Posts Tagged estate planning

Why Are Family Members Disinherited?

What does it take to get written out of the family will? Is it betrayal, gambling, cheating, a lack of affection, or what? Our report this week delves into this thorny issue and finds some answers.

Nasim Afshar, 60, an attractive Persian woman, met her husband, British-born Nigel Ruddy, in Germany and was married to him for over 15 years. No one could say their marriage was in trouble. They loved each other.

Last month, Nigel died unexpectedly of heart failure in a hospital near their home in Barcelona. Nigel had been a thrifty man, always saving, even opting for wearing heavy jackets in home during the winter to save on heating bills.

He had one son from a previous marriage who enjoyed wine, women and gambling. Nigel always tried to teach his son the values of saving, but most of the time it went in one ear and out the other. But nevertheless, Nigel loved him.

And he died a rich man. Living in Spain permitted him to avoid most taxes and together with his properties in England and shops in Germany, he was worth well over $50 million.

This week two of Nigel’s wills surfaced, both providing for nothing for his wife beyond a prepaid debit card loaded with 10,000 euros and the right to “stay” in their home until she died. The remainder of his estate of millions went to his son.

What caused Nigel to disinherit his wife Nasim?

Sociologist Tom Brittan says many things built up over the years could have led to a spouse being disinherited at the final moment.

“Perhaps Nigel caught Nasim cheating during the marriage, but chose to do nothing over the years to keep a status quo marriage going,” he says. “And when dealt with death, he said ‘too bad, Nasim, this is your punishment.’”

Complications abound

Executors and estate planners are seeing more of this now, as multiple marriages and affairs are rampant. Meanwhile, the lawyers say it’s gotten harder to keep balancing between the deceased and all the would-be heirs.

Hollywood’s fetish for turning the reading of the will into a ritualistic cliffhanger has left its mark on generations of wealthy families, despite the best efforts of their estate planners.

The heavy legal lifting should have already been done. The money and property should be in trust and the surviving spouse should know exactly what the marital contract lays out as his or her share of the estate.

But the drama of stringing a hated relative along until the end still be irresistible for a testator with a grudge, even if it makes an already fractured family situation both worse and permanent.

“We see it all, and the decisions around who gets excluded from the inheritance are always unique,” says Michael Roberts, who runs Reliance Trust’s personal trust business.

“Any time you combine the financial and the emotional levels, every family is going to be reacting to its own history and setting rules for its own future.”

Finding a compromise before the coffin shuts

I couldn’t find a single attorney who relishes the prospect of helping a disgruntled client disinherit a relative — much less push their way back into an estate they’ve been deliberately shut out of.

Most are more sympathetic to California estate planner Jim Leese’s policy of trying to get all parties to reconcile their differences from one side of the grave or the other.

“Unless the hurt or ignored client acts responsibly and has the talk with the person who is offending them, the effect of the out-of-the-blue disinheritance may unwittingly breed family contempt between siblings for generations,” he recommends.

This means one last try to work things out before the aggrieved parent or spouse signs the relative out of the will. Even if it fails, at least the underlying issues come out where people can work on them.

Children might not know how deeply they’ve alienated their parents, and the threat of being cut out of the estate gives them a powerful motive to realize how serious the estrangement has gotten.

Only a prenup can freeze the spouse out

A spouse also gets the chance to reevaluate the relationship — or consider divorce.

In the United States, there’s not much point in waiting until the will is read to “surprise” a disinherited spouse because there’s not much leeway for disinheriting a spouse in the first place, the experts tell me.

“It takes work to leave a spouse with nothing,” says South Carolina estate planner Evan Guthrie.

In community property states, the spouse is entitled to half the marital assets, and he or she can petition for a share of the estate everywhere else, except in Georgia.

That’s the house, the cars, anything that passes through probate and sometimes even life insurance and other assets that avoid the probate process.

Unless previous agreements expressly signed that right away, no estate plan can interfere with that elective share, so any attempt to cut him or her out will ultimately be symbolic only.

Even in Georgia, the spouse is entitled to at least a year’s support from the estate, whatever else the will says.

