Costly Omissions in Wills: The Missing Power of Appointment

We are  a “do-it-yourself” society.  If something needs to be done, then we will find a way to do it.  However, there are certain tasks that we should never tackle without expert professional help (in my case, plumbing goes to the top of the list).  Drafting a Will is one of those tasks because ambiguities and omissions in drafting can be very costly to those you leave behind.

Here are a few reasons why.  Each state has laws that govern the language, including terms of art (language with special legal meaning), the proper means of execution, and a set of distribution rules that must be clearly understood and clearly followed.  In addition, there are tax implications with respect to bequests.  These must be carefully analyzed with your attorney so as to minimize the impact on beneficiaries.  The reason that we write a Will in the first place is to protect the people we love.  By having an attorney draft your Will, you also ensure that the people in your life receive the care and financial support that they will need to carry on.  This is especially true for small children, persons with disabilities, persons with special needs, and surviving spouses or domestic partners.  Finally, things change every year in our lives and it is a very good practice to review the contents of your Will on a yearly basis.  You likely won’t change your Will yearly, but you will better understand its meaning with respect to your present circumstances after this review.

Consider the case of Anita Hamilton [In the Matter of the Estate of Hamilton, 190 A.D.2d 927 (1993)].  She married Milton Hamilton in a second marriage.  Milton had two daughters from a prior marriage, Mary H. McLaughlin and Gwendolyn H. Stevens, and Anita had a son by a prior marriage, John H. Ricketson.  

On February 26, 1989  Milton passed away.  Over the years, Milton had drafted several Wills, one in 1966, one in 1975 revoking the 1966 Will, and one in 1982 revoking the 1975 Will. He had drafted his last Will and testament on April 5, 1982 and directing that his residuary estate should be divided into two funds.  Fund A was a marital deduction trust.  Fund B constituted Milton’s bequests to his daughters.  With respect to Fund A, Milton directed that the remaining principal be “paid,  transferred or distributed … in such manner … as [Anita Hamilton] may by her last Will and Testament direct and appoint” (Hamilton, at 928). 

Milton’s Will was very specific concerning this power of appointment.  It was  “exercisable only by specific reference to said power in [Hamilton’s] last Will and Testament”.  Failure to effectively exercise the power of appointment in this specific way meant that the assets remaining in Fund A passed to McLaughlin and Stevens.

Anita Hamilton passed away 15 days after her husband died.  Her last will and testament dated December 22, 1967, fifteen years before her husband had executed his last Will.  In Anita’s Will were the following words:  “By this paragraph of my Last Will and Testament, I do specifically exercise the power of appointment given to me by paragraph “Sixth” of the Last Will and Testament of my husband … dated the 26th day of August, 1966, in favor of my son, JOHN HENRY RICKETSON … or to his issue him surviving, to the extent of seven-eighths (7/8ths) of the fund over which I have the power of appointment, and I give, devise and bequeath to SUE M. RICKETSON, wife of my son, one-eighth (1/8th) of the fund over which I have the power of appointment under the said Last Will and Testament of my husband …  By these provisions, I do specifically exercise the power of appointment given to me by the Will of my said husband” (Id. at 928).  Both Milton’s and Anita’s Wills were admitted to probate. 

The Surrogate Court of Albany County looked at the specific language in Milton’s 1982 Will and decreed that Anita had not made proper reference to that specific power of appointment in her Will.  Instead, she had referenced Milton’s 1966 Will that had been revoked by two subsequent Wills.  Consequently, the court decreed that the principal of Fund A be awarded to Milton’s daughter’s.  Anita’s son John Ricketson appealed.

The Appellate Court, Third Department affirmed the Surrogate Court’s decision.  The Court made explicit reference to the language of EPTL 10-6.1:  “[i]f the donor has expressly directed that no instrument shall be effective to exercise the power unless it contains a specific reference to the power, an instrument not containing such reference does not validly exercise the power.”  Because Anita’s Will referenced a Will that had been revoked, her power of appointment failed.  The result was that her stepdaughters received what she had intended for her son and his family.

A carefully review of Anita’s Will by an attorney may have revealed the omission.  A do-it-yourself Will in such a case would also be grossly ineffective to preserve the bequest.  Moreover, the Hamilton case illustrates the dependencies of one Will document on another Will document.  Every family is different and each person in it represents a unique instance.   A Will drafted by another family member could impact or limit your ability to pass on a bequest to a designated beneficiary.  That is why it is always best to consult and work with an attorney who is versed in these matters.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current Will, or put together an estate plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Subscribe to” on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

A Thanksgiving Checklist as We Count Our Blessings…

More than any other holiday, Thanksgiving is the time when we gather around the table to celebrate with family and friends.  Many of you are traveling to visit your family, and many of you are receiving family and friends for Thanksgiving.  Soon there will be the familiar and anticipated aromas coming from the kitchen and we will gather around the table to enjoy a fabulous meal prepared by loving hands and give thanks for all of our blessings.

