Source: https://elderlawnews.blog/category/irrevocable-trusts/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:53:51+00:00

Document:
He lived on the edge and died without warning. The family needed a disaster plan to minimize strain in the worst moments and smooth the financial transition afterward. These are teachable moments.
Anthony Bourdain chased gusto all over the planet, occasionally tracking into war and disaster zones along the way. There were moments when he could’ve gotten in over his head and never come home.
A personal disaster plan would have been the responsible way to approach that kind of life. From the way news of his death spread last week, it’s fairly clear that level of forethought just wasn’t his style.
That’s a burden on those he left behind. At a moment when they’re already stunned and vulnerable, it’s up to them to make the hard decisions about managing the press, the authorities and the fans.
Let’s hope that his financial situation was in better shape. While the money will never bring him back, it can at least make life without him easier — provided of course it’s managed properly now.
Enterprises, individual professionals and even well-run restaurants have succession plans. But while Bourdain’s life revolved around his personal participation in every venture, there’s no sign that the work can continue without him.
The TV show is unlikely to ever film again. There won’t be any new expeditions and no new episodes beyond what’s already ready to roll.
There won’t be any new books. There’s no archive of unreleased material waiting for a successor organization to release to bereaved fans.
And the window for him to ever open another restaurant has slammed shut. If he gave much thought to a creative executor to groom the intellectual property he built up in life, again, it would be a surprise.
Otherwise, that person or some other spokesperson he delegated would have stepped up to handle the announcements last week. Instead, everyone looked to Asia Argento, who was understandably shocked and stunned.
The family was quiet. His ex-wife isn’t active on public social media networks and their daughter is only 11. It was up to a colleague to find his body and his network to break the news to the world.
A lawyer, a financial advisor, an agent, a manager: someone could have been authorized to route messaging to the public and make absolutely sure nobody bothered the family.
That didn’t really happen here. There’s no crime in that beyond a missed opportunity to make a tidier transition, whether death comes by surprise or design.
And in the absence of any clear plan on that front, it remains to be seen whether there was a plan to keep his businesses afloat without his personal participation.
Bourdain never really created much of an institution around himself. The copyright on his books was never assigned to any trust, holding company or other entity. While he got production credit on his shows, the actual production company belonged to other people.
There’s no restaurant for his heirs to operate or sell off. He could’ve built a foodie empire to survive him, but evidently wasn’t interested.
His big dream, the Blade Runner themed global food court in New York, stalled last year. Whether that failure to create something lasting preyed on him, we just don’t know.
Again, that level of planning really wasn’t his style. Even if it could’ve made his heirs more comfortable down the road, we would’ve seen the hints years ago.
That said, there can be a morbid tinge to building a captive empire of intellectual property and operating businesses. Look at Michael Jackson, who was practically insolvent in life because he’d hoarded other people’s creative output as well as his own.
Jackson’s kids are reportedly billionaires now. He’s the best-selling musical artist in the world. But the cold equations of the estate forced the executors to sell off his songs and back catalog to pay the debts.
Bourdain’s books are seeing a similar posthumous bestseller effect now. Odds are good that ratings of unaired episodes will be the best ever. His daughter will get her piece of that income.
If he left a will — a big hypothetical, all in all — the rights and royalties may well go into a trust for her upkeep now and use when she’s an adult. Otherwise, the money flows into Unified Gifts To Minors Act (UGMA) accounts while the assets themselves sit in Unified Transfers To Minors Act (UGTA) accounts until she turns 18.
Unlike Michael Jackson’s kids, she has an immediate parental guardian to look out for her in the meantime. While mom and dad split up a few years ago, mom is definitely alive and well. As you’ll recall, she’s a professional kickboxer.
Reading between the lines, mom also got the $3 million New York condo as part of the split. She might already have all of the Bourdain cash as it is. Otherwise, sad to say, child support evaporates now.
Whatever Bourdain left behind for his daughter is that support. She can’t touch it for awhile. I hope he made arrangements for someone to monetize his legacy in the here and now.
With the right management, the Bourdain name and likeness stay vibrant and keep generating income. Maybe there actually are book drafts to polish, TV concepts to pitch. There might even be restaurant concepts looking for partners.
The potential here is vast. A creative and savvy executor can turn Bourdain’s name into the empire he never chased in life — maybe even a Michael Jackson scale franchise built on new approaches to food, new grocery models, who knows?
