Question on Living Trust & Attorney Fees

[Moritat]

A previous post convinced me to use an attorney to prepare my will. (I live in Illinois if it matters). I did have a referral on a local attorney and spoke to him. He said his fee for a will for a single person is $700. He added that his fee for a Living Trust is $2800. I do plan to speak to several more attorneys before deciding, but I had a few questions. First, I wonder if it's really necessary to do a Living Trust? I have a Condo and about $700,000 in cash and cds. I also own a car and a handful of valuables.

I do have an executor, so I'm set there. I have no kids, so I'll be leaving this to a few relatives, 7 or 8 friends and a few organizations. There really won't be any hurry to get any of this into the hands of beneficiaries. I just want to make sure my cash and belongings will eventually get to the correct destinations safely and without problems. So is a Living Trust neceessary? Also, please give me some feedback on the fees I was quoted for a will and for the living trust. I think both quoted fees are a bit high, but I'm not certain. I really appreciate your assistance in educating me through this process.

 

[FlyingRon]

Absent a spouse or any descendants that you need to provide for, your inkling is right, there's no particular need for a living trust.

A trust does absolutely NOTHING until you title some asset into it. Put a beneficiary (TOD or whatever) on your investment / bank account. Presumably the condo isn't anything anybody wants personally, let the estate liquidate it. I don't know what you mean by "valuables" but most of them can't likely be titled to the trust anyhow.

 

[adjusterjack]

He said his fee for a will for a single person is $700. He added that his fee for a Living Trust is $2800.

The fee for the will seems OK since you contemplated many distributes but I've seen Living Trusts quoted for a lot less than $2800. It's mostly boilerplate with which the lawyer need only make a few modifications for you.

First, I wonder if it's really necessary to do a Living Trust?

I don't think so. Illinois allows transfer on death deeds for real estate. For simplicity use one for a single beneficiary and provide in your will that the beneficiary gets whatever personal property is in the condo (including your "valuables") so there is no fighting over anything.

For the money accounts you can list as many beneficiaries on the accounts as you want with whatever percentages.

For the car specify in your will who gets it. The Illinois DMV has a simplified method of taking title to an inherited vehicle with or without probate. Scroll down to Inherited Car Title Transfers:

https://www.dmv.org/il-illinois/title-transfers.php

I'm in a similar situation: Single, house, personal property, cars, cash, no debts. That's how I put it all together. Daughter gets some money, sister gets everything else to do with as she wishes.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I don't know what you mean by "valuables" but most of them can't likely be titled to the trust anyhow.

A trust may own any property, including personal property that does not have a title document. Thus, a trust may own furniture, computers, household goods, jewelry, and anything else you can think of.

 

[adjusterjack]

A trust may own any property, including personal property that does not have a title document. Thus, a trust may own furniture, computers, household goods, jewelry, and anything else you can think of.

Just out of curiosity, how would one convey ownership of those items to the trust?

Bill of sale "for valuable consideration" (or some such), listing the items?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Just out of curiosity, how would one convey ownership of those items to the trust?

The same way one would transfer them to anyone else. Where the grantors maintain use and possession of the property, however, it would be a good idea for them to create a contribution agreement (a written document that lists the assets the grantors are contributing to the trust).

 

[Moritat]

If I was certain the executor would properly distribute the property, I assume I could just leave items to various individuals in the will, without a trust. Would this be correct? If so, then would the advantage of a trust be that the attorney him or herself would contact the individuals and distribute everything? I guess I'm looking for the exact advantage the trust would have over just a will in distribution of valuables.

 

[Taxing Matters]

If I was certain the executor would properly distribute the property, I assume I could just leave items to various individuals in the will, without a trust. Would this be correct?

That is correct. If all the assets are to be distributed promptly to the beneficiaries outright after your death then a will could be all you'd need. Whether a trust or a will you want the executor/trustee to be someone you trust to carry out your wishes. You don't have to appoint an attorney as trustee of the trust — any competent adult can do that. And any competent adult can be the executor of your will, too.

