In the recent case of Hooper (Estate) v. Hooper, 2011 ONSC 4140, the court discusses the concept of fiduciary duty.  In Hooper, the estate trustee, who did not defend the proceedings against him, placed himself in a fiduciary relationship with respect to not only the deceased, but also in relation to the other named beneficiaries. 

The court commented that when a person in such a fiduciary position fails to pass accounts or otherwise account for his or her actions, he or she can be required to repay the amount unaccounted for to the estate. Breach of such a special relationship gives rise to wide array of equitable remedies.  Such equitable remedies are always subject to the discretion of the court, and are designed to address not only fairness between the parties, but also the public concern about the maintenance of the integrity of fiduciary relationships.

In exercising its equitable discretion, the court is concerned not only with compensating a wronged plaintiff, but also with upholding the obligations of good faith and loyalty, which are the cornerstone of the concept of fiduciary duty. 

The freedom of the fiduciary is limited by the nature of the obligation he or she undertakes, an obligation which “betokens loyalty, good faith and avoidance of a conflict of duty in self interest.”  In short, equity is concerned not only to compensate the plaintiff, but to enforce the trust which is at its heart.

Fiduciary duties are clearly those which should never be entered into lightly or on an uninformed basis.

Sharon Davis - Click here for more information on Sharon Davis. 

This week, Tim follows up his article with “Seven hints for holding a cottage in trust”.

The hints relate to:

1. Dealing with the tax hit upon the transfer to the trust.

2. The taxation of the taxable benefit of using the cottage.

3. The effect of the 21 year deemed distribution rule.

4. U.S. estate taxes.

5. The payment or avoidance of Land Transfer Taxes.

6. The payment or avoidance of HST.

7. Extra requirements in the event that the cottage needs to be mortgaged.

Both articles are worth a read by anyone considering ownership of a cottage through a trust. They highlight the benefits of such ownership, while also raising the myriad of issues and complications that can arise with such a vehicle. Clearly, good advice is needed by anyone considering the use of a trust for cottage ownership

Also, see our blogs and podcasts for more information relating to cottage ownership and succession. Also, just last week, our Ian Hull spoke on BNN about strategies to keep a cottage property in the family.

Clearly, this topic is as hot as our recent taste of summer weather.

Have a great weekend.

Paul E. Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle. 

In Quinlan v. Caron, the Deceased executed her Last Will and Testament on May 18, 2007 (the “Will”) and she subsequently died on September 7, 2008. Two days before executing the Will, the Deceased underwent a capacity assessment that was recorded on video. The doctor who conducted the capacity assessment concluded that the Deceased had the requisite capacity to create a new Will.

The daughter of the Deceased commenced a Will Challenge alleging that the Deceased lacked the mental capacity to execute the Will and undue influence. The Estate Trustee is the son of the Deceased and brought a motion for summary judgment against his sister, arguing that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial as his sister’s claim was not supported by any evidence.

The Honourable Justice Tuck put a lot of weight on the capacity assessment and granted summary judgment to the Estate Trustee on the issue of the Deceased’s capacity; however Justice Tuck dismissed the Estate Trustee’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of undue influence. In the decision, Justice Tuck held that “matters of credibility requiring resolution on a case of conflicting evidence ought to go to trial” and he rationalized that there was conflicting evidence in this case, which could suggest that the Deceased was unduly influenced.

Thank you for reading and have a great weekend,

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram. 

The two Deceased (collectively referred to as the “Deceased”) had been married and had four children together, all of whom survived the Deceased. In their Wills, they named two of their children, as their executors, and directed the executors to distribute the estate to three of their four children. 

One son commenced this application to obtain an order that would pass over the other son as his co-executor for the Estates. The Applicant argued that it is necessary for the Estates to make a proper enquiry into the nature of inter-vivos transactions between the co-executor Respondent and the Deceased and such an inquiry must be made independent of the co-executor Respondent as he would be in a conflict of interest.

The co-executor Respondent opposed the Applicant’s application, and argued, amongst other things, that the court should not interfere with the testator’s right to nominate his or her executor and removing him would be prejudging the case.

