November 27, 2008

Receipts and Distributions, part 2

On Tuesday I blogged about the receipt-distribution dance. One natural question might be, "why do I need to get receipts at all, if there's no court supervision of trust administration?" I think the answer can be boiled down to three letters: CYA.

Just because there is no court supervision NOW doesn't mean that there won't be court supervision (or similar scrutiny) in the future, either because a beneficiary files suit or because of IRS action. The key to effective trust administration is keeping good records, which means documenting everything you do as trustee. This is primarily done via an accounting, but it's also done via a paper file that can tell disgruntled or confused beneficiaries (or even professionals) the story of the trust. Someone stops acting as trustee? Have them sign a document to that effect. Someone steps in as trustee or co-trustee? Have them sign a document to that effect. The trustee decides to make a discretionary distribution? Have them sign a document to that effect. You get the idea.

And, lest I be accused of self-interest, you should note that the documents I reference above can be prepared very easily (most of them require maybe 1/2 hour of attorney time at the most). It's obviously much cheaper to keep good records from the get-go than it is to reassemble these records when a beneficiary is threatening to drag you to court.

| Share
November 26, 2008

Slayer Statutes, Attempted Murder, and Updating Your Will

This article discusses an interesting situation from Ohio:

-17-year-old laces his parents' tea with cyanide
-when that doesn't work, he shoots his mother three times with a .38, and shoots at (but misses) his father
-both his mother and his father survive the attack
-17-year-old is sent to juvenile detention for a year, then joins the Navy (his relationship with his parents is strained -- YA THINK??!!), and eventually "settles down"
-many years later, parents die with mirror image Wills leaving everything to each other, with no other named beneficiaries*

Does son (now 43) inherit anything from his parents (whose estates contain about $500,000 in property)? It would seem so, since he is their only heir, and they made no provisions for other beneficiaries. A good quote:

"It's a mess, a classic example of what happens when you don't update your will," said John Polito, chief magistrate and administrator in Probate Court. "The way it was written, it was as if they had no wills."

Note that the Illinois "slayer statute" (755 ILCS 5/2-6) applies only to "[a] person who intentionally and unjustifiably causes the death of another." There are other, similar sections of the Probate Act dealing with the abuse or neglect of an elderly or disabled person. But there is nothing to deal with attempted murderer, which seems strange. If I'm reading the Probate Act correctly, if you try to murder your parent but fail, the burden would be placed on your parent to then execute a Will disinheriting you. Otherwise the regular statute of descent and distribution applies, and you are an heir. If I was in the state legislature, I'd support a bill that prevents anyone convicted of a crime from inheriting from their victim UNLESS the victim executes a Will (dated after the conviction) specifically naming the perp as a beneficiary. Then we wouldn't have to play around with these scenarios, and with the awkward wording of 2-6.

*I say "no other named beneficiaries," but the article is confusing on this point. In one place, it says there were no other beneficiaries; in another, it says the son was left $50.

| Share
November 25, 2008

Receipts and Distributions, part 1

When I am advising a fiduciary (executor or trustee) about to make a distribution, I always list the pertinent steps in the following order:

1. Send out receipts for all beneficiaries to sign;

2. Once all signed receipts are in hand, send out checks.

This strikes some people as bass-ackwards -- how can a beneficiary sign a receipt for something he or she hasn't received? It's a good question. Essentially, the fiduciary can proceed in one of three ways:

-send money, then (hope to) get receipt
-exchange receipt for money simultaneously
-get receipt, then send money

The first of these is dangerous -- people get forgetful once their check is stashed securely in the bank. On the other hand, nobody responds faster than a beneficiary being told "once I get your receipt, you get your check." Case in point: I just sent receipts out to 16 trust beneficiaries all over the country, and received them all back (signed) within two weeks.

The second of these makes sense, but only if all of your beneficiaries are local.

The third works best, of course. You can easily find us (fiduciary and attorney) if you send in a receipt and don't get your money. The fiduciary will have to prove that he or she did indeed make the payments, which should be easy to do.

| Share
November 24, 2008

Paul Newman's Will and Codicil

Copies are online here. A few things of note:

-Paragraph 1.1 requests that the executor sell Mr. Newman's race cars and planes. When someone has a hobby like Mr. Newman did with racing cars, this is a great idea -- you let everyone know what you want to happen to your hobby-related property upon your death, so there's no confusion.

-Section 4 is new to me, as it relates to "Publicity and IP Rights."

-One of the things I like about living trusts is the privacy protection they afford. We can read Mr. Newman's Will online, which I'm sure horrifies some people. But Mr. Newman's Will is a public document. Mr. Newman apparently has a living trust, but it doesn't get invoked until much later in the Will (see Section 6). Obviously it's up to each attorney and client to decide, but my preference is to get as much stuff out of the Will as possible, so that the only substantive Will provisions relate to the residue of the estate (payable to the trust) and, if the testator has minor children, guardianship. That way the public is kept in the dark about what happens with Mr. Newman's Oscars, the loans he made to his daughters, and the like.

What's your favorite Paul Newman movie? I haven't seen them all, but I'm partial to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting.

| Share
November 11, 2008

Utah, the LDS, and Probate Rights

Is everyone recovering from election fever? Pretty amazing, isn't it, that a Chicago-based attorney, formerly of Sidley & Austin, can become president? Maybe there's hope for me yet!

In addition to the main event, there were a lot of other issues (and candidates) put before the public last Tuesday. One of the most widely-covered was California's Proposition 8, which would amend the state's constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Among the groups supporting Proposition 8 (which passed, barely): the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons). Evidently the Church, in advancing its position re. gay marriage, indicated support for other types of civil union-like benefits for gay couples. Now some folks in favor of gay marriage (a group called Equality Utah) are trying to hold the Church to its stated positions, on its home turf (see this article):

"While we disagree with the LDS Church's position on Proposition 8, we respect that their position is based on the guiding principles of their faith," [Equality Utah chairwoman Stephanie Pappas] said. "Throughout the campaign, while the LDS Church stated its support of [Proposition 8], it also made repeated comments that the church 'does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.'

"Just last week, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose 'civil union or domestic partnerships,' " Pappas said. "We are taking the LDS Church at its word."

As Ms. Pappas indicates, Equality Utah is proposing new legislation in the above areas, including probate. Unfortunately, I can't locate the text of this legislation online; if I do, I'll post it.

| Share