Trusts and Estates

December 14, 2011

New York Estate Administration Must Always Consider Tax Issues

Estate settlement in New York, including Westchester and Suffolk counties, requires a consideration of many issues. A post in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog on December 6, 2011 talked about a number of estate tax issues that should be considered, including the current $5 million federal tax exemption and “portability” of the unused exemption between spouses.

Executors and Administrators have the fiduciary responsibility of calculating and preparing both Federal and New York State estate taxes, as well as fiduciary estate income taxes. Once an estate comes into existence it is like an ongoing business. Assets must be determined and collected and liabilities and debts need to be paid or resolved. Essentially, the fair market value of the assets owned by a decedent at death will form the basis for determining the estate tax obligation. The income and expenses generated by the estate during the course of Estate Administration are factors to be considered in determining the estate’s annual income tax liability.

Estate taxes are typically due to be paid nine (9) months after the decedent’s date of death. Fiduciary income tax returns are usually due in April. Extensions for the filing of estate tax and income tax returns are routinely obtained but estimated payments on account of the taxes due must be timely made or interest and possibly penalties can be imposed.

The problem faced by many fiduciaries is obtaining enough information about assets, income, expenses and liabilities in a relatively short period of time so that accurate returns can be prepared and appropriate estimated payments can be made. This process can be complicated where the decedent’s assets and income are not easily discovered or are complicated by issues of valuation or litigation regarding ownership. Nassau estate attorneys, like estate attorneys throughout New York, work closely with executors, administrators and trustees to obtain necessary information and plan for the filing and payment of these taxes.

An example of such problems was recently reported with regard to the estate of Brooke Astor. Many articles have been written concerning the estate of socialite Brooke Astor who died on August 13, 2007 and whose son was convicted of stealing her assets. In an article written by William P. Barrett which appeared in Forbes on December 7, 2011, it was reported that the IRS is seeking upwards of $62 million in taxes from the estate, which includes millions of dollars in assessed penalties. The tax disputes seem to concern charitable deductions that the IRS is refusing to recognize along with the failure of the decedent to file and pay certain gift taxes during her lifetime.

It is not uncommon for actions and failures to act by a decedent during life to have a dramatic effect upon estate settlement and, ultimately, estate beneficiaries. Suppose a decedent due to illness or neglect failed to file or pay income or gift taxes during the years prior to death. The estate fiduciaries have a fiduciary obligation to prepare these old and overdue tax returns and pay the tax liability along with any interest and penalty charges. Such payments may have a large impact upon the amount of monies that pass under a Last Will or by intestacy to the decedent’s beneficiaries. The advice and counsel of estate attorneys is essential when dealing with these matters.

November 29, 2011

New York Inheritance Can Depend on Family Status Such As A Valid Marriage

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has reviewed the many instances where family status or kinship can affect an inheritance. In a blog post dated November 22, 2011, there was a discussion regarding the determination of kinship in order to establish a person’s right to receive a share of a decedent’s estate.

Most cases in New York Surrogate’s Courts, including Manhattan Probate proceedings or Westchester intestate Administration proceedings, require that a decedent’s heirs be specified so that their rights are protected and the estate is distributed correctly.

It is not uncommon to find disputes among heirs and other estate beneficiaries concerning the validity of a claim as to heirship. Issues involving adoption, paternity, artificial insemination and other questions as to family relations can become fierce battles, especially where the outcome involves large sums of money in the form of an inheritance.

One particular area where controversy can occur is the determination of a decedent’s spouse. While it may appear to be routine to ascertain a person’s wife or husband, difficulties can arise, particularly where individuals live in many different states and countries during their lives all of which have different rules and recording keeping methods for marriages and divorces. The determination of a decedent’s surviving spouse is essential for many reasons. From a tax standpoint, the Federal and New York estate tax laws provide that assets passing to the surviving spouse qualify for a 100% marital deduction. A surviving spouse also has many rights under New York estate laws including the right of spousal election. A spousal right of election gives a surviving spouse the right to receive a share of the decedent’s estate notwithstanding that the decedent may have disinherited the spouse. The New York right of election is provided in Estates, Powers and Trusts Law section 5-1.1-A.