In her decision Justice Gerow states:

In the circumstances of this case, it is my opinion that there is a perceived conflict of interest between the co-executor Respondent in his role as an executor and his interest in his personal capacity. If an action is instituted by the executors as a result of the transfer of the Property, it would be against the co-executor Respondent. In my opinion, the co-executor Respondent, in his capacity as executor, cannot attack the transfer of the Property to himself while at the same time maintaining, in his personal capacity, that the transfer of the Property was proper. By making such a finding I am not prejudging the case. I am simply of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, if an action is commenced as a result of the enquiries into the transfer, the co-executor Respondent cannot conscientiously act as a plaintiff in his capacity as an executor in a case where he will be the defendant.

B.C. legislation is unique compared to the legislation that governs estate trustees in Ontario; however, if a similar situation arose, an application seeking similar relief could be brought under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram. 

Estate Administration Tax is applied to the value of an estate when the estate’s representative applies to the court for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee (often referred to as probate). Currently, court staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General administer the tax. Bill 173 proposes amendments to the Estate Administration Tax Act to enhance, it has been said, compliance by integrating the administration of this tax with audit and verification functions at the Ministry of Revenue, starting January 1, 2013.

Again, it is being proposed that the amendments will apply in respect of applications for estate certificates that are made on or after January 1, 2013, or on or after such later date as may be prescribed by the Minister of Finance

The standing committee on financial and economic affairs was scheduled to meet on April 21, 2011 to consider Bill 173 and hear submissions on its proposed provisions.

If the amendments to the Estate Administration Tax Act pass, the manner in which the amendments are implemented and the regulations that might arise will be important to follow and consider as they will effect Estate Trustees and advice given by professionals advising Estate Trustees.

Thanks for reading,

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee. 

In the days since the  Internet has become a common household tool, planning and administering an estate has not been so easy. In a study commissioned by Remember A Charity, The Dying in a Digital Age, it was discovered that four in five people own digital assets, but only nine per cent have considered how these will be distributed upon their death.

According to the study, the nation's digital music collection is worth an estimated £900 million alone.

Three quarters of those surveyed for the study indicated that their digital music and photo collections had strong sentimental value, while eight out of ten said their digital assets were financially valuable.

Rob Cope, director of Remember A Charity said: ''Bank accounts, music and photograph collections are increasingly stored online…meaning families will wave goodbye to a small fortune if details are not passed on.”

There is now an entire cyber existence that both the Deceased and Trustees need to turn their mind to when planning or administering an Estate. For instance, what will become of Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and PayPal accounts? One easy solution is to subscribe to a website called Legacy Locker. Legacy Locker was created in 2009 and it maintains a master list of user names and programs for online bank accounts, social networking sites and document repositories. 

In the digital era, it is important that we consider and make arrangements for how our digital assets will be distributed, and for estate planners, it may be just as important that you consider including in your questionnaire or checklist, a question that forces a client to turn their mind to consider their digital assets. 

Thank you for reading, and have a great weekend.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

The common definition of a lapsed gift, is a gift that has failed because it is incapable of taking effect.   Two common reasons for a gift to be incapable of taking effect is where the beneficiary predeceases the testator or the gift is disclaimed by the beneficiary.  

Pursuant to Section 23 of the Succession Law Reform Act, unless a contrary intention appears in the Deceased’s Will, if a gift is incapable of taking effect, the failed gift will fall into the residue of the testator's estate and distributed accordingly.

Section 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act is commonly referred to as the anti-lapse provision. The anti-lapse provision saves a failed gift if the beneficiary falls into the class of beneficiaries set-out under this provision and that beneficiary leaves a spouse or issue who survived the testator. If these conditions are met, the gift will not fall into the residue, however it will take effect as if it had been made directly to the spouse or issue of predeceased beneficiary.

Thank you for reading, and have a great day.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

In Buswa v. Canzoneri, the Deceased died without a Will on September 29, 2010. The Deceased did not have a spouse and was survived by seven siblings, and two children.

The concern in this case was that the Deceased did not leave anyone with legal authority or responsibility to arrange his funeral and dispose of his remains.

Two of the Deceased’s siblings, the Applicants, applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will. The daughter of the Deceased, the Respondent, also applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will.

