People in unique situations, like family business owners, parents of children with special needs, and people with substantial net worth are often very proactive about enlisting attorneys to craft a comprehensive estate plan. Most others understand the benefit of such planning – stating how your property would be divided up with specificity, appointing decisionmakers for any future incapacity, naming alternate guardians of minor children – but are hesitant to contact an attorney to set their affairs in order. This is entirely understandable. People rarely find themselves excited to consult an attorney in general, and even less so when the purpose is to contemplate your own mortality. The prospect of death or incapacity may seem unlikely for your age, making it easy to put off, and spending money on a backup plan may not seem like the best use of limited resources in a tight economy. Notions of costs in the thousands rather than hundreds or the belief that an expensive “living trust” is needed to avoid probate doesn’t help much either.
But for all of the practical difficulties people know are possible with a lack of planning, few are aware that there can be significant financial consequences of improper planning, even for those modest means. In most cases, even basic estate planning will offset significantly higher hidden costs in the future. After the break, three extremely common examples of these costs.
An article last week in the local lawyer’s trade paper, The Connnecticut Law Tribune, discussed the increasing prevalence of wills being delayed in the probate process through complaints, objections, and full-out challenging of wills admitted to probate.
It’s not surprising, given that the economy is at the lowest point most of us have ever and will ever see. There will always be maligned siblings looking for their fair share and suspicious later-in-life will changes, but in these tight times staying silent to keep the peace may not be the option it normally would be for some left-out relatives. At the same time, there’s likely a surge in opportunists who suspect (accurately, as it happens) that most legit beneficiaries would rather pay a small, quick settlement than see their own inheritances delayed and diminished by a protracted lawsuit.
It’s an unfortunate situation for those looking to plan for when they are no longer around. It’s also a good example of why it’s so important to have your will done by an attorney, in particular one who handles a great deal of wills and probate work.
If you’re looking to cut someone off because you question their responsibility or they have significant debts, several different types of trusts can be employed to address those concerns without completely disinheriting the person. If you just want someone out, the wording must be carefully chosen to meet legal standards. Depending on the situation, it may be better to employ a “carrot and stick” tactic, where the ousted person is actually given a small legacy under the will, but which is forfeited if he or she challenges the will in court.
Later-in-life will changes are particularly susceptible to challenge in court, as relatives may claim the author was not competent to make the will, or had been subjected to the manipulation and pressure of an overbearing child or confidante. An experienced estate planning or elder law attorney can take steps to help ensure the will will be upheld in court, such as careful selection of the location and people present at the execution ceremony (will signing), choice of witnesses, and videotaping the ceremony as future evidence.
For more information, feel free to call me at (203) 871-3830 or email email@example.com for a free consultation.
I recently had the opportunity to attend a lecture by a colleague discussing the benefits of certain will clauses as illustrated by notable wills in the public record. At one point we were discussing spendthrift clauses, a common technique to withhold a benefit from someone whose creditors would just end up with it anyways, using an excerpt from the self-written will of President (and attorney) Thomas Jefferson:
“Considering the insolvent state of affairs of my friend & son in law Thomas Mann Randolph, and that what will remain of my property will be the only resource against the want in which his family would otherwise be left, it must be his wish, as it is my duty, to guard that resource against all liability for his debts, engagements or purposes whatsoever, and to preclude the rights, powers and authorities over it which might result to him by operation of law, and which might, independantly (sic) of his will, bring it within the power of his creditors. . .”
The attorney noted how beautifully written the prose of those days went, how lofty and eloquent it was. I noticed something very different, though, and very disturbing. I saw precatory language.