What Really Happens to Your Estate if You Die Without a Will in Massachusetts?

Dying without a Will is called dying “intestate”. What this means is that your intentions as to who inherits your assets, who administers your estate, and who acts as guardians for any young children are determined by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is often said that if you don’t have an estate plan, the Commonwealth has one for you. And as of January 2^nd, 2012, the Commonwealth has an updated plan for you! That’s when the last phase of the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code (MUPC) takes effect.

It’s estimated that nearly 65% of Americans don’t have a Will. Fred is a healthy, vibrant sixty-five year old man. He exercises three times and week, and has made a conscious effort to eat well since his recent diagnosis of diabetes. After speaking with many close friends, Lenore, Fred’s wife, insists that they both create Wills. Fred insists that he is perfectly healthy, wishing to leave the issue of estate planning until he experiences further health problems. What if Fred was to die without a Will?

If Fred dies in 2012, or later, without creating a Will or using some legal method to transfer his assets, Massachusetts law, specifically, the rules of intestacy, determine what happen to your property. After payment of debts, expenses, administration and funeral costs, your property will be distributed to your heirs according to a predetermined legal formula. The problem is that the formula that the Commonwealth uses may not end up being how you would like your estate divided. If no relatives can found to inherit your assets, they are taken by the State.

Intestacy distribution, under the MUPC, specifies that if Fred dies leaving a spouse with no children and his parents are also deceased, his spouse receives everything. But, the same scenario if Fred’s father is still alive at his passing, Fred’s wife and father will each inherit from Fred’s estate.

What if Fred passed with a spouse and minor children? Then his spouse would inherit everything, regardless of whether his parents were still living. However, if one of his children was from a previous relationship, the current spouse and ALL of Fred’s children are heirs together and inherit a portion of his estate.

Despite the changes under the MUPC, Massachusetts Wills still have a spousal elective share clause, which means you can’t disinherit your spouse in your Will. In most cases the surviving spouse can elect to get the first $100,000 or $200,000 of the estate, plus a portion of the remaining property, instead of what their spouse left in their Will.

The rules of intestacy may appear confusing and difficult to apply given your unique situation. It is always best to determine how you would like your assets to pass through a properly executed Last Will & Testament, or even a Trust. In this way, you can ensure that family members you are not close with do not end up inheriting through your estate. You may also provide for step-children in the case of blended families.

The best way to truly ensure that your family is protected and that your estate is distributed the way you want it is to consult with a knowledgeable attorney’s office, like Vickstrom Law, who specializes in Estate Planning.

Pet Trusts Arrive in Massachusetts

I’ve written about Pet Trusts in a previous blog. They have many benefits for pet owners concerned about what would  happen should their animal outlive them. However, until recently, Pet Trusts were not available in Massachusetts. New Massachusetts legislation took effect on April 7th, 2011, bringing this important Estate Planning tool to the Bay State.  The remainder of this week’s blog was edited from an article written by Attorney Gina Barry of Bacon Wilson, P.C. in Springfield.

The Massachusetts legislature has finally recognized the strong bond that exists between man and animal by passing legislation that allows a pet owner to establish a trust fund to provide ongoing care for any animals alive during their lifetime. The Act states simply that “[a] trust for the care of one or more animals . . . is valid.” Prior to this legislation being enacted, an animal owner had to leave funds with a human caretaker, who would then agree to provide care to any animals.

The statute provides that the trust will not terminate until the benefited animal, or the last of several animals, has passed away. This assumes that the trust contains enough funds to continue to exist for that length of time. Thus, it is not enough to merely create a trust. You must also ensure that enough assets will be placed into the trust to provide the desired care. Some people overcome the lack of present funds by purchasing a life insurance policy that will pay into the trust when they pass away. Conversely, if the trust receives an excessive amount of assets, the statute also allows for a reduction of the funds, so long as there will be no substantial impact on the animal.

When creating a pet trust, it is necessary to name a trustee, who will be responsible for managing and investing the funds, as well as making distributions for animal care. Fortunately, failure to name a trustee will not be fatal as the statute provides that the court shall name the trustee in this case. The legislation also provides safeguards by restricting distributions to the trustee, with the exception of trustee fees, costs of administration and any other distribution authorized by the trust. Further, the statute allows for court enforcement of the trust if the trust funds are being misused.

