​
646-378-4400 x127
BOND
  • Welcome
  • About
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Planning >
      • Special Considerations for Unmarried Couples
      • Estate Planning Questionnaire
    • Probate & Estate Administration
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • Events

Adding to the tragedy of Prince's death, he died without a will

4/25/2016

0 Comments

 
Prince was a welcomed and permanent musical fixture on the landscape of my adolescence, and I was as shocked as everyone else when he passed away on April 21. In the immediate aftermath of his death, it was reported by Prince’s longtime attorney that Prince likely died without a will. Unfortunately, this initial report has proved true, and the news, to my ears, is almost as shocking, and almost as sad, as Prince's death itself. It is estimated that Prince was worth about $300 million at the time of his death, and this amount is only likely to grow as sales of his music, etc., soar in the coming months and years. He also had many business interests, wide-ranging intellectual property interests, and other complexities that will need to be addressed.
 
Adding to this is the fact that, to my understanding, Prince had no legal spouse and no children at the time he died (although I've read reports, unsubstantiated at the time I write this, that Prince has a "love child" from many years ago, and if this proves true, it will probably throw the entire estate into even more disarray). Assuming there is no spouse or children, this means that Prince’s estate will go, in its entirety, to Prince’s closest living blood relations, which appear to be one full-blood sister and a number of half-blood siblings (under Minnesota law, as well as New York law and the laws of most if not all other states, half siblings are treated the same for inheritance purposes as full-blood siblings).

Who knows who Prince would have wanted to administer or benefit from his estate, or how he would have wanted it to happen, but since he died without a will or other estate planning instrument like a revocable living trust, the state of Minnesota essentially wrote Prince's will for him in the form of its intestacy laws, which rigidly dictate who, and in what order, surviving family or others can administer a person's estate and benefit from it. All states have their own intestacy laws.

What struck me most about the first article I read about Prince's estate was a comment by Prince’s long-time attorney that Prince thought he would live forever, and could not face the fact of his own mortality, which is likely why he never set up a will or trust. This really hit home for me, because while I understand that basic--and totally understandable--human nature prevents many of us from facing the inevitable, I always try to impress upon people that setting up a will is more about protecting your assets and your loved ones than it is about “planning your own death.” I think that’s the greatest takeaway for me (and hopefully for you) from this sad tale. Perhaps no one and no argument could have persuaded Prince to set up estate planning documents, but had someone tried, and succeeded, in convincing him that even “basic” planning could protect his assets and his loved ones far better doing nothing could, I’m sure those now left behind to tend to the mess would have been spared a great deal of expense, time, and heartache.
0 Comments

10 Tips for avoiding family conflict when settling a loved one's estate

8/13/2014

0 Comments

 
Several of my previous posts revolved around issues related to the Michael Jackson estate. But one issue I didn't really get into is the internal strife among certain Jackson family members over how the estate is being administered and settled. Now, I don't think many people would argue that the Jackson's are the most tight-knit, functional family in the world, but even in families without all the drama that surrounds the Jacksons, settling the estate of a deceased loved one can cause in-fighting, lasting rifts, and even litigation. That's not to say the family members aren't good and decent and loving people; but death and money can bring conflict to even the closest of families, and this post will hopefully provide some tips and strategies to avoid such conflict.

I'll be the first to admit that we estate planning attorneys don't usually focus on the disposition of a client's tangible personal property--"TPP" or "stuff"--when preparing a will. Usually we focus more on assets like real property, financial accounts, and things like that. We also focus on minimizing or eliminating estate tax and on making sure as much gets to the client's named beneficiaries as efficiently as possible when the time comes. There are a few reasons why TPP is often neglected: 


First, the monetary value of such property is usually not terribly significant. 

Second, clients often don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about their TPP, and so to force them to focus on deciding who gets all of it could derail the estate planning process, which is perilous for the client. 

Third, to provide an itemized list of TPP dispositions in a will means that if the clients changes his or her mind at any time, either a new will needs to be created or, at a minimum, a codicil (amendment) to the will needs to be made--both of which cost the client time and money. 

Finally, we lawyers are able to address the issue by including a provision in the will that essentially states that the client may leave behind a list of items of TPP and to whom the items should be given, and that the client wishes for the executor to honor any such list. As for any TPP not disposed of by such a list, the TPP should be divided among, for example, the client's children as they may agree, and if there are any disagreements then the executor has sole authority to resolve the issue however he or she sees fit. In some states, such as NJ, any such list--as long as it's referred to in the will--is legally binding. In other states, like NY, such a list, even if mentioned in the will, is not legally binding. However, most people pick executors that they trust, and so they trust that the executor will honor any such list the client leaves behind.

What I usually do is advise my clients that they may spell out and dispose of as much or as little TPP in their wills as they wish, but that any changes can only be effectively made by redoing the will. I usually suggest that they list in the will any items that they definitely want to go to a certain person, and about which they are very unlikely to change their mind. For example, perhaps a mother wants to make sure her daughter inherits the mother's wedding dress. Something like that I suggest stating explicitly in the will. The pots and pans from Target, probably not. But hey, you never know.

The problem is that taking this approach to the distribution of TPP presumes that, for example, the deceased person's children will truly agree on how the TPP should be divided up. Often, they do not. It also presumes the client will get around to composing such a list (again, often they do not). And so are planted the seeds of family conflict. What I hope to do below is offer some tips for avoiding or minimizing such conflict.

Let's use the following scenario to illustrate the tips that will follow: Mom dies, leaving Dad as a surviving spouse, and A, B, and C as the surviving adult children. A, B, and C are all married. A and B have grown children of their own, and C has no children. Mom's will had a provision like the one mentioned above, leaving TPP to be divided as her children agree, and the executor (in this case, Dad) has the sole authority to resolve any conflict.

