Writing Your Tulsa Estate Planning Blog

Studies continue to show that the how and when Americans would prefer to pass away, is not how they actually pass away. That needs to change.

Most of the time, the medical profession treats its patients in keeping with what the patients want. If someone has a broken leg, for example, then doctors set the leg, put a cast on it and let it heal.

That is what people want.

When we get sick, doctors give us the best known treatment for whatever disease we have and everyone is satisfied. However, this does not necessarily hold true when people are at the end of their lives.

What medical professionals do at the end of their patients’ lives, is not what studies suggest patients necessarily want, as The New York Times reports in “We’re Bad at Death. Can We Talk?”

The disconnect at the end of life between doctors and patients, stems from the fact that doctors are trained to do everything they can to sustain life. On the other hand, most patients would prefer to be let go with the least amount of pain and discomfort.

This leads to terminally ill patients being placed in intensive care units on artificial life support, when they would prefer to be placed in palliative care or return home so that they can pass away in peace.

This is something that needs to be addressed by the medical community.

There is something you can do about it for yourself. You can get advanced medical directives to let doctors know what you want, when you are terminally ill.

Reference: New York Times (May 10, 2017) “We’re Bad at Death. Can We Talk?”

More and more elder Americans are choosing not to get married to their partners. Instead, they are just living together.

The trend over the last few decades has been for people to get remarried late in life. This has created many issues for estate planning and the families of the people who do get remarried.

That trend is starting to reverse, but that does not mean people are not finding companionship in their retirement years.

Today, rather than getting married, many elderly people are just moving in together and foregoing a marriage certificate, according to The New York Times in “More Older Couples Are ‘Shacking Up’.”

While this might solve some problems, such as getting around the laws of intestate and spousal election to make sure that any assets go to the children and remain in the family, it does not solve all of the problems. Instead, it creates a different set of problems that need to be worked through in an estate plan.

If two elderly people are living together, it becomes important to create estate plans that do not leave one of them in a bad position when the other passes away.

You do not want to create a situation where a partner is unable to afford the rent after you pass away or gets kicked out of the property you own by your heirs.

These do not need to be major problems with proper estate planning, but they can be without that planning.

Reference: New York Times (May 8, 2017) “More Older Couples Are ‘Shacking Up’.”

How, when and where people pass away has changed in the last 100 years. Evidence suggests that people are not entirely happy about that.

A long time ago, most people passed away in their homes. There were not many hospitals or hospices for people to go to, when they were terminally ill.

There are now many of those places and most people pass away in some sort of facility.

That has been both good and bad.

People generally like that they do not die as young and from as many diseases as people used to, but most people would still rather die in their homes than in a facility, as the Economist reports in “How to have a better death.”

In fact, the majority of people are not happy that they cannot choose when and where to die. People are often given life-saving treatment by doctors that they do not want.

At other times, people with little hope of long term survival are not given the opportunity to choose the timing of their own deaths, which leads them to linger on in pain.

This is the primary reason for the movement to legalize physician-assisted suicide, which is slowly picking up steam, as more and more states consider it.

Since it will not be an option for everyone for a long time, however, it is important that people take some matters they can control into their own hands.

Everyone should have advanced medical directives, at a minimum, that dictate what procedures doctors can and cannot use to prolong their lives.

Reference: Economist (April 29, 2017) “How to have a better death.”

It is well-known and accepted that parents are required to provide care and support for their minor children. What is less well-known, is that in over half the states, adult children can be required to provide care and support for their elderly parents.

There are many laws on the books that receive very little attention because they are very rarely used. If few ever bother to attempt to enforce a law, then there is usually no reason for people to bring it up.

However, sometimes those laws do eventually become important, because of a general change in circumstances that sees those laws starting to be used more frequently.

An example of this is filial-responsibility laws.

These are laws that have been passed in 28 states that require adult children to provide financial support for their elderly parents, if the parents are unable to pay their own bills, as the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog discusses in “Filial-Responsibility Laws Could Cost You.”

These laws were not used much in the past because government programs for the elderly such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid provide financial support for the elderly.

Today, with people saving less and living longer, many elderly people are not able to afford the costs of their own care, which is increasing.

Nursing homes in states with filial-responsibility laws are increasingly looking to enforce them against children with parents who do not pay their bills.

