Principal and Income Allocations — Attention to Detail

/in , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

I recently had the occasion to pull out some old CLE materials from 2001 after Colorado’s adoption of the New Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA).  That caused me to reflect on what has happened in the thirteen years since passage of the act in Colorado.  Unfortunately, there still seem to be individual trustees as well as attorneys and accountants who do not appreciate that the provisions of this act must be considered in determining such basic things as what is income and what is principal, unless that is clearly spelled out in the document.

Determinations of income and principal, in conjunction with the distribution provisions of the document, are critical to determining what each trust beneficiary is to receive.  The basic thrust of the UPIA is that the document will trump the UPIA rules, but the UPIA provides a set of default rules to make such determination if the trust is silent.  It also contains special rules for such things as depreciation expense, how to handle receipts from depleting assets such as mineral interests, and giving the trustee the power to adjust between income and principal under certain circumstances.     

A common mistake is to allocate principal and income based upon a recollection of what the UPIA says, or worse, how it was allocated for a previous client.  The first thing the trustee should do is to read the trust document because if the issue is discussed there, there is no need to look further.  However, most documents don’t go into the level of specificity in all areas as the UPIA does and therefore the practitioner must rely on the UPIA.  It is also important to read the correct state’s UPIA statutes as states have varied in their adoption of portions of the original uniform law.  Depreciation, for example, is one area that is treated differently by a variety of states. 

More and more trusts are spanning multiple generations and require trustees to manage trust assets for decades.  It is important to remember that a decision made today may be reviewed years later with 20/20 hindsight, when the cost of the trustee’s decision will have been compounding for years.  This means that decisions involving even low dollar amounts now can be subject to close scrutiny years later.  Trustees and their agents need to be fully aware of the provisions of the UPIA and make sure to follow them. 

The Fall of Colorado’s Same Sex Marriage Ban

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

By Kelly Cooper

Starting on Monday, marriage licenses were issued in Colorado to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

This change came because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear cases from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.  What do these five states have in common?  Each of them had banned same sex marriage and had those bans declared unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals. 

In refusing to hear these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld three U.S. Courts of Appeal’s decisions declaring the same sex marriage bans unconstitutional and making same sex marriages legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. 

The impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear these cases has reached far beyond the borders of those five states.  This is because every state in the U.S. is subject to the decisions made by one U.S. Court of Appeals.  For example, Colorado is situated in the 10th Circuit and the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declared Utah’s ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.  Since Utah and Colorado are both bound by 10th Circuit’s decisions, it is likely that Colorado’s same sex marriage ban would also be declared unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit.  As a result, various county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Colorado.

Current status: There are 19 states that permit same sex marriages plus the District of Columbia.  Due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear these cases, five more states’ bans on same sex marriage will fall bringing the total number of states permitting same sex marriage to 24.  Due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, an additional six states’ same sex marriage bans are effectively overruled, including Colorado’s.  The other five states are Wyoming, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.  This will bring the total number of states allowing same sex marriage to 30.

 We can expect more developments and changes in this area in the near term, so stay tuned.

Robin Williams Got It Right

/in , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

The popular press is always full of cautionary tales about celebrities and their estate plans (see our previous post on Philip Seymour Hoffman).  These stories make it seem that more celebrities get estate planning wrong then get it right.  However, it appears that Robin Williams did take several steps to get his estate plan right before his untimely death. 

Williams created a revocable living trust.  Since trust documents are not part of the public record like a will, we may never know who Williams gave his assets to and how those assets will be handled (in a trust, outright gifts, etc.).  The living trust will help protect Williams’ legacy and his family’s privacy (assuming there is no litigation or disclosure by those with knowledge of the plan).

In addition, living trusts help to avoid probate if they are properly funded.  In California, where Williams lived, the probate process can be expensive due to fees for the attorney and executor that are based on the value of the assets going through probate in addition to appraisal fees and court costs.  If Williams transferred all of his personal assets to the living trust prior to his death, he will have helped to avoid these expenses.

Williams also appears to have created a trust to hold his real estate in California (estimated equity of $25 million) and another trust to benefit his children (value unknown).  While it is not known whether Williams created these trusts to help reduce his estate tax costs, it is possible that he did so.  This uncertainty is because the terms of these trusts remain private.

I hope that Williams’ family benefits from his planning and foresight and that other celebrities take notice.

Forgotten, But Not Lost

/in , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

I have been working with a client whose mother passed away more than ten years ago.  Due to the passage of time, mergers, corporate name changes and stock splits, and a variety of other circumstances, quite a bit of her property had been turned over to the State of Colorado as unclaimed property.  However, contrary to what some may believe, all is not lost!  These assets still belong to her, and in this case, to her legal heirs.  The claims process is relatively easy and can even be initiated online – you just have to start the search!