When the last of the animals passes away, or if there is a reduction as indicated above, the funds would first be distributed as directed in the trust. If there is an absence of direction, the funds would be returned to the person who created the trust, if they are still alive. If they are not alive, then the funds would pass pursuant to the residuary clause of their Will. In the absence of a Will, the funds would pass in accordance with the laws of intestacy, which distribute your assets if you pass away without a Will. The best trust would provide for distribution of the balance within its terms.

Another important decision when planning for your pet is determining who will serve as your pet’s caretaker. While the statute does not restrict the trustee from acting as the caretaker, this arrangement is not recommended as it could lead to a lack of oversight with respect to animal care, trust fund management, or both. It is also recommended that you name at least one alternate caretaker, if not several, who would provide care if the originally named caretaker was unable to do so.

To ensure that the plan is carried out as intended, you should also address the following concerns. Remember that your pet will pass through your estate as personal property; therefore, you must leave your pet to the trust in your Will or by assignment prior to your passing. In addition, your plan should clearly describe the animal to avoid “replacement” of the animal by an unscrupulous caregiver who desires to continue receiving payments from the trust. If your animal has specific care requirements, you should be sure to clearly describe those requirements and to specifically authorize any expenditures that might be considered unusual or excessive. Finally, you should be sure to include strict guidelines for euthanasia and to address the final disposition of your animal.

Planning for the ongoing care of your animals has never been easier. If you have a current plan in place for the care of your animals, you should update your plan to take advantage of this new law. If you do not have a plan in place for the care of your animals, there is no time like the present to establish one.

How the New Massachusetss Safe Driving Law Affects You or Your Elderly Loved One

The Safe Driving Law has officially become effective in Massachusetts as of Sept. 30, 2010.  Massachusetts now joins an increasingly growing number of states that ban texting while driving.  However, a major part of this bill is also targeted at elderly drivers who are over the age of 75.

On June 2, 2009, a 93-year-old driver hurt a mother and toddler in a stroller when he drove his car into a Danvers Wal-Mart. He stepped on the gas pedal because he thought he was stepping on the brake.  The next day, a 73-year-old Middleboro driver accidentally drove her minivan into a crowd of people attending a Vietnam War Memorial in Plymouth. As a result, eight people went to the hospital. Read this blog for more information.  In an effort to reduce the number of accidents involving elderly drivers, Massachusetts legislators passed the new Safe Driving Law.

The new Safe Driving Bill is eight pages long but can be reduced to a few major points affecting elderly drivers:

• Drivers can no longer compose, send or read text messages while driving.
• If you’re 75 years old or older, you must renew your drivers license in person at the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
• If you’re 75 years old or older, you have to take a vision test every five years when you renew your license.
• A health care provider or police officer who feels an individual cannot mentally or physically operate a motor vehicle safely can request an evaluation of the person’s ability to possess a license.  Such a request, however, cannot be made solely based on a person’s age.

The law is also designed to remove problem drivers from the road and encourage people to drive more carefully by reducing the number of “surchargeable incidents” (anything that causes insurance premiums to rise, including at-fault accidents, speeding tickets, etc.).  A driver involved in three such incidents in a two year time span faces license suspension.

Rodrigues Case and Pending Massachusetts Legislation make Homestead Protection for Trusts a Reality (Finally!)

On February 23, 2010, the US Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts finally did what the Massachusetts state legislature has been unable to do for years: the court ruled that the Massachusetts Homestead Exemption is applicable to an owner whose property is in a revocable trust. Since this decision, In re Rodrigues, Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 09-11960-JNF, the legislature has been working to pass a new statute that will replace Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 188, the statute concerning homesteads. The legislature is very close to passing a new law. Today we will review the Rodrigues decision, the pending Massachusetts legislation, and how it may be beneficial to you.

Olga M. Rodrigues and her now deceased husband purchased a home in September 1979. Mr. Rodrigues died in 1994, and Mrs. Rodrigues became the sole owner of the home. Shortly thereafter, she transferred the home into a revocable trust where she was the trustee and her children were the beneficiaries of the trust upon her death. Once the home was transferred into the trust, Mrs. Rodrigues no longer owned the legal title to the home; at the point, she only owned equitable title. In April 2008, less than a year before bankruptcy proceedings were filed against her, Mrs. Rodrigues executed a Declaration of Homestead and recorded the declaration in the Bristol County Registry of Deeds. The declaration stated that she owned, possessed, and occupied the home as her residence and homestead under the Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 188. This declaration was only partially correct because she did not actually own the home, but she did possess it and she was occupying it.

