Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Estate planning

Q&A: Arizona mom doesn’t want a trust

By

Dear Liz: My mom is 93 and lives in Arizona. I’m in California. She refuses to complete a revocable living trust, and after several years, I have given up with the request. She states she has added my name to the deed to the house and her bank account. She believes she has done enough. She states she completed a will that she got at Office Max. What would be my first steps if she precedes me in death?

Answer: She may be stubborn, but she’s making mistakes that could impair her quality of life and saddle you with a big, unnecessary tax bill. Consider trying to persuade her to fix these errors before it’s too late.

Not having a living trust isn’t necessarily a crisis. Yes, a living trust would allow your mother’s estate to avoid probate, the court process that typically follows death. But probate in Arizona typically isn’t as long or expensive as it is in California.

What’s more important is having documents in place that allow you (or someone else) to handle her finances and make healthcare decisions should she become incapacitated. Without that, you might have to go to court, which could be a long and expensive process (especially now, with the backlog created by COVID-19-related shutdowns).

A living trust also would make it relatively easy for a trusted person to step in and handle her affairs if necessary. In the absence of a living trust, you should insist she fill out an advanced care directive that would allow a trusted person to make healthcare decisions for her. There are free versions for each state at PrepareForYourCare.org, along with instructions about how to make it valid. If she doesn’t have a computer, you can print out Arizona’s version and send it to her.

She also needs to create a power of attorney for finances. Offer to hire an estate planning attorney to do this, since it’s a relatively simple form and not likely to be expensive. There are online forms and software that can do this if she absolutely refuses to consult an attorney.

An estate planning attorney might also be able to help you get off the deed. When she added you to the deed, your mom signed you up to pay capital gains taxes you wouldn’t owe otherwise. All the appreciation in the home that happened during her lifetime would be taxable, when it doesn’t need to be.

Let’s say she bought the home for $25,000 and it was worth $250,000 when she died. If you inherited the home and sold it for $250,000, you would owe no capital gains taxes.

If she gives you the home before her death — which she essentially did by adding you to the deed — you don’t get the valuable step-up in tax basis that keeps you from having to pay capital gains taxes on the appreciation that happened during her lifetime. Instead, you would owe capital gains taxes on the $225,000 appreciation. (This is a simplified example meant to help you and her understand the magnitude of the blunder.)

Arizona is one of the many states that has “transfer on death” deeds for real estate. These deeds would allow the house to avoid probate and come directly to you. That’s almost certainly a better solution than the one she chose.

Q&A: Picking your estate’s executor

By

Dear Liz: One issue in a recent column was about a sibling who did not follow the will. As executor, the sibling took two thirds of the estate instead of the will’s specification of half.

This is why, when my wife and I had our estate plan created, we told the attorney that none of the beneficiaries should be the executor of our wills and none should be a trustee of our trusts. Indeed, our trusts — which own almost our entire estate — cannot have the spouse, child, parent or in-law of a beneficiary as a trustee.

Answer: Yours is certainly one solution, if you can find the appropriate people to serve. But naming an heir as executor or trustee doesn’t have to be a disaster, as long as you name the right person — someone who is honest, dependable and able to serve with integrity.

Q&A: Pitfalls of unequal will distributions

By

Dear Liz: You’ve written that when writing their wills, parents should be careful about leaving unequal distributions to their children. What wasn’t mentioned was that a person could have a “good” child and a “bad” one. The “bad one” has never done a thing for the parent, such as inviting her to the child’s home at Thanksgiving or Christmas, and only visits the parent in the summer when the parent just happens to live at the beach. The “good” one is very attentive and visits the parent even in winter, and so on. What is your thinking in inheritance in this case?

Answer: It’s your money, and there’s no one right way to divide an estate. However, it’s disturbing that your assessment of your children seems to be based solely on how much attention you get.

It’s possible one child acts more selfishly or thoughtlessly than the other. It’s also possible that you are difficult to please, and one child understandably limits the time she spends trying to do so.

Q&A: Getting sister’s house without a will

By

Dear Liz: When I retired in 2018, I rolled over my 403(b) teachers retirement account into a traditional IRA and made my sister sole beneficiary. I sent her a copy of that beneficiary statement showing her name, her percentage (100%), and my account number. My sister later told me in a phone call that she wished to bequeath me her house should she predecease me. She explained she didn’t have a will but she made her feelings known to our older brother. Even if I were on speaking terms with our older brother, I would find this arrangement naive. Knowing my sister, she actually believes this method is the right way to proceed with her wishes. I’m asking you to be Dear Abby, perhaps, but what do I do?

Answer: You can explain to her that if she doesn’t have a will, the laws of her state will determine who gets her house regardless of what she intended. If your sister does not have a spouse or children, and your parents are dead, you and your brother would probably inherit the home as well as the rest of her estate. You would have to negotiate what to do with the house, which could be difficult if you two still aren’t speaking.

If you can’t get her to write a will, there may be another option. Many states allow “transfer on death” deeds, which are forms that allow people to name a beneficiary for their home. This would ensure that the house is left to you and that it avoids probate, the court process that otherwise follows death.

Q&A: When an executor doesn’t heed the will

By

Dear Liz: My dad’s will clearly divided his estate equally between his two sons. By the time Dad died, my brother had two kids. After the funeral, my sister-in-law sat me down and told me that everything will be divided into three parts. I would get one-third and they get two-thirds, because they had the kids. This was not a request; it was, “That’s the way it’s going to be and there’s nothing you can do about it.” My brother, who was the executor, was nowhere to be seen — a pattern when dealing with money issues. This was many years ago. I was a student at the time. I went along with it but wonder to this day about the fairness of the situation.

Answer: Wonder no more. If the situation was as you describe and your brother ignored your father’s will, then he wasn’t just unfair to you. He violated the law.

Executors are supposed to follow the will’s directions to the best of their ability. If they don’t, they can be held personally responsible. But each state has statutes of limitation that give you only a certain amount of time to file a civil lawsuit in these situations. You may have a bit more time if you were a minor when all this happened, but you’d want to consult an attorney to discuss your options.

You wouldn’t be the first person done out of an inheritance by a self-dealing sibling, unfortunately. This should be a reminder to parents not to reflexively choose the oldest child, or indeed any child, to fill this role without thinking about the child’s character.

Q&A: Planning philanthropy

By

Dear Liz: You recently explained to a reader why it was better to make one donation of $1,000 rather than 10 donations of $100. I understand why you gave the response you did and you made some good points, especially about the importance of researching charities before you give. You also mentioned the costs each organization would incur in processing the smaller donations. As a longtime nonprofit executive, I think the social capital enjoyed by those organizations outweighs the costs. It often is helpful to the organization to be able to count that donor among their ranks to demonstrate that they have widespread support, for example, or to include that donor in future efforts to serve the community. My experience is that it’s not always just about the dollars and cents.

Answer: Thanks for adding your perspective. It’s understandable that a charity would prefer a small donation to no donation. The charity still gets some money, even after processing fees, and the opportunity to add another donor to their mailing lists.

Savvy givers, however, want as much of their money to benefit their favorite causes as possible. Giving larger donations to fewer charities is a good way to do that, since that approach minimizes processing costs as well as the volume of appeals for more donations. Also, adequately researching and monitoring 10 different charities is a tall order for most busy people. Winnowing the choices can help ensure we’re rewarding the best-run charities, rather than those that spend the bulk of their donations on fundraising and overhead.