You are currently browsing the archives for the pets category.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
January 16, 2009 by admin.
It’s a new year, and with a new year can come new developments.
Many new developments may have happened in your life in the past year or so; I know that that is true for me.
One of these events is my having gained about 9 pounds and a couple of inches on my waistline. This has led me to one my New Year’s Resolutions: Be Healthier. To accomplish this, I have joined an affordable gym, am working out more often, and am at least trying to eat less junk food (the soda I am drinking right now notwithstanding).
Many other significant things and events (more significant than gaining 9 pounds, even) have happened in my life within the past year or two. Because of this, another one of my New Year’s Resolutions is to write a new will for myself.
Why am I writing a new will for myself? After all, I am currently young, unmarried, childless, relatively healthy, and lacking in substantial wealth.
The fact of the matter is that most everybody probably *should* have a will. As I mentioned in a blog post earlier this month, when a person dies without a will, that is known as intestacy. Generally, intestacy is not a particularly good thing because it means the following:
For my own part, I am writing my will:
It is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan whenever you have new developments in your life, such as:
The above is not an exhaustive list, but should give you some clue as to when an estate plan is due for a review. Additionally, anyone with a net worth in excess of $2 million has no excuse to not have an updated estate plan in place.
Additionally, it is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan about every two to five years. If it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review, strongly consider contacting an attorney who can meet your estate planning needs today.
Now that we’re well into 2009, it’s important for clients and potential clients to realize how new tax laws impact their estate plans.
For starters, the annual gift tax exclusion has been increased to $13,000. The obvious implication of this is that an individual can now give up to $13,000 per donee per year tax-free. Additonally, these gifts can be split with one’s spouse – with the spouse’s consent – for a maximum of $26,000. Indeed, some married couples make their annual gifts as early in the calendar year as possible – to ensure that both spouses are alive at the time of the gifts (after all, a deceased spouse cannot consent).
Because of this, 2009 is a great time to review your trust plan and/or giving program (especially if it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review), so as to continue to maximize the use of lifetime gifting strategies. Additionally, all good trust plans, giving programs, and estate plans afford some degree of flexibility – not only to account for a client’s changing plans, priorities, and life developments, but also changes to applicable laws. Contact an attorney for your estate planning needs today.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Children, Gifts, Grandchildren, Gift Taxes, Probate, Wills, Living Trust, LinkedIn, pets, Intestacy, Divorce, Marriage, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 1, 2009 by admin.
Nearly one year ago, my parents adopted a puppy. She is an adorable Yorkshire Terrier named Bella.
My parents love this dog. LOVE this dog. Granted, she has a place in my heart, too, but…
Well, let’s put it this way: two quintagenarians cooing over this little puppy perhaps more enthusiastically than they might a grandchild is really a sight to see.
About two weeks ago, Bella turned one year old. My parents went all out and threw a birthday party for her.
A surprise birthday party.
For a dog.
Grown men and women hid, then shouted “Surprise!” at a puppy.
Then they had dog-safe cake.
(My mother – who has not baked so much as a cookie for her children in several years – baked an entire cake for the dog.)
Here is a picture of Bella dressed up for her birthday:
As you can clearly see from this picture, my parents either 1) absolutely adore Bella or 2) are insane.
Whatever the case, however – and despite the fact that Bella is of an entirely different species – my parents doubtlessly love Bella as a member of their family; this is something that is true of many – if not most – pet owners.
Unlike other members of the family, however, Bella cannot be provided for under traditional estate planning techniques. In simpler terms: poor Bella – beloved as she may be (perhaps even more than my brother and I) – cannot be a beneficiary under my parents’ wills.
As much a part of our families as our pets are – as much as we love our Rovers and Fluffies and Mr. Bun-Buns (et al.) – the law almost universally recognizes animals as no more than personal property. Under this premise, the law curmudgeonly concludes that, because items of personal property cannot inherit other items of personal property, it will not recognize gifts to pets.
The same goes for a trust – another common estate planning tool. To prevent trustees from doing things that trustees are not supposed to do, it is up to the beneficiary to enforce the terms of a trust. Under the traditional law of many states, an animal cannot properly enforce a trust; therefore, beneficiaries must be human.
So how does one provide for a beloved pet in their estate plan when only human beneficiaries are allowed in a will or a trust?
With a human beneficiary, of course.
Every trust has a purpose. Without a purpose, a trust fails.
The Honorary Trust was originally a device a grantor used as part of his last will and testament to ensure that one’s family members would take care of a piece of land or property – usually the grantor’s tomb (the grantor was frequently too distracted to take care of his tomb himself, being dead and all). Under an honorary trust, the beneficiaries use the money to take care of the designated property. They are under no legal duty to do so, but once they stop doing so, the trust’s purpose (i.e., the care and maintenance of the “honored” property) becomes frustrated, and the beneficiary loses all right to the trust money.
Obviously, a good way to ensure pet care post-mortem in states that have not legislated “pet trusts” is to set up an honorary trust to take care of the pet in question. Here, the pet is not the per se beneficiary, but receives the benefit of the trust funds by way of the human beneficiary. The human beneficiary is a beneficiary in name only; s/he is more of a guardian.
The trend is increasing in a number of states, however, to treat animals more like humans. Some states are making it easier to leave money to one’s pets outright. Additionally, as long ago as 1997, a Washington state court held that a chimpanzee could be an outright beneficiary of a trust (with a guardian ad litem, naturally).
For a nice, extreme example of the Honorary Trust in action, we need look no farther than the somewhat recently departed Queen of Mean herself, Leona Helmsley. The hotel empress and convicted tax evader provided in her will for a $12,000,000 trust to benefit (by way of a human beneficiary/guardian) her Maltese (“Trouble”) – an amount larger than any single bequest in Helmsley’s will. The appointed trust beneficiary/guardian estimated that care for the dog would run approximately $140,000 annually (most of this being for security; poor little Trouble had death threats against her at the time). Trouble’s veterinarian estimated that Trouble would live only another three to five years. In light of this information, a New York judge reduced the amount of Trouble’s trust from $12 million to $2 million – but upheld the trust otherwise (much to the chagrin, I imagine, of the human beneficiaries of Leona’s will).
So what’s the moral of this story? Well, I suppose it’s this (with apologies to the Helmsley Hotels):
If Leona Helmsley wouldn’t settle for an estate plan that didn’t adequately care for her pet, why should you?
As I mentioned above, Bella had a birthday cake at her party.
![]()
The cake is good for humans too. I had some. It is delicious.
Here is the recipe:
1 cup flour
1 tsp. baking soda
1 egg
1/4 cup peanut butter
1/4 cup vegetable oil
1 tsp. vanilla
1 cup shredded carrots
1 tbsp. honey (optional)
ICING/DECORATIONS: Cottage Cheese, Peanut Butter, Shredded Carrots
Mix flour and baking soda.
Add remaining ingredients.
Pour into greased 8″ round cake pan.
Bake at 350° for 30 minutes.
Let cool.
Puree cottage cheese in blender.
Ice cake with cottage cheese
Decorate with more peanut butter and carrots.
Serve and enjoy!
To see more of Bella, visit her website (yes, my parents have set up a website for her) at http://www.bellanaples.com.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in LinkedIn, Bella, pets, estate planning | Print | No Comments »