And without the $400 million debt hole Jackson’s heirs started with, right now Bourdain’s survivors are financially ahead of the game. I know it still hurts, but against the inevitability of pain sometimes the only thing we can do is stack the dollar signs.
When his daughter comes of age, she may pick up the family legacy. It belongs to her. That’s the best bequest of all.
When a person declares bankruptcy, an individual retirement account (IRA) is one of the assets that is beyond the reach of creditors, but what about an IRA that has been inherited? Resolving a conflict between lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court recently (and unanimously) ruled that funds held in an inherited IRA are not exempt from creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding because they are not really retirement funds. Clark v. Rameker (U.S., No. 13- 299, June 13, 2014).
This ruling has significant estate planning implications for those who intend to leave their IRAs to their children. If the child inherits the IRA and then declares bankruptcy sometime in the future, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling the child’s creditors could take the IRA funds. Fortunately, there is a way to still protect the IRA funds from a child’s potential creditors. The way to do this is to leave the IRA not to the child but to a “spendthrift” trust for the child, under which an independent trustee makes decisions as to how the trust funds may be spent for the benefit of the beneficiary. However, the trust cannot be a traditional revocable living trust; it must be a properly drafted IRA trust set up by an attorney who is familiar with the issues specific to inherited IRAs.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling may be different in some states, such as Florida, that specifically exempt inherited IRAs from creditor claims. As Florida attorney Joseph S. Karp explains in a recent blog post, Florida’s rule protecting inherited IRAs will bump up against federal bankruptcy law, and no one knows yet which set of rules will prevail. While a debtor who lives in Florida could keep a creditor from attaching her inherited IRA, it is unknown whether that debtor would succeed in having her debts discharged in bankruptcy while still retaining an inherited IRA. We will have to wait for the courts to rule on this issue. In the meantime, no matter what state you are in, the safest course if you want to protect a child’s IRA from creditors is to leave it to a properly drafted trust.
Below, in chronological order, is ElderLawAnswers’ annual roundup of the top 10 elder law decisions for the year just ended, as measured by the number of “unique page views” of our summary of the case.
An Alabama appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s special needs trust is an available resource because the trustee had discretion to make payments under the trust. Alabama Medicaid Agency v. Hardy (Ala. Civ. App., No. 2140565, Jan. 29, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
A New York appeals court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s trust is an available asset because the trustees have discretion to make distributions to her. In the Matter of Frances Flannery v. Zucker (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div., 4th Dept., No. TP 15-01033, Feb. 11, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
A U.S. district court holds that a Medicaid applicant who was denied Medicaid benefits after transferring assets to her children in exchange for a promissory note may proceed with her claim against the state because Medicaid law confers a private right of action and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the claim. Ansley v. Lake (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Okla., No. CIV-14-1383-D, March 9, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
In a strongly worded response to a Medicaid applicant’s request for reconsideration of an unsuccessful appeal involving an irrevocable trust, a Massachusetts trial court strikes the applicant’s pleadings after it takes great exception to the tone of the argument. Daley v. Sudders (Mass.Super.Ct., No.15-CV-0188-D, March 28, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
A New Jersey appeals court determines that the caretaker child exception does not apply to a Medicaid applicant who transferred her house to her daughter because the daughter did not provide continuous care for the two years before the Medicaid applicant entered a nursing home. M.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., No. A-0790-14T3, May 13, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
An Ohio appeals court rules that a deceased Medicaid recipient’s life estate does not extinguish at death for the purposes of Medicaid estate recovery, so the state may place a lien on the property. Phillips v. McCarthy (Ohio Ct. App., 12th Dist., No. CA2015-08-01, May 16, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
Virginia’s highest court rules that an intended third-party beneficiary of a will may sue the attorney who drafted the will for legal malpractice. Thorsen v. Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Va., No. 150528, June 2, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
A U.S. district court rules that a nursing home can proceed with its case against the sons of a resident who transferred the resident’s funds to themselves because the fraudulent transfer claim survived the resident’s death. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. Estate of Barbara Nyce (U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Vt., No. 5:16-cv-73, June 21, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
New Hampshire’s highest court rules that a Medicaid applicant’s irrevocable trust is an available asset even though the applicant was not a beneficiary of the trust because the applicant retained a degree of discretionary authority over the trust assets. Petition of Estate of Thea Braiterman (N.H., No. 2015-0395, July 12, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
A New York trial court enters judgment against a woman who refused to contribute to her spouse’s nursing home expenses, finding that because she had adequate resources to do so, an implied contract was created between her and the state entitling the state to repayment of Medicaid benefits it paid on the spouse’s behalf. Banks v. Gonzalez (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Pt. 5, No. 452318/15, Aug. 8, 2016). To read the full summary, click here.
