manhattan estate planning

WILL DOES NOT REVOKE PREVIOUS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO TRUST

Published on: April 25, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

BEST LAID PLANS DO NOT ALWAYS WORK OUT

A case with an interesting factual background came out of Texas recently. While it was based on Texas law and the case is binding in only Texas, the legal principles discussed by the Court are equally applicable to New York or any other jurisdiction for that matter. More importantly, the set of events that gave rise to the case could happen anywhere. It just so happened that it occured in Texas rather than New York or somewhere else. The Texas Court of Appeals case of Gordon v. Gordon revolved around a trust that took ownership of a specific peace of real estate property and how that transaction related to a will signed subsequent to the trust. More specifically, the Court determined that the act of creating and endorsing a will by the testator subsequent to the transfer of the real estate did not overturn or cancel the previous transfer of the real estate to the trust. The will, however, contained language that by endorsing the will, the testator supersedes all previous transactions indicated in the trust documents, such as annuities or certificates of deposit. It never mentioned the real estate.

In 2009 (Mother) Beverly Gordon and (Father) Patrick Gordon executed a trust document which they funded with personal property and real estate. The very terms of the trust indicated that the trust could only be revoked by either Father or Mother and only by following the specific set of instructions laid out in the trust document, namely by signing and delivering a letter to the trustee. The letter had to indicate that they individually or jointly are going to cancel or revoke the trust. The trust further provided that upon the death of either of them the trust become irrevocable. They funded the trust with personal property and real estate. Soon thereafter, their son John sought to reduce the risk of an estate battle by creating a will that specifically stated that the parties want to cancel the terms of the trust. Neither Mr. Gordon nor Mrs. Gordon did anything to transfer their personal property or real estate out of the trust. Moreover, John did not act to convince his parents to move the property out of the trust. Mr. Gordon passed away within a year of signing the new will.

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.

IRS ART ADVISORY PANEL

Published on: March 14, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

GOVERNMENT HAS BEST AT HAND – FOR FREE

Whenever a taxpayer submits tax documents that deal with a work of art or of cultural significance that is valued at least $50,000, according to the taxpayer’s own estimate, the IRS goes through a process by which it independently evaluates the items. The IRS has on hand the very best of the best when it evaluates art and cultural items. More specifically, it has the Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which is composed of the very best of the best when it comes to art evaluation. Better still, at least from the perspective of the IRS, they are volunteers and only reimbursed for travel and related costs.

It is relatively easy to understand that they would evaluate paintings, such as Degas, Monet and Van Gogh or photographs from the likes of Matthew Brady, Edward Curtis or Dorothea Lange. But things such as collections of samurai swords, vases and other decorative items from Tang era China, and even doll collections also are considered. The panel may not have a very important sounding name, but they do wield considerable influence over particular tax cases. Any time a work of art worth more than $50,000 changes hand, is donated to charity or gifted, the government wants to know the true value of the property.

WHAT HAPPENS IF MY HEIRS OR BENEFICIARIES PASS AWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS ME?

Published on: March 4, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

MODERN PROBLEM WITH ANCIENT ROOTS

New York is one of approximately 19 states, along with the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands to specifically adopt the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act in some significant form or another. The law was drafted in 1940 and amended through the decades, last time in 1993. It was written by the Uniform Law Commission in an effort to provide uniformity and the accompanying benefits that uniformity provide across the 50 plus jurisdictions that exist in these United States. Of course each state is free to adopt the uniform act in its entirety, part of the law or just use it as a template to base a similar but different law on it.

New York adopted the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act, at least in part, early on in the early 1940s. By 1944 at least 24 states and the then Territory of Hawaii also adopted the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act. It was designed in large part to address the issue of when two or more people pass away in a common disaster, with no meaningful difference in the order of death. For example, if both father and son or husband and wife both pass away in a tragic automobile accident. Such tragedies were much more commonplace in previous decades with the rapid and significant increase in medical technology. Not surprisingly reports of how the law was resolve such legal technicalities goes back centuries, to at least 1784. Even ancient Roman law had presumptions in place to deal with such tragedies.

INHERITING A ROTH IRA ACCOUNT

Published on: February 17, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

ROTH IRA ACCOUNTS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT

This blog explored the topic of inheriting an individual retirement account (IRA) in a previous blog. It is necessary to explore the topic of inheriting a Roth IRA, as a Roth IRA is fundamentally different from a traditional IRA. Some of the differences between a Roth IRA and a traditional IRA:

Taxing event – The money going into a Roth IRA is taxed prior to going into the account, while a traditional IRA is generally deposited as pre-taxed income and only taxed after withdrawal from the IRA.

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.

Using Beneficiaries as Part of Your Estate Plan – Part II: Considerations

Published on: October 13, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

An earlier post on this blog provided an overview of using beneficiary designations as part of your estate plan. Recall that beneficiary designations are a way to transfer property automatically upon the death of the asset owner outside of the probate process. This post is part II of that discussion, and include some of the pros and cons of using beneficiary designations, as well as a few special considerations related to certain forms of beneficiary designations.

Pros and Cons of Using Beneficiary Designations

Beneficiary designations can be a simple and effective mechanism to transfer your property in much the same a will or trust distributes your property. The advantages of beneficiary designations include the ease in which it can be set up and the speed and in which the beneficiary receives the asset. Also, the owner of the asset has flexibility to designate any of combination of shares to any number of primary and contingent beneficiaries. Beneficiaries may be individuals, trusts, charities, or the property owner’s own estate by way of its personal representative.

Establishing a Charitable Trust as Part of Your Estate Plan

Published on: September 25, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Trusts can be used as a useful tool in your estate plan to accomplish a variety of goals. One example is establishing a split-interest charitable trust. These charitable trusts are an irrevocable trust established for a charitable purpose of your choosing, while at the same time featuring a benefit to a non-charitable trust beneficiary. In addition to tax benefits received under federal law, charitable trusts offer the person establishing the trust, also known as the “settlor,” a controlled process to effectuate their gift to a selected charity. Examples of charitable trusts include a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT), charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT), and a charitable lead trust (CLT).

CRATs, CRUTs, AND CLTs

Establishing a charitable remainder annuity trust includes the transfer of property to a trust that first distributes a fixed annuitized portion of the trust property to non-charitable trust beneficiaries, followed by a distribution of the remainder to the tax-exempt charity selected by the settlor. Similar to the charitable remainder annuity trust, a charitable remainder unitrust also includes the transfer of property to a trust that first distributes an annuitized portion of the trust property to non-charitable trust beneficiaries, followed by a distribution of the remainder to the tax-exempt trust beneficiary; however, the amount of the annuity fluctuates with the value of the trust assets. A charitable lead trust differs from the charitable remainder annuity trust and charitable remainder unitrust in that the settlor will designate that the charitable beneficiary will first received a distribution of trust assets at least annually for a set period of time, after which the non-charitable trust beneficiary will receive the remainder of trust property. Each of these three split-interest charitable trusts offer dual benefit to a designated charitable purpose and the settlor’s non-charitable trust beneficiary.