This is also the time of year that I suggest for an annual review of your legal life plan because the people you love and want to protect are right there with you.  So this weekend, as you savor the leftovers, ask yourself the following questions.

• Do I need a Will?
• If I have a Will, has anything major occured in my life this past year so that I should review it with an attorney?
• Do I need to look into setting up a trust?
• Have I reviewed all of my beneficiary designations on such things as life insurance policies and retirement plans?
• Do I need a living Will?
• Do I need a Power of Attorney for financial matters?
• Do I need a Power of Attorney for health care?
• Do I need a prenuptial agreement?
• Do I need a postnuptial agreement?
• Do I need a domestic partnership agreement?

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, review your current legal life plan, or put together a legal life plan that is tailored for your needs, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form. I will get back to you promptly.

From my home to yours, I wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving!  May you and your family continue to be blessed.

Mental Capacity and Marriage in New York, Part 3: The Secret Marriage

Marriage fraud has always had as a consequence the disruption of family estate planning, or even the potential of an unfair result where the state’s intestate laws are applied when the decedent dies without a Will.  But if the bride or groom suffers from dementia and their fiance(e) has been in a caregiver position, the resulting marriage could be considered a form of elder abuse because the person suffering from dementia is being exploited for financial reasons.

Consider the case in Matter of Berk, 2010 NY Slip Op 02139 [2d Dept 2010]).  Irving Berk was a very successful businessman, having founded the Berk Trade and Business School.  In 1982, he executed a Will naming his sons Joel and Harvey as co-executors.  Over the next few years, Irving’s memory began to fail.  His physical health also deteriorated, and he became wheelchair bound.    In 1997 his sons decided to hire a live-in caregiver. At the time, Irving Berk was 91 years old.  His caregiver, a recent immigrant from China named Hua Wang (also known as Judy Wang), was 40 years old.

Friends of Irving reported that Wang took advantage of Berk’s increasing dependency on her, and that she physically and verbally abused him.  By 2005 Irving Berk could no longer recognize his sons who by then were contemplating guardianship proceedings.   As part of this process, Irving was examined in April 2007 by a physician who diagnosed him as having dementia and stated that Berk did not possess the mental capacity to enter into contracts.  His family physician who examined him a short time later found that Irving did not have the mental capacity to handle his social affairs.

Nevertheless, on 17 June 2005 Irving Berk and Judy Wang were married in the civil ceremony in the New York City Clerk’s Office.   The marriage was kept a secret.  Neither Berk nor Wang wore wedding bands thereafter, nor did family and friends ever witness displays of affection between them.

On 16 June 2006, Irving Berk died leaving an estate worth more than $5 million.  The day before the funeral, Wang informed his sons of the secret marriage as they drove to the funeral home.  When the Will was read, it was discovered that Irving Berk had never changed his Will to make his new wife a beneficiary.  The named beneficiaries remained his two sons and four grandchildren.  Because Irving had made no provision for his new wife in the Will, Judy was now entitled to ask for the elective share.

On 29 December 2006, after the Will was filed for probate and within the requisite six months after the Will was probated, Judy Wang Berk petitioned the Surrogate’s Court in King’s County for a determination of her right to take her elective share as Irving’s surviving spouse.  Under New York law, the surviving spouse is entitled to $50,000 or one-third of the decedent spouse’s estate, whichever is greater.   The Surrogate found that Judy was married to the decedent at the time of his death and that, as a matter of law, she was entitled to her elective share under EPTL 5-1.1-A [a].

Berk’s sons appealed.  The Appellate Division, Second Department found that Judy Wang had married Irving Berk in the full knowledge that he lacked the mental capacity to consent to a marriage.   Under the principles of equity, the court found that Wang should thus not be unjustly enriched because she took unfair advantage of Berk’s mental incapacity at the time of their marriage.

Over 5 million people are affected by Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, and this number is expected to grow.  The time is now to protect your assets and your loved ones.  You cannot afford to wait for a diagnosis because once you have been diagnosed with dementia, your diminished mental capacity will prevent you from taking the necessary legal steps to protect yourself, your property, and your family.

What can you do to protect yourself?  Irving Berk had a Will, after all.  A Will is certainly a good first step, but it is not enough.  Unless the Will has been carefully drafted by an attorney to make sure that it is in compliance with New York Law and contains the necessary language about the elective share so as to mitigate against unscrupulous persons, then the door is left open for a sham marriage or other forms of unjust enrichment to occur.  Do-it-yourself online wills should be used with extreme caution or not at all as a result.