Feel Free to contact me to see how any of these decisions may affect your personal situation.
After a Medicaid recipient dies, the state must attempt to recoup from his or her estate whatever benefits it paid for the recipient’s care. This is called “estate recovery.” For most Medicaid recipients, their house is the only asset available.
For many people, setting up a “life estate” is the simplest and most appropriate alternative for protecting the home from estate recovery. A life estate is a form of joint ownership of property between two or more people. They each have an ownership interest in the property, but for different periods of time. The person holding the life estate possesses the property currently and for the rest of his or her life. The other owner has a current ownership interest but cannot take possession until the end of the life estate, which occurs at the death of the life estate holder.
Example: Jane gives a remainder interest in her house to her children, Robert and Mary, while retaining a life interest for herself. She carries this out through a simple deed. Thereafter, Jane, the life estate holder, has the right to live in the property or rent it out, collecting the rents for herself. On the other hand, she is responsible for the costs of maintenance and taxes on the property. In addition, the property cannot be sold to a third party without the cooperation of Robert and Mary, the remainder interest holders.
When Jane dies, the house will not go through probate, since at her death the ownership will pass automatically to the holders of the remainder interest, Robert and Mary. Although the property will not be included in Jane’s probate estate, it will be included in her taxable estate. The downside of this is that depending on the size of the estate and the state’s estate tax threshold, the property may be subject to estate taxation. The upside is that this can mean a significant reduction in the tax on capital gains when Robert and Mary sell the property because they will receive a “step up” in the property’s basis.
As with a transfer to a trust, the deed into a life estate can trigger a Medicaid ineligibility period of up to five years. To avoid a transfer penalty the individual purchasing the life estate must actually reside in the home for at least one year after the purchase.
Life estates are created simply by executing a deed conveying the remainder interest to another while retaining a life interest, as Jane did in this example. In many states, once the house passes to Robert and Mary, the state cannot recover against it for any Medicaid expenses Jane may have incurred.
Another method of protecting the home from estate recovery is to transfer it to an irrevocable trust. Trusts provide more flexibility than life estates but are somewhat more complicated. Once the house is in the irrevocable trust, it cannot be taken out again. Although it can be sold, the proceeds must remain in the trust. This can protect more of the value of the house if it is sold. Further, if properly drafted, the later sale of the home while in this trust might allow the settlor, if he or she had met the residency requirements, to exclude up to $250,000 in taxable gain, an exclusion that would not be available if the owner had transferred the home outside of trust to a non-resident child or other third party before sale.
Contact me to find out what method will work best for you.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released its Spousal Impoverishment Standards for 2015.
The minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance for the lower 48 states remains $1,966.25 ($2,457.50 for Alaska and $2,261.25 for Hawaii) until July 1, 2015.
For CMS’s complete chart of the 2015 SSI and Spousal Impoverishment Standards, click here.
For more information about protecting your assets click here.
-By Emily Garnett, Associate Attorney at Brian A. Raphan, P.C.
Finding oneself or a family member in need of home care can be a tough pill to swallow. It is often difficult to accept that you or a loved one is no longer able to safely do many of the activities of daily living that you once could. At that point, it may be time to bring in a home health aide for assistance with a wide variety of activities of daily living.
1. How to Arrange Help and Payment: Many people choose to privately pay for home health aides. If you choose to go this route, you can utilize a long-term home health care program (LTHHCP). These are agencies accredited by the state that provide home health aides. They manage the staffing and payroll. However, you can also choose to select aides that are privately paid, and work outside of an LTHHCP agency. For these aides, you would have to manage staffing and payroll issues yourself, or utilize the expertise of an elder law attorney or geriatric care manager to manage these details.
