Posts Tagged ‘living trusts’

Tales From The Mason Law Horror Files . . .

Once Upon A Time . . .

Margaret and Jim Anderson raised their three children, Princess, Bud and Kitten in the 1950’s and 1960’s in the Greystone area of Asheboro, North Carolina (a leafy post-WW II neighborhood of 3 and 4 bedroom homes). The three kids grew up. Bud moved to Charleston, and Kitten moved to Atlanta. Princess stayed on in Asheboro.

In 1995 Margaret suddenly died. Although Jim was bereaved, wedding bells rang in 2003 when he married Eloise Haskell, a widow from nearby Mayfield. Eloise had an only child, Eddie Haskell, who lived in Oregon. The Anderson kids had a difficult time with Eddie on the rare occasions they saw him (Eddie had a difficult time concealing his manipulative and greedy nature).

Eloise and Jim’s children maintained a friendly, but never-too-close, relationship. Things became a bit strained, especially between Eloise and Princess, when Eloise began to show some early signs of dementia in 2005 (some forgetfulness, a bit of paranoia . . . but nothing too alarming). Jim remained active and vigorous, continuing with volunteer work at a variety of charities. Then, in 2010, disaster: Jim suddenly died.

After the funeral, Princess found a copy of Jim’s old will naming Princess as executor. She made an appointment with Bob Mason and asked him “tell me what to do?”

Princess, We Have a Problem . . .

Jim’s 2004 will left a life estate in the Greystone house to Eloise and also left all household furnishings to Eloise (with the proviso that Eloise allow Jim’s kids to have whatever). The will left the rest of Jim’s estate to his children.

After some research Bob discovered that in 2005 Jim deeded a tenancy by the entireties interest in the Greystone home to Eloise (a type of estate in land in which spouses own the land together and in which the surviving spouse takes the entire interest upon the death of the first spouse to die).

Bob also noted from documents dropped off by Princess that Jim’s Acme Investment Advisors mutual fund was titled in his and Eloise’ name.

After Princess qualified as Executor, Bob discovered that two other bank accounts were jointly titled with Eloise and that she had been beneficiary of Jim’s IRA since 2005.

At a followup meeting, Bob delivered the bad news.

“Let’s Get Bud and Kitten on a Conference Call”

In an Anderson family meeting (Bud and Kitten called in, Princess spent most of the time with the tissue box in the conference room), Bob explained that the Greystone home they were raised in became Eloise’s home (outright, to do with as she pleased, and not “just a life estate”) upon Jim’s death by virtue of the 2005 tenancy by the entireties deed. The will didn’t really matter.

Bob also explained that the jointly owned accounts were now owned by Eloise, and that as IRA beneficiary she was entitled to that account. Again, the will didn’t matter.

Bud and Princess both agreed that Eloise’s son, Eddie Haskell, “had a lot of lawyer friends.” They said that Eddie had been extremely ingratiating to Jim for years and “he probably talked Jim into setting up everything that way.”  Bob explained that it would be very difficult to prove undue influence or fraud many years after Jim had retitled the house and the accounts . . . especially when Jim had been so active (and obviously in command of his mental faculties) up until his death.

To Add Insult to Injury . . .

Princess called Eloise and attempted (very politely) to ask if Princess could have some of the furniture, silver and china that had been her parents. Eloise grew vague and mumbled something about “thinking about it.”

When Princess called back a few weeks later Eloise exploded and demanded that Princess leave her alone and that if she kept pestering her she would have Eddie contact a lawyer.

Options?

None.

What Should Have Been Done?

You tell me! A copy of the 9 1/2 hour DVD set “Elder Law University” ($149 value) will be given to the best response in the comment section below. The August 1 issue of Elder Law Update (and an accompanying post here) will discuss a few of my recommendations . . . and, of course, announce a winner

So . . . post away!

 

PS: IF YOU ARE ONE OF MY LAWYER READERS NO YOU CAN’T PARTICIPATE!!

 

AND NOW . . . HEH, HEH, HEH . . . THE ANSWER

Two weeks later and here we are.

Of course, the correct answer was Don James’ (below): He should have hired ME! But since he didn’t . . .

Billie Hansen, Kelly Anderson, and Celeste Spence all mentioned a wonderful idea . . . . COMMUNICATION! What a novel idea! True, people procrastinate, but marriages at any age are a major milestone. Out of a love and kindness to both families there should have been some frank discussions ahead of time.

The problem often is that no matter how well planned a will may be, they are relatively easy to change. A properly drafted prenuptial agreement can create enforceable rights in later heirs if the parties to the prenuptial agreement specify and agree that they will maintain valid wills that make the desired dispositions to various family members. Even if they later change their wills or titles to real property there may be a cause of action available to the heirs. Prenuptial agreements do nothing, however, to protect assets if this older couple is concerned about protecting assets in the event the new bride or groom ends up in a nursing home. Medicaid counts the assets of both members of a married couple, and North Carolina has something called the “Doctrine of Necessaries.” Under that old doctrine, each of a husband and wife are legally obligated for the other’s medical care regardless of any agreement they may have had between each other (this doesn’t apply if one is on Medicaid). In those cases a “prenup” wouldn’t have mattered, although a prenup is good to establish other understandings.

