7 Deadly Estate Planning Don\’ts
Experience and observation often has me shaking my head as I assist families in correcting mishaps by well-intended loved ones. This article is about some of what those families have learned. Don’t designate minors as primary beneficiaries on anything. Imagine being a divorcee with Peter Pan as an ex-spouse and play-date dad. The unthinkable happens but you’ve left a life insurance policy naming your 12 year-old son as primary beneficiary. Guess who may control the proceeds of that policy? Don’t designate adult children who cannot manage personal finances well (aka “spendthrifts”) as primary beneficiaries on anything either. Imagine leaving $250,000.00 to your daughter who blows it in one year on my favorites – Ralph Lauren, Rancho Mirage, Peach Champagne, Anne Fontaine, Jimmy Choo, and Paris. Note: I’m working my way up to Anne Fontaine. Don’t assume a will does the trick if you’re cohabiting. The potential of inheriting even modest sums of money does strange things to the affinity family members have for each other, let alone what family members may have felt for non-blood-related members. Family members will try to kick a cohabiting partner to the curb so fast, the engraving on the headstone won’t be finished yet. Don’t depend on a will if you and your spouse or partner have children from previous relationships. What do you think will happen if the step-children who you adored and treated so generously during the 15 years of your marriage to their father realize that you’re leaving everything to your children? More importantly, what do you think your kids will do if they realize that you’ve left a substantial portion to the step-kids? Ahhh…the privacy of trusts. Don’t ignore documents with beneficiary designations if you’re recently divorced. Imagine winning a handsome settlement because Peter Pan was also Mr. Gigolo and then, the unthinkable happens, and you didn’t change the designations on your will and life insurance? Antacids don’t work for the dearly departed. Don’t ignore planning if you’re recently married, especially if a prenuptial agreement is involved. And for goodness sake, ensure that your attorney takes care to explicitly define certain items, such as the marital residence, but is not so explicit as in providing the exact address. What if years later, you divorce and the prenupt states you get the house on Rosemary Lane no matter what but your spouse convinced you to sell the house on Rosemary Lane but your will states that in the event of a divorce, the terms of the prenupt govern the property that shall be considered your estate? Don’t ignore planning if you’ve more than one intended beneficiary. Beneficiaries will fight over pennies, over tattered recliners, over cats, over who gets to be administrator. Maybe you’ll enjoy the bickering in the karmic impish sense, but do you really want your estate to pay lawyers’ fees to straighten this out because that’s who will pay, if at all possible, not the beneficiaries, but you and you’ll be dead!
Logging Out of Your Digital Estate Plan
By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the wisdom of incorporating a “digital asset plan” in your estate plan. If you haven’t, feel free to visit my introductory article on the topic. However, if you are familiar with the concept, then this article will shed more light on the subject. Below you’ll find what can happen to a loved one’s digital account (email, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) when he or she passes away. Facebook Facebook has a “family-and-friend-friendly” policy. Surviving loved ones have 2 choices: memorialize the account or have it deleted. If a Facebook account is memorialized, which can be requested by anyone, then the account is somewhat frozen. Confirmed friends can post to the account and view it on their news feeds, but no one can access or change the account. Proven immediate family members or the executor are the only persons who can request the account’s deletion and must provide proof of the relationship through certified vital records or court documents. LinkedIn Ironically, LinkedIn, a professional social media network, has a somewhat more relaxed approach than Facebook. If LinkedIn is notified that a person has died, LinkedIn will close the account and remove the profile. Notification must provide, the member’s name, company where the member worked at most recently, the relationship between the person notifying LinkedIn and the member, a link to the member’s profile, and the member’s email address. Odd is the fact that LinkedIn doesn’t require proof of a relationship or death certificate. It seems that an unresponsive email is sufficient evidence. But to the poor individual who is only on vacation and friends decided to pull a prank, it might not be so sufficient. Hmmm…. Twitter Despite its brevity and awesomeness, Twitter is even more strict than Facebook. The only request observed is one to delete the account. If a loved one’s account is to be deleted, Twitter requires the following information from an immediate family member or executor: username and of the deceased user’s Twitter account, copy of the deceased’s death certificate, copy of the family member or executor’s government-issued identification, AND a signed statement providing the requester’s first and last name, email address, current contact information, relationship to the deceased or their estate, action requested, and brief description detailing how this account belongs to the deceased. Twitter denies access to everyone, regardless of relationship or fiduciary capacity; there is no tweeting after death. Instagram It looks like Instagram does