There are various kinds of trusts and different reasons for using them. The most common trust used in estate planning is a revocable living trust. The principal reasons for using them over just a will are:

1. In states where probate of an estate tends to be slow and costly the use of a trust can save money and speed up resolving everything because trusts bypass the probate process.

2. Trusts are private documents. In most states the contents of a trust are not made public record unless there is litigation over the trust. Wills on the other hand are available to anyone to read once the will is filed for probate.

3. You can do a few things with a revocable living trust that you cannot do in a will. Some of those shortfalls in a will can be overcome by creating a trust in the will itself (known as a testamentary trust) but in a few circumstances having the trust created and funded before death rather than after death is important.

There are other ways to avoid probate for many assets other than a trust, like using pay on death (POD) beneficiary designations on bank and other financial accounts, using transfer on death (TOD) deeds for real estate in states that allow them or putting the real estate in joint tenancy with a right of survivorship, etc.

There are some trust promoters out there who will say that trusts are always the best way to go. They want to sell you their product, so of course they want you to believe that is always best. But the fact is that if you are in a state where probate costs are reasonable and probate isn't real slow, you don't care if the whole world sees what you had and who gets it, and there is no special circumstance where a trust would be particularly useful, a will may be all you need. Even in states with high probate costs, you might still do ok with just a will and using POD designations & TOD deeds (if the state allows them), especially where your assets are primarily financial accounts and real estate.

A good estate planning attorney who is not a big trust promoter can assess your situation and give you objective advice on what would work best for you given your goals, the specific assets you have, and the laws of your state (and the laws of any other state in which you have property).

 

[TrustUser]

i am a big trust promoter, and i dont make a dime from it !!

most any free trust from the internet will do the job, if all you want is a WILL WITHOUT PROBATE

tod designations are often limited to just 1 person

within a trust, you can distribute to as many people as you want, and whatever percentages you want

 

[Taxing Matters]

most any free trust from the internet will do the job, if all you want is a WILL WITHOUT PROBATE

I disagree with that. I've seen a lot of trust documents on the internet available for free that are poorly done and would not do a good job in any jurisdiction in which I practice. You take a risk using some document of unknown quality off the internet, and if it turns out the document is bad neither you nor your estate or trustee would have a claim against the creator of the document. You want to get it right, see an estate planning attorney. Sure, you spend some money in fees for that, but you are much more likely to get a good set of documents that meet your exact needs than if you just pull something off the internet.

 

[TrustUser]

there is not much that needs to be done with a document that merely distributes assets. that is a hidden truth that professionals do not want us peons to know.

i have seen many trusts that do a fine job. and one can start with that document, and make whatever changes are necessary. of course i am not a professional, and therefore have no reason to push anything.

if the op was asking about a trust that lives on, and manages assets, then i would agree with you that very few, if any, internet trusts are good enough to do that job.

might i ask you to inform all of us just why you considered a particular document was poorly done ? and why it would not do a good job ?

specific reasons.

there is not much that needs to be done to merely distribute assets to beneficiaries, when the grantor passes.

i will tell you that you are using that same argument that any professional will use - you better use a professional to do your job for you, or the world might cave in

while there might be a few people who make bad choices, the vast majority of them will come out okay.

and those same people who made bad choices of their own, are also just as likely to choose incorrect attorneys. or do you also want to argue about how good all attorneys are ?

some attorney that is charging $2800 for a glorified will ? if nobody else wants to say it, i will - WHAT A RIP-OFF !!

there are many, MANY attorneys who have living trust seminars. i have been to many of them. they are typically charging 400-500. and this is california, where dang near everything is more expensive.

i have seen all these trust documents. actually, they are not bad. they are certainly good enough to be glorified wills.

they have a relatively simple trust document that they probably got for free off the internet. made a few changes to it. and now market it.

for the most part, there are a few name changes, and the document is prepared. so there is no need to charge a bunch of money for any one sale. and for most people, these documents are more than enough to do the job that they are looking for it to do.

this op sounds pretty intelligent, to me. i doubt if he needs an attorney to deal with what appears to be a very simple set of needs.

after reading a few trusts, or a few wills, i feel fairly confident that he can ascertain for himself what things are necessary, and what things are not.

but then again, i am not a professional, have no skin in the game, and therefore no bias.

as someone who dealt with consultants in my job on an ongoing basis, i can tell you that almost none of them are unbiased. yes, you heard correctly, none of them.

even if the consultant is honest, he knows one system better than the other, and will almost always recommend the system that he is comfortable with.

