Mistakes That Make a Litigator’s Day
How to Avoid Turning Private Estate Matters into Public Conflicts
Carol Cioe Klyman
In the world of trust and estates litigation, an innocent transaction, such as adding a child’s name to a bank account, could set the stage for a legal battle royal after the parent’s death.
Consider the questions mom will not be around to answer. Did she put Johnny’s name on her account because she wanted him to be able to withdraw funds while she was living, or rather to inherit the account when she died? Or did she intend to give Johnny access to the money just in case something happened to her, but she really wanted all her children to split the account when she died?
The siblings never got along that well, but think about what could happen in this family when mom is no longer around to referee.
Walk into most courthouses these days, and you will soon realize that ambiguity and conflict mean money. Trust and estates litigation is booming in no small part because the innocent transactions of life conflict with family dynamics and the complex realities of the legal system. Litigators sue, but estate-planning attorneys try their best to keep clients out of court. So here, from my observations, files, and trials, and those of my colleagues, are some of the mistakes that can drive what should be private matters into public conflict.
1. DIY estate planning. Filling out forms from the Internet for wills, trusts, and powers of attorney is the easy part. Thinking through the ramifications of those documents takes knowledge and skill. Most people plan one or two generations ahead, but life is not that simple.
Divorce, biology, human frailty, and the simple passage of time all affect our planning. It also takes knowledge to separate the useful from the flawed in these Internet documents. Litigators will exploit ambiguities and unintended consequences.
2. Not having a will, power of attorney, and health care proxy. If you don’t have these basic documents, the government controls where your property goes and monitors who makes decisions about your health care and your funds. If you become incapacitated, a judge will appoint a guardian and conservator to take care of your financial and medical affairs. Families often disagree over who will serve in these roles, and these conflicts often end up in court. These cases can be brutal, costly, and time-consuming.
The judge, usually the person in the room who knows the least about your case, is confronted with choosing between children, as often as not appointing a professional who is a stranger to the family.
3. The law of unintended consequences. Even people who have estate plans can fail to consider the consequences. In one glaring example that came across my desk some years ago, a man terminally ill with cancer thought he had provided for his adult children in his will, signed six months before his death. The will left everything to his second wife, whom he had married two years previously, and then to his five children if she were dead. When he died, his wife inherited his entire estate, and his children got nothing.
His children sued. The case settled with the widow agreeing to give them their father’s property at her death. Many such cases end only after protracted and expensive litigation that leaves the children empty-handed.
4. “My child will do the right thing.” I can’t tell you how many times a client has told me, “I’m leaving everything to my daughter. She knows what I want.” The law favors certainty over sentiment. The certainty is, the daughter owns everything at the parent’s death. Fortunately, in most cases, the child will do the right thing when a parent dies. However, at times the ‘right thing’ is unclear.
The person in charge may believe she knows exactly what the deceased person wanted. Others may disagree, and even resent the authority given to the favored person.
5. Promising more than you deliver. Many lawsuits are won and lost over the issue of a promised inheritance that failed to materialize. In many of these cases, the neglected survivor performed an uncompensated service expecting to be rewarded later. In one recent case, a son was promised he would inherit the family business and real estate if he ‘employed’ his mother at a substantial salary and paid her living expenses.
He faithfully performed his obligations until her death. Unfortunately for the son, the mother changed her estate plan in the intervening years and split the business among her children when she died. The dutiful son sued his siblings and won. The sympathetic judge found that the son acted based on his mother’s promise and should be compensated for his trouble.
6. Picking the wrong person to be in charge. A corollary to this is, “Sheila is the oldest, so I’ll name her.” Much sadness, loss, and many expensive lawsuits arise from this mistake. An executor of a will, trustee of a trust, and agent with power of attorney or health care authority — each of these jobs requires a person of intelligence, honor, loyalty, and diligence. Putting the wrong person in charge can completely derail a perfectly crafted estate plan.
Individuals abuse the trust placed in them when they use funds for their own purposes, contradict their principal’s instructions, or fail to follow the directions expressed in the decedent’s will. These cases run the gamut: a grandmother serving as executor of her daughter’s will spent her grandchildren’s inheritance on herself; an agent transferred property owned by her incapacitated mother to herself without permission; an executor used estate funds to repair and improve his own home. Often the people who are wronged — an incapacitated person, trust beneficiaries, a decedent’s heirs — have the law on their side but cannot recover what was lost or taken. The wrongs can occur many years before discovery, and perpetrators often are poor and ‘judgment-proof,’ and not required by the court to have insurance to cover losses.
7. Dueling powers of attorneys. When a parent cannot choose which child to put in charge, they sometimes put too many children in charge. They will sign a power of attorney naming one child, a second power of attorney (sometimes drafted by a different lawyer) naming another child, and so forth. The question then becomes, who is really in charge?
If the parent is incapacitated, unable to pick the first among equals, and the children can’t agree, the decision will end up in court. My advice is to say what you mean in one document only, and don’t let your children bully you into creating another. If you can’t pick one and then another as backup, you can name two serving together, but it is best for an odd number to serve in case a tiebreaker is needed. You might also spread the jobs of executor, attorney-in-fact, and health care agent among your trusted family members so no one feels slighted.
8. Failing to name successor executors, agents, and trustees. If an office is vacant, the court may need to appoint an individual or corporation to serve. Refer to points 2, 3, 5, and 6 for the ramifications.
9. Not specifying how taxes are paid when you die. If you leave assets of more than $1 million, Massachusetts will tax your estate (more than $5 million, and the federal government is also interested). Unless you decide differently, taxes are paid from general probate assets, which do not include specific assets bequeathed in a will, insurance policies, annuities, retirement accounts, and other assets with beneficiaries. The result could be that the people you want to benefit the most will pay all the taxes and receive the least.
10. Specifying that taxes be paid from tax-exempt assets. Some assets transferred at death, such as gifts to charity or to a trust for a surviving spouse, are exempt from estate tax and can actually result in reduced taxes for an estate. However, an improperly drafted estate plan can cause a portion of these exempt assets to be spent on estate taxes, reducing the amount of the exempt gift, and in turn increasing the taxable estate and the tax bill — a mathematical spiral that often ends in court. Charities, marital trust beneficiaries, and litigators can do the math.
11. The ostrich estate plan. Pretending problems don’t exist, and not meeting them head-on, is a gift that keeps on giving to a litigator. A parent may disinherit a child or children for any reason, sometimes out of sheer dislike. Most parents can’t live with the thought of treating one child differently, even a child with substance-abuse, financial, or marriage problems, or perhaps physical or mental challenges. Failing to address these issues by sweeping them under the rug or pretending they don’t exist can be destructive to the family. With proper planning, children can be protected from themselves in many positive ways.
However, if ever your loved ones would have reason to race to their lawyer, an estate plan that singles out a child with problems, disinherits children, or leaves the entire estate to the poodle would be it. Care must be taken to evidence that the parent acted willfully and with full understanding. Plans that seem irrational or flippant leave much room for doubt and speculation — and make a litigator’s day.
Attorney Carol Cioe Klyman is a shareholder with Shatz, Schwartz and Fentin, P.C., Springfield, Northampton, and Albany, N.Y. Her practice concentrates in the areas of elder law, estate and special-needs planning, estate administration, and trusts and estates litigation. She is a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estates Counsel and immediate past president of the Hampden County Estate Planning Council; (413) 737-1131.
