Florida Probate, Trust & Estate Blog : Florida Probate Lawyers & Attorneys : Clark Skatoff Law Firm : FL Wills, Trusts & Inheritance : Palm Beach, Broward County, Boca Raton

A Florida probate court and the appellate court have dealt with a number of problems regarding the administration of a trust managed by JP Morgan Chase. The case has been extensively litigated, and the appellate court has recently issued its third opinion on the matter, in the case of Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Oct. 19, 2011).  The facts of the case, according to the appellate court, included the following

The settlor of the trust, Dorothy H. Rautbord, established a trust to benefit her for her life, with the remainder to be distributed to her children who survived her, including her sons.  The trust permitted the trustee to pay from income and principal, so much “as the Trustee, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or advisable for the support, maintenance, health, comfort or general welfare of the Settlor [Rautbord].”   

The trust reserved for Ms. Rautbord the power to amend, modify, or revoke the trust, and excluded a power of attorney holder from exercising these powers.  

JP Morgan Chase Bank was the trustee.  After Ms. Rautbord became incapacitated, the holder of the power of attorney made large withdrawals from the principal of the trust by signing “revocation” letters, which the trustee honored.  The trustee issued checks for many gifts and also spent “considerable” amounts for Ms. Rautbord’s general welfare. 

The woman holding a power of attorney used the power of attorney to make gifts from the trust to dozens of people, including the JP Morgan employee in charge of administering the trust.   

The settlor passed away.  The remaindermen of the trust (those who were to receive what was left in the trust after the death of the settlor), sued because of the gifts and other amounts of alleged excessive distributions. 

This decision dealt primarily with the standing of the remainder beneficiaries to challenge the distributions that were made during the life of the settlor.  The court ruled that, under New York law, the remainder beneficiaries had standing to pursue their case.  Rather than stopping at the standing issue, however, the court made a number of other rulings that are important for trustees administering trusts, especially when the trustee is faced with demands from another person holding a power of attorney.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Surviving Spouses in Florida receive certain entitlements in a Florida probate administration, including a minimum percentage of the estate (elective share), rights to a Florida homestead, support during the probate administration, and other benefits.

Marital Agreements (Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements)

·         MARITAL AGREEMENTS.  Martial Agreements which are often referred to as prenuptial agreements, ante-nuptial agreements, and post-nuptial agreements, can waive or create rights upon the death of a spouse.  It is imperative to have a lawyer review these agreements who is familiar with the probate process to properly any rights you may have at death or as a surviving spouse.   It is also important to have these documents properly reviewed by experienced probate lawyers to ensure any death time provisions are properly addressed prior to signing any of these agreements.  Many of the rights of a surviving spouse can be waived or increased in properly drafted agreements.

·         TIMELINE TO FILE A CREDITOR CLAIM.  If a surviving spouse of a Florida decedent has a Marital Agreement, it is imperative that his or her attorney file a protective creditor claim to preserve these contract rights of the surviving spouse, within the three months of the filing the Notice of Publication to Creditors or thirty days from the date of service of a known creditor, even if the surviving spouse is the personal representative.  A common mistake of probate lawyers in handling marital agreements is the failure to file such a creditor claim.  There is no harm in filing a protective claim, and often filing a protective creditor claim results in the payment of benefits to a surviving spouse which may otherwise be lost.  The Florida Supreme Court has even ruled that filing such a claim is necessary to enforce a surviving spouse’s right under a marital agreement. Spohr v. Berryman, 589 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1991).  The consequence of failing to timely file a creditor claim for a spouse with rights under a marital agreement can be severe, and a spouse may potentially lose all benefits of the marital agreement if the proper procedures are not followed.

Spouse Dies Without a Will (Intestacy)

·         INTESTATE.  If a person dies without a Will he or she is considered to die intestate.

·         INTESTATE SHARE.  If a spouse dies without a Will, the surviving spouse receives an intestate share.  (If a couple is separated at the time of death, the surviving spouse is not barred from inheriting).