Secondly, you should meet with your attorney at least once a year in the same way that you meet with your doctor for your annual physical exam.  Your attorney will ask you questions to determine what has changed in your personal and legal affairs, and may suggest redoing your Will or adding a codicil based upon your responses.  Your attorney will also evaluate your mental capacity as you answer the questions.  If the attorney determines that there is a doubt about your mental capacity, then your attorney will strongly advise that any codicils or new Will be videotaped during the execution ceremony.  This service is worth its weight in gold.

Next, your attorney may suggest that you place you assets into a trust.  If you go this route, you may want to execute a pour-over Will, meaning that your assets will go directly into the trust at the time of your death, to be administered according to the terms of the trust.  Remember that assets such as bank accounts and property that can be held jointly are vulnerable to sham marriage schemes.  You may want to re-title these in the name of the trust.  Note that trusts are contracts, and that contracts require the highest level of mental capacity in New York.  If you wait too long, you may not have the requisite mental capacity to execute the trust documents.

You will also need full mental capacity to give a durable power of attorney to someone you trust or to your bank so that your affairs can be managed should you lose mental capacity.  Your attorney will discuss these options with you in detail so that you are comfortable with your choices.

Finally, your attorney will review your planning for medical decision-making including having a living Will and a health care proxy.  These are known as advance directives. The case does not disclose whether Irving Berk had these instruments in place.  If he did not, Judy Wang Berk as his legal wife would have been the one to make the decisions about his health care, and not his sons.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Subscribe to” on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

Mental Capacity and Marriage in New York, Part 1: Background to the Issue

In New York, a person is presumed to have the mental capacity to marry.  But the standard that defines the mental capacity to marry is very low.  The mental capacity required to marry is lower than testamentary capacity, or the capacity to make a Will.  In turn, testamentary capacity is lower than the mental capacity required to execute a contract.  To put this into perspective, New York requires greater mental capacity to sign an apartment lease than it does to marry someone.

The U.S. Constitution also protects an individual’s right to marry.  The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental right.  In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), the Court held that the Due Process Clause includes a constitutional right to marry because “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness by free men.”  In addition, the Full Faith and  Credit Clause in Article IV requires states to credit the “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” of sister states, including marriage.

A marriage in New York results in two separate outcomes:  the marriage itself, and the property consequences that flow from the marriage.   As we will see in this series, there is a loophole in the law that has permitted some unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of elderly individuals with diminished capacity.  That is because, while the marriage itself may be annulled or broken, the property consequences of marriage are not necessary severed as a consequence.  As we will see in this series, that can result in unintended estate consequences for heirs and distributees, particularly in the area of  so-called “deathbed” marriages.

Arguably,  the property rights that flow from marriage are much greater than they are for signing an apartment lease even though the mental capacity required to enter into a marriage is significantly lower.  Federal property rights that flow from marriage include such things as Social Security survivor benefits for a spouse, and spousal survivorship rights for qualified retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that can only be waived in writing.

Among the New York State property rights for spouses is the right to title property in a tenancy by the entirety. Neither spouse can sell or diminish the 100% share that each owns without the consent of the other.  Should a creditor obtain a lien on one spouse’s interest in the property, the lien will only survive if the debtor spouse is the surviving spouse.  Otherwise, the lien is extinguished with the death of the debtor spouse.  Moreover, the property cannot be reached in a bankruptcy proceeding.   New York also has an elective share statute, meaning that a surviving spouse can elect to one-third of the decedent spouse’s estate against the decedent’s Will if there is surviving issue, or one-half of the property if there is no issue.  Even if there is no Will, New York’s intestacy statutes provide that a surviving spouse will receive at least one-third of the decedent’s property.

In New York, a marriage can be void from the start (ab initio) due to such reasons as bigamy or an incestuous marriage.  In such a case, the marriage is a legal nullity:  it never existed from the start.  The spouse, the State, or an interested third party can attack the marriage directly or collaterally in court on the ground that it is void.  The attack can even take place after the death of one or both spouses.  Note that diminished mental capacity is not a ground for voiding a marriage in New York.

A voidable marriage is valid for any civil purpose unless it it attacked by one of the spouses in an action for annulment.  The grounds for deeming a marriage as voidable include fraud, duress, temporary or permanent mental incompetence, undue influence, and sham.  As concerns mental incompetence in the case of a voidable marriage, Domestic Relations Law § 140 [c] provides that “[a]n action to annul a marriage on the ground that one of the parties thereto was a mentally ill person may be maintained at any time during the continuance of the mental illness, or, after the death of the mentally ill person in that condition, and during the life of the other party to the marriage, by any relative of the mentally ill person who has an interest to avoid the marriage.” 

