Articles Posted in Estate Planning

The New York Times published an interesting story last week discussing the “psychic toll” paid by families working to raise a child with special needs. The article attempts to delve into some of the more nuanced issues related to conducting special needs planning to take care of the finances and long-term care issues for these loved ones. The basic tasks–often including things like creating a special needs trust–are not necessarily confusing or complex. However, that doesn’t mean the planning is easy. That is because there are a plethora of mental and emotional challenges that go into this work.

The author explains, for example, that simply deciding on the appropriate living situation for a family member with special needs can be emotionally and spiritually taxing, regardless of the financial issues tied into the decision. Should the child live at home for as long as possible? Is it better for him or her to move into a group home? What happens if the child lives at home but is then forced to move out into unfamiliar territory after the parents pass away? These and many similar questions must be discussed thoroughly to ensure long-term financial plans best matcht the family’s wishes.

On top of that, the story explains how working through this issues must be done in such as way as to ensure other family dynamics are kept intact. Stress and disagreement associated with these challenges has led to many divorces or other family feuds. It is helpful to be aware of these risks and make decisions in a manner that does not destroy important relationships. One frightening and oft-repeated statistic is that 75% of couples with a special needs child ultimately get divorced. Many have challenged that accuracy of that statistic, but it is accepted that various strains are placed on a relationship when raising a child with these challenges. Couples must undoubtedly be proactive in their planning efforts so that the situation is as controlled as possible. Leaving things up to chance and simply taking every new crisis fresh is a recipe for relationship drama.

Life insurance is an important piece of long-term financial security for local families. It is entirely reasonable for parents and family breadwinners to wish to provide some security to their loved ones in case the unthinkable happens. However, with money tight and uncertainty about financial security remaining, some are unsure about the benefits of life insurance. Those in the life insurance industry have argued recently that their market is shrinking and returns are dropping. To jump-start the industry, some are now turning to a new product to sell to more community members.

A recent story in “The Motley Fool” provides some context for the product that may or may not be a good fit for some local families. This unique insurance option is actually a prepaid life insurance policy. It has been called the “marvel of simplicity.” The product, spearheaded by a unique collaboration between MetLife and retail giant WalMart, is essentially a short-term one year life insurance policy that provides up to $25,000 in coverage. These are not huge sums, but the idea is to open the insurance up to a much larger market. MetLife likely sought out the arrangment so that they could tap into Walmart’s large consumer base while saving costs of middlemen broker fees.

Interstingly, this approach is not the first of its kind. In the past Canadian insurer Manulife offered life insurance products through the U.S.-based big retailer Costco. In addition, in the past Walmart has sold customer various financial products, even including things like mortgages.

The New York Times published an fascinating story this week on a foreign court ruling that is a testament to the way that estate wishes sometimes have ripples effects for decades and generations into the future. Of course, it is critical to note that the legal rules underlying this case are far different than what a New York court might determine. However, the principles of needing to think about estate plans and personal property distribution for many years into the future still holds.

The Kakfa Papers Inheritance

Franz Kakfka, the well-known and incrediby influential author of the early 20th century, wrote a number of books, short stories, and letters in his shortened life. One of Kakfa’s closest friends (and the executor of his estate) was the journalist Max Brod. Kafka died in 1924. When Mr. Brod fled from Europe in 1939 ( to avoid the Nazi invasion) he took with him a suitcase full of Kakfa papers. Mr. Brod died in 1968, leaving behind his own and Mr. Kafka’s papers as an inheritance to his secretary, Esther Hoffe. Ms. Hoffe lived in Tel Aviv where she kept the incredibly valuable documents. In 1988 Ms. Hoffe sold the manuscript for a Kafka story, “The Trial” for $2 million. However, scholars have not been able to view the rest of the materials since the 1980s.

Unfortunately, there is a tendancy to assume that so long as end-of-life affairs are reasonably spelled out, then everything will go as planned. The reality is that when making estate plans it is usually best to reiterate Murphy’s Law: “Everything that can go wrong, will go wrong.” It is only with that comprehensive planning, taking into account all possible scenarios, that true peace of mind is afforded. This need to be clear about taking into account all contingencies is even more prudent when larger estate are invovled. That is because money often brings out that most aggressive side of others. Even wishes that seem straight-forward might be complicated in the heat of a feud involving money or valuable proeprty.

The Kevorkian Example

Take, for example, a recent story on the estate of controversial doctor Jack Kevorkian. Shortly before the assisted-suicide proponent was to serve his stint in federal prison, he loaned at least 17 paintings to a museum. He ended up serving eight years before being paroled in 2007. He died about three years later at age 83. The executor of Kevorkian’s estate explained that it was his wish for the paintings to be returned to his estate and used to supplement the inheritance for his neice.