·         SHARE OF SURVIVING SPOUSE - NO CHILDREN OR ALL CHILDREN OF SURVIVOR.  If the only survivor is a surviving spouse, or if all the lineal descendants are also lineal descendants of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse receives the entire estate of the decedent.  This rule applies only for spouses passing away on or after October 1, 2011.  Under prior Florida law, if the deceased spouse had children, the surviving spouse received only one-half of the estate, or one-half of the estate plus $60,000 if all of the children were of the marriage.

·         SHARE OF SURVIVING SPOUSE IF THERE ARE SURVIVING CHILDREN FROM DECEDENT BUT NOT OF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE.  If there are children of the decedent who are not children of the surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse receives one-half of the intestate estate. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Title: Pressing the “Do Over” Button: Strategies for Modifying Wills and Trusts after Formation

Presenter: Joshua S. Rubenstein

                Mr. Rubenstein opened his presentation discussing a few current events that weren’t expected such as the European debt crisis, the Asian spring, and the Yankees failing to reach the World Series. He noted that you cannot anticipate all changes and issues that may arise in the future.   Clients often make bad decisions regarding their estate plans, and lawyers sometimes make mistakes. In addition, people are living longer than ever before which raises the question, so how long does a person have to wait to inherit? There is an increase in litigation, and trust beneficiaries often few trusts negatively. Mr. Rubenstein divided the presentation into four different sections in discussing how to address some of these issues:  I) Tax Considerations Underlying Modifications: Income and Transfer Taxes, II) Retroactive Modifications, III) Prospective Modifications, and IV) Special Considerations with Respect to Litigation Settlements. 

I) Tax Considerations

                In describing the tax consideration’s underlying modifications, he noted the current low income tax rates, which he only expects to increase.  Historically income tax rates are as high as 90% for the top rates as opposed to the current 35-40% income tax rates and 15-28% capital gains rates.   He also discussed the various forms of taxation for different entities and how gifts, legacies and distributions from estate/and or trusts are generally tax exempt, except for income in respect of a decedent, distributable net Income, and gifts to employees.   The most common deductions are charitable, businesses, and administration expenses which are all subject to substantial limitations. He also noted many states and municipalities impose income tax rates, while eight states levy no income tax. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The attorney-client privilege is the oldest confidential communication privilege in the Florida common law and is codified by statute and contained in the Florida Evidence Code, section 90.502, Florida Statutes (2011).  The attorney-client privilege protects the contents of confidential communications made in the rendition of legal services and has as its purpose to "encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice." American Tobacco v. State, 697 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (quoting Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81 (3d Cir.1992)). 

But until recently, only the Florida common law extended the attorney-client privilege to Florida personal representatives and Florida trustees involved in probate and trust litigation. This meant that personal representatives and trustees would have to look to Florida case law to determine whether communications with their attorneys were privileged and protected from beneficiaries challenging their actions. Florida common law recognizes that a Florida personal representative or a Florida trustee generally holds the attorney-client privilege, but also directs that when a beneficiary attempts to gain access to privileged information during litigation concerning the probate or trust, the court must decide whose interests the attorney really represents — the fiduciary's or the beneficiary's. See Jacob v. Barton, 877 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (recognizing that beneficiary might be the “real party” in interest for whom attorney performs the work thus entitling beneficiary in Florida probate or trust litigation to otherwise privileged information).

As of June 21, 2011, Florida trustees and Florida personal representatives have the added protection of Fla. Stat. § 90.5021, which addresses the “fiduciary attorney-client privilege” and explicitly extends the attorney-client privilege to a personal representative and trustee in probate and trust proceedings. Fla. Stat. § 90.5021 states that:

(1)   For the purpose of this section, a client acts as a fiduciary when serving as a personal representative or a trustee as defined in ss. 731.201 and 736.0103...

(2) A communication between a lawyer and a client acting as a fiduciary is privileged and protected from disclosure under s. 90.502 to the same extent as if the client were not acting as a fiduciary. In applying s. 90.502 to a communication under this section, only the person or entity acting as a fiduciary is considered a client of the lawyer.”

So, while a beneficiary can still attempt to obtain communications between a Florida personal representative or a Florida trustee and their attorney during probate or trust litigation, Florida personal representatives and trustees have the added protection of section 90.5021 to rely on to protect privileged communications with their attorneys.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) currently governs what orders can be appealed in probate and guardianship litigation and authorizes appeals of "orders entered in probate and guardianship matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined by the Florida Probate Code."