In order to invoke the benefits of the statute, an individual must, in fact, be the decedent’s surviving spouse. A recent case entitled Will of Newman decided by Surrogate John M. Czgier, Jr., in Suffolk County Surrogate’s Court on September 26, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on November 1, 2011, shows how important it is to closely examine the facts supporting a claim of spousal status.

In Newman, the decedent’s spouse filed a right of election. It was determined after investigation that the surviving spouse and the decedent had gotten married on a date 3 months before the surviving spouse finalized a divorce from a prior marriage. Since the surviving spouse’s prior marriage was not dissolved before the marriage to the decedent, the marriage between the decedent and the claiming surviving spouse was void. Thus, the right of election could not be asserted due to the invalidity of the marriage.

New York estate planning is also affected by spousal rights. Wills and trusts can be drafted to take advantage of the estate tax marital deduction and bequests can be provided to insure that spousal rights are satisfied.

I have represented estate fiduciarys and claimants in situations where spousal claims must be determined and resolved. I also provide assistance to clients to develop estate plans that take into account a spouse’s right to share in an estate.

November 22, 2011

Kinship Proceedings In New York Require A Diligent Search for Heirs

by Jules M. Haas

All New York Probate and Administration cases require an accurate determination of the decedent’s distributees or next of kin. In Brooklyn probate cases, as well as those throughout New York, proper notice of the Probate filing must be given to these persons. In Queens Administration proceedings, like all other such proceedings in New York, not only must distributees be ascertained for purposes of proper notice, their identities must also be established since the distributees are the direct beneficiaries of the estate.

While identifying next of kin may seem routine where a decedent is survived by a spouse or children or grandchildren (“issue”), many person’s die without any easily identifiable heirs. In such cases estate settlement requires that kinship be determined.

Kinship searches require extensive examination of birth, death, marriage, naturalization and other records to determine not only the names of possible heirs but also to eliminate the possibility that living or deceased relatives did not have any other children or descendents. This is essentially known as closing out the class. Surrogate’s Court kinship cases involve meticulous evidence, much of which can be obtained through the employment of a professional genealogist.

Many kinship proceedings such as Cousin Cases, where the closest next of kin are cousins, involve the Public Administrator which is a government official charged with the responsibility of estate administration of estates where close relatives are not known to exist or no one steps forward to commence Surrogate’s Court proceedings.

In many instances the search for heirs results in a sort of dead-end. An heir may be identified but his or her whereabouts is unknown despite a diligent effort to locate him or her. Sometimes, it may be impossible to completely close out the possibility of additional heirs and provide proof that no one else exists as a possible distributee. In these situations, New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act Section 2225 provides a method by which after 3 years following the decedent’s death the law will presume that an identified heir may be presumed deceased without issue and unknown heirs may be presumed not to exist. In order to utilize this Statute, diligent and exhaustive searches must be shown to the Court to have been completed.

I have represented numerous clients in kinship matters. Extensive family research is needed in these cases and all individuals who have had contact with the decedent and have knowledge concerning family relations must be interviewed to determine whether they can be helpful as witnesses for the Court proceedings. Witnesses, as well as genealogists, may need to give testimony. Modern technology is used by the Courts to allow videoconferencing. Thus, testimony by individuals from around the world can be obtained without having to make witnesses travel long distances. This technology provides greater resources to the Courts and the heirs attempting to show their diligent search efforts.

November 10, 2011

Inheritance in New York Can Be Forfeited Where the Beneficiary Causes the Decedent’s Death

by Jules M. Haas

Estate beneficiaries in New York can have rights to receive a share of a decedent’s assets in a variety of circumstances. The beneficiary can be named in the decedent’s Last Will or, if no Will exists (“intestacy”), the beneficiary may be one of the decedent’s next of kin (a “distributee”). As provided in New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) section 4-1.1 a distributee receives a share of the estate.

