Archive for the ‘Wills’ Category

Estate Planning Conversations

March 8, 2010

For a lot of people, death and their own fragile mortality is the last thing that they want to discuss with anyone – let alone loved ones. We know that we are not going to live forever, but pondering our inevitable demise can steal the sun right out of the day, and so we tend to focus on happier things. For the same reason, parents and children sometimes tend to avoid openly discussing Wills, Trusts and all of that legal business that will be left when someone dies.

Yesterday’s New York Times included a great article about those challenging conversations, and the benefit of having them well in advance. The centerpiece of the story is a lawyer in Seattle. He has two children and has been separated from his wife, but not divorced, for around 30 years. He also has a brain cancer, and did not have a Will. In his state, had he died without a Will, his estate would have passed to his wife. He wanted to avoid this and opened up candidly with one of his daughters, who learned of his intentions and helped him find a lawyer to put his plan down on paper.

It’s a nice story and yes, it’s good to know that you can open up to your children to discuss your estate planning. Many of our clients take the same path of least resistance. I’ve drafted countless Wills that leave a client’s estate to the surviving spouse and then equally to the children. But occasionally, depending on the facts, things get changed up. Perhaps the spouse only gets a lifetime interest in the home, and the children inherit everything else, except for the child who receives nothing. Neither the spouse nor the children have any idea about the client’s plan until the client dies and the Will surfaces. Talk about awkward.

Undoubtedly, the client had a perfect reason for putting that plan into effect. It all made sense and the principles behind the decisions were sound. But the principles and reasons were kept by the client. The client never sat down with the spouse or children to share. So the spouse sues – the prodigal child sues – everyone sues because nobody’s happy about that Will. Twelve months and tens of thousands of dollars later, the suits are settled.

I’m not willing to bet that a conversation between the client, the spouse and the kids could have avoided all of that, but it probably couldn’t hurt. So much litigation in our area stems from resentment and the fact that a spouse or child is treated differently in the client’s Will than someone else. The Times article includes the thoughts of some experts, who believe that a series of conversations about these kinds of delicate issues works best. I agree.

Sadly, if a family has some inner turmoil ahead of the client dying, you can usually expect that turmoil to break loose after the fact. I tend to believe that litigation is unavoidable in some cases. But the Times article does make an excellent point for those situations where all it takes is a few conversations with your loved ones to openly discuss your plans.

The High Cost of Your Will

January 18, 2010

Each week, The Houston Chronicle runs a column entitled “State Your Case,” where local attorney Ron Lipman answers 4 or 5 questions from readers regarding various legal subjects. Recently, Lipman devoted the entire week’s column to estate planning and probate questions covering a range of concerns regarding Wills and probate questions.

In one of those questions, the reader asked Lipman, “What should I expect to pay for a simple Will…?” The reader pointed out that he just wanted a Will that passed everything to he or his wife when the first of them died, and then upon the death of the second of them, everything would be split equally between their children.

Having apparently conducted an informal survey of other attorneys in Houston, Lipman discussed that fees for a simple Will can sometimes be as high as $2,000 for a married couple. He also pointed out that a simple trust for a special needs child will generally cost anywhere from $2,000 on the low side or $4,000 on the higher end.

In my opinion, Lipman has provided useful information to answer this reader’s question, and his answer is probably fairly accurate. What surprises me, though, is the fairly high cost that some lawyers are charging for their “simple” Wills and for trusts for special needs children.

Ford & Mathiason has always advocated that each person in Texas should have a Will and that there is no substitute for the competent, experienced advice of attorneys who routinely advise clients in estate planning. However, Ford and Mathiason has historically charged much lower rates for these services and has always been very upfront and honest about the manner in which we charge for our estate planning services. In the Rates and Fees section of our website, you can find detailed information on the methods that we use for charging for our services, which we provide so that potential clients can fully understand the financial commitment that they are making when hiring an attorney.

As you embark on new decisions in 2010, consider carefully whether you need to make changes to your existing Will or if you need to create a Will for the first time. At the same time, do not let articles like Lipman’s scare you into thinking that these services are cost prohibitive. Ford & Mathiason is happy to offer estate planning expertise at reasonable rates. Please contact us if you would like to discuss your options further.