Determining if a right or obligation of an interested person has been finally determined is often a confusing undertaking and has been the subject of much debate by attorneys and jurists. See In re Estate of Bierman, 587 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

However, on January 1, 2012, a new Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure – Rule 9.170 – will govern appeals in probate and guardianship litigation. Rule 9.170 provides detailed guidance as to whether or not an order is one that finally determines a right or obligation of an interested person, listing 24 types of appealable orders in probate and guardianship matters.

Pursuant to Rule 9.170(b) orders that finally determine a right or obligation include, but are not limited to, orders that:

(1) determine a petition or motion to revoke letters of administration or letters of guardianship;

(2) determine a petition or motion to revoke probate of a will;

(3) determine a petition for probate of a lost or destroyed will;

(4) grant or deny a petition for administration pursuant to section 733.2123, Florida Statutes;

(5) grant heirship, succession, entitlement, or determine the persons to whom distribution should be made;

(6) remove or refuse to remove a fiduciary;

(7) refuse to appoint a personal representative or guardian;

(8) determine a petition or motion to determine incapacity or to remove rights of an alleged incapacitated person or ward;

(9) determine a motion or petition to restore capacity or rights of a ward;

(10) determine a petition to approve the settlement of minors' claims;

(11) determine apportionment or contribution of estate taxes;

(12) determine an estate's interest in any property;

(13) determine exempt property, family allowance, or the homestead status of real property;

(14) authorize or confirm a sale of real or personal property by a personal representative;

(15) make distributions to any beneficiary;

(16) determine amount and order contribution in satisfaction of elective share;

(17) determine a motion or petition for enlargement of time to file a claim against an estate;

(18) determine a motion or petition to strike an objection to a claim against an estate;

(19) determine a motion or petition to extend the time to file an objection to a claim against an estate;

(20) determine a motion or petition to enlarge the time to file an independent action on a claim filed against an estate;

(21) settle an account of a personal representative, guardian, or other fiduciary;

(22) discharge a fiduciary or the fiduciary's surety;

(23) award attorneys' fees or costs; or

(24) approve a settlement agreement on any of the matters listed above in (1)-(23) or authorizing a compromise pursuant to section 733.708, Florida Statutes.

With the implementation of Rule 9.170, it will be easier to determine — and less subject to debate — whether or not an order is appealable in probate and guardianship matters. Keep in mind that the list in Rule 9.170(b) is not exhaustive, and therefore orders not listed could still qualify as appealable orders that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many clients have or are considering using an irrevocable life insurance trust to minimize estate taxes. Assets properly held in irrevocable trust are not subject to estate tax. Annual gifts can be made to the trust to pay life insurance premiums, subject to beneficiaries’ rights of withdrawal of such assets, known as a “Crummey” withdrawal right.   

Most life insurance trusts are drafted to give the beneficiaries the right to withdraw the asset put into the trust. This is intended to ensure the gift qualifies for the annual gift tax exclusion amount as codified in Internal Revenue Code section 2503(b). (The annual exclusion amount is currently $13,000 per person per year.) This withdrawal power is known as a “Crummey” power after the seminal case on the subject Crummey v. Commissioner, 397 F.2d 88 (9th Cir 1968). 

Best practice, is to gift the insurance premium amount into the trust and have the trustee give to the beneficiaries a notice or right to withdraw, known as a crummey letter or crummey notice. But, what happens when the premiums are paid straight to the insurance company and no crummey notice or crummey withdrawal power is sent?

In the recent Tax Court case of Estate of Turner v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2011-209 (Aug. 30, 2011), the IRS challenged the availability of the annual exclusion for amounts used to pay policy premiums directly, among other items. The IRS asserted two arguments to prevent the policy premium payments from being treated as annual exclusion gifts:

1. First, since premium payments were not made to the trust, the beneficiaries had no meaningful rights to withdraw such amounts and therefore it was not a present interest gift qualifying for the annual exclusion amount.
2. Second, since the beneficiaries did not receive notice of the gifts, they did not know of their legal right to demand distributions and the gifts should not qualify as a present interest gift available for the annual gift tax exclusion. 

