Articles Posted in Estate Administration

Trusts provide a valuable tool in estate planning because they serve the purposes of preserving assets, protecting intended beneficiaries, and potentially saving or eliminating estate taxes. A trust is a legal document that conveys a “corpus”, or body of assets, from the settlor (the person who creates the trust and owns to assets) to a trustee (the individual or corporate entity with the responsibility of holding the assets) for the benefit of the beneficiary (the person who will ultimately receive the proceeds of the trust). A charitable organization may also be the beneficiary of a trust.

These documents should be drafted by skilled legal professionals and signed in accordance with New York State Law . Trustees selected should be responsible and qualified for the tasks required. In addition, the age of the trustee should be considered. It is not sensible to appoint a trustee who may be eighty years old when he needs to perform his duties, or a trustee who does not have a good working relationship with the beneficiary. In some cases, clients may decide to appoint a corporate trustee, such as a bank or brokerage, so that the beneficiaries do not outlive the individual trustee (requiring a Court procedure to appoint a new trustee if the trust does not name a substitute) or if they do not otherwise have an appropriate individual to act as trustee.

There are potential advantages and disadvantages of trusts that will be discussed in this blog post. If assets are in multiple states, a trust can more efficiently distribute assets as opposed to the alternative, a probate proceeding in one state followed by ancillary probate proceedings in other states to dispose of specific assets. It is a myth that trusts always allow for estate tax savings, as individual circumstances may vary. Further, trusts are separate taxable entities, and are required to file income tax returns, just as an individual would be required.

The fiftieth anniversary of the March on Washington was recently acknowledged, celebrating the great civil rights battle for equality for our African-American citizens. More recently, same-sex couples have also been engaged in their own battle for equal treatment in issues such as the right to marry, taxation, health and pension benefits, and similar property and economic matters.

In June, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”). DOMA specified that “…the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman…and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”. The case at issue involved a lesbian couple who were married in Canada. One of the parties died and left her estate to her partner. The surviving widow filed the federal estate tax return that was due. Because the federal government did not consider the couple married for estate tax purposes, the estate was not qualified to apply the marital deduction available to heterosexual married couples, increasing the estate tax bill by several hundred thousand dollars. The Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of equal protection principles and an infringement on state sovereignty for the federal government to maintain such a position. In Windsor, the Court determined that same-sex married couples are to be treated as married heterosexual couples and ordered the refund of the excessive tax payment.

In late August, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service issued a subsequent ruling that legally married same-sex couples will be recognized as married, even if the state in which they live does not recognize same-sex marriages. Our readers should know that two legal standards are at play. The “place of celebration” standard mandates that a couple will receive benefits as long as they are legally married, regardless of whether the state in which they now live recognizes the union. The “place of residence” standard mandates that if the state in which the couple lives does not recognize their union, then the couple will not receive benefits.

Our readers may be aware of an unusual estate litigation in New York City. Huguette Clark died in 2011 at the age of 104. Being the only surviving child of a copper mining magnate, she left a fortune of approximately three hundred million dollars. Ms. Clark was also highly eccentric. After being hospitalized for a purported legitimate medical condition in New York’s Beth Israel Medical Center, she spent her last decades housed in that hospital, despite having an apartment on Fifth Avenue and at least one mansion in which to reside.

Two Wills are being contested in the litigation, both of which were made within one month of each other when Ms. Clark was 98 years old, six years before her death. The first Will left her estate to distant relatives who were not named and with whom she did not have a personal relationship. The second Will disinherited the distant relatives, increased the bequest to her caregiver, left a bequest to a goddaughter and established a foundation. An art museum in Washington, DC is challenging a bequest of artwork, instead advocating for cash. The state and federal estate taxing authorities are involved in the litigation because additional estate taxes will be due should the case be determined in a particular way.

While due to the large sums of money involved, many people cannot relate to the problems that have arisen in this case, even smaller estates can be subject to some of the same issues. For instance, dying without surviving close relatives opens the door to distant relatives such as first cousins once removed having the authority to challenge a Will offered for probate. In addition, estrangement from close relatives who are not beneficiaries under the Will could result in a Will challenge. People without living relatives or who have estranged relationships are vulnerable to intrusion into their estate plan by caregivers and institutions in their final years. Would Beth Israel Medical Center have allowed Ms. Clark to remain for decades, even if she paid for her housing, if a large bequest had not been negotiated? While the caregiver was undoubtedly of great value to Ms. Clark, did the dependence engendered by the relationship encourage too large a bequest?

