Iowa Trust Code 633A.4107
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue -
Estate Planning Guide
Last Will & Testament Estate Planning Guide Protect your loved ones, make your wishes known, and award your assets as you desire. Contains the information you need to plan your estate responsibly and affordably. Includes: Estate Planning Guide Contents developed by licensed attorneys. Know how to do more yourself and save. Since 1998, SmartLegalForms has helped millions of individuals resolve their legal problems by providing easy-to- use legal forms. THIRD EDITION……………………………………. MARCH 2017 Author Richard S. Granat, Esq. Editor Kathleen O’Neill Form Design Aaron Varner, Esq. Technology Gregor Weeks, Esq. SmartLegalForms is an imprint of SmartLegalForms®, Inc. SmartLegalForms is a trademark of SmartLegalForms®, Inc. Estate Planning Guide / by SmartLegalForms, Inc. – 3rd Ed. Copyright © 2017 by SmartLegalForms, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission. Please note this self-help guide book is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a lawyer who practices in the jurisdiction where you live. We do not provide legal advice. You can purchase legal advice on-line from an attorney for a fixed fee at: http://www.directlaw.us. 2 | Page Table of Contents Welcome! ............................................................................................................................. 4 When a Will Is Not Enough................................................................................................... -
Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws
Florida State University Law Review Volume 26 Issue 4 Article 6 1999 Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws Adam J. Hirsch [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adam J. Hirsch, Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 913 (2017) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol26/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW TRUSTS FOR PURPOSES: POLICY, AMBIGUITY, AND ANOMALY IN THE UNIFORM LAWS Adam J. Hirsch VOLUME 26 SUMMER 1999 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Adam J. Hirsch, Trusts for Purposes: Policy, Ambiguity, and Anomaly in the Uniform Laws, 26 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 913 (1999). TRUSTS FOR PURPOSES: POLICY, AMBIGUITY, AND ANOMALY IN THE UNIFORM LAWS* ADAM J. HIRSCH** I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 913 II. SCOPE AND EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................. 915 III. PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 923 IV. DURATION OF TRUSTS ........................................................................................... -
Purpose Trusts As a Planning Tool for the 21St Century Thomas E
University of South Dakota School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Thomas E. Simmons September 8, 2019 Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century Thomas E. Simmons Brad Myers Available at: https://works.bepress.com/tom_simmons/71/ Sunday Session III: Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century 1 – Myers & Simmons Purpose Trusts as a Planning Tool for the 21st Century Bradley Myers is the Associate Dean for Administration and the Randy H. Lee Professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law. He became a Fellow of the American College of Trust & Estate Counsel in 2017. Governor Hoeven named him one of North Dakota’ Commissioners to the Uniform Law Commission in 2007 and has served on several drafting committees for Uniform Acts in the Trusts & Estates area. Professor Myers joined faculty at the University of North Dakota in 2001 and teaches Federal Income Taxation, Business Entities Taxation Trusts and Estates, Estate Planning. Professor Myers formerly practiced law in the states of Nevada, California and Oregon, with his practice focused primarily in tax, business and estate planning with a special focus on the issues surrounding the development of low-income housing. Professor Myers received BS and MS degrees in Kinesiology from the University of California, Los Angeles. He then spent two years at the University of California, Davis, doing post-graduate research in avian respiratory control. Professor Myers received his J.D. from the University of Oregon. He served on the editorial staff of the Oregon Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. -
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. -
Joint, Totten Trust, and P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code J
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 4 1973 Joint, Totten Trust, And P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code J. Rodney Johnson University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Banking and Finance Law Commons Recommended Citation J. R. Johnson, Joint, Totten Trust, And P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code, 8 U. Rich. L. Rev. 41 (1973). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol8/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOINT, TOTTEN TRUST, AND P.O.D. BANK ACCOUNTS: VIRGINIA LAW COMPARED TO THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE.t J. Rodney Johnson* Litigation involving the survivorship rights of parties to joint ac- counts has been before the Supreme Court of Virginia on ten occa- sions since 1955.' These ten cases, plus one older one,2 constitute all of Virginia's case law on this subject. Instead of attempting a chron- ological analysis of the development of this case law, it is proposed to state such rules as now exist and compare them with the results that would be obtained under the new Uniform Probate Code.3 In addition, attention will be focused on the statutes that deal with the rights of parties and financial institutions in deposit accounts to see how they compare with their counterparts under the UPC. -
Totten Trust Account Application and Agreement (Payable on Death)
Totten Trust Account Application and Agreement (Payable on Death) Trust Title: Depositor/Member Name(s) Account Number: _________________________ In Trust For _____________________ Beneficiary Name Use this space to list the names of any additional beneficiaries. You may list up to 4 beneficiaries on a single Totten Trust Account. _____________________________ DEPOSITOR INFORMATION Name: (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address: (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ______________________ Date of Birth Phone Number 1: _________________ Phone Number 2: Membership Eligibility Name of Your Attorney Do you have a Will? Yes / No If Yes, who has possession of your will? JOINT DEPOSITOR INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ______________________ Date of Birth Phone Number 1: _________________ Phone Number 2: Name of Your Attorney Do you have a Will? Yes / No If Yes, who has possession of your will? BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________ Business Phone # BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________ Business Phone # BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________ -
Wills--Inclusion of Totten Trust in Testamentary Disposition Deemed Confirmation (Matter of Phipps, 125 N.Y.S.2D 606 (Surr
St. John's Law Review Volume 28 Number 2 Volume 28, May 1954, Number 2 Article 18 Wills--Inclusion of Totten Trust in Testamentary Disposition Deemed Confirmation (Matter of Phipps, 125 N.Y.S.2d 606 (Surr. Ct. 1953)) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1954 ] 1 RECENT DECISIONS upon the entry of the escaped convict into the decedent's truck, a re- covery would have been allowed under a recognized exception to Mitchell v. Rochester Railway, that is, immediate physical injury.2 6 On the other hand, had the injury occurred at any subsequent time within the unaccounted-for forty-five minute period, recovery would have been denied. But whether liability was imposed because the in- jury was immediate or whether a new exception has been added to the Mitchell rule does not clearly appear. It is submitted that the Court should limit the immunity of the state when liability arises from a breach of the aforementioned con- cept of duties owed to the general citizenry, for which no liability is imposed, by allowing recovery where a foreseeable harm to a par- ticular individual or group of individuals is involved. One of the primary reasons for requiring immediate physical in- jury to permit recovery for psychic injury was to discourage litiga- tion of unfounded claims where there existed a lack of evidence show- ing a causal relationship between the act complained of and the injury itself. -
The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States
The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States Roger W. Andersen* I. INTRODUCTION Since its emergence in 1969, the Uniform Probate Code' (UPC) has attracted considerable attention. Scholars have offered extensive commentary,2 and legislatures in fourteen states have adopted it.3 For a variety of reasons, however, thirty- seven other jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia) have not adopted the statute. This Article examines how the UPC has influenced the law and its practice in those places. A survey" of statutes and cases suggests that the UPC is a viable * Professor of Law, University of Toledo. B.A., Knox College, 1970; J.D., University of Iowa, 1973; LL.M., University of Illinois, 1978. The author expresses his thanks to Professor J. Rodney Johnson of the University of Richmond for his comments on the status of Virginia law; his commentary prompted this inquiry. Thanks are also due to Kathleen F. Bornhorst and to Jay Withrow who, as law students at the University of Toledo and the University of Richmond, respectively, provided able research assistance. 1. UNIv. PROB. CODE, 8 U.L.A. 1 (1983). 2. See, e.g., Emery, The Utah Uniform Probate Code-Protectionof the Surviving Spouse-The Elective Share, 1976 UTAH L. REV. 771; Ingram & Rudolph-Boevers, The Uniform Probate Code and the Federal Estate Tax Marital Deduction, 1976 UTAH L. REV. 819; Johnson, Joint, Totten Trust, and P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Com- pared to the Uniform Probate Code, 8 U. RICH. L. REV. 41 (1973); Kurtz, The Aug- mented Estate Concept Under the Uniform Probate Code: In Search of an Equitable Elective Share, 62 IOWA L. -
Wills - Devise to Executor for Further Distribution - Application of Trust and Power Doctrines
Michigan Law Review Volume 56 Issue 7 1958 Wills - Devise to Executor for Further Distribution - Application of Trust and Power Doctrines William P. Wooden S.Ed. University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation William P. Wooden S.Ed., Wills - Devise to Executor for Further Distribution - Application of Trust and Power Doctrines, 56 MICH. L. REV. 1167 (1958). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss7/6 This Response or Comment 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]. 1958] COMMENTS 1167 WILLS-DEVISE TO EXECUTOR FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION APPLICATION OF TRUST AND POWER DOCTRINES-Bequests to ex ecutors for distribution to persons to be selected by the executor may be and have been treated in many different ways. Tradition ally, such bequests are categorized by the courts in terms of trust, power, or gift law. Inasmuch as each of these bodies of doctrinal law has grown independently with little attempt by the judiciary to interrelate their operative characteristics, clas sification frequently spells substantial difference in terms of the validity, construction, and effect of the devise. 1168 MICHIGAN LAw REVIEW [Vol. 56 A comparison of the results reached in two basic cases il lustrates the problem. -
Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: Past, Present, and Future
University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications Fall 2016 Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: Past, Present, and Future Richard C. Ausness University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Estates and Trusts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Repository Citation Ausness, Richard C., "Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: Past, Present, and Future" (2016). Law Faculty Scholarly Articles. 591. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/591 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: Past, Present, and Future Notes/Citation Information Richard C. Ausness, Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts: Past, Present, and Future, 51 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J. 321 (2016). This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/591 NON-CHARITABLE PURPOSE TRUSTS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE Richard C. Ausness* Editor's Synopsis: This Article focuses on non-charitable purpose trusts and how they enable estate planners to better carry out their clients' objectives. Specifically, it explores the history ofnon-charitable purpose trusts and summarizes the differences between private trusts, charitable trusts, and non-charitablepurpose trusts. This Article also examines the treatment of non-charitablepurpose trusts in England and the United States prior to the promulgation of the Restatement of Trusts in 1935. -
Trusts & Estates Outline
Trusts & Estates Outline Transfer of Decedent’s Estate I. Probate & Non-Probate Property a. Probate = property passes through decedent’s will or intestacy b. Non-probate = property passing through instrument other than will i. Does not involve a court proceeding (life ins., trust) ii. Can avoid probate if estate is small II. Probate Procedure a. Appoint personal representative: executor (named by decedent), administrator (appointed by court) b. Any part can demand formal probate (SOL = 3 years) c. Interested parties may demand supervised administration Chapter 2: Intestacy: An Estate Plan by Default I. UPC §2-102: The intestate share of decedent’s surviving spouse is: a. The entire intestate estate if: i. No descendent or parent survives decedent, or ii. All D’s surviving descendents are also descendents of surviving spouse and there is no other descendent of surviving spouse who survives D b. The first $200k, plus ¾ of any balance of intestate estate, if no descendent of D survives D, but a parent of D survives D c. The first $150k, plus ½ of any balance of intestate estate, if all D’s surviving descendents are also descendents of surviving spouse and spouse has one or more surviving descendents who are not of the D. d. The first $100k, plus ½ of any balance of intestate estate, if one or more of D’s surviving descendents are not descendents of surviving spouse II. Ausness on §2-102 a. No descendents or parents = all to spouse b. All descendents are descendents of spouse = everything to spouse c. No issue, but parent(s) survives = $200k + ¾ to spouse d.