No Contest Clauses – Not Just for Wills

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

Fiduciary litigation continues to grow and often times outpaces the development of case law regarding the myriad of issues that arise in estate and trust disputes.  Historically fiduciary litigation involved disputing family members or changes in family circumstances.  However, another frequent source of litigation is the estate planning documents themselves.  For this reason, estate planners often include a no contest clause, or in terrorem clause, in a will or trust as a means of deterring feuding beneficiaries from challenging the validity of the instrument; yet, enforcement of these no contest clauses carries its own burden.

A no contest clause is more frequently contained in a will, although it can also be prudent to include these provisions in trusts – especially when the underlying concern is to discourage litigation over the decedent’s estate plan by disinheriting a person who unsuccessfully contests the will and/or trust.  The enforceability of these provisions varies from state to state; however, Colorado has determined that a no contest clause is valid when the contesting party lacks probable cause to bring their challenge.  See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-11-517, 15-12-905.  Read more

Prudently Investing: What Trustees Need to Know

/in , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

Acting in the best interests of the trust and the trust beneficiaries, a trustee has the duty to protect and preserve trust assets and, generally, to make the assets productive. In making investment decisions and managing trust assets, the trustee must further abide by the “prudent investor rule,” which requires a trustee to exercise reasonable care, skill and caution. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 15-1.1-101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Prudent Investor Act”) and §§ 15-1-1101, et. seq. (the “Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act”).

Pursuant to the prudent investor rule, a trustee should consider broad investment factors, such as: current economic conditions, effects of inflation or deflation, tax consequences, the nature of closely-held business interests, alternative investments, expected returns on income and capital, other resources of the trust or trust beneficiaries, the need for liquidity versus preservation of capital, the production of income, the special value or relationship of a particular asset to the trust or the beneficiaries, diversification of investments, and more. See, Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 227. Additionally, while it is important to note that Colorado courts have not officially adopted the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, one could refer to § 90, which lists five helpful “principles” of the prudent investor rule. Generally, any single investment will not violate the prudent investor rule and the trustee should manage the trust portfolio as a whole taking into account these considerations. Read more

Is the Statute of Limitations Really Running?

/in , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

The concept of a statute of limitations is easy to understand: a lawsuit has to be commenced within so many years after the complained of act occurred or pursuit of the lawsuit may be forever barred.  Where it gets tricky are the exceptions to this rule.  For example, if the wrongdoer concealed the wrongful act or the wrongful act occurred in some way that made it highly unlikely that the aggrieved person would know about it, then the statute of limitations should not start running until the injured person knows or through reasonable diligence should have known about the wrongful act.  This “tolling” of the statute of limitations is typically referred to as the discovery rule: the statute of limitations doesn’t start running until a plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged wrongful act.

Not all states apply the discovery rule, and not all states apply it to every cause of action. However, many jurisdictions apply the discovery rule to fiduciary related actions.  As an example, the equitable discovery rule was applied in Utah to a lawsuit regarding a trust. Read more

Decanting to Eliminate a Beneficiary – New York Says Yes

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

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

Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover (or Fifty Ways to Plan, Administer and Litigate Estates)

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

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

Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty: Which Interest is Best?

/in , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

The term “fiduciary” can be considered a vague term that encompasses many different people and several different relationships.  Under Colorado law, a fiduciary includes, without limitation, a trustee of any trust, a personal representative, guardian, conservator, receiver, partner, agent, or “any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-1-103(2).  It is within this context that we examine a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty and how best to uphold that duty.

In the context of a trust, and as stated in the Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 2, a fiduciary relationship with respect to property arises out of the manifestation of an intention to create the fiduciary relationship and subjects the trustee “to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person.”  From this relationship stems several inherent and implied fiduciary duties.  Generally, the fiduciary duties applicable to a trustee are: the duty of loyalty, the duty to exercise care and skill in managing the trust assets and administering the trust, and the duty to remain impartial to all beneficiaries.   Read more

Good News for Surviving Spouses Seeking to Elect Portability

/in , , , ,

by Chelsea May

IRS Revenue Procedure 2017-34, effective as of June 9, 2017, increases the amount of time that a surviving spouse has to file an estate tax return (Form 706) for the purpose of electing portability of the Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion amount (otherwise known as “DSUE”).  The portability election, which  was first introduced in 2010 and made permanent under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, offers a great way for a surviving spouse to preserve the unused estate tax exemption of their deceased spouse.  The DSUE amount can then be added to the surviving spouse’s own exemption amount and be used to shelter the surviving spouse’s lifetime gifts and transfers at death from estate taxes.

Prior to June 9, 2017, a portability election was required to be made on a timely filed estate tax return, due to the IRS nine months from the decedent’s date of death, with the availability of an automatic six month extension.  The IRS has once before provided some relief from this deadline in Revenue Procedure 2014-18, but that ruling was temporary and provided no relief for the estates of decedents dying after January 1, 2014.  The IRS claims to have been flooded with numerous requests for an extension of time to file for the portability election and has issued this new Revenue Procedure to provide a simplified method to obtain the extension to elect portability for a decedent’s estate who has no estate tax filing requirement to the later of (i) January 2, 2018 or (ii) the second anniversary of the decedent’s date of death.  Note that the regulation provides that this longer deadline is not available to the estate of a decedent if an estate tax return was timely filed.  In such case, the executor either will have elected portability by timely filing the return or will have affirmatively opted out of portability by not making the election.      Read more

New Uniform Directed Trust Act

/in , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

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

Fiduciary Duty to Elect Portability

/in , , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

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

Now That You Have Accessed the Digital Assets, Don’t Forget to Value Them

/in , , , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

It is well documented that all of our lives have become more data-driven and we are practically tethered to our electronic devices.  Therefore, it should not be surprising to realize that more and more of our assets, and those of our clients, have a digital component.  What may be surprising, however, is just how much value we place on our digital assets.  Surveys report that the average value of personal digital assets owned by individuals globally ranges from $35,000 – $55,000.

A few key words typed into any search engine, including a review of articles written on this blog, will provide a wealth of information on accessing digital assets, including digital assets in your clients’ estate planning documents, and safeguarding your digital assets inventory.  However, after the client’s death, once we have a list of their digital assets, and have gained access those assets, it is prudent for the probate and trust practitioner to remember to value those assets.  Read more