Source: http://book.dislib.info/b1-juristic/565239-1-report-legislation-the-trusts-estates-and-surrogates-courts-co.php
Timestamp: 2018-04-21 15:14:33
Document Index: 703967789

Matched Legal Cases: ['§11', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 11', '§11', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§11', '§ 4', '§ 4']

REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE TRUSTS, ESTATES AND SURROGATE’S COURTS COMMITTEE A.7461 -A M. of A. Cook S.4779-B Sen. Bonacic AN ACT to amend the
«REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE TRUSTS, ESTATES AND SURROGATE’S COURTS COMMITTEE A.7461 -A M. of A. Cook S.4779-B Sen. Bonacic AN ACT to amend the ...»
Contact: Maria Cilenti - Director of Legislative Affairs - mcilenti@nycbar.org - (212) 382-6655
REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE
TRUSTS, ESTATES AND SURROGATE’S COURTS COMMITTEE
A.7461 -A M. of A. Cook
S.4779-B Sen. Bonacic
AN ACT to amend the estates, powers and trusts law, in relation to inheritance by children conceived after the death of a genetic parent.
STATUS: Passed Assembly (98-36); Passed Senate (59-0)
THIS BILL IS APPROVED AND
WE URGE THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN IT INTO LAW
The ability to store sperm and/or ova (“genetic material”) for future use, combined with the ability to produce an embryo via in vitro fertilization, have made it possible for a child to be conceived after the death of one or both of the child’s parents. What rights, if any, a child conceived after the death of a parent would have in that parent’s estate, or in trusts created for the benefit of that parent and his or her “issue” is at best unclear. The amendments to the New York, Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (the “EPTL”) contained in the above-referenced bill (the “Proposal”) would provide clarity.
In summary, the Proposal would amend the EPTL to add a new Section 4-1.3 which would provide that, if certain conditions are met, a child conceived after the death of a parent with the genetic material of such parent (a “genetic parent”) would be considered (i) a distributee of the genetic parent, and (ii) included in the class of the genetic parent’s issue for any disposition made by the genetic parent at any time, and for any disposition made by anyone other than the genetic parent after September 1, 2014.
The Proposal would also amend EPTL §11-1.5 to provide, inter alia, that the Executor or Administrator of a genetic parent’s estate may delay paying a testamentary disposition or distributive share until the birth of a genetic child entitled to inherit under EPTL § 4-1.3, provided that notice of the existence of the genetic parent’s genetic material has been given (as required by EPTL § 4-1.3(b)).
For the reasons indicated below, we support the Proposal.
42 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036-6689 www.nycbar.org
EPTL § 4-1.3 The Proposal specifies the conditions that must be met in order for a child, who was conceived with the genetic material of a genetic parent after that genetic parent’s death, to have limited inheritance rights. The Proposal accomplishes this by creating a new section of the EPTL (EPTL §4-1.3), whichprovides as follows.
Section 4-1.3(a)(1) defines “genetic parent” as a man who provides sperm or a woman who provides ova used to conceive a child after the death of the man or woman.
Section 4-1.3(a)(2) defines “genetic material” as the sperm or ova provided by a genetic parent.
Section 4-1.3(a)(3) defines “genetic child” as a child conceived with the genetic material of a genetic parent, but only if and when such child is born. (This requirement of birth eliminates any questions regarding whether a fertilized zygote has any inheritance rights.)
The rights of a genetic child are contained in new Section 4-1.3(b) which provides:
EPTL § 4-1-1(c) provides that distributees conceived before, but born alive after, the death of a decedent take as if they were born during the decedent’s lifetime.
EPTL § 2-1.3(a)(2) provides that children conceived before but born alive after a disposition becomes effective are included in a class distribution made to “persons described in any instrument as the issue, children, descendants, heirs, heirs at law, next of kin, distributees (or by any term of like import) of the creator or any other person.” (2) The person authorized to make decisions regarding the use of the genetic parent’s genetic material gave notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal delivery, that the genetic parent’s genetic material was available for the purpose of conceiving a child of the genetic
parent, and such notice was given:
EPTL § 4-1.3(c)(5) then provides a sample form for the consent required by that paragraph.
EPTL § 4-1.3(d) provides that if a genetic parent gave authority to make decisions regarding the use of his or her genetic material to a person who was his or her spouse at the time of signing the instrument, that authority will be deemed to be revoked if the marriage between the two ends in divorce or annulment.
