Interesting Forbes article here. Can you imagine 1 in 8 BABY BOOMERS will get Alzheimer’s after they turn 65? How important is estate planning before that time? Well, if there is a 1 in 8 chance you, or your loved ones, will get Alzheimer’s then there should be an estate plan in place. A trust, a financial power of attorney and a medical power (or health care directive). However, should also be a will because death happens as well. The key is PLANNING AHEAD!
California Probate Form DE-165 Notice of Proposed Action
California Probate Form DE-165 Notice of Proposed Action is a crucial form in the California probate process. It is generally used to put all parties on notice of a pending real estate sale or similar transaction (re-finance or even listing with a Realtor). It also is sometimes used when selling personal property or any other the Executor or Administrator might take during the California probate process. The purpose of the form is to put all parties of interest on notice of an action before it is taken. This gives the interested parties time to object if they don’t think the action is correct or reasonable. Generally the action is taken 15 days, or more, after the notice is sent out. The parties should object within the 15 days but in many cases they can actually object after the 15 day time period. As with most things in probate notice, notice, notice!
Fair Oaks, California Probate and Estate Lawyers
Our main office is near Arden Fair Mall in the Post West area, right behind the Double Tree Hotel. Our other office is in Roseville at Douglas and Eureka. Both offices are easy to get to from FAIR OAKS, California! Up Sunrise to Roseville or up Sunrise to Madison and turn west to our main office. Your choice. We are here to serve you in the area of trusts, estates, and probate.
Fridays are made for ESTATE PLANNING
Fridays are made for ESTATE PLANNING… and so are, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday…. Yes, I realize all the other days are good too but Friday is especially good because:
1) It’s TODAY
2) It’s a day a lot of people are at work and maybe not feeling like doing real work so taking care of one’s personal business can get done.
It’s more important than checking for updates on Facebook, the latest stock quotes, the box scores from last night’s game and just about anything else we do. Taking care of our estate planning by creating a revocable trust, power of attorney for financial, medical power, general transfer, HIPPA release, certified extract of trust, quitclaim deed, bank transfer letters and all the rest! It’s all important and TODAY is a great day to do it!
Plus, maybe you want to hear how a life insurance trust works to create tax free AND creditor protected assets for your family!?
Let’s chat TODAY about your future and the future of your family!
-John
Protection Upon Divorce
100% of the people who get married plan to stay married. 50% of those people are wrong. With this in mind doing proper estate planning is crucial. In fact, there is protection planning you can do for yourself before you get married but even better protection planning that can be done for your kids or other chosen beneficiaries. The key is working with a California estate planning attorney who understands the issues and knows how to properly draft a trust. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss your concerns. -John
Amy Winehouse died without a will
I just read this interesting article on Forbes.com about British musician Amy Winehouse. Ms. Winehouse died in July 2011. Her estate is estimated at about $6.7m (in US Dollars) but after the costs of probate and similar fees it is reduced to approximately $4.66m. Her parents split that money, as next of kin, as they are divorced. Is that what Ms. Winehouse wanted? Maybe she wanted the money to go to someone else? Maybe she didn’t want to waste $2m in fees and costs!? The bottom line is you should get your estate in order so you do not fall victim to this problem as Ms. Winehouse did.
California Probate Form DE-161 Inventory and Appraisal Attachment
California Probate Form DE-161 Inventory and Appraisal Attachment is a necessary part of any full probate. It is used to list all assets that will be appraised in the probate. Attachment 1 is used to list assets the administrator and the attorney can easily appraise (basically cash assets like bank accounts) and attachment 2 is used for everything that the probate referee is needed for (real estate, stocks, bonds, businesses, etc…). In some cases you would only use one attachment (either 1 or 2) and in some cases you use both. The only time you would not use this form is if you were filing a final inventory showing zero assets but this is rarely done.
Requests for Trust Accountings
Requests for trust accounting should be done by a beneficiary as soon as possible. Pursuant to California probate code 1060 (the accounting section) and 16060 et seq (the duty to inform section). This starts a time clock and the trustee’s failure to comply with a reasonable request can put the trustee in a place of being in breach of their fiduciary duty. This breach is important if you want to eventually remove them as trustee. It’s all about setting the stage!
Estate Planning for Second Marriages
Estate Planning for Second Marriages is very difficult. Today I am attending a seminar covering some of the issues as follows in this blog. This is actually a three part seminar I will be attending. This is session one:
- The tax and non-tax reasons blended family estate plans often fail and how to define and explain these key risks to the clients
- Should you advise partners separately or together and what kinds of “sign-offs” do you need?