Tip #1: A, B, and C's spouses and children should stay in the background. Someone once said "If she wasn't your mama, stay out of the drama." The period after a family member dies is often a highly emotional time for the surviving family, and intrusion by spouses and less-closely-related relatives can lead to hard feelings. Also, in the absence of instruction from Mom to the contrary, A and B should not feel entitled to more TPP just because they have children.

Tip #2: If items of potentially high monetary value are involved, the executor can hire an appraiser to assign a value to the items, which can help the executor distribute the TPP as fairly as possible.

Tip #3: The executor can ask each child to write a "wish list" of which items of TPP they want most. Such lists don't mean the children will get everything they wish for, but it can guide the executor in deciding who gets what.

Tip #4: When conflicts over TPP remain, the executor can choose a method--preferably with the children's consent, but it's not required--by which to resolve the conflicts, such as a coin toss, drawing straws, or even having an auction where each sibling is given a certain amount of real or imaginary money to use to bid on the items he or she wants. Better yet, an estate planning attorney should discuss with the client what method they prefer be used, and that method should be mentioned in the will.

Tip #5: None of the children should appeal to the executor privately, trying to campaign or "angle" for the items of TPP that they want. All discussions about TPP should be had with everyone present, or via email with everyone cc'd. It is important that each sibling commit to this, so as to avoid suspicions that conversations are taking place behind anyone's back.

Tip #6: Everyone should keep in mind that stuff is just stuff. An item of priceless sentimental value to sibling B now, for example, might end up his or her child's yard sale at some point down the road. In the meantime, is that item of stuff really worth the possibility of permanently damaging family relationships? 

Tip #7: No items of TPP should be removed from the deceased person's home before it is officially decided who will get the item. Further, to the extent anyone removed items from the house either prior to or after the deceased person's death, those items should be returned.

Tip #8: The estate planning attorney should discuss with the client, and include in the will, what the client's feelings are if, as is likely, the distributions of TPP are disproportionate in monetary value. Should a child who receives less valuable TPP get additional cash from the estate, or should the disparity be ignored?

Tip #9: When it comes to items of sentimental value--which is where most conflict is borne--the executor, when possible, can reproduce the items so that each child gets a copy. This can be a very useful approach for handling correspondence, photographs, film reels or videotapes, etc.

Tip #10: Even if the client doesn't want to leave a list of TPP, or discuss his or her wishes regarding TPP with their named executor and/or their family, an estate planning attorney should encourage the client to at least write a letter sharing his or her thoughts about the distribution of TPP. It should be addressed to the relevant surviving family members, and can even be retained by the attorney until such time as it is needed if the client doesn't want to distribute the letter during his or her lifetime.

There's no fool-proof way to avoid conflict during the settling of a person's estate. Many estates are settled without a hitch, but some of the time there is going to be at least minor conflict, even if only over items of purely sentimental value. Hopefully the above tips will help you if and when you find yourself in the situation of settling the estate of a loved one.

Until next time, be well.
--Mike 

0 Comments

The Importance of Estate Planning for College-Aged Student

7/16/2014

0 Comments

 
With a new college school year soon to begin, I thought this topic might be, well, topical.

Now, I'll be the first person to concede that not a lot of college-aged young people need a will. That said, the other two traditional "core" estate planning documents are potentially just as important to people in their late teens as they are to people in their late eighties. Those documents are a health care proxy/living will and a durable power of attorney. 

Once a child turns 18, a whole assortment of privacy laws and rights kick in (including HIPAA), making it potentially difficult if not impossible for even a parent to get access to medical records/information at times when having such information might be vitally important to the treatment of an adult child in an emergency medical situation.

Many parents of college-bound children assume that since they're paying the tuition, or that the child is living under their roof, that they have the right to make legal/medical decisions for that child, but the reality is that at 18 that child became a legal adult with the legal right to privacy and to govern their own lives.

There are many examples of parents wishing to speak to doctors about the treatment of their adult child after a car accident or other medical situation that rendered the child unable to give consent for the parents to access their medical records or speak with the doctor about the child's treatment. Not until such children regain consciousness and can give consent is a medical professional allowed to involve the parents in the child's care. For children who do not regain consciousness quickly, parents need to go to court to seek to become a temporary legal guardian, which costs thousands in legal fees and leads to delay that could be tragic to the child's prognosis.

This is not to scare parents, but to bring an important but rarely considered issue to light. 

Having a health care proxy/living will set up--perhaps as part of the process of preparing to leave for college--allows the child to name his or her parents as health care agents allowed to have access to medical records and to make medical decisions on the child's behalf if the child is ever unable to. The document--at least the document I provide my clients--also expresses end of life wishes such as life support, etc. Once signed and executed, this document should be shared with the child's primary care physician. It can also be uploaded via an affordable service called Docubank (www.docubank.com), which will store the health care document and other vital health information about the child in a cloud service that can be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection via a PIN number on a wallet card provided to the child by Docubank--a wallet card that also includes other types of information needed quickly in a medical emergency, such as known allergies. I offer my clients a Docubank enrollment form, which I can use to enroll them in the service if they wish for me to. The cost is less than $30 per year.

A durable power of attorney for a college-aged child might be less important than the health care document, but executing a durable power of attorney in favor of the parents allows the parents to pay a child's bills, speak to the child's landlord, and numerous other financial and personal transactions if the child is either incapacitated or simply away at college or traveling abroad or any other reason. Otherwise, the parent must seek court permission to do so, at significant time and expense.

As a side benefit, going through this process with a college-aged child may also open the child's eyes and pave the way for thinking responsibly about undertaking other important legal tasks down the road in life, such as setting up a will and other documents that can protect the now-older-and-wiser child's assets, relationships, and loved ones.

