October 27, 2007

The Economist on "Death Taxes"

I recently started subscribing to The Economist, and love it. This week's issue (October 27th - November 2nd) includes an interesting article entitled "The case for death duties," available online here. Essentially The Economist favors the estate tax (and Britain's death duty) for how they affect incentives and their fairness, but believe that the taxes could be simplified by turning these taxes into a "levy on inheritance." One interesting idea springing from this: setting different inheritance tax rates depending on a recipient's relationship with the decedent. Politicians, and other people who don't understand taxation or tax policy, always focus on simplifying the rate structure (whenever you hear somebody talking about simplifying the tax system merely by simplifying tax rates, walk away). I would agree with The Economist that the best thing to do would be to simplify the other aspects of the tax (whose complexity "has been a goldmine for the tax-advice industry").

| Share
October 27, 2007

Living Trust as Guardianship Substitute

This article is really a cut above most "you need to have an estate plan" articles -- good use of detail and examples.

One part I wanted to focus on:

In event of your disability, give someone you trust the power to manage your property. It's called a power of attorney (although the person doesn't have to be an attorney).

But there's a problem: Some financial institutions won't accept powers of attorney created more than six months before. You're unlikely to renew a power of attorney this frequently. For a better solution, ask an estate planning attorney to draft a living trust for you. (The cost is probably $1,500 to $3,000.) The ownership of all your property is changed from your name to the trust's name. As the sole trustee, you can do anything you like with the property.

But if you become disabled, a person named in your trust steps in as successor trustee to manage the property on your behalf and for your benefit. All financial institutions accept this, no matter when the trust was written.

I haven't had a problem getting "old" powers of attorney (done in the last 5 years) accepted by financial institutions, but a living trust really works better than a property power of attorney in the case of disability. Or, rather, I should say that a fully funded living trust works better. If you transfer ownership and change beneficiary designations to your living trust and then become disabled, your successor trustee really can step right in and handle your property for your benefit. If you set up a living trust but don't fund it, and then become disabled, your property power of attorney can (hopefully) be used to fund your living trust at that time. I always include specific language allowing an agent under a property power of attorney to take care of this funding.

And, of course, a health care power of attorney is very important as well.

Let me put it simply: If you become disabled, having a fully funded living trust and powers of attorney will save you and your family a lot of time and money.

| Share
October 21, 2007

The State's Attorney and Unknown Heirs in Illinois

I am a member of the Chicago Bar Association's Probate Practice Committee. This past week, the Committee had its monthly meeting, and the speaker was Sheila Threlkeld of the Cook County State's Attorney's office. The Cook County's State's Attorney represents the interests of Cook County and the Cook County Treasurer's office.

You might ask, "why does Cook County have an interest in decedent's estates?" The answer lies in one word: escheat. "Escheat" is just a fancy word meaning that, if you die having no valid heirs and legatees, your property passes to the government. In Illinois the relevant statute allowing property to escheat is Sec. 2-1(h) of the Illinois Probate Act. You'll notice that, by "government," we usually mean the county where the property was or is, or where the decedent resided. THAT is why Cook County is potentially interested in estates.

You can't really talk about property escheating without talking about unknown heirs, which is why the State's Attorney wants to receive notice when heirship is unknown. For instance, let's say that you are handling the probate estate of a person who died single and without children. Maybe you were hired to handle the case by the decedent's friend, who doesn't know anything about members of the family. Maybe the decedent's parents survived him. Maybe not. Maybe the decedent had siblings, who are alive or who are dead but have living children. Maybe not. In some cases, you'll have to go to court and state in your affidavit of heirship that you just don't know whether the decedent has heirs. In that case, you'll want to give notice to the State's Attorney BEFORE you go to court. (This is a requirement under the Cook County Rules of Court -- see Rule 12.2(c).) The State's Attorney will take over if no known heirs appear during the probate proceeding. (The State's Attorney is being increasingly stymied by genealogy or heir search firms that try to locate unknown heirs -- for a fee, of course.)

Note that a different situation arises if you have known heirs you can't find (because you don't know where they are). Property of these types of heirs passes to the State of Illinois as unclaimed property, which the heirs can then claim if they later come forward. The State's escheat interest comes pursuant to Illinois' Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act.

