Settlors often ask whether they can change the beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust because life circumstances or relationships have changed. Often, the answer is no. However, in a recent case in New York, the trustee was able to accomplish the settlor’s desire to disinherit one of his children through a decanting. Read more >>
As the old song by Paul Simon contemplates, there are fifty ways to leave your lover, and there are also fifty ways to plan, administer and litigate estates and trusts. I have recently become aware of various situations in which attorneys assume that because things are done a certain way in the state in which they practice, they are done the same way in other states.
I am licensed in three states, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and deal regularly with the significant differences between them. For example, Colorado tends to use “by representation” in dealing with passing assets down the generations, but Utah and Wyoming both use “per stirpes.” Read more >>
More and more, I review trust agreements that appoint a trustee, but then appoint other individuals or institutions to perform certain tasks that are normally in the domain of the trustee. They are sometimes referred to as trust protectors, trust advisors, trust directors, special powerholders, investment trustees, or distribution trustees. I most often see these appointments in the areas of investments or distributions.
The trust language that attempts to divide the responsibilities of a trustee among a group is often unclear and give rise to difficult questions as to the scope of each individuals’ responsibilities. There is also the question of whether the trustee is responsible for the actions of the other appointees and if the appointees are fiduciaries. These problems with interpretation are often exacerbated because the laws are not clear about the division of these responsibilities and the liability of each actor. Read more >>
As regular readers of this blog know, one of our favorite topics is digital assets, including estate planning for digital assets. Today, we’re taking a slightly different focus and discussing developments in digital estate planning, more commonly known as electronic wills.
One of the more recent developments in estate planning is the concept of electronic wills. In general, an electronic will is one that is signed and stored electronically. Instead of signing a hard copy document in ink, the testator electronically signs the will, and it is also signed by witnesses and notarized electronically. Not surprisingly, companies like LegalZoom are very interested in this topic.
In my practice, I regularly answer questions regarding the permissibility and advisability of modifying irrevocable trusts. With the enactment of a decanting statute in Colorado in 2016, these types of requests will only increase. One of the major hurdles in modifying irrevocable trusts (and a trap for the unwary) is the potential tax consequences of a modification. We often have to consider estate tax inclusion issues, the possibility of the imposition of gift taxes due to the modification, and the potential loss of generation-skipping transfer tax exemption for a trust. Read more >>
The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently upheld a ruling that has required the Personal Representative of an Estate to take the necessary steps to transfer the deceased spousal unused election (DSUE) to the surviving spouse. The case stems from the rights created by the federal gift and estate tax laws regarding portability. More specifically, beginning in 2010 one spouse was allowed to transfer, at death, his or her unused gift and estate tax exemption to the surviving spouse. Prior to 2010, each spouse had his or her own gift and estate tax exemption, but any portion of that exemption which remained unused by the spouse at death could not be transferred to the surviving spouse.
In In re Estate of Vose, 390 P.3d 238 (Okla. 2017), the Personal Representative of the Estate, one of the children of the decedent by a prior marriage, had refused to make the required election for transfer even though the surviving spouse agreed to pay the cost required to prepare the necessary Federal Estate tax return to do so. Read more >>
The rules and regulations surrounding the operation of family foundations contain traps for the unwary and prohibit self-dealing transactions. We regularly help families navigate the complex rules regarding self-dealing transactions for private foundations.
These self-dealing rules tripped up the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has admitted that it has engaged in self-dealing. How do we know? A private foundation is required to file a Form 990-PF each year and that return requires a foundation to answer questions regarding its activities and transactions. The following question caused issues for the Trump Foundation: “During the year did the foundation (either directly or indirectly): Transfer any income or assets to a disqualified person (or make any of either available for the benefit or use of a disqualified person)? By answering “Yes,” the Trump Foundation has admitted that a self-dealing transaction occurred. The Trump Foundation’s Form 990-PF (and many other foundations’ returns) are available through www.guidestar.com.
Picture this: you are representing a beneficiary of a trust in heated litigation. The client is committed to the cause, but as time passes, the client stops returning your calls. Despite your best efforts, the client seems to have fallen off the radar screen completely. Late last year, the Colorado Ethics Committee provided guidance to attorneys who find themselves in this difficult situation.
Formal Opinion 128 states that if a client has gone missing since the representation began, the lawyer must take reasonable steps to locate the client, and, whenever possible, seek continuances of court deadlines, but still continue their efforts to contact the client. “Reasonable steps” may include hiring a professional investigator, searching public records, and/or contacting family or friends of the client. Read more >>
As of Monday, August 7, 2016, practitioners can now search for probate and trust cases in the Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (“ICCES”). In the past, Colorado probate estate and trust cases were only available for viewing by attorneys of record. If someone needed to determine if a case had been opened, he or she would need to contact the court clerk’s office and often pay a search fee. In the most recent release of ICCES, registered users can search to determine if a probate estate or trust matter has been opened; however, the documents themselves will only be available for online viewing to parties of record and to the Court.
Protective proceedings will remain a protected filing class and only attorneys of record will have access to those cases. An entry of appearance will need to be filed, and accepted by the court, in these matters to gain access.
All Public documents submitted in trust and estate cases prior to August 6, 2016, will be set to a document security type of Protected and not available for viewing unless counsel is of record in the case.
Click here to view the Probate Enhancements section of the Colorado Judicial Branch E-Filing News Newsletter, August 2016.
by Andy Lemieux, Elizabeth Meck, and Jessica Schmidt
As any practitioner who has dealt with the distribution of mineral interests from a decedent’s estate knows, dealing with these interests can be tricky and the process is not always clear. This is particularly true when old interests have not been distributed properly at the time of death. Thankfully, recent decisions in Colorado, as well as updates to certain provisions of the Colorado Probate Code, provide some clarity to this process. A recent decision in Utah also provides clarity about who is entitled to the proceeds of production from oil and gas operations when life tenants and remaindermen are involved.
Specifically, Colorado just updated its statutes governing the process for the determination of heirship, found in the Colorado Probate Code at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-12-1301, et. seq. A sub-committee of the Trust and Estate section of the Colorado Bar Association carefully reviewed the existing statutes, coordinated efforts with other sections of the bar, and with the approval of the Trust and Estate section, presented revisions to these statute sections as part of the omnibus bill, SB 16-133, in February 2016. The committee’s goal was to address the issues Colorado practitioners have experienced in trying to distribute these interests from dormant or previously-unopened probate estates and to make the process to distribute previously undistributed property, including mineral interests, more clear. SB 16-133 was signed by Governor Hickenlooper on May 4, 2016, thereby adopting the revisions recommended by the committee. A copy of the Bill as enacted can be found here.