifications from two physicians (one of these could be made by a licensed psychologist). The court will then appoint an attorney to conduct an investigation of the interested parties and then prepare a report for the judge, either confirming or rejecting the appointment of the Petitioner. Finally, a hearing is conducted before the judge, so all relevant parties can appear and be heard in court. Once the judge approves the appointment, a final judgment containing the decision is circulated to all parties. 

At this time, the parent(s) will need to appear at the surrogate’s office to become qualified and collect their Letter of Appointment. Be prepared to incur some expenses associated with the filing fees and legal costs, especially if you choose to go with private attorneys for both the submission of your application (as opposed to going pro se) and for the court appointment. Depending on the situation, a court may also be able to appoint an attorney from the Public Defender’s office at no charge to the parents, but this could delay things a bit. A final judgment signed by the judge at the end of the proceeding will then grant you the right to procure Letters of Guardianship.

The next step is to consider whether or not you want to set up Special Needs Trusts (SNT) for your child. Here you have an option to set up (1) a first-party special needs trust and/or (2) a third-party supplemental needs trust as stand-alone trusts. These trusts can hold assets of your child’s or assets passing from you, respectively, without jeopardizing your child’s government benefits. These assets are meant to supplement, but not supplant, any other benefits so your child can have an enhanced quality of life without concern that the critical benefits provided by the government would be denied.  

Finally, you should definitely consider setting up or updating your own existing estate plan to ensure that all of your assets passing to your child upon death are protected by either having the assets pass into the stand alone SNT that you set up (see above paragraph), or have it pass into a SNT under your Will. It is  important to consult with the estate planning attorney as to which trust should hold the inheritance.  Inadvertently naming the wrong SNT could result in having the assets inside of the trust going to the estate, instead of the family or other heirs.  

Primer on Spousal Access Trusts – What you need to know about this important estate planning technique!

Posted on | by Tom

Very often we meet clients looking for a more nuanced estate planning with specific assets – they may want to (1) protect assets from creditors; or (2) they would like to minimize the estate tax liability upon death. For these clients, Irrevocable Trusts are a critical piece of advanced estate planning that can accomplish these goals. It is important to remember here that these trusts are set up in addition to (and not in lieu of) their foundational planning, which typically consists of Wills or Revocable Living Trusts, as well as the Financial or Healthcare Powers of Attorney.

Irrevocable Trusts come in many flavors – insurance trusts or ILITs, gifting trusts for children, residence trusts or QPRTs, and a whole lot more in between. These trusts can either be established locally (i.e. situs of the trust is New Jersey), or a NJ resident can situs his or her trust in other U.S. states with favorable Domestic Asset Protection Trust laws (also called DAPT states).

This post discusses the popular Spousal Access Trusts or SLATs, where the spouse of the Grantor or Settlor of the trust is a named beneficiary, while the trust continues to accomplish its primary objectives regarding creditor protection and estate tax savings. It is key to remember here that if the 2-SLAT approach is being utilized (one trust each for the husband and the wife), then utmost care must be taken by the drafter of these trusts to ensure the trusts are not identical to one another, which would run afoul of the reciprocal trust doctrine.

Consider the following when establishing these trusts in New Jersey:

  • Pros:
    • There is no need to get an outside Independent Trustee who is a resident – a trusted friend would be able to serve in this role.
    • There is no need for outside counsel review.
    • You can accomplish the current asset protection goals even with the spouse as a beneficiary, but the Grantor[1] of the trust cannot become a beneficiary of the trust if the two primary objectives of creditor protection and estate tax savings are desired.
  • Cons:
    • The Grantor cannot be (or be added back later) as a named beneficiary.
    • Death of a spouse-beneficiary can make things problematic for the Grantor, who will now no longer have access to the funds in the trust.
    • If the 2-SLAT approach is being used, then there is higher probability of IRS scrutiny if both trusts are sitused in NJ.

However, if we go outside the state of NJ to one of the DAPT states[2], these trusts become more sophisticated and robust, but are also expensive – not only for set up but also in annual costs. The following are some considerations:

  • Pros:
    • The Grantor can be added back as a beneficiary after the trust is set up.
    • There are greater asset protection laws in these DAPT states, so creditor challenges are much harder.
    • With the 2-SLAT approach, situsing these trusts in two different DAPT states ensures even greater asset protection.
    • Resident Trustees can be Directed Trustees where they are only acting upon the direction of another – this keeps costs down each year.
    • This approach has potential to avoid IRS/Creditor scrutiny, especially where an independent, objective third party is serving as a trustee.
  • Cons:
    • This route is more expensive, because these are sophisticated trusts part of advanced planning.
    • Co-counsel needs to be retained to get the trusts reviewed by attorneys in that state.
    • Resident Trustees are a requirement.
    • Although trustees may be “Directed Trustees,” depending on the DAPT state, annual fees may vary between states and could become quite costly.

