My dead grandmothers lawyers are screwing us over.

[Shadowbunny]

You and the family are aiming your anger at the wrong person. Your grandmother (and apparently mother) had a chance to read over everything before signing. If they missed something, it is as much their fault as the attorney.

Additionally, when you say they "left out" assets, do you mean the house wasn't put in the trust's name?

 

[ALawyer]

It is almost inconceivable that an attorney preparing a Living Trust for a client would fail to also prepare a "pour over" Will addressing any assets not covered in the Living Trust and any after acquired assets that leaves such assets not originally in the Living Trust to the Living Trust. (Most lawyers would also make sure that the pour over Will was properly executed and witnessed.)

Where real property is involved, and title to the property is held solely in the name of the person for whom the Living Trust is being prepared most lawyers would also prepare and file a new deed transferring title to that property in the name of the Living Trust. If, however, title to the real estate were held jointly, with rights of survivorship, in the name of several people, so that the real property would pass automatically to those who survive, where the beneficiaries of the living trust were the same, there may have been no need to retitle the property as ownership would transfer automatically to the survivor(s), by operation of law, upon the death of a joint tenant.

 

[Dandy Don]

Has anyone checked with the bank to determine whether or not the bank accounts had designated beneficiaries or were there no named beneficiaries at all for the bank accounts?

 

[TrustUser]

It is almost inconceivable that an attorney preparing a Living Trust for a client would fail to also prepare a "pour over" Will addressing any assets not covered in the Living Trust and any after acquired assets that leaves such assets not originally in the Living Trust to the Living Trust. (Most lawyers would also make sure that the pour over Will was properly executed and witnessed.)

Where real property is involved, and title to the property is held solely in the name of the person for whom the Living Trust is being prepared most lawyers would also prepare and file a new deed transferring title to that property in the name of the Living Trust. If, however, title to the real estate were held jointly, with rights of survivorship, in the name of several people, so that the real property would pass automatically to those who survive, where the beneficiaries of the living trust were the same, there may have been no need to retitle the property as ownership would transfer automatically to the survivor(s), by operation of law, upon the death of a joint tenant.

i think you are giving lawyers too much credit, here. cuz that has not been my experience.

many, if not most, lawyers will prepare the trust, and not do any funding of assets - thereby getting some business, when they may have gotten none at all. and a pour-over will is not at all a standard for a trust, from what i have seen.

so i would not want to make those assumptions.

first, i think the op needs to find out what assets are in trust, and which ones are gonna end up passing thru probate

 

[LdiJ]

I live in Nevada and my grandmother recently died last month. My mother and her had the will and trust and all assets completely taken care of as to whom gets what. Since she has passed we are now finding out that the lawyers left out several pertinent assets. Mostly being my grandparents house. Since my grandmother is no longer with us we can’t have the will corrected. In short my grandmothers lawyer is screwing my entire family over. Is there anything that my mother and I can do?

If someone dies and they have a trust, then whatever is in the trust is distributed according to the trust. If someone has a will, then whatever is discussed in the will, and even the things that are not specifically discussed, are distributed according to the will.

If someone dies without a will or trust, then things get distributed according to the state intestate laws.

Anything that has a beneficiary, the item in question goes directly to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. It is not part of the estate or trust.

So, as you can see, there is a mixture of things that can happen with someone's assets when they die and there can be a mixture even if someone has a trust or will or both.

You won't get good advice unless you know and can describe exactly what is going on with your grandma's assets.

 

[TrustUser]

for the most part, a lawyer just needs to have his assistant make a few changes to a stock trust document before it is complete - almost zilch work for the lawyer, and zilch cost

on the other hand, preparing and recording grant deeds, etc. actually takes time

 

[TrustUser]

If someone has a will, then whatever is discussed in the will, and even the things that are not specifically discussed, are distributed according to the will.

i suspect that zigner was correct earlier on. it depends on how the will is worded. it is not an automatic that an estate item is gonna be distributed according to the will, unless the will makes some sort of statement about "all my possessions", etc.

for example, one could have a will just specifically to distribute certain items, with no intention of it distributing his full estate.

 

[LdiJ]

i suspect that zigner was correct earlier on. it depends on how the will is worded. it is not an automatic that an estate item is gonna be distributed according to the will, unless the will makes some sort of statement about "all my possessions", etc.

for example, one could have a will just specifically to distribute certain items, with no intention of it distributing his full estate.

i suspect that zigner was correct earlier on. it depends on how the will is worded. it is not an automatic that an estate item is gonna be distributed according to the will, unless the will makes some sort of statement about "all my possessions", etc.

for example, one could have a will just specifically to distribute certain items, with no intention of it distributing his full estate.

I would guess that most wills will have an "all other possessions" provision. In other words, will leave specific things to specific people and then will have an "all other possessions" provision for the rest of things.

 

[TrustUser]

i dont disagree with that, but i think there are enough wills that dont - that i would not want to bet my next month's salary on it !!

 

[LdiJ]

i dont disagree with that, but i think there are enough wills that dont - that i would not want to bet my next month's salary on it !!

Well, there certainly might be some, but the odds of one being written by an attorney, or even an online will writing service not having some sort of provision that deals with all of their assets has to be incredibly slim.

In fact, I think its far more likely that someone would set up a trust, and then neglect to have a will or to transfer all assets to the trust....leaving some assets to be dealt with on an intestate basis.

 

[Taxing Matters]

many, if not most, lawyers will prepare the trust, and not do any funding of assets - thereby getting some business, when they may have gotten none at all. and a pour-over will is not at all a standard for a trust, from what i have seen.