Naturally, this can force wealthy families to sell a house, business or other property in order to give the widowed spouse a legal share.

And this, in turn, makes a prenuptial contract a necessity when such property is at stake. If the relationship has deteriorated, it makes more sense to take a fresh look at any prenup and renegotiate it now, rather than let your client try to take revenge through a will that the court will simply overturn.

Such a revised marital contract might not ultimately be much cheaper for your client than a divorce, but at least it creates an opportunity to establish what assets are off the table — and which ones the spouse can legitimately claim.

Of course, it eliminates the sour punchline of “surprise, you get nothing” when the will is read, but your client won’t be around to laugh either way.

Think of the interests of the heirs your client does want to protect.

Trust eliminates the uncertainty

The motives for cutting a relative out of an estate range from the most primal — hate, abandonment, regret — to the most rational.

Plenty of blended families work to limit what the spouse and children from a second or third marriage can inherit, in order to protect the interests of the original sons and daughters.

Others simply prefer to allocate the wealth they leave behind to relatives who need or deserve it the most.

Children who stay at home to take care of a parent may get it all, while extremely successful offspring may be passed over in favor of their siblings.

Some children may not have what it takes to responsibly manage their share of a family business, in which case there’s not much sense in courting disaster in the name of fairness.

Merit and need are subjective decisions, so lawyers warn that clients should discuss even the most “high-minded” disinheritance schemes with their families before committing their wishes to paper.

That way, when the will indicates that a child “receives nothing, and knows the reason why,” there’s actually no room for misunderstanding.

On that note, it may sound cruel to refer to beloved relatives by name and then acknowledge that they’re not entitled to a share in the estate, but it’s actually best practice.

Naming the “disinherited” son or daughter minimizes the odds that they — or their advisors — will contest the will as incompetently forgetting that they’re in the picture. Even if the relationship is good, this is a chance to express the love, while spelling out the lack of a financial obligation.

As always, putting the assets in trust can eliminate a lot of the misunderstandings.

If competence is an issue, the trust can ensure that the relative benefits from the economic value of the assets without taking an active role in the way they’re run.

And since individual beneficiaries don’t need to know what their relative shares of the income are, unequal bequests can be handled discretely, without the public announcement that Hollywood associates with the reading of the will.

That’s what trust officers are trained to do.

“The trust business is really about supporting family dynamics,” says Michael Roberts of Reliance Trust. “At the end of the day, the financial aspect is only the most obvious aspect of that.”

Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor.

Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/disinherit

, , , , , ,

1 Comment

Often There’s More Life After Death for Celebrities

Not every estate can be Michael Jackson’s in terms of raw earning power, but that doesn’t mean advisors should let death separate them from their top clients’ interests.

Between Whitney Houston’s posthumous record sales and the annual release of Forbes’ top-earning dead celebrities list, a lot of advisors are reconsidering when the client relationship ends.

Houston, for example, sold an extra million records and song downloads the day the world realized she was dead and her estate is probably entitled to around 20% of that revenue.

And Michael Jackson is still earning $170 million a year, which makes him the second-biggest earner in the music industry two years after his funeral.

“Many celebrities continue to generate income long after their deaths, thanks to books, recordings or even the use of their likeness to sell products,” says Long Island estate administrator Steven Adler.

You might not have a star on your client list, but the principles apply if they have more conventional commercial interests.

Elizabeth Taylor, for example, is earning most of her posthumous income from the perfume she launched 20 years ago.

That’s the kind of business that many high-net-worth people are likely to build and leave behind.

“Most non-celebrities will not have potential income after death from songs or movies,” notes Adler.

However, “They very well might from a business or other investments they had contributed to during their lifetime.”

Income is income and trust is king

The fact is, no matter how your clients made their money, if there’s any chance that even a portion of it will outlive them, it will go on drawing income well after they’re dead.

At least, it has that potential, provided that it’s managed properly.

The stars have their agents and management companies to make sure their copyrights and royalties are taken care of. Your clients’ heirs have you to invest the liquid assets.