Non-Probate Assets

December 1, 2009

Every estate planning client is unique. There are simply far too many variables to boil effective estate planning down to a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Families and loved ones are diverse and dynamic, and assets vary immeasurably from one circumstance to the next. However, there are some common elements in most cases. The coordination of what are typically known as “non-probate assets” is one of those elements that comes up in the case of nearly every estate planning client that I counsel.

In a nutshell, “non-probate assets” are those assets that are specifically designed to pass to a designated beneficiary, or group of beneficiaries, at a future point. They can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and insurance policies represent a perfect example. John Doe purchases a $1 million insurance policy and names his wife, Jane, as the sole beneficiary. At John’s death, his insurer holds up their end of the contract and pays Jane once she informs them of John’s death and provides the necessary identification. Seems easy enough.

However, in many past cases, I have seen decedents’ Wills that attempt to direct who is entitled to certain “non-probate assets,” whether a life insurance policy, retirement account, or other such similar asset. Sometimes they identify the same beneficiary, and sometimes they do not. What if John Doe died leaving a Will that gave his life insurance policy to his girlfriend, and not to Jane, as the policy directed? And so many clients ask the obvious question: When they conflict, do the policy proceeds pass under the Will, or does the insurance policy control where the proceeds go?

The answer, which remains surprising to some, is that the provisions of the Will take a backseat to the provisions of the contract. With very little exception, the Texas Probate Code governs Wills, Trusts and other types of instruments. Insurance policies are not generally governed by the same law. Rather, they are contracts between the insured party and the insurer. When an event (John’s death,) triggers the obligation of the insurer (paying the proceeds to Jane,) the insurer’s obligation is to abide by the contract and pay the proceeds to Jane. Whether or not John left a Will is irrelevant to the insurance company. Similarly, his attempt to direct the proceeds to someone other than his designated beneficiary falls short.

In future posts, look for some discussion of some circumstances where it may work to John’s advantage to coordinate his “non-probate assets” with his Will to achieve the result that he wanted. In the meantime, remember that “non-probate assets” are generally governed by the contract that creates them. Many clients neglect this side of their estate planning, as they are primarily focused on having a well-drafted Will in place. Review the beneficiary designations that you have made on your own “non-probate assets,” and you can be certain that your plan fits together to cover all of your intentions.

Wall Street Journal Article Fails the Test

November 21, 2009

In the Wall Street Journal’s issue on November 12, 2009, Journal writer Jane Hodges offers a “Cranky Consumer” article in which she compares and contrasts various online programs to create a do-it-yourself Will. The article, entitled “Before It’s Too Late: A Test of Online Wills,” provides a review of how easy each program is to use, and it offers information on costs, services, and technical support for each of the programs reviewed. However, Ms. Hodges seems to fail her own “test.”

The laws related to Wills and trusts vary by state. What may constitute a valid Will in Texas may not be a valid Will in California. Likewise, because of the extreme differences in the probate laws across the various states, the most effective method of planning for your estate in some states may be the creation of a revocable living trust, while in other states the most effective method of handling your estate may involve a traditional Will. Likewise, depending on the overall assets owned by an individual or married couple, including certain tax provisions in a Will or Trust might be useful in saving significant amounts of taxes when one or the other of them dies.

Ms. Hodges article fails to provide a single warning or caution about any of the programs that she reviewed. She does not address whether or not the programs create documents that adhere to the specific laws of the state in which you live (most do not). While she does make passing mention of the fact that only one of the programs even mentioned future taxes, she does not attempt to caution her readers of the fact that this issue along could be significant. Likewise, while she seems to presume that a Revocable Trust is the appropriate method for planning for an estate, she does not point out that this may not be the best advice for each consumer. Most disturbingly, Ms. Hodges makes a cavalier reference to seeking the advice of an attorney, and she seems to suggest that an attorney’s advice is not necessary. However, she does tout the fact that one of the programs allows you to call into their hotline and ask questions.