Currently, the law dealing with the Massachusetts Homestead Exemption states that a homestead interest “may be acquired … by an owner or owners of a home or by one or all who rightfully possess the premise by lease or otherwise.” M.G.L., c. 188, §1 (2007). Although Mrs. Rodrigues was no longer a legal owner of the home, when she recorded her Declaration of Homestead, she rightfully held possession of the home and evidenced her intent to occupy the premises as her principal residence. Judge Feeney, the bankruptcy court judge in this case, held that Mrs. Rodrigues’ actions satisfied the Massachusetts law concerning homestead and that she had validly exercised her homestead exemption. The result of this case has encouraged the Massachusetts state legislature to rewrite M.G.L., c. 188, to make it clearer and include language about trusts and the homestead exemption.

Going forward, the proposed law moving through the state legislature specifically uses language allowing a trustee of a trust containing real estate to make a declaration of homestead for the person or persons occupying the premise. The law states that the person claiming the homestead exemption must prove that he or she is using or intends to use the home as his or her principal residence. If this law passes, holding your home in a trust may be a safe way to protect it from unsecure creditors. Please visit the current text of Senate Bill 2401, An Act Relative to the Estate of Homestead.

More Protection Than a Health Care Proxy Alone?! MOLST- a Pilot Program in Worcester

Some people think that Elder Law and Estate Planning attorneys are only useful further down the road. They think, “I’m healthy. I don’t need to worry about those things now.” Even while you are healthy, there is one document that everyone over the age of 18 should have in place: a Health Care Proxy (HCP). A health care proxy is necessary to ensure that someone, a health care agent, will be available to make medical decisions for you if you are unable to make them on your own because you are incapacitated. Currently, in Worcester County, another form is also worth considering: the Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. This medical order works with the HCP to inform your health care agent and your doctors what you actually want to happen in various circumstances.

In April 2008, the Massachusetts Health Care Quality and Cost Council (MHCQCC) issued its annual report recommending that Massachusetts establish a pilot program to improve communication between patients and clinicians, and other interested parties, regarding end of life treatments. The MHCQCC found that many patients nearing the end of life were unaware of the treatment options available to them, or, if patients had been aware of such treatment options and had discussed them with their doctors previously, nothing was in place to ensure that their preferences were honored. Therefore, the Massachusetts legislature enacted legislation in August 2008 establishing a demonstrative program for the MOLST process in one community in Massachusetts: Worcester. (Yay, Worcester!)

The MOLST form is fairly simple and easy to read; the most difficult part is actually making the decisions and putting them down on paper. The form is only two pages long, and only two sections must be completed in order for the form to be honored. These two sections are Section D (patient information – specifically who is signing the document on behalf of the patient) and Section E (physician information). In   Section D, it is possible for the patient, the patient’s health care proxy, or the patient’s guardian to sign on his or her behalf. If a guardian is signing for the patient, the guardian must ensure that s/he has the legal authority under the guardian appointment to do so. This may require consultation with the patient or guardian’s Elder Law attorney.

If any other section of the form is not filled out, the health care agent is not limited in his or her decisions for life-sustaining treatment for the patient. Sections A, B, C, and F ask the difficult questions regarding resuscitation, intubation and ventilation, hospitalization, respiratory support, dialysis support, and artificial nutrition and hydration. It is critical that you speak with a physician before making these decisions so that you fully understand the meanings of the terms used and the potential consequences. Once these sections are filled out, they must be honored by all health care professions in Massachusetts, where clinically appropriate. The MOLST form is different from a Living Will or another document expressing your “final wishes” because it carries more authority and is more likely to be honored. A Living Will or final wishes document is only used by health care professionals to keep your wishes in mind when making decisions about treatment. While the MOLST form is not currently legally binding, health care professionals are strongly encouraged by the state to honor it.

Finally, Section G simply asks for the contact information of the health care agent. There is also room on the form for other treatment preferences, in which you can more clearly articulate your wishes. There is an expectation that the form will be reviewed throughout the patient’s life so that if his or her preferences change, those preferences will still be honored.

View a sample MOLST form here.

MOLST in Massachusetts from Commonwealth Medicine on Vimeo.