its own investigation into a decedent\’s death. The platform simply asks requesters to email its staff about deceased users and then the folks at Instagram will let the requester know if any further information is available. Does anyone besides me thinks this is a little creepy? Gmail This is Google, so while access may be granted, a process will be required. First, the requester must provide Google with his or her full name, physical mailing address, email address, photocopy of a government-issued ID, the Gmail address of the deceased, and the death certificate of the deceased. Now, going through step 1 doesn’t guarantee access to the deceased’s email. Google may require the requester to take a second step 2: providing a court order or other materials. Hotmail Hotmail considers you dead if your account is inactive for 12 months. It will delete contents after 9 months of inactivity and delete the account after 12 months of inactivity. Plus, it’s unlikely that if you’re alive and want your contents back, that you’ll be able to retrieve them. Hotmail is a Microsoft platform, so it follows Microsoft’s “next of kin” process. To prove that you are the legal next of kin and that the account holder is deceased – or incapacitated – Microsoft requires: an official death certificate of the user; if the user is incapacitated, a certified document signed by a medical professional in charge of caring for the user (oops! HIPAA violation warning for doctors) or a signed court document providing that the requester is an agent with power of attorney or a conservator. Documents for decedents from a court must show that the requester is a trustee or an executor. And still further proof is needed to prove kinship: marriage certificate showing requester is surviving spouse (Query: What if spouse divorced and hates surviving family members?); signed power of attorney documents; copy of a will or trust (read privacy issues); a birth certificate for the user showing parentage of the requester; or guardianship documents; and a photocopy of the requester’s government-issued identification. Once all information is provided, the requester still does not gain access to the account but will instead receive a DVD of all the account\’s contents, including emails, attachments, address book, and Messenger contact list. The requester can ask for the account then to be closed. Lesson: Logging on to the digital world may be easy but permanently logging out isn’t. Hat tip: My intern, Lesley Gwam.
Charitable Trustees Beware
Cycling to the office this morning, I passed a woman jogging while pushing a 3-wheeler stroller jogger with twins in it. My mind meandered as to how challenging it must be to care for twins and let’s not even talk about triplets! But I couldn’t help it… Hope and Bill had triplets: Gray, Jay, and Faye. Bill couldn’t handle the stress of 3 terrible twosies, 3 tumbling toddlers, 3 precocious pre-teeners, and 3 hormonally tangled teenagers, so he divorced Hope when the triplets were 15 and went on a permanent excursion to chant in the Himalayas. Hope, not one to be deterred, called on her siblings, Charity and Joy. All was going well until Hope suddenly became ill and, at the young age of 44, passed away, leaving 3 teenagers with no parent. Bill had never been heard from since he left with snowshoes in hand. However, Hope left a will and a trust, naming Charity as trustee and Joy as guardian. When Hope passed on, though she didn’t have a taxable estate at $4 million, she left a considerable amount to her children and her sisters: $1 million to each child and $500,000 to each sister. After the trauma of losing their sole parent had waned to a manageable, moving forward, level, May, Faye, and Jay continued planning for college. Faye was especially excited because she had been accepted at her first choice for engineering. Well, 3 years into her engineering program, Faye and a few other classmates decided to start a small technology company. Each classmate pledged $100,000.00 as seed money and each had the means to fulfill the pledge. So Faye phoned Charity, who was vacationing in the Cayman’s, told Charity about the new venture and asked for her pledge money. She knew that her mom had left enough for her in the trust at this stage – Hope had staggered mentoring provisions in each child’s trust – to more than meet the pledge and that Charity was to invest for the purpose of conservation and then growth. What Faye didn’t know, however, was that Charity was very charitable to herself, using not only Faye’s trust, but May’s and Jay’s as a source of charitable giving. Charity told Faye that it would be a little difficult to come up with the $100,000.00 straight from Faye’s trust, but that she would borrow from May and Jay and help Faye meet the pledge. Faye, the oldest by 10 seconds, didn’t like what she heard and a heated argument ensued. It ended with Aunt Charity telling Faye to calm down or else she wouldn’t get anything because she had discretion over the distribution and there was nothing Faye could do. In fact, Charity decided to make the Cayman’s her home and wasn’t sure when she’d be returning to the states to give Faye the distribution. But Charity was wrong; Faye had the law on her side and Charity was eventually extradited to the U.S., where she faced counts of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Faye and her classmates’ business boomed; she eventually coupled with a partner and had a child aptly named, Prudence. The Prudent Investor Rule: A trustee administering a trust has a duty to invest and manage the trust as a prudent investor would considering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust.