In reality, do-it-yourself Wills are very often poorly drafted, and they frequently fail to properly conform to the laws of the specific state in which you live. As a result, it can be significantly more expensive to probate the Will at your death, or the Will may be completely invalid because it was not prepared properly. Additionally, the thought that you can call a hotline to have an attorney in California answer “general” questions regarding your Will is preposterous, unless you live in California. You should not accept legal advice from an attorney who is not properly licensed in the state in which you live. In fact, it violates the ethics rules of every state in the country for an attorney to express a legal opinion about laws in a state in which he is not licensed.

While Ms. Hodges’ article may have some value, she should have done a much better job to caution her readers as to the very significant pitfalls that can befall them by using an online Will program rather than seeking the advice of a competent lawyer.

A Peer of Your Juries

November 11, 2009

An article concerning the probate of the Estate of local oil pioneer provides an interesting glimpse into the mind of potential jurors.

I recently ran across a Houston Chronicle article concerning the Estate of Alfred C. Glassell. It seems the daughter of the oil pioneer and cultural philanthropist has contested the probate of his will, on the grounds that he was unduly influenced. Her claim revolves around the allegation that local museums (i.e. their attorneys) convinced the elderly man to change his will and give more to charity (i.e. the museums) thereby leaving less for his heirs (i.e. the daughter).

What struck me was not the content of the article, Lord knows there’s nothing new in a beneficiary contesting a will in a multi-million dollar estate. No, what caught my eye was the comment section located below the on-line version of the article. I was curious to see how joe public views such a fight. The results were not too surprising.

Of the 70 comments, my unofficial count was 12 in favor of the daughter, and 30 against. I noticed the following terms used to describe the daughter: “greedy wench,” “trust fund baby,” “roaches,” “brain dead liberal,” and my personal favorite “money grubbing wannabe heiress.” One poster asked “being a millionaire isn’t enough?”

However, I was somewhat surprised by the number of those who questioned the “disproportionate share” and lamented on how all of the estate was going to be sucked up by the money hungry attorneys. In fact, I counted at least ten anti-lawyer comments. Funny, I can’t remember any lawyer ever filing a suit without a client, but then again, I’ve come to expect such comments in my line of work. Like they say, the problem with lawyer jokes is that lawyers think they’re funny and everyone else thinks their true.

Either way, it should be interesting to see how the trial pans out, if these comments were any indication as to the bias of a potential jury pool, I would say the daughter is facing an uphill battle.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens?

July 29, 2009

Part 3
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

The final scenario is where a person dies without a spouse and without children. This is the most complex scenario with five possible divisions, which are better explained in the following bullet points:

1. If both parents survive the decedent, then his estate passes to his father and mother, in equal portions.

2. If only one parent survives the deceased, then his estate will be divided into two equal portions, one of which will pass to the surviving parent, and the other passes to the siblings of the deceased.

3. However, if the decedent had no siblings, then all of the separate property would pass to the sole surviving parent.

4. Conversely, if neither parent is alive, but there are surviving siblings, then the whole estate passes to the siblings of the deceased.

5. Finally, if there is no parent nor sibling alive at the time of death of the decedent, the inheritance is divided into two equal parts. One part is passed to the paternal kindred, and the other is passed to the maternal kindred, in the following course:

• to the grandfather and grandmother in equal portions if both are living.

• If only one grandparent is living then the estate is split into two equal parts and one part goes to the surviving grandparent and the other goes to the descendant or descendants of such deceased grandparent.

• If there is no surviving grandparent, then the whole of the estate goes to their descendants, and so on without end, passing in like manner to the nearest lineal ancestors and their descendants, but never to the state.

Like the provisions related to the division of separate property, the Probate Code also lays out the division of the community property of someone who dies intestate. Fortunately, the distribution scheme for community property is easier because community property, by definition, only exists if a spouse survives the decedent. Only three scenarios exist when someone dies intestate leaving community property: 1) no children or descendants, 2) children who are all children of the decedent and the surviving spouse, and 3) children or descendants who are not all descendants of the surviving spouse.
1. If the deceased had no children, then the entire community estate passes to the surviving spouse.

