Using Joint Bank Accounts While Avoiding Litigation

Joint bank accounts come in several shapes and sizes and can be used for a number of purposes, including use by couples to manage their finances, use by adult children and their parents when mom or dad needs help paying monthly bills, and use by parents and their minor children when teaching the kids the basics about money. However, such accounts can step into complicated legal areas related to property law, questions of donor intent, and potential exposure to gift tax.

One of the most common ways that two or more people can legally own property together is through joint tenancy. Joint tenants share equal ownership of the underlying property and have the equal, undivided right to keep or dispose of the property.  Joint tenancy carries with it a right of survivorship, meaning that when one joint tenant dies, his or her property interest is extinguished and title to the underlying assets passes directly to the other joint tenants.

Joint bank accounts carry with them many of the characteristics of the joint tenancy and it is crucial depositors pay attention to these principals when opening their accounts, including a consideration of whether the joint bank account will include a survivorship provision.

This issue was addressd in a recent Washington Court of Appeals case, Taufen v. Estate of Kirpes.

In Kirpes, the court was presented with a joint bank account shared by a decedent and her friend that included a survivorship provision. The estate argued that the decedent did not intend for the account to include this provision, and that it was unilaterally added by the bank representative upon the opening of the account. The court explained that there was a rebuttable presumption that survivorship was intended when joint bank accounts were opened, and in this case the presumption was eliminated by clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent. The court looked at the the fact that the decedent was never asked about the survivorship provision, that it was added unilaterally by the employee, and that the decedent had only instructed the banker that she wanted to “open up a joint account.”

 

The outcome in Kirpes was a victory for the decedent’s estate in one sense, as the account was included as an asset of the estate. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals decision was announced over four years after the account owner died, so the account proceeds were unnecessarily tied up for 50 months and the estate incurred the legal fees associated with proceedings at both the trial and appellate courts. These costs and delays could have been avoided had the depositor been aware of her options (and of how to elect them) at the time the account was opened.

Who Will Manage Your Estate: Consider Carefully

Who do you trust to handle your financial affairs when you are gone?  Your first instinct may be to name a spouse or another family member, but sometimes we advise our clients to seek professionals to handle these duties - particularly with estates that own hard-to-value or unusually complex assets. The reason? This fiduciary (who may be called a personal representative, executor, or trustee, depending on the nature of the estate) may need to develop complex financial statements and tax returns, manage or oversee businesses, properties, or other investments, work in the center of emotionally-charged disputes, and/or be responsible for initiating legal proceedings on behalf of the estate.  So make sure you pick the right person for the job.    

The Washington Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case that outlined several of the responsibilities of a personal representative. In the case of In re Wegner v. Tesche, the court was presented with a parcel of property that was owned by the decedent and the appellant (Tesche) and which may or may not have included a survivorship provision. The property was the only substantial asset in the estate. The personal representative brought an action against the appellant to acquire title to the property in the name of the estate and later dismissed the claims against the appellant when the representative determined that the estate was not likely to prevail. The representative then sued the appellant for a portion of the fees incurred in researching the initial claim. The superior court awarded a portion of these fees and the court of appeals affirmed the lower court decision.

 

The Washington Court of Appeals reasoned that, as the personal representative of the estate, an individual has the obligation to pursue any and all property that may be included in the decedent’s estate. Here, there was some question as to the ownership of the parcel of land and, since the questions were based on legitimate concerns and on comments made by the decedent about the land, the representative had a duty to pursue the issue. The court then used its power to create an equitable remedy awarding some of the fees.

 

Your fiduciary has many obligations.  Choose accordingly - and please, please, PLEASE let them know the reputable and capable law firm that should guide them through the process.  Get a good team together to help your fiduciary properly shoulder the responsibilities.      

              

GAO Reports on Guardian Abuse

The United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO") released its 58-page Report to the Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate:  "Guardianships, Cases of Financial Exploitation, Neglect, and Abuse of Seniors."  (pdf) 

Although the "GAO could not determine whether allegations of financial or physical abuse by guardians are widespread," the report reveals horrific stories of abuse and three common themes:

1.  Abuse may occur when there is a failure by the court to adequately screen potential guardians, such as a failure to identify the proposed guardian's prior criminal convictions or signficiant financial problems;

2.  Abuse may occur when there is a failure by the court to oversee guardians; and

3.  Abuse may occur when there is ineffective or failed communcation between the courts and federal or state agencies. 

With the U.S. Census reporting that the number of Americans aged 65 and older increasing by 60% by the year 2025, this is an important matter for the financial and physical well-being of our aging population. 

Protect yourself, your family, and your loved ones with preventative estate planning to incorporate Powers of Attorneys, Trusts, Wills, or other legal documents particularly suited to your needs.

And certainly, if you suspect abuse, speak up.  Contact information to report suspected abuse in Oregon was previously posted on this blog.   

Too Good to be True?

The Portland Business Journal recently reported that Tony and Micaela Dutson were sentenced to 10 years for a tax-avoidance scheme. I represented clients that were sucked in by the Dutsons, so I am unfortunately familiar with their scheme.

The Dutsons made quite a bit of money selling abusive tax trusts. Not only did my clients pay these fees, they paid quite a bit more in penalties, interest, and attorney fees to unwind what the Dutsons had done to them. 

You may be thinking that the old adage, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” may apply here. However, there are many sophisticated tax planning ideas that my clients could have used that are perfectly legitimate to avoid paying more than their share of taxes as required under the law. Some of these ideas do sound too good to be true, but they work nonetheless.

The trick is finding competent counsel who will not lead you astray.  Micaela Dutson was an attorney, and had her certificate hung on the wall of her office showing she was a member of the Oregon State Bar. So what is a client to do? 

A client should not rely on any one professional when dealing with sophisticated tax planning. If your attorney has an idea for you, run it by your CPA. If your CPA thinks you should set up a trust, or move money offshore, ask your tax lawyer his or her opinion.

You may think this is just a ruse to get you to pay more fees by asking two professionals rather than just one, but I can tell you that as a matter of fact, I make much more money on cleaning up the messes others get into than on putting my clients into the tax planning strategies that I come up with.