Trusts and Estates Wills and Probate Tax Saving Strategies Medicaid

Schedule an in-office, Zoom or phone consultation Here.

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.

The acting commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Services for Aging, Veterans and Youth penned an article this week on the toll that elder caregiving takes on family members throughout the state. The purpose of the piece was two-fold: to recognize the amazing work done by so many local residents and to remind community members of the immense benefit of planning for the elder care they will likely need down the road.

The article, published in the Poughkeepsie Journal this week, refers to the recent AARP study which found that a staggering 42% of working-age U.S. citizens provided some form of unpaid elder care, with half of all citizens expecting to do that in the coming five years. In other words, this is not an isolated concern that affects “other people.” All of us, at one time or another, will have to deal with this situation.

Sadly, as noted in the AARP Report, the effect of providing this care (averaging 20 hours per week) is often more far-reaching than many suspect. It is not uncommon for elder caregivers to face limited work flexibility, denied leave, or even termination from their own paid job as a result of the care they are providing to their senior friend or family member. All of this is on top of data which suggests that senior caregivers has negative health consequences of their own. A MET Life study on the issue found that poor health was more common among those helping senior in poor health themselves.

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?

In recent years there has been a push to alter care for seniors with dementia. Most arguments about superior elder care focus on limiting medication-only treatment options. These “chemical restraints” are still overused, with seniors in many nursing homes lulled into a near-stupor as a result of antipsychotic medication. In overcrowded or understaffed long-term care facilities, these drugs are often the only way that caregivers feel that they can handle the challenges that come with dementia and Alzheimer’s care.

However, just because medication is the most common way to deal with a resident with dementia does not mean that it is the best way. In fact, many elder care advocates argue that the best care steers clear of overuse of medication and provides tailored care that focuses on the individual senior and not the cognitive disease.

What does that individual care look like? One Bronx nursing home is receiving national plaudits for its work on the issue.

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.

Contact Information