DOCSLIB.ORG

The 2018 Annual Estate Planning & Probate Institute the Nuts and Bolts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 2018 Annual Estate Planning & Probate Institute the Nuts and Bolts The 2018 Annual Estate Planning & Probate Institute The Nuts and Bolts of Probate March 23, 2018 UNO Thompson Center, Omaha, NE This page intentionally left blank. The NSBA Real Estate, Probate and Trust Law Section presents 2018 Annual Estate Planning & Probate Institute The Nuts and Bolts of Probate Friday, March 23, 2018 • 8:30 am - 4:45 pm UNO Thompson Center • 6705 Dodge St, Omaha, NE 68182 **Also available for viewing via live webcast.** *Nebraska MCLE #153192. Iowa MCLE #286569. 6.5 CLE hours, including 1 hour ethics. (Regular/live) *Nebraska MCLE #153191. Iowa MCLE #286570. 6.5 CLE hours, including 1 hour ethics. (Distance learning) *Only 5 distance learning CLE hours may be claimed per year for Nebraska.* *This program has been approved for 6.0 hours of CPE, including 1 hour of ethics, by the NE Board of Public Accountancy.* 8:30 am Tax Apportionment 1:30 pm Formal Testacy and Appointment Jonathan L. Grob, McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO, Proceedings Omaha Robert D. Stowell and Jessica L. Piskorski 9:00 am Life Insurance and Estate Administration 2:00 pm Foreign Representatives and Ancillary Mark Weber and Jeffrey D. Sharp, SilverStone Group, Inc., Administration Omaha Kara E. Brostrom, Baylor Evnen Curtiss Grimit & Witt LLP, Lincoln 9:45 am Nebraska Inheritance Tax Jesse D. Sitz, Baird Holm LLP, Omaha 2:30 pm Break 10:30 am Break 2:45 pm Personal Representatives Appointment, Control, and Termination of Authority; 10:45 am Accountings, Federal and State Income Tax Duties and Powers Issues (Form 1041s) Matthew D. Baack, Skalka & Baack Law Firm, Hastings Daniel I. Dittman, Erickson & Sederstrom PC, LLO, Omaha 3:30 pm Engagement Agreements 11:15 am Creditors’ Claims Jeffery T. Peetz, Endacott Peetz & Timmer, PC LLO, Lincoln Rick A. Damkroger and Benjamin J. Wischnowski, O’Neill, Heinrich, Damkroger, Bergmeyer & Shultz, P.C., L.L.O., 4:15 pm Intestacy: What are Your Options After Lincoln the Fact: Post-Death Family Agreements; Alternative Valuations for Taxing Purposes; 12:00 pm Lunch (included with your registration) and Disclaimer Ramzi Hynek, Rembolt Ludtke, LLP, Lincoln 1:00 pm Informal Probate and Appointment Proceedings 4:45 pm Adjourn (Open Strategies, Special Administrators) Robert D. Stowell and Jessica L. Piskorski, Stowell, Geweke & Piskorski, P.C., L.L.O., Ord THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS This page intentionally left blank. Faculty Bios Jonathan Grob, McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO: Jonathan Grob is a shareholder at McGrath North and the Co-Chair of the Tax and Estate Planning Practice Group. Mr. Grob earned his J.D. from the University of Nebraska and his LL.M. in Taxation from New York University. He is an adjunct professor at Creighton University School of Law and has earned his Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy designation from the American College. His practice focuses on federal and state tax planning, including the tax aspects of acquisitions, divestitures and joint ventures; business entity formation and reorganization; succession and estate planning; and probate and trust administration. Mark Weber, Principal, SilverStone Group: Mark Weber has over 30 years in the industry as a financial consultant to business owners and executives on personal financial and estate planning. He is widely recognized for his work in both business transition planning and philanthropic estate planning. Mr. Weber obtained his Juris Doctor from Creighton University School of Law. Jeffrey Sharp, Principal, SilverStone Group: Jeffrey Sharp has over 30 years of experience providing families with comprehensive wealth management and retirement planning solutions. Mr. Sharp received his Juris Doctor from Creighton University School of Law. Jesse Sitz, Partner, Baird Holm LLP: Jesse D. Sitz represents clients with respect to corporate and partnership tax matters, estate planning and probate matters, federal and state tax disputes, and tax-exempt matters. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School. Mr. Sitz earned the designation of Chartered Advisor in Philanthropy (CAP®) through the American College. Daniel Dittman, Shareholder, Erickson & Sederstrom, PC LLO: Daniel Dittman is a member of Erickson & Sederstrom’s Estate, Probate and Trust Law Division. His practice consists of estate and gift planning, trust administration, probate of client estates, and federal and state taxation. Mr. Dittman received his Juris Doctor from Creighton University School of Law. Rick Damkroger, Shareholder, O’Neill, Heinrich, Damkroger, Bergmeyer & Shultz, PC LLO: Rick Damkroger’s practice areas are business and estate planning, estate and trust administration, and real estate transactions. He received his Juris Doctor from University of Denver. Benjamin Wischnowski, O’Neill, Heinrich, Damkroger, Bergmeyer & Shultz, PC LLO: Ben Wischnowski’s practice areas are business and estate planning, business and commercial transactions, corporate law, estate and trust administration, and real estate. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Iowa. Robert Stowell, Stowell, Geweke & Piskorski, P.C., L.L.O.: Robert Stowell‘s practice areas include estate planning, agricultural law, probate, trust administration, and real estate. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law. Jessica Piskorski, Stowell, Geweke & Piskorski, P.C., L.L.O.: Jessica Piskorski spent seven years practicing collection law prior to joining , where she now primarily practices estate planning, probate, and trust administration. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law. the firm Kara Brostrom, Baylor Evnen Curtiss Grimit & Witt LLP: Kara Brostrom is a member of the Trusts and Estates practice group. Her practice includes estate planning and estate administration. Ms. Brostrom received her Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law. Matthew Baack, Skalka & Baack Law Firm: Matt Baack’s practice focuses primarily on real estate includin like-kind exchanges business and corporate law estate planning and estate and probate administration. He received his Juris Doctor from the University ebraska College of Law. transactions, g 1031 ; ; ; of N Faculty Bios Jeffrey Peetz, Endacott Peetz & Timmer, PC LLO: Jeffrey Peetz’s practice is focused on estate and trust planning and administration, including litigation matters and business and wealth succession planning. He also works with all types of clients from individuals and small business owners to larger sized agricultural operators and community bank owners, advising them on contractual matters related to the operation of a successful business, including business succession planning. Mr. Peetz received his Juris Doctor from Creighton University School of Law and is a fellow with the American College of Trust & Estate Counsel. Ramzi Hynek, Partner, Rembolt Ludtke, LLP: Ramzi Hynek’s practice focuses on estate planning, succession planning, and developing family wealth transfer plans that minimize taxation while achieving each family’s unique needs and goals. She also represents individual and corporate personal representatives and trustees in the administration of estates and trusts. Ms. Hynek received her Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law. Tax Apportionment Jonathan L. Grob McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO March 23, 2018 UNO Thompson Center Omaha, NE This page intentionally left blank. Apportionment, Collection, and Payment of Estate, Generation Skipping, and Nebraska Inheritance Taxes Jonathan L. Grob McGrath North [email protected] 402‐633‐9560 1 I. Death Tax Overview 2 Federal Estate Tax ● Exemptions – $11,180,000 per person (2018 – 2025) – $5,500,000+ per person (2026 - ?) – Inflation Adjusted – Portable Between Spouses ● Tax Rate – 40% 3 1 Generation Skipping Tax ● Applies to: - Direct Skips, Taxable Terminations, Taxable Distributions ● Exemptions – $11,180,000 per person (2018 – 2025) – $5,500,000+ per person (2026 - ?) – Inflation Adjusted – NOT Portable Between Spouses ● Tax Rate – 40% 4 Nebraska Inheritance Tax ● Tax Rates – 0% (spouse and charity) – 1% (siblings, descendants, ancestors) – 13% (aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews) – 18% (all others) ● Exemptions – $40,000 (siblings, descendants, ancestors) – $15,000 (aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews) – $10,000 (all others) 5 II. Liability for Death Taxes 6 2 Terms/Concepts ● Liability – Identifies the person(s) who is/are required to actually pay tax. ● Apportionment/Reimbursement – Identifies the person(s) who is/are required to ultimately bear the economic burden of the tax. 7 Federal Estate Tax ● Primary Liability (IRC § 2002) – “Executor” • The term “executor” means the executor or administrator of the decedent, or, if none, any person in actual or constructive possession of any property of the decedent. – Extent of liability • The entire federal estate tax but not in excess of the value of the property in the possession of the “executor.” 8 Federal Estate Tax ● Transferee Liability (IRC § 6324) – “Transferee” • Spouses, tranferees, trustees, surviving tenants, persons in possession of property by reason of a power of appointment, and beneficiaries, who receive or, on the date of the decedent’s death, possess, property included in the decedent’s gross estate for Federal estate tax purposes. – Extent of liability • The entire federal estate tax but not in excess of the value of the property in the possession of the “transferee.” 9 3 Generation Skipping Tax ● Generally – Taxable Distribution • Imposed on transferee. – Taxable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uniform Probate Code Article Ii Intestacy, Wills, and Donative Transfers