If the house was the major concern (as is often the case) Jim could have established either a revocable or irrevocable trust and titled the house in the name of the trust. He could have named Bud or Princess as the trustee (or perhaps even co-Trustee with Jim). The trust could have specified that Eloise would have a life estate in the home upon Jim’s death. It could have also specified that at any time after the establishment of the trust the house could not be taken out of trust without the written agreement of all trustees (that would have prevented Jim from later adding Eloise’s name to a tenancy by the entireties title).

There really is no ONE correct answer other than Jim and Eloise, out of love for their children, should have opened up the communications channels and been willing to seek some guidance.

This was a sad story.

The winners:

Don James is a CPA and hangs out with too many lawyers! (Sorry, Don) I couldn’t decide between Billie, Kelly and Celeste . . . so I’ll send each one an Elder Law University DVD set.  Ladies, please send your mailing address to Stacey Kinney at:  sck (at) masonlawpc.com (replace the “(at)” with an “@” and close up the spaces!

For more reading on second marriage issues go see Tying the Knot . . . Or Just Moving In?

Vacation property and “second homes” – whether in the mountains or at the beach – present a number of legal and tax planning opportunities.

Avoid Probate With A Trust

First, consider probate avoidance, particularly if the property is located in a state other than the owner’s primary residence. The problem arises when the owner dies with title to the property in her name.

In addition to a probate proceeding in the owner’s state of residence, there will need to be an “ancillary probate” proceeding in the state of the second residence. A Big Hassle.

A fairly simple revocable trust, or living trust, could completely avoid the probate process in the second state. Before the “owners” death the trust owns the property. After the “owners” death, the trust continues as the record owner. Thus, no probate.

Use A Trust To Protect Property

Certain types of trusts can be created that protect the property for the family after the incapacity of the principal owner. If the trust is irrevocable and correctly designed, the property will not count for Medicaid purposes. Start early, however, because it’ll take five years to completely protect the home for Medicaid.

While in the trust, the property will also be immune from the liabilities of the children the owner may have originally been thinking of transferring the property to.

Trusts Are Tax Smart

Further, if the property is transferred directly to the children, the parent’s “tax basis” also transfers to the children. Tax basis is simply the floor value used for calculating the “profit” that someone will realize if they sell the property.

In the hands of the person who bought the property, tax basis will be what he paid for the property. In the hands of a person who inherited the property, basis will be whatever the property was worth when the person inherited the property. Importantly, in the hands of a person who received the property as a gift, basis will be the same as the basis of the person who made the gift.

What difference does this make? Say Jack’s basis in Palm Isle is $25,000 because that is what he paid for it or because that is what dad’s basis was when he gave it to Jack. Later Jack sells the property for $100,000. His “gain” or profit is $75,000. Uncle Sam and most states are keenly interested in gain, because they tax it!

On the other hand, if Jack put the property in a properly designed trust that provided his children would receive the property on Jack’s death, and on Jack’s death the property is worth $100,000, that will be the basis in the hands of the children. If they sell the property for $100,000 there will be no (as in zero) taxable gain. Not too shabby.

Wait, there’s more. If the property is Jack’s principal residence and the trust has been properly designed, the trust will qualify for the capital gains tax exclusion that would apply if Jack directly sold his residence. To use a South Carolina term, that is “elegantly shabby”.

Answer:  It Depends

A Will is a document signed by a testator that meets the other formalities specified by North Carolina Law needed to pass probate property in the manner specified in the Will. The process of submitting a Will to the clerk of the superior court and proving to the clerk that the Will is valid and should be given effect is called “probate”. In fact the word “probate” comes from the Latin verb “probare”, which means “to prove”.

The clerk of the superior court, unless serious disputes arise that are taken up to a superior court, supervises the process of administering an estate by requiring the personal representative (either an executor or an administrator) to provide a performance and surety bond to the clerk (unless waived), to give notices to creditors, and to furnish the clerk periodic inventories and accountings of the estate. The clerk’s basic function is to insure that the personal representative satisfies creditors of the deceased and distributes the estate to beneficiaries as required by the terms of the will or by law. The clerk’s jurisdiction generally extends, with some exceptions, to “probate property” – which is property of the deceased that is available to claims of creditors, as opposed to property that passes “outside” the estate as nonprobate property.