There are some situations, however, where the estate share may be forfeited by the beneficiary. For instance, EPTL 5-1.2 provides that interests of a surviving spouse may be lost under certain circumstances including the “abandonment of the deceased spouse” (EPTL 5-1.2(a)(6).

Another example of forfeiture that is recognized by the New York Surrogate’s Court provides that a person who murders another forfeits his or her right to inherit from the victim’s estate. This doctrine, which prevents a person from profiting from a wrongful act, seem fairly easy to apply where the murderer is convicted by the crime. The recent case of People v. Borukhova, a Queens, New York doctor who was convicted of hiring her cousin to kill her husband, would seem to satisfy the forfeiture criteria. However, all situations are not as clear. What if a person’s death was due to alleged neglect or mistreatment and no criminal proceedings were instituted against the alleged wrongdoer. Such a situation occurred in Matter of Karp which was decided by New York County Surrogate Kristin Booth Glenn on September 22, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on October 4, 2011.

In Karp the sister and nephews of the decedent claimed that the “decedent’s wife of more than 15 years, intentionally or recklessly caused decedent’s death and should therefore forfeit her interest in [his] multi-million dollar estate.”

After reviewing the extensive evidence, the Surrogate found that the decedent died due to causes directly related to his own requests for termination of certain medical procedures and that no action on the part of his wife caused his death. Therefore, the Surrogate granted summary judgment dismissing the sister and nephews claim.

Although the claims in Karp were dismissed, the case does raise some interesting concerns for both pre-death care and post-death estate settlement. In Karp the decedent was very ill prior to his passing away. Issues may arise as to what responsibility a beneficiary may have to institute Article 81 Guardianship proceedings to have a guardian appointed to assist a person with health care and other personal needs decisions. When a person appears incapacitated can the failure by a beneficiary to assist him or her result in a forfeiture of an inheritance? Also, if a beneficiary is a health care agent under a Health Care Proxy, can he or she lose an inheritance in the event the health care decisions result in the decedent’s death?

Finally, after a person has died, Executors, Administrators and estate beneficiaries may examine the circumstances leading up to death in order to consider whether a proceeding for forfeiture is a viable consideration. Bronx probate attorneys, as well as probate lawyers throughout New York, can review these matters and advise clients as to their rights.

November 8, 2011

Estate Disputes Should Be Avoided But Sometimes Never End

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has reviewed many instances and issues regarding estate litigation, Will contests and disputes among heirs and beneficiaries. Sometimes controversies begin before a person dies when they become ill and incapacitated. Relatives and friends can abuse or breach fiduciary obligations in attempting to control a person’s finances before death. Guardianship Proceedings, which are provided by Article 81 of the New York Mental Hygiene Law, are just a rehearsal for the battles that occur concerning assets and Wills after death. Westchester and Manhattan Guardianship attorneys, as well as guardianship lawyers throughout New York, have seen these disputes time and again.

An example of such pre-death contests appeared with regard to the actress Zsa Zsa Gabor. As reported in an article in Estate of Denial by Andy and Danielle Mayorals dated June 25, 2011, pre-death fighting between Ms. Gabor’s husband (her ninth) and daughter revolved around each arranging for her to re-write her Last Will and the sale of her home and personal property.

Even after death occurs controversy regarding a decedent’s estate and affairs can go on for years. It was recently reported by Daniel Kreps in Amplifier on May 6, 2011 that the estate of the late rock and roll star, Jimi Hendrix, was commencing a lawsuit over the ownership of master recordings made during concerts in 1969. Jimi Hendrix died on
September 18, 1970.

Another pending lawsuit involving the ownership of rights to the musical legacy of country singer, Jim Reeves, was reported in an article by Anita Wadhwani in The Tennessean on November 2, 2011. Jim Reeves died in 1964. However, none of the above appear to rival the almost daily notoriety surrounding the death of Michael Jackson.

