Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -

Elizabeth, you're right that POAs can be a means of accomplishing some
of the same goals. In practice I've come across financial institutions
that won't recognize a general POA, meaning one not done on their own
POA forms, without some work (which can require a lawyer and/or eat up
valuable time when the need to assume control is urgent). There's also
the issue of whether a POA valid in one state is valid & recognized in
another, where for whatever reason the other-state's laws control. So
far trustee successions I've seen have been generally smooth, though
that too can of course have complications.

-Tad

"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> wrote in message
news:r78fo4lmfqa0e3kg0d4gdoiek80p21p01k[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Sorry - please forgive my "far from home" reference. It was not meant to
convey a sense of distance. Rather it referes to the legal issues of
probating an estate outside your state of residence.

For example, I live in Felton, DE just six miles from Maryland. If I owned
property in my name in Maryland upon my death my heirs would have to open a
probate estate in MD. Maryland, like most states, requires the listing of a
resident agent - someone who lives in the state because the state is NOT
going to incur the costs of notifying nonresidents. If my heirs can't find
a friend or family member in MD who agrees to being listed as the resident
agent then they will have to hire a professional resident agent - likely an
attorney. This can get expensive - most attorney's get a percentage of the
estate's value. But if they are ONLY going to be the resident agent they
may not want to take the case or they may charge a hefty fee just to be
listed as resident agent.

Let me be real clear here - if you own property anywhere except your state
of residence you should seriously consider a revocable living trust. THIS
is the best argument I've found in favor of them.

Lastly, the resident agent issue can sometimes be solved by using a family
member. When my mother was alive she live with me in her final months. She
had updated her will to list me as her personal representative (executor).
Problem here was that she lived in MD and I live in DE. I had to open a
(VERY) small probate estate in MD - literally to transfer a 15 year old Ford
Escort and a bank account with about a $1,000 in it. That was ALL she had.
MD insisted on a resident agent because they would not send anything out of
state. I was lucky because my brother lived in Maryland so I was able to
name him as resident agent which solved that problem.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

"Donald Zimmerman" <dwzimm[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:2009020309260516807-dwzimm[at]telusnet...
- quote -

Maryland is doing everything they can to close the loop on this. In
Maryland probate is handled via the Orphan's Court. These are run like
little fifedoms. In every probate case I've been involved with the clerk of
the Orphan's Court has specifically asked about trust assets. When I
question them about this their response is along the lines of "well, yes
those assets move outside of probate, which is fine. However, we have an
obligation to make sure the state gets it due and that creditors aren't
discriminated against so we need to make sure that the assets are properly
titled and transferred timely to avoid them being pulled back into the
probate estate."

The net result being that while trust assets move outside of probate, the
probate courts are asking to see the trust document to make sure there were
no fraudulent transfers.

It sucks, but you can't fight city hall!

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ls5go45uctmubt0s2ep74mja9vk2o9sr8b[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

I would agree with Skip as long we emphasize the FUNDED part of his first
sentence. As some others have pointed out the trust, or just about any
other planning tool, requires that the assets be properly titled. Had "mom"
failed to title her assets properly the trust would have provided no benefit
at all.

Which is why I also recommend that folks consider a financial or general
Power of Attorney. The up side is that this can cover things that are
titled to the individual. One down side is that the fiduciary rules may be
different for POA holder than they are for a trustee. Yet when we consider
that most of the time the trustee or the POA will be a trusted family member
we usually wind up in the same place.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please trim the post to which you respond. "Trim" means that except for a line or two of the previous post to add context, the previous post is deleted. Thank you.

"Tad Borek" <borekfm[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:qd0il.3558$PE4.1738[at]nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

- quote -

I think a General Power of Attorney would address those issues and a heck of
a lot simpler and cheaper than a trust. My LTC carrier requested person &
address information to notify in case of non-payment of premiums, and they
ask annually for updates.

Elizabeth Richardson

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
- quote -


I'll echo that comment, to the point where I think it should be
emphasized as a principal advantage of a trust over a will - rather than
the "avoid probate" aspect which for many estates & states is not that
big of an issue. I've now seen it many times in practice - both
situations where having trusts set up was very beneficial, and ones
where they weren't set up and it created enormous problems. Nothing to
do with probate, nothing to do with huge estates, rather dealing with
the "late in life" situations that we all may face.

As a result you don't need a great deal of assets to justify setting up
a trust. Inability to pay the gas, phone, insurance and property tax
bills can create a crisis for anybody, and anybody is at risk of
something happening that puts them in that position (extended infirmity,
dementia, etc.). Parent gets forgetful and stops paying long-term care
insurance premiums, or falls victim to financial scams. What do you do?
Think of how this can unwind decades of solid financial planning.

With "successor trustee" language in the trust document, accounts in the
name of the trust, and a watchful successor trustee, this can be a
relatively minor issue. The alternatives can be very difficult, costly,
and stressful on all involved. A trust is not the only way to address
all this, but the problem has to be mentioned as one not addressed by a
simple will or JTWROS/POD account designations.

-Tad

On 2009-02-02 10:48:54 -0800, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> said:

- quote -

If I am not mistaken, another one is that trusts are private, whereas
anyone can go to the court house and find out how assets are
distributed in probate.

"HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> writes:
- quote -

Which leads to one of the biggest mistakes folks make all
across this - asset titling. Whether you set up a trust
or are planning on using other methods (ie. JTWROS), none
of it works if folks don't follow through with the asset
titling. I have heard so many stories of folks who'd set
up very sensible trusts and then never moved all their
assets into them. Or who just assumed that their spouses
would get their accounts without actually making the
beneficiary designations (or worse - who had left the
designations pointing at ex-spouses or other wrong people!),
or who hadn't retitled as JTWROS.