Mystery permanently surrounded the heiress Huguette Clark–a reclusive woman whose $300 million estate is often referred to as the last collection of wealth drawn from the American “Gilded Age.” Her father was a copper magnante many decades ago and was also a former senator from Montana. He is well known as the founder of the city of Las Vegas. Huguette inherited the fortune upon his (and her mother’s) passing. However, she never sought business or public notoriety like her father. Instead, she was intimately private. In fact, she reportedly spent the last twenty years of her life inside a New York City hospital–even when she was healthy enough to live on her own.

Huguette eventually passed away in May of last year. As often happens in cases of great wealth–particularly when there is much mystery surrounding one’s life–various fights ensued over control of the fortune.

A trial in the case is set to begin soon, according to a recent NBC report on the case.

Failing to use a living trust as part of one’s estate planning is one of the most common mistakes that local residents make. Relying solely on a will or (even worse) the intestate rules of succession, means that a family is forced to endure complex, stressful, and conflict-inducing hoops to pass on assets and otherwise handle end of life affairs. Trusts are far superior methods of ensuring one’s wishes are carried out in as direct a manner as possible.

However, as a Yuma Sun article this week reminded, creating the trust is only half the battle–it must also be funded.

What does it mean to fund a trust?

The importance of selecting a trustee to manage a trust or otherwise handle the affairs of an estate is hard to underestimate. There is a misconception that this task is always a “one-time” affair, with the individual (or individuals) taking care of various paperwork details after a death, and then being done. That is often not the case. Depending on the circumstances of one’s estate planning, the role of a trustee or others involved in these matters can last for years–or even decades.

One situation where that is vividly displayed is with celebrity estates–or those with extensive intellectual property rights. For example, the Hollywood Reporter discussed a legal fight this week involving Madonna and the estate of Marlon Brando. The disagreement stems from royalties that the estate claims it is owed after Madonna used images of Marlon Brando during her concerts. The images are a staple of Madonna’s performance of the song “Vogue” in which the lyrics include Brando’s name.

According to the story, Madonna planned to pay $3,750 to the estate every time that the image was used (once per concert). This fee was the same paid to the estate of a few other celebrities mentioned in the act–James Dean, Greta Garbo, and more.

It is a common TV and fiction fantasy: your life changes in the blink of an eye when you discover that you’ve inherited a fortune from an unknown relative who passed away. While the dream is far-fetched and rarely based on true-life, it is not entirely without precedent. Every once in awhile a story breaks involving an individual who inherits a significant sum of money due to state intestacy rules from someone to which they were related but did not really know.

Latest Case

For example, the Las Vegas Sun reported this week on the latest developments in a case where a substitute teacher found, to her surprise, that she was slated to inherit upwards of $10 million from a distance relative.

Late September is well-known as the official start of autumn. In the legal world, it also marks the beginning of the new United States Supreme Court term. Many legal observers keep close watch of court actions at this time to figure out what major issues might be decided in the upcoming year. That is because the Court is currently deciding exactly what cases to take for the upcoming term (which begins in October). Thousands of appeals are filed, but only a small fraction will actually be accepted. In many ways it is much harder to get a legal case heard than it is to actually win the case in front of the Court.

Some cases that the high court might hear this year could have implications on elder law or estate planning issues. The most high-profile of these related to same-sex marriage. There are two separate cases that the Court might take, both which would have different effects on the rights of same-sex couples–and their planning.

1) Constitutionality of DOMA: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has long been a bane for same-sex couples seeking equality in their planning. The law defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for federal purposes. That means that even couples legally married in their state, like New York, receive no federal recognition of their union. Appeals Courts have consistently found DOMA unconstitutional. The law continues to force same-sex couples to work around their lack of recognition of their union in estate planning and long-term care strategizing.

Not many years ago student loans and estate planning were rarely discussed in the same sentence. That is because in decades past far fewer individuals took out student loans and, even when they did, the size of the loans were smaller. Things are changing, however. Higher education is becoming more and more crucial to long-term employment and the cost of that education is increasing. These changes mean that more individuals have to take student loan obligations into account when conducting long-term financial planning. Those loans may the planner’s own loans or (even more likely) loans for children on which they co-signed.

In any event, more and more families have to take these issues into account in long-term planning. One issue on which there is much confusion is the discharge (or lack of discharge) of these obligations upon death.

Student Loan Obligations & Death

Contact Information