I don't know what experience you have with lawyers who do estate planning, but I always recommend doing the will with pour over provisions with most trusts that I prepare. Not all my clients want to pay for both, though, and of course if they only want to pay for the trust then that's all they get. I also provide the help in transferring asset to the trust that the client wants in the trust. The same is true for the other lawyers who practice estate planning in the jurisdictions where I practice. They will routinely do the pour over will and asset transfers, assuming the client is willing to pay for all that. Indeed, it is almost certainly malpractice in my state not to at least recommend that to the client.

But one of the problems this thread suggests to me is that the decedent apparently did not really sit down with any family members and explain exactly what the estate plan was and where the documents for it could be found. I encourage all my clients to do that. All those documents are worthless if no one who needs them can find them all after death. The OP in this instance does not seem to know what all the estate plan documents were that should have been there, telling me the decedent didn't tell anyone what the plan was and where the documents would be.

for the most part, a lawyer just needs to have his assistant make a few changes to a stock trust document before it is complete - almost zilch work for the lawyer, and zilch cost

on the other hand, preparing and recording grant deeds, etc. actually takes time

That is a rather simplistic view of what lawyers do when preparing trusts for clients. I certainly don't just hand off such things to an assistant for a "few changes" to one size fits all trust. That would be a disservice to my clients and not get them what they really. No two clients are exactly the same, and no two trusts that I do are exactly the same for that reason. Indeed, there are significant differences that are needed for some clients.

 

[TrustUser]

hi tm,

there is one thing that you must understand - from many discussions i have had with you, you ARE NOT the typical lawyer

that is a compliment !!

but the vast majority of trusts done are somewhat simple, and really do not need a bunch of differences. i am not really knocking the process. it is part of the reason why all these lawyers advertise trusts for 400-500.

i bet i get 1 a week in snail mail.

but at those prices, dont expect them to be preparing grant deeds. and while some of them may offer to do for a higher price, a lot of them wont say anything for fear of losing the business.

i could very easily take my trust document, fill in the blanks, and create one for someone else in less than an a hour. and it would meet and surpass the average person's needs. certainly those who are looking to get a $500 trust.

mine has tons of bells and whistles, because it addresses the trust as an entity that will manage the assets beyond death.

which again, is suitable for the vast majority of people.

 

[Taxing Matters]

but the vast majority of trusts done are somewhat simple, and really do not need a bunch of differences. i am not really knocking the process. it is part of the reason why all these lawyers advertise trusts for 400-500.

But the attorneys once they get the client in the door certainly should be at least recommending the other things that the client would need to make the trust plan work — the pour over will, transfers of assets, etc. If the client hears the recommendations and decides not to have the lawyer do them (because of cost or whatever other reason) then that is on the client.

I will say that I dislike those lawyer practices that sell canned revocable living trusts to everyone who walks in the door without really evaluating whether that would indeed best serve the client's needs. In my view, that's malpractice and is certainly poor client service. There aren't a ton of those firms in my area, but those that do don't have the best of reputations.

A number of my clients' estate planning needs are better met with devices other than trusts. But to know that I have to spend the time figuring out what the client has, what his/her goals are and talk them through the different alternatives. Trusts are great for a lot of people, but they aren't right for everyone.

 

[TrustUser]

will play the devil's advocate with you - first, the client has usually gone to an hour or 90-minute seminar held by the attorney

so i dont see it as too much different than buying any other product, doing its advertising

and as i said, it fills the bill for the vast majority of people

for those who need something more, that person is probably gonna be aware of that

i dont say it is perfect, but i think it is extremely helpful towards getting people to have something besides a will and probate process

i went to several seminars during my early stages

the biggest complaint i had was that none of them mentioned the ability of a trust to manage assets after death

and the main reason i am guessing is that the trusts being offered were not complete enough to do a good job

in my opinion, it is one of the most important aspects of a trust, and one in which many parents choose to do IF THEY KNOW ABOUT IT !!

so before purchasing, i think the attorney should reveal that capability to the client - which none of the ones i went to, did

 

[Taxing Matters]

the biggest complaint i had was that none of them mentioned the ability of a trust to manage assets after death

Clients using a revocable living trust merely as a will substitute don't need to control the assets after their death — they just want the assets distributed out to the people they want to get them. If that's all they want, then it's not problem. But your're right, they should know their options because there are a fair number of clients who can use more than just the basic will substitute.

There are three main situations I see where the ability to manage assets for awhile after death is important to clients. Of course, if the beneficiary is a minor or has some kind of special needs then setting up the trust to manage the assets for them is very important since they are not capable of doing it themselves. If the client is married then holding the assets in trust to ensure that the surviving spouse can make use of the assets for his/her needs is another popular use of the trust, especially with second marriages. Finally, for clients with young adults in college delaying full distribution until the kid has completed his/her education is a popular thing for clients to ensure that the kid doesn't blow it all partying (or whatever) and ends up without a good education to help him/her in life.

Far fewer clients want to control assets in trust outside those three situations. When the beneficiaries are all competent adults or charities there is little point to that. But I do explain the options to all my clients so they know what they can do and we can figure out how to then use those options to meet their goals. Lawyers who don't try to understand what their client would like to do and who don't explain the options and how they work are potentially leaving their clients with a poor estate plan.

first, the client has usually gone to an hour or 90-minute seminar held by the attorney

Yeah, I've been to a few of those to see what those trust marketing lawyers do. Frankly, I'm not a fan of what I saw.