Provided, of course, that you’ve convinced them that you’re still the right person for the job.

Historical studies show that a disturbing 86% of advisors fail to keep the assets when a client dies — often because there’s just no deep relationship there.

Naturally, moving the assets into a trust avoids estate tax issues and gives your client more say in how they’re used to enrich loved ones or favored causes.

The liquid assets are easy enough to assign to a directed trust, where a particular advisor is named to oversee how they’re invested.

Otherwise, there’s no guarantee that the current advisor will remain affiliated with the assets unless management rights are assigned in advance.

That’s an easy conversation to have with your clients while they’re still alive, and trust officers tell me that advisors who have that conversation usually get what they want.

Beyond that point, advisors need to know who the successor trustees will be and establish a working relationship now.

Of all the business professionals a wealthy family works with, the trustee is the least likely to be replaced when the next generation of clients takes over.

This is especially important when the money was originally made in Hollywood, the music industry or some other field where intellectual property rights continue.

For better or worse, celebrities generally appoint a relative or colleague to oversee the publishing rights and other “intangibles.”

This intellectual property is then handed back to the agent to manage, which usually works out all right.

However, estate planners who work with successful creative types stress that the more you can put in writing in the estate plan, the better.

If the current agents and business managers are doing a good job, make sure they can’t be removed just because the heirs think they can do the heavy lifting on their own.

And given the complexities of evaluating patents, trademarks and copyrights — much less image licensing rights — urge clients in these fields to appoint a corporate trustee with experience in these matters.

Tighten up the intangibles

Thanks to modern technology, these “intangibles” can generate a lot of money in ways that previous generations could not have imagined.

Marilyn Monroe, for example, didn’t own any intellectual property but her own image and her name.

But her estate raked in $27 million last year — three times as much as deceased Beatle George Harrison, who still makes money every time someone buys his records or covers one of his songs.

The secret is licensing and adaptation rights. Perfume companies are paying big bucks to reedit Marilyn’s archival “footage” into all-new commercials, and the musical based on her life is moving toward Broadway.

As we’ve been saying for awhile, if modern editing techniques can theoretically let a digitized Steve Jobs “appear” at a future MacWorld, dead celebrities can go on acting, singing and pitching products.

Those revenue streams need to be at least considered in the estate plan, even if — like Marilyn — there’s no way to effectively profit from the “property” for decades to come.

And even if you don’t have any celebrity clients, they still have diaries, scrapbooks, even Facebook accounts that may never be worth money, but the executor should know how they should be disposed.

Remember, true superstars are rare even beyond the grave. Only 15 dead celebrities earned more than $6 million last year.

There are a lot more conventional mega-millionaires and billionaires whose liquid assets will generate a lot more money for decades to come, if not forever.

But treat them like stars and get the best deal for their children, and you may cash your own share of the paychecks for a long time to come.

Scott Martin, senior editor, the Trust Advisor. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.

Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/posthumous-income

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

“Flakey” Paterno’s Estate Plan Shocks Lawyers

Even before cancer diagnosis, the 84-year-old legend was looking to shield his legacy from taxes, not lawsuits stemming from one-time protege’s sex abuse scandal. Local attorneys warn that reporters that say otherwise “better have an apology ready.”

Joe Paterno was already a household name in Pennsylvania before allegations of child sex abuse in his own locker rooms got the media digging into his personal financial arrangements.

In particular, the transfer of Paterno’s $400,000 house to a spousal trust is widely touted as an indication that he saw the writing on the wall a few months ago and was trying to protect his assets from angry parent lawsuits. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

8 Comments

Billionaire Steve Jobs Died Tax-Free, Experts Say

Trust experts weigh in on the details of Jobs’ trust and estate plan. The private but methodical technology innovator went well outside the box to ensure that his $6 billion legacy was as perfect as the technology he created.

The empire that Steve Jobs built from garage start-up to $342 billion behemoth now has to find its own direction, but his personal legacy is most likely evolving according to an extremely sophisticated plan.

First things first: nobody we talked to expects his estate to pay a penny in estate tax, no matter what the official rate happens to be.