If you would like to discuss any of this with me further, you can contact me in a variety of ways by clicking here.
0 Comments

Money or heirlooms? Baby Boomers prefer the latter

5/5/2014

0 Comments

 
Polls show that 86% of Baby Boomers and 74% of Americans over 72 years of age said that family stories and keeping their family history alive is the most important part of their legacy. Additionally, 64% of Boomers (compared to 58% of elders) said that family mementos and heirlooms are a key inheritance. Only 9% of Boomers said they're eager to inherit money. 

This is all very heartening, but the problem is that lawsuits and other family conflicts in the wake of a family member's death are almost always about tangible personal property--the deceased person's "stuff". Money is rarely the source of deep conflicts. Money can be divided up. That pipe that grandpa always smoked on the front porch in the summer? Not as much.

It's the emotions and sentimental value that cause the serious intra-family conflicts.

Here are some things that can be done to avoid such conflicts:

1) Talk with your family members about specific keepsakes they may want to have, and reflect those wishes specifically in your will. You might even gift certain items to certain people while you are living, to avoid problems after you're gone. You might also want to discuss the final disposition of something like a family summer home. Many a lawsuit has involved siblings arguing over whether to sell such a property or keep it in the family. Parents might consider discussing the issue with their children individually and as a group, and then telling all the children, in one place at the same time, what the parents are going to do about the property and why.

2) Create a memorandum that disposes of your tangible personal property outside of your will. Through a legal doctrine called "incorporation by reference", if a will refers to a list that the testator may leave behind disposing of certain items to certain people, then that list will be honored, even though the specific gifts aren't made in a will. It's important to note that such a memorandum is not legally binding in New York, although it is in New Jersey. However, hopefully you will have picked someone as executor who you trust to carry out all of your wishes. People may be unhappy with your choices, but they'll be more likely to accept them. Such lists or memorandums should be specific. For example, don't say you leave your diamond necklace to your niece, Jody, if you have three diamond necklaces. Take steps to make it easy to identify what objects you are referring to. Also, keep this memorandum or list with your will and other important papers so your executor can find it.

3) If you have a favorite grandchild or nephew, plan to provide them with a little (or a lot) extra during your lifetime, but treat the members of the same level of family (i.e., all grandchildren) equally in your will. 

4) In some cases, especially if family conflict is expected, or if there are, for example, children from a first marriage and children from a second marriage who may not see eye-to-eye on estate-related matters, you might want to consider hiring a professional executor. Talk to your bank or investment/trust institutions about what services they offer in this area.

Thanks for reading! If you would like to discuss any of this further, please feel free to contact me anytime.
0 Comments

MAJOR changes to New York's estate tax law!

4/8/2014

0 Comments

 
As of April 1, 2014, New York has doubled its estate tax exemption amount from $1 million to just over $2 million. Better yet, the exemption amount will continue to increase over the next several years until it becomes linked to whatever the federal estate tax exemption amount is (currently about $5.25 million). This now puts the estates of most New Yorkers beyond the reach of any estate tax. (Perhaps one day New Jersey will catch up. Currently, any estate valued over $675,000 is subject to estate tax in New Jersey.)

However, there is a HUGE caveat to these changes: If the estate is valued at more than 5% over the exemption amount (currently, 5% over approximately $2 million), then the ENTIRE estate becomes subject to New York's approximately 16% estate tax rate. Under the old law (and under federal law) only the portion of the estate exceeding the exemption amount was taxed (at the same 16% rate).

Imagine if you die in New York with an estate that is just one dollar over 5% more than the exemption amount. Then your estate pays 16% of the whole estate rather than zero in estate taxes.

Additionally, the new changes don't include a portability provision like federal estate tax law does. Portability essentially means that if one spouse of a legally married couple dies and doesn't use his full exemption, the surviving spouse can use it when he or she dies, effectively doubling the exemption amount a married couple can enjoy. But again, this is only for federal purposes, not New York state purposes. The good news is that an experienced estate planning attorney can include trust provisions in the wills of a married couple that effectively achieve the same thing, even for New York estate tax purposes.

So, despite this being a great thing for the vast majority of New Yorkers who are not "super rich"--even if some of those people have quite sizable estates--for a certain part of the population perils still exist. 


0 Comments

The Basics of Estate Taxes (and How You Can Avoid Them)

11/6/2013

3 Comments

 
"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." —Benjamin Franklin
 
Death and taxes may indeed be inevitable, but paying a so-called “death tax” is not. The way certain politicians rant, one might reasonably (but falsely) believe that upon a person’s death half of their estate will go to the federal government. The reality is that very few people are affected by the federal estate tax (aka “death tax”). For example (very generally speaking), in the case of a married couple, upon the death of one spouse the entire estate passes tax-free to the surviving spouse. Upon the death of the second spouse, a federal estate tax of up to 39% is applied to all assets above $5.25 million (as of 2013) not otherwise shielded from the tax before the remaining assets pass to the beneficiaries. If you (like most of us) leave behind an estate of less than $5.25 million ($10.5 million for a married couple), the federal estate tax doesn't apply at all. 

However, the picture is quite different when it comes to estate taxes collected by state governments. For example, New Jersey’s estate tax applies to estates worth more than $675,000. In New York, the tax applies to estates worth more than $1 million. Upon first glance these numbers might also seem high, but it is important to note that virtually all assets in an estate are counted to arrive at its value (known as the “gross” estate). For example, all real estate is counted. Life insurance policies are counted. Retirement accounts are counted. Even most gifts made within 3 years of death are usually counted. 

In the New York tri-state area, it is not uncommon for a home to be worth well upwards of $500,000. Add to that a pair of life insurance policies and a retirement account and one can see how easy it is to exceed the New Jersey and New York exemption amounts.