This is perhaps rule number one with estate planning -
review all asset titles and beneficiary designations!

Okay, maybe it's rule number two after making sure that
you select the right guardian for your minor children.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 04:14:59 -0600, "HW \"Skip\" Weldon"
<skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks, Skip.

We have a lot of that in place already, where it is possible. But there
are a few areas where it is not.
--ron

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:36:06 -0600, Dave Dodson <dave_and_darla[at]Juno.comwrote:

- quote -

Very interesting. Thank you for that information.
--ron

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:36:06 -0600, Dave Dodson
<dave_and_darla[at]Juno.com> wrote:


- quote -

I agree wholeheartedly with Dave that the above is a slam dunk example
in favor of a funded revocable living trust.

Beyond that, when it comes to wanting to avoid probate, I prefer to
check out more simple things like accounts registered "joint with
rights of survivorship", payable on death provisions and beneficiary
designations before making things more complicated (a trust). Just
keep in mind - there are pros and cons to everything.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

On Feb 2, 7:46*pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...[at]nospam.org> wrote:
- quote -

A trust can make things simpler before death, too. My mother had a
trust, and was the trustee while she was able, but eventually she
became too confused to manage her affairs because of dementia. Without
a trust, my brother and I would have had to take her to court and have
her declared incompetent, which would have been very humiliating for
her, and ask the court to appoint a guardian. In addition, ongoing
court supervision of the guardian would have made managing her affairs
both difficult and expensive. But because she had a trust, all she had
to do was resign as trustee. A simple one-sentence letter was all that
was required. When she resigned, the trust appointed a successor
trustee. The successor trustee, whom she personally had chosen, took
over, and everything has run very smoothly.

I'd have to say that her having a trust has made it infinitely easier
on my brother and me than going the court-appointed guardian route.
Having a trust may save your estate some probate expenses, but the big
advantage is the ability to pick someone to manage your affairs while
you are still alive if you become unable to do so yourself.

Dave

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:00:27 -0600, "Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA"
<gene[at]alliancetax.com> wrote:

- quote -

I do have a lot to learn about this before making any decisions.

We own property in two states -- residences in ME and NH as well as leased
offices in NH. But that does not meet the criteria of one of them being
"far from home".

I've been told that the trust makes things "simpler" after death, but so
far, it seems as if one price is awfully complicated before death.
--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> wrote in message
news:cffeo4p0h30t8obe0lvn83se9up9ibi81c[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

IMNHO - Probate is not usually something that needs to be feared. You also
need to consider the costs involved. (A LOT of this is state specific so be
advised that YMMV) In many cases living trusts are used to avoid probate.
However, by the time you factor in the costs of constructing the trust
document itself and the associated costs of transferring title of your
assets to the trust (for example, in MD you can transfer your car into your
revocable living trust but you have to pay a document transfer fee - similar
types of fees would apply to redeeding real property) many people find that
there is little difference between the cost of probate and the cost of the
trust.

If you're trying to avoid probate you also have to keep in mind that
anything you buy from now on also needs to be titled in the trust - IF YOU
MISS SOMETHING then your heirs will still have to open a probate estate.

In my experience, the best argument for a trust is when you own titled or
deeded property in a state other than where you live. For example, if you
live in NY but own a condo in Orlando having that Orlando condo in a trust
will keep you from having to open a probate estate far from home - this
tends to be very expensive.

I can't speak to most other states but the probate process in Maryland is
fairly simple for most folks. There is a time requirement of six months
before you can close a probate estate, but this is to ensure that creditors
have had an opportunity to file a claim with the trustee. Transferring
stuff to a trust will NOT relieve anyone of the associated liabilities - for
example, if you owe money on your car when you die it will have to be
addressed whether the car is titled to you directly or to the trust.

I would suggest you meet with an accountant who does trust work BEFORE you
meet with an attorney - attorney's sell trust documents, accountants don't.
You will likely get a better assessment of your need for a trust from an
accountant.

You can also hold your investments in trust - but again, there is little
real advantage to doing so, especially if you have a revocable living trust.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 04:25:17 -0600, "HW \"Skip\" Weldon"
<skip5700removethis[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thank you for that information. That helps me to understand my options.

- quote -

My very limited understanding (and I have a lot of self-education work to
do) is that it will provide a mechanism for avoiding delays related to
probate, and there may be some other benefits also.

--ron

On Feb 2, 10:56*am, PeterL <po.n...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Doesn't that happen all of the time with a testamentary trust?

Dave

- quote -

I would suggest that it is impossible to put assets into a trust after
the person is dead.

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:25:05 -0600, Ron Rosenfeld
<ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> wrote:


- quote -

On the assumption that:
1. The trust is revocable, and,
2. The word "taxes" in your first sentence above refers to federal
estate taxes,

At your passing the rax rules (unified credit, stepped-up basis, etc.)
operate the same whether you had put the assets into the trust or not.

What is it that appeals to you about a trust? In other words, what
would be the purpose of putting assets into a trust while you are
alive?




-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

On Feb 1, 9:25*pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...[at]nospam.org> wrote:
- quote -

This is a great question for an estate-planning lawyer, or maybe
misc.legal.moderated.

Dave

It has been suggested that my wife and I put most of our various
possessions into a trust.

However, myself and an unrelated partner are joint owners of two office
condominiums which we lease, and from which we derive a nice income. We
don't yet (due to laziness) but have been considering entering an agreement
to buy out the others interest in the event of death.

But if the trust owns my share of the property, wouldn't the trust then be
liable for taxes on the profits from that sale? And couldn't that be
avoided if the property were not in a trust, but my wife inherited it
directly?

Thanks.
--ron