A recent article in the AARP Bulletin by John F. Wosik on October 19, 2011 entitled “A To-Do List for Estate Planning” provides a brief guide for some estate planning considerations that may help avoid disputes. Among the items discussed are:
(1) A “Health Care power of attorney” known as a Health Care Proxy in New York. This document will specify the persons who can make health care decisions for you in the event you are unable to do so yourself.
(2) A “Financial power of attorney“. This document will specify the persons who can make property management decisions for you when you are unavailable or unable to do so. The terms of the Power of Attorney can be limited and specifically defined according to your desires.
(3) “Wills and Trusts“. These documents provide the foundation of your instructions and reflect the manner in which you want your property disposed of after death. Additionally, proper estate planning through Will and Trust provisions may provide appropriate tax benefits.

Consulting a good New York Estate planning and Guardianship attorney may help avoid the Surrogate’s Court litigation that seems to forever encompass some estates. In view of the complexity of issues often involved in property and business ownership, breaches of fiduciary duty and beneficiary rights, disputes among family members and third parties are probably inevitable.

November 1, 2011

New York Estates Involve Disputes Regarding Lifetime Transfers

by Jules M. Haas

There have been a number of previous discussions in the New York Probate Lawyer Blog regarding disputes that arise when a decedent transfers assets to others prior to death. Such transfers are sometimes made to family members or to non-relative third parties. The problems and disputes that arise from such transfers basically involve whether the transfers were intended by the decedent to replace dispositions that were carefully set forth in a Last Will or Trust. In many instances, these lifetime transfers do not reflect the same estate plan as stated in a Last Will and often benefit one or more beneficiaries at the expense of others.

For example, a person may have bank funds in his or her name in a bank account that is bequeathed equally to a number of beneficiaries named in a Last Will or Trust. The person may have spent many hours reviewing his estate plan with his Probate Lawyer before finalizing the documents. However, prior to death, the person may add one of the beneficiaries to the bank account either as a joint owner or as a named beneficiary. In such a case, when the person dies, ownership of the bank account will automatically be in the named beneficiary and the account funds will not be included in the decedent’s estate to be distributed to all of the beneficiaries designated in a Last Will or Trust. The question that arises is whether the decedent put the beneficiary’s name on the account with the intent to benefit only the beneficiary or whether the name was added due to undue influence or without an understanding that such action would change the decedent’s estate plan.

Such disputes are common in Surrogate’s Court litigation throughout New York including the Bronx and Westchester Counties. Executors and Administrators are very often faced with the estate settlement task of attempting to recover assets for the estate that have been transferred to others.

A recent case in the New York County Surrogate’s Court, entitled Matter of Appleby, was presented to Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen. In a decision dated September 12, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on September 26, 2011, the Court was faced with a number of issues that arose concerning funds that a decedent allegedly loaned to her son prior to her death. The decedent’s executor attempted to have the son’s estate (the son died shortly after his mother) repay these funds to the decedent’s estate. The son’s executor had sought to have the case dismissed on various grounds but the Court, for the most part, decided that issues existed that needed to go to trial. The Court found that questions existed as to whether the monies given to the son were enforceable loans to be paid back to the decedent’s estate.

It is always an important aspect of estate planning, to update and review not only the identity of assets and beneficiaries, but the manner in which assets are owned (ie, individually or jointly, etc.) and the impact such ownership may have on estate distribution.

October 26, 2011

Steve Jobs Puts Real Estate in Trusts in New York

by Jules M. Haas

A recent article by Thomson Reuters details how the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs has done a good job of moving assets into trusts in order to keep them private from the public.

Jobs, who has a reputation for being secretive of his company’s products as well as his personal life, knew the advantages of will and estate planning when it comes to privacy and distribution of assets.There have been many examples of celebrities who have squandered millions they have earned during their careers because of poor planning and bad decisions. What isn’t reported in the media are the millions of everyday, middle-class Americans who do the same. Those from more modest means can still reap all the advantages by consulting with a New York estate planning lawyer. Even if you don’t have millions to leave behind, you should make sure your children, spouses and other survivors can deal with the stress of handling your estate issues without undue complications.

Jobs, the man who is credited with inventing or reinventing the personal computer, mobile phone, music business and tablet devices, died recently at age 56 of pancreatic cancer. Battling the illness for some years, he stepped down as Apple CEO in August.