To minimize costs, some alternate solutions include:

  1. Staying within NJ and set up both trusts within the state, but be willing to give up some of the added benefits of DAPTs.
  2. Creating one trust in a DAPT jurisdiction and another trust in NJ, so you can take advantage of the “pros” for at least one trust, where the Grantor can be named back as the beneficiary.

 

 

 

[1] Grantor refers to the individual setting up the trust and is often used interchangeably with the terms Trustor or Settlor.

[2] As of 2020, there are at least 19 states that are now considered to be DAPT states and which have amended their statues to offer strong creditor protection and favorable treatment towards Grantors’ irrevocable trusts. http://www.actec.org/assets/1/6/Shaftel-Comparison-of-the-Domestic-Asset-Protection-Trust-Statutes.pdf

Why the Sensational Administration of Leona Helmsley’s Estate Matters For You

Posted on | by Rekha Rao

Leona Helmsley, a hotel owner and real-estate investor known by many as “The Queen of Mean,” died in 2007, leaving behind over $4 billion in assets. At first, it would seem like she did everything to leave her estate organized the way one is supposed to; she left a 14-page Will behind with little ambiguity as to how her sizable assets would be divided upon her death, neatly packaged into individual testamentary trusts for her grandkids to be set up after her death and to be paid out over time. And yet, the final Court ruling did not conclude until earlier this year in 2019—a full 12 years since her passing—due to various disputes by disgruntled beneficiaries.1 She had a Will, so why did the probate process take so long?

 

The answer comes back not only to the unusual size of her Estate, but also to the language of Mrs. Helmsley’s Last Will and Testament. While it was explicit in reflecting who would receive what amount of money and how, her intentions guiding such declarations were less clear. She had disinherited two of her four grandchildren, and yet her Will’s only mention of them was as follows:

 

“I have not made any provisions in this Will for my grandson CRAIG PANZIRER or my granddaughter MEEGAN PANZIRER for reasons which are known to them.” 2

This declaration was in stark contrast to the $12 million dollars left to her dog, Trouble, who she wished to have buried beside her (an impossibility due to New York State laws barring animals from being interred alongside human remains). This significant apparent inequity in pay-outs caused a foreseeable Will contest by the disinherited heirs, leading to a Court settlement on this issue in 2008.3 It’s possible that despite what she thought were clear instructions to disinherit her grandchildren, the lack of clearly laid out reasons for their omission and the large bequest to her pet opened up questions on the testator’s state of mind which ultimately resulted in a favorable outcome for the disinherited grandchildren.

 

Better foresight by Mrs. Helmsley and her drafting attorney of an inevitable Will contest and the Court’s possible ruling in favor of family members over pets may have prevented this situation. While Mrs. Helmsley’s Will was probated in New York, both New York and New Jersey allow Wills to be contested due to incapacity or undue influence even if there is a standard no-contest provision written into the Will. Full disclosure in a Will or better yet, setting up a Revocable Living Trust to ensure the courts are not involved, may have avoided this lengthy legal battle. Furthermore, a Revocable Living Trust would have kept all this messy family drama out of the public eye.

 

Of course, that’s not all there is to say regarding Leona Helmsley’s Will and the Estate Administration that followed; even at the end of probate, there was another issue regarding Executor compensation that was only finalized this past August. This matter was brought before the Court in 2016, and finally in 2019 the Court awarded $100 million to be divided equally between four Executors, with an additional $6.25 million to be paid to the Estate of the fifth Executor. This was over the objections of New York Attorney General’s office, which claimed that the compensation was an exorbitant amount and suggested it be cut by as much as 90 percent, based on a third party expert evaluation.

 

The Court upheld the Executors’ request for the $100 million fee, explaining that their efforts could not be accurately measured by an hourly compensation and that these Executors faced extensive challenges in dealing with the administration of the Estate. This decision resulted in fees paid to the Executors five times more than the original individual bequests included in the Will.

 

Was this decision in line with Mrs. Helmsley’s intentions? Most likely not. Generally, statutory laws dictate how much an Executor is entitled to as compensation out of the Estate barring any specific provisions about this in the Will. Therefore, if you have thoughts on how you would like your Executors to be compensated for their work, or if you would like to provide flexibility in their fees that the law does not, a specialized estate planning attorney can advise you on the best way to include such considerations in your Will.

 

Leona Helmsley’s Will, though it encompasses more assets than most of us are likely to have in our lifetimes, illustrates several of the nuanced challenges faced when writing a Will. Sandor Frankel, the attorney who drafted her Will, had nearly 40 years of litigation experience, but he was not an estate planning lawyer. This outcome for Mrs. Helmsley’s estate highlights the importance of working with a specialized Estate Planning lawyer who understands how to effectively deter Will contests and draft documents with the end goal of avoiding court intervention. Ensure that your Estate does not face these challenges after your passing by drafting your Will with a lawyer who understands how to plan for the needs of your unique situation.