In a monumental victory for the taxpayer, the Tax Court held that both IRS arguments had no impact on the annual exclusion for gift tax purposes. First, it provided that since the trust allowed for withdrawals for direct or indirect distributions, the manner of payment of the premium was not determinative as to whether the gift qualified for the annual exclusion. Secondly, the Tax Court determined the lack of any crummey notice or crummey withdrawal right for the gift did not affect the beneficiary’s legal right to demand a withdrawal.

While it is still advisable clients follow best practices in the funding of life insurance trusts, this case does provide some comfort in circumstances where such advice is not followed (although it should be noted the terms of your trust may change the result). Furthermore, the IRS and other courts have not conceded to this interpretation, so clients not implementing best practices do so at their own peril. If you need any advice on an estate planning or tax issue, please contact Jeffrey Skatoff or Craig Dreyer at (561) 842-4868.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many clients have or are considering using an irrevocable life insurance trust to minimize estate taxes. Assets properly held in irrevocable trust are not subject to estate tax. Annual gifts can be made to the trust to pay life insurance premiums, subject to beneficiaries’ rights of withdrawal of such assets, known as a “Crummey” withdrawal right. 

Most life insurance trusts are drafted to give the beneficiaries the right to withdraw the asset put into the trust. This is intended to ensure the gift qualifies for the annual gift tax exclusion amount as codified in Internal Revenue Code section 2503(b). (The annual gift exclusion amount is currently $13,000 per person per year.) This withdrawal power is known as a “Crummey” power after the seminal case on the subject Crummey v. Commissioner, 397 F.2d 88 (9th Cir 1968). 

Best practice, is to gift the insurance premium amount into the trust and have the trustee give to the beneficiaries a notice or right to withdraw, known as a crummey letter or crummey notice. But, what happens when the premiums are paid straight to the insurance company and no crummey notice or crummey withdrawal power is sent?

In the recent Tax Court case of Estate of Turner v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2011-209 (Aug. 30, 2011), the IRS challenged the availability of the annual exclusion for amounts used to pay policy premiums directly, among other items. The IRS asserted two arguments to prevent the policy premium payments from being treated as annual exclusion gifts:

1. First, since premium payments were not made to the trust, the beneficiaries had no meaningful rights to withdraw such amounts and therefore it was not a present interest gift qualifying for the annual exclusion amount.
2. Second, since the beneficiaries did not receive notice of the gifts, they did not know of their legal right to demand distributions and the gifts should not qualify as a present interest gift available for the annual gift tax exclusion. 

In a monumental victory for the taxpayer, the Tax Court held that both IRS arguments had no impact on the annual exclusion for gift tax purposes. First, it provided that since the trust allowed for withdrawals for direct or indirect distributions, the manner of payment of the premium was not determinative as to whether the gift qualified for the annual exclusion. Secondly, the Tax Court determined the lack of any crummey notice or crummey withdrawal right for the gift did not affect the beneficiary’s legal right to demand a withdrawal.

While it is still advisable clients follow best practices in the funding of life insurance trusts, this case does provide some comfort in circumstances where such advice is not followed (although it should be noted the terms of your trust may change the result). Furthermore, the IRS and other courts have not conceded to this interpretation, so clients not implementing best practices do so at their own peril. If you need any advice on an estate planning or tax issue, please contact Craig Dreyer or Jeffrey Skatoff at (561) 842-4868.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a dramatic change from previous law, the Florida Legislature has enacted Florida Statute section 732.615 to allow the reformation of a will. Previously under Florida probate law, a trust could be reformed for a mistake of fact or law, but a will could not. The new statute allowing the modification of wills is effective as of July 1, 2011 and reads as follows:

732.615 Reformation to correct mistakes.—Upon application of any interested person, the court may reform the terms of a will, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the testator's intent if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the testator's intent and the terms of the will were affected by a mistake of fact or law, whether in expression or inducement. In determining the testator's original intent, the court may consider evidence relevant to the testator's intent even though the evidence contradicts an apparent plain meaning of the will. 