Safe Driving Bill Approved by Massachusetts House of Representatives

On February 4, 2010, the House of Representatives in Massachusetts amended and approved a bill dealing with safe driving in the Commonwealth. If passed by the Massachusetts Senate, this bill will have a direct impact on the senior citizens of Massachusetts because it will require drivers over the age of 75 to renew their licenses every 5 years instead of every 10 years.

Issues concerning elderly driving have been in the news on and off for many years now, but after a series of accidents involving elder drivers last year, the state legislature is looking to make some changes. The current bill does not just involve seniors though. It also seeks to completely ban text messaging by all drivers, and it provides for higher penalties for drivers under the age of 18 who are caught using cell phones while driving.

For seniors, the requisite 5-year renewal will include passing a vision test that will be administered at the local branch of the registry of motor vehicles. However, the bill would permit the registrar to create regulations allowing seniors to submit a vision screening certificate, signed by an optometrist or ophthalmologist that asserts they meet the minimum vision requirements to hold a driver’s license.

This bill further seeks to allow health care providers to notify the registry of anyone over the age of 16 whose cognitive or functional impairments make it unsafe for them to drive. Decisions regarding whether to revoke a license will depend more on the effects of the cognitive or functional impairment, rather than simply on the diagnosis of such impairment. More detailed regulations will be drafted by the registry with the assistance of various health care professionals, and any reports filed under this section of the proposed law would remain confidential.

Finally, this bill seeks to codify a rule that drivers of any passenger vehicle shall not use mobile telephones, hands-free mobile telephones, or any other mobile electronic devices while driving on duty.This section was drafted in response to the rising number of accidents involving the T in recent years where drivers were text messaging, or using mobile electronic devices in other ways.

Now that the House has published and amended the safe driving bill, it moves on to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. State Senator Stephen M. Brewer, is one member of the Ways and Means Committee, and he represents parts of Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, and Franklin. If you are interested in voicing your opinion on this bill, call Mr. Brewer at (617) 722-1540, or email him at Stephen.Brewer@state.ma.us.Click here for the full text of the current bill.

Proposed Massachusetts Legislation Could Change the Way Assets are Counted for MassHealth

How often do you feel like you know what your state legislators are doing? The whole process can be mysterious and confusing. This week I would like to shed some light on the subject and tell you about a potentially helpful piece of legislation currently pending in the Massachusetts state legislature.

The proposed law would change the way assets are counted when determining whether a spouse in a nursing home, or certain other institutions and community based programs, is eligible for medical assistance through MassHealth (Medicaid). For MassHealth purposes, the spouse in the nursing home is called the “institutionalized spouse” and the spouse still living at home is referred to as the “community spouse.” Currently, under Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 118E, subsection 21A, many different types of income and asset types of both spouses are considered countable for purposes of determining eligibility. The total amount of countable income and assets are major factors the Division of Medical Assistance takes into account when determining if the institutionalized spouse is eligible for medical assistance from the Commonwealth (MassHealth/Medicaid).

The proposed legislation, sponsored in the State House by Representative Alice Peisch, and sponsored in the State Senate by Senator James Eldridge, would alter the language in the statute to make some assets that are currently countable, no longer countable. The proposals in both houses are identical. The proposed legislation would make any money held by the community spouse in an IRA, Keogh plan, or other pension fund non-countable assets as long as regular income distributions are made from the fund OR the community spouse is employed. This means that those assets would not affect the institutionalized spouse’s eligibility for medical assistance. This would come in handy in lots of potential situations, but especially in situations like a spouse in their 50’s suffering from early onset dementia, where the community spouse is still working. Many spouses in their 50’s, 60’s, and even early 70’s still work and more importantly have to work to make ends meet.

This change in the law would also be hugely beneficial to aging couples who have worked hard and diligently saved their money. If one spouse is institutionalized, the community spouse still needs to have the means for adequate support. No one should be penalized for following their financial planner’s advice and putting money away for retirement. In this system, frivolity and impoverishment would no longer be the only path to assistance from MassHealth.

The proposed legislation has been referred to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, and a public hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2010, at 1:00, in Hearing Room B1. If you are interested in learning more, contact State Senator James Eldridge. He represents parts of Middlesex and Worcester county. Most importantly, if you would like to see this legislation passed, contact your own local representative and express your support.