And while Jobs might easily have been worth over $6 billion when he died at age 56, don’t hold your breath waiting to see who he remembered in his will, estate planners say. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , ,

10 Comments

Trust Firm Launches “Why Pay More for Trust Services” Marketing Campaign

Alaska Trust says frugal fees are better for both clients and advisors alike. New low fixed fees and advisor controlled directed trust program makes Alaska Trust a top choice for trust services.

Best known as a provider of full-service managed trusts at made-to-measure prices, Alaska Trust has started turning heads for offering its directed trusts at a flat fee.

As part of the company’s push into the advisory market, it has eliminated basis point pricing and is simply charging a fixed, flat fee, typically $3,500 a year, for all directed trusts — large or small. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Estate Planners Hit with Malpractice Suit by Philly Developer over Madoff Losses

“King of Asset Protection” told client to diversify a rock-solid trust portfolio, but the money only ended up in the hands of Bernie Madoff and other high-risk managers.

Prominent Philadelphia real estate developer Daniel Keating III, known for building the city’s convention center, has filed a lawsuit against high-powered law firm Duane Morris and two attorneys for malpractice and breach of contract.

Keating and his wife claim that they suffered “substantial losses” after the lawyers allegedly ignored their requests for conservative investment strategies and their money landed in a fund that fed victims to convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff instead. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Zsa Zsa’s Heirs from Past Marriages Line Up at Deathbed, Get Ready for Probate Court

Even though 94-year-old Zsa Zsa Gabor is not dead yet, a super-size family dispute has begun. On one side her husband, on the other, heirs from 9 marriages. Each claim an inheritance they were promised from a sea of confusing estate plans experts say went way off course.

It’s just as well that Hollywood legend Zsa Zsa Gabor probably has no idea that her ninth husband and only daughter have started bickering over her estate while she’s still alive.

But probate attorneys are all too aware of the damage a protracted fight over what’s left of her fortune — including a $15 million house in Bel-Air — will do to her legacy.
Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments

Deathbed Billionaires Continue To Pursue Lustful Marriages While Heirs Wait and Worry

The Supreme Court practically encourages marital opportunists to subvert established estate plans. Florida’s new law could shift the balance of power back to families and their advisors.

Hugh Hefner was supposed to get married today, but 25-year-old Crystal Harris decided she wanted a normal life — and not an 85-year-old with millions to spare.

Given what the heirs of oil tycoon Howard Marshall are still having to go through over his 14-month marriage to former Anna Nicole Smith, it may be for the best.

Marshall was 89 and worth $1.6 billion when he married Anna Nicole shortly after meeting her in a Houston strip club. A little over a year later, he was dead and she was fighting for a piece of his estate.

Fifteen years later, Anna Nicole herself is dead but the war over who gets Marshall’s billions is still working through the Supreme Court.

A ruling is due any day now and estate planners are already braced for the results.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , ,

3 Comments

Savvy Advisors Using “Lock in Estate Tax Exemptions Now” Marketing Opportunity to Gain New Client Relationships

As 2013 estate tax limbo looms, wealth advisors are not wasting time advising millionaire families to take advantage of tax benefits likely never to be offered again.

After a year of complete confusion over the immediate future of estate taxes, the recent budget battle on Capitol Hill has gotten the public muttering about class warfare, but for wealthy Americans, long-term clarity may never be easy to find again.

“The estate tax morphed into a shapeshifter and may never be solid after the 2010 estate tax guessing game,” says veteran tax lawyer and estate planner Martin Shenkman.

As the last 12 months taught us, a lot can happen between now and 2013, when the current tax regime is scheduled to “morph” again.

Last year, the public was outraged over the roughly $8.75 billion in potential tax revenue that a cash-hungry government lost after five billionaires — George Steinbrenner, Walter Shorenstein, Dan Duncan, Mary Cargill and John Kluge — died during last year’s temporary estate tax repeal.

But then, the upper-middle-class voters who fund reelection campaigns were worried that Washington would end up taking that $8.75 billion out of their own inheritances if the estate tax exemption was allowed to reset at $1 million this year.