Even if a third party should succeed in proving that there was sufficient evidence of diminished capacity before the marriage took place (for instance, with documented medical evidence showing dementia), the surviving spouse of an annulled marriage may still take against the Will under the right of election or under intestacy.   The property stakes are high when one enters into a marriage.  They are even higher for the children of aging parents with diminished capacity who find themselves (and their property) prey to unscrupulous persons who will marry them (sometimes in secret) in order to obtain the federal and state property benefits that flow from marriage. 

In this series, we will look at how New York courts have dealt with the issue of mental capacity and marriage, especially in cases where the results have been egregious. I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published.   Thank you.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

The Carvel Soft-Serve Empire: Avoiding an Estate Meltdown

When I was growing up, one of my favorite treats was a Carvel chocolate-dipped vanilla soft-serve cone.  And no birthday party was complete without a Carvel ice cream cake.  Tom Carvel was able to parlay my sweet tooth and millions of others into an empire at one time valued at $250 million.  When he died in 1990, he left behind his wife, the former Agnes Stewart, who had once loaned her future husband $15 to begin his ice cream business.  It proved to be a spectacular investment.

Tom Carvel owed his spectacular good fortune to a flat tire.  When Carvel began his business in Hartsdale, New York in 1929, he used a truck to bring his homemade confection to his clients.  One day, a tire blew in the proximity of a pottery store parking lot.   With his ice cream quickly melting, Carvel decided to start selling right from his parked truck.  Thus began the idea for soft serve ice cream, which Carvel refined over time.  He then worked out a deal with the pottery store so that he could sell his ice cream in the parking lot by running an electrical wire to keep his confection refrigerated.  His sales took off.

In 1936 Carvel purchased the pottery store and formed the Carvel Brand Corporation.  Carvel realized that there was money to be made from real estate as well.  Having established a successful business model, Carvel proceeded to map out a plan to franchise his business.  As part of his franchising model, Carvel purchased the properties upon which his franchisee’s store would be located, leasing back the space to the franchisee as part of the license agreement.  Thus the expansion of the Carvel brand also meant the expansion of the Carvel real estate holdings.

A known control freak, Carvel fought for years with the Federal Trade Commission against antitrust charges.  He required his franchisees to attend a three-month intensive training program, and the purchase of all supplies were to come directly from the Carvel Brand Corporation.  While this mentality may have served him well in business, the Will that he executed reflected his need to control from the grave.  The Will became the fodder for controversy and chaos.

His estate planning needs were relatively simple.  He and Agnes had no children, and his intent was to provide for Agnes during her lifetime and after her death the estate would go to charity.  There were several simple ways to accomplish this.  One way would have been to purchase a non-probate asset, such as an annuity, with Agnes as the beneficiary.  She could then have received structured payments immediately after his death.

By naming a disinterested executor (he would instead name seven interested executors), such as a bank or law firm, Carvel could have assured the continuity needed to administer his large postmortem estate without controversy.  And while there are fees associated with this option, it may be a wiser course of action than the litigation costs associated with squabbling executors and beneficiaries.

His Will would still have provided for the statutory spousal elective share.  Under New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 5-1.1, a surviving spouse has the option of taking the the greater of $50,000 -or- 1/3 of the net estate.

The rest of the estate could have been given to charity through an irrevocable charitable remainder trust. §664 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended provides for either the payment of a fixed amount through a charitable remainder annuity trust (§664(d)(1)(D)), or a percentage of trust principal through a charitable remainder unitrust (§664(d)(2)(D)).  Carvel would have received two immediate benefits.  He could have claimed a charitable income tax deduction.  And given his sizable real estate portfolio, the estate would not have had to pay immediate capital gains taxes as the trust disposed of the trust property in its portfolio.

What Tom Carvel left behind instead when he died of a heart attack in 1990 was a chaotic estate.  Nine years later, the estate was still in litigation.  A lawsuit filed by his niece Pamela Carvel against the Thomas and Agnes Carvel Foundation in 1999 before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (188 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 1999)) revealed that Tom and Agnes had executed “mirror wills,” or two separate but identical Wills, each naming the Foundation as the beneficiary of their entire residuary estate.  At the same time, they executed a reciprocal agreement agreeing to refrain from changing their Wills or making certain transfers.

In addition to the Foundation, Carvel had created at least five other entities:  a Florida trust for his wife, a charitable remainder unitrust, two real estate holding companies, and the estate created by the mirror Will containing the statutory spousal election share and bequests to 83 different beneficiaries.

