Estate Planning

UNDERSTANDING CELEBRITY BONDS

Published on: February 11, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

DAVID BOWIE BONDS

As the world learned, David Bowie passed away on January 10, 2016. Mr. Bowie was always on the leading edge of creativity, an advocate for meaningful social change and a musical genius to boot. He started his musical career at the same time as the Beatles, Rolling Stones and the Who and remained just as socially relevant, if not more so, compared to his contemporaries. As well as being a singer and songwriter, Mr. Bowie was also an accomplished actor and painter. More pertinent to the topic of estate planning, Mr. Bowie was a trailblazer in financial or investment products. In 1997, Mr. Bowie issued Bowie bonds, the first of any celebrity bonds. Since their initial offering, many credit agencies downgraded Bowie bonds status to just one level above junk bond status. True to form, Mr. Bowie was a first, with many other talented artists following suit.

BACKGROUND TO MR. BOWIE’S FORTUNE

FEDERAL COURT EXCEPTION TO PROBATE JURISDICTION

Published on: February 6, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

FEDERAL COURTS ARE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

There is little question that Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. If there is neither original jurisdiction, meaning a question of federal law or rights that arise as a result of federal legislation nor complete diversity of the parties, meaning that all of the defendants domicile in a different jurisdiction from the plaintiffs home state, then there is no jurisdiction for a federal Court to preside over a case. In all matters of diversity jurisdiction, the matter has to involve at least $75,000 in property or damages. Certainly at least some probate cases fit into the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Yet, there is generally a federal Court hands off approach to dealing with probate cases, known as the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.

A famous case from 1946 in the United States Supreme Court held that a federal Court can adjudicate various suits against a decedents estate, so long as they do not assume general jurisdiction over the probate proceeding itself or assume control over the property that is properly in the hands of the state probate Court. Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946). The meets and bounds of this holding have caused volumes of case law and law journal articles. It was not until 2006 with the celebrity, Anna Nicole Smith case that came before the United States Supreme Court that the Court expounded on the federal probate exception in any meaningful regards. Specifically the Supreme Court held that when one court is adjudicating a claim over a specific piece of property (or in the case of an estate, a bundle of property rights) a second court will not assume jurisdiction over the same property.

PLANNING FOR MARRIED MEDICAID APPLICANT’S COMMUNITY SPOUSE – COMMUNITY SPOUSE INCOME

Published on: February 1, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

When a married person applies for Medicaid, the government looks at the collected, or, pooled, resources of the two to determine if one of the two spouses is eligible for Medicaid. If the combined income of the two spouses is above the income threshold set by law, the balance must be paid to the nursing home of the dependent spouse. But what income provisions are allowed for the spouse who remains in the community? What do the get to keep? Is the community spouse allowed to tap into the income of the dependent spouse if his/her income is not enough?

The legal, financial benefits that allow for the community spouse to keep a certain amount of income has the terrible name of spousal impoverishment standards. This contains an amount of money, known as the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance (commonly known as or referred to as the MMMNA). The figure from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 is $1,991.25 per month. Starting on January 1, 2016 the maximum monthly maintenance needs allowance is set at $2,980.50 per month. This is the maximum the community spouse may keep before being required to contribute to the medical needs of the dependent spouse (NOT minimum, so not to be confused with the MMMNA).

WHAT IF THIS IS NOT ENOUGH?

DISINHERITED HEIRS NOT ALWAYS A SURPRISE

Published on: January 15, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

It happens often enough that a parent for many reasons decides to disinherit one, several or all of his/her children. At the same time, this is often not a controversial decision and is just as common both understandable and predicable. Perhaps a person promised their estate to a specific child, stepchild or niece or nephew for taking care of them instead of being required to be sent to a long term continuing care facility. Perhaps the parent provided financial largesse to his/her via college education, graduate school and even helped them purchase a house but had one child who had special needs who always lived at home and insured that child’s future by funding a trust during his/her lifetime and then disinherited all of his/her other children by putting the whole of the estate into the trust.

Mickey Rooney was a very well known and well paid actor that had a long career, with many children and many marriages and disinherited his children. He instead left his estate to his stepson and explained that his kids were better off than he was. By the time Mr. Rooney passed, his estate dwindled to just about $18,000, so there was little incentive for any of his kids to contest the will, although the same did not hold true for Mr. Rooney’s then current spouse. Unfortunately for some families, this can be a shock and there are sufficient incentives for the family to contest the will.

INVALIDATING THE WILL

PRETERMITTED OR OMITTED CHILDREN NOT ADDRESSED IN A WILL

Published on: January 11, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Contrary to the European model, American parents are legally free to disinherit their children, but at the same time, they cannot simply forget or omit their children in their will by mistake. If the child is specifically addressed in the will and, at the same time, the will either fails to pass any property or assets on the child or specifically disinherits the child, there is nothing that the child can do to inherit something from the estate, aside from invalidating the will and potentially inheriting under the intestacy statutes. Children born after a will is created and not properly addressed in the will, via language that is expansive and inclusive that undoubtedly includes even children born or adopted after the specific will is created are referred to in the law by the ungainly term pretermitted children.

