The SECURE Act Sets a Tax Trap for IRA Beneficiary Trusts.

The newly enacted Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (“SECURE”) Act made major changes to the distribution rules for inherited IRAs. With few exceptions, the SECURE Act replaced the old life expectancy “stretch” IRA distribution rules with a mandatory 10 year distribution rule. This creates a potential tax trap for certain trusts named as an IRA beneficiary.

People frequently designate a trust as an IRA beneficiary. These trusts, often referred to as IRA beneficiary, or inheritance trusts, are designed to control and manage IRA distributions for beneficiaries. One popular type of IRA beneficiary trust is known as an “accumulation” trust.

An accumulation trust is frequently used in situations where the trust beneficiary may be unable to directly manage IRA distributions. An accumulation trust requires the trustee to retain IRA distributions in the trust. The trust does not pay out an IRA distribution to the beneficiary in the year received. The trust dictates the if and how IRA distributions will be paid to the trust beneficiary.

With few exceptions, the entire balance of an inherited IRA must now be distributed to the trust within 10 years of the account owner’s death. These distributions will be taxed at trust income tax rates because they are kept in the trust. An IRA distribution that exceeds $12,750 will be taxed at the highest marginal rate of 37%! Unless the IRA balance is very small, taxes will take a huge portion of IRA distributions, leaving a lot less for the trust beneficiary.

The SECURE Act’s 10 year distribution rule will impose significant tax burdens on many existing trusts and estate plans. More than ever you need to work with a qualified advisor who can help guide you through all the new rules and ensure you make the right decisions with respect to any changes to your retirement or estate planning.

Do you need help determining how best to best adapt your retirement or estate plan to the SECURE Act? Give me a call, I can help.

Taking a Closer Look – The SECURE Act’s “Eligible Designated Beneficiary.”

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (“SECURE”) Act became law on January 1, 2020. The SECURE Act made major changes to the distribution rules governing inherited IRAs (both traditional and Roth) and company sponsored retirement plan accounts. In general, the Act requires a designated beneficiary of an inherited retirement account to withdraw the entire balance from the account within 10 years of the year of the original account owner’s death if the account owner dies after December 31, 2019.

However, the SECURE Act carved out a class of beneficiaries who remain eligible to take distributions from an inherited retirement account using the old life expectancy rules. Beginning January 1, 2020, an individual who qualifies as an “eligible designated beneficiary” may continue to use the life expectancy method to calculate minimum annual distributions from an inherited IRA or other retirement account. Those individuals eligible to use this technique are: (i) surviving spouses; (ii) children of the account owner who have not reached majority; (iii) disabled individuals; (iv) individuals who are chronically ill; and (v) beneficiaries not more than 10 years younger than the deceased account owner. All but the surviving spouse category bear a closer look.

Child of the account owner who has not reached majority. People may assume the term “majority” as used in the Act means age 18. For purposes of the new rules, a child could reach the age of majority at age 26. Under current Internal Revenue Code and Regulations, a child may be treated as not having reached the age of majority until age 26 if they have not completed a “specified course of education.” Thus, if both conditions are met, a surviving child of the deceased account owner may use the life expectancy method of calculating distributions until age 26. However, this may change with future regulations. Nevertheless, when the child reaches majority, he must then switch to the new 10 year distribution rule with regard to any funds remaining in the inherited account. This category excludes grandchildren of the deceased account owner.

Furthermore, a child who is disabled as defined in the Internal Revenue Code when he reaches majority may continue thereafter to use the life expectancy method of calculating minimum annual distributions so long as he continues to be disabled.

Disabled persons. Not all disabled persons may use the life expectancy method of calculating minimum annual distributions from an inherited retirement account. Under the Act, an individual is considered to be disabled if she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long continued and indefinite duration. (This is the same definition used to determine whether a pre-age 59½ withdrawal from an IRA will be subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.) The beneficiary must provide proof of her disability. If the beneficiary does not meet, or no longer meets this definition of “disabled,” she must use the 10 year distribution period mandated by the Act.

The chronically ill. Under the Act, a “chronically ill individual” is one who has been certified by a licensed health care practitioner as: (i) being unable to perform at least two activities of daily living for a period that is indefinite and reasonably expected to be lengthy in nature due to a loss of functional capacity , (ii) having a level of disability that is similar to the level of that described in clause (i) above, or (iii) requiring substantial supervision to protect the individual from threats to health and safety due to cognitive impairment. If the beneficiary is deemed to be chronically ill, he may use the life expectancy method to calculate minimum annual distributions from an inherited retirement account. This definition is stricter than the definition found in a typical long term care insurance policy, which will require that an individual be unable to perform activities of daily living for at least 90 days to be deemed “chronically ill.”

Individuals not more than 10 years younger than the deceased account owner. This category of eligible designated beneficiary includes surviving siblings, a domestic partner, or friends of the deceased account owner if they are not more than 10 years younger than the deceased. Any beneficiary falling within this category may use the life expectancy method of calculating required annual distributions from an inherited retirement account.

For any designated beneficiary who is not an eligible designated beneficiary under the Act, he or she must withdraw the entire balance of an inherited retirement account within 10 years after the year of the death of the account owner if the death occurs after December 31, 2019.

The SECURE Act brought significant changes to an already complex area tax law and will have an impact on many financial and estate plans. As with any tax law change, one should review their financial or estate plan to determine how these changes may affect them.

Do you need help understanding the impact the SECURE Act has on your current planning, or need help determining how best to adapt your financial or estate plan to the new law? Give me a call, I can help.

Considering the Stretch IRA Rules After the SECURE Act.

As a financial and estate planning technique, the “stretch” IRA allowed the beneficiary of an inherited IRA to take distributions from the IRA over her remaining life expectancy, extending the life and income tax advantages (tax-deferred or tax free growth) of the IRA. For a very young beneficiary, this could have been a virtual lifetime. That all changed with the recent passage of the SECURE (“Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement”) Act.

The SECURE Act severely curtailed the viability of the “stretch” technique for distributions from inherited IRAs, both traditional and Roth. Under the Act, most non-spouse beneficiaries will have to withdraw all of the funds from an inherited IRA within 10 years of the death of the original account owner. The new rules apply to traditional or Roth IRAs inherited after December 31, 2019.

Beginning January 1, 2020, only an “eligible designated beneficiary” may continue to use the stretch technique for distributions from an inherited IRA. Under the SECURE Act, those beneficiaries eligible to use the stretch technique are: i) surviving spouses; ii) minor children of the account owner – until age of majority (but not grandchildren); iii) disabled individuals; iv) individuals who are chronically ill; and v) beneficiaries not more than 10 years younger than the deceased account owner.

If an individual does not qualify as an eligible designated beneficiary under one of those 5 categories, she must use a new 10 year rule – the entire account balance must be withdrawn by December 31 of the 10th year following the year of the account owner’s death. Note too, that a minor child of a deceased account owner may use the old life-expectancy distributions rules until she reaches the age of majority, and then must switch to the 10 year rule thereafter.

Of course, if an IRA owner died before January 1, 2020, the old stretch IRA distribution rules still apply.

Caveat: While this post focuses on the SECURE Act’s impact on distributions from traditional and Roth IRAs, the new rules affect distributions from all inherited qualified retirement plan accounts, including SEP IRA, SIMPLE IRA, 401(k), and 403(b) accounts.

The SECURE Act adds a thick layer of complexity to an already confusing area of tax law. As with any tax law change, one should review their financial and estate plans to better understand how the SECURE Act may affect those plans.

Do you need help understanding the impact the SECURE Act has on your current planning, or need help determining how best to adapt your financial or estate plan to the new law? Give me a call, I can help.

The SECURE Act Becomes Law – How Will it Affect Your Financial and Estate Planning?

The SECURE Act, which passed the US House of Representatives last summer (2019), had been flying well below most people’s radar as it seemed to lose steam in the Senate, despite bipartisan support. However, quite surprisingly and with little fanfare, it was passed into law just before Christmas, and took effect January 1, 2020.

In brief, the SECURE Act changes the age when one must begin taking distributions from qualified retirement accounts, changes provisions regarding contributions to IRAs and penalty-free withdraws from retirement accounts, as well as beneficiary distribution rules for inherited retirement accounts.

For those individuals who are currently working and saving for retirement, the SECURE Act removes the age limit for contributions to traditional IRAs. Under the old rules, a taxpayer could not contribute to a traditional IRA after reaching age 70½, regardless of whether he was employed. The SECURE Act removed that age limit. Now, you may contribute to an IRA regardless of your age, as long as you are working and have earned income. This change will help boost retirement savings for older taxpayers.

In addition, the SECURE Act raises the age at which one must begin taking distributions from retirement accounts. As of January 1, 2020, the age at which require minimum distributions must begin is 72. So, if you reach age 70½ in 2020, you can relax. You may wait until April 1 following the year in which you turn 72 to begin taking distributions from your retirement accounts. If you reached age in 70½ in 2019, the rules have not changed. You must still take your initial RMD before April 1, 2020, if you did not take it before the end of 2019.

The SECURE Act also eliminates the 10% penalty for early withdrawals from a retirement account in situations involving the birth or adoption of a child. In such cases, up to $5,000 may be withdrawn from a retirement account, penalty free, within a year of a birth or adoption of a child. The withdrawn funds may be re-contributed to the account at a later date.

Likely the most significant changes brought by the SECURE Act involve distributions from retirement accounts after the death of the account owner. Under pre-2020 law, an important planning strategy for retirement accounts was to name a spouse, child, or others as account beneficiary to allow for post-death distributions to be extended, or “stretched,” over the beneficiary’s remaining life expectancy. This had the affect of prolonging the tax deferral of investment gains in a retirement account and reducing the amount a beneficiary was required to withdraw each year.

Under the SECURE Act, the “stretch” is eliminated for most non-spouse beneficiaries. For those affected beneficiaries, all funds in a retirement account will have to be distributed within 10 years of the year of the account owner’s death. This will have the effect of increasing the amount of each year’s distribution from a retirement account and the taxes to be paid on those distributions.

Surviving spouses are excluded under the Act, and still have the option of stretching distributions over their remaining life expectancy. Minor children are also exempt from the new rules until they reach the age of majority. Finally, certain disabled and chronically ill beneficiaries and beneficiaries who are not more than 10 years younger than the account owner are also exempt.

The SECURE Act does not apply to retirement accounts owned by individuals who died before January 1, 2020. The old stretch rules will continue to apply.

Whenever significant law changes occur, it’s important to understand the real or potential impact it may have on your financial and estate planning. You should always work with a qualified, knowledgeable and trusted advisor.

If you have questions regarding the SECURE Act’s possible impact on your planning, give me a call. I can help.

How Will the SECURE Act Affect Your Retirement Savings?

Having passed the US House of Representatives and now moving quickly through the US Senate, the SECURE (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) Act appears to be on its way to soon becoming law. The SECURE Act will make numerous changes to how money is contributed to, and withdrawn from retirement accounts. While many of the Act’s provisions are administrative in nature, that is, they deal with the way retirement plans are administered, several provisions will directly affect retirement savings and withdrawals. Here are some of the more important ways the SECURE Act could affect your retirement savings:

First, the Act pushes back the time when retirement savers must begin taking distributions from their IRAs and other retirement accounts. Under current law, a person is required to begin taking retirement account distributions at age 70½, whether or not he or she wants to. The SECURE Act will push the age when required distributions must begin to age 72. This means that retirement savings may continue to grow untouched and untaxed for another year and a half before distributions must begin.

Next, the SECURE Act eliminates the age restrictions on IRA contributions. Americans are living and working longer. However, under current law a person may not contribute to an IRA after age 70½, even if still working. Under the SECURE Act, a person may continue to contribute to an IRA after age of 70½ if still working.

Finally, the SECURE Act changes the required minimum distribution rules with respect to IRA and other retirement account balances upon the death of the account owner. Under the Act, distributions to individuals other than the surviving spouse of the account owner, disabled or chronically ill individuals, individuals who are not more than 10 years younger than the account owner, or child of the account owner who has not reached the age of majority, are generally required to be distributed by the end of the tenth calendar year following the year of the account owner’s death.

Under current law, a non-spouse beneficiary of an IRA or defined contribution-type retirement account [such as a 401(k) or 403(b) account] may elect to “stretch” distributions from an inherited retirement account over his or her remaining life expectancy. For younger beneficiaries, this means that the remaining account balance has a longer time to grow tax deferred before being withdrawn, and the amounts withdrawn may be taxed at lower rates. The SECURE Act will accelerate distributions from inherited retirement accounts, reducing the time horizon for tax deferred growth and increasing the taxes that must be paid on the larger withdrawals.

This change will have an impact on beneficiary designations and estate plans, especially those situations in which a trust is named as a beneficiary of a retirement account.

Insofar as the SECURE Act will affect retirement saving and distributions in these and other ways, readers should plan to meet with a qualified legal or financial professional to determine the best way forward under the Act should it become law.

If you don’t have an attorney or financial planner, but would like to work with one, please give me a call. I can help.

NBI Seminar: What You Need to Know About Probate & Trust Administration

The National Business Institute (NBI) is offering a day-long seminar entitled “Probate & Trust Administration – What You Need to Know About Probate and Trust Administration,” on August 19, 2019, at the Wyndham Garden in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

(Full disclosure: I am one of the presenters.)

Program Description (From NBI):

Working through issues that arise through probate and trust administration can be daunting. Are you well-equipped with the tools you need to succeed? This insightful course will take you through steps in probate administration, including information on creditor and debt issues, tax and more. You will also get valuable insight on trust administration, including the handling of accounting, distributions and taxes. Don’t miss this opportunity to hone your probate and trust administration skills – register today!

  • Take a closer looks at the initial step for filing the estate.
  • Discuss what needs to be done to handle creditor claims and debts.
  • Make sure everything is in order for the final distribution of the estate.
  • Review what issues need to be addressed concerning taxes in probate administration.
  • Get the latest information on taxation concerns associated with trusts.
  • Explore the different types of trusts and how they are used.
  • Learn ways to manage, sell and distribute property and assets in trust administration.
  • Gain a better understanding of the distinctions between trust fiduciary accounting and income tax accounting.

This basic level seminar is designed for professionals who want to be more effective in the probate and trust administration process, such as:

  • Attorneys
  • CPAs and Accountants
  • Tax Professionals
  • Financial Planners and Wealth Managers
  • Trust Officers
  • Paralegals

Course Content:

  • Probate Process and Overview
  • Assets, Creditor Claims and Debt Considerations
  • Distributions, Final Accounting and Closing the Estate
  • Tax Issues in Probate Administration
  • Trust Taxation Issues
  • What You Need to Know About Trusts
  • Accounting/Distributions in Trust Administration
  • Ethics and Estate Administration

For more information and to register, please follow the link to:

“Probate & Trust Administration.”

DIY Estate Planning – Another Cautionary Tale

“I don’t need a lawyer. I don’t have an estate, just have a house and some bank accounts. My family can help me out, and look, here’s a form I found on the internet I can use. What can go wrong?”

Yet time and again, what appears to be a simple and effective way to avoid some legal fees ends up creating a legal quagmire costing tens of thousand of dollars to remedy. Do-it-yourselfers mostly turn to family members or the internet for help. A recent case out of Macomb County Probate Court gives us another example of just how “well” that can turn out:

In mid-2016, Martin met with several members of his family for the purpose of preparing his last will and testament. The meeting was attended by Martin’s brother, John, John’s son Paul, John’s daughter Elise, and Martin’s niece, Theresa.

John downloaded and printed a will form off the internet, and Elise completed the fill-in-the-blank form according to Martin’s instructions. The form provided that all of Martin’s assets were to be distributed equally among Martin’s 3 siblings. The family members also discussed the status of Martin’s bank accounts. After completing the form, the group went to Comerica Bank so Martin could sign the will before a notary. While there, Martin and Theresa also signed new signature cards for each of Martin’s 6 accounts at the bank to give Theresa access to the accounts as the family explained to Martin. Unfortunately, Martin died about 4 months later.

As you may have guessed, a dispute arose after Martin’s death over ownership of the Comerica bank accounts, a dispute which ended up in the Macomb County Probate Court.

At trial, Theresa asserted the funds belonged to her as the surviving joint owner. According to Comerica, signing the new cards by Martin and Theresa established them as joint owners of all 6 accounts (containing about $680,000). Martin’s niece, Elise, now personal representative of Martin’s estate, countered that the funds belonged to the estate for distribution to his siblings per the terms of Martin’s will. Martin had discussed this with the family and that certainly was his understanding and intention when he added Theresa onto the accounts. Following a bench trial, the probate judge sided with Elise that the money belonged to Martin’s estate.

Not satisfied with the probate court loss Theresa appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which again sided with Elise and Martin’s estate. The court opined that although creation of the accounts in Martin and Theresa’s names was prima facia evidence of Martin’s intention to vest title of the accounts in Theresa’s name upon his death, Elise was able to overcome Theresa’s prima facia case that Theresa was entitled to survivor rights to Martin’s accounts. The court noted that Martin did not seek independent counsel and was advised only by his family. Further, the evidence at the trial showed Martin discussed creating “convenience accounts” with his family members and may have mistakenly believed that by adding Theresa as a co-owner, she was only going to be a signer on the accounts, which was consistent with what Martin and his family discussed.

Nothing is simple and straightforward when it comes to estate planning or any other legal matter. You may think you are doing one thing, but the result is something completely unexpected, which can lead to disastrous, and costly, results. (Imagine what it cost in legal fees to settle Martin’s mess.) You should look to family members for a referral, not legal advice. Yes, attorneys cost money, but you are paying for their expertise and advice, which can save you or your family much more in the long run.

Engage knowledgeable legal counsel whatever your problem. Work with an attorney you trust. Don’t be afraid to spend some money up front for good legal advice to save a lot more money later on.

The case is In re Estate of Martin Langer. You can read the full opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals here.

UTMA Account Seized in Bankruptcy – What Can We Learn?

Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) accounts are a popular tool for gifting assets to minors. They can easily be set up without the services of an attorney or accountant. A contribution to an UTMA account is considered a completed gift for tax purposes, but the minor beneficiary is prohibited from accessing the funds in the account until their 18th (or even 21st) birthday.

The account is managed and controlled by a custodian, who can be the minor beneficiary’s parent, guardian, or some other responsible adult. Once an UTMA account is created, any funds or other property transferred to the account cannot be returned to the person making the gift. When the minor reaches age 18 or 21, depending upon the state in which the account was created, he is entitled to access the funds in the account.

However, UTMA accounts are not without their drawbacks. Like other planning tools, unforseen circumstances can arise that defeat the good intentions of the gift maker.

One such example is illustrated in a recent bankruptcy case out of Rhode Island, In re Marcus Soori-Arachi. In 1998, when Marcus was 15, his father purchased an UTMA annuity for him with Fidelity in Nebraska. Under Nebraska law, the UTMA annuity should have terminated when Marcus turned 19 and the proceeds distributed to him. However, Marcus’s 19th birthday came and went and the account went undisturbed for another 10 years.

In 2017 Marcus, then married and living in Rhode Island, filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. As required by bankruptcy law, the trustee appointed to administer Marcus’s case began the process of gathering and liquidating all of Marcus’s non-exempt assets.

The case trustee notified Fidelity that the UTMA annuity (now worth $105,000) should be turned over to the trustee. Marcus objected in the bankruptcy court, arguing that the UTMA annuity was not part of his bankruptcy estate and could not be liquidated by the trustee. (Marcus did claim a basic exemption protecting about $6,500 from the trustee.)

The bankruptcy court disagreed, finding that the UTMA annuity belonged to Marcus when he turned 19. The court ruled that it did not matter that the annuity was still in the account as of the date Marcus filed bankruptcy. Under Nebraska’s UTMA law, the custodial nature of the account terminated on his 19th birthday. Marcus gained an immediate right of ownership, possession, and control of the annuity, regardless of whether he actually exercised that right. The UTMA annuity could not be sheltered from his creditors in bankruptcy.

While this case interpreted Nebraska law, a bankruptcy court interpreting Michigan law would reach the same conclusion. While Michigan law protects the proceeds of an annuity from the claims of the creditors of a beneficiary, it does not protect the annuity proceeds from the claims of the creditors of the annuity owner, which Marcus became at age 19.

The facts of this case are unusual in that the annuity remained untouched in the UTMA for so long after Marcus reached age 19. When Marcus turned 19, he more than likely didn’t have any debts. But as time went on, he acquired a debt burden that grew to the point that he had to seek bankruptcy court protection, losing about $99,000 in the process.

Still, the case serves as an important reminder for those of you planning your estates. How well do you really know your children or other beneficiaries? Do they have excessive debt? Have they filed bankruptcy in the past? Are they being sued, or is a lawsuit threatened? What about a divorce – is a child’s marriage on the rocks? Knowing the answers to questions like these can help you structure or revise your estate plan, including beneficiary designations, to protect an inheritance from being lost to a beneficiary’s creditors.

The bankruptcy court’s opinion can be accessed here.

Middle Aged Man Dies Leaving Substantial IRA With No Beneficiary – What Happens Next?

A client, “Susan,” contacted me recently to help settle the affairs of her recently deceased son, “Frank.” Frank owned a traditional IRA that has a fairly substantial balance. Unfortunately, Frank did not list a beneficiary for the account. Shelly is Frank’s only living heir. Frank was 57 when he died in 2018. What are Susan’s options with regard to Frank’s IRA?

Because Frank’s IRA had no identifiable beneficiary, by default the IRA is payable to his estate. And since Frank died before age 70½, a special 5-year rule applies to the distribution of his IRA. In general, the entire balance of Frank’s IRA must be distributed by December 31 of the year containing the fifth anniversary of Frank’s death. In this case, the entire balance of Frank’s IRA must be distributed by December 31, 2023.

An estate does not have a life expectancy, so distributions cannot be “stretched” beyond the 5 years. However, the entire account balance does not have to be taken in one distribution, it can be broken up over multiple years to reduce the taxes payable as long as the entire account balance is distributed before the end of the fifth year following the year of the account owner’s death.

(Now, had Frank died after April 1 following the year he attained the age of 70½, Susan would have been able to stretch distributions from Frank’s IRA to the estate over his remaining life expectancy, avoiding the special 5-year distribution rule.)

If the entire account balance is not withdrawn by the end of the fifth year following Frank’s death, then the IRS could impose a penalty equal to 50% of the balance remaining. The penalty could be waived by the IRS if it finds there was a reasonable basis for the error.

Failing to designate a beneficiary of an IRA (or other retirement account for that matter) is one of the costliest mistakes you can make. Two problems are created: First, because distributions cannot be “stretched” beyond 5 years, there is little tax-deferred growth that can be achieved in such a short period of time. Second, since distributions from the account must be accelerated, the larger distributions create larger income tax bills.

It always pays to double check beneficiary designations on your retirement accounts (and life insurance, too). I recommend at least annually. Make sure you have beneficiaries named on all of your accounts, and to make sure those beneficiary designations are up to date. Has a beneficiary died, or is there some other reason to replace a beneficiary? If so, update your beneficiary designations immediately.

Do you have an issue concerning distributions from a retirement account, or planning for distributions from a retirement account? If so, call me, I can help.

The Law of Unintended Consequences – and Failure to Plan.

According to a recent story in the Boston Globe, Marcelle Harrison’s family has lived in a three-story home in Cambridge, Massachusetts for almost 40 years, during which time four generations of her family have lived. She and her family (two generations worth) may have to vacate the home because her stepfather died intestate (without a will) in 2011 after the passing of her mother two years earlier, meaning that legally her stepfather’s blood relatives back in his native country of Barbados have a stronger legal claim to her childhood home than she.

The home was purchased by her mother and step-father in 1980 for $23,000. It is now worth over $1 million. When her mother died in 2009, her step-father continued as the sole owner of the property. When he died in 2011, without naming a beneficiary for the property, Massachusetts law allows his blood relatives to claim the house over Marcelle, a stepchild.

According to Marcelle and those close to the family, her stepfather, Noel Aimes, always wanted the house to stay in the family, and in the 1990s he built additions to accommodate his growing family.

Marcelle received the news in a letter delivered to her shortly before the end of last year. “Since you were not an heir-at-law, your appointment is in jeopardy of being set aside,” wrote the state public administrator. It appears that Mr. Aimes’s relatives in Barbados plan to sell the property as soon as the estate is settled. Marcelle is terrified and unsure where her family will live if forced out of the Cambridge property.

This story illustrates the importance of having a will. Without one, it doesn’t matter what you desire to happen with your assets. The laws of the state in which you reside will dictate the disposition of your assets. This is especially relevant in second-marriage situations. Marcelle’s stepfather may have wanted the property to pass on to her and her family, but without a will that said so, Massachusetts laws dictates it go to his distant relatives in Barbados. A sad outcome to be sure.

All it takes is a bit of planning to avoid disaster. If you don’t have an estate plan in place, hopefully what’s happening to Marcelle will motivate you to take action!

You can read the entire article here.

If your estate planning house isn’t in order, give me a call, I can help. While you won’t have to live with the oftentimes disastrous consequences of dying without an estate plan, your family will.