Previously, if a will was ambiguous, a Florida court could allow a reformation since the primary intent was to ascertain the intent of the testator. However, in some circumstances a mistake did not involve ambiguity, but instead involved a mistake of fact or law. One such example is where a bequest was for $10,000 instead of $100,000. In such cases, courts were previously barred from introducing evidence to determine the true intent of the testator, even if it was obvious what the testator’s true intent was from evidence other than the will. 

New Florida Statute section 732.615 will give support for beneficiaries who were deprived of an inheritance or part of an inheritance under a will when it was clear from other evidence that the decedent’s intent was not properly reflected in the will.  If you have any questions, or we can help you with an estate planning or probate matter, please contact Craig Dreyer or Jeffrey Skatoff at (561) 842-4868.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 4, 2011, the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 670, which revises the power of attorney statute, Florida Statutes Chapter 709.   Effective, as of October 1, 2011, power of attorneys will be subject to new rules. A power of attorney is a written instrument to which an individual (the “principal”) grants power to another (the “agent”) to act on behalf of the principal. Florida recently revised its power of attorney statute to more closely conform to the Uniform Power of Attorney Act enacted by many other states. After October 1, 2011 (the “Effective Date), the following rules will apply to any powers of attorney executed in Florida.  

Execution Requirements. A Power of Attorney must be executed by the principal and two subscribing witnesses, and be acknowledged by the principal before a notary public. 

Elimination of Springing Powers. Springing power of attorneys are no longer permitted if they are signed after September 30, 2011. 

Co-Agents. Under the prior law, if two people were named in a Power of Attorney, concurrence of both agents were required to act. Conversely after the Effective Date, any time there is more than one agent, each agent may exercise the power independently unless the power of attorney indicates otherwise.

Revocation. Executing a new power of attorney will not revoke a previous power of attorney unless it specifically states that it does.   

Specified Powers of Agent. Under the new law, each agent must be specified specific duties under a Power of Attorney. No longer can a drafter be generic by giving the agent all powers of the principal. In addition, certain specific powers in a power of attorney must also be specifically signed or initialed next to each enumerated power to be effective. Examples of these specific powers that must be signed or initialed include:

·         creating an intervivos trust;

·         amend, modify, revoke or terminate any trust created by or on behalf of the principal (provided the trust provides for amendment, modification, revocation or termination);

·         to make gifts (annual gift tax exclusion amount unless trust specifies otherwise);

·         create or change survivorship rights;

·         create or change beneficiary designations;

·         waive a principals right to be a beneficiary of a joint and survivor annuity, including survivor benefit under a retirement plan;

·         disclaim property and powers of appointment.

Specified Powers Prohibited. Agents are specifically precluded from performing the following acts under a power of attorney:

·         to perform duties under contract that require personal services of the principal;

·         to make any affidavit as to the personal knowledge of the principal;

·         to vote in any public election on behalf of the principal;

·         to execute or revoke any will or codicil for the principal; or

·         to exercise powers and authority granted to the principal as trustee or as court-appointed fiduciary.

In addition, if an agent is not an ancestor, spouse or descendant of the principal, such agent cannot exercise any authority or grant an interest in the principal’s property to an agent or to an individual to whom the agent owes a legal obligation of support, unless the instrument states otherwise. Furthermore, the agent’s ability to make gifts is limited to the annual exclusion amount unless the instrument provides otherwise.

With the revisions to the power of attorney statute, it is an excellent time to update your estate planning documents. Please contact Jeffrey Skatoff or Craig Dreyer if you are interested in setting up or revising your estate plan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Shannon Rountree is presenting on will contests at a National Business Institute Seminar in October, 2011, entitled Contesting a Will: Common Causes of Action and Basic Remedies.  The topics include the various ways in which wills can be contested (lack of statutory formalities in the execution of the will, undue influence in the procurement of the will, lack of capacity, fraud, mistake of fact, and insane delusion that results in the creation of a void will or trust).  Shannon will also discuss litigation strategies for prosecuting and defending will contests.  Her will contest outline can be viewed here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Florida has made an important change in its inheritance law for surviving spouses. In the absence of a will, under current Florida law, an existing spouse of a deceased Florida resident is entitled to $60,000 plus 50% of the decedent’s estate if all the decedent’s children are also children of the existing spouse. However, effective October 1, 2011, Florida law has been amended so that, if all of the decedent’s children are also children of the surviving spouse, the surviving spouse is entitled to 100% of the estate.