EPTL § 4-1.3(e) provides that process need not issue to a genetic child who is the distributee of the genetic parent pursuant to Sections 1003 or 1403 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act unless the genetic child is in being at the time the process issues. (This will ensure that the possibility that a genetic child may be born at some point in the future will not unduly delay the administration of an estate by providing that Letters can be issued without notice to a genetic child unless and until a genetic child is born.) EPTL § 4-1.3(f) deals with the inheritance rights of genetic children under instruments created by persons other than the genetic parent. It provides that, except as provided in EPTL § 4-1.3(b), for purposes of EPTL § 2-1.3, a genetic child who is entitled to inherit from a genetic parent is a child of the genetic parent for purposes of a disposition of property to persons described in any instrument as the issue, children, descendants, heirs, heirs at law, next of kin, distributees (or by any term of like import) of the creator or of another. However, unlike EPTL § 4-1.3(b), which can apply to instruments created by a genetic parent regardless of date, EPTL § 4-1.3(f) will only apply to Wills of persons dying on or after September 1, 2014, to lifetime trusts executed before that date which are subject to the grantor’s power of amendment on that date, and to all lifetime trusts executed on or after that date.
EPTL § 4-1.3(g) deals with the anti-lapse rules of EPTL § 3-3.3. It provides that a genetic child entitled to inherit from a genetic parent under EPTL § 4-1.3(b) is included in the terms “issue”, “surviving issue” and “issue surviving” as used in EPTL § 3-3.3.
EPTL § 4-1.3(h) provides that the possibility that a genetic child may be born at some point in the future shall be disregarded for purposes of determining whether a disposition violates the rule against perpetuities contained in EPTL § 9-1.1. This provision is similar to the provision in EPTL § 9-1.3(e)(3) directing that the possibility of adoption shall be disregarded.
Finally, EPTL § 4-1.3(i) provides that the provisions of EPTL § 4-1.3, and the terms of any contract made by the genetic parent and the institution storing the genetic parent’s genetic material, will govern the disposition of the genetic material. EPTL § 4-1.3(i) expressly states that genetic material cannot be disposed of by Will.
Amendments to EPTL § 11-1.5
As mentioned above, the Proposal would also amend EPTL §11-1.5(a)-(d) to provide that the Executor or Administrator of a genetic parent’s estate may delay paying a testamentary disposition or distributive share until the birth of a genetic child entitled to inherit under EPTL § 4-1.3, provided that notice of the existence of the genetic parent’s genetic material has been given (as required by EPTL § 4-1.3(b)). The Proposal would also (i) authorize the Executor to require that a bond be posted whenever a genetic parent’s Will directs a disposition to be made before the birth of a genetic child, (ii) allows the Executor or Administrator to decline demands to make distributions before a genetic child’s birth, and (iii) requires an Executor or Administrator to pay six percent interest on bequests from the date of birth of a genetic child (rather than from the date that is seven months from the issuance of Letters if a genetic child is born more than seven months after Letters have issued).
All of these amendments to EPTL §11-1.5 are intended to clarify when and for how long a fiduciary can delay distributions due to the possibility of the birth of a genetic child, and what the fiduciary can do if he or she wants to make distributions before the birth of a genetic child.
Perhaps the most important element of the Proposal is that it makes a genetic child an intestate distributee of his or her genetic parent, if the genetic child is born within the time frame imposed by, and in accordance with all of the conditions of, EPTL § 4-1.3. This is crucial because in 2012 the Supreme Court, in Astrue v. Caputo, 132 S. Ct. 2021, stated that a posthumously conceived child is entitled to his or her genetic parent’s social security survivorship benefits only if the child would be entitled to inherit from his or her genetic parent under the relevant state intestacy laws.
Another important element is that the Proposal provides clarity regarding how instruments are to be interpreted, how estates and trusts are to be administered, and how the rule against perpetuities is to be applied, in cases where a genetic child could be conceived.
In addition, it is worth noting how limited the Proposal is. A genetic child will not be considered a distributee of any other person (such as an ancestor of the genetic parent). Nor would a genetic child be included in a disposition made to “issue” by any person other than a genetic parent unless the disposition is made after September 1, 2014. For example, suppose a grantor creates a trust for the benefit of all of his “issue.” Suppose further than the grantor has a daughter who predeceases him, but leaves genetic material which is used after her death to conceive a “genetic child” whose conception and birth satisfy all of the requirements of new EPTL § 4-1.3. That genetic child would not be included within the class of beneficiaries because the trust was created by someone other than the genetic parent (unless the trust was created after September 1, 2014). Consequently, the Proposal would thus allow anyone other than the genetic parent to draft an instrument that excludes genetic children, if he or she so desires. And the Proposal would allow the genetic parent to exclude a genetic child from inheriting by simply refusing to allow his or her genetic material to be used after his or her death.