It is also important to note that unmarried couples —do not enjoy a tax-free transfer upon the death of one of the partners. So, if you not a legally married couple it is especially important to have an estate planning attorney that understands the issues and can develop an estate plan for you that mirrors as closely as possible the many rights and benefits afforded to married couples.

Regardless of relationship status, however, an estate tax can apply upon the death of the surviving spouse or domestic partner if the value of the estate exceeds the exemption amount (currently $675,000 in New Jersey and $1 million in New York). Therefore, it is important to have an estate planning attorney review your personal and financial circumstances in order to develop an estate plan that can either eliminate your estate tax exposure or at least reduce it significantly. 

So, what can an estate planning attorney do to help you avoid or reduce these taxes? The good news is that there are many tools in the estate planning arsenal, including irrevocable life insurance trusts, bypass trusts, and the annual gift exclusion, to name a few. 

Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts

Often, a life insurance policy is the asset that makes an estate subject to estate taxes in the first place. It is not at all uncommon to have a life insurance policy providing a death benefit of several hundred thousand dollars or more—all of which is included in determining your gross estate. An irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) is a type of trust that is specifically designed to hold and own life insurance policies so as to remove them from the calculation of an estate’s value. Once a life insurance policy is irrevocably purchased by the trustee of the ILIT (usually a non-spouse trusted family member, accountant, or financial institution) to cover the life of the grantor of the ILIT (you), with the ILIT being the beneficiary of the policy upon your death, you will be deemed to have no ownership or control over the policy. Since you'll no longer own the policy or control its terms, the proceeds can't be taxed in your estate when you die. 

Even if you already have a life insurance policy, ownership can be transferred to an ILIT. However, it is important to note that if you die within three years of the date when the policy was transferred to the ILIT, the life insurance proceeds will be included in your estate for tax purposes. This does not mean that the beneficiary will not receive the money, it merely means that your estate will have to count the proceeds as being part of your gross estate when computing the estate tax.

Since the ILIT is named as the beneficiary of the life insurance policy, after you die the insurance proceeds will be transferred into the ILIT and held in trust for the benefit of your spouse or partner during his or her remaining lifetime, with the balance passing to your children or other beneficiaries. Another benefit of the ILIT is that since the insurance proceeds will be held in trust for the benefit of your spouse or partner instead of being paid to that person outright, the proceeds can't be taxed in their estate, either.

An ILIT can be a very powerful and effective element of a well-designed estate plan, and can provide a great deal of benefit to your beneficiaries. However, this is a highly sophisticated estate planning technique, and there are certain administrative requirements to be followed, and important documents to be maintained. An estate planning attorney will not only be able to help you set up the ILIT, but also help ensure that all requirements and formalities are complied with.

Bypass Trusts

A bypass trust can be helpful to a married couple by taking, upon the death of the first spouse, the applicable exemption amount ($675,000 in New Jersey, and $1 million in New York) and putting it into a trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse during his or her lifetime with the remainder going to the couple’s children—as opposed to leaving that amount to the surviving spouse outright. By using a bypass trust, the first spouse to die directs (i.e., via his or her will) that some of his or her wealth (up to the full exemption amount) be placed into a bypass trust upon their death. At death, that amount is transferred into the bypass trust, with the rest of the deceased spouse’s estate typically going to the surviving spouse outright. When the surviving spouse dies, the children receive the bypass trust assets (as successor beneficiaries to the trust) and the surviving spouse's assets (as beneficiaries under the surviving spouse’s will). Since assets in the bypass trust did not belong to the surviving spouse (they were, instead, held in trust for his or her benefit), they are not included in his or her estate when calculating the value of the estate for estate tax purposes. This may save a substantial amount of estate taxes.

For example: 

Husband and Wife (Henry and Wilma) live in New York. Henry dies with an estate worth $2.5 million. In his will he provides for a bypass trust to be created in the amount of New York’s estate tax exemption amount ($1 million). The beneficiary of the bypass trust is Wilma, and during her lifetime she receives the income from the trust plus as much of the principal that, in the trustee’s discretion, is needed to keep her living in the manner to which she was accustomed. The rest of Henry’s estate ($1.5 million) passes outright and tax-free to Wilma. Upon Wilma’s death, whatever remains in the bypass trust will pass to Henry and Wilma’s children (or whoever else was named as beneficiaries) tax-free. 

Now, assuming Wilma dies with all $2.5 million intact (the $1 million bypass trust plus the $1.5 million received outright under Henry’s will) and no additional assets of her own, the $1 million in the bypass trust passes directly to the children, tax-free. And, because Wilma never had full control over or an unfettered right to the trust’s principal during her lifetime, the trust’s assets are not included when calculating the value of her taxable estate. Next, her own $1 million exemption amount is deducted from the $1.5 million she inherited outright from Henry, leaving (assuming there was no additional estate planning) $500,000 subject to New York’s estate tax. The New York estate tax on $500,000 would be roughly $10,000.

However, had Henry left all $2.5 million to Wilma outright at his death, Wilma’s estate at her death would have been valued at the full $2.5 million, rather than $1.5 million. Her $1 million exemption amount would have been deducted from the $2.5 million, leaving $1.5 million subject to New York’s estate tax. The New York estate tax on $1.5 million would be roughly $64,400.

So, by setting up the bypass trust, Henry and Wilma were able to get the full benefit of their respective $1 million estate tax exemptions, thus getting $2 million to their children tax-free, and saving about $55,000 in estate taxes (while almost certainly spending less than 1/10th of that to set up their combined estate plans).

