On February 26, 2013, Lorraine Bayless collapsed in the dining room of Glenwood Gardens, the independent living facility in California where she resided. The staff refused to perform CPR on Ms. Bayless, despite pleas from the 911 operator. As the 911 operator predicted would happen when a nurse on duty refused to administer CPR because it was against the policies of Glenwood Gardens, Ms. Bayless died before the ambulance arrived. The facility’s policy is that in the event of a health emergency, the facility will immediately call for emergency medical personnel for assistance and wait for the assistance to arrive. Fortunately for the independent living facility, Ms. Bayless had signed a Do Not Resuscitate form, and the family does not wish to pursue any potential claims that they might have against the facility. The family has said that it knew the policy of Glenwood Gardens and is at peace.
Continue Reading
Articles Posted in Estate Planning and Documents
Estate Planning and Homestead in Florida
All states have their own constitutions and state laws. Because of this, states may have different provisions for how people are allowed to pass on their property at death. It is important to be aware of the laws of the state where you live, and also any states where you own property. Many non-Floridians purchase property in Florida and later retire and move to that property. However, those people may have done their estate plans in other states and not updated them after moving. This can create problems if the estate plan is not in compliance with Florida laws.
Continue Reading
With Low Interest Rates for June, Now is the Time to Think About Establishing a Charitable Lead Trust
The IRS released a 1.2% interest rate under IRC § 7520 for June, which determines the present value of an annuity, an interest for life or term of years, or a remainder or reversionary interest. Rev. Rul. 2013-12 tbl. 5. With interests rates at an all-time low, charitable donors are able to bequest their assets to their beneficiaries without having to worry about federal estate or generation transfer taxes by using a charitable lead trust.
Charitable lead trusts should be used to enhance charitable giving, reduce current gift taxes and estate taxes owed at death, and to transfer assets to a younger generation as part of an overall estate plan. Charitable lead trusts pay an income interest to a charity for a specified period of time with the remainder reverting to a non-charitable beneficiary. Donors who already make annual charitable gifts will find a charitable lead trust an efficient way to transfer substantial assets to family members while maintaining the donor’s regular charitable gifts.
Continue Reading
The IRS and Your Lottery Winnings
The odds of winning the recent Power Ball jackpot were somewhere around 1 in 175 million. While the chances of hitting that $575 million dollar jackpot were absurdly low, the odds of winning a smaller jackpot are much less daunting. If you are one of the lucky to hit a lottery jackpot, do not get lost in the excitement. The money is not yours free and clear. All lottery winnings constitute income under the Internal Revenue Code, and, therefore, come with tax implications. Have no doubt, lottery winnings are taxable income, and Uncle Sam needs to get his taste of the action. Lottery winnings are taxed at a marginal rate of 35% to the winner or winners. There can also be gift taxes associated with sharing the winnings with friends, family members, or a group that purchased the winning ticket. Thus, with the excitement of hitting the jackpot, comes the necessity for planning.
How you claim your lottery prize can make a difference. Do you want to take the annuity? Or the lump sum? Do you want to claim the prize personally? Or set up a trust? Or set up a business entity like a limited liability partnership? What happens when there is a group who contributed to the winning ticket?
Continue Reading
How the New Investment Income Surtax Affects Estates and Trusts
In order to finance the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress has imposed a new 3.8% surtax on certain passive income starting in 2013. Typically, passive income includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, capital gains, and other payments in which the investor does not actively participate in management. The surtax applies to home sales if the profit from a home sale is more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple). For estates and trusts, the 3.8% surtax will be imposed on the lesser of (1) the undistributed net investment income of a trust or estate, or (2) the amount by which adjusted gross income exceeds the top inflation-adjusted bracket for estate and trust income, which is expected to be approximately $12,000 in 2013. The surtax applies to individuals who receive distributions of net passive income from trusts and estates. These rules do apply differently to grantor trusts because the income from grantor trusts passes directly through to the grantor’s tax return.
