Showing posts with label Disinherit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disinherit. Show all posts

Friday, February 2, 2018

How Long-Term Non-Marital Relationships Can Cause Problems if You Don’t Have an Estate Plan


Summary: Having an estate plan in place can provide you with many benefits. It allows you to indicate what your goals are, and remove any uncertainty about who should or should not take from your estate. To avoid the problems of unintended disinheritance, uncertainty and all-too-avoidable court litigation, take control by getting a complete plan in place and making sure that your plan is periodically reviewed and updated as needed. By getting a plan, you will have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you have benefited your loved ones by taking control of your legacy and making clear exactly what your wishes are.

Your estate plan is your legacy. Your estate plan creates your legacy by indicating whom you wish you remember and acknowledge through the distribution of your wealth. When you have an estate plan that is complete and ideally tailored to meet your needs, you can rest easy knowing that you have taken control over your legacy and ensured that your assets will be distributed according to your intentions. When you don’t, and you have no plan, then the opposite is often true. When you have no plan, you have no control and the lack of planning often opens the door to uncertainty and uncertainty often means court battles.

As an example, look at the estate of Dennis, a man who lived in a small town in the middle of Pennsylvania. Dennis died in early 2016. His online obituary says that he was survived by his two sisters, a brother and his fiancée, Jeannette.

Jeannette, however, went to court and argued that she was much more than just a fiancée. She contended that she and Dennis had been, for several decades, “common law” spouses. Jeannette’s argument in court was that, because Dennis had never created an estate plan and died intestate, and because she was Dennis’s surviving spouse and he had no surviving children, she was entitled to the entirety of Dennis’s estate.

In court, Jeannette testified that she and Dennis began dating in 1974 and the couple moved in together in 1987. Shortly after that, according to Jeannette, the couple exchanged rings that were meant to symbolize that their relationship was “forever.”

Not all states acknowledge common-law marriage as legal, but Pennsylvania does. Pennsylvania, though, creates a fairly high legal hurdle for proving to a court that a relationship constitutes a valid common-law marriage. Ultimately, that hurdle worked against Jeannette in her case. On certain forms like medical records, Dennis listed his younger sister as his next of kin, gave Jeannette as his emergency contact but described her only as a “friend” and used as his official address an address that was not the home in which he and Jeannette alleged lived together. Additionally, Dennis and Jeannette did not file joint tax returns, they did not share joint bank accounts and Jeannette had never taken Dennis’s last name. All of these things amounted to evidence that the relationship was not a common-law marriage. This led the trial court and an appeals court to rule against Jeannette.

The outcome triggered by this case made a dramatic difference. If Jeannette would have won, she would have received 100% of Dennis’s assets as his surviving spouse. Because she lost, Dennis’s surviving heirs were his three siblings who split the contents of his estate. Jeannette had no legal relationship to Dennis and, as a result, got nothing.

There is no way to know what Dennis’s actual goals for his estate were, as he passed away with no plan to dictate what he wanted. While it is possible that he may not have wanted Jeannette to get everything, it is also distinctly possible that he did not want her to get nothing, either. However, that’s exactly what happened because he had no plan. Everyone has a need for a plan, but certain groups of people have even higher needs for plans. People involved in long-term committed relationships but whom are not married are definitely one of these groups. The law generally makes no accommodations for these relationships, meaning that your partner is, in the eyes of the law, a stranger and entitled to nothing from your estate.




Friday, January 20, 2017

Estate Planning Mistakes | Planning to Ensure That Your Wishes Are Carried Out



Summary: In all areas of life, mistakes happen. A recent estate planning dispute in Michigan exemplifies this, as an overlooked property deed triggered a dispute that required a trial court and an appeals court to resolve. While your plan hopefully involves less complication and less litigation, the case is a useful reminder of the importance of engaging in comprehensive planning, which will contain safeguards to protect you even if you make mistakes in the estate planning process.

As part of their 1998 estate plan, Michigan couple Larry and Joy Hutchinson created a revocable living trust. Like many living trusts, the couple were the original trustees, and the trust's assets were to be for the benefit of the couple during their lives, then the survivor of the two after the first death. After both had died, the husband's three daughters (from another relationship) received what remained. 

Several years later, the husband's daughters discovered the trust's existence and launched a lawsuit accusing their stepmother of mismanaging the trust's assets. The two sides settled the case and, as part of that settlement, the wife was required to sell the family farm and another property, and the three children were to receive certain proceeds from those sales. The wife complied, selling both properties. 

What the children discovered after their stepmother's death, however, was that not all of the property rights had been sold. With regard to the farm, the legal rights to the surface had been sold, but no sale had ever been transacted regarding the farm's oil, gas and mineral rights, which were held under a separate deed. Upon making this discovery, the children asked a judge to distribute the mineral rights to them. The wife's executor opposed this request, arguing that the mineral rights should be considered a part of her probate estate.   

The dispute ultimately made its way through the court system, with both the trial court and the appeals court concluding that, because the settlement agreement made no explicit mention of the farm's mineral rights, then the agreement had impact on those mineral rights. That meant that the mineral rights remained the property of the trust and, according to the trusts's terms, should be distributed to the children under the provisions stated in the trust. 