Annual Gift Exclusion

The annual gift exclusion allows any person to give up to $14,000 per year (as of 2013) to as many people as the donor wishes, tax-free—for both the donor and the recipient. This amount increases to $28,000 per recipient if given by a married couple. For example, you can give up to $14,000 (or $28,000 if giving as a married couple) to one person or a million people, tax-free. If you have twelve grandchildren, each can receive the full $14,000/ $28,000— every year, tax-free to you, tax free to them. If you want to give $14,000 to every resident of New York City, that’s fine, too—every year for as long as you’re alive. Tax-free. Thus, this is a great way to reduce the value of your estate by giving monetary gifts during your lifetime—to be enjoyed by the recipients while you’re still here, instead of only after you’re gone. 

All of the above-mentioned estate planning tools can also be applied to reduce federal estate taxes, should your estate be large enough to be exposed to such taxes. Even if you don’t think your estate will qualify to be taxed under New York or New Jersey’s lower exemption amounts, your financial circumstances can change significantly at any time or over time, and so planning ahead now can save tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for your loved ones later. In addition, there are numerous tools other than those outlined here that can reduce your estate tax exposure even further. 

Regardless of which type of estate tax you are trying to avoid or reduce, it is important to get sound advice from a knowledgeable attorney because in most cases the greater the potential benefit, the greater the scrutiny by the IRS and state taxation authorities—and the more technical and stringent the requirements for creating and administering a valid and enforceable trust or other estate planning instrument. Plus, a good estate planning attorney will stay abreast of and keep you informed about changes in the law, including the ever-shifting exemption amounts, so that you can sleep easy knowing that, when the time comes, as much of your hard-earned assets as possible will get to your loved ones, and in the way you intend for them to.
3 Comments

They Work Hard for Their Money--Michael Jackson's Executors 4 Years Later (Part II)

10/8/2013

0 Comments

 
In my last post, I wrote about several legal battles looming over the Michael Jackson estate that his executors will need to deal with, at estate expense--which means less money for the estates' beneficiaries. In the same post I commented that being an executor is often a thankless task. While that is true, executors are compensated by law in the form of commissions, the amount of which is determined by the value of the deceased person's probate estate (that is, generally speaking, everything except jointly owned property and assets that pass via beneficiary designation such as life insurance policies and 401(k) accounts).

The amount of the commission usually starts at about 5% on the first $100k of the probate estate, and then decreases from there on a sliding scale (i.e., 4% on the second $100k of the probate estate). This scale is governed by state law, and it is designed to provide a reasonable amount of compensation for the duties an executor faces without it being a windfall.

In the case of Michael Jackson's executors, however, the probate court granted an increased commission of 10%. And who are Jackson's executors? One is an well-known entertainment attorney (who was also the attorney who drafted Jackson's will--more on this later) and the other is a well-known music industry executive.

The court likely granted the increased commission because of the executors' experience in the entertainment world and their ability to broker lucrative deals that will benefit the estate. After all, as mentioned in my last post, they have brokered deals in the four years since Jackson's death that are estimated to be worth more than $600 million--which is a huge amount of money that will, potentially, get into the hands of Jackson's heirs eventually. However, that also means that they've earned about $60 million for their efforts. 

Does that seem legal? Does it seem ethical?

There isn't much question about it being legal, because a judge approved it. Note that California's statute governing executor commissions allows the amount of the commission to be increased for "extraordinary" services and for the percentage on all amounts above $25 million to be set by the court. I would certainly agree that executors should get extra for extraordinary services, and that Jackson's executors are in fact performing such services. Very few people could broker the kinds of deals the executors have been brokering on behalf of Jackson's estate, which has dramatically increased the value of the estate, which in turn will result in more money for Jackson's heirs.

But are the commissions ethical? After all, $60 million is a lot of money, even divided by two people and spread across four years. Opinion is split. Some argue correctly that, once an executor accepts the job, it is his or her legal duty to bring in as much money for the estate as possible. So why should Jackson's executors get 10% to do what they're legally required to do, when other executors performing the same fiduciary function make far, far less, even on a percentage basis?

Other the other hand, as I said above, these particular executors are particularly well-suited to maximize the estate's value, and it is only because of their expertise and reputations that they are able to do so. Plus, the amount of their time and energy required--four years and counting--is also extraordinary. 

Another point often raised by those who feel the commission in the Jackson case is unethical is the fact that one of the executors is the same attorney who prepared the will. At a minimum, it was someone else at the executor's firm who actually prepared the documents, but the end result doesn't change much. This isn't necessarily an ethical problem (attorneys help settle the estates of their deceased estate planning clients all the time), but consider this: not only did Jackson have a will, he also had a trust. The attorney in question was named co-executor and co-trustee. Problem is, the trust wasn't funded properly and so it "failed". When a trust fails, and there is also a will, the will must be used instead of the trust.

I don't know the exact nature of the trust Jackson created, but in my last post I touched briefly on revocable living trusts, which are a commonly used estate planning tool that accomplishes the same tasks as a will, but with certain benefits in certain situations. One such benefit of a living trust is that it allows an estate to be passed along to the beneficiaries outside of the court-supervised probate process. In short, trusts are private documents whereas a will becomes a public document once it is submitted to the probate court--and a will must be submitted to a probate court in order to have any legal effect. Once a will is admitted to the public probate process, certain people, such as family members and other potentially interested parties, must be notified of the proceeding and given the opportunity to come forward and challenge the will if, for example, they feel they've been improperly omitted from it. Theoretically, with a living trust no such notice is required. However, if the trust isn't set up and fully funded properly, then any assets that don't make it into the trust become probate assets and then the court needs to get involved and then those certain interested parties need to be given notice of the proceeding and the opportunity to come forward with any grievances. 

In Jackson's case, the trust wasn't funded properly (very arguably, but not definitively, the attorney's fault) and as a result Jackson's will had to be used to settle the estate. And because the will and not the trust had to be used, the whole matter became a public process where otherwise it would have remained private because no court would need to have been involved. And as a result of the process now being public, there are all these legal challenges to the estate, which is costing the estate a lot of money. 