Our readers who follow politics know that members of Congress have battled in recent years with respect to revisions to the tax law. Specifically, estate, gift, and income taxes have been subject to adjustments. The purpose of this blog post is not to describe the specific changes made to these laws. The laws in this area are fluid and heavily influenced by politics, making them subject to change at almost any time. Because our readers cannot rely on consistency in the tax law, they must be mindful of their estate plans, beneficiary designations, and means by which title is held. The goal is so that intended recipients receive intended assets and that taxes are reduced as much as legally possible.

Further, while some of the tax laws have been revised at the Federal level, they have not been so adjusted in New York State. As such, estates valued at more than one million dollars are subject to New York State estate tax. In the New York metropolitan area, it is easy to accumulate one million dollars in assets, which could be deemed the value of real estate (net of the balance of a mortgage), life insurance policies that are considered to be revocable and other assets.

In any tax climate, estate planning will always be needed for the purpose of naming guardians for minor children, providing for beneficiaries with special needs such as those with physical or mental disabilities, identifying those persons desired to serve as executors and for establishing business succession plans. People with property in multiple states also require estate planning services, as different states may have their own estate tax, necessitating strategies to achieve tax reduction. In addition, same sex couples require estate planning, even if they reside in a state where they are considered legally married, to determine the allocation of assets in other states and to ensure that the spouse receives intended assets, rather than blood relatives.

This blog post contains a description of some of the standard substantive objections that a person may have to the admission of a Will to probate. Estate practitioners deem these objections the “four horsemen”. Due execution, testamentary capacity, undue influence and fraud comprise the four horsemen.

Due execution is known as the Statute of Wills. The proponent of the Will must show by the fair preponderance of the evidence that the Will was signed at its physical end in the presence of at least two disinterested witnesses. At the time of execution, the person making the Will should make it known to the witnesses that he is signing his Will and wants the witnesses to act as witnesses. Due execution is assumed if an attorney supervised the Will execution “ceremony” and if the Will contains the legal attestation clause. Our firm is mindful of New York’s execution requirements and conducts the Will signings that it supervises in accordance with the statute.

Testamentary capacity, the ability to make a Will, is broadly defined as every person over eighteen years of age who is of sound mind and memory. The Court will look to the testator’s capacity at the time that the Will was executed. Elements that the Court will consider include whether the testator understood the meaning of the Will’s provisions, the nature and extent of his property and the “natural objects of his bounty” (the identity of his family members or friends). Old age, dementia, and physical infirmaries such as blindness are not automatic disqualifiers depending upon the condition of the person when he signed his Will.

Inquiries are often made of our firm as to whether a claim can be made which may dispute the terms of another person’s Will and the proper time and legal mechanism for doing so. This post will address the issues that arise in a Will contest. As our readers may know , when a person dies with a Will, the proposed Executor must submit the original Will and other required documents to the Surrogate’s Court in the County in which the deceased resided and request that Letters Testamentary be issued appointing the person as Executor. This process is called probate.

In the probate proceeding, the Surrogate’s Court will require a signed Waiver and Consent from all distributees (those who would inherit if there was no Will) or proof of service of a Citation should these parties be unwilling to sign the Waiver and Consent. The time between the service of the Citation on an objectant and the return date of the Citation (the date scheduled by the Court to hear objections to the admission of the Will to probate or else the proposed Executor will be appointed) is the appropriate time to submit objections to the Will.

New York statute grants broad authority to file objections to the probate of a Will. Essentially, any person who would be adversely affected if the subject Will is admitted to probate may file objections. One exception to this broad rule is that good cause must be shown if the basis of the objectant’s claim is the disqualification from receiving commissions as a fiduciary.

For various reasons, not everyone dies has a Will that disposes of their property and identifies the person authorized to manage such distribution. In such a case, the surviving heirs should engage the services of an attorney to submit a Petition to the Surrogate’s Court in the County in which the deceased resided for Letters of Administration. Once duly appointed by the Court, the Administrator has similar powers to an executor for an estate. The Administrator locates, collects and distributes assets and settles claims and liabilities against the estate.

When a person dies without a Will (legally known as “intestate”), their assets will be distributed to particular classes of relatives, in the order prescribed by Estates Powers and Trusts Law Section 4-1.1 . For instance, if a person left no surviving spouse, children, or parents, his assets would be inherited by his sister. The common perception that the assets of a person dying without a Will “go to the state” is a myth when a relative in the proper class has survived the deceased. In an administration proceeding, the person who will inherit the assets is the proper person to act as petitioner and commence the proceeding. Survivors who have superior or equal rights to be appointed Administrator (such as siblings of the proposed Administrator) are to submit a Waiver, Renunciation and Consent to the appointment of the Administrator along with the Petition.

The petitioner is required to confirm that she conducted a diligent search in the deceased’s personal papers and safe deposit box, but did not find a Will. Such a diligent search should also include the Surrogate’s Court record retention files, in the event that the deceased filed her Will with the Court.