Congress finally moved to close that upper-middle-class liability by keeping the exemption at $5 million, and since then there’s barely a peep on either side of the aisle.

For example, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin’s “Path to Prosperity” budget plan is 73 pages long and goes into exhaustive detail on topics like food stamps and Medicare reform, but doesn’t mention the federal estate tax once.

And even the 10% “billionaire surcharge” that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was backing this year now seems dead in the water.

Now’s the time to lock in exemptions

This may not always be the case. Upper-middle-class families who dodged the estate bullet again this year are rushing to take advantage of the current tax breaks while they exist.

Planners like Martin Shenkman are advising their clients to reconsider asset protection trusts and other vehicles before the rules change again.

“Until this year, the $1 million gift exemption constrained this planning,” he says. “The gift exemption now is $5 million. In 2013, the opportunity might be gone!”

In a world where the IRS is only now issuing guidance on how accountants are supposed to file tax returns for people who inherited money last year, the planning horizon has shrunk enormously from the days when advisors could guide their clients across decades with ease.

Now, there’s a sense that everything beyond December 31, 2012 is a black hole.

On one extreme, the exemption could reset at $1 million and a 55% maximum tax rate.

On the other, the tax could be repealed permanently. And in the middle, the current rules could be extended, or tinkered with in any number of ways.

At this point, nobody even wants to handicap this race any more.

This is, of course, a good marketing opportunity for estate planners who can help their clients reduce their taxable estates and lock in current tax rates before things change.

Charitable gifts are rising as well, especially among institutions that cater to mass affluent investors who might — or might not — be subject to the estate tax after 2012.

Vanguard has seen charitable activity jump a record 60% over last year, largely due to a lack of confidence that the $5 million gift tax exemption — or even the deductibility of donations — will not be around forever.

Meanwhile, this lack of confidence has its own ramifications as the planners urge their clients to lock in what we know is true over the next few years before the tax code potentially shifts again.

“The uncertainty about estate taxation is a small part of a larger uncertainty that seems to be plaguing the nation’s economy,” Bill Ahern, director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation, told me awhile back.

“No one knows what taxes they’re going to be paying in the near future, so they’re holding back on activities that could benefit the economy.”

Rich in rhetorical value, but not in revenue

Really wealthy families, of course, should have already done a lot of their heavy estate planning by the time they booked their first few million dollars.

For them, only the complete and permanent repeal of the estate tax will make much impact to their long-term outlook.

Likewise, while billionaires dying without owing the government a dime makes great political theater, the $8 billion extra that Steinbrenner and company got to pass on to their heirs is not going to move the $1 trillion deficit needle one way or the other.

As UC-Davis estate planning professor Joel Dobris told me recently, the fight over whether the richest 3,500 families in the country are taxed or not has mostly symbolic value.

Even in 2009, when the federal estate tax was in force at roughly the same levels that apply this year, it only brought in $20 billion.

The bottom line is that income tax was always the primary engine of federal revenue, and after last year’s $858 billion extension of the Bush-era income tax cuts, $20 billion more or less just won’t matter.

But while it might not be worth it to Congress to fight over, it makes a lot of difference to advisors and their clients.

Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Jerry Cooper and Steve Maimes contributed to the editing and research.

Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/estatetax2011

, , , , , ,

2 Comments

Visionary Predicts Future of Estate Planning

Estate tax guru Jonathan Blattmachr says wealth planning will change radically over the next 10 years. From artificial intelligence making tax and estate planning decisions to litigation settled by computer, our interview with him offers thrilling details.

While many law firms prepare intricate contingency plans for every possible scenario in their clients’ lives and posterity, visionary attorney Jonathan Blattmachr says few prepare for their own futures with anything like the same care.

“The one thing you cannot afford is to get too far behind the change curve,” he says. “If you get too far behind, you’re going to lose out.”

Blattmachr recently laid out a few of the revolutionary trends that might shape the world of estate planning for the elite participants at this year’s Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning summit at the University of Miami.

Once he got back to New York, he was gracious enough to give The Trust Advisor Blog and our readers a taste of the changes he sees in the profession over the next decade.

