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. 

Payment of College Expenses for Beneficiaries – To Pay or Not to Pay?

/in , , , , , , , ,

By Kelly Cooper

Fiduciary clients regularly ask me what expenses can be paid out of a trust.  Generally, this requires an examination of the terms of the trust and the applicable law.  However, even after considering the terms of the trust and applicable law, trustees are often stuck in this grey area trying to determine what expenses may be paid.  As a result, I am always on the lookout for cases that might provide guidance for trustees in exercising their discretion.  Recently, a case from New York caught my eye.  Matter of McDonald, 100 A.D. 1349 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2012).

In this case, the grandfather created a trust for his twin granddaughters and appointed his daughter (the twins’ mother) to serve as trustee.  As trustee, the mother refused to pay for the twins’ college expenses and to purchase a car for their use.  The twins filed suit and asked the court to remove their mother as trustee and to award attorney fees.

The trial court removed the mother as trustee, bypassed the named successor trustee and appointed an attorney (who was not named in the trust) to serve as successor trustee.  The trial court found that the mother had failed to observe the terms of the trusts and had abused her fiduciary responsibilities and awarded attorney fees to the twins.  The mother appealed and the trial court was unanimously reversed.

In reversing and finding in favor of the trustee, the appellate court cited to Section 50 of the Restatement of Trusts and identified the following factors:

The terms of the trust.  The relevant terms of the trust were stated as follows: “[t]he Trustee shall pay or apply to or for the use of each such living grandchild of mine so much of the income, accumulated income and principal of such share at any time and from time to time as the Trustee deems advisable in [the Trustee’s] sole discretion not subject to judicial review, to provide for such grandchild’s maintenance, support, education, health and welfare, even to the point of exhausting the same.”  The trust also provided for fractional distributions to the twins at ages 30 and 32 and termination of the trust at age 35.

Other resources.  The court noted that one of the twins’ college expenses were paid in full by public benefits and that the other twin had failed to even complete the necessary applications for public college benefits and tuition assistance.  Further, the twins both had New York 529 College Savings accounts and the balances in those accounts were sufficient to pay college expenses.

Friction.  The appellate court noted that there was friction between the mother and her teenaged daughters, but found that mere friction or disharmony between a trustee and a beneficiary is not sufficient grounds to remove a trustee.   The appellate court quoted another New York case, stating, “If it were, an obstreperous malintentioned beneficiary could cause the removal of a competent trustee through no fault on the latter’s part.”

Civil Unions Legislation Effective May 1, 2013

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

by Kelly Cooper 

In 2012, a law that would have permitted same-sex partners to enter into civil unions in Colorado failed.  In this year’s legislative session, advocates for civil unions were successful and on May 1, 2013, the Colorado Civil Union Act will become effective. 

The Act provides same-sex partners the benefits, protections and responsibilities given to spouses under Colorado law if they enter into a civil union.  In addition, the Act provides that civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal relationships between same-sex partners created in other states will be treated as civil unions in Colorado.

Even though the Colorado Constitution (by a 2006 amendment) limits marriage to a man and a woman, the Act provides that all Colorado laws granting rights to man and woman spouses will now grant the same rights to partners entering into civil unions.   

This means, for example, that if partners wish to dissolve their civil union, they will need to file for a legal dissolution and that the laws regarding maintenance, parenting time, child support and property division will apply.

The Act does not alter the impact of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provides that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  As a result, federal laws granting rights to spouses will not apply to partners in a civil union.  The United States Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to DOMA.  An opinion is expected from the US Supreme Court in June 2013.  We can expect more developments and changes in this area in the near term, so stay tuned.

 

How Many Guns Did You Say the Decedent Owned?

/in , , , ,

by Carol Warnick

How many guns did you say the decedent owned?  Are they all accounted for and safely stored?  Who should be in possession of them during the administration period?  If it is going to be the fiduciary, should the attorney suggest a background check if the fiduciary is an individual?

Firearms belonging to a decedent often present an ongoing dilemma for a fiduciary.  Not only does the fiduciary have to worry about securing the firearms safely (firearms and potentially angry beneficiaries do not mix well) but they have to worry about identifying them correctly and understanding the transfer restrictions placed on the various classes of firearms.  Even the mere possession of certain types of firearms can create issues for the fiduciary.  Furthermore, an inappropriate transfer of a firearm by a fiduciary can result in liability for the fiduciary, the attorney, the beneficiaries receiving the transfer, or even third parties.

The National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 56) imposes restrictions on certain types of “NFA” weapons.  In addition, Colorado law finds that “(a)ny person who knowingly purchases or otherwise obtains a firearm on behalf of or for transfer to a person who the transferor knows or reasonably should know is ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to federal or state law commits a class 4 felony.”  C.R.S. § 18-12-111.  How many fiduciaries know (or should reasonably know) who is ineligible to possess a firearm?  This came up recently in an estate our office was working on and it can get complicated.  Would the fiduciary necessarily know whether or not the person who was designated to receive the firearm had been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military, or had renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, or had ever been convicted of a crime of domestic violence?  Each of these factors (this list is nonexclusive), along with a myriad of others, would make the person receiving the firearm a prohibited person.  18 U.S.C § 993(d). 

Even if the beneficiary is determined not to be a prohibited person, what about their housemates?  Could the nonprohibited beneficiary end up being liable for allowing their roommate or significant other who was a prohibited person have access to the firearm merely by virtue of sharing a house?  Does the fiduciary have the responsibility to check out the beneficiary’s roommates? 

The list of potential problems seems virtually endless.  Michael G. Sabbeth wrote an article which provides a good primer on these issues and which we suggest be required reading for fiduciaries of estates where firearms are involved (“After the Last Shot: Estate Administration Issues With Firearms,” 40 Colo. Law. 95 August 2011).

As big as these issues are now, they aren’t going away any time soon.  Expect that the problems and complications created by the presence of firearms in an estate or trust will do nothing but increase in the future.