A year before his death, Tom Carvel sold his 700 stores to Middle East investors for a reported $80 million.  In the years following his death, a good portion of that sum was spent on litigation over the estate.  His widow Agnes, one of seven named original executors of his estate,  stepped down as executor and Foundation board member and fled to London in the wake of a call for a capacity hearing.  She died in London in 1998, having herself litigated against the estate to received the $600,000 quarterly payments stipulated in her husband’s Will.  A well thought-out estate plan could have avoided this strife and achieved Tom Carvel’s postmortem goals.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

The Gottlieb Estate: When Dying without an Estate Plan Impacts Real Estate

New Yorkers are fond of telling real estate stories. It’s our urban past time. But when they include a cast of characters seemingly ripped from the pages of a Dickens novel and some properties made extremely valuable as a result of gentrification, the mix is irresistible. Add an estate controversy, and the story becomes even more compelling.

Labeled a “tightwad” by the New York Times, William Gottlieb learned about real estate from Harry Helmsley when he worked for him as a leasing representative. Gottlieb observed how Helmsley made money by buying buildings and then cutting their operating costs. When New York began experiencing tough economic times in the 1960, Gottlieb went on a buying spree, purchasing foreclosed properties in what would become some of New York’s trendiest neighborhoods. Though he suffered from poor eyesight, William Gottlieb was blessed with great real estate foresight.

In 1972, Gottlieb had executed a Will leaving his entire estate to his sister Mollie, who had done clerical work in his office for years. Together with their brother Arnold, she was named co-administrator of William’s estate. Mollie had two children: Neil Bender and Cheryl Dier. Dier had one son, Michael Corbett, from a previous marriage. Michael Corbett had been raised by his grandparents.

In 1985 Mollie executed a Will that left everything to her husband and her son Neil, and expressly disinherited her daughter Cheryl. After falling and breaking her hip in 2007, Mollie appointed her son Neil as administrator of the Gottlieb estate. She passed away a week later.

Thereupon Dier and Corbett filed suit against Neil Bender in Surrogate’s Court claiming Neil’s incompetence as executor, citing over 500 violations against Gottlieb properties as evidence. Corbett launched a website to attract attention to the neglect of Gottlieb properties. Corbett also alleged undue influence by Neil over his grandmother and claimed that his grandmother had promised his 25% of the estate. The Surrogate’s Court held that Bender’s actions did not rise to the level that would merit disqualification as executor, and that Corbett had no standing to dispute the Will. Dier and Corbett appealed.

In May 2010, the Appellate Court upheld the Surrogate’s Court, finding Neil Bender to be fit to serve as executor. The ruling paved the way for a potential redevelopment of the properties. Only time will tell the fate of these Manhattan properties and their tenants.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

Can’t Touch This: In Terrorem Clauses in Wills

Family squabbles over the estate of a decedent are the stuff of tragedy and of farce. For this reason, testators often include in terrorem clauses that penalize with forfeiture of their testamentary gift any beneficiary of the Will who unsuccessfully contests its provisions in any court. In terrorem clauses are also designed to safeguard carefully crafted estate plans from disruption.

New York law, however, provides some limits on in terrorem clauses in order to prevent fraud, undue influence, or gross injustice. These safe harbor provisions are found in Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) § 1404 and Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 3-3.5. The purpose of these safe harbor provisions is to allow a beneficiary to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the drafting of a Will without risking forfeiture of the bequest. Because courts must strictly construe in terrorem clauses, such safe harbor challenges are the only means a beneficiary has of evaluating the risk of contesting the Will.

EPTL § 3-3.5 provides for “[t]he preliminary examination, under SCPA 1404, of a proponent’s witnesses, the person who prepared the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding” (EPTL 3-3.5 [b] [3] [D]). SCPA 1404 [4] states that these persons “may be examined as to all relevant matters which may be the basis of objections to the probate of the propounded instrument.” Did the Legislature intend that the safe harbor provisions apply only to those persons expressly mentioned in the companion statutes, or did the Legislature merely provide examples of the types of persons who could be examined and not an exhaustive list?

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of safe harbor provisions as they relate to in terrorem clauses in Matter of Singer, 2009 NY Slip Op 09265 [13 NY3d 447]. On 15 April 2003 Rabbi Joseph Singer executed a Will leaving his Brooklyn home, much of his personal property, and $200,000 to his daughter Vivian who had given up her life to take care of her father’s needs. To his son Alexander he left half of the remaining estate (to be shared with Vivian who was also her father’s executor), less the outright gifts of $15,000 to each of Alexander’s two sons.