The Great Colorado Payback (the “GCP”) is a division of the Colorado State Treasurer.  They are charged with “reuniting Coloradoans with their lost or forgotten assets” – what an amazing job description!  The GCP regularly receives proceeds of bank accounts, stock certificates and dividends, oil and gas royalty payments, utility refund payments, the contents of safe deposit boxes and more from “holders” (financial institutions or other entities in possession of these assets) that have lost contact with the rightful owner.  The current list maintained by the Colorado State Treasurer contains more than 1.7 million names!

Our firm routinely recommends that our newly-appointed personal representatives check the state’s website for any unclaimed (sometimes referred to as abandoned) property for recently deceased individuals.  A GCP representative recently educated me about the dormancy period, which is 5 years from the last customer-initiated contact.  Holders typically do not turn over the accounts to the GCP until the expiration of this dormancy period.  Going forward, I will begin to check the GCP list again immediately prior to closing an estate in order to ensure that no assets belonging to the decedent, but not discovered by the personal representative (for example, statements may not be sent to the owner, and therefore received by the PR, if the holder had an old address), have been reported during the pendency of the estate (or trust) administration.

In addition to the Unclaimed Property List, the GCP office maintains an Estate of Deceased Owners and Dissolved Corporations List.  Pursuant to escheat law, it is not until twenty-one years after an estate is probated or a corporation dissolved, and their funds are turned over to the State Treasury that those funds become property of the State and are deposited into the Public Education Fund.  So even for a probate estate where there are no known heirs at the time of the estate administration, there is still time for the rightful heirs, should any be located, to receive their inheritance.  Please note that the proper claim procedure in this instance involves obtaining an order of distribution from the probate court.

For more information or to check to see if a client (deceased or alive), or even YOU, have forgotten assets on the list, go to www.colorado.gov/treasury/gcp/.  For links to other states, check out www.MissingMoney.com or www.unclaimed.org.

Be sure to consult the FAQ’s and instructions on the website to include all of the required information for your claim, particularly with assets of deceased individuals.  Now that you have found the lost assets, you do not want missing paperwork to delay your receipt even longer.

Happy searching!

Can an LLC Survive the Death of the Sole Member?

/in , , ,

by Carol Warnick

What happens when the sole member of an LLC dies without making provisions for succession?  Does the LLC automatically dissolve with the assets being forced to be distributed through the decedent’s estate?  Alternatively, is there some way for the personal representative to save the LLC and to assume the position of the sole owner during the administration of the estate, thus allowing time to figure out how to handle the ultimate distribution of the LLC?  When the decedent operates a viable business in a single member LLC, significant value can be lost to the estate if the LLC is dissolved upon the death of the sole member. 

Those of us in Colorado are fortunate enough to be operating under a statute that give us some flexibility.  Under Colorado law, if the operating agreement of the single-member LLC does not address the circumstances on the dissociation of the member the statute provides as follows:

7-80-701. Admission of members

(2) At any time that a limited liability company has no members, upon the unanimous consent of all the persons holding by assignment or transfer any of the membership interest of the last remaining member of the limited liability company, one or more persons, including an assignee or transferee of the last remaining member, may be admitted as a member or members.

There is no dissolution provided that the assignee appoints or becomes a member:      

7-80-801. Dissolution – time and notice of dissolution

(1) A limited liability company formed under this article is dissolved:

(c) After the limited liability company ceases to have members, on the earlier of:

(I) The ninety-first day after the limited liability company ceases to have members unless, prior to that date, a person has been admitted as a member; or

(II) The date on which a statement of dissolution of the limited liability company becomes effective pursuant to section 7-90-304.

If 90 days have elapsed since the sole member’s death, the LLC dissolves, but it may be resurrected pursuant to 7-90-1001 and 1002  (note that the assignee has the power to act on behalf of the dissolved LLC (7-80-803.3(2)). (“The legal representative, assignee, or transferee of the last remaining member may wind up the limited liability company's business if the limited liability company dissolves.”) It could also wind up by merging with a non-dissolved LLC which may continue the business of the dissolved LLC.

This means that if we have an estate where the sole member of an LLC which is operating a business dies with no provision for succession, the statute not only provides a way to keep the LLC (and thus the business) alive until the ultimate distribution of the LLC interests, but it even allows for reinstatement of a dissolved entity should the personal representative not act quickly enough.  This is a great advantage for personal representatives dealing with this particular situation in Colorado.   A growing number of other states are specifically addressing the dissociation of the last member, similar to Colorado, but almost no other states permit the reinstatement of a dissolved entity in this manner. 

