Tag Archive for: Spencer Turner

Wills v Trusts

Wills v. Trusts: What’s the Difference?

/in /by
Wills v Trusts
What is a Will?

Often, the first 10 minutes of an estate planning consultation involve explaining the differences between a Last Will and Testament (or, simply a “Will”) and a trust. Each may have a critical role to play in a client’s estate plan. A Will is a testamentary instrument, which is a lawyerly way of describing a document that does not become effective until an individual’s death. In other words, a Will is merely a stack of paper with words and a few signatures until the individual executing it (called the “testator”) has passed away. Texas law provides stringent requirements for the proper execution of a legal, valid Will.[1] After the testator’s death, his or her Will must be “admitted to probate” by a court of appropriate jurisdiction. This requires someone (usually the executor) going before a judge and proving up all the various requirements of the Will. Only then can a personal representative take control of the deceased testator’s property, wind up his or her affairs, and distribute the estate in accordance with the Will’s provisions.

What is a Trust?

By contrast, a trust describes a relationship between three parties: (i) the settlor, (ii) trustee, and (iii) the beneficiaries. Thus, a trust is an abstract intangible thing, so it is not a document at all. Also, unlike a Will, a trust may become effective during the grantor’s life, or at death, and there is no requirement that a trust be proved up, authorized, or otherwise sanctioned by a court. To establish a trust, a settlor simply entrusts property to a trustee, who accepts a legal obligation to manage, administer, and distribute that property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Each of these parties may be a single individual or a group of people. Even though the trust itself is amorphous, the terms, conditions, standards of distributions and other guidelines for this trust relationship are often memorialized in a written document called a “trust instrument.” A trust instrument may be a stand-alone document, or it may constitute a section in a testator’s Will. Either way, a single trust instrument will often govern many different trusts.

Trusts can take an endless variety of forms and serve myriad purposes. Many trusts are created to achieve special tax, asset protection, or wealth transfer goals. But when clients are weighing their options between a Will and a trust for estate planning purposes, they are generally thinking of a “revocable living trust.” This is commonly structured to have an individual or couple simultaneously serve as the settlor, trustee, and initial beneficiary. Revocable living trusts are similar to Wills in that they dictate what will happen with a person’s property when he or she dies. Thus, they remain a standard tool of estate planning attorneys.[2] 

Deciding whether a Will or a (revocable living) trust best matches a given situation will depend on the particular client’s needs, goals, outlook and other circumstances. Often, a Will is all that is needed in Texas to plan a person’s estate. In some circumstances, however, a revocable living trust will better address the situation. Understanding the fundamental distinctions between a Will and a trust is an important starting point to both a client’s decision about the overall structure of his or her estate plan, as well as the client’s ability to maintain that estate planning structure in the years to come.

Spencer Turner

Spencer Turner is an associate attorney at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. Since obtaining his license to practice law in 2016, Mr. Turner has focused his legal efforts primarily in the trust and estates arena. He has been featured as a speaker on various aspects of the probate process at several seminars hosted by the National Business Institute. Spencer is a graduate of from Baylor University School of Law.

[1] See Ch. 251 of the Texas Estates Code.

[2] Mr. Turner and Christian S. Kelso, Esq., a partner at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP, recently co-authored an article for the State Bar of Texas’ Continuing Legal Education program. The article is entitled The Alchemy of Revocable Trusts: Creating the Perfect Solution for Each Client’s Problem, and may be found among the written materials for the “Handling Your First (or Next) Trust 2021” webcast.

How to Solve the Probate Homestead Conundrum

Resolutions to the Probate Homestead Conundrum

/in /by

Under Texas law, a surviving spouse has the right to reside in the marital home until the surviving spouse either abandons the home or dies. But this so-called “probate homestead” right does not extinguish the ownership interests of remaindermen (co-owners, heirs, or beneficiaries) under the decedent’s will.  

How to Solve the Probate Homestead Conundrum

The responsibilities of the homestead claimant (the surviving spouse) include paying ad valorem property taxes, costs of maintenance and repair, and interest on any existing encumbrances (e.g., a mortgage), avoiding “waste” and preserving the property, and funding any permanent improvements on the property. The homestead claimant is also entitled to all fruits, rents, and revenues derived from the property. The remaindermen must maintain insurance on the property and pay the principal on any existing encumbrances, such as mortgage principal. Texas law permits the surviving spouse to sell the homestead and use the proceeds to acquire a new homestead with the same rights and obligations as before.

These dynamics can strain a relationship, particularly between a stepparent and stepchildren. To lessen the strain, Texas law does not permit remaindermen to force a partition of a probate homestead. A common resolution to this conundrum is for one party to buy out the other party’s interest in the home, if both sides are willing.

Assuming the surviving spouse is the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, another option is for the surviving spouse to request authority from the court to purchase the home from the estate. Under Texas law, a personal representative of an estate may purchase estate property if the court determines that the sale is in the estate’s best interest.