If the deceased Florida resident has at least one child with a person other than the surviving spouse, and there is no will, the law is unchanged. The surviving spouse receives half of the estate, and the children of the deceased person share the other half of the estate. (Grandchildren take the place of a parent who has previously passed away.)

The change in law is intended to reflect the way in which most estate plans are constructed when there is a will. For married couples with children only of the marriage, the spouses do typically leave their entire estates to each other. By changing the Florida law of intestacy to better reflect how most estate plans operate, there will be more conformity of estates whether or not there is a will.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The country music supergroup, the Pistol Annies, just released a new album, titled Hell on Heels, with a song titled "Family Feud," which describes how a typical probate dispute gets started.  Here are the lyrics: 

Fine china stacked by the kitchen sink 
Aunt Tammies in there claiming all the diamond rings 
Uncle Bobbs holding up the TV set 
The only thing they are grieving over 
Is what they ain't gonna get 
She's only been in the ground a day or two 
I'm glad Mama ain't around to watch this family fued 
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pistol+annies/family+feud_20979109.html ] 
Great gran daddy's shotgun started it all 
She wasn't even cold 
Before they ripped it off the wall 
Wondas fighting Angie over antique quilts 
Nobody even waited for the reading of the will 
If Daddy was here he'd beat us black and blue 
I'm glad mama aint around to watch this family fued 

I'm watching it all go down in shame 
Wish the whole house ould go up in flames 
Who gives a damn about a cedar chest 
When we just laid her soul to rest 
She's only been in the ground a day or two 
I'm glad Mama ain't around to watch this family fued 

She's probably rolling over in her grave 
'Cause the good lord giveth and the family taketh away

You can listen to the song here.  For inheritance funding. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Florida Homestead laws have long been a trap for the unwary due to the unique and specialized nature of Florida Homestead laws. To further complicate the matter, Fla. Stat. § 732.401 was revised effective October 1, 2010. This revision changed the rules for spouses and descendants receiving Homestead property at death.

Article X Section 4(c) of the Florida Constitution limits who can receive Homestead property upon the death of an owner if he or she is survived by a spouse or a minor child. The revision to Fla. Stat. § 732.401 allows the surviving spouse to make an election, within six months from the date of death, to take a one-half interest as a tenant in common in the Homestead property instead of a life estate.

A one-half tenant in common interest gives the surviving spouse an ownership interest in the Homestead, which allows the surviving spouse to bring a partition action to sell the property. If the property is sold, the surviving spouse will generally receive one-half of the proceeds of any sale. Prior to the enactment of the revised Florida Homestead statute, if the Homestead was not devised in a way that was permitted by Florida law, the surviving spouse automatically received a life estate in the Homestead property and any minor children received a vested remainder in the property.  The life estate interest could not be partitioned, which required the surviving spouse and children of the deceased to negotiate a sale of the Homestead.  If there was no agreement, the property could not be sold. 

These arcane rules strained many family relationships especially, in second marriages. In these situations, the Florida Principal and Income Act governs the allocation of expenses between the life estate and vested remainder interest. The surviving spouse is generally responsible for any interest payments on the mortgage, property taxes, property insurance and repairs and the children are generally responsible for principal mortgage payments on the residence and any substantial capital expenditures.

To add another complicating factor, if the surviving spouse ever wanted to downsize, the surviving spouse had to negotiate with the children to allow a sale and they would have to determine a value for her life estate. While many see the new statute as a beneficial change, it is also important to note that it is to the detriment of the decedent’s minor children in many cases.  A very elderly widow will receive one-half of the Homestead, rather than a life estate which may have zero value.  The real winners in some situations will be the surviving spouse's children from an earlier marriage.

Therefore, this revised statute requires additional planning at the forefront to take into consideration this new contingency, and adds an additional issue to consider during the estate administration process. It is also important to note that the revised statute also approves of new planning techniques available to those with special needs children and with other unique planning objectives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 17, 2010, President Obama signed the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the 2010 Act).  The 2010 Act provides for extension of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 until 2012, as well as a variety of other tax reductions.   Here are the some of the highlights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link