Estate Planning Myths Series: Nominal gifts prevent Estate claims – or do they?

“If I leave someone $1 under my Will, then they can’t make a claim against my Estate”.  This is a common misconception that is often encountered in the estate planning process for clients who wish to take all possible steps to ensure that a claim won’t be made against their deceased estate.

The Succession Act 1981 (Qld) provides, at Part 4, that the Court may consider an application made by a spouse, child (including stepchild or adopted child) or dependent where the deceased has not made adequate provision from the Estate for the claimant.  The Court will consider factors such as:-

  • The extent to which the claimant was being maintained and/or supported by the deceased;
  • The need for the continuance of such maintenance and/or support; and
  • The circumstances of the claimant and the Estate.

It is therefore not sufficient to leave a nominal gift for a potential beneficiary under your Will.  The Court’s consideration is not based on whether you have made any provision for the beneficiary, but rather that you have made adequate provision for the beneficiary.

If you are anticipating an Estate claim following your death, you should advise your lawyer of your concerns so that all necessary steps can be undertaken in the preparation of your Will and estate planning documents.  It may be appropriate to leave supporting estate planning documents setting out the circumstances under which you made your Will, and why you made provision for your beneficiaries (including, where appropriate, excluding beneficiaries).

The unfortunate reality is that there is no fail-safe method to prevent a claim against your Estate.  If you have concerns about a claim against your Estate, we strongly recommend discussing your concerns with our Estate Planning team to make sure that all appropriate steps are undertaken to ensure that your Estate Planning instruments are appropriately drafted to address and possibly pre-empt a potential claim.

Our Estate Planning team can be contacted on 07 5574 3560 or via email to caitlin@nautiluslaw.com.au.

Launch of the Nautilus Law Group “Estate Planning Myths” Series

When meeting with new clients for Estate Planning matters, we often encounter some interesting myths and misconceptions about the law and processes involved with Estate Planning.

Estate Planning and administration in Queensland is governed by the Succession Act 1981.  Documents drafted during estate planning can include a Will, a Power of Attorney for Finance and/or Personal/Health matters, and an Advance Health Directive (plus any other supporting documentation recommended by your lawyer).

Estate Planning can be a complex process, and the advice given to each client is individually tailored to their circumstances – the advice we give one client will often be entirely different to that given to another (as the clients may have different priorities in their Estate Plan, or the law applies to their individual circumstances in a different way).

Due to the misconception that Estate Planning is a “one size fits all” exercise, there are many myths (which often stem from tailored advice being misunderstood as general advice) which are becoming more widely known.

We are pleased to announce the launch of our “Estate Planning Myths” Series of articles on 7 March 2016, through which the lawyers of our Estate Planning team will address the truth behind some of the most common myths and misconceptions we hear.

 

What myths and misconceptions are you talking about?

While there are many Estate Planning myths, we will be addressing those that we most commonly hear.  These include:-

  1. Making a $1 gift to a person in my Will prevents them from making a claim against my Estate
  2. If I don’t make a Will, everything goes to the government
  3. “What’s the point of a Will? My Estate will get eaten up by death duties anyway!”
  4. “I don’t have any assets, so I don’t need a Will”
  5. “Anyone can challenge a Will – it’s not worth the paper it’s written on”
  6. “I don’t need to make a Will because my spouse will automatically receive everything”
  7. “I made my Will years ago and nothing has changed, so I don’t need to do a new one”
  8. “I don’t need a Power of Attorney because my spouse can automatically act”
  9. “My Executor won’t get any compensation for acting as Executor”
  10. “My Executor has to pay for the costs of administration of my Estate”.

 

Have you been told something about a Will, Power of Attorney, or Estate Planning generally, that you are not sure about?

The above indicated topics are those heard most often by our lawyers – but it is not an exhaustive list of the myths that circulate.

Is there something you think we have missed and would like us to reveal the truth of?  If so, please email Caitlin Bampton with your query.  Alternatively, if you would prefer to submit an anonymous query of an Estate Planning myth you have heard, please click here to complete our survey, and we will address the topic in future articles.

Leaving an inheritance: I don’t want to give my child anything.

Leaving an inheritance: I don’t want to give my child anything…. is that okay? The answer, generally, is no.  However, there are many strategies which can be implemented today which can significantly limit the opportunity for your child to receive anything from you. 

