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

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

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

Powers of attorney create enormous temptations for the power-holder to alter the principal's estate plan through the retitling of assets.  In Beane v. Suntrust Banks, ___ So.3d ___ (Fla. 4th DCA November 10, 2010), a power-of-attorney holder did just that.  The deceased had funds in Suntrust Bank in a Totten trust account, which named Frances Wallin as the beneficiary of the account, to be paid upon the deceased's passing.  The deceased gave a general power of attorney to Deborah Lorenzo.  The next day, Lorenzo withdrew all of the money from the Suntrust account, placing all of the money in a different account, in the name of a relative of Lorenzo.  

After the passing of the deceased, the personal representative of her estate sued Suntrust for the value of the money in the account prior to Lorenzo's actions, alleging that the activity engaged in by Lorenzo was improper, and that Suntrust should not have allowed the improper transaction to have taken place. The personal representative relied primarily on Florida's power of attorney statute, which provides (Florida Statute Section 709.08(7)(b)):

an attorney in-fact may not "create, amend, modify, or revoke any document or other disposition effective at the principal's death or transfer assets to an existing trust created by the principal unless expressly authorized by the power of attorney."

The personal representative argued that the removing the funds from the Totten trust and placing the funds into another account in the name of another is a disposition effective at death, hoping to create liability on Suntrust for allowing the transaction to take place. 

The Court disagreed. Because the owner of the Totten trust retained the unfettered ability to withdraw any or all of the funds, the attorney-in-fact retained the same authority as a result of the power of attorney.  Because an owner of a Totten trust can withdraw from the account without constraint, the prospective Totten trust beneficiary cannot object to the depositor's withdrawal from the Totten trust.  

The result makes a great deal of sense - no bank should be held liable when a power-of attorney holder simply removes funds from a bank account.  The opinion does not address what liability the power-of-attorney holder and the recipient of the funds may have.  Even though the power-of-attorney holder may have had the legal power to engage in the subject transaction, such transaction may have been a violation of her fiduciary duty that is owed to the principal (Florida Statute Section 709.08(8)):

Standard of Care - Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4)(e), an attorney in fact is a fiduciary who must observe the standards of care applicable to trustees as described in Section 736.0901.

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

Over past 12 months, we have handled a number of cases involving outright theft of fiduciary funds by personal representatives and trustees.   In the case of a probate estate, unless the court has ordered the personal representative to post bond, the heirs of the estate have no recourse if funds are stolen, other than to obtain a judgment against the personal representative, which ends up likely as not collectable. Some jurisdictions in Florida, notably Miami, require all personal representatives to place estate funds in restricted depository accounts or to post bond.  Most other jurisdictions in Florida, however, require neither from most personal representatives. 

Beneficiaries of trusts have even less protection, because trusts are administered without court supervision, unless a court’s jurisdiction is invoked.  Such jurisdiction is invoked in Florida by the filing of a trust complaint.  Because trustees serve without bond and without restricted accounts, if a trustee steals funds, the beneficiaries are normally left without a recourse, other than to obtain a judgment against the trustee.

How can beneficiaries protect themselves?  In a probate estate, heirs of the estate are allowed to seek information regarding how an estate is being administered, including getting access to bank account statements and other documents.  If a personal representative does not comply with the requests for information, in Florida an heir can seek a court order from the probate judge requiring the turnover of the requested information.  In my experience, these types of thefts occur over time rather than all at once, so diligence on the part of an heir can sometimes stop this theft soon after it starts.

In a trust case, information can be requested similar to that of a probate estate, but until a trust complaint has been filed, there is no judge to seek relief from.  Therefore, a trust beneficiary would have to make requests for the information, and only when the information is not received, file a trust complaint and use the court’s powers to obtain the requested financial information.

If one is drafting a will or trust and wants to make sure that there is no wrongdoing, there are a few simple steps to take.  The easiest step is to name a corporate fiduciary as the personal representative or trustee.  Even if a rogue trust officer steals the funds, the deep pocket and insurance of the institution should be available to protect the heirs or beneficiaries.  Another step is to require that personal representatives and trustees post bond. 

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

Establishing paternity in probate proceedings is a common issue, especially with the widespread availability of inexpensive and highly reliable DNA testing.  The rules for establishing paternity in Florida probate proceedings, however, have a number of hurdles, some of which intentionally deny biological paternity from controlling the outcome.

A.  Florida Probate Paternity Statute

The starting point for paternity determinations in probate is found at section 732.108, Florida Statutes (2011), which provides that paternity for children born out of wedlock can be established as follows: 

(a)  The natural parents participated in a marriage ceremony before or after the birth of the person born out of wedlock, even though the attempted marriage is void. 

(b)  The paternity of the father is established by an adjudication before or after the death of the father. Chapter 95 shall not apply in determining heirs in a probate proceeding under this paragraph.

(c)  The paternity of the father is acknowledged in writing by the father.

If there is an adjudication of paternity, prior to the death of the father, it will likely have taken place in the family courts, whereas an adjudication of paternity after the death will most likely end up in the probate courts. Section 732.108 permits the probate courts to adjudicate paternity rights which have not already been adjudicated in another proceeding.

Section 732.108 does not permit the probate court to address paternity issues after a prior paternity determination in family court or elsewhere.  Instead, a litigant is required to go back to the court making the original paternity determination. In Glover v. Miller, 947 So.2d 1254, (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), a probate court addressed this very issue with regard to a party’s right to contest a prior paternity adjudication.

Because any determination of paternity will involve many other parties and have effects more far reaching than a mere adjudication of the biological connection between Jerrod and Glover, we are not convinced that such a determination can and should be made as part of the probate proceedings where the only issue to be determined is intestate succession. We agree with the trial court that in order for Glover to assert a right as an heir, the existing judgment of paternity would have to be vacated. A child cannot have two legally recognized fathers.