Also, it is possible (but not publicly known) that the trust specified the amount of commission allowed to the executors (although they would have been called trustees). The trust has not be made public, so we don't know for sure, but had the commission amount been specified, and had the trust been properly funded, then the trustees (now executors) would have had to abide by those terms and would not have been able to petition the court for an increase in their commission. However, because the trust "failed", and the will was used instead, it opened the door to the executors asking for an increased commission. 

At base, because the attorney (or a colleague within the same firm) didn't properly fund the trust, that same attorney now serving as co-executor is making tens of millions of dollars he otherwise might not have made.

So what do you think? Assume the attorney didn't do anything legally wrong by not funding the trust. After all, some lawyers leave that responsibility to the client; in other cases clients just won't cooperate in helping with the legwork needed to fund the trust. In neither scenario will the attorney usually be held responsible if the trust fails. 

That said, do you think the amount being earned is fair and/or ethical? Why or why not? The "Comment" link is just a few inches down your screen...

Finally, there has been a lot of fighting among the Jackson family members that I didn't really go into in either this post or my last post. But it inspired me to write my next post about how to avoid nasty estate battles and to dispose of certain items of personal property in a way that minimizes the potential for family strife. Stay tuned. I'll be publishing that post on 10/16/13.

In the meantime, be well.
--Mike
0 Comments

They Work Hard for Their Money--Michael Jackson's Executors 4 years later (Part I)

10/1/2013

0 Comments

 
I recently read an article at Forbes.com that talked about ongoing legal challenges still facing the Michael Jackson estate more than 4 years after his death in 2009. Being an executor is often rightfully called a thankless task, and the process is usually expensive, drawn out, and frustrating, not only for the executor, but for the beneficiaries of the estate. In most if not all states an executor earns a commission that is based on the value of the probate estate (i.e., assets that are not jointly owned or which do not pass via beneficiary designation, such as life insurance policies and 401(k) accounts), but sometimes the amount of work put into settling the estate far surpasses the amount of the commission.

In the case of Michael Jackson's estate, the executors certainly have their work cut out for them because the estate faces a whole host of legal problems:

1) The wrongful death case against AEG. Although the executors have mainly stayed out of the proceedings in which Jackson's heirs are seeking $40 billion (!) for the wrongful death of the singer, there was some drama when an estate consultant testified on behalf of AEG and against Jackson's heirs. The consultant claimed the executors gave him permission to testify, but the executors deny it. Either way, the testimony may cause headaches for the executors because the IRS may use the consultant's lavish estimates of Jackson's earning capacity against the estate in estate headache #2:

2) Estate tax battle with the IRS. Although Jackson allegedly died in debt, his executors have earned more than $600 million for the estate in the four years since the singer's death. While the executors claim that Jackson was only worth $7 million on the day he died, the IRS claims the total is as high as $1.5 billion. The IRS claims that the estate owes $702 million in estate taxes, and the executors have filed suit to challenge the IRS's claims. While the article believes the IRS might be overestimating the estate's value, it also highlights how the executors were probably too aggressive in its estate tax return, and dramatically undervalued the estate. The dispute will eventually be resolved, but at great expense to the estate, which means less money getting into the hands of the beneficiaries.

3) Custody battle for Jackson's children. A woman named Christine Leroux is claiming she was a longtime friend of Jackson's and that her eggs were used for all 3 of Jackson's children. She plans to seek custody of the children, allegedly because she fears for their welfare. Now, this claim may not go very far, unless she has some compelling evidence. Plus, just because you donate an egg doesn't make a "mother" in the eyes of the law. But yet again the executors are going to have to fight the battle in court, at the estate's expense.

4) Family conflict about the work of the executors. Some of Jackson's siblings think the will was fake and that the executors are not doing a good job. They have complained not only about the executors, but about their attorney, and blame them for the IRS dispute among other things. However, the only family member with legal standing to challenge the executors is Jackson's mother, Katherine, and she has not done so, despite alleged pressure by at least some of her children to do so. The article suggests the reason may be because in fact the executors have done a great job by bringing more than $600 million into the estate since Jackson's death, which is more than any living artist made in the same four-year period.

5) Yet another sex abuse claim.  One of Jackson's defenders during his 2005 criminal trial for child molestation now claims he himself was a victim--a "fact" only brought to light in recent years through therapy. A quiet settlement seems unlikely, so here we'll probably see yet another court battle, paid for by the estate.

Obviously, most estates don't face problems of this magnitude. However, settling an estate is rarely without one roadblock or another. A good probate/estate administration attorney can make the process less daunting for the executor and the outcome more lucrative to the beneficiaries, but a good estate planning attorney can help before obstacles arise by developing an estate plan that avoids some or all potential pitfalls in the first place. For example, many of the legal problems currently facing Jackson's executors could have been avoided if Jackson's estate planning attorney had set up and properly funded a revocable living trust, which when done right serves the same purpose as a will, but without having to go through the public probate process (which is when most legal challenges to an estate arise).

All that said, there is yet another twist to the story of Jackson's executors--one that I am sure will spark some heated comments from my readers. Stay tuned for my next post--to be published on 10/8/13.

Until then, be well.
--Mike
0 Comments

Your Digital Estate: What happens to your digital assets and social media accounts when you're gone?

9/24/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
For many estate planning attorneys, the interesting and increasingly vital issue of what happens to a person's "digital estate" after they die is just starting to come onto their radar screens. 

A digital estate might best be described as any file on your computer, storage drive or website, and any online account or membership that you have. It would include things like music, videos, photos, financial records, etc., stored on a computer or smartphone, or stored on a website like Shutterfly or Dropbox. It would also include your accounts on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. 