2. If the deceased had children, and all of such children were also the children of the surviving spouse, then the entire community estate passes to the surviving spouse.

3. And finally, if the deceased had children or descendants other than those of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse retains her one-half (½) share of the community property, and the decedent’s one-half (½) share of the community property is divided equally between the children or descendants of the deceased.

So, as you can see, Texas law makes it very clear that the court will find an heir and that heir will inherit your estate and your estate will not be turned over to the state for any reason. However, to ensure that your estate is divided the way you see fit, and to avoid a costly administration, it is always the best bet to ensure that you have a valid Texas Will.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens?

July 15, 2009

Part 2
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

Four basic scenarios illustrate the division of separate property upon someone’s death. In the first and most common scenario, a person dies with a spouse and children. In such case, the surviving spouse takes one-third of the personal property, (non land assets) and the remaining two-thirds of the personal property is divided equally among the child or children of the deceased. The surviving spouse of the decedent is also entitled to possession for life, of one-third of the land of the deceased, with that one-third going to the children or descendants upon that surviving spouses death.

In the second common scenario, someone dies without a spouse but is survived by each of the children born to him or her during life. In that scenario, all of the property is divided equally between the children. This scenario results in the easiest division of the decedent’s property.

In the third scenario, someone dies leaving a surviving spouse but does not leave any children or descendants. There, the spouse is entitled to all of the personal property and to one-half of the land of the Estate. The other half of the land would go to the father and mother of the deceased in equal portions. If only one parent survived the deceased, then that share of the land would be divided into two equal portions, one passing to the surviving parent, and the other passing to the siblings of the deceased. If there were no siblings, the entire share would pass to the parent. If no parent survived the deceased, and there were siblings, the entire share would pass to the siblings.

In the next installment, we will discuss the most complex scenario, what happens when a person dies without a spouse and without children.

Dying Without a Will in Texas: What Happens? Part I

June 29, 2009

Part 1
By Jason Brower

Question: “Is it true that the state gets everything if I die without a Will?”

Concerned clients routinely ask this question expressing their concern in keeping the State from taking their hard-earned estate upon their deaths. Fortunately, the State does not take the property of someone dying without a Will. Instead, Texas law dictates how the assets of someone dying without a Will are divided upon their death.

If you die without a Will, you are said to have died “intestate.” When someone dies intestate, Texas law lays out how the estate will be distributed in the Texas Probate Code. Under those provisions, the law draws a distinction between “separate” property and “community” property. The Probate Code defines separate property as any property owned by the deceased prior to married and any property given to the deceased during their marriage or acquired by them as an inheritance from someone else. On the other hand, the Probate Code defines community property as all property acquired or accumulated during the marriage, other than property acquired by gift or inheritance, and Texas law requires different divisions of separate property than community property. These divisions can be somewhat complicated, but understanding their divisions makes intestate estates much easier.

In the next several days we will analyze these scenarios and explain the probate code’s division of property for each scenario.

Challenging Challenges, Pt. 2

February 24, 2009

In a previous post, I began discussing some of the fact and evidence challenges in Will contests from the challenger’s perspective. Recall that I boiled down will contests to three basic varieties of complaints: (1) complaints about the technical execution of the document, (2) complaints about the conduct of the person making the Will, and (3) complaints about the conduct of some third-party. Last time, I outlined some of the traditional fact scenarios in a contest of the first type. This time, let’s focus on challenges to Wills based on the conduct of the person signing it.

The way I see it, there are three important time periods to focus on in challenges involving the person signing the Will, also known as the Testator. If I’m asking my contestant client the right questions, I want to learn more about (1) what the Testator did before the Will was signed, (2) what was happening at the time the Will was signed, and (3) what happened after the Will was signed. Sometimes, a client can provide information about all three time periods – sometimes not. As a general rule, I would like to know as much as possible about all three, so that we can begin to look for inconsistencies, different behaviors, different attitudes and perhaps even different mental conditions of the Testator during each of these periods.