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

In MacIntyre v. Wedell, 12 So.3d 273 (4th DCA 2009), the Court dismissed a challenge to the settlor's removal of funds from her revocable trust on the grounds of undue influence.  Twenty five years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Genova v. Florida National Bank of Palm Beach County, 460 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1984), barred an undue influence challenge to a settlor's removal of funds from her revocable trust.  The litigation in that case occured while the settlor was still alive.  In MacIntyre, the settlor had died before the litigation commenced.  The MacIntyre Court relied on the reasoning from Genova in dismissing the trust complaint.

The courts have no place in trying to save persons such
as Mrs. Genova, the otherwise competent settlor of a
revocable trust, from what may or may not b e her own
imprudence with her own assets. When she created this
trust, she provided a means to save herself from her own
incompetence, and th e courts can and should zealously
protect her from her own mental incapacity. However, when
she created this trust, she also reserved the absolute right to
revoke if she were not incompetent. In order for this to
remain a desirable feature of a trust instrument, the right to
revoke should also be absolute.

This opinion has received adverse commentary from several sources, including here.  As the prevailing attorney in the case, I believe the decision is defensible, due to the unique nature of revocable trusts.  A challenge to a competent settlor withdrawing money out of a revocable trust should fail in the same way that a competent person withdrawing money out of his or her bank account should fail.  The reported case does not address what happened to the funds after they were withdrawn.  Had the plaintiff attacked the destination of the funds, rather than the removal of the funds from the revocable trust, the case may have withstood dismissal.

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

A will can be challenged in a Florida probate proceeding on a number of grounds.

• Lack of Proper Formalities. Proper execution of a will requires that the will be signed by the testator and witnessed by two witnesses, who also sign the will. A will can be contested on the grounds that it was not properly drafted, signed, or witnessed in accordance with the applicable requirements.
• Lack of Capacity. Under Florida law, a testator is required to have mental competency to make a will and to understand the nature of his or her assets and the people to whom the assets are going to be distributed. A will can be declared void if lack of capacity can be proven. Typically, incompetence is established through a prior medical diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or psychosis, or through the testimony of witnesses as to the irrational conduct of the deceased around the time the will was executed.  Miami Rescue Mission vs. Roberts is a recent case that describes the current state of the law for proving lack of capacity and insane delusion. 
• Undue Influence. Undue influence occurs when the testator is compelled or coerced to execute a will as a result of improper pressure exerted on him or her, typically by a relative, friend, trusted advisor, or health care worker. In many cases, the undue influencer will upset a long established estate plan where the bulk of the estate was to pass to the direct descendants or other close relatives of the decedent. Some undue influencers are new friends or acquaintances of the decedent who “befriend” the decedent in the last months or years of life, typically after the decedent has suffered some decline in mental ability. In other situations, one child of the decedent, often a caregiver, will coerce the decedent to write the other children out of the will. Undue influencers can also be health care workers or live in aides who implicitly or explicitly threaten to withhold care unless the estate plan is changed in favor of the health care worker. The Estate of Carpenter is the seminal undue influence case for Florida will contest litigation.

The time for making a will contest in Florida is short, typically 90 days after the Notice of Administration has been provided by the Personal Representative, or 20 days in the event that Formal Notice of the probate proceeding is received before the will has been admitted to probate. Therefore, prompt action is required to bring your lost inheritance back to life.

Not just a will can be challenged under these grounds. A trust can be challenged under the same grounds, as well as a real estate deed or a beneficiary designation on a financial account. There are many situations where the undue influencer will trick or persuade a weakened person to sign over valuable real estate, a bank account, or other property directly to the influencer, in the hope that they will have left the scene before the wrongdoing can be discovered. Sometimes, the undue influencer will be added as a beneficiary on bank accounts in place of the heirs to whom the decedent intended the account to pass.

If the wrongdoing is discovered prior to the victim's passing, a common way for a loved one to start to clean up the situation will be to create a guardianship, which will allow the guardian to use the court's jurisdiction to reclaim assets that were fraudulently removed. If an estate plan was also changed because of undue influence, the guardianship will also allow evidence to be collected for use at a subsequent will contest proceeding.
 

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

When large taxable estates are involved in litigation, estate tax issues can be tricky. This problem is most pronounced where one outcome of the litigation would result in less estate tax being paid. For example, if an adult child is the beneficiary of the last will, but a charity is the beneficiary of a prior will, and the child and the charity are litigating over which is the valid will, how much estate tax will ultimately be owed is unknown.  

If the charity prevails, because bequests to a charity are free of estate tax, the estate owes nothing. If the child prevails, the estate might owe estate tax on the bequest.  Estate taxes are due and payable nine months from the date of death, or interest and possibly penalties could apply. Most complex estate litigation would still be pending nine months after death.

If the maximum amount of estate tax is paid to the Internal Revenue Service, the estate may have some difficulty getting the money back if the charity prevails. If the estate pays less than what it would owe if the child prevails, interest and penalties may apply.  

In order to stop the possible imposition of interest and penalties, yet still allow for an easy return of funds should the estate not owe the tax, the Internal Revenue Code, Section 6603, allows a taxpayer to submit a deposit. The estate tax return would be filed as if the charity were to prevail, showing no tax owing, with adequate disclosure of the litigation.  Simultaneously, the estate would place on deposit with the IRS an amount that would equal the tax were the child to prevail.  

Under Revenue Procedure 2005-18, a deposit is automatically returned upon request, normally with interest.  A payment is not returned so easily, and the IRS could refuse to make the payment refund or could delay the return of the payment for an extended period of time, complicating the closure of the estate. 

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