Probate Property Defined

Often it is easier to think of what nonprobate property is when attempting to define probate property. Common forms of nonprobate property are: retirement plan benefits (they pass according to the beneficiary designation form), insurance proceeds (again, they pass according to the beneficiary designation form), life estates (sometimes called “lifetime rights”), joint tenancy with rights of survivorship property (which will pass automatically to the other joint tenant), and annuities (beneficiary designation). Keep in mind, however, that nonprobate property can become probate property if the property passes to the personal representative (for example, an insurance policy may name as a beneficiary “my estate” and the insurance company will pay the proceeds to the personal representative). As will be explained below, compared to many other states North Carolina has a relatively “friendly” and inexpensive probate system.

One other important type of nonprobate property are assets that are held by a trust with beneficiaries other than the estate at the time of the grantor’s death. These are often called “living trusts” and are the sorts of instruments that are often advertised as a way to avoid probate. They avoid probate because they are nonprobate property as described above. Trusts enable the grantor to determine who receives the money, when they receive it, and what conditions must be met. While a living trust is set up during the grantor’s life, a testamentary trust takes effect upon the grantor’s death and is often contained within the terms of the Will.

Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts

Living, or inter vivos (more Latin meaning “between the living”), trusts come in two basic categories: Revocable and irrevocable. Revocable “living trusts” are perhaps the more common because the grantor can revoke it or amend it at anytime before his death and the proceeds remain nonprobate property. A living trust has no estate tax advantage at all over assets passed by will. The property in a revocable living trust generally will be included in the grantor’s estate. To avoid estate taxation of trust property, the trust must be irrevocable and meet a host of other technical requirements. We constantly work with these requirements in planning for our clients.

Living Trust Advantages

The most-touted advantage of a irrevocable living trust are substantial estate tax (and occasionally income tax) benefits to the grantor. Depending on trust design, assets placed in an irrevocable living trust are not attributable to the grantor, although the trust itself may be taxed. Estate taxes also may be avoided.

Other advantages cover both revocable and irrevocable living trusts. If a living trust covers all of the grantor’s assets, then he or she may not even need a will. Many people wish to spare their relatives from going through probate, and, as explained above, living trust assets are not subject to probate. Because there is no probate, survivors do not have to reveal the extent of the living trust’s assets through a public filing as happens with probate. If the grantor holds real estate in more than one state, a living trust covering that property may allow survivors to avoid probate in those states.

Aside from the advantages for the survivors, a living trust can help a grantor manage his or her financial affairs because a trustee takes over the administration of the trust’s assets if the grantor becomes incapacitated. Some people are particularly concerned about how their finances will be managed if they should fall ill. A living trust may provide peace of mind because a trustee can continue to manage the trust’s funds in the event the grantor becomes mentally or physically incapacitated. On the other hand, a property drafted power of attorney can usually address these concerns.

Living Trust Disadvantages

The main disadvantage of a living trust is that the grantor loses some flexibility and control over his or her property and funds. Because a living trust becomes effective upon creation instead of at the grantor’s death, the assets covered by the trust start to be administered by the trustee at that time. If the trust is a revocable trust, usually the grantor can elect to serve as long as he is able and control is not much of an issue (other than, perhaps, a slight accounting headache). If the trust is irrevocable, the grantor loses much control that he or she might otherwise have had. If an individual prefers to have unrestricted control over his or her assets, or feels that he or she may want to modify an estate plan, a testamentary trust or will provides the flexibility to change terms for as long as the grantor is able.

A living trust often costs more to establish than a will. In many states the costs of probate may be so high that the extra cost involved in establishing a living trust may be justified. In North Carolina, however, probate is generally a simpler process and often the costs of establishing a living trust are not justifiable solely to avoid probate. The question of whether to use a revocable living trust in lieu of a will must always be answered on a case-by-case basis.

So . . .

A “one size fits all” approach is not wise. Unfortunately, there are many “trust mills” that advertise the “wonderful advantages” of living trusts, hold seminars to tout those advantages (often with a free lunch!) and often “cold call” prospective clients at home. Unfortunately, this approach often furnishes the client a mass-produced (and very expensive) document that does little to address a client’s real needs. For more on this marketing topic, read Bob’s article The $99 Legal Special!

Nevertheless, we often design and use irrevocable living trusts to achieve certain gift and estate tax advantages and accomplish other important family goals. Life insurance trusts and qualified personal residence trusts are very common examples of these sorts of trusts. Unlike revocable trusts, these trusts are seldom, if ever, designed to hold all of the grantor’s assets.

The major advantage of a Will and a testamentary trust contained in the Will is that the grantor retains absolute control over his or her assets. Because a testamentary trust becomes effective only upon the grantor’s death, the grantor may make changes to its terms any time before death. For many people, retaining control of their property is an important goal that testamentary trusts help them achieve. Retaining control can have its disadvantages, though. If the grantor becomes incapacitated prior to death, the trustee cannot take charge of the trust assets in order to manage the grantor’s finances during that time. A guardianship may be required for such incapacitated grantors if adequate provision has not been made through powers of attorney. Guardianship issues, however, are easily avoidable through proper planning, usually through the use of a property drafted power of attorney.