If the home needs to be sold to satisfy debt associated with the property or the decedent’s estate, the personal representative can offer to purchase the property for an amount that would satisfy the debts or by assuming the debt associated with the property itself. Some factors weighing in favor of the purchase of the property by the personal representative include, but are not limited to, co-ownership of the property by the estate and the surviving spouse, as well as probate homestead rights. Both factors can greatly diminish the marketability of the property to a third-party buyer. The court is likely to find that a purchase of the property by the personal representative is in the estate’s best interest if the proposed purchase is the only viable option for settling the debts of the estate.

The lawyers in our firm have successfully assisted individuals in negotiating a buyout of either the homestead claimant or remainderman’s interests in the property; selling the probate homestead and using the proceeds to acquire a new homestead; and obtaining court authority for the purchase of estate property by a personal representative. Should you find yourself in a probate homestead conundrum, the attorneys at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter are here to help you navigate a resolution.

Jessica Dunne | Farrow-Gillespie & Heath LLP

Jessica Dunne is a senior associate attorney at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. Jessica has substantial experience in probate, guardianship, and trust litigation, with a special interest in adoptions. Jessica graduated cum laude from Baylor Law School in 2011 where she was the recipient of the Presidential Scholarship.

Spencer Turner

Spencer Turner is an associate attorney at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. Since obtaining his license to practice law in 2016, Spencer has focused his legal efforts primarily in the trust and estates arena. He has been featured as a speaker on various aspects of the probate process at several seminars hosted by the National Business Institute. Spencer is a graduate from Baylor Law School.

Executing Texas Estate Plans in the Era of COVID-19

/in /by

These are unprecedented times, even for estate planning attorneys. The advent of COVID-19 has “persuaded” many clients to either consider establishing an estate plan for the first time or to re-assess their current estate plans. As a result, estate planning attorneys across Texas are working hard during this period of great uncertainty to develop and protect their clients’ legacies.

Yet a finely crafted estate plan is useless if it is not properly signed and executed. Texas law has strict parameters for the signing of certain estate planning documents. For example, a valid will in Texas must be in writing, signed by the individual making the will (the testator), and attested by two or more witnesses. The witnesses must be within the physical presence of the testator when witnessing the execution of the will. A notary public signs the will as well (though this is technically not a requirement under Texas law). Between the testator, witnesses, notary, and estate planning attorney, a total of five or more people typically attend a will-signing ceremony. In the era of COVID-19, that’s a social faux pas. Government regulations may forbid a gathering of such size, and in the author’s experience, clients are presently uncomfortable with exposure to more than one non-family member at a time. Therein lies the chief problem facing estate planners: how to safely convene with clients to sign and execute their essential documents?

Governor Greg Abbot’s Emergency Order

In recent weeks, Texas Governor Greg Abbot has attempted to provide estate planners with a method for electronically notarizing wills, powers of attorney, and other estate planning documents. Typically, a notary public must also be in the physical presence of a client while he or she is executing a will. Governor Abbot’s emergency order enables a notary to instead observe a will-signing ceremony over Zoom or similar “electronic means.” The notary would then need to receive a faxed or scanned copy of the will (or other estate planning document) and affix his or her signature and stamp to the same. The notarization process is complete upon the notary’s return of the will and other estate planning documents to the client by scan or fax. This temporary fix aims to alleviate the need for large gatherings and can help clients execute their estate plans without undue delay.

Concerns with Electronic Notarization

But as with any temporary amendment to the law, Governor Abbot’s relaxation of notarial standards remains fraught with questions and legal concerns. For one, the required witnesses must still physically attend a will-signing. That fact alone may still dissuade clients from pursuing execution of their estate plan during the pandemic. Questions also remain about the extent of Governor Abbot’s authority to authorize such a suspension of Texas law. Probate litigators may later capitalize on the legal uncertainty surrounding wills notarized by electronic means and initiate a contest in probate court[1]. All this to say, estate planners must proceed with caution when utilizing electronic notarization for estate plans. Certain clients and potentially contentious dispositions of property in an estate plan may not warrant this unproven method of execution.

Trusts and Holographic Wills

However, estate planners have developed another creative approach to this executionary quandary brought on by COVID-19. Trusts can provide a workaround for the more stringent execution requirements of a will. A valid trust in Texas only requires the signature of the client seeking to establish the trust. As a result, clients may print the final version of a trust instrument and sign in the safety of their own home. No public gatherings are necessary.

A trust’s terms provide for the disposition of the client’s property upon death, much like a will. But for a trust’s terms to be effective, a client must transfer his or her assets into the trust. This can be a tedious task involving the drafting of deeds, assignments of interest, and many more documents. A client might also need to personally visit a financial institution to change accounts into the name of the trust: another no-no in the era of COVID-19.

A holographic will might serve as the catchall for assets that have yet to be transferred into a client’s trust. Unlike typewritten wills, a holographic will is entirely in a client’s handwriting. Texas law does not require witnesses or a notary to sign holographic wills. A client could then print and sign the trust while also drafting his or her own holographic will (with an attorney’s instruction) to sign as well.