In his decision, the Honourable Justice Stinson considered the legal interpretation of section 29 of the Estates Act, which reads as follows:

1)  Subject to subsection (3), where a person dies intestate … administration of the property of the deceased may be committed by the Superior Court of Justice to:   a)      the person to whom the deceased was married immediately before the death of the deceased or person with whom the deceased was living in a conjugal relationship outside marriage immediately before the death;   b)      the next of kin of the deceased;

As the Deceased did not have a spouse, the court considered the definition of “next of kin.” In the Black’s Law Dictionary, “next of kin” is defined as “the person's nearest of kindred to the decedent, that is, those who are most nearly related by blood.”

Applying these concepts, the court held that the Respondent daughter was related to the Deceased by blood in the first degree, whereas the Applicants siblings were related to the Deceased in the second degree. Accordingly, the Respondent daughter was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

Thank you for reading, and have a great day.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

In an article written by Jennifer Power Scott and published in Canadian Living, Ms. Scott discusses the  bittersweet bonanza that many heirs face and cautions the impulsive spender: "There are a lot of people in this world who might go out and blow the whole thing in a week, and that's not appropriate. Unless you're well-heeled to begin with, flushing the funds into trips to Las Vegas, sexy cars and plush home theatres probably isn't the smart way to go."

In her article, Ms. Scott stresses the importance of carefully planning what to do with your inheritance, so that your inheritance can turn into a gift that lasts. Ms. Scott urges those who have received a windfall inheritance to:

1. Take a breath. Put your inheritance somewhere safe that earns a good guaranteed rate of interest for a few months while you think things through
2. Once you are ready to make a decision, speak to a certified financial planner
3. Consider your option, such as satisfying outstanding debts, investing into an RESP for your children, or an RRSP or RRIF for yourself

Essentially Ms. Scott's article forces her readers to consider their long-term goals as opposed to their short-term goals. "It pays to step back a little bit. Some people will immediately say, I've got this money, I don't deserve it all, and maybe I should start helping out my kids right away. But they need to make sure that their financial future is properly secured before they do that."

Thank you for reading, and have a great day,

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

Can a deceased person, immediately before his or her death, be found to have been in a common law spousal relationship with two persons, each of whom could assert a claim for support as a dependant?  This was the interesting question recently considered on a motion for interim support under Ontario's Succession Law Reform Act ("SLRA").

In Blair v. Cooke, the Applicant commenced an Application against the Estate seeking dependant support, and subsequently brought a motion seeking interim support from the estate.   In support of her application, the Applicant filed an extensive affidavit describing the history of her relationship with the Deceased and argued that she is a dependant spouse of the Deceased, thus, entitled to support under the provisions of the SLRA.  The court was also provided with numerous affidavits of friends and acquaintances confirming the Applicant’s 11-year relationship with the Deceased.

The Respondent is the estate trustee of the estate for the Deceased, and also argues that she is the Deceased’s common law spouse.  It is important to clarify that the Respondent does not make a claim for dependant support, but rather opposes the Applicant’s application.  In doing so, the Respondent filed her own affidavit and the affidavit of friends and acquaintances, which would corroborate that she was the Deceased’s common law spouse.  The Respondent argued the court should not make any finding of entitlement to support for the Applicant, because doing so would preclude her from claiming support (if she decided to make a claim at a later date) or claiming that she was in fact the “spouse” of the deceased. 

In considering whether or not a person could have two spouses for the purpose of making a dependant support claim, the court considered section 57 of the SLRA, more particularly the following definitions:

1.      “Dependent” can be a  “spouse of the deceased...to whom the deceased was providing support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his or her death...”. 

2.      “Spousal” is further defined under the SLRA as “either of two persons who...are not married to each other and have co-habited...continuously for a period of not less than three years”; and

3.       “Co-habit” is defined to mean living together “in a conjugal relationship”.