Clients ask us this question when they have one child who is successful, whereas the other siblings may have substantially less.  Other times where this question arises is where one child has been particularly difficult or distant, and the parents have lost contact or do not wish to be leaving an inheritance to the child for their inappropriate conduct.  We have also seen this question arise in circumstances where a child has children of their own which they do not support, and our clients (being the grandparents) want their estate to pass to the benefit of their grandchildren.

Setting aside the reason for this decision, there are practical solutions – albeit the solutions may not flow directly from your Will.

For example, did  you realise that superannuation does not pass as an estate asset?  When you die, your superannuation is not disposed of by your Will.  Most people do not realise this.  The Superannuation Fund Trustee decides who receives your superannuation benefits.  Some commercial funds, and all self-managed funds, allow you (as the member) to “bind” the Trustee to pay the benefits in a certain manner, but this manner must still comply with the terms of the Superannuation Legislation.  Generally, the superannuation must pass to a spouse, child, dependent or your estate.  There are, therefore, strategies which can be implemented to circumvent your estate. 

Another possible solution is the foundation of a Discretionary Trust to hold your assets.  Essentially, you “gift” your assets to a Trust, and when you pass away the assets do not belong to your estate.  They are disposed of within the terms of the Discretionary Trust.  You can nominate your successor to manage the Trust (referred to as a Trustee and/or Appointor) – and that person (or persons) then determines how the assets are distributed.

Another option, which carries a cost which may be a disincentive to many, is to create “joint tenancy” over property with the preferred beneficiaries – which means that the property passes automatically to the survivor(s) on your passing.  This is definitely not one of my preferred options, but it is an option.

There are many other possibilities, and each circumstance is different.  Therefore, we welcome you to contact the office to discuss the possibilities available to you and your family to reach your estate planning objectives, including, but not limited to, withholding provision to any one or more of your family members.

We welcome you to contact our team on (07) 5574 3560 or email us info@nautiluslaw.com.au. Thank you for considering Nautilus Law Group. 

Submitted by:  Katrina E. Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA

It’s never too late to make amends

Nautilus Law Group stands beside families through life’s most difficult processes and challenges.  The one consistent heartbreak most duly noted by our team is the anguish suffered as a result of ongoing family disputes.

Please, make amends.  Life is finite.  When you least expect it, your loved one may be gone.

It is never too late to open the line of communications.  It is never too late to say, “I’m sorry.”  It is never too late to just let the past be the past, and to create a new future.  Sometimes, when we consider the position of others, we can begin to understand their position.

It is too late to make amends when your loved one is gone.  So pick up the phone, write a letter, email or do whatever is necessary, to make amends.  Don’t let the last words you share with someone be words of anger, for you may regret this when it is too late to take them back.

Submitted by:
Katrina Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA
katrina@nautiluslaw.com.au

Ruling From the Grave Requires an Undertaker

There is nothing wrong with ruling from the grave!  But, without an undertaker – your plans may be buried with you!

Are you scratching your head, wondering what in the heck I am trying to say?  Probably – so let me tell you what I am talking about.  Our clients have authorised us to discuss this case, so no confidentiality has been violated in the publishing of this article…here it goes…

Mr Smith (he’s always our favourite when it comes to grave stories) was a wealthy man, with his own ideas on investing money, family and friend relationships, and who could be trusted.  Lawyers, not unexpectedly, was not high on that list!  Mr Smith, bless his heart, loved looking the top of his game – and so employed a number of advisors, to do important things…he just did not tell the various advisors he had others, and he did not share with one advisor what he was doing with another.  Mr Smith, being the important person he was, hired a typist from time to time to record his directions for his various estate matters.

I do not know at this stage he decided lawyers were not to be trusted, but he had purchased a Family Trust Deed in the mid-1990’s from one Law Firm, had it varied by another Law Firm later in the 1990’s and then lodged it with yet another office in the mid 2000’s. He had his first Will drawn in mid the mid 1990’s.  It would appear that in the mid-2000s Mr Smith was advised of the benefits of tax planning through the use of “bucket companies” and so opened a company.  Now, Mr Smith was later in his life, and whilst I am told he had capacity, he certainly had a difficulty understanding what assets he had and where, which was evident especially in the last two decades of his life.