    UNIFORM PROBATE CODE ARTICLE II INTESTACY, WILLS, AND DONATIVE TRANSFERS [Sections to be Revised in Bold] Table of Sections PART 1 INTESTATE SUCCESSION § 2-101. Intestate Estate. § 2-102. Share of Spouse. § 2-102A. Share of Spouse. § 2-103. Share of Heirs Other Than Surviving Spouse. § 2-104. Requirement That Heir Survive Decedent for 120 Hours. § 2-105. No Taker. § 2-106. Representation. § 2-107. Kindred of Half Blood. § 2-108. Afterborn Heirs. § 2-109. Advancements. § 2-110. Debts to Decedent. § 2-111. Alienage. § 2-112. Dower and Curtesy Abolished. § 2-113. Individuals Related to Decedent Through Two Lines. § 2-114. Parent and Child Relationship. § 2-101. Intestate Estate. (a) Any part of a decedent’s estate not effectively disposed of by will passes by intestate succession to the decedent’s heirs as prescribed in this Code, except as modified by the decedent’s will. (b) A decedent by will may expressly exclude or limit the right of an individual or class to succeed to property of the decedent passing by intestate succession. If that individual or a member of that class survives the decedent, the share of the decedent’s intestate estate to which that individual or class would have succeeded passes as if that individual or each member of that class had disclaimed his [or her] intestate share. § 2-102. Share of Spouse. The intestate share of a decedent’s surviving spouse is: (1) the entire intestate estate if: (i) no descendant or parent of the decedent survives the decedent; or (ii) all of the decedent’s surviving descendants are also
    [Show full text]
  • Ademption by Extinction: Smiting Lord Thurlow's Ghost
    ADEMPTION BY EXTINCTION: SMITING LORD THURLOW'S GHOST John C. Paulus* INTRODUCTION Testator (T)properly executes a will giving his farm, Blackacre, to his daughter (D), and the rest of his property to his son (S). T lives with D on Blackacre. Three years later T sells Blackacre and buys Whiteacre. T and D live together on Whiteacre until T's death four years later. From numerous utterances and acts it is very evident that T wants D to have Whiteacre for her own after his death. Will Whiteacre go to D or S? In most (maybe all) of the states, the answer would be, "S." The identity rule enunciated by Lord Thurlow in 1786 is followed.' As indicated by its application to T, D, and S, the dominating philosophy can bring forth some unsatisfactory results. Lord Thurlow's opinion calls for the application of a simple test in determining whether or not a specific devise adeems: If the asset identified as the exclusive subject of the devise is not held by the testator at his death, the devise fails.' Ademption by extinction, as this problem area is uniformly called, is reduced to a matter of identifying, if possible, the devised item in the estate.' The most often quoted statement by Lord Thurlow is: "And I do * Professor of Law, Willamette University. Visiting Professor of Law, Texas Tech University 1970-71. 1. Ashburner v. Macguire, 29 Eng. Rep. 62 (Ch. 1786). This hypothetical is similar to the facts in Ashburner in that the testator sells the devised asset (Blackacre). Three years later in Stanley v.
    [Show full text]
  • Coming to Terms with the Uniform Probate Code's Reformation of Wills
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2012 Coming to Terms with the Uniform Probate Code's Reformation of Wills Wayne M. Gazur University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Evidence Commons Citation Information Wayne M. Gazur, Coming to Terms with the Uniform Probate Code's Reformation of Wills, 64 S.C. L. REV 403 (2012), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/740. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 64 S. C. L. Rev. 403 2012-2013 Provided by: William A. Wise Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Tue Feb 28 11:04:51 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information COMING TO TERMS WITH THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE'S REFORMATION OF WILLS Wayne M.
    [Show full text]
  • Administering Oregon Estates: 2012 Edition
    Administering Oregon Estates: 2012 Edition Cosponsored by the Estate Planning and Administration Section Friday, November 16, 2012 9 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Oregon Convention Center Portland, Oregon 6 General CLE credits and .5 Ethics credit ADMINISTERING OREGON ESTATES: 2012 EDITION SECTION PLANNERS Holly N. Mitchell, Duffy Kekel LLP, Portland Jack V. Rounsefell, Attorney at Law, Gresham Katharine L. West, Wyse Kadish LLP, Portland Eric J. Wieland, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP, Portland OREGON STATE BAR ESTATE PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION SECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE D. Charles Mauritz, Chair Marsha Murray-Lusby, Chair-Elect Eric H. Vetterlein, Past Chair Jeffrey M. Cheyne, Treasurer Matthew Whitman, Secretary Amy E. Bilyeu Eric R. Foster Janice E. Hatton Amelia E. Heath Melanie E. Marmion Holly N. Mitchell Jeffrey G. Moore Timothy O’Rourke Ian T. Richardson Erik S. Schimmelbusch Kenneth Sherman Margaret Vining The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2012 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Administering Oregon Estates: 2012 Edition ii Table OF CONTENTS Schedule . v Faculty . vii 1A. Alternatives to Probate . 1A–i — David C. Streicher, Black Helterline LLP, Portland, Oregon 1B. Probate Jurisdiction and Procedures . 1B–i — Nikki C.