2. Using Medicaid to Pay: If you are unable to privately pay for home care, you have the option of applying for Medicaid to obtain coverage for long-term home care. It is advised that you work with an elder law attorney or other professional to facilitate this process, as it can be complicated, and the regulations are frequently changing. In order to qualify for Medicaid, the applicant must meet certain requirements for income and assets. The current Medicaid asset limit is $14,550.00, and the monthly income limit is $809.00. Unlike nursing home Medicaid, there is no look-back period for community Medicaid, meaning that Medicaid is not going to investigate past money transfers like they would for an application for nursing home coverage. There are several ways to address the income and asset limits required for Medicaid acceptance, the most common being the use of pooled trusts to shelter those funds. Pooled trusts are frequently used to meet the Medicaid spend-down, which is the requirement that an applicant reduce his or her available income so that it remains under the Medicaid limit.
3. Shelter your Income: Once an individual applies for Medicaid coverage, he or she can join a third party pooled trust to shelter the excess income and meet the spend-down. These trusts allow the individual to use the funds sheltered in the trust for personal needs outside of the Medicaid coverage, including expenses like rent, utilities, and phone bills. If this arrangement is not made, the applicant runs the risk of rejection by Medicaid or having to privately pay for some part of his or her home care each month.
4. Enrollment for Managed Long Term Care: Once you have applied for and been approved for Medicaid, you will work with your elder law attorney or specialist to enroll in a managed long-term care program (MLTC), which will provide home care services. The first step in this process is assessment by a new program, the Conflict-Free Eligibility and Enrollment Center (CFEEC), sometimes also referred to as “Maximus”. This assessment takes about two hours and provides a determination to Medicaid that the consumer is eligible for home care services. At that point, the consumer selects a managed long term care plan to enroll in. The MLTC plan then schedules a second assessment, also lasting about two hours, in which the specific care needs of the consumer are assessed. At the conclusion of this assessment, the nurse performing the assessment will submit the information to Medicaid, who will ultimately determine the number of hours of home care needed each day by the consumer. This process is very time-sensitive, so work closely with your Medicaid attorney assisting with the application process, to avoid costly and unnecessary delays.
5. Keeping Your Ongoing Benefits: Once the application process is complete, your home care will likely start on or around the first of the following month. At that point, your obligations as a consumer are to maintain the income and asset limits, including utilization of a pooled trust if needed. You will be required to annually re-certify with Medicaid that you have maintained these levels. Should you have questions at that point, please don’t hesitate to reach out to your Medicaid planning attorney, rather than risk losing your Medicaid benefits. It is worth noting, however, that occasionally delays arise in various points of the application process through no fault of the attorney or applicant. Should you find yourself in such a position, understand that these issues do arise, and make sure to cooperate with your attorney or specialist’s advocacy efforts towards resolution.
People often wonder about the value of using irrevocable trusts in Medicaid planning. Certainly gifting of assets can be done outright, not involving an irrevocable trust. Outright gifts have the advantages of being simple to do with minimal costs involved.
So, why complicate things with a trust? Why not just keep the planning as simple and inexpensive as possible?
The short answer is that gift transaction costs are only part of what needs to be considered. Many important benefits that can result from gifting in trust are forfeited by outright gifting. These benefits are what give value to using irrevocable trusts in Medicaid planning.
-Asset protection from future creditors of beneficiaries. Preservation of the exclusion of capital gain upon sale of the Settlors’ principal residence (the Settlor is the person making the trust).
-Preservation of step-up of basis upon death of the trust Settlors o Ability to select whether the Settlors or the beneficiaries of the trust will be taxable as to trust income.
-Ability to design who will receive the net distributable income generated in the trust.
-Ability to make assets in the trust non-countable in regard to the beneficiaries’ eligibility for means-based governmental benefits, such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
-Ability to specify certain terms and incentives for beneficiaries’ use of trust assets.
-Ability to decide (through the settlors’ other estate planning documents) which beneficiaries will receive what share, if any, of remaining trust assets after the settlers die.
-Ability to determine who will receive any trust assets after the deaths of the initial beneficiaries.
-Possible avoidance of need to file a federal gift tax return due to asset transfer to the trust.
If you have questions about any of the above items, please call me, Brian A. Raphan, Esq at 212-268-8200 or 800-278-2960. There are additional measures available and your individual situation should be assessed before making any financial decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.