new york estate planning

JOINT SPOUSAL TRUST

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

NOT AS USEFUL BUT STILL GOOD TO HAVE

This blog has explored the issues revolving around an ABC trust in the past and how its previously primary reason for existence is now no longer a consideration for many people. The primary reason for their existence was to ultimately lowering the overall tax liability of the parties by sheltering one spouse’s assets and estate tax liability from the others. With the higher estate tax exemption and exemption portability allowed between spouses, its utility is diminished. For those in New York, however, there is some need to maintain it for New York estate tax purposes. There are other benefits to having such a trust. ABC trusts are known by many names, including a credit shelter trust or a joint spousal trust.

There is little if any difference between the names. Another benefit to such trusts is the step up basis that is accomplished upon the passing of the owner. Whenever title to that asset eventually does pass, the new owner will have a higher basis, so that when they in turn pass title, they will have a lower capital gains tax bill. Indeed under federal estate tax law, the stepped up basis will likely be not be an issue for estate tax liability, given the large federal estate tax exemption and availability of the portable exemption between spouses. New York’s estate tax, however, makes it more likely that a joint spousal trust should be employed, so that the deceased spouse’s original basis can be noted and the surviving spouse can account for any increase in basis for their estate when they pass away, since the surviving spouse gets full stepped up basis of the asset. This can help to possibly reduce the overall tax bill.

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.

ARBITRATION CLAUSES IN WILL OR TRUST

Published on: February 3, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

NEW YORK RULE ON ARBITRATION FOR PROBATE DISPUTES

The idea of using quasijudicial means to settle disputes is as old as the country itself. More specifically arbitration is a method that parties utilize that is usually cheaper, quicker and often with much less formality, yet still adheres to principles of fundamental fairness. George Washington famously included a proviso in his will that outlined a method to arbitrate certain disputes in the execution of his will. Certainly this was no minor matter, as President Washington was perhaps the wealthiest landowner in Virginia and by extension maybe the wealthiest American at the time.

In today’s dollars, President Washington would be worth an estimated half a billion dollars, succeeded by perhaps only President John F. Kennedy’s wealth. By the time of President Washington’s passing in 1799, arbitration was already well established in the United States. New York no longer permits arbitration in the context of a dispute over a last will and testament, as it would unconstitutionally interfere with the power of the Surrogate’s Court to adjudicate disputes involving the disposition and transfer of property of decedents, the administration of estates and probate of wills. Matter of Jacobovitz, 58 Misc. 2d 330 (Nassau County, 1968). The same cannot be said of arbitration clauses in trust documents. There is much diversity of treatment of arbitration clauses found in trust documents, with New York taking a middle of the road approach to interpretation and enforcement of arbitration clauses in trust documents. That principle, however, only applies to the application of the transfer of property via an individual’s last will and testament. It does not apply to the mediation and adjudication of disputes in trust documents controlled by New York law.

INHERITING A LEASE

Published on: December 12, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

VALUABLE ASSET

A residential lease in New York City or any desirable locale can provide many benefits. Some people wait years to get into a rent stabilized apartment. There is even a Seinfeld episode where Elaine quips that some people scan the obituaries to see if someone in a rent stabilized apartment has passed away. It is a common occurrence for many people to live decades and raise generations of families in their rent controlled rental unit. Many cities have their own laws dealing with how to inherit these leases. New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings §236 law deals permits an estate to inherit the lease of a deceased person and New York Estate Powers and Trusts Laws §13-1.1(a)(1) also holds that a lease is an asset of an estate. In addition, many local laws housing and regulations also mandate how and when a lease may be inherited. New York City ended its Rent Control laws in 1971, yet still has approximately 38,000 rental units listed under the old Rent Control laws, as once the lease is under the Rent Control law it remains until it is no longer. Going forward New York leases are generally covered by Rent Stabilization laws, also covered by the same laws dealing with succession of a residential lease. Rental units under the rent stabilization laws are the most common type of residential lease. These leases will remain for so time due to the right to succeed these leases by other family members or even friends. Most particularly, New York Code, Rules and Regulations §2532.5(b) allows for family members to succeed the lease. Landlords have been known to fight like the devil to regain possession of these rentals, sometimes offering cold hard cash, from $40,000 on the low end to $17,000,000 on the high end.

HOW TO INHERIT OR SUCCEED – COHABITATION

WHEN YOUR ATTORNEY IS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN SURROGATE COURT

Published on: November 16, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

WITNESS ADVOCATE RULE

In New York, as well as perhaps every other jurisdiction, an attorney may not serve as an attorney as well as a witness in the same case. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.7 is mandatory and not permissive. It does not matter if it is a bench trial, jury trial, traffic court case or surrogate’s court case. In fact, the rule is so important to judicial administration that even partners and members of the same firm cannot act as a witnesses. Courts refer to the issue as the lawyer-witness rule and it comes up often enough in surrogate court cases. The June 2, 2015 case of Will of Lublin, 2015 NY Slip Op 31038(U) is a good example of how estate lawyers face these issues. While the lawyer in Lublin avoided the issue of Rule 3.7, a small change could have made it not so. Very briefly, the decedent, Mr. Irving Lublin, executed a will in 1997 and passed away in 2010. Someone objected, claiming that the decedent did not have sufficient mental capacity to create such a will, the will was not properly executed and that the will was the result of fraud and undue influence. The lawyer who drafted the will was deposed during the discovery phase. If, perhaps, the attorney who created the will also represented the executor, an entirely plausible and even relatively normal scenario, the attorney would be disqualified, as he/she would be a material witness.

UNIQUE POSITION IN THE CASE