The two big questions are: 

1) Who owns/can access the digital assets? Whenever you create any kind of online account, at some point you click a box or take some other action that binds you to the service provider's Terms of Service ("TOS"). And most service providers have policies in their TOS that govern what happens upon the death of the account holder. These TOS, for now, trump the rights and powers that a personal representative (i.e., an executor) is given by a court, and also trumps (as of this writing) all of the handful of state laws that have been created to address digital estates. The reason that TOS usually trump state statutes is because the few laws that have been enacted so far merely give an executor the power to handle/access digital assets "where otherwise authorized"--meaning, if a given service provider does not authorize an executor to control the account after the account holder's death, the statute doesn't override the service provider's restriction. Some proposed statutes would allow a personal representative to access a deceased person's accounts regardless of the TOS, but so far none have been passed. Until a time that such laws exist, the TOS will rule the day, and most TOS state that no third party can access a user's account, even after death. Thus, an executor or other personal representative, even though authorized by a court to settle the deceased person's estate--and essentially "standing" in the deceased person's shoes--cannot get access to the account. Some service providers will simply shut down the account and delete everything that was posted there by the deceased person. In a world where most photos are never printed and most correspondence is never put to paper, you can see why the ability to access a deceased person's cloud data storage account or email account or social media account is more important than ever. A Gmail account or text messages saved on a smartphone are the modern day equivalents of a trunk full of letters discovered in an attic in days of old. A Shutterfly or YouTube account is the closet full of dusty photo albums, videotapes, and reels of super 8 film. 

2) Who should be named to handle/administer the digital estate? The reality is that much of a person's digital estate may not be controlled by TOS, and even when digital assets are controlled by TOS, an executor armed with user names and passwords will likely ignore the TOS and simply access the online accounts to either shut them down or keep them active even after a person's death. Of course, I'm not suggesting that a personal representative bypass a service provider's TOS, but in actuality most will if they have the necessary information to do so. 

Back to the main question: Who to choose to handle the digital estate? In many cases, it will be the same person chosen as executor. But there is nothing to prevent a different person being named in a will to handle the digital estate. One can easily picture a scenario where a person might want, for example, a parent or adult child to settle their "regular" estate, but because of the highly personal, often intimate nature of email, text messages, and many social media sites, that same person might want a friend or someone else to shut down or otherwise administer those accounts. Perhaps a 29-year old who is creating a will wants his parents to settle his "regular" estate, but doesn't want his parents to be rooting around in his social media world or email folders, even after his death. However, he wouldn't mind a trusted friend doing so. Believe it or not, there are also third party service providers through which a person can either authorize the service to "kill" online accounts upon that person's death, or to grant access to such accounts to a personal representative. Deathswitch and Legacy Locker are two such services (although my mentioning them does not constitute an endorsement--I have no direct experience with either service).


Finally, a person can also provide instructions in his or her will about what should be done with digital assets and existing social media accounts. Or, he or she can leave it to the discretion of the person named to handle the digital estate. The will's instructions can be as specific or as general as the person creating the will wants them to be.

I have been monitoring developments in this area of estate planning law for about a year now, and have struggled with the question of whether I should raise the issue in the estate planning questionnaire that all of my clients and prospective clients fill out as a first step in the estate planning process. Although I work hard to make the process as easy as possible, estate planning is often already daunting to people without adding another layer of things to consider. So I asked myself: Is the whole social media issue large and important enough to warrant burdening a client with yet another decision to make? Finally, this past week, I decided that it was. For now, I am just asking the question of whether the client would like to discuss the idea of naming someone other than their "regular" executor to handle social media accounts and other digital assets. If the answer is 'no', that will be the end of it. If the answer is 'yes', then I'll address it with the client. In the future, as the law develops, I might become more or less assertive about the issue, but for now the fact that I'm raising it at all is, I hope, an added value to my clients. I also provide my clients with a document where, if they wish, they can write down their various user names and passwords, to keep with their estate planning documents and other important papers. This way, an executor can easily access the person's various online accounts when the time comes.

I will continue to stay at the forefront of this issue, and to monitor the emerging legal landscape. I invite you to leave a comment expressing your opinion on this subject, and/or ask any questions that you have. I'll do my best to answer them. If you would like a private, no cost or obligation discussion about this or other estate planning topics, please feel free to contact me anytime.

More soon. In the meantime, be well.


--Mike

0 Comments

Settling the Estate of a Loved One

11/12/2012

0 Comments

 
 “What do I do next?”
“How am I going to take care of everything that needs taking care of?”
“Who’s going to help me do what needs to be done?”

These are questions you might ask a funeral director when someone close to you dies, and when your immediate task is to bring loved ones together to say goodbye. Whatever the circumstances, your funeral director will hopefully work tirelessly to make the process as painless for the survivors as possible, and to put together a fitting memorial to the person who passed.

But what about after the funeral?

One of the most important tasks that needs to be done upon a person’s passing is settling their estate. And when that time comes you might find yourself asking the same questions: What do I do next? How am I going to do everything that needs to be done? And who’s going to help me do it?

When settling an estate, the person authorized by the court to do so—whether that person be called an executor or an administrator—must navigate a complex web of state and federal laws, make vital technical decisions, and try to maintain good relations among all the parties involved. A skilled, experienced attorney with an empathetic manner and an efficient, economical process can make a huge difference between whether the estate settlement process is painful or relatively painless, expensive or affordable.

What is probate and estate administration?

Simply put, probate involves the handling of an estate when someone passes away with a will. Estate administration is similar to probate, except it applies when a person dies without a will. The probate and estate administration processes are handled through a county’s Surrogate’s Court, and are designed to ensure that creditors are paid and that probate assets are distributed to the beneficiaries named in the will or, in the absence of a will, to the descendants of the deceased individual as governed by state intestacy law.

How does the process work?

