Wills

Adding Candidates & Political Parties to Your Estate Plan

Published on: August 8, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

How should you decide who you should name as beneficiaries in your estate planning documents? For many, the answer is not too complicated: leave it all to the children. However, just because that model is the most common form of passing on assets does not mean that there are not others who you might like to leave something. For many, designating beneficiaries in a will and trust documents is an important way to re-iterate their values, morals, and interests one final time. After all, estate planning is about legacy-building.

Charitable contributions are common, as New Yorkers seek to help out their favorite causes one final time. Similarly, many residents decide to leave assets to political causes. The total amount donated to political parties and candidates this way is actually quite substantial. However, because of campaign finance laws, there are some additional complications when making these bequests.

Political Beneficiaries

Update: Gandolfini’s Estate Faces Huge Estate Tax Liability

Published on: July 15, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Last week we discussed the recently unearthed will of former Sopranos star James Gandolfini. The document was filed with a Manhattan court late last month, with the actor’s assets being left to a wide range of people including his two children, wife, sisters, and several friends. Those earlier reports noted that Gandolfini’s assets including life insurance, real estate in Italy, and more. All told he allegedly had more than $70 million in assets.

With fortunes of that size, estate taxes are obviously an immediate concern. There are both federal and state taxes that apply to inheritances. The rates for each are different and they take effect at different income levels. Federal estate taxes apply to non-exempt assets over $5.25 million with a top rate of 40%. Alternatively, New York’s separate tax kicks in at assets over $1 million with rates between 5% and 16%.

Considering there are two levels of taxation and rates that are not trivial, it is critical to account for these potential taxes in an estate plans. Attorneys working on these issues for local residents must be intimately aware of all legal options to guard against the largest tax bills.

Estate Planning Tips from the Stars – James Gandolfini’s Will Filed in Manhattan

Published on: July 9, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Last month many in the entertainment world were shocked and saddened by the sudden death of New Yorker James Gandolfini at the age of 51. His passing from an apparent heart attack is a somber reminder that none of us know for sure what the future holds.

This week reports were released discussing some of the estate details. Gandolfini’s will was made public and filed with a court in Manhattan. Wills are public documents when filed with the court. The only way to keep these matters private is by using trusts and other devices which transfer property automatically without the need to go through the probate process–Gandolfini did make some arrangements outside of the will that are not known publicly.

Gandolfini Will

Per Stirpes – What Is It?

Published on: July 2, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

If you read a bit about estate planning you may come across the term “Per Stirpes.” It is an awkward phrase to say, and there is little reason to use it outside the context of inheritance planning. It comes up when one lays out their inheritance designations, perhaps with a phrase like, “Fifty percent of the estate to Bob and Tom per stirpes.” Similarly, it may be written as “by representation.” This usually refers to the same thing.

So what is it? The short answer: Per Stirpes is Latin for “by the roots.” But that translation doesn’t help much. What it means in estate planning terms is that if the beneficiary dies then their descendants will get their share of the estate.

For example, say that the estate is worth $100,000. Per the terms of the will 50% of the estate should be split between Bob and Tom, with each getting $25,000. But what if Tom is not alive when he is set to receive that inheritance? Does Bob get his share instead? If the will stated that Bob and Tom were to receive their share on a per stirpes basis then the answer is No. Bob would not get the extra share. Instead, that share would go to Tom’s descendants–his own children. If Tom had one child, that child would get $25,000. If he had two children, then those children would split the $25,000.

Trying to “Woo” Inclusion Into The Will of Heiress Huguette Clark

Published on: June 3, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

The New York Times shared a story late last week on developments in the settling of the estate of copper heiress Huguette Clark. It is a reminder of the sensitive nature of estate planning, particularly for those with wealth, and the lengths that all involved parties may go to influence one’s decisions regarding inheritance.

As many know, Ms. Clark was very reclusive, living the final two decades of her life at the Beth Israel Medical Center, even though for most of that time she did not actually need hospital care. According to new reports (and allegations from family members), almost as soon as she arrived the hospital engaged in a complex campaign to receive donations from the heiress. Apparently the facility had administrative officials sent to her frequently to build trust. After some time the officials, including the hospital’s CEO allegedly, began talking with her about creating a will. All of this was after officials researched the family history in the hopes of making a more personalized connection with Ms. Clark. It goes without saying that this sort of treatment is not provided to all patients at the facility.

