The Wealth & Wisdom Blog

When my wife and I were first dating, I had the opportunity to enjoy family dinners with her family.  Each of my wife, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, and their parents are very good cooks, and each of them have particular views on how a meal should be properly prepared.  Anlauf family dinners are characterized by great food and no shortage of opinions regarding the meal.  Early on, my brother-in-law, who also came to the Anlauf family by marriage, gave me this sage advice—whatever you do, enjoy the great food, but stay out of the Anlauf family kitchen.

Similar to the Anlauf family kitchen, some people create an estate plan in which there are too many cooks in the kitchen. (more…)

Most individuals need to establish an estate plan that names at least three separate legal “fiduciary” positions.  In some cases, it may be necessary to name as many as five (5) separate legal positions.  In some cases, one person may fill more than one fiduciary position, although it is important to carefully consider the roles that each person would play.

(more…)

For many Minnesota families, this is the time of year in which the family cabin is the physical epicenter of family life and the source of many great family memories. In order to allow these memories to continue after death, many of our clients wish to create a plan for the ongoing ownership of the cabin.  In order to create a realistic, long-term plan unique to each family’s situation, I usually ask the following questions:

• The Opportunity Cost of Cabin Co-Ownership. Are the children willing to forego a larger financial inheritance to be a co-owner in the cabin? Clients and their adult children sometimes need to be reminded that the retention of the cabin in a co-ownership structure is a “zero-sum game.”  By requiring the co-ownership of the cabin, those same children have less of a financial inheritance that they might use for other good purposes.
• Equal Use of the Property. Are all of the children in the same position to use the property equally? Especially if one or more of the children are not able or interested in using the cabin to the same degree as his or her siblings, it is important for advisors to clarify the clients’ own intentions when creating a legal structure that would require the children to continue to co-own the cabin.
• Ongoing Sibling Issues. Do the children have good relationships with one another?  Co-ownership is workable when siblings, as well as their respective spouses, have a history of amicable relationships.  If mom or dad are the peacemakers now, it is important to be realistic about these relationships after mom and dad are no longer around to “keep the peace.”
• Ongoing Expenses. Finally, are the children willing to help pay his or her share of the expenses? While some clients direct that some liquid assets be allocated to a “cabin expense fund” to help pay for cabin expenses after death, these funds will ultimately be depleted.  A plan should be devised for how those expenses will be paid once such an expense fund is depleted.

Possible Outcomes. The outcome of these conversations might result in any one of several different plans:

• The co-ownership by all of the children;
• The co-ownership of the cabin by only some of the children,
• Directions for sale of the cabin to one of the children at a specific price; or
• The required sale of the cabin to a third party.

As with so many elements of a thoughtful estate plan, each family’s plan should address the circumstances unique to their particular situation.

According to the Pew Research Center, more than 40% of American adults have at least one “step-relative”— that is, either a step-child, a step-sibling, or a step-parent.  I estimate a similar percentage of my own clients belong to this demographic. Each of these blended families has a unique plan for how assets are to pass at death. Some clients want to treat each of their children, together with their step-children, on equal footing. Other clients say, “We have agreed to pass all of our assets to our own children at death.” That is, these client intend to omit one’s spouse altogether.  Many of these clients are surprised to learn that, in the absence of a valid antenuptial or postnuptial agreement, Minnesota law is not well-suited for this plan. By reason of Minnesota’s “spousal elective share rules,” the surviving spouse is entitled to certain assets and can exercise certain rights to receive a deceased spouse’s assets even if a Will or Trust says otherwise.

Here are a few strategies that we have employed to assist our blended families to provide for their children:

(more…)

By Ryan Damhof, Attorney at Veritage Law Group.

For a variety of reasons, clients may desire to leave their belongings directly to their children, bypassing a surviving spouse. This is most common when a spouse has children from a previous relationship and wants to ensure certain assets (family property or inheritances, for example) reach their biological children. In the absence of proper planning, Minnesota law may prevent this from happening. For married couples, Minnesota recognizes a “Spousal Elective Share,” meaning the surviving spouse has the right to a percentage of the deceased spouse’s assets. Through this law, property can transfer to the surviving spouse in one of two ways: as exempt property or as part of the elective share.

(more…)