Two years ago, he and his wife established trusts and put real estate investments in them. Trusts can minimize the amount of taxes survivors must pay and can keep the assets from being disclosed to the public in probate court.

On top of his shares of Apple, he had a fortune after selling Pixar to Disney, receiving $138 million in Disney shares in 2006. In September, Forbes estimated Jobs’ worth at $7 billion.

Public records show that Jobs and his wife own property in Palo Alto and two pieces of property in Woodside. In March 2009, those properties were put into two different trusts.

If a trust is used, even a publicly recorded will could have very little information. It could say that the assets in a trust are left to a trustee. And they would be handed out according to the trust provisions, which are typically private.

Whether you have millions of dollars or not, every person can benefit from from estate planning.

October 18, 2011

New York Executor or Administrator May Have Rights Regarding The Decedent’s Remains

by Jules M. Haas

Administrators and Executors in New York, sometimes referred to as estate fiduciaries, have many powers and responsibilities. The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has discussed many of these aspects of estate settlement including the identification and collection of a decedent’s assets and the payment of expenses, debts and taxes.

Reference has also been made previously to the common situation that occurs upon a person’s death when decisions need to be made concerning burial and funeral arrangements. When preparing a Last Will, a person can set forth provisions that direct the manner in which he or she is to be buried. For example, a Last Will can state that the person wants to be cremated or to be buried in particular ceremonial manner. Although such directions in a Last Will can be enforced, they are problematic since a Will may not be looked at or even located until after a person’s funeral and burial take place. Moreover, the validity of a Will and the appointment of an estate fiduciary may not occur until many weeks or months after death.

When discussing burial issues with clients, I typically suggest that a good estate plan includes a pre-death discussion of all funeral and burial desires and arrangements with the close family members or friends who would be most likely to make certain that the decedent’s instructions are followed. However, disputes can and do arise regarding the control of a decedent’s remains and its disposition. Section 4201 of the New York Public Health Law attempts to limit such disputes by providing a list of the individuals who have priority to control the disposing of a person’s remains. First and foremost, the statute provides that priority is given to a person who is named in a writing that is signed as provided for by the statute. Absent such designation, a spouse or domestic partner and surviving children are given primary authority. The statute also provides in paragraph 2(a)(viii) that “a duly appointed fiduciary of the estate of the decedent” may control the disposition of remains.

Many different controversies can arise concerning a decedent’s remains. In a recent case, Freiman v. County of Nassau, decided by the Hon. Thomas Feinman (Supreme Court, Nassau County) on September 23, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on September 30, 2011, the Executor of an estate sued the Nassau County Medical Examiner (“ME”) claiming that the ME performed an autopsy without consent from the Executor and contrary to Public Health Law Section 4210. The Court dismissed the case finding that the limited extract of a blood sample was not an autopsy and was performed with consent.

As shown by the Freiman case, disputes regarding a decedent not only involve such common proceedings as Will Contests and kinship disputes, but can relate to events occurring immediately upon death involving the disposition and handling of a decedent’s remains.

October 12, 2011

Trusts In New York, Not Just Wills, Can Come Under Attack Without Strong Planning

by Jules M. Haas

Forbes is reporting on a lawsuit that alleges political figures in Panama, including three Supreme Court judges, have ripped off poor children who were entitled to millions of dollars. The money was in a trust that instead allegedly was turned over to a non-beneficiary after accepting bribes.

Although this is a case of an American whose trust is being questioned in Panama, this happens in the United States as well. While most people consider that only wills are contested, the same can go for the trusts that are established to shepherd assets.But there is a logical way to avoid postmortem legal challenges to your assets — by smart planning of a New York trust or estate. These situations usually go bad when drastic changes are made to a will in the person’s elder stages. Or when no will is present. Or when a trust is not updated for years or decades or old beneficiaries — such as former spouses — are not removed from accounts.

Employing an experienced New York City estate planning lawyer can provide you with peace of mind. Proper planning can help ensure that your wishes are followed after your death and that your estate doesn’t burden your heirs.