Sometimes you know the heir's name and address, but the heir refuses to sign a receipt for his or her distribution. This is often the case where a decedent leaves a "screw you!" gift to someone (like "I leave my son MICHAEL the sum of $1, because he's a jerk and that's all he deserves -- HAHA"). Why would Michael want to assist with the administration of his father's estate in this situation by signing a receipt for his $1? In such a case, you can still close the estate without Michael's receipt as long as you deposit Michael's share with the Cook County Treasurer (and get a receipt from them). There's a bit more work involved -- you need to petition the court to make this deposit -- but at least it resolves the issue.

| Share
October 13, 2007

Notary Chic and Michael Clayton

1. I'm a notary -- it's helpful when clients have to execute their documents. One thing I didn't know -- it's cool!

-Here's Angela this week's episode of "The Office," talking about her break-up with Dwight (who euthanized her cat):

How do you tell someone it's over? You send them a notarized letter, right? But what if the recipient IS your notary?

-This week's edition of Entertainment Weekly has a short article about superproducer J.J. Abrams, whose pilot for a show called "Boundaries" has been picked up by ABC for next season. "Boundaries" is about a "cable-access psychologist who becomes a notary public." According to Mr. Abrams, it's "a very funny take on the private-investigator format. She won't sign anything until she finds out what's really going on. She's basically nosy as hell."

2. George Clooney plays the title character in Michael Clayton. The character is a lawyer, described at one point as "specializing in Wills and trusts" -- in truth, Clayton is a "fixer." He's special counsel to a prestigious law firm, helping to solve touchy problems for its partners and clients. Now he has a big one -- one of the firm's big litigators, a manic depressive, took off all his clothes at a deposition involving the firm's major client, U/North, and may be ready to torpedo U/North's case.

I won't give away anything more -- this is a pretty enjoyable movie, with a great cast (including Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton and the director Sydney Pollack). It's in my top ten for the year (holding steady at #1 is Once; last year's co-#1s were Children of Men and Little Children).

| Share
October 12, 2007

Weekly Roundup

1. I previously blogged about 529 plans, here and here. One of the nation's leading experts on these plans is Susan Bart, which whom I used to work. Ms. Bart has details here about some changes to Illinois law in this area. Most interesting to me is the creditor protection afforded to 529 plans.

2. This article talks about a Will contest and settlement involving former Massachusetts state representative Thomas Cahir. The scenario was (in my opinion) one of the most common: sibling vs. sibling. (The other we see fairly often is surviving second or third spouse vs. children of a prior marriage.) This quote, from one of the attorneys involved, is pretty accurate: "On the eve of trial the family decided to make a settlement, as is frequently the case in will contests." That's unfortunate -- it would be better for all parties to reach a settlement way before the eve of trial, but that's not human nature.

3. Evidently Hillary Clinton has come out with a tax proposal that involves keeping the estate tax exemption at its 2009 level ($3.5 million per person, which is potentially $7 million for a married couple). Here are a few details. Once I finish the article I'm working on, I'd like to put together a comparison of how the various candidates would handle the estate tax.

| Share
October 4, 2007

Follow-up: Amendment to Custodial Claim Statute

I blogged here about a horrible proposed change to the statutory custodial claims provision in the Illinois Probate Act. A slightly different change to this provision will become law in January -- here is what it says. As you can see, the changes are really a balancing act. On the one hand, the minimum payment amounts are increased; on the other hand, there's an acknowledgement that an award can and should be reduced by the benefits conferred on the caregiver (such as free housing).

| Share
October 2, 2007

Dependent Relative Revocation

"Dependent relative revocation" sounds like something that allows you to kick your slacker son or daughter out of the house, thereby "revoking" their status as a "dependent relative," doesn't it? But it's actually a probate concept.

The idea is this: whenever a person executes a new Will, the new Will should (and probably does) have language revoking all of the person's previously-signed Wills. That makes good sense, as you don't want to have to piece together a decedent's wishes from multiple Wills. In addition, most testators also destroy their prior Will when a new Will is executed.

But what if the decedent's final Will is found to be invalid, either because it didn't meet the appropriate execution formalities, or for some other reason (such as, it's void due to undue influence or lack of capacity)? (Note that there can also be a situation with partial invalidity, as is discussed in the Rule of Law blog, here.) We are then faced with a problem of how to carry out the testator's wishes. We can't use the final Will, but do we then go back to a prior Will, even though we know the testator tried to or actually did revoke it? Or do we just take the testator back to square one, and deem the testator to have died without a Will?

Dependent relative revocation may be able to come to the rescue in this situation. The idea is that the testator only meant to revoke the prior Will if the new Will was effective in carrying out his or her wishes. So, in some situations, the testator's prior Will can be brought back to life (assuming the original or a copy of that Will can be located). To put it a different way (as one court did), "the gist of the doctrine [of dependent relative revocation] is that if a testator cancels or destroys a will with a present intention of making a new one immediately and as a substitute and the new will is not made or, if made, fails of effect for any reason, it will be presumed that the testator preferred the old will to intestacy ...."

| Share