Unraveling the Windsor Knot Part II
In Part I, we covered the U.S. v. Windsor (Windsor) analysis on the first component of standing: Article III requirements. Standing is the term of art used to discuss whether (1) parties have a case or controversy that the courts can hear, i.e., “Article III standing,” and (2) even if the court can hear the case, after considering other factors, the issue becomes should it, i.e., “prudential standing.” Here, in Part II, we continue looking at the issue of standing, specifically, satisfying the prudential principle. HINT: If you don\’t want to fight through the necessary legalese, bullet points are at the end. Having found Article III standing requirements met, the majority in Windsor, continued to prudential considerations. The Opinion used prudential considerations to address the BLAG’s standing. Before discussing and explaining what prudential standing is, Justice Scalia’s reference in his dissent to the majority’s use of prudential considerations is worth noting. Scalia argued that that majority sees the Article III requirements of adverseness as “prudential.” Recognizing how the Court uses the term “adverseness” in the Opinion, one can understand Scalia’s observation that the majority conflates adversity within the meaning of controversy for Article III standing and the adverseness involved with prudential standing. The majority cites Allen v. Wright (Allen) to explain the principle of prudential standing and offers Warth v. Seldin (Warth) as an example of how the limitations considered in the prudential principle can be overcome. And it is with these 2 cases that we’ll continue untying the Windsor knot of standing. Allen is a 1984 case where African-American families challenged the IRS’ standards for tax-exempt status as those standards were applied to private schools that allegedly engaged in racial discrimination. The Court in Allen, stated that the prudential strand of standing called for “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as (1) the general prohibition on a litigant\’s raising another person\’s legal rights, (2) the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches (a little ditty known as the “political question doctrine”), and (3) the requirement that a plaintiff\’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” So this means that even if Article III standing is found, an appellate court does not have to hear a case if it is limited by one or more of the 3 factors listed above, i.e, if the Court is limited by prudential considerations. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs in Allen lacked Article III standing. Since the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, whether the plaintiffs had prudential standing was irrelevant. The Court also made clear that an individual’s mere assertion of a right to have the federal government act in a way that is lawful is not sufficient to have a case heard. Warth, decided in 1975 – before Allen, involved taxpayers, residents, and a non-profit organization of Rochester County, New York that opposed zoning laws preventing low and moderate income families from being able to live in Penfield, NY. Proponents of the zoning laws were Penfield’s town, its Zoning Board, and Penfield’s Planning Commission members. The Court in Warth, first elaborated on Article III standing requirements and found them unmet but still considered prudential limitations, stating that “countervailing considerations … may outweigh concerns underlying the usual reluctance to exert judicial power.” So while Article III standing is required and prudential limits can veto Article III standing, certain factors can also veto prudential standing. In the same analysis structure as Warth and Allen, the Court in Windsor first considered Article III requirements, which the Court found satisfied. Then the Court considered the prudential limitations and found that sufficient “countervailing considerations” outweighed prudential limitations. This, Justice Scalia found, “incomprehensible.” But Scalia failed to mention that if the Court’s discussion in Windsor is viewed en toto, the Court is undoubtedly considering the 2 components of standing as separate components: Article III standing as explained in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and (2) prudential limitations as explained in Warth and Allen. In fact, the majority stated outright, “The Court has kept these 2 strands separate: “Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement [citation omitted]; and prudential standing, which embodies “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.” However, using the terminology generally ascribed to one principal as a way to explain how the other principle is applicable is assuredly confusing. And Justice Scalia\’s comments, in typical Scalia form, magnify the confusion. Forgetting Scalia’s commentary, the explanation in Warth clarifies the Windsor Opinion’s take on prudential limitations. Warth explains that if a plaintiff’s claim affects the legal rights of third parties, then prudential limits that might generally apply may be set aside. In other words, protecting the legal rights of persons outside the immediate parties involved might be more important than denying relief to one, as long as Article III requirements were met. In Windsor, Edie’s “win” wasn’t really a win because the IRS still refused to refund her money. So there was Article III controversy. Equally important, DOMA, a congressional statute negatively affected the rights of hundreds of thousands of others. It was this negative effect, which