The situation in Panama is compelling. An American living in Panama died in June 2006 at age 88. A year before he died, the man signed a will that left the majority of his $50 million fortune to a trust fund that would benefit needy and poor children in that country. A large part of the trust includes ocean-front property that has tripled the value of the trust to more than $150 million.

But the man’s widow, a well-connected Panamanian, challenged the will despite receiving a $20,000 allowance, as well as the right to live in their home and having her children receive bequests.

She sued to challenge the will, claiming that her late husband’s Florida attorney coerced him into signing the will so that he could manage the charitable trust, which is the primary beneficiary of the estate.

A court removed the attorney as the executor, but found the will valid. A second court found the will valid. But the Supreme Court overturned the distribution of the fortune and naming the widow as “universal heir.”

The notary who signed the will and a prosecutor filed challenges to the decision by the three-judge panel, causing the entire Supreme Court of Panama to look at the case, and putting the funds in limbo.

The man’s attorney in Florida, in turn, filed a federal lawsuit, alleging the widow bribed the justices to the tune of $1.5 million each. He further alleges they violated racketeering charges and caused false criminal charges to be asserted against him, including murder, to strip him from acting as an estate executor.

In general, attempting to significantly disinherit a spouse or child can cause legal complications. Proper estate planning and engaging the services of an experienced law firm is your best bet when it comes to ensuring that your wishes are carried out after your death.

October 3, 2011

New York Probate and Administration Depend Upon the Domicile of a Decedent

by Jules M. Haas

The New York Probate Lawyer Blog has talked about many situations involving the probate of a decedent’s Last Will or the intestate administration of an estate where there is no Will. These proceedings comprise the most basic avenues for a decedent’s estate settlement.

However, even more fundamental, and as a preliminary step to commencing such proceedings, a determination needs to be made as to whether the New York Surrogate’s Court is the appropriate Court to initiate the case. If New York is not the proper forum, the Court will not allow the proceeding to be filed. It may be that another state (i.e., Florida, New Jersey), may be the proper place to file and administer the estate proceedings.

Choosing the proper forum or Court is not always an easy task. This choice of forum begins with a finding of the decedent’s “domicile”. Domicile is an extremely important issue since it will not only affect the location of the Court that is appropriate to process the decedent’s estate, it may very well determine the State law that controls the issues surrounding estate administration such as spousal and kinship rights. Domicile also affects many other issues such as taxation.

Domicile essentially refers to the place that is considered a person’s primary home. A person can have many different residences around the world but only one primary home or domicile. Domicile is defined in the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act Section 103 (15) as “A fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return.”

Domicile can be difficult to determine where a person has residences in more than one state or country and divides his or her time between these locations. Among the factors that a Court reviews in deciding an issue of domicile are where a person files state and local income taxes, and where a person has a driver’s license, voting registration, and other social and business connections.

As noted, domicile is important because it may determine various rights. For example, a decedent who is a domiciliary of New York will be subject to New York statutes for the purposes of determining the decedent’s distributees or next of kin. Statutes of a different state, for example, New Jersey, may differ from those in New York and specify different individuals or interests in a decedent’s estate. The result may cause variations in amounts inherited or even rights to an inheritance.

A recent example of the importance of determining domicile was seen in Matter of Ranftle, decided by New York County Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen on September 14, 2011 and reported in the New York Law Journal on September 23, 2011. In Ranftle a question arose concerning whether a decedent was domiciled in New York or Florida. The importance of this question centered around the fact that unlike New York, Florida would not have recognized the decedent’s same-sex marriage that took place in Montreal, Canada. Therefore, if Florida law controlled, the decedent’s spouse may have lost inheritance rights in the Court proceedings. After an extensive review of the numerous factual contacts the decedent had both in New York and Florida, Surrogate Glen determined that the decedent was a New York domiciliary.

As a New York Probate attorney I have reviewed many cases with clients where an initial determination must be made as to the proper Court in which to commence a probate or intestate administration proceeding. Additionally, a thorough review of a client’s domicile is imperative when preparing an estate plan so that the provisions of a Last Will or Trust will be in accordance with the relevant State laws.