1. Computerized Law
Word processing was only the first step in streamlining the work of preparing trust documents and other paperwork. Retail clients can already get a professional-quality will drafted for under $100, Blattmachr says, and as template-driven systems get smarter, the level of service can only improve.

Given the sophisticated state of modern tax prep software, a computer could probably figure out what types of estate planning vehicles are appropriate for a given user’s situation and prepare a fairly complex — if impersonal — estate plan based on the results.

Blattmachr says he’s tried a $71 will-in-a-box from a company called LegalZoom and wasn’t exactly thrilled with the results personally. But he recognizes the fact that these products compete with face-to-face estate planners and help drive down the value proposition of their services.

To level the playing field, estate planners may well bring the technology in-house and have it do the heavy lifting while they establish a rapport with their clients.

A planner who can add human expertise and a personal touch to a computer-generated will may be able to price the final product within competitive range of the fully automated alternative — while charging enough of a premium to make a fair living. In fact, by leveraging 99% of the work, the planner can theoretically serve many more clients a year, bill the hours and enjoy even higher cash flow.

2. A.I. Judges
And if a computer can write the documentation, another one can read the file, compare it to the body of historical precedent and make a decision — without human intervention.

This is happening even as we speak, Blattmachr says.

“Litigators are saying no computer can do what I do,” he explains. “Well guess what? They are now deciding cases by computer.”

New York City is already settling thousands of cases a year just by feeding the files into a machine and having it crunch the case law to determine how each dispute should be resolved.

It isn’t so much actively adjudicating as a matter of adding up how judges have ruled in the past and weighing the final probabilities, Blattmachr says — something like a legal Monte Carlo simulation.

3. Proprietary Trusts
A bit less high-tech, but patenting their favorite trust twists will become a way for planners to ensure that computers don’t turn their services into commodities, Blattmachr says.

He points to the SO-GRAT, which functions like a conventional grantor-retained annuity trust only funded by stock options. The technique has been patented by Florida estate planning firm Wealth Transfer Group, which has successfully defended its property in court.

Offering this type of proprietary service makes a planner unique — or licensing it to friendly colleagues (or software companies) can bring in additional revenue. Either way, those who want to make use of the technique have to come to you to get their piece of the action.

4. Remote Law
The next generation’s estate planners may serve a global clientele, without ever meeting a single client face to face.

More and more firms are already marketing to prospects and keeping their leads on the line by providing a rich experience through their website: an online newsletter, a blog, even a Twitter feed.

Down the road, Blattmachr sees these sites merging with the computerized decision-making software that is already helping mass-market clients write their wills.

“The law firm’s software will analyze the client’s responses and then advise the client whether he or she is an appropriate candidate for the strategy and state why,” he explains.

“Presumably, there will be an offer to meet with the client or prospective client to implement the strategy if that is what the client or prospect wishes to do,” he adds.

In effect, the estate planner will be providing basic advice — via the automated system — from anywhere in the world. As a result, Blattmachr expects a lot more work-at-home lawyers to do good business over the next decade.

And while many U.S. professionals are worried about having their jobs outsourced to India, there’s a secret to outsourcing, Blattmachr says.

“No lawyer in India is going to work as cheaply as a computer,” he adds. “So outsource yourself to the computer and keep the money.”

Of course, servicing clients outside of the lawyer’s own jurisdiction may require knowledge — whether derived from computer software) or affiliation with a lawyer in the client’s own jurisdiction — to adequately serve the client’s interest.

5. Expect the Unexpected
Given the pace of innovation, modern technology will look almost unimaginably archaic by the time 2020 rolls around, Blattmachr says.

“The rate of change right now is almost perpendicular, straight up,” he explains.

As a result, while the basic facts of human life will remain constant, the day-to-day details may be hard to recognize.

But unless they cure the mortal condition, there will still be estate planners. And it’s almost certain they’ll still be wrestling with the ever-changing headaches of the tax code.

Written by the Trust Advisor Blog staff. To contact us, click here .

Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/future

, , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment