Planning for a Loved One with Dementia

Having the conversation about dementia with a loved one is never easy says The Tribune-Democrat’s recent article entitled, “Dealing with dementia | Planning ahead: ‘Have the conversation.’” But, it is important to discuss the future and ensure your loved one is well-cared for.

First, it is important not to wait too long to have this conversation.  Once there is a diagnosis or symptoms, it’s time to act.  Dementia and similar diseases are degenerative so they won’t get better on their own.  Delay in confronting this issue won’t make things better, and can limit your options on how to address it.

Plus, you want to get as much input from your loved one with dementia as you can.  As the disease progresses, they will have a harder time making their own choices, considering their situation and offering direction and preferences for their own welfare.  This could be everything from living arrangements, care plans, estate planning, to bucket list items.  Starting early includes your loved one as much as possible and preserves their own wishes and choice.

Next, address the legal documents and define the future care. Of course, you should have an estate plan in place long before this.  But, dementia will affect a person’s capacity which may make them unable to create a new plan.  So, this may be the last, best opportunity to review and update the estate plan.

You should especially review the incapacity planning documents such as powers of attorney or trusts.  These documents can help prevent the person from being placed in guardianship by the court, which is an expensive, difficult process for families. When granted, the court appoints a decision-maker, taking away the individual’s ability to make decisions – either in whole or in part. This court oversight continues throughout the individual’s life or until capacity returns.

You especially want to review who your fiduciaries are (such as your agent to make financial decisions for you) and the powers you’ve given them.  For example, if you want to use Medicaid to help pay for your long-term care, the power for your agent to make gifts may become important where it wasn’t 15 years ago when you first executed the power of attorney.

Similarly, it is important to update your medical powers of attorney and directive to physicians, as well as discussing your wishes and preferences with your agent.  These documents appoint a person to make medical decisions on your behalf if you can’t, including end-of-life care.  Having the conversation with your agent about your preferences will prepare your agents to make those decisions and relieve the burden of worrying they are making the wrong decisions.

As a final point here, you should discuss the future care plan with your loved one. Is the plan to live at home?  Will family assist with care?  Will in-home care workers be hired to assist, or is an assisted living or nursing home a better idea?   What’s more, how do you pay for it?  It is often important to discuss these question with your financial advisor and an elder law attorney so that you can make an informed choice.  You may also consider whether and how to use Medicaid or other long-term care programs to help pay for future care.  The answers to these questions also impact your estate planning.

Reference: The Tribune-Democrat (July 29, 2023) “Dealing with dementia | Planning ahead: ‘Have the conversation’”

Continue ReadingPlanning for a Loved One with Dementia

What Happens With Joint Property?

Virtually every estate administration case we handle joint property, or “joint tenancy” as it is sometimes called.  This is most commonly true when the decedent was married, but often occurs when a deceased parent included a child on their bank account or a friend so that “money is available” when something happens to them.  But, joint property can have unintended consequences to your estate, so it is important to understand the different types of joint property according to a recent article titled “Everything you need to know about jointly owned property and wills” from TBR News Media.

This becomes an important issue because depending on the type of joint tenancy, your Will may or may not be necessary to convey it to your beneficiaries. It is also true that using certain types of joint tenancy may bypass your intended estate plan or have tax, government benefits and other consequences, so it is critical to understand the differences and to ensure the type of joint tenancy you are using matches your plan.

Joint Tenancy with Rights of Survivorship. Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship means that there are multiple owners and that upon the death of one, the other owners automatically become the owner of the account.  This process happens by virtue of the titling, and doesn’t require probate to make it happen.  Usually, a death certificate is sufficient to remove the deceased owner.

Most people assume when they see two owners on a bank account that it is owned as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.  In truth, this is something that you elect when you create the account or add a name, and many times bank personnel elects this without discussing it with you.  The best way to determine if your account has rights of survivorship is to check with account card at the bank, although some statements or accounts will also say “JTWROS.”  That is short for “Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship”.

Tenancy by the Entirety. This type of joint ownership is only available between spouses and is not used in all states. It definitely exists in Pennsylvania, and is the default way of taking title to real property that is purchased during marriage.  A local estate planning attorney will be able to tell you if you have this option. As with Joint Tenancy with Rights of Survivorship, when the first spouse passes, their interest automatically passes to the surviving spouse outside of probate.

There are additional protections in Tenancy by the Entirety making it an attractive means of ownership. One spouse may not mortgage or sell the property without the consent of the other spouse, and the creditor of one spouse can’t place a lien or enforce a judgment against property held as tenants by the entirety.

Tenancy in Common. This form of ownership has no right of survivorship and each owner’s share of the property passes to their chosen beneficiary upon the owner’s death. Tenants in Common may have unequal interests in the property, and when one owner dies, their beneficiaries will inherit their share and become co-owners with other Tenants.

The Tenant in Common share passes the persons designated according to their will, assuming they have one. This means the decedent’s executor must “probate” the will for the executor to have control of it. Sometimes this is very critical to leave assets as Tenants in Common because you want your portion of an asset to go to a trust or not to the other owner.

In all of these, it is important to recognize that joint tenants are not always necessary.  First, adding a co-owner could affect your estate plan, as is generally described above.  Also, adding a person is a gift, which may have adverse effects on your beneficiary if they suffer a disability, and has gift tax consequences to yourself.  It may also subject “your” money to the creditors of the new owner.

For those who only want “check writing authority,” it actually is possible in Texas to get authority to sign checks only without being an owner, although most banks encourage joint ownership as it is less risky to them.

All in all, it is important to makes sure that the ownership and titling of your assets fits with your estate plan.  A comprehensive estate plan, created by an experienced estate planning attorney, ensures that both probate and non-probate assets work together.

Reference: TBR News Media (Dec. 27, 2022) “Everything you need to know about jointly owned property and wills”

Continue ReadingWhat Happens With Joint Property?

Leaving Inheritance Unequally to Heirs

Clients occasionally ask to create estate plans leaving property to beneficiaries who are not their natural heirs (next of kin). When they do, it might be because of estrangement, or because of the involvement of that heir’s family (think in-laws), because one of the heirs doesn’t need the money, because of how they might spend once received or because they do not have close natural heirs.  When it comes to estate planning, equal isn’t the same as fair, explains the article “Are Unequal Inheritances Fair?” from Advisor Perspectives.

The first will I ever drafted as a law student had this issue.  The elderly mother wanted to leave everything she had to two of her four children.  The two she wanted to provide for lived far away, had very few assets, but still helped mom with her bills or spent time with her.  The two remaining children were much better off, but also spent far less time with her despite living in the same city.

She loved her children equally, but recognized that the value of the inheritance was different for the children who supported and who were in need compared to the two who did not support her and were self-sufficient.  In her case, I drafted the will leaving everything to the two supportive daughters, and we used ethical will language to explain the reason why she didn’t leave everything to all four. (see here for info on an ethical will: https://galligan-law.com/estate-planning-attorneys-recommend-that-clients-consider-writing-an-ethical-will-or-legacy-letter/)

But, that solution doesn’t always work, especially where the heirs don’t get along, or would become suspicious of each other.  This is exacerbated where a child is being cut out for reasons like substance abuse or family difficulties.  So, here are a few things to consider when removing a natural heir from your estate plan or substantially reducing their share.

Be Direct. Clients often are worried about hurting the feelings of the heir they cut out, and so don’t want to be direct.  I handled an estate of a client who reduced the share of one child compared to the other.  This was a very complicated estate, and the attorney who prepared the last estate plan made a subtle change in a very complex document so that one child wouldn’t get a particular trust fund and the other would.

The estate turned out better than anticipated, but the problem with a subtle cutting out is the child doesn’t believe its true or that is what their parent wanted.  They don’t believe mom or dad made this choice, and instead they believe the other child (who typically is going to be the executor in this situation) is cheating them, unduly influenced them, the attorney made a mistake or that mom or dad lost capacity.  This leads the fight directly from one beneficiary to the other.

Instead, being clear and direct about your intentions directs the beneficiary’s focus on what you wanted (which is where estate planning should be focused) instead of looking for ways they wronged.  The law allows you to leave the property to whom you want, so better to be clear about your intentions then to leave your family to fight over it.

Use a Trust. The value of the trust in this situation varies a bit amongst the states, but generally stated, using a trust is better than a will when not leaving everything to your natural heirs.  Wills are very public, and depending on your state may require notice to your heirs, whether or not they are a beneficiary.  Trusts can both make the administration more private and can avoid fighting.  Trustees also often have more power to close the trust or handle disputes than an executor who is handling a will.

Leave Property in a Different Way. In some cases, clients want to remove a beneficiary because of a concern over the child’s receipt of assets.  For example, if a child is bad with finances, has creditors, a messy marriage, substance abuse issues and so on.  It is a situation where the emphasis isn’t “I want to leave everything to two of my three children,” but an instance where “I don’t want to give one money, so it has to go to the other two.”   In this case, it’s possible that you could still leave the difficult child an inheritance, but do so in a way to protect the inheritance and the beneficiary from the money.

For example, I have regularly written blogs about leaving inheritance in trust for a beneficiary and we regularly draft estate plans using them.  If the problem is spending habits or addiction, you could leave the inheritance to a child in a trust and leave someone else in charge of the trust.  That trustee could spend the money on their behalf so that the beneficiary receives the value of the inheritance without direct control, which is where the problems arise.

Similarly, beneficiaries who have disabilities and may use government benefits could receive a trust which keeps the assets outside of their control (so not countable for their benefits) but is still available should they need it.  Likewise, leaving property in a trust to a child where you are concerned about divorce helps protect the property by keeping it separate from the marriage.

You can see this article for more details and ideas on how trusts help beneficiaries:  https://galligan-law.com/protecting-inheritance-from-childs-divorce/

In sum, the reason a client wants to remove a beneficiary might be addressable in a different way so that they can still receive their inheritance.

None of these are perfect solutions, but are worth considering for your family if you wish to remove or reduce an heirs share.

Reference: Advisor Perspectives (Aug. 22, 2022) “Are Unequal Inheritances Fair?”

Continue ReadingLeaving Inheritance Unequally to Heirs