The Will contained an in terrorem clause addressed specifically at Alexander. “I specifically direct that my son, Alexander I. Singer, not contest, object to or oppose this Will or The Joseph Singer Revocable Trust Agreement, or any part of my estate plan or any gifts made by me, and I specifically direct that my son not take my daughter, Vivian S. Singer, to a Bet Din (religious court) or to any other court for any reason whatsoever; and I specifically direct that if my son takes any such action or brings on any such proceeding, neither my son nor any of his issue shall receive any share of my estate, whether passing under this Will, under The Joseph Singer Revocable Trust Agreement or otherwise.”

On 5 March 2004 Rabbi Singer died and Vivian submitted the Will for probate shortly thereafter. Alexander then served a notice of discovery seeking, among other things, to depose Joseph Katz, Rabbi Singer’s previous attorney who had drafted seven Wills for the Rabbi but not the one in question. Mr. Katz was subsequently deposed by Alexander’s attorney. Thereupon, it was revealed that Rabbi Singer had inserted an in terrorem clause in a prior 2002 Will drafted by Katz. Alexander did not challenge the Will.

Was the deposition of Mr. Katz sufficient cause to trigger the in terrorem clause? After all, Katz did not belong the the class of persons expressly mentioned in the safe harbor statutes. The safe harbor provisions do not include a former attorney. Or was the testator’s intent, that Alexander not challenge the Will in any way, satisfied because Alexander never challenged the Will?

The Court of Appeals balanced the testator’s intent with the public policy concern that Wills be valid and authentic before being admitted to probate. The court reasoned that only by examining Katz could Alexander properly conclude that he lacked a basis for a successful Wills contest. “A broader construction of these clauses as manifesting testator’s intent to preclude the examination of this witness would essentially cut off all other persons from being asked for information, no matter the potential value or relevance of that information—even as to the medical or psychological condition of the testator at the time the will was executed. Interpreting these clauses narrowly will allow surrogates to address on a case-by-case basis whether the conduct undertaken is in keeping with the testator’s intent.”

With Matter of Singer, the Court of Appeals set a standard for the case-by-case construction of in terrorem clauses: whether the conduct undertaken is in keeping with the testator’s intent. Had the court ruled in Vivian’s favor, then Alexander and his sons would have been stripped of their bequests. Clearly, that was not Rabbi Singer’s intent with the in terrorem clause. He merely wished to protect Vivian’s bulk share from a challenge. He did not wish to disinherit his son or his grandsons.

Matter of Singer is an object lesson about the use (and possible misuse) of in terrorem clauses. As Judge Graffeo noted in his concurrence, “in terrorem clauses are not favored since they may result in a total forfeiture of a bequest and—because of this serious consequence—they must be strictly construed to conform to the testator’s expressed intent.” An in terrorem clause must be drafted very carefully to reflect the testator’s intent. Your attorney can advise you as to whether an in terrorem clause is the best strategy based upon your unique circumstances.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

The Federal Estate Tax: A Brief History

In many ways, the United States inherited the model for the federal estate tax from the British.  In feudal England, the monarch owned all of the real property and granted use of real estate to his nobles during their lifetime (life estate).  When the nobleman died, his heir could continue to use the land upon payment of an estate tax to the sovereign.  These death taxes provided needed income to the Crown to pay for war debts.   In default of heirs, the estate reverted to the Crown (escheat).  The statute Quia Emptores passed in 1290 finally granted the right to of an individual to hold an estate in land in fee simple (freehold) and to sell it (alienation), but it left  the matter of the estate tax in the hands of the Crown.

The original Thirteen Colonies were the result of real estate grants and licences from the British Crown founded on the principles of Quia Emptores.  Whether New York still retained vestiges of Quia Emptores in its real estate law was  the subject of debate in the 19th century.  The court in De Peyster v. Michael, 6 NY 467 (1852), held that Quia Emptores had never been in effect in the colonies, meaning that land was not freely alienable in New York.  Seven years later, in Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 19 NY 68 (1859), the court in that case held that Quia Emptores had always been in effect in New York.  The question was settled in New York State Constitution Article 1 §12 which states “all lands within this state are declared allodial, so that, subject only to liability to escheat, the entire and absolute property is vested in the owners, according to the nature of their respective estates.”  In a prior post, I have addressed the issue of the possibility of an estate escheating to the State when an individual dies without a Will (intestate). 

In 1765 the British Crown had imposed the Stamp Act specifically on the American colonies, the purpose of which was to help defray the military expenses, mainly troop salaries,  for the recently-fought Seven Year’s War with France.  Among the provisions of the Stamp Act was a requirement that legal documents, such as Wills, be produced on special stamped paper produced in London and containing a revenue stamp.  Thus any colonist wishing to make a Will had to pay a tax.  Colonial discontent with taxes such as these would lead to the Revolutionary War.