All of this is only recently being made public as part of a high-profile legal challenge filed by some of Clark’s relatives angling for a larger share of her $300 million estate. The legal challenges began almost immediately after her death in 2011, and they are still raging. A trial in the matter is scheduled for September.

Family Claims Women Looking to “Fleece” Estate After Man’s Murder

Published on: May 24, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Earlier this month we discussed the unique estate issues connected to the murder of a wealthy investor named Raveesh Kumra. Mr. Kumra was murdered during a robbery late last year. It has since been learned that the suspects include several men with connections to alleged prostitutes with whom Kumra apparently was connected. It is a tragic situations all the way around, and the man’s family was understandably blindsided by the situation.

Making matters worse, a significant battle over Kumra’s estate has been waged by various parties since the death. It is an example of the unique court challenges that often result when comprehensive estate planning is not conducted and all possible issues are not analyzed as part of that plan.

Out-of-Wedlock Children

May is “Leave a Legacy” Month

Published on: May 22, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Virtually every month now has multiple awareness labels attached to them as advocates for various causes seek to raise public support for different causes. For example, this month is known in some international circles as “Leave a Legacy” month. Considering that many New Yorkers continue to delay estate planning and otherwise put off getting long-term affairs in order, this is certainly an awareness campaign that we can get behind.

In fact, some advocates are using a New York example as a reminder. We discussed the case last week of a man who apparently left his $40 million estate to no one, meaning that the funds will be end up in the state coffers. While most do not leave behind estates of that size, failing to create a will or designate how to allocate assets is far too common.

Estate Planning is About Your Legacy

Developments in Anthony Marshall Case – Brooke Astor Estate Fiasco

Published on: April 29, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Celebrity estate planning complications and feuds are often used to illustrate basic planning principles or common problems. Perhaps none of those examples are as well-known, especially for New Yorkers, as the sad case of the estate of Brooke Astor. The legendary socialite and philanthropist died several years ago. Since her passing, a wide-range of claims were made regarding the distribution of her assets and criminal activity on the part of those responsible for her care and affairs in the later years of her life.

Astor reportedly suffered from Alzheimer’s at the end of her life–an affliction that similarly affects many New York seniors. Unfortunately, also like many others, it seems that her condition was abused by the very people who were supposed to look-out for her.

Astor’s son, Brooke Marshall, was criminally charged with exploiting his mother to funnel more money to himself. Marshall was ultimately convicted, along with a co-defendant, of illegally giving himself a $2 million “raise” to administer the estate. Claims also suggested that an amendment to Astor’s will in 2004 included a forged signature.

The DuPont Case, Mental Illness, and Wills

Published on: April 26, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Residents are often warned to complete their estate planning–wills and trusts–before it is “too late.” Most assume that the planning is only “too late” if they die before getting it done. But that is a mistake. In many cases “too late” actually refers to losing the competency to create the legal documents. As a practical matter, it may even mean before one even has the appearance of mental health issues, because even a hint of problems may open the door to legal challenge from others.

Estate planning is about ensuring one’s wishes are carried out and maximizing the preservation of assets without controversy. Limiting that controversy includes completing the planning early and efficiently, minimizing the risk of problems down the road. Thought of in that way, “too late” is far earlier than simply “before you die.”

John duPont Estate

New Case: Inheritance Rights of “Adopted Out” Children in New York

Published on: April 17, 2013 | by Ettinger Law Firm

A case recently came before a New York court that delved into a very unique inheritance issue. The case, Matter of Svenningsen involved the inheritance rights of “rejected” adopted children. “Rejected” is a harsh word, but refers to children who were adopted and whose adopted parents terminate parental rights. It is a rare occurrence, but various health issues or circumstantial factors may make such change in parental rights necessary in some cases.

The circumstances in the Svenningsen case are somewhat complex. Essentially, a New York family adopted a child, Emily, from China in 1996. The family had executed a trust in 1995 the had specifically included adopted children. A second trust was executed in 1996 that specifically named Emily. Sadly, the patriarch of the family died the following year, in 1997.

Eventually, Emily began attending a boarding school for children with special needs. Apparently Emily developed a close bond with those working at the school. As such, several years later, in 2003, Emily’s adopted mother agreed to terminate her parental rights under the assumption that Emily would be adopted by one of the director’s of her boarding school. No mention of Emily’s trust was provided during that second adoption hearing.