- How do you address the emotionally charged issues and fears that keep the planning process from moving forward – - and the documents from eventually being signed?
- What to do when a client shuts down or shuts you out?
- What strategies can you use when tempers flare?
- How do you properly prepare the client (and yourself) for the meeting?
- How do you address and solve specific property ownership and distribution issues including…?
- Pre-nuptial agreements
- Prior divorce obligations
- Community property, co-ownership and commingling
- Family home and living arrangements
- Family business complexities (Buy-Sell and Operating Agreements)
- Assets that pass by beneficiary (insurance, qualified retirement plans and IRAs)
- Family heirlooms and keepsakes
- Who should be considered for what roles?
- Trustees of revocable and irrevocable trusts
- Beneficiary designations
- Health Care Powers of Attorney
- Living Wills
- How do you get the couple to engage you and move forward?
California Court of Appeal Rules for Same-Sex Partner in Inheritance
I found this article on http://www.paramuspost.com and wanted to share with my readers. A nice summary by Mel Fabrikant on a recent California appellate Court decision.
California Court of Appeal Rules for Same-Sex Partner in Inheritance
By Mel Fabrikant Saturday, May 05, 2012, 03:26 PM EDT
Dispute Court Recognizes New Legal Claim for Unmarried Partners Intentionally Deprived of Expected Inheritance
The California Court of Appeal established an important new legal protection for unmarried partners who are wrongfully prevented from inheriting property from each other when one partner dies. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the surviving same-sex partner of a deceased Southern California man in a lawsuit alleging that the deceased partner’s sister had intentionally prevented him from signing a will that would have left a share of his property to the surviving partner. The two men were not married and were not registered domestic partners, but had been in a committed relationship for nearly ten years.
The surviving partner, Brent Beckwith, filed the suit against his deceased partner’s sister, Susan Dahl, after the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in a probate proceeding that Beckwith had no right to any share of his partner’s property because he had died without leaving a will and the couple were neither married nor registered as domestic partners. California law allows registered same-sex partners to inherit property in the same way as spouses, but provides no inheritance rights to couples who have not registered as domestic partners if one of them dies without a will.
The probate court awarded the entire estate to Dahl, who was his closest living relative other than Beckwith. Beckwith then filed a lawsuit against Dahl in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that Dahl had interfered with his late partner’s plan to sign a will leaving half of his property to each of them.
Beckwith’s complaint alleged that while in the hospital, his partner had asked him to print a will that he had previously written on his computer and bring it to him to sign, but that Dahl had interfered with that plan, promising to contact a lawyer to set up a trust instead. Beckwith alleged that Dahl did not follow through on her offer to arrange a trust, and shortly thereafter his partner died without leaving either a will or a trust.
Beckwith asked the court to recognize a new legal claim for intentional interference with an expected inheritance—a claim recognized in a majority of states but not previously addressed by the California courts. The Orange County court dismissed Beckwith’s case, saying that it was up to the appellate courts to decide whether to recognize this claim.
The California Court of Appeal then took up the case and requested amicus curiae briefs from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and other groups discussing whether California should recognize the new claim. NCLR filed a brief supporting Beckwith and asking the court to recognize the claim because of its special importance to unmarried lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender couples.
The appellate court agreed with NCLR’s position and ruled that “it is time to officially recognize this tort claim.” The decision cited the maxim that “for every wrong there is a remedy.” The court held that Beckwith could proceed on his claim that Dahl defrauded him, and also sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether Beckwith could establish a claim for intentional interference with an expected inheritance.
“Committed couples deserve legal protections, whether or not they are married or in a registered domestic partnership,” said NCLR Senior Staff Attorney Christopher F. Stoll. “Unfortunately, many same-sex couples have family members who are hostile to their relationships, or become hostile to the surviving partner after one of them dies. Wills, trusts, advance healthcare directives, and powers of attorney remain the most secure protections for couples, and everyone should have them, whether or not they are married or registered as domestic partners. This decision creates important new protections for surviving partners in California who are unfairly prevented from inheriting property when there is no will.”
Representing NCLR on its amicus brief were Legal Director Shannon P. Minter and SeniorStaff Attorney Christopher F. Stoll, along with Trenton H. Norris and Jeremy M. McLaughlin of Arnold & Porter LLP.