Ironically the new government did not abandon this practice of enacting a tax on Wills to raise money to pay for military debts.  In an article published in the Journal of Business & Economics Research,  Eddie Metrejean and Cheryl Metrejean demonstrate an historical pattern whereby federal inheritance taxes began to be enacted to pay for wartime expenses.  Just a few years after the Revolution, the new Congress passed the Stamp Act of 1797 establishing a tax on Wills related to the transfer of property after death, once again to pay for a war in 1794 (albeit undeclared) with France.  But the law was quickly abolished before it could take effect.

The issue of an inheritance tax would not arise again until the Civil War.  A wartime inheritance tax was passed as part of the Revenue Act of 1862 affecting only the northern states, whose purpose was to raise over $1 million from estates valued at over $1000.  After the war, the inheritance tax was abolished by the Revenue Act of 1870.  Another short-lived inheritance tax was passed in 1898 to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War.  It was repealed in 1902.

Congress passed its first permanent estate tax with the Revenue Act of 1916, three years after the passage of the 16th Amendment and the institution of the federal income tax.  The constitutionality of new federal estate tax was challenged in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921), and in an opinion delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes the Supreme Court held that the new law posed no “unconstitutional interference with the rights of the states to regulate descent and distribution” (256 U.S. 345, 348 (1921).

In order to close the loophole in the tax that allowed people to escape the inheritance tax by giving away their property, Congress passed a gift tax in 1932 that was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court in Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932).  In 1948, the marital deduction became law, allowing property to pass to one’s spouse without paying any estate tax.

The most significant changes to the federal estate tax occurred with the Tax Reform Act of 1976.  The Act enacted the following changes:

•  a single unified rate structure for transfers of property at death; 

• a single unified rate structure for lifetime property transfers; 

•  a unified exemption from taxes for certain transfers made either during one’s lifetime or at death; 
•  a generation-skipping tax, taxing the transfer at the unified rate of the “skipped” generation if the beneficiary was two or more generations younger than the donor.

There have been other significant additions to the law.  In 1980, the “stepped-up” basis restored to the pre-1976 provisions, giving the beneficiaries a significant break in the amount of capital gains they would pay on transferred property that they later sold. 

In 1981, the martial deduction became unlimited, but with a catch.  With proper estate planning, the surviving spouse can escape paying any estate tax.  Without estate planning, the surviving spouse is left with a much larger estate on which the estate tax will be imposed.

In 2001 President Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.  The law repealed the federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes after 2009, meaning that anyone dying during 2010 is able to pass on his or her estate free of any federal estate, gift, or generation-skipping taxes.  However, state inheritance taxes may still be in effect.  But the 2001 law contained an expiration date:  all of the provisions of the 2001 law are set to expire on December 31, 2010.  Should Congress not act, then the pre-2001 estate tax will automatically reappear in 2011.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

When Is the Best Time To Make or Review Your Will?

If you have been asking yourself these questions, the answer is likely “now.”  There are several reasons why you may not want to wait.  The most obvious one is that tomorrow is promised to no one.  The second reason is that it is a good practice to review the terms of your Will on a yearly basis to assess the consequences of changes in family composition, financial updates, and changes in the tax law that may affect your estate.  The third reason is one that is often overlooked, that you may not always have the testamentary capacity to make a Will.   I have covered this topic in a previous post.

Making or changing a Will is a serious endeavor, and it should never be undertaken for negative reasons, such as to spite a relative or friend.  In New York, the making of a subsequent Will executed with all required formalities constitutes a revocation of any previously executed valid Wills and their codicils.  In New York,  a partial revocation by physical act, such as words added to a Will after it has been signed and witnessed, is not recognized and will have no effect on the Will.

A Will can also be revoked if it is destroyed by a physical act.  If the subsequent Will is later destroyed by a physical act, such as cutting it up or burning it or crossing out the testator’s signature, the prior Will that it replaced will not be revived in New York.  The earlier Will is legally invalid, and the decedent will have died intestate.

The case of Mabel Waingrow of Blooming Grove, New York provides a cautionary tale.  The owner of Town & Country Coffee Shop on Route 94, Waingrow died in 2003 at the age of 99 leaving an estate valued at $990,000.  She had outlined her husband, her son, and her siblings.  Her closest relatives were her five great-nieces and -nephews whom she never knew because they lived abroad.  A diligent attorney who prepared Waingrow’s Will in 2000 had discovered the distant relatives.

Waingrow had closed her coffee shop when she had turned 90, and without the constant social interaction she soon became a lonely recluse, beset by thoughts that people were trying to steal from her.  To her rescue came Nick Stagliano, a former criminal investigator for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office who befriended her and took care of her.    According to a story in the local Times Herald-Record, Stagliano was the only one present for her 99th birthday.