    [Show full text]
  • California Law Revision Commission
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT California Uniform Prudent Investor Act March 1998 California Law Revision Commission 4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4739 NOTE This is a special edition of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act setting out the origi- nal explanatory text from the Commission’s recommendation and the final statutory text with official Commission Comments. Staff Report on California Uniform Prudent Investor Act UNIFORM PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT * A new Uniform Prudent Investor Act was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in the summer of 1994.1 The new act seeks to modernize investment practices of fiduciaries, focusing on trustees of pri- vate trusts. The primary objectives of the UPIA are stated in its Prefatory Note: (1) The standard of prudence is applied to any investment as part of the total portfolio, rather than to individual investments. In the trust setting the term “portfolio” embraces all the trust’s assets.… (2) The tradeoff in all investing between risk and return is identified as the fiduciary’s central consideration.… (3) All categoric restrictions on types of investments have been abrogated; the trustee can invest in anything that plays an appropriate role in achieving the risk/return objectives of the trust and that meets the other requirements of prudent investing.… (4) The long familiar requirement that fiduciaries diversify their investments has been integrated into the definition of prudent investing.… (5) The much criticized former rule of trust law forbidding the trustee to dele- gate investment and management functions has been reversed.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code
    D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY UNIFORM TRUST CODE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MARCH 10, 2000 INTERIM DRAFT UNIFORM TRUST CODE WITHOUT PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS The ideas and conclusions set forth in this draft, including the proposed statutory language and any comments or reporter’s notes, have not been passed upon by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws or the Drafting Committee. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference and its Commissioners and the Drafting Committee and its Members and Reporters. Proposed statutory language may not be used to ascertain the intent or meaning of any promulgated final statutory proposal. UNIFORM TRUST CODE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE. ............................................................ 1 SECTION 102. SCOPE. ................................................................... 1 SECTION 103. DEFINITIONS. ............................................................. 1 SECTION 104. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. ...................................... 4 SECTION 105. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES. ............................................... 5 SECTION 106. NOTICE. .................................................................. 5 SECTION 107. COMMON LAW OF TRUSTS. ................................................ 6 SECTION 108. CHOICE OF LAW. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • There Are Two Types of Declarations Permitted Under the Act. the First Is
    ADVANCE DIRECTIVES There are two types of Declarations permitted under FOR THESE REASONS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN EYE the Act. The first is a Declaration (often called a “Living SURGERY CENTER HAS CHOSEN NOT TO HONOR This information is being provided to you for reference Will”), that is an instruction given only to your attending OR RECOGNIZE A PATIENT’S ADVANCE only, and is not intended as legal advice. You should health care providers. It does not give instructions to or SHOULD I HAVE AN ADVANCE DIRECTIVE? DIRECTIVE. PHYSICIAN OWNERSHIP consult with your family, attorney or other advisors about appoint another person to make decisions for you. Advance Directives for your medical treatment. The decision is yours. Montana law does not require The second Declaration (often referred to as Appoint- that you have one. The discussion above will help you to weigh your options and decide if you want to prepare an The Patient Self Determination Act (“PSDA”) requires ment of an Agent or a Power of Attorney) appoints PHYSICIAN OWNERSHIP most health care facilities to advise patients of their another person(most often a spouse, parent, child or Advance Directive to guide your physician or your agent health care decision-making rights. This section on close friend) to make medical treatment decisions for if you are unable to make your own decisions. There are Your physician may have financial and ownership inter- Advance Directives is intended to comply with that law. you when you are unable to do so on your own. numerous options, and you should choose the option est in Rocky Mountain Eye Surgery Center, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code Final Act with Comments
    UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000, 2010 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS April 10, 2020 1 ABOUT NCCUSL The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 114th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. Conference members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. $ NCCUSL strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. $ NCCUSL statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. $ NCCUSL keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. $ NCCUSL’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Care Decisions for Adults Without Decisionmaking Capacity
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Health Care Decisions for Adults Without Decisionmaking Capacity December 1998 California Law Revision Commission 4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4739 CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEMBERS ARTHUR K. MARSHALL Chairperson HOWARD WAYNE EDWIN K. MARZEC Assembly Member, Vice Chairperson Member ROBERT E. COOPER RONALD S. ORR Member Member BION M. GREGORY SANFORD M. SKAGGS Legislative Counsel Member PAMELA L. HEMMINGER COLIN W. WIED Member Member COMMISSION STAFF Legal NATHANIEL STERLING STAN ULRICH Executive Secretary Assistant Executive Secretary BARBARA S. GAAL BRIAN P. HEBERT ROBERT J. MURPHY Staff Counsel Staff Counsel Staff Counsel Administrative-Secretarial LAUREN M. TREVATHAN VICTORIA V. MATIAS Administrative Assistant Secretary NOTE The Commission’s reports, recommendations, and studies are published in separate pamphlets that are later bound in hardcover form. The page numbers in each pamphlet are the same as in the volume in which the pamphlet is bound, which permits citation to Commission publications before they are bound. This publication (#201) will appear in Volume 29 of the Commis- sion’s Reports, Recommendations, and Studies. Commission publications and other materials are available on the Internet at http://www.clrc.ca.gov/. 1999] 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Health Care Decisions for Adults Without Decisionmaking Capacity December 1998 California Law Revision Commission 4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4739 2 HEALTH CARE DECISIONS [Vol. 29 NOTE This report includes an explanatory Comment to each section of the recommended legislation. The Comments are written as if the legislation were already operative, since their primary purpose is to explain the law as it will exist to those who will have occasion to use it after it is operative.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning and Drafting Basics Under the New Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code Kent D
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 3 Article 1 Fall 2011 Planning and Drafting Basics Under the New Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code Kent D. Schenkel New England l Boston Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Recommended Citation Schenkel, Kent D. (2011) "Planning and Drafting Basics Under the New Massachusetts niU form Probate Code," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 16: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol16/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Articles Planning and Drafting Basics under the New Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code Kent D. Schenkel* I. INTRODU CTION .............................................................................. 537 II. BASIC STRUCTURE OF MUPC ...................................................... 539 III. W ILLS- IN G ENERAL .................................................................. 540 A. Formal Requirements of Wills ......................................... 540 B. Making Lists of Tangible Personal Property .................. 542 C. Testamentary Additions to Trusts .................................. 544 D . Revocation of Wills ........................................................... 545 E. Negative Disinheritance .................................................. 548 F. Omitted Descendants
    [Show full text]
  • The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders
    Michigan Law Review Volume 94 Issue 1 1995 The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders Jesse Dukeminier University of California, Los Angeles Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Jesse Dukeminier, The Uniform Probate Code Upends the Law of Remainders, 94 MICH. L. REV. 148 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol94/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE UPENDS THE LAW OF REMAINDERS Jesse Dukeminier* Nothing is more settled in the law of remainders than that an indefeasibly vested remainder is transmissible to the remainder­ man's heirs or devisees upon the remainderman's death. Thus, where a grantor conveys property "to A for life, then to B and her heirs," B's remainder passes to B's heirs or devisees if B dies during the life of A. Inheritability of vested remainders was recognized in the time of Edward I, and devisability was recognized with the Stat­ ute of Wills in 1540. Section 2-707 of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC),1 adopted in 1990, upends this law. In a comprehensive remake of the law of remainders, section 2-707 provides that, unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, all fu.ture interests in trust are contingent on the beneficiary's surviving the distribution date.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple-State Estates Under the Uniform Probate Code, 27 Wash
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 5 Spring 3-1-1970 Multiple-State Estates Under The niU form Probate Code Allan D. Vestal Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Allan D. Vestal, Multiple-State Estates Under The Uniform Probate Code, 27 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 70 (1970), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol27/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 70 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. XXVII MULTIPLE-STATE ESTATES UNDER THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE ALLAN D. VESTAL* I. THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE On August 7, 1969, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted by a vote of the states the Uniform Pro- bate Code. The following week the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association approved the Code.' In these actions a giant step forward was taken toward uniformity in probate law in the United States. Although no state has had the opportunity to consider and adopt the Uniform Code, there is reason to believe that a number of states will give serious consideration to the Code in the near future. For some time in the post World War II period various segments of the legal profession and the lay public had been dissatisfied with the methods of passing property from one generation to another.2 This had resulted in a number of probate revisions which have taken place or which have been urged.3 In the decade of the sixties impetus for re- *John F.
    [Show full text]