Probate begins with a petition to open the estate and name a personal representative (such as an executor when there is a will or an administrator when there is not), who is responsible for the disposition of the deceased person’s property. The court requires a great deal of specific and detailed information in order for the petition to be granted. Sometimes compiling the required information is quick and simple. Sometimes it takes weeks or longer.

Once the petition is granted and a personal representative is named, the deceased person's assets are marshaled, debts are paid, and whatever is left over is distributed according to the will or state intestacy laws. Then the estate is closed.

Although that all might sound easy enough, in actuality settling an estate is a complex,  time-consuming process. And when there are complications, such as questions about or difficulty proving the family tree, or if someone wishes to challenge the validity of the will, the process becomes even lengthier.

Even in straightforward situations there are still numerous steps that must be taken, rules that must be followed, requirements that must be met, and deadlines that must be strictly adhered to. A personal representative who fails to do something correctly, and which results in any harm coming to estate assets, may be held personally liable for any damage to the estate. That is why while an attorney is not technically required to help settle an estate, practically speaking only a probate attorney can help ensure everything is done correctly and on time by advising the personal representative throughout the entire process.

What does a personal representative do?

Once empowered by the court to act, the personal representative must:
  • notify all the people named as beneficiaries in the will, as well as all family members who have legal standing to inherit, whether they are named in the will or not 
  • locate and protect the deceased person’s property
  • prepare an inventory of all estate assets
  • follow the provisions of the will or State intestacy law
  • file estate tax and final income tax returns
  • pay all estate debts from estate assets
  • comply with all state and federal requirements
  • distribute the property to the heirs after all proper procedures have been followed
  • prepare a final accounting.

 How can I get help doing all this?

 Acting as a personal representative to the estate of a loved one is not only complicated, but often mentally draining as well. That is why personal representatives are empowered to hire an attorney of their choosing—whether or not the attorney prepared the will, in cases where there is a will—to help them settle the estate. A personal representative can also hire other professionals as needed, such as accountants and real estate brokers. Estate assets are used to cover all such expenses.

I have experience with estates of all sizes and levels of complexity, and my continual investment in efficiency helps to ensure the smoothest and most economical process possible. The process is also designed to meet each personal representative’s needs. For example, I can play an active role—essentially performing some or even many of a personal representative’s tasks—or a more passive role, handling only strictly legal tasks myself, and then advising the personal representative of what other tasks need to be done and by when.

If you have been designated as a personal representative, or need help in getting an estate administrator appointed by the Surrogate's Court, I am here to shepherd you through the process.

Additionally, if you have any questions or concerns about the probate or estate administration process, you are invited to contact me anytime, no obligation or charge, to discuss whatever you wish to discuss. I can be reached at:

Michael Bond, Esq.
Law Office of Michael Bond
515 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10022
T: 646-535-1529  |  F: 646-390-6763
mike@michaelbondlaw.com  | www.michaelbondlaw.com

 
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The information provided here is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Review of this document does not in any way constitute legal representation. Contacting Michael Bond or the Law Office of Michael Bond by telephone, fax, e-mail, or any other method does not constitute legal representation, nor is any information you provide protected by attorney-client privilege until otherwise advised.


0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2015
    February 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011

    Categories

    All
    Adam Yauch
    Administrator
    Adult Children
    Advance Directive
    Agreements
    Attorney Ethics
    Baby Boomers
    Beastie Boys
    Beneficiaries
    Casey Kasem
    Children
    College
    College-aged Children
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Criminal Law
    Digital Assets
    Digital Estate
    Disposition Of Remains
    Do-it-yourself Legal
    Doma
    Domestic Violence
    Durable Power Of Attorney
    Estate Administration
    Estate Planning
    Estate Tax
    Estate Tax Exemption
    Evidence
    Executor
    Facebook
    Family Disputes
    Family History
    Family Law
    Faq
    Forum Selection Clause
    Gay Marriage
    Generation Skipping Tax
    George Jefferson
    Gift Tax
    Grandparents
    Gst
    Guardian For Minor Children
    Guardianship
    Health Care Proxy
    Heirlooms
    Heirs
    HIV/AIDS
    Immigration
    Incorporation By Reference
    Inheritance
    Intellectual Property
    Intestacy
    Irs
    Italian Cruise Ship
    Jurors
    Keepsakes
    Landlords
    Leases
    Legalzoom
    Linkedin
    Living Trusts
    Living Will
    Lost Wills
    Marital Deduction
    Marriage Equality
    Michael Jackson
    Music
    New Jersey
    New York
    New York Estate Tax Change
    Online
    Online Legal Resources
    Personal Representative
    Power Of Attorney
    Prince
    Probate
    Revocable Living Trusts
    Ron Paul
    Same Sex Marriage
    Same-sex Marriage
    Scalia
    Settling An Estate
    Sherman Helmsley Burial
    Social Media
    Sotomayor
    Supreme Court
    Surrogate's Court
    Tangible Personal Property
    Taxes
    Tenants
    Terri Schiavo
    Transgender Issues
    Trusts
    Twitter
    Unmarried Partners
    Violent Crime
    Visitation
    Whitney Houston
    Will Contests
    Wills

    RSS Feed

     

    These posts have been provided by the Law Office of Michael Bond for general educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. For more information about the contents of these posts, or if you have any other estate planning questions, please contact Michael Bond at
    646-535-1529 or mike@michaelbondlaw.com.

Picture
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. The information you obtain at this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Review of this website does not in any way constitute legal representation. Contacting Michael Bond or the Law Office of Michael Bond by telephone, fax, e-mail, or any other method does not constitute legal representation, nor is any information you provide protected by attorney-client privilege until otherwise advised. Michael Bond, Esq., is licensed to practice in the states of New York and New Jersey, and this website is directed only to individuals or entities who may need legal information or representation in those two states.