In 2001 Waingrow, who had a habit of writing a new Will to benefit whoever was friendliest to her and to spite those who had “unfriended” her, executed a new Will naming Stagliano as the sole beneficiary of her entire estate.  The next day, the Orange County Court named him Waingrow’s legal guardian because she could no longer take care of her affairs.  Her great-nieces and -nephews were not informed of this appointment.

Five years after her death, one of her grand-nieces filed suit contesting the Will claiming undue influence . The case was settled shortly after the trial began.  Waingrow’s five great-nieces and nephews received at least $500,000 of the estate, with the remainder going to Stagliano.  Stagliano also agreed to give up his role as executor of the estate.

In her multiple executions of Wills, Waingrow chanced revoking a valid Will because her failing mental health made her capacity to execute a valid Will questionable.  Had her 2001 Will been declared invalid  at trial due to undue influence, then she would have been deemed to have died intestate.

When a person dies without a Will, New York uses as its default an intestate distribution system called per capita (“each head”) at each generation. In this system, each person is weighed equally. By virtue of their presence on the family tree, no one can be disinherited.

New York also has a “laughing heir” statute (EPTL §4-1.1(6)). A “laughing heir” is someone entitled to inherit by law who is so remotely connected to the deceased that he or she would not feel any sorrow at hearing of the death. To prevent this occurrence, New York cuts off heirs at the grandchildren of the deceased: “For the purposes of this subparagraph, issue of grandparents shall not include issue more remote than grandchildren of such grandparents.” No one more remote, such as a great-grandchild, may inherit. After that, the property of the deceased escheats to the State.

Since Waingrow had no grandchildren, and since her siblings had predeceased her, her surviving grand-nieces and -nephews risked having the entire estate escheat to the State if they pressed having Waingrow’s Will declared invalid because of undue influence on the part of Stagliano.  The prior Will executed in 2000 could not be revived under New York law.   Thus the only way that the grand-nieces and -nephews could be certain to receive any money from the estate was to settle with Stagliano.

The case of  Mabel Waingrow points out once again the necessity of working with an attorney who will  draft your Will and tailor it to your individual needs. Though it may seem contrary to nature, children at times do predecease their parents, as Mabel’s son did, and this reality must somehow be accounted for in your Will.  Your attorney will work through some scenarios with you to make sure that all of your wishes are met and executable. No boilerplate form can do this kind of reasoned and careful drafting befitting your individual needs.  

It is also a good practice to make a yearly appointment with your attorney to review your Will.  Things in your life will surely change from year to year, and it is a good practice to get in the habit of talking through those changes with your attorney. Your attorney will be able to advise you as to any impact on your estate plan.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.

Bobby Fischer’s Endgame: The Perils of Dying Without a Will

When Bobby Fischer won the World Chess Championship from Boris Spassky in 1972 in Reykjavík, Iceland, no one could have predicted that this location would become the site of yet another contest involving Fischer, this time a posthumous battle over his $2 million estate. Once a resident of Brooklyn, Fischer’s U.S. passport had been revoked in 2004 following some incendiary anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks (though Fischer himself was Jewish). The following year, Iceland granted him citizenship. He died in Iceland in 2008 without a Will (intestate).

According to the New York Times, there are four claimants to Fischer’s estate: Jinky Young, Fischer’s presumed daughter filing through her mother Marilyn; Miyoko Watai, who claims that she was married to Fischer, and Alexander and Nicholas Targ, Fischer’s nephews through his sister Joan.

Last month, Iceland’s Supreme Court ordered the exhumation of Bobby Fischer’s body in order to determine the legitimacy of Jinky Young’s paternity claims. The body was exhumed today and DNA samples were taken. If the DNA samples establish Fischer’s paternity, then Jinky Young will be declared his legal heir under Icelandic law.

All of the claimants have retained legal counsel to represent their interests in Iceland and, depending upon the results, these legal costs may never be recovered. All of this could have been avoided had Fischer drafted a valid Will expressing his final wishes. He could have made provisions for all of his loved ones, avoiding for them this long, protracted, and costly legal battle.

Your estate may not be the size of Bobby Fischer’s, but you likely have loved ones to whom you would like to leave bequests. Don’t put off the decision to make a valid Will. Consult with an attorney who will assist you in drafting a document that meets your unique needs.

If you would like to discuss your own personal situation with me, you can get a free 30-minute consultation simply by filling out this contact form.   I will get back to you promptly.

I invite you to join my list of subscribers to this blog by clicking on “Sign me up!” under Email Subscription on the left-hand side of the page so that you can receive a notification when the next installment has been published. Thank you.