the majority called “adverseness,” that met the Warth test for overweighing the prudential considerations to which the Windsor majority referred in its prudential principle discussion. Justice Scalia chided the majority for calling \”adverseness\” an element of standing, when, in fact, per Chadha v. INS (Chadha) and Baker v. Carr (Baker), the adverseness that the majority refers to is provided to support an argument for prudential standing. Furthermore, Scalia projects the majority’s use of prudential standing in Chadha onto the majority’s use in Windsor, when it is not the use of prudential sanding as it was used in Chadha but the underlying factors of prudential standing that the majority used in Windsor. Again, by stepping back a few paces and analyzing the majority’s discussion as a whole, Baker also illuminates the issue and provides foundation for the Warth explanation. Baker
Important Digression from Windsor Analysis – Still Civil Rights
I recently posted the following on my personal Facebook page because it was Sunday and I don\’t work on Sundays. However, because I am an African-American, female, lawyer, an example of the mixed ideals that can be realized, and have experienced first-hand how those ideals can be jeopardized by hatred and ignorance, I am compelled to share it here: May we all recognize that our country, the United States of America, has yet to be free from the tentacles of hatred, racism, sexism, and all the ugly isms that comprise the darker side of humanity. These tentacles pervade every system that we and our children depend on, including the \”justice\” and \”educational\” systems. This summer, Americans witnessed the turning back of civil rights to the days where: it was acceptable to kill, rape, or beat someone because of the color of their skin or their gender; it was acceptable to preclude citizens from voting because of the color of their skin; it was acceptable to treat women as objects to be used and discarded in employment because men could not control themselves; and it was acceptable to erect and sustain barriers to educational equality for people of color. So, sadly, let us recognize that the days of uplifting the whole of our country, where equality for all instead of economy for some was the objective and seen as a duty of most of our citizens, is over. Some of us will continue to fight for equality but many of us will not even when the U.S. spells \”us.\”
Unraveling the Windsor Knot
Last week’s lengthy post examined from a broad perspective the United States v. Windsor case as a whole regarding what it did and did not do for same-sex marriage in the U.S. This week’s post is the first in a series of closer examinations on the specific issues and case law involved in this “landmark” Opinion. Though, the phrase “earth-shattering” may be more appropriate. In this first more narrow perspective, we’ll start with the Court’s question on whether it should have heard the case at all, particularly the issue of Article III jurisdiction. Article III of the U.S. Constitution mandates that courts can only hear “cases” or “controversies” and case law adds a few other requirements. So let’s consider how the question of Article III jurisdiction came into play and how it was resolved. Controversies may seem readily apparent simply because one party is on one side of the “v,” for “versus,” and another party is on the other side, e.g., United States Versus Windsor. Obviously, the U.S. and Windsor disagreed. But did they? Those who say no genuine controversy existed based their argument on the fact that the Department of Justice refused to defend DOMA’s Section 3 because the President considered Section 3 unconstitutional. Can the President do that? Yes, the President can and the United States Supreme Court agreed with the Constitutional scholar who is also the President of the United States of America: Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. BUT, the sticky wicket in this case was that the Executive typically takes this type of position when the situation is adversarial, i.e., when a lower court disagrees. In Windsor, the lower court agreed. So just how was there was a “controversy”? Well, the Executive may have refused to defend Section 3, but it stated that it would continue to enforce it. A la, we have controversy…maybe… The Supreme Court used the case, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, as its starting point. In Hein, taxpayers sued the government for using money in faith-based programs initiated by former President Bush. The Court determined that the taxpayers lacked standing and thus couldn’t sue and reversed the appellate court’s ruling. A fundamental requirement for Article III controversies is standing, which is met when “a plaintiff [alleges] personal injury” that can be reasonably liked back to the defendant’s illegal action or actions and the relief sought by the plaintiff can probably be provided. Here, there was no doubt that Edie suffered injury – more than $360,000 worth – and the U.S. wasn’t going to enforce the IRS’s refusal to pay the refund based on DOMA’s Section 3. So, though the lower court may have ordered the IRS to pay, congressional law told the IRS not to refund the payment. The Court probably could have stopped here, because it could have remanded the case back down to the lower court with the admonition, with which Justice Scalia would have agreed, that Congress already spoke. But the Court ventured on, using INS v. Chadha to find controversy in the case past the issue of remand. In Chadha, a person who overstayed their visa was ordered by the INS (now known as USCIS) to leave the U.S. That person appealed to the Attorney General of the U.S., who granted the relief. However, Congress had the authority to veto the U.S. Attorney General and did so. So, like Windsor, Chadha was a case where the Executive sided with one plaintiff and another government body – this time the House – disagreed. The Court in Chadha ruled that a controversy existed despite the agreement because there was “concrete adverseness\” about the issue and there was adequate Article III standing before Congress vetoed. Now, let’s look at Windsor again. The lower appellate court and the plaintiff agreed in Windsor agreed. There was – and still is – an ugly, discriminatory congressional statute affecting “the entire U.S. Code.” So Congress had spoken. These facts are a tad different from Chadha… So where’s the controversy? Stay tuned… Unravelling the Windsor Knot: Part 1 | Part 2
The Supreme Court and DOMA\’s SoberRing
Last week we celebrated the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) striking down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And let’s be clear, SCOTUS did not strike down DOMA; it indeed gutted the act, but strike it down completely it did not. The expanding and subtle rant about that is slightly further down, in this uncommonly lengthy article – consider yourself forewarned, but we need to be clear that DOMA is still congressional law. Now, we’ve all seen it on TV: The witness can only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ and is asked a question where she must answer ‘yes,’ but the ‘yes’ is only because of mitigating facts that may or may not come to light. Well, I must admit that while I am assuredly a liberal Democrat who disagrees with most of Justice Scalia’s Opinions and remarks, I must say “yes, Your Honor\” to Scalia’s dissent regarding an “argle-bargle” opinion. United States v. Windsor was poorly written and the final holding was the mother of all judicial disclaimers. BUT this isn’t TV, so I get to share the mitigating facts behind my agreeing with the Justice who so often ruffles my feathers as I work through this Opinion\’s analysis. Fasten your seatbelt… Immediately in the introductory paragraph, we’re given a slight hint about the parameters of the decision when we’re told that Windsor is challenging DOMA’s provision that defines marriage. Next, in the Opinion’s Section I, we’re told flat out, DOMA’s Section 2 hasn’t been challenged here. Mitigating factor #1: Since the Court doesn’t go on to mention a sua sponte action, whereby the Court can on its own inclination consider the entire statute, we’re on notice. Only part of this despicable law is going to be decided by this Opinion. Sidebar: For those of you unfamiliar with Section 2 of DOMA and who haven’t read the Opinion, Section 2 provides that a state can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. The Court then explains that the definition provision in Section 3, which defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and confines the term “spouse” to a heterosexual marriage, doesn’t prohibit States from allowing same-sex marriages but it does put a sincere damper on the availability to LGBT married couples of the more than 1000 benefits provided to straight married couples. One of those benefits, upon which the case\’s issue was based, is the right to the spousal estate tax deduction. Yet, even before reaching the case\’s factual issue, the Court had to address whether this case was, in fact, a case. Long ago, it was determined that courts, including SCOTUS, should only hear cases that represented a controversy. Here, there was a question on whether a controversy existed because the Administration agreed with Windsor, the plaintiff. If the government agreed with the plaintiff filing suit against it, then where’s the controversy? In Section II of the Opinion, the Court agrees that a taxpayer’s grievance should be concrete, persistent, and redressable, and that Windsor’s loss of more than $360,000 fit the bill. We all did, even the U.S., so again, where’s the controversy? Who on the U.S. side will be hurt if the U.S. agrees Windsor was hurt? Well, after discussing the issue of regular Article III standing, where a party has to meet those 3 elements mentioned above for it to be a party to a controversy and the ethereal issue of “prudential standing,” the Court finally unveils the interesting idea. It deems that the U.S. Treasury will be harmed because were it not for the lower court’s 0rder to pay the refund, the U.S. Treasury would be $360,000 richer. In other words, though the U.S. agreed with Windsor on principle, because the order for it to pay up put the U.S. government in harm’s way, we have controversy. I’m scratching my head, but we got there… Many questioned the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group’s (BLAG) right to stand in the controversy, too, but the Court stated that BLAG’s “sharp adversarial position” when considered with the guidance that would be missing from 94 districts across the country and the 1000 laws, rules, and regulations affected, the Court decided in its “prudential” wisdom that BLAG had standing. Several colleagues are still combing the lines of the Opinion’s Section II about that prudential standing stuff, but I prefer to move on to Section III, which is equally, if not more fascinating… In Section III, the Court unravels (?) its reasoning for striking Section 3 of DOMA while maintaining Section 2, the States’ power. Citing Sosna v. Iowa, the Court reasoned that in addition to the lack of discrimination espoused by the Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which make state definitions of marriage constitutional, states still have the authority to regulate marriage. Once more? A state\’s definition of marriage must adhere to non-discriminatory rules of the U.S. Constitution but the States can determine how that definition plays out. Fascinating. To further elucidate this point, the Court then cites In re Burrus for the rule that all domestic relations regarding a family fall within the legal purview of the States, not the federal government. When the government does something like define marriage, the federal courts generally defer to the States and choose not to hear domestic relations cases. So if a state’s regulation of a constitutional definition of marriage violates the constitution, the courts can look away? Remarkable. Understanding the confusion this section must have wrought, the Court then makes grand gestures: Citing Romer v. Evans, the Court provides that (1) when a law discriminates so blatantly, its constitutionality should be scrutinized; (2) unlike typical laws passed by the federal government to eliminate discrimination, DOMA does the opposite – it’s Fifth Amendment constitutionality must be questioned; and (3) states provide for same-sex marriage because marriage is much more than a myriad of legal rights and benefits – marriage confers a relationship status
The Supreme Court Ruled for Love
Last year, near this time, in our series on \”Love & the Law,\” we questioned whether the U.S. Supreme Court would embrace love again. The answer, a year later, is \”Yes.\” Today, June 26, 2013, the Court ruled that Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, was unconstitutional. Still, as many of my colleagues have pointed out the Court did not rule the entire act unconstitutional. And while some may consider a gut rehab, a complete do-over, it is not. Questions go unanswered about states that still have mini-DOMAs on their books and states that have Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships but don\’t provide same-sex marriages. But for now, we\’ve decided to postpone the legal analysis for a week and savor the celebration. It\’s a wonderful testament to love and a befitting ruing for Pride Week. Score one for love.
Essential Estate Administration Steps When You\’re Responsible for Saying Farewell
Some of my readers may know that I recently lost my father. As an estate planner, yes, I made sure a number of items were in order. However, as a daughter to a fiercely independent and private individual, I was compelled to respect certain boundaries. Another good colleague and fellow author, Lisa Lilly, who also lost her father, recently reminded me in her blog that it’s never too early to share important knowledge. So below are several tips on the very beginning activities of “estate administration.” And while I intended to write this article before my father made his transition and a little later in the year when the sky was less blue and Lake Michigan waters were much cooler, there really is no time like the present… Much of this can be applied irrespective of your relationship but for precision, this article makes the following assumptions: “The conversation” took place and there were no unresolved issues; consequently, there’s no family feud. Your loved one had a primary care physician, nurse, or hospice caregiver. You will be the one to say the final farewell. The Steps Make sure you have a couple of very close family members or friends on call for “that day,” so you will have support around you. Phone the doctor or the hospice; DO NOT phone 911 or the police. Prepare to spend a few hours waiting for the doctor or nurse to arrive to make the final pronouncement. While waiting, do what you feel you need to do. DO NOT listen to directions from other friends and family unless you want to. Be prepared to answer lots of questions about: your relationship to the departed; who found the departed, when, and how; what funeral home should be notified, even if cremation or anatomical donation are the instructions; your complete contact information. And don\’t take it personally. Be prepared to have your loved one physically removed from you permanently; this is why it’s good to have someone else with you, the emotional effect on you cannot be predicted. Be prepared to emote or manifest emotion somehow. DO NOT access any financial accounts; your loved one wouldn’t want you arrested for fraud. Contact everyone who knew the dearly departed, including church, community, and social groups. Get a couple of family members or close friends to help. Depending on the global reach of your loved one and his or her final wishes, start to think about a memorial service date that is soon or later, to allow for friends and family to make reasonable travel arrangements. Visit the funeral home asap to order several death certificates. You don’t have to start on the arrangements then. DO NOT BE PRESSURED into making decisions like date and time until you’re ready. Make sure you have all keys to everything – the house, apartment, car, safe deposit box, storage, and anything else. And LOCK UP. Complete address forwarding cards and forward the mail to you. If needed to pay for services, contact the insurance company. If not needed, then wait until the services are concluded to handle all financial matters. Write an obituary and send it to the appropriate publications: neighborhood or city newspaper and alumni magazines. Delegate. Delegate. Delegate. Carve out time for yourself. Move forward, genuinely, gently, one day at a time.