While you may not own any real estate that also involves mineral rights, and hopefully your estate plan will not involve any instances of mismanagement of trust assets, there is still a lesson for many people in this case. Namely, the complicated process involved in resolving this couple's estate plan is a reminder of the high importance of a complete estate plan and regular estate plan reviews. This prolonged litigation erupted because the family farm's mineral rights were simply overlooked until after the wife's death.  Even if it is not mineral rights, there is always the possibility that, despite your best efforts, you may overlook or forget an asset (or assets) when you set out to fund the living trust in your estate plan. 

A complete estate plan will help you be prepared in any scenario. If you have a living trust, your complete estate plan will also have a "pour-over" will, which will protect you against forgotten assets. Your pour-over will will take assets left out of your trust and transfer them into your trust, where they, like the rest of your wealth, can be distributed according to the terms in your trust. Also, this is a reminder of the benefit of estate plan "check-up". A check-up can be an excellent time to review everything involved with the carrying out of your estate planning goals. Anyone can potentially forget to fund an asset. A check-up is just one more opportunity to look at your plan and potentially identify and correct such an oversight.

This article is published by the Legacy Assurance Plan and is intended for general informational purposes only. Some information may not apply to your situation. It does not, nor is it intended, to constitute legal advice. You should consult with an attorney regarding any specific questions about probate, living probate or other estate planning matters. Legacy Assurance Plan is an estate planning services-company and is not a lawyer or law firm and is not engaged in the practice of law. For more information about this and other estate planning matters visit our website at www.legacyassuranceplan.com

This article written and published by:
8039 Cooper Creek Blvd
University Park, Florida 34201
844.306.5272 (Phone)
@assuranceplan
#legacyassuranceplan


Friday, January 6, 2017

Excluding Children From Your Estate Plan | How to Go About -- and Not Go About it!

Summary: The reasons a person might choose to leave a child nothing as part of their estate plan are as varied as the people who make these decisions. However, regardless of the specific factors leading up to them, these decisions are often very personal and often the result of careful thought. If you are in this situation, it is essential that you promptly establish an estate plan and make sure that you have well-thought out documents to memorialize your objectives. It is important to ensure that your estate planning documents are written in such a way that they will be able to carry out these goals and not get defeated by legal pitfalls.

A very recent case, and another one a few years old, deal with a potentially tricky, but also very important issue, which is the very wide degree of control each person has regarding who will, and who will not, receive their wealth when they die. Sometimes the reasons a parent makes this decision is financial. Perhaps a child is very rich in comparison to her siblings, leaving the parents to conclude that the siblings need that wealth more than their rich sister. Or, in the alternative, perhaps a child has struggled financially during the parents' lifetimes and the parents have supported that child with gifts of wealth that they did not give to their other children, leaving the parents to distribute their estate among the children who did receive assistance during their lifetimes.

Other times, though, the reasons are not about financial issues, but are more personal. This occurred in Illinois a few years ago where four of Max and Erla Feinberg's five grandchildren, who each had received nothing, challenged their grandparents' estate plan. The four challengers argued that they were excluded because they chose to marry non-Jewish spouses and that such an estate plan violated Illinois law. In a very recent New Jersey case, the scenario was reversed. A daughter, who was the sole surviving heir of her parents, challenged the will of her father that left his entire estate to various religious charities. She claimed that her Catholic parents disinherited her because she chose to date (and later marry) a Jewish man.

In both cases, the estate plan contests failed. In each case, the precise wording of the estate planning documents was key to the courts' decisions to reject the contests. It is important to understand that the law significantly limits what's called "dead hand" control, which is an attempt to dictate the future behavior of your beneficiaries. If the parents or grandparents' estate plans had made inheritance or disinheritance explicitly contingent upon a beneficiary's decision to marry (or not to marry) a person of a particular faith, the challenges might have succeeded. Because the plans were precisely  worded to avoid such statements, the legal challenges did not succeed. The Illinois court concluded that the the Jewish grandparents' plan did not disinherit the four grandchildren for marrying non-Jewish people. The documents' wording indicated that the grandparents merely rewarded the one grandchild who "embraced the values" that the grandparents cherished. In the New Jersey case, the Catholic father's will was enforceable because it explicitly stated that he disinherited his daughter due to her alleged selfishness, manipulation, cruelty, abusiveness and vindictiveness, making no mention of the son-in-law or his religion.

For a lot of people, their personal reasons for disinheriting their children may be simpler. For example, a child may fail to continue maintaining a relationship with the parents. Regardless of the reason, both the Illinois and the New Jersey case highlight the importance of well-thought out plan documents. The daughter in the New Jersey case lost her contest because the father's will stated reasons for his decision that were unrelated to the son-in-law's religion so, in that case, the inclusion of language explaining the father's reasoning helped defeat the contest. In other cases, however, including too much explanation regarding your reasoning for disinheriting a close relative may actually provide added avenues of attack for your plan challenger. The key is to include exactly the right amount, and right type, of explanatory language. With the help of a knowledgeable estate planning attorney, you can craft a plan that honors all of your goals and objectives while minimizing the risk of a successful challenge by a disgruntled relative.   

 This article is published by the Legacy Assurance Plan and is intended for general informational purposes only. Some information may not apply to your situation. It does not, nor is it intended, to constitute legal advice. You should consult with an attorney regarding any specific questions about probate, living probate or other estate planning matters. Legacy Assurance Plan is an estate planning services-company and is not a lawyer or law firm and is not engaged in the practice of law. For more information about this and other estate planning matters visit our website at www.legacyassuranceplan.com

This article written and published by:
8039 Cooper Creek Blvd
University Park, Florida 34201
844.306.5272 (Phone)
@assuranceplan
#legacyassuranceplan