Of the potential grounds on which a challenge to a Will can be brought, there are probably only four that are attributable to some conduct of the Testator. Obviously, each comes with their own issues of evidence and proof. Perhaps the Testator lacked the mental capacity to execute a Will at the time that the challenged document was signed. Or, maybe the document itself fails to demonstrate an actual testamentary intent on the part of the Testator. Maybe the Testator was mistaken about what the Will actually said. Or, perhaps the Testator did something after signing the document to demonstrate that she intended to revoke it.

A Will is generally defined as an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of her property to take effect at his death. This little definition actually leads to a couple of pretty important conclusions. First, no Will is irrevocable until the Testator dies. The disposition of property takes effect at death, and until that time, a Testator can change her mind and revoke the instrument. This revocation might come in the form of executing a new document, or it may come as a physical act, such as tearing the document up, or tossing it in the trash.

Second, the document must actually make a disposition of property. A fair number of Texas cases have dealt with issues regarding the wording in challenged documents. A document entitled “Last Will and Testament,” which states “upon my death I leave all of my property to my husband,” is pretty clearly a Will. But a document that looks toward the preparation of some other document, like a letter of instruction to a lawyer, may not meet the definition. “Dear Lawyer, please change my Will to leave my property to my sister,” is not language that by its own terms gives anything away. The letter looks to have the lawyer prepare a document to be signed later, and so the letter likely cannot be admitted as the Testator’s Will.

By far, however, the vast majority of Will contests that I encounter dealing with the conduct of the Testator are those that touch on the issue of the Testator’s mental capacity at the time the Will was signed. “Mom must not have known what she was signing if she didn’t leave anything to me. She had Alzheimer’s, was on medication and barely even recognized friends and family at that point.”

Testamentary capacity refers directly to the mental condition of the Testator at the time that a Will is executed. In short, the Testator must have sufficient mental capacity to engage in the act of executing a Will in order for the Will to be valid. The bar for testamentary capacity is actually pretty low, but there are some basic elements that must be met. For example, the Testator must be able to understand what a Will does, be able to know their property and be able to understand who might reasonably expect to receive it upon their death.

I find challenges to Wills on a theory of inadequate capacity pretty commonplace. After all, a fair number of Wills are often executed at a time when the Testator thinks that death might be just around the corner. Often, these times are accompanied by illnesses and conditions that affect our capacity, such as dementia, senility and Alzheimer’s Disease.

Though common, Will contests based upon a lack of testamentary capacity are sometimes incredibly difficult. In most circumstances where the Will is drafted by an attorney, the document is executed in the presence of two witnesses, a notary public and maybe others. These are people who probably observed, heard and spoke to the Testator at the very moment that she was signing the Will. These witnesses will undoubtedly form the cornerstone of the opposing party’s case, and their testimony is usually going to be pretty compelling. Who better to tell us how the Testator was behaving at the time of the execution than honest strangers who saw, heard and spoke to her?

But the issue might not end with the recollection of these witnesses. After all, if other evidence shows that the Testator lacked capacity before and after the execution, should we not reasonably believe that she lacked capacity during the execution as well? Is it really that likely that the Testator had a brief moment of clarity and senility at that exact point in time? Maybe, maybe not.

More often than not, potential contestants want to bring in their own stories of how the Testator lacked capacity. That’s fine, and they may even help prove the case. But I’m far more interested in evidence that is more difficult to call into question, and that usually means that I’m looking for something medical. Show me a physician who diagnosed the Testator with severe dementia, or a doctor who prescribed heavy medication only days before the Will was signed. Even if we have to overcome the testimony of witnesses who were there when the Will was signed, I give myself much better odds when I have more than a contestant’s sneaking suspicion that something must have been off.

Challenging Challenges

February 3, 2009

With tax season looming over everyone’s heads, perhaps we could use a distraction and turn our attention to the other inevitability that Benjamin Franklin mentioned more than 200 years ago – death. But let’s not be morbid about it and dwell on our own mortality. Instead, I thought it might be more fitting to talk about how even the best laid plans for our personal reckoning can be questioned and challenged by our friends, families and loved ones.