The “twist” that I found interesting in this case, was that the court found that there was enough evidence to conclude that the deceased may have co-habited with two different women, in different homes.  The court stated that they did not have to determine that one party was a spouse and the other was not for purposes of awarding interim support; in fact both women could qualify.  The Applicant was awarded interim support.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

The New York Times recently published an article entitled, “Talking with Depression-Era Parents About Money”. In this article, Tara Siegel Bernard, the author, suggests the different ways that adult children could broach the topic with their parents such as:

Show and Tell: “Adult children could talk about their own estate plans - a show and tell”. This forces the parent to give thought to their children’s estate plan and opens the door for the child to ask how the parents have handled their own affairs.

Parental Duty: “Appeal to their duties as parents.” 

Bring in a Pro: “Some parents may also feel more comfortable discussing their financial situation in front of a disinterested party, like a long time accountant, lawyer, or financial planner.” It appears that Ms. Bernard suggests having a disinterested party present could help the parent feel more secure, which likely would have the effect of the parent opening up about their financial matters. This sounds like a good idea; however, a word of caution, this suggestion also could lead to estate litigation, as arguments of undue influence could be advanced in the circumstances.

Timing: “Make sure you choose a good time and place to bring up the topic”. Obviously, having this sort of discussion at the family holiday party is not a good idea.  

Thank you for reading and have a good day.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

In this case the estate trustees brought a motion under section 37 of the Trustee Act (Act) for an order removing them as estate trustees of the Deceased’s estate on the basis of their personal circumstances, their location and other responsibilities and financial stress. They had also become creditors of the estate and were in a conflict of interest situation.

The deceased died in January 2008, leaving an estate consisting of some cash or a cash equivalent, and a modest home in Ontario.

Under the Deceased’s Will, the named beneficiaries were the testatrix’s sister, her mother, and her brother. More specifically, the testatrix left a life estate in the Ontario property to her mother, who was still living but was no longer able to stay in the house. The will further directed that the residue of the estate was to be divided equally among the testatrix’s mother, sister and brother.

In February 2008, the Deceased’s brother commenced an action against the estate, claiming that he was the beneficial owner of the property.   

The Estate Trustees, who lived in British Columbia, agreed to undertake the role of estate trustees and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will was issued to them.

The Estate Trustees had been unable to sell the property or to distribute the residue of the estate because of the deceased’s brother’s certificate of pending litigation registered on title to the property. The Estate Trustees alleged that, as a result, they had been required to spend their own money to defend the brother’s lawsuit against the estate.

At the time of the removal motion, the Estate Trustees moved for directions seeking, among other forms of relief, an order that the property be sold and the proceedings of the sale be paid into court pending the resolution of the competing interests. The Public Guardian and Trustee indicated that it did not intend to become involved in the estate.

The motions judge found that the continued service as Estate Trustees would cause substantial physical and financial hardship on the Estate Trustees and they had become creditors through no fault of their own. Furthermore, the motions judge found that section 37 of the Act did not require a trustee to provide a replacement before applying to be removed and allowed the motion.

Interestingly, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred not in removing the trustees without appointing a replacement, but rather in removing them without making alternate provisions for the proper administration of the estate.

The Court of Appeal found in the specific circumstances of this case there were three objectives that ought to have been considered and addressed by the motion judge: (1) ensuring the orderly administration of the estate in the interests of the beneficiaries; (2) recognizing the plight of the respondents; and (3) providing for the timely resolution of the disputes concerning the estate.  

The Court of Appeal held that section 37(4) of the Act does not constrain the power of the court to remove a sole remaining trustee and provide for an alternative mechanism for administering the trust.

Thanks for reading.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

In this case, the Deceased was a US resident who created an inter vivos trust in North Carolina naming a licensed trust company (the “trust company”) there as the sole trustee. The trust company was also named executor of his Will. The Deceased’s wife was the sole beneficiary of the trust and the trust was the sole beneficiary of his residuary estate. Probate of the Deceased’s Will was issued in North Carolina for the estate, which was substantial in value.

The Deceased owned a new condo unit in Toronto worth $360,000 but with respect to which the estate would owe $126,831 on occupancy date, which had not yet occurred. There were no debts owing in Ontario at the time of the application.

The Court found that while section 175 permitted it to grant probate to a trust corporation registered under the Act without having to post security for acting as an executor or trustee, it did not prohibit the appointment as estate trustee, under an ancillary application, of a foreign trust company that is not registered under the Act.