These homemade, holographic wills are only intended as an interim solution. But they ensure that the assets in a deceased client’s estate will “pour over” into the trust that he or she established, thereby making the estate assets subject to the trust’s dispositive terms. In short, a properly drafted trust and holographic will can provide clients with a temporary fix to the dangers of gathering in larger groups for signing a will and other estate planning documents. Together with the electronic notarization of wills and estate planning documents, these methods give estate planners a chance to achieve their clients’ goals in the midst of the current pandemic.

Spencer Turner

Spencer Turner is an associate attorney at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. Since obtaining his license to practice law in 2016, Mr. Turner has focused his legal efforts primarily in the trust and estates arena. He has been featured as a speaker on various aspects of the probate process at several seminars hosted by the National Business Institute. Spencer is a graduate of from Baylor University School of Law. 

[1] Few things excite probate litigators more than a video of an elderly testator executing his or will. An astute attorney can use a recorded Zoom session to sow doubt and concern among members of the jury regarding the elderly testator’s mental capacity.

Spencer Turner | Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter

Those Pesky Trusts! A Brief Primer on Terminating Unwanted Trusts

/in /by
Spencer Turner | Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter

Estate planning attorneys often wax poetic about the multitude of advantages found in a simple trust instrument. They’re not wrong. A well-crafted trust is an excellent vehicle for addressing a client’s concerns under a variety of different circumstances. Clients may place assets in a trust for tax benefits, creditor and divorce protection, planning for incapacity, family dynamics and a host of other reasons.

Yet no trust exists without a level of complexity and sophistication. Every trust has a trustee who must fulfill strict fiduciary duties and carefully manage the trust assets for the beneficiaries. The terms for distributing property from the trust may involve difficult calculations or restrictive standards that are not easily met. In some cases, a trust instrument’s vague provisions may leave both the trustee and beneficiaries confused as to how to proceed with the trust administration. Eventually, these complexities may become overly burdensome. Life circumstances may also render the trust’s intended benefits and purpose unnecessary.

Whatever the reason, trustees and beneficiaries often find themselves stuck with a trust that no longer meets their needs. But many of these trusts are or have become irrevocable and cannot be unilaterally terminated. Trustees and beneficiaries should not despair, however. Texas law has recognized several different ways to modify or ultimately terminate those pesky trusts.

A. Uneconomical Trusts

The Texas Trust Code enables a trustee to terminate a trust whose assets are valued less than $50,000. The trustee must consider the purpose of the trust and the nature of the assets, and ultimately determine that the value of the assets is insufficient to match the costs of continued administration. A common example of this occurs when a trust established under the provisions of a deceased person’s will receives only minimal funding from the deceased’s estate. The amount held in trust often does not justify the time, effort, and cost in administering the trust.

B. Combining Separate Trusts

Typically, the Texas Trust Code does not allow the outright termination of a trust without petitioning a court of proper jurisdiction for approval. But its provisions do allow for combining two or more separate trusts into a single trust without a judicial proceeding. This is only permissible where the combination would not impair the rights of any beneficiary or prevent the trustee from carrying out the purposes of either trust. Again, this is a great tool for consolidating trusts established under a deceased person’s will.“

C. “Decanting”

Another alternative to judicial termination of a trust, “decanting,” is the distribution of trust assets from one trust to a new trust that may have slightly different terms. The helpfulness of this provision of the Texas Trust Code largely depends on how much discretion the original trust grants the trustee. An attorney will need to carefully evaluate the level of variance the new trust may have under the circumstances.

D. Judicial Termination

A trustee or beneficiary may petition a court of proper jurisdiction to order the termination or modification of a trust. However, the grounds to do so are limited and specifically outlined in the Texas Trust Code. Petitioners should not expect a quick and easy process; terminating a trust in a court of law requires careful preparation, evidence, and a willing judge.

E. Termination by Agreement

Texas case law has recognized that in certain instances the settlor, trustee, and beneficiaries of an irrevocable trust may collectively agree to terminate the trust. This is a great tool if all parties are agreeable. But it does have its drawbacks. If the settlor is dead, then no agreement may be reached. Furthermore, an incapacitated beneficiary may not enter the agreement, further halting any opportunity to proceed under this method.

Trusts are excellent vehicles to achieve any number of tax, asset protection, or family dynamics-related objectives. At some point, these irrevocable trusts may become burdensome and unnecessary. An attorney may use the methods mentioned above to terminate or modify those pesky trusts.

Spencer Turner | Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter
Spencer Turner

Spencer Turner is an associate attorney at Farrow-Gillespie Heath Witter LLP. Since obtaining his license to practice law in 2016, Mr. Turner primarily has focused his legal efforts in the trust and estates arena. He has been featured as a speaker on various aspects of the probate process at several seminars hosted by the National Business Institute. Spencer graduated from Baylor University School of Law.