More often than not, professional service providers stress to their clients the importance of everyone having a Will. I’m guilty. I chant it like a mantra myself as I congratulate the folks that have them and scramble to help the ones that don’t. While having a Will is imperative, I should probably tell my clients to have a “good” Will, and by that I mean one that would withstand a challenge or contest.

The majority of my clients laugh at the idea of a fight over their Estate. Either their Estate is modest in their opinion, or their families would never engage in such behavior. I generally counter by explaining that my experience has taught me that no estate is too modest, and that even the most loving families can become entangled in the most brutal Will contests. All it takes is a coveted family heirloom, scorned loved ones and hurt feelings to lay the foundation for litigation that often saps the emotional and financial resources of everyone involved.

I plan to discuss some useful tools to deter and avoid these fights in subsequent posts. For now, I thought we might look at the issue from a different perspective – the person contesting the Will. Sometimes a contest has potential for success, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes, a client knows something is amiss, but can’t quite put his finger on it. On what grounds can a Will be challenged? Stop me if you’ve heard this one: “Mama loved me best of all, and there’s no way she meant to leave her Estate to my good-for-nothing brother. Either she didn’t know what she was signing, or my brother made her do it. How do I stop my brother from probating this bogus Will?” The question is similar to the ones I hear from clients all the time.

Will contests generally fall into three broad categories of complaints: (1) A complaint about the technical execution of the document, (2) A complaint about the conduct of the person making the Will, or (3) A complaint about the conduct of some third-party. Set 2 and 3 aside for now. We’ll get back to them. This post will look a bit more in detail about Will contests involving a challenge based generally upon the execution of the document.

A Will is generally defined as an instrument by which a person makes a disposition of his property to take effect at his death, and which, by its nature, is subject to being revoked while the person is still living. Estate of Brown, 507 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas, 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Section 59 of the Texas Probate Code outlines the requisites of a Will in Texas, and it is one of the most liberal Will execution statutes in the country. To be a Will, the document must be in writing and signed by the Testator (the person making the Will.) Nothing fancy is required, and apart from the requirement that the Will must demonstrate an intention to dispose of property at death, a Will could be short and to the point.

If the Will isn’t written entirely by the Testator in his own handwriting, it must be attested to by two credible witnesses above the age of 14. Section 59 goes on to state that the Will may be made “self-proved” at any time after its execution. Often, a will is made self-proven at the same time the Testator signs it. An affidavit acknowledging certain facts regarding the execution of the Will is signed by the Testator, the witnesses and a Notary Public. The presence of a proper Self-Proving Affidavit relieves the person offering the Will of the burden of bringing one or both of the witnesses to Court to provide testimony. Thus, a Self-Proving Affidavit works as advance testimony – confirming for the Court that the Will was properly executed.

When a challenged Will is typewritten, signed by the Testator, signed by two witnesses and includes a Self-Proving Affidavit, the grounds for a complaint regarding the Will’s form and execution become somewhat limited. Many would-be contestants fail to realize that these bare facts already identify at least three witnesses who are likely to provide evidence in favor of the Will. Two witnesses and a Notary Public were presumably in the Testator’s presence when he signed the Will. In fact, they’ve already provided testimony on this, since that is the effect of the Self-Proving Affidavit. Right off the bat, our potential contestant has an uphill fight. Beyond that, since the Will was typed, it was likely prepared by an attorney and executed in her office. Add another witness to the list, since the attorney probably consulted with the Testator before signing the Will, and may even have been in the room when it was signed. Before any other facts are introduced, I already know my contestant is going to need to muster some serious evidence to prevail.

To be frank, I don’t encounter many Will contests where the basis for the fight is the technical form or execution of the document. Most of the Wills that I see are drafted well enough to suffice, properly witnessed and made self-proven. More often, Will contests fall into the other two categories that I plan to discuss later. Certainly, this isn’t always the case, and unique facts and circumstances will always exist. My point is that contestants will frequently look past the fact that their opponent often already has a handful of witnesses on their side. For those contestants that can’t quite put their finger on why the Will should be denied probate, explaining this is a lot like shutting a door in their face. All hope may not be lost, however, as there are a number of other potential bases for a Will contest. We’ll pick up with those next time.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.