 

[Taxing Matters]

there is not much that needs to be done with a document that merely distributes assets. that is a hidden truth that professionals do not want us peons to know.

i have seen many trusts that do a fine job. and one can start with that document, and make whatever changes are necessary. of course i am not a professional, and therefore have no reason to push anything.

I think you have a bias you are not seeing. From what I have seen of your posts on this site you have a bias that trusts are the better answer over most anything else for estate planning and a bias that anyone can do a decent job of themselves. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just recognizing that the bias is there.

You and I each come at this with a different perspective and background, and each have the biases that are inherent in that. I'm a lawyer who has done estate planning for a lot of clients. I have seen many who did not realize that their situations were a bit more complex than they thought or did not know about other options available to them that would work better. I have also seen clients come in with stuff they prepared themselves using forms off the internet that were, frankly, pretty poor. And I have the seen the problems that came about after the person died that would not have occurred if they had used something drafted better. Lawyers tend to see the problem cases — the ones where things work fine we don't tend to see. So that is why I say that people are more likely to get a good estate plan and well drafted documents from an attorney than pulling something off the internet and using it without having any idea if its good and not having any idea of their state's laws. You on the other hand don't do estate planning for others or handle probate for others and thus would not see the problems that I have seen. That leads us each to a different perspective and a bias that results from it. I respect your perspective on it, even though I don't share it. But I don't buy that you are totally objective in this.

 

[TrustUser]

i think we are using the word "bias" in different ways. the way you are using it, seems not to have much meaning, in that you are equating the words opinion and bias.

of course i have an opinion. when i use the word "bias", i am referring to an opinion that has something to do other than the evidence. therefore we either have biased opinions or unbiased opinions.

many attorneys have biased opinions, because they have personal income involved, etc.

i am not accusing you of having biases, for this reason. just saying it is extremely common in any field.

i have also discriminated between ongoing trusts and glorified wills.

as long as you only want a glorified will, i think most online trusts are fine, in accomplishing that task.

the reason that i created my own trust document was because i wanted one that was gonna be ongoing.

there were actually a few on-line trusts that were at least good starting points for a managing trust.

i started there, and ended up making lots of changes, and additions. and then getting rid of all the lawyerese.

you are correct - i do think that a trust is best in most circumstances.

and i have very little problem with people using one of these cookbook trusts from one of many, many attorneys advertising living trusts.

as long as they are paying $500, or so.

i stepped into this thread, mostly when i saw the $2800 figure.

at 500, i have no problem with your basic argument - use one prepared by an attorney, so you can minimize your risks.

 

[Taxing Matters]

i stepped into this thread, mostly when i saw the $2800 figure.

at 500, i have no problem with your basic argument - use one prepared by an attorney, so you can minimize your risks.

Fair enough. I don't charge $2,800 for a basic revocable living trust that serves as merely a will substitute either. And in my home state, for a lot of people even that is not really needed. A simple will often does just as well since probate in this state is not very expensive or time consuming and there are probate alternatives that are just as effective as a trust for that purpose. So I am not as big an advocate of trusts as you are. They have their uses, but there are other options that are useful too. It really comes down to the client's circumstances and goals as to which works best.

One of the important things an estate planning lawyer does is advise the client of all the possible ways to achieve the client's goals and help the client decide among them. If person already knows what they want to do (and you have decided that for you a trust is the best way to go) that's great. If what they want to do is simple enough and they are comfortable taking the risk of using some document online, they can do that and avoid the cost of a lawyer's fee. But a lot of people don't know what all the options are or how to properly use them, and for them paying a lawyer can be well worth it. Of course, one does not want to overpay for that (or for any service) so it pays to shop around a bit and not just go with the first lawyer you talk to.