Continue Reading
Acquisition of Property by Minors
In their wills, many parents choose to leave property to their children. Others may give their children certain property while they are still living. Children may also have an interest in property as a result of a trust set up by one or both of their parents. But, what if these children are still minors? Is it legal for a parent or natural guardian to transfer property to minors? Who is authorized to make decisions with regard to that property? Can the minors themselves make decisions to alter or sell the property?
Generally, “[t]he fact that a person is a minor does not prevent him from acquiring and holding title to property.” Watkins v. Watkins, 123 Fla. 267 (1936). However, complications often arise out of a minor owning real or personal property or having some other property interest transferred to him or her, such as having to pay property taxes on real estate. In this circumstance, the natural guardian of the child will have to assist the child. When the aggregate sum of the property does not exceed $15,000, the natural guardian(s) of a minor may “(a) settle and consummate a settlement of any claim or cause of action accruing to any of their minor children for damages to the person or property of any minor children; (b) collect, receive, manage, and dispose of the proceeds of any settlement; (c) collect, receive, manage, and dispose of any real or personal property distributed from an estate or trust; (d) collect, receive, manage, and dispose of and make elections regarding the proceeds from a life insurance policy or annuity contract payable to, or otherwise accruing to, the benefit of the child; and (e) collect, receive, manage, dispose of, and make elections regarding the proceeds of any benefit plan . . . of which the minor is a beneficiary, participant, or owner.” Fla. Stat. § 744.301(2). However, when the amount of the property exceeds $15,000, the rights of the natural guardians are limited and subject to review and permission of the court. Until the minor reaches the legal age of majority, he or she is under a type of “disability” because she lacks the capacity to enter into binding contracts. However, if the minor does not want to sell the property or does not need to sell the property, he or she may choose to hang on to the property until he or she reaches the age of majority.
Continue Reading
Florida’s Antilapse Statute
Many individuals execute wills before their death, leaving certain gifts to their family members, friends, and other individuals. From time to time, however, certain individuals named in a will (i.e., “devisees”) predecease (i.e., die before) the person leaving them the gift. If a new will is not executed, a question arises concerning who should then be entitled to that property. Before the modern Florida statutes, under common law, if a specific or general devise (i.e., a gift in a will of either specific property or a particular amount of money/stock, respectively) lapsed because the beneficiary predeceased the testator, the gift went to the residuary of the estate, meaning that it would become part of the general estate and would go to the remaining living heirs.
Disagreeing with the common law, many state legislatures drafted statutes which reversed or otherwise altered the common law rule. Florida is among the states that have chosen to deviate from the common law rule by adopting an “antilapse statute.” Under the Florida Antilapse Statute, when a particular devisee predeceases the testator, the gift to the devisee does not fall into the residue of the estate or pass to the heirs of the testator by intestacy. Instead, the gift descends to the issue of the predeceased devisee. Specifically, Florida Statute § 732.603(1) provides as follows: “Unless a contrary intent appears in the will, if a devisee who is a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the testator: (a) is dead at the time of the execution of the will; (b) fails to survive the testator; or (c) is required by the will or by operation of law to be treated as having predeceased the testator, a substitute gift is created in the devisee’s surviving descendants who take [in equal shares] the property to which the devisee would have been entitled had the devisee survived the testator.”
Continue Reading
The Digital Age and Wills, Social Media and Licenses After Death.