Section 213(1) of the Act, which provides that "no person, other than a registered corporation, shall conduct, undertake or transact in Ontario the business of a loan corporation or of a trust corporation” also did not disqualify the trust company from acting as ancillary estate trustee. By fulfilling its duties under the will and the inter vivos trust, the Court found that the trust company would not be offering its services to the Ontario public.

The trust company was awarded the certificate of ancillary appointment of estate trustee with a will but was ordered to post a bond in the amount of $125,000, which was the approximate amount owing on the closing of the condominium as some security was required because the affidavit from the trust company did not contain a clear, unambiguous statement that the company, as estate trustee, intended to make the payment due on the interim occupancy date.

Thanks for reading.

Craig R. Vander Zee - Click here for more information on Craig Vander Zee.

I read an article yesterday about Huguette Clark, the 104 year old heiress whose wealth is estimated at half a billion dollars. During her lifetime, Clark made generous gifts towards those who cared for her. For instance, it is reported that Clark gifted $10 million dollars to her social secretary. 

It is reported that Clark’s wealth is being managed by her lawyer and her accountant. 

A former paralegal who worked for Clark’s attorney, has now blown the whistle on what she alleges is improper behavior by Clark’s attorney and accountant. According to reports, it is alleged that they “drafted a will that would have left money to [one of them], trying repeatedly to persuade her to sign it — then joked about their client and cursed her behind her back when she would not sign the will.” It is also reported that her lawyer allegedly solicited from Clark $1.5 million dollars to build a security system for a community where his daughters and their families live. In addition he allegedly sold a Stradivarius violin for $6 million dollars and a Renoir painting for $23.5 million. 

A criminal investigation has now been launched by the Manhattan district attorney, who has the Elder Abuse Unit of the New York County District Attorney's Office looking into the handling of Clark's finances.

It bears repeating that the complaints at this stage are unproven allegations. Nonetheless, the mere thought that this could happen provides us with a dreadful reminder of what the elderly face in our society today.

Thank you for reading,

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

If an individual dies without a Will, he is said to have died intestate. When a person dies intestate, their assets are distributed pursuant to the intestate provisions contained in the Succession Law Reform Act.

If a person dies with a Will, he is said to have died testate. In such circumstances, the deceased’s assets are distributed in accordance with his last wishes as set out under his Last Will and Testament.

Under Glenn Curtis’s article, “Why You Should Draft a Will” he sets out the benefits of having a Will, such as:

1.                  Limiting family disputes;

2.                  Wills can outline personal preferences; and

3.                  Wills make quantifying and distributing assets easier.

By comparison, Curtis argues that not having a Will could place significant burdens on loved ones, such as it could take a very long time to compile an accurate list of an individual's assets; it could also take a prolonged period of time to identify and locate potential beneficiaries. “Unfortunately, until this process is complete, money may not be distributed, even to legitimate and known beneficiaries.”

Curtis concludes his article with some wise words: “Individuals seeking to prevent family infighting, and who want to ensure that their spouses, children and other relatives are properly taken care of after they die would be wise to consider drafting a will.”

Thank you for reading, and I hope you have a great weekend,

Rick Bickhram -  Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

Under Twitter’s policy, a person can either request that the deceased user’s account be removed entirely or receive an archive of all the deceased user’s tweets offline once they have provided Twitter with the following information:

1.                  Your full name, contact information (including e-mail address), and your relationship to the deceased user; 

 2.                  The username of the Twitter account, or a link to the profile page of the Twitter account.  

 3.                  A link to a public obituary or news article.

By comparison, Facebook provides two options: either removing the deceased’s account, or "memorializing" it.

Memorializing a person’s account “means the account lives on in Facebook's system, and other Facebook members can interact with the deceased member's wall. What’s interesting about what Facebook put into place, compared to Twitter, is that there’s still a great deal of emphasis put on privacy and what can be done with the information that user has posted to the service. For instance, only that user's friends can still visit the profile or find it in Facebook's public search tool. And Facebook goes so far as to remove all status updates and contact information.”