This is yet another reason to make sure that you plan for your retirement and estate. If you do not, your children might be required to pay for you.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (May 3, 2017) “Filial-Responsibility Laws Could Cost You.”

President Trump has made an official proposal to repeal the estate tax entirely, as expected. That raises more questions than it answers.

While campaigning for the Presidency, Donald Trump frequently said that, if elected, he would repeal the estate tax entirely. As with all political campaign promises, that did not necessarily mean he would follow through soon on the promise, if he did at all.

However, President Trump recently released a tax reform proposal that calls for a total repeal of the estate tax, among other things.

That does not mean that anyone should make plans for the end of the estate tax, as Investment News points out in “Trump tax proposal leaves advisers in the dark on estate tax repeal.”

The biggest issue is how an estate tax repeal will get passed in Congress, if it can be at all.

Ordinary legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass without a filibuster. It is unlikely that any large tax cut on the wealthy will be able to get those votes, since Democrats have vowed to block them.

The budget reconciliation process can be used so that only 50 votes are needed to pass an estate tax repeal, but there are many restrictions on that process. The most important one is that anything passed must be revenue neutral, which means that any cuts have to be offset with tax increases elsewhere.

If the cuts are not revenue neutral, then the law must sunset after 10 years.

The estate tax would come back.

President Trump has previously proposed changing capital gains taxation to offset the estate tax repeal, but it is not known how much support that idea has in Congress.

Both the President and Republicans in Congress, would like to see many more tax cuts that also have to be paid for, which might mean the estate tax repeal could be dropped for other priorities.

Reference: Investment News (April 27, 2017) “Trump tax proposal leaves advisers in the dark on estate tax repeal.”

One of the biggest problems in estate planning is figuring out how to treat children fairly in circumstances when fairly does not necessarily mean equally.

The default estate planning option for people with more than one child is to divide their estates equally between their children. That is the most common thing that is now done in estate planning.

It is easy and simple.

Most of the time it is a fair way to divide a parent’s estate and one that the children accept. That does not always work, however, because as every parent eventually learns, treating children fairly does not always mean treating them equally. That holds true in estate planning.

Adult children can wind up in very different life circumstances for a variety of reasons. For example, if one child became wealthy after receiving a large gift from his parents to start a business, it might not be fair to treat that child the same in an estate plan as another child who went into public interest work.

Figuring out how to divide an estate unequally but fairly between children can be difficult, as the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog discussed in “Dividing Your Wealth Among Your Children.”

The biggest problem is figuring out how to make the unequal division without causing any of the children to dispute the estate. Trusts are extraordinarily helpful in these situations, since they are much more difficult to challenge.

Parents can create a trust with an independent trustee and give the trustee the power to make distributions to the children based on their circumstances and needs. It is also important that parents who are leaving unequal inheritances for their children talk to the children and let them know the reasons for doing so.

If you want to leave your children unequal inheritances, you need to seek the advice of an experienced estate planning attorney to make sure you do so in a way that your children will think is fair and not seek to challenge.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (May 5, 2017) “Dividing Your Wealth Among Your Children.”

With the release of President Trump’s tax plan and Republican majorities in Congress, it seems inevitable that the estate tax will go away. That does not eliminate the need to do estate planning.

A big part of modern estate planning is planning around the estate tax. Many estate planning instruments were designed to help lower the estate tax burden on wealthy estates.

Without an estate tax, it might seem that there is not much of a reason to do complex estate planning at all. Some people anticipate that will be the case soon, since President Trump has released a tax proposal that would eliminate the estate tax and Republicans who hold majorities in both houses of Congress agree with the idea.

However, it is not that simple as Financial Advisor recently discussed in “Estate Planning: It’s Not Over.”

It still is not clear when, if and how the estate tax might be repealed.

Congress could choose to phase it out over a few years or scrap the idea entirely, if they cannot agree on offsetting spending cuts or where to raise revenues from elsewhere. Senate Democrats could also mount a filibuster over any tax plan that Republicans propose, which they are expected to do.

No elimination of the estate tax is permanent, of course. Even if it passed now, it could always be reinstated when Democrats control government again.

While you might be excited about the elimination of the estate tax, do not make the mistake of thinking that means you can make your estate plans with the assumption in mind that it will go away for good, if it does at all.