The time requirements are also very limiting. In vitro fertilization does not always work.
Often, multiple attempts are needed. Given that, and a typical 40 week gestation period, requiring a genetic child to be in utero no later than twenty-four months after the genetic parent’s death or to be born no later than thirty-three months after the genetic parent’s death means, practically, that the number of genetic children a genetic parent can have is very limited.
Moreover, no estate or trust will have to be held open indefinitely to see if a genetic child is born. Thirty-three months after the death of a genetic parent, an Executor or Trustee can assume that no genetic child entitled to inherit will be born.
Finally, the Proposal answers Surrogate Roth’s call for comprehensive legislation to resolve the issues raised by advances in biotechnology in the one New York case to date that addressed the rights of posthumously conceived children, Matter of Martin B, 841 N.Y.S.2d 207 (Sur. Ct., New York County, 2007). In that case, two children conceived after the death of their father were held to be beneficiaries of trusts created by their father’s father for the benefit of the grantor’s issue. The Surrogate reached her decision after a search for the grantor’s intent as gleaned from a reading of the trust agreements, which is paradoxical because in 1969 (when the trusts were created) the grantor could not have contemplated these new technologies. If that situation were to arise again today, with the Proposal having been enacted, those children could not be held to be beneficiaries because (i) they were born outside of the time period required by the Proposal, and (ii) the trusts at issue were drafted before September 1, 2014.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the Proposal be adopted.
«Men, Women, and Beasts at Clermont, 1095 Deborah Gerish Gender, Identity, and Religion in Medieval Europe When Pope Urban II called for a military campaign to the Holy Land in 1095, he launched what would be the first in a series of Christian crusades. But even more than that, he advocated a form of warfare that would be pleasing to God. Because the idea of spiritually based violence survives to this day, it is not surprising that scholars have scrutinized the pope’s initial call to arms very...»
«“Metal is the Law!! Black-Metal is the War!!” “Taste of Black”eine Plattform für`s Extreme ! von Jörg Stolzenberger Aufklärungsgruppe Krokodil September 2004 „Taste of Black“, so nennt der Schweizer B.W., der sich das Pseudonym „Azrael“ gegeben hat, seine Internetseite. Als ihn die Aufklärungsgruppe Krokodil um ein Interview bat erklärte er sich dazu bereit unsere Fragen zu beantworten. Das gesamte und ungekürzte Interview haben wir gesondert eingestellt. Der Baseler...»
«Die Anhörung – eine Problematisierung / FRAGL 31 Die Anhörung – eine Problematisierung Erstaufnahmeinterviews von Asylbeantragenden in Deutschland unter der Lupe Lena Krause Abstract: This paper aims to analyse some core aspects of the asylum procedure as practiced in Germany today, 65 years after the implementation of the German constitution. I will focus specifically on aspects of communication and language. Furthermore, the paper aims to propose several changes, given the finding that...»
«Contact: Jeff Baudry For Immediate Release: (414) 257-4575 Jeffrey.Baudry@milwaukeecountywi.gov Parks’ “Summer’s Best” Free Concerts Announced Milwaukee, WI (May 14, 2015) — Today, Milwaukee County’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture announced the lineup for the “Summer’s Best” Concert Series. A variety of genres will be presented at 20 park venues throughout the County. From June 2–September 17, the public can listen to nearly 100 live concerts, at no charge....»
«Mit Brecht Durch Berlin Ein Literarischer Reisefuhrer Mit Zahlreichen Fotografien Your shopper were to work developments and get they fantastic gasoline or capitalize them. These closing of you could build of you outlines in you ultimately determine it of causing able first years when they may read every lowest in your habit associated in your moments. They may find significant order and client ways that you are to chat online on. Brief you have you are even always dull, for I only lose a...»
«Glocalization of Arbitration: Transnational Standards Struggling with Local Norms Through the Lens of Arbitration Transplantation in China Fan Kun* ABSTRACT This article examines how arbitration, as a semi-formal dispute resolution institution, gradually took root in China and how it interacted with the Chinese non-confrontational legal tradition. Based on the experience of arbitration transplantation in China, the article argues that local culture and traditions still have a strong role to...»
«Tilburg University Bridging distances in technology and regulation Leenes, Ronald; Kosta, Eleni Document version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Leenes, R. E., & Kosta, E. (Eds.) (2013). Bridging distances in technology and regulation. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP). General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors...»