The following was written by Luke Lantta of Bryan Cave’s fiduciary litigation team and originally posted here. 

When the IRS enacted the portability election provisions in 2011, which allowed estates of married taxpayers to pass along the unused part of their estate and gift tax exclusion amount to their surviving spouse, it remarked that it “expect[ed] that most estates of people who are married will want to make the portability election. . . .”  But, to elect portability, an estate tax return must be filed in order to pass along the exclusion.  So, what happens when an executorrefuses to elect portability?  Take them to court, of course.

U.S. v. McNICOL 829 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2016) (cert. denied 1/9/2017)

Trusts and Estates practitioners often focus solely on the Tax Code found in Title 26 of the United States Code and ignore other parts of the United States Code (U.S.C.). However, it is a mistake to do so as Marci McNicol learned first-hand. In this case, the Federal Priority Statute found in 31 U.S.C. § 3713 came into play to impose liability on Marci for the decedent’s unpaid Federal income tax liability.

Here, at the time of his death, the decedent owed over $300,000 in Federal income taxes. As a result of this and other liabilities, the decedent’s estate, which consisted almost entirely of interests in two closely held companies, was insolvent. Marci, the decedent’s widow, transferred decedent’s interest in one of the companies to herself even before the court had appointed

The Missouri Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Robert T. McLean Irrevocable Trust v. Ponder,[1] a case involving the question of whether a Trust Protector could be held liable in not exercising the right to remove and replace the Trustees of a special needs Trust.

The Robert T. McLean Irrevocable Trust (the “Trust”) was created with settlement proceeds from Robert McLean’s (“Robert”) personal injury case.　 Ponder was appointed “Trust Protector” of the Trust with the right to remove the Trustee and appoint a successor Trustee.　 The Trust Protector was also given the right to appoint a successor Trust Protector and to resign as Trust Protector.　 The Trust also provided that the “Trust Protector’s authority was conferred in a fiduciary capacity” and that the Trust Protector was not liable for any actions taken “in good faith.”　 The Trust did not provide Ponder with any

With research and drafting assistance from Washington University extern, Kelsey Delong.

In Williams v. Hubbard, et. al., the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a beneficiary of a decedent’s estate would be entitled to funds from the decedent’s account if the payable on death (“POD”) beneficiary or joint owner of the account was found to have procured the beneficiary or ownership interests through undue influence. In this case, the court found that the beneficiary could have rights to some of the decedent’s multiple accounts, but not all of them.

In this case, Betty Margaret Reynolds (“Betty”) hired Respondent Kenneth Nelson to draft several of her estate planning documents, including a beneficiary deed, a 2000 Will, and a 2006 Will. The beneficiary deed named Appellant Eric Williams as the sole beneficiary of certain real estate owned by Betty. The 2000 Will drafted named Norma Lamp and Erma

Originally posted on bryancavefiduciarylitigation.com

Individual trustees who must administer real property often attempt to save the trust money by personally making certain improvements, repairs, or maintenance to the property.  They then charge the trust for the work they performed.  As the Nebraska Court of Appeals points out in In re Estate of Robb, however, these acts – however well-intentioned – may be self-dealing and can put the trustee in a position of a conflict of interest, which can warrant removal from that fiduciary position.

When Mason D. Robb died, his son, Theodore, became the personal representative of his estate and the trustee of the inter vivos Mason D. Robb Revocable Living Trust.  The trust contained three pieces of real estate.

Under the terms of the trust, the trustee was to hold and use the trust property to pay administrative costs and the debts of the settlor and for the

With research and drafting assistance from Washington University School of Law student, Kelsey DeLong.

In Estate of Lambur, the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether an attorney-in-fact is permitted to gift the principal’s property to herself when the gift is not expressly authorized in the power of attorney.

In 2005, Verna Irene Lambur (“Irene”) executed a durable power of attorney naming her nephew’s wife, Anna Stidham (“Anna”), and Jackie Johnson (“Jackie”) as her attorneys-in-fact. The power of attorney granted Irene’s attorneys-in-fact the following power:

“To establish, change or revoke survivorship rights in property or accounts, beneficiary designations for life insurance, IRA and other contracts and plans, and registrations in beneficiary form; to establish ownership of property or accounts in my name with others in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship and to exercise any right I have in joint property; to exercise or decline to exercise