Reference: Financial Advisor (April 3, 2017) “Estate Planning: It’s Not Over.”

A new podcast is a great opportunity to learn about some basic estate planning mistakes.

Serial might be the most successful podcast of all time. Millions of people tuned in to hear the story of a murder and its aftermath. It was one of the first podcasts to receive mainstream critical attention.

Thus, it is not a surprise that its creators are back with a successor show, S-Town.

This new podcast features the story of John B., the resident of a small town in Alabama. He lives on a 128-acre estate and is believed to be wealthy by the community. He was living with his octogenarian mother with dementia.

John B. apparently told his friend Tyler that he did not have any bank accounts and that Tyler could have $20,000 from his estate. The next day, John B. committed suicide. He did not have a will, but instead left a series of instructions about what to do with his estate.

The drama of the story is in people trying to find out what happened to his money, if he had any at all.

The Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog discussed this podcast in “Estate Planning Lessons from John B.”

John B. made some basic estate planning mistakes that everyone can learn from.

First, he did not have a will. While leaving some written instructions is better than nothing, it is not worth very much legally. If any money can be found, then under Alabama law, it will all go to his mother.

His friend Tyler would get nothing.

A simple will could have solved that problem.

Care for his mother is set to go to another relative who has been appointed as guardian. Of course, no one should go completely without a bank account.

Do not make the same mistakes as John B.

Hire an attorney and get a will.

Reference: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog (April 21, 2017) “Estate Planning Lessons from John B.”

If you have ever wanted to watch a television drama about physician-assisted suicide, you now have your chance.

A normal television show about a brilliant emergency room doctor who kills people in her off hours, would probably be a very dark drama about a serial killer, if there was such a show at all.

Normally, doctors are treated on television as nothing but heroic and rarely involved in anything too controversial. However, a drama from Canada now airing in the U.S., seeks to tell a different story.

In this show, the brilliant doctor is killing people who wish to pass away. She moonlights by performing euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide.

The New York Times recently reviewed the show in “Review: ‘Mary Kills People,’ but It’s for a Good Reason.”

While the Times review is somewhat mixed, that this show exists at all highlights the changing attitudes about euthanasia.

It was only a couple of decades ago when Dr. Kevorkian was seen as the evil “Doctor Death.” Now, many people are taking the idea of physician-assisted suicide seriously.

A few states have recently legalized the practice and many more are considering it as part of the dying with dignity movement, which seeks to allow terminally ill people the choice of when they want to pass away and under what circumstances.

The concept, however, is still controversial since not everyone agrees it is a good idea.

This new television show is certain to draw more attention to the concept and get people talking about it even more.
Reference: New York Times (April 21, 2017) “Review: ‘Mary Kills People,’ but It’s for a Good Reason.”

A case in New York is a good reminder that it is very important to make sure that trusts details are specific, in order to make the settlor’s wishes crystal clear.

The story had a Hollywood beginning. A schoolteacher and a wealthy real estate investor met through a singles ad, fell in love, got married and had a child.

From that beginning, things quickly turned south.

According to court records filed by the child of that marriage, Elizabeth Marcus, her mother refused to sleep with her father after she was born. The two divorced after a few years and the father passed away, when Marcus was nine years old.

The father did not want his ex-wife to receive any of his assets and instead left half his estate in trust to Marcus. Another child from a previous marriage received the other half.

The trust was originally overseen by Citibank, but after fighting for several years, the mother took control of the trust in 2003, according to the Daily Mail in “Daughter sues her ‘self-involved’ mother for ‘frittering away more than $13m of her inheritance – so she could buy cars and a $6m mansion next to Gwyneth Paltrow in the Hamptons’.”

Marcus is suing her mother now, claiming that her mother has stolen her inheritance to buy expensive items for herself, including a mansion and fancy cars. Most of the original inheritance is now alleged to be gone.

The mother, of course, denies the accusations.

The missing piece of the puzzle from the reports is how the mother was able to gain control of the trust, if the father did not wish her to have it. He might have neglected to be clearer about his wishes in the trust documents.

Reference: Daily Mail (April 23, 2017) “Daughter sues her ‘self-involved’ mother for ‘frittering away more than $13m of her inheritance – so she could buy cars and a $6m mansion next to Gwyneth Paltrow in the Hamptons’.”