It is hard to imagine that Facebook and Twitter will remain an important part of our lives many years from now, but Facebook has grown from 300 million to 500 million users in less than a year, with few signs of that slowing down. This is an indication that “policies about a user's death can end up being just as important as those you agree to when you first sign up.”

Thank you for reading, and have a great day.
 

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

Computers have become a staple in the lives of human beings, such that it is difficult to imagine that there was a point in time when they did not exist. In an effort to remain current with technology, some funeral homes have incorporated the use of technology in how loved ones say their final farewells.

The Toronto Star  recently featured an article about a funeral home that allows distant loved ones to say goodbye by watching the funeral service being streamed over the internet. It sounds eerie, and certainly, there will always be concerns about internet security, but for Brantford trooper Larry Zuidema Rudd, who died when a roadside bomb exploded, having an online funeral service allowed more then 40 of his colleagues in Afghanistan to pay their final respects from their distant base.

The so-called “sympathy casts,” have been growing in popularity. Helen Zuidema, the mother of our fallen solider Zuidema Rudd, says that the sympathy casts have “brought our family together without them having to come here … they’re still talking about it months later.” Zuidema still scans the funeral site, along with its many photos, tributes and messages, about once a week.  “It brings back a lot of memories that you kind of forget when you are grieving,” says Zuidema.

For funeral homes, embracing the advances of technology has created an appreciation amongst loved ones, faraway friends and relatives, who can now be included in saying their final farewell.

Since Wills are an opportunity for individuals to provide for their loved ones, it’s not surprising that people are choosing to make provision for their beloved animal companions. However, there is no guarantee that their wishes will be sacrosanct.

In a recent Globe and Mail article, Barry Seltzer (a Toronto estates lawyer) noted that this was certainly the case for the late Leona Helmsley who left 12 million dollars in Trust for her beloved Maltese named Trouble and left nothing to 2 of her grandchildren for “reasons that are known to them.”   As a result of a Will Challenge (and as noted in an earlier blog post), the Trust was undone by a Manhattan Judge who reduced it to  $2-million (much to the chagrin of Trouble, I am sure) and the disinherited grandchildren were awarded $2-million each. The basis: incapacity.

And because I know you are all wondering about Trouble, let me assure you that while the deceased's wishes were not carried out exactly as she had intended, recent reports indicate that Trouble is doing just fine! If you don't believe me, click here.

Yesterday I discussed the more recent headliner involving the Estate of the late heiress Gail Posner who left a mansion valued at approximately $8.3-million as well as $3-million in trust to her 3 dogs, while leaving only $1-million to her only son, Bret Carr. Well, I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that Bret Carr has initiated litigation against the Estate. It appears that he is seeking to have his late mother’s Will revoked on the grounds that her level of devotion to her dogs is a sign of mental illness *gasp - dog lovers unite* and that household aids drugged her, convinced her that Bret was trying to kill her and induced her to change her Will and Trust Agreement.

Thank you for reading!

Kathryn Pilkington  - Click here for more information on Kathryn Pilkington.

Jimi Hendrix died without a Will which started a family war that would end up in court for more than 30 years.

Sonny Bono, an American record producer, singer, actor, and politician, died without a Will. It is mind blowing that someone so successful would not have a carefully planned Will. Of course, numerous people lined up to advance claims against his estate, which included Cher, and the inevitable love child. Sonny could have saved his widow and everyone else involved a lot of grief and aggravation if he had taken the time to do some simple estate planning.

For those of us who have taken the time to prepare our Wills, Mr. Morelli reminds us of the importance of updating our Will. For instance, Anna Nicole Smith died with a Will; however, her Will contained a provision which specifically excluded “future children” from benefiting from her estate. This clause had the effect of leaving her entire estate to her now deceased son, and disinheriting her five month old daughter. A judge eventually fixed this estate mess, but it came at an unnecessary expense.

Mr. Morelli puts it perfectly: “The essence of estate planning: control. Whether it involves celebrities maintaining their image for all posterity, or wealthy land-owners keeping their families’ holdings intact, estate planning protects clients’ control. Quite often people don’t want to discuss estate planning because it involves their death. But clients should understand that it is essential to maintaining their family’s stability and dignity.”

Thank you for reading,

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.