brooklyn estate planning

NEW YORK’S INTESTACY LAWS

Published on: May 9, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

As was outlined in the most recent blog posting, if you compare the costs and benefits of creating a will now versus passing away intestate, there is no doubt that the benefit is huge and the cost is small. It is thus high time to explore New York’s intestacy laws in detail. It is important to note that intestacy laws are important not only because they instruct a probate Judge on how the estate must be divided but it also tells the probate Court what is not permitted as well as what is neither required nor prohibited; in other words the parties can agree to certain final dispositions. The specific statute that defines intestacy and the outlines the specific requirements that a Court must adhere to is found at New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) Section 4-1.1.

Family Law and intestacy laws are one of the few areas of the law that recognizes and codifies a different treatment of the sexes, insofar EPTL Section 4-1.2 requires that a child conceived outside of marriage (so called and grossly titled “illegitimate” children) must have an acknowledgement of paternity by their father or a finding by a Court that the children in issue are indeed the children of the deceased man before those children can inherit as a child of the deceased. Not so with mothers, since, except in the case of children mistakenly switched following birth, there is no doubt that children are the issue of their mother.

The technical legal term when a person passes intestate is that their estate is administered and a person who passes with a will, called testate, has their will probated. Within the universe of individuals who are material to the probate Court are children, spouses and siblings. Adopted children at treated the same as biological children although unadopted stepchildren are not considered children as far as the intestacy law is concerned. New York has adoption proceedings and recognizes adult adoptions to legally redefine this relationship. Divorced spouses are immaterial, although separated spouse are still considered spouses as far as the law is concerned.

HOW TO ASSURE AN ESTATE BATTLE

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

HUGUETTE CLARK AS EXEMPLAR

The last member of the gilded age passed away just a few years ago. Huguette Clark’s life, in some ways, seems to mirror the classic Orson Welles classic

One of the first things that she did to insure an estate battle was to pass the entirety of her estate via a will. While the larger family itself may have created various trusts for family members to pass on the overwhelming wealth, Ms. Clark herself chose to pass her wealth via a will. While it is alleged that Ms. Clark’s attorney and accountant had something to do with these limited and financially irresponsible decisions, Ms. Clark did not create a trust to ensure the passage of her large and very valuable art collection to charity, which included a painting by Monet, valued at at least $25 million as well as a Picasso worth over $31 million.

THE GRAT – GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST – NOT JUST A TOOL FOR THE UBER WEALTHY

Published on: February 26, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Grantor retained annuity trust (GRATs) are tremendous tools not just for the ultra wealthy, such as Mark Zuckerberg and the other founders of facebook, it is an estate planning technique that allows for a trust grantor to avoid paying gift taxes on the assets that they place into the trust with the intention that they will pass that asset on to the next generation. They are ideal for any asset that will likely quickly appreciate in value and that will also pay a dividend. Most people automatically think of stocks, which makes sense, but it could also include real estate, patents, trademarks or other intellectual property or even a valuable piece of art or perhaps even valuable machinery or some other object that can be rented.

HOW IT WORKS

To create a GRAT, a person places their property into the trust and pays tax on the property at that time, with the lower value. The trust is structured such that during the life of the trust the grantor received an annuity payment from the corpus of the trust. If the grantor is alive at the end of the trust term, the beneficiary receives the property tax free. The grantor sets the term for a number of years for the GRAT to exist in advance. Basis is a tricky and can be a very beneficial advantage to use of the GRAT because the GRAT allows the grantor to substitute two different assets of the same value but different basis amounts at any time. Since the grantor paid from an annuity during the life of the trust, the grantor still enjoys largely the same benefits.

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.

LACKING IN MENTAL CAPACITY AND FAMILY, WHO DECIDES

Published on: November 6, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

On June 24, 2015 a trial Court in California invalidated a California law as unconstitutional, which created a default surrogate decision maker when that individual is mentally incapacitated and does not have a family member, or anyone else for that matter, to make key decisions for them. The law and the issues addressed are not limited to California. Even though by definition, the law deals with individuals with no proxy decision maker, that does not mean someone did not exist in the past or could not step up to become one. Proxy decision makers pass away themselves, they move or simply just fade away and no longer attend to their responsibilities. New York law deals with these issues in a rather collaborative way. In 2010, New York enacted the New York Family Health Care Decisions Act, which creates a decision ladder for medical professionals who need to know with whom to check with for certain critical decisions. It was designed to avoid the parade of horribles that the California law dealt with. Certainly, no one wants a loved one or relative, even a distant relative, to have to rely on these provisions; they are used as a last resort.

DETERMINATION OF INCAPACITY

In the absence of a health care proxy, The New York Family Health Care Decisions Act begins to shape decisions, for all intents and purposes, at the time of the determination of incapacity.

WHAT OF MY ESTATE PLANNING IF MOVE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION?

Published on: November 3, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Say you live here in New York and made significant plans to avoid probate. You have a will, own a business that you pass on and even set aside significant assets for your grandchildren. You worked hard to put your financial house in order. Now you find out that you have to move to another jurisdiction for work and will likely be there for some time. More likely than not your will and other plans to avoid probate will survive as legally enforceable documents in the new jurisdiction. Nevertheless, you worked hard for your plans to be finalized and do not want to live with the idea that “more likely than not” your plans will be followed. As such, it is always best to check with a local estate planning and review your plans.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

There are a few things to keep in mind when it comes to decisions on where to live and changes in law and nuances on how to handle the change. Most laws are relatively uniform throughout the country. Procedure may be different but substantive laws are similar in many cases. Except when they are not. Some issues have two different ways of handling things. A good example is common law states versus community property states. Community property states are generally Rocky Mountain states and west (Louisiana and Wisconsin are the exceptions). There are some important differences in their approach to passing on assets between the two camps. Another factor to address is that you need to clarify your residence or domicile or you may end up paying taxes in two different states, as what happened to the heir to the Campbell’s soup fortune in 1939.