To help this illustrate, we will call Mr Smith’s Family Trust – the Smith Family Trust.  We will call Mr Smith’s Company – Smith Company.  Unfortunately, Mr Smith could not keep these names straight, and he certainly did not take advice on how these vehicles worked because by the time of his death, he had “Directions” to the Executors of his Estate with incredible and bizarre stipulations.

Now, Mr Smith owned his waterfront home in his own name.  He also owned all the shares in Smith Company.  He was the “Apppointor” of the Smith Family Trust (see our Article Page on the discussion of Family Trusts and the use of Appointors).  Within the Smith Family Trust, he had approximately $2M in mixed currencies.  There was a small parcel of shares in the Family Trust as well.  Smith Company’s only asset was unpaid loan accounts due from Smith Family Trust.

Mr Smith left a Will appointing a government department to act as the Executor of his Estate and directed his Executor to:
1.   Transfer his home to “Smith Company Trust” – no such entity exists;
2.   Required that his home be held for over 40 years, with stipulations such as the type of paint that could be used on the walls and a complete restriction on the keeping of animals or hanging of pictures, a demand that the home be occupied at all times – and other useful requirements (yes, I am being sarcastic – as none of his beneficiaries actually want to reside on the Gold Coast);
3.    Demanded that all money in the Estate (and presumably in the Trust) be invested in New Zealand currency or Australian Currency, with newspaper clippings of when the currency exchanges could best be achieved; and
4.   Provided strict limitations on the types of distributions possible from the Estate and Trust (such as no capital for over 40 years!).

Mr Smith, just to be thorough, over the years had written a number of “Directions” to the Executors and/or Trustees of the Smith Company Trust (remember, it doesn’t exist – it is the Smith Company or Smith Family Trust…so go figure, which was he referring to?!).  In the last valid Deed, he completely rewrote the entire Smith Family Trust…permitting only five beneficiaries of the Trust.  The the following years, however, he distributed income from the Trust to Smith Company – even though the Smith Company was not a beneficiary as a result of his Deed.  (Quite a problem when he did not inform the various accountants, that another of the accountants had varied his Deed, whilst another created a new beneficiary to distribute funds to.)  Then, the fun really started, because he strated to write “Directions” appointing different people to do different things after his death – but again, with no communication – who knows what was a wish and what was a proper direction by Deed.  Without boring you, it turned into a mess.

The only thing that was consistent between his last valid Will and the last valid Deed, was that he had nominated his sole child and the child’s children as equal beneficiaries of his Will and Trust.

Now, for whatever reason, his list of nominees to work on the Will and Trust remained a long list in his planning.  Over the year following his death, and over $125,000 in legal costs (charged by the Executor and the various people competing to have control over the structures — IMPORTANTLY, none of which were the beneficiaries who had been left out by Mr Smith in terms having any control, even though they were the beneficiaries) – the Court found in favour of our clients and passed the Estate and Trust over to the beneficiaries to with as they wish.  So how were these costs incurred, well the Executors contacted the various accountants and house keeper nominated by Mr Smith and asked if they wanted to act, then the Executors engaged in a costly (and unnecessary, benefitting only themselves) investigation of what they should do to “help” these four beneficiaries – whilst refusing to relinquish control to the four beneficiaries and/or make any distributions to the four beneficiaries.

Do you want to know the funniest part of this story (if there is one)…Mr Smith’s neighbor, oddly enough, is a client of mine.  On the eve of the hearing in this case, it dawned on me, that my client had told me about Mr Smith a few years earlier and had told him to come see me – but he had told her he didn’t trust lawyers, and never came.  Had he come, I would have fixed his Estate and Trust and ensured the total wastage of over $125,000 by the Executor and their merry crew of advisors would not have resulted, but instead of a proper estate plan, with legal tax planning and asset structuring protocols would have been implemented.

So, what’s the lesson here – well, to go through them all, I need a few more Articles posts! However, to be brief – DON’T WRITE YOUR OWN LEGAL DOCUMENTS!!!!!! Okay, let’s say you have an estate of a few thousand dollars – go ahead, write your own, you aren’t losing much. But if you have an estate larger than $100,000 or if you have minor children – GET YOURSELF AN UNDERTAKER who can write a proper Will and help you actually achieve what you wanted from the outset.   If you want to rule from the grave, and I fully support the idea, do it with designs that won’t have you rolling over in your grave!

Submitted by Katrina E Brown BA JD ATIA TEP SSA
katrina@nautiluslaw.com.au