The Illinois 10-Step Probate Program
[vc_row type=\”in_container\” full_screen_row_position=\”middle\” column_margin=\”default\” column_direction=\”default\” column_direction_tablet=\”default\” column_direction_phone=\”default\” scene_position=\”center\” text_color=\”dark\” text_align=\”left\” row_border_radius=\”none\” row_border_radius_applies=\”bg\” overflow=\”visible\” overlay_strength=\”0.3\” gradient_direction=\”left_to_right\” shape_divider_position=\”bottom\” bg_image_animation=\”none\”][vc_column column_padding=\”no-extra-padding\” column_padding_tablet=\”inherit\” column_padding_phone=\”inherit\” column_padding_position=\”all\” column_element_direction_desktop=\”default\” column_element_spacing=\”default\” desktop_text_alignment=\”default\” tablet_text_alignment=\”default\” phone_text_alignment=\”default\” background_color_opacity=\”1\” background_hover_color_opacity=\”1\” column_backdrop_filter=\”none\” column_shadow=\”none\” column_border_radius=\”none\” column_link_target=\”_self\” column_position=\”default\” gradient_direction=\”left_to_right\” overlay_strength=\”0.3\” width=\”1/1\” tablet_width_inherit=\”default\” animation_type=\”default\” bg_image_animation=\”none\” border_type=\”simple\” column_border_width=\”none\” column_border_style=\”solid\”][vc_column_text text_direction=\”default\”]In Illinois, if a loved one passes away without a will or a trust in place, he or she has died “intestate.” Depending on the size and assets of the estate, probate may or may not be needed. Probate is a court proceeding where the judge appoints an “administrator” to the estate. If a will did exist and was appropriately filed, then the judge would probably appoint the will’s “executor.” The only difference between an administrator and an executor is that one is appointed intestate and the other is designated by a will. The administrator is responsible for paying all just debts and taxes, responding to claims on the estate, and concluding the final affairs of the deceased that includes distributing the assets of the estate. Sounds simple, right? Well, in today’s world, probate can be anything but simple. And unlike New Jersey, where it’s quick and cheap, in Illinois probate is long and costly. For example, the first thing one has to do is to get into court, which requires completing a petition that nominates one person as the administrator. What if Jack’s evil twin, Jill, wants to b administrator, too? Hopefully, Jill knows the slayer statute would keep her from collecting if Jack were to meet an untimely demise. The next to do is provide a list of all the heirs to the judge and prove – with birth and death certificates, and divorce decrees – where the heirship line has been broken. What if Thelma’s mom had 2 husbands and 2 children, Thelma and Louise, but Thelma could only find one set of divorce papers – the set involving the divorce from Louise’s father? And that’s all she’s going to find because Thelma’s mom and her dad were in a common law marriage in Kansas before she moved to Illinois. Let’s say the heir hurdles have been successfully jumped and you’ve been named administrator of grandma’s estate. Next we must notify any heirs and creditors, whether known or unknown, that the estate has been opened. What if Grandma forgot to mention that she borrowed $10000 from Uncle Charlie last Christmas to pay for everyone’s gifts and Uncle Charlie accepted a promissory note with the house as collateral? What if there’s no house but you find that Grandma had 12 different accounts in 12 different financial institutions totaling more than $100,000? Get the petition ready and btw – Illinois does not allow pro se appearances in probate. It is because our families are different, mobile, and complex that trusts are often recommended for individuals in Illinois. However, so we have it on record, the following are steps for opening probate in Illinois: Petition the court Notify eligible potential administrators and obtain consent or waivers from them Pay an oath and bond on the estate\’s personal property Prove heirship Appear in court and receive letters of office Notify known and unknown heirs and creditors Take an inventory of the estate assets File the inventory with surety company and heirs’ fiduciaries, e.g., guardians or conservators Respond to creditor claims Distribute assets after 6 month creditor claim period has ended The entire process from opening to closing probate can take anywhere from 9-14 months and perhaps why the steps involved in establishing a trust should be considered the \”probate-anonymous\” program. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]