Not surprisingly it comes from a latin verb meaning to overlook or forget. New York’s law that addresses pretermitted children and found at NY EPTL §5-3.2, only addresses children born after the creation of a last will and not otherwise provided for by other means, such as life insurance proceeds, a trust or other assets. The children that fall under the pretermitted law protections are entitled to whatever the other children who are addressed in last will. Oddly enough, if the children born before the creation of the will are mentioned but unprovided for, the pretermitted child will not inherit anything. Indeed, the law specifically addresses this possibility, insofar as it indicates that “(1) If the testator has one or more children living when he executes his last will, and: (A) No provision is made therein for any such child, an after-born child is not entitled to share in the testator’s estate.” NY EPTL §5-3.2. Certainly there are many problems with this, insofar as some parents specifically disinherit their children. Anna Nicole Smith disinherited her son in her last will and then had a baby daughter only a short time prior to her passing away, without any change in her will.

RATHER COMMON PROBLEM WITH SIMPLE SOLUTION

LET GO OF MY INHERITANCE – INTERFERENCE WITH AN EXPECTANCY

Published on: January 6, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

WRONGFUL INTERFERENCE WITH WILL

It is known by many different names, depending on the state and the era. Most recently it made its appearance in news headlines with the name – intentional interference with expected inheritance, sometimes even shortened it IIEI. The United States Supreme Court referred to it as “a widely recognized” cause of action and as the “tort of interference with a gift or inheritance” in the Anna Nicole Smith case. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 296 (2006). The matter has surfaced in the news over at least the last century, most famously (perhaps infamously) in the Father Divine case in New York, in 1949. Latham v. Father Divine, 299 N.Y. 22 (1949).

The American Law Institute published the The Restatement of Torts (Second) of Torts in 1979. That was the first time that the tort, known by many names, was formally recognized as such. Prior to this, the principal and concept was recognized but only in the most egregious of circumstances. There are several seminal cases that speak to the larger concept, one of which was the New York case dealing with Father Divine case noted above.

HOW REVOCABLE IS MY IRREVOCABLE TRUST

Published on: December 27, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS COSTS AND BENEFITS

Trusts are valuable estate planning devices that allow for the transmission of wealth with lower tax liability. When proper estate management is picked, they also allow for the creation of future income, potentially allowing for the life of the trust in perpetuity. Trusts also allow for the beneficiaries to benefit from the income of the corpus of the trust, yet insure that their creditors cannot obtain the income producing assets itself. The same also applies for a financially irresponsible beneficiary, in that it provides income but prevents the financially irresponsible beneficiary from squandering the income producing asset. One of the most popular types of trusts is the irrevocable trust. As with anything in life, there are upsides and downsides; one of the downsides to an irrevocable trust is that in most circumstances, and, more particularly, most states, an irrevocable trust is usually irrevocable. Unwinding an irrevocable trust when it no longer functions as it should, due to, for example, a major change in the estate and gift tax law is possible but must be done correctly, whereby the assets from the trust may be transferred or gifted to the beneficiaries or the settlor if still alive.

WHY TO MODIFY OR REVOKE?

INVALIDATING A WILL

Published on: December 21, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

WHAT HAPPENS IF A WILL IS INVALIDATED?

Wills are perhaps the most basic and simple form of passing on property and the transmission of wealth from one generation to the next. It allows the testator to give away the property and money that they own and have on hand as they see fit. A person can write a person out of a will, with certain limitations, include another non-child in the distribution and treat them as if they were a child or even leave it all to a charity. While the vast majority of wills are honored and respected without question, there is always the possibility that a potential heir may contest a will. In the event a will is invalidated a Surrogate’s Court must still resolve the issue of how and to whom shall the property be distributed. One possible way of dealing with issue of distributing the property if a will is invalidated is to utilize the state’s default, intestate distribution scheme. Another means is to revive a previous, otherwise valid will. This latter method is called the doctrine of dependent relative revocation.

DOCTRINE OF RELATIVE REVOCATION

ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN IRS RULES REGARDING FAMILY BUSINESS VALUATIONS

Published on: December 8, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

WHY IT MATTERS FOR ESTATE PLANNING

Every year the Federal Department of Treasury publishes the greenbook which outlines the then current presidential administration’s revenue proposals, tax policies, job creation issues that relate to the Department of Treasury and other related fiscal and policy issues. The greenbook is scrutinized by tax pundits, politicians and others for what it contains, but what it does not contain is also important. Within the 2013 greenbook, there was an obvious lack of discussion of 26 U.S.C. § 2704, which mandates how the law measures the value of certain family controlled entities for estate and gift tax purposes. Some observers took that to indicate that the IRS plans on amending the regulations pursuant to this statute. This suspicion was validated when an official from the Department of Treasury spoke at an American Bar Association, tax section meeting in May, 2015. She indicated that a proposed regulation may be released as early as September, 2015. As of mid-November 2015 such regulations have yet to be published. This issue is of substantial import for estate planning throughout the nation. If and when a family business is transferred via an estate or even to a trust created by an owner of the business, it is likely be a taxable event, depending on the specifics of the transaction.

PASSING A FAMILY BUSINESS ON TO NEXT GENERATION

INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN

Published on: December 5, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

GROWING LEGAL ISSUE

The federal Department of Health and Human Services estimates that there are currently approximately 600,000 frozen embryos in the United States and the number continues to grow each year. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 60,000 could be implanted for full term pregnancy. In still other cases, a father or mother may freeze and store some sperm or eggs for future family planning purposes. In either event, a mother must have artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization or the embryo implanted. It is possible, even likely, that some of these embryos may be implanted and born after the passing of the father or mother with the use of a surrogate mother. The legal rights of these posthumously conceived children are still being fleshed out in legislatures and courtrooms throughout the country. In 2012, the United State Supreme Court dealt with rights of a posthumously conceived child to the Social Security survivor’s benefits of the deceased parent in Astrue v. Capato.

FEDERAL AND NEW YORK LAW