(The author gives thanks to Robert Keatinge, her colleague here at Holland & Hart, for his insight and significant contributions not only to the LLC statutes in Colorado but for his assistance with the content of this blog.) 

Probate and Trust Issues in Colorado’s Upcoming Legislative Session

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Colorado’s General Assembly will reconvene on January 8, 2014.  At this time, it appears that at least two probate and trust related issues will be the subject of debate by the Assembly.

The first is a proposed change to the Colorado Civil Unions Act that would permit partners to a civil union to file joint income tax returns if they are permitted to do so by federal law.  Under the current proposal being considered by the Colorado Bar Association, there would be changes to both the Civil Unions Act and Colorado’s income tax statutes.  This is partly in response to the issuance of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 by the Internal Revenue Service, which permits married same sex couples to file joint federal income tax returns. 

The second is a proposal to codify a testamentary exception to Colorado’s attorney-client privilege.  The necessity and proposed scope of the testamentary exception are currently being discussed by a subcommittee of the Statutory Revisions Committee of the Trust & Estate Section of the Colorado Bar Association and will likely be discussed later this week at Super Thursday meetings.

The Colorado Supreme Court has previously recognized that the attorney-client privilege generally survives the death of the client to further one of the policies of the attorney-client privilege – to encourage clients to communicate fully and frankly with counsel.  The Colorado Supreme Court has also held that a “testamentary exception” to the privilege exists, which permits an attorney to reveal certain types of communications when there is dispute among the heirs, devisees or other parties who claim by succession from a decedent so that the intent of the decedent can be upheld.

Charities are Beneficiaries Too!

/in , , , , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

“No, you cannot have it.  The trust is a private document” – Well, maybe, but not to the exclusion of the beneficiaries, and I mean ALL of the beneficiaries, named in that testamentary instrument.

Prior to returning to Colorado a few months ago, I worked in the Legal Department for a national charity where the responsibility of my team (totaling more than 8 attorneys, paralegals and staff) was to represent the charity’s interests in trust and estate matters around the country.

Coming from a background as a trusts and estates paralegal for well-respected law firms, I was absolutely shocked at the number of times that attorneys or fiduciaries (both professional and individual) would respond in the negative to a request for a copy of the will or trust or financial information regarding the gift of which we had just received notice.  There seemed to be this prevailing attitude that, because we were a non-profit organization, we would simply take whatever we were given or what was left over and be grateful for it, even in large trusts or estates where the designated gift was a portion or entirety of the residuary estate.  Unfortunately there was not a consistent understanding that if Charity XYZ and Cousin Sue are each to receive one-half of the residuary estate, they need to be treated equally.

Most charities do not intend to be adversarial or difficult.  Any money spent on legal fees reduces the ultimate charitable gift of the donor; however, they have a fiduciary obligation to the ultimate beneficiaries of their particular mission to ensure they receive everything to which they are ENTITLED!  In Colorado, that means a copy of the terms of the trust which affect the interest; other jurisdictions require a complete copy of the instrument, including codicils and/or amendments.  Almost every jurisdiction requires providing at least some information about the assets or accountings.

As with many things in life, upfront communication is usually the best policy.  My experience working for a “professional beneficiary” has reinforced and taught me several things about good estate and trust administration communications.  Provide an initial notification as soon as possible at the beginning of the trust or estate administration.  Provide periodic updates.  If there are assets that may take some time to sell, litigation or any other factors that may delay the distribution, let your contact know and they will calendar their system accordingly.  I know that I was less likely to question or challenge things when I received regular contact from the attorney or fiduciary.

So if the Decedent has been deceased for several years and you are just now sending a check for several hundreds of thousands of dollars as their first notification of the gift under a will or trust, do not be surprised if the charity requests additional information (including, but not limited to, the testamentary documents, an inventory or list of assets and an accounting) before signing a waiver or release.  After all, charities are beneficiaries too!

Description or Condition?

/in , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Lawyers that regularly litigate in the probate world always have an improbable story to tell.  Here is one of those stories that ended up in front of the North Dakota Supreme Court last year: 

A couple, Lee and Robyn, were engaged and planned to be married on July 18, 2009.  On June 26, 2009, Lee and Robyn signed a prenuptial agreement that required Lee to make gifts to Robyn and her daughter upon his death. 

Also on June 26, 2009, Lee executed a Will that contained the provisions to comply with the requirements of the prenuptial agreement.  The Will gave property to Robyn, describing her as “my wife, Robyn.”  The Will also stated, “My spouse’s name is Robyn Risovi and all references in this Will to “my spouse” are to her only.”  However, a footnote followed stating, “This Will has been prepared in anticipation of the upcoming marriage of …Lee Paulson and Robyn Risovi set for July 18, 2009.” 

Lee died on July 15, 2009 – three days before the wedding. 

Before you read any further, answer this question: should Robyn receive the gifts under the Will even though she was not yet Lee’s wife?

Technically, one of the questions before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether the term “wife” being used to describe Robyn in the Will resulted in a conditional gift or whether the term “wife” was a merely a description.  In addition, the North Dakota Supreme Court had to determine whether the prenuptial agreement, which was not effective since the marriage did not occur before Lee’s death, had any impact on the interpretation of the word “wife” in the Will. 

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the Will was unambiguous, the term “wife” was only descriptive, and ordered distribution to Robyn.  The Court held the prenuptial agreement had no effect on the interpretation of the Will for a variety of reasons.

This is just one more example of the ways that the best laid plans are derailed by unexpected events.

Dangers in Charitable Giving – Colorado’s Attorney General Takes Action Against Charities

/in , , , , , ,

by Kelly Cooper

Normally, when the topic of charitable giving comes up with a client, the discussion is a positive one.  The client is excited about the great work being done by a charity, wants to ensure that their charitable work is continued after their death or has a desire to create a legacy.  However, when representing clients that are fiduciaries who are making distributions for charitable purposes, a danger lurks – donating money to a corrupt or fake charity.

This danger was brought to the forefront last week in Colorado when Attorney General John Suthers filed suit against Boobies Rock! Inc., the Se7ven Group, Say No 2 Cancer and owner Adam Cole Shryock.  In the lawsuit, the Attorney General has claimed that these charities deceived consumers into thinking they were donating money to a cancer-related charity when consumers were actually giving money to a for-profit business that provided only small amounts to charity.  Allegedly, the charities would hire models to take donations on behalf of Boobies Rock! at various venues and events and tell people that their donations would go to other charities fighting breast cancer.  The Complaint filed by the Attorney General also alleges that these charities used the names of other legitimate charities in its fundraising efforts without their consent and that Mr. Shryock used a portion of the funds collected to pay for an online dating service, buy a BMW, pay for his cleaning service, and pay his bar tabs.

This is a harsh example, but is a good reminder to counsel clients to thoroughly investigate any charity they wish to give to and any charitable solicitation they receive.  To read the Complaint filed by the Attorney General, click here.

Trying to Do the Right Thing – Ethics and Estate Planning

/in , , ,

by: Kelly Cooper

Many readers of this blog are familiar with (or even attended) the CBA’s Trust and Estate Section’s Estate Planning Retreat two weeks ago in Snowmass Village.  As always, the Retreat was a great time to reconnect or catch up with our colleagues who work in the estate planning and administration areas and attorneys who do estate planning, administration and litigation.  More importantly, each year the Retreat presents an opportunity for attorneys from all over the state to discuss issues and exchange ideas with each other in small groups.  This year, Jean Stewart and I hosted one of those small discussion groups.  Our discussion group focused on ethics and the conflict and confidentiality issues that arise during the course of representing a family – from the initial representation of a couple for estate planning, to representing the family business, pre-nuptial agreements for the couple’s children, divorces, the differing treatment of children (Greedy, Needy and Speedy), and eventually, the disability or death of a client.

For those who were not able to attend the Retreat (or just not able to attend our session), here is a summary of the issues that received the most attention during our four sessions:

  •  Do you represent couples jointly for estate planning?  If so, assume one of the
    client shares information with you and does not want the other half of the couple to know that information. Do you have an affirmative obligation to share that information with the other joint client? Do you only have to share the information if it affects the estate plan? Do you only have to share the information if it requires you to end the engagement?  Do you only have to share it if the other client asks for advice that requires you to use the information that was shared?  What conversations should you have with the couple before they become clients regarding these issues?  What type of written correspondence do you send discussing these types of issues?
  • Should you represent the family business?  This discussion did divide some of our groups and it gave rise to an important practical question.  Even if the ethical rules permit the representation, is it worth the effort required to work through the potential conflicts and the trouble that may arise in the future? 
  • Can you (or should you) continue to represent a couple during a divorce or individually after the divorce is final?  Should the terms of the couple’s separation agreement factor into your decision?
  • Should you represent one of the couple’s children, at the request of the couple, to draft a prenuptial agreement?  What if the couple is paying for your services?  What if the child’s view of the prenuptial agreement is different than the couple’s?
  • Can you (or should you) represent the couple in the sale of the family business to one of the children? 

I always enjoy the Retreat’s discussion group format because it provides a unique opportunity to pose interesting questions, pick people’s brains, challenge the status quo and hear real life war stories (there are some doozies out there!).  My thanks to all of you that participated in our discussion group and those that supported the Retreat.