People generally know that the purpose of a will is to facilitate the orderly distribution of assets after a person’s death. Therefore, it logically flows that assets that expire upon death do not need to be handled by a will. They expire. However, the concept of ownership has changed drastically over the past decade. Digital media, social media, and the internet in general have changed how people think they own things and how they actually own things. Would you be surprised to know that you don’t actually own the album you just bought from iTunes? You do not own it in the same way as the CD you bought from a music store. Your rights are limited when you are buying things online. You are buying the digital rights to use a file rather than buying the actual file. Today, most digital licenses are individually owned, non-transferrable, and expire on death. Good examples of these are email accounts, such as Gmail, social media accounts, such as Facebook, and media accounts, such as iTunes and Amazon. Ownership has changed from owning a physical, tangible object to owning a license for use of something with limited rights. You do not have a CD to play wherever you want anymore; you have a digital file that can only be played on certain devices. Usually devices that are made by the company you bought the file from – such as Apple limiting the use of its media files to its products. At the end of the day, you still paid the same amount of money for a digital album as you would have for a tangible CD. So, how is it fair that these licenses expire on death and are non-transferrable? Shouldn’t these files still be considered an asset? And shouldn’t there be a way to protect them?
The operative word in a lot of these digital user agreements is is “individually.” Files you buy on iTunes are owned individually, cannot be transferred, and expire on death. So, you spend thousands of dollars on a digital music collection and instead of being able to bequeath your prized collection of CDs to your favorite grandchild, you lose your collection when you die. Read the user agreements for digital media and see for yourself. However, there are ways to solve this problem. One solution is owning the files by an entity other than an individual. What about digital assets owned by a business or a trust?
Continue Reading
Supreme Court Denies Survivor Benefits to Posthumously-Conceived Florida Twins
As technology continues to develop, its impact is seen in many areas of law. In today’s world, natural conception is not the only way to conceive a child. Often times, a parent may choose to have a child through in-vitro fertilization, even after their significant other has passed. However, under common law, a posthumously-conceived child (a child conceived after the death of the father) is always considered a non-marital child because marriage ends at the death of one of the partners. Specifically, under Florida law, “a child conceived from the eggs or sperm of a person or persons who died before the transfer of their eggs, sperm, or pre-embryos to a woman’s body shall not be eligible for a claim against the decedent’s estate unless the child has been provided for by the decedent’s will.” Fla. Stat. § 742.17. This statute means that a posthumously-conceived child may not state a claim against his father’s estate, unless that child is deliberately named in the father’s will.
In a recent United States Supreme Court opinion, Astrue v. Capato, a mother conceived and gave birth to twins after the father had passed away from esophageal cancer. The Capatos naturally conceived one son, but the couple wanted that son to have siblings. Before Mr. Capato entered chemotherapy, he had his semen frozen because the doctors explained that the chemotherapy could force him to become infertile. A few months before he died, Mr. Capato executed a will that named the son he had with Ms. Capato and two children from a previous marriage as beneficiaries. The will failed to mention his unborn children as beneficiaries. After her husband’s death, Ms. Capato began receiving in-vitro fertilization treatments, using her husband’s previously frozen sperm. The process was successful, and eventually, she gave birth to twins.
Continue Reading
Revocable Trusts
There are many instances in which a trust can be terminated, e.g., when the trust ceases to be economically efficient to administer or when the trust has been created as a result of fraud, duress, or undue influence. Recently, in Florida, more individuals have been creating revocable trusts. Floridians often choose this type of trust to avoid probate and to keep their private affairs out of the public eye in a probate proceeding. But when is a trust revocable? Who can revoke the trust? What steps must be taken and procedures followed to ensure that the trust is revocable?
One of the key distinguishing features of a revocable trust, as opposed to an irrevocable trust, is control. A settlor has control not just to revoke the trust, but to alter the trust as well. For example, the settlor of a revocable trust may add or remove beneficiaries of the trust during the settlor’s life and may also change the property that is owned by the trust. A major downside of this control is that the trust’s assets are easier for creditors of the settlor or of the beneficiaries to reach. Whereas, with regard to an irrevocable trust, the settlor does not have control once the trust is established, but the assets of the trust are better protected from the settlor’s creditors, and, depending on how the trust is structured, those assets may also be better protected from creditors of the beneficiaries.
Continue Reading