And to my faithful companion, I leave … – Pets in estate planning

I often refer to estate planning as the process of taking care of yourself now and in future, and taking care of those close to you – now, in future and when you are no longer around.  For the most part, the “those” are human beings, however that is not always the case.

Many people have very strong affection for their pets, and will wish them to be well cared for after one’s death.  For single or widowed seniors in particular, the implications of an owner’s death could be significant for the pet, perhaps even fatal.  Indeed, the pet may have to be ‘put to sleep’ if no family member or close friend is able and willing to step forward, and on fairly short notice.  (See sidebar Love you to death)  

On the other hand, consider the fortunes of Trouble, the Maltese lapdog to whom New York City landlord and real estate maven Leona Helmsley bequeathed the lion’s share of her estate on her death in 2007.  While Ms. Helmsley’s human descendants managed to have the value of the dog’s inheritance reduced, Trouble lived in the lap of luxury for years before heading to the great kennel in the sky.  (See sidebar No Trouble)

Apart from any legal issues, there are some practical concerns that a pet owner should carefully consider in choosing an appropriate successor owner/caregiver:

  • Does the person have the disposition and lifestyle to be a pet owner?  Does the person’s daily routine and work schedule allow for adequate care?  How do travel and vacations factor in?
  • Is the person physically up to the task?  Are there any safety issues (to pet or people), particularly where there are young children in the home?  Are there allergy issues?
  • Is there space to care for the pet?  Do condominium or housing rules allow pets?  What are the municipal bylaws in the case of exotic pets?  (See sidebars Lions… and Lizards…)  

And then there is the matter of money.  As any pet owner can attest, there is the cost of food, accessories, heath checkups, emergency medical care, and possibly boarding when the owner is traveling.  Multiply this by the pet’s remaining life expectancy and that can be a stiff financial burden to place on an individual or family.  On top of that, there can be a significant time commitment that in fairness should be compensated.

In Canada, a pet cannot be named as a beneficiary in a person’s Will or under a life insurance policy, so you can’t give the money to the pet directly.  Rather, pets are considered property, and could be given away during one’s life or be the subject of a gift to the intended caregiver in the owner’s Will.  This could be accompanied by a monetary gift to the caregiver with the understanding that it is to compensate for the pet’s future maintenance.    

If the pet owner is concerned that the caregiver may fail to fully carry out the wishes, it certainly is possible to establish a trust to provide for the cost of the pet’s upkeep.  The compensation to the caregiver would then be based on continuing to provide the appropriate care.  Of course this brings into question whether the right person has been selected, not to mention the complication and cost of drafting the trust and providing for its proper administration.

Above all, keep in mind how beneficiaries and family will respond, as a Will challenge can be costly, time-consuming and acrimonious even if legally unsuccessful.  As with many estate planning issues, open communication of the pet owner’s wishes is key.  It can uncover obstacles and options, and put the owner’s mind to rest that the pet’s creature comforts will be best served. 

———

SIDEBAR – Some notable animal successions

Love you to death – An Illinois woman left a $1.3 million estate to some animal charities, but directed that her own cat be euthanized, for fear it would end up in an abusive home.  The executor applied to court, and instead the cat was placed in a home with a reputation for caring for cats.

No Trouble – Leona Helmsley’s dog Trouble inherited $2 million.  It cost over $150,000 annually to maintain her in the lap of luxury to which she had become accustomed, including a personal body guard.  On Trouble’s death 3 years later, the remaining funds went to charity.

Lions & tigers & … lizards, oh my – An Ontario Serpentarium owner died unexpectedly of a stroke at age 52.  With no Will, a dispute arose over his 200+ exotic animals, requiring a six-week trial before his brother was awarded ownership.  The animals were donated to two zoos.

Above and beyond – Is a broker liable to a beneficiary?

The mere fact an issue is raised before a court can be enough reason to pay it attention. Win or lose, someone was willing to undertake the costly and taxing journey through the legal system, and the court’s findings frequently provide clarity as to where the boundaries of liability lie.

This was my reaction to the Gish v. Hooper Insurance and Financial Services Inc. case recently decided by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The key issues on the appeal were whether a life insurance policy was actually cancelled, and whether there was a duty of care owed to a beneficiary to allow for the policy to continue.

Be careful what you ask for

Robert and Margaret Gish ran a jewelry business for over 20 years, winding it up in 2004. On October 7 of that year, they met with their insurance broker, Bernard Hooper, to discuss their five-policy insurance portfolio with Transamerica, which included two life insurance policies on Mr. Gish. Hooper suggested they maintain the coverage, and the couple directed him to pull together more policy details for a follow-up discussion.

On October 22, Mr. Gish called Transamerica directly to cancel his two life insurance policies, but was advised that written notice of cancellation was required. Shortly after this phone call Mr. Gish faxed Transamerica a handwritten cancellation notice. Transamerica followed up with letters dated October 23, 2004, confirming the two policies had been cancelled as requested. On becoming aware of her husband’s actions, Mrs. Gish called Transamerica and learned the policies had been cancelled — much to her displeasure. 

Unaware the two policies had been cancelled, on October 28 Hooper faxed a request to Transamerica for information concerning the premiums on all policies held by Mr. and Mrs. Gish. It was in a November 3, 2004 email response to this inquiry that Hooper learned the two life insurance policies on Mr. Gish had been cancelled on October 22. The email also noted the cancellations were effective November 15 and 22, respectively — the paid-to dates of the policies.  

In subsequent consultations with the Gishs, Hooper did not discuss the cancellation of the two life insurance policies, nor note the effective date of the cancellations. The Gishs discussed their other insurance policies with Hooper during these meetings, but didn’t raise the issue of the two cancelled policies, let alone express concern over their cancellation. 

Robert Gish died in the spring of 2005.

Beneficiary claims against broker

After her husband’s death, Mrs. Gish commenced a lawsuit against Hooper, his brokerage and Transamerica, claiming there had been a breach of duty to her as beneficiary. 

Under the Insurance Act, certain parties, including a beneficiary, may pay premiums when the insured fails to do so — provided the payments are made within a specified late-payment grace period — to avoid the policy lapsing and being terminated for the non-payment of a premium. In this case, the assumption is the policy has not been intentionally cancelled by the policyholder, but rather is terminated or at risk of being terminated due to non-payment.     

Mrs. Gish claimed there was a duty to inform her, as the beneficiary, of this aspect of the governing legislation, which she thought she could use to keep the policies in force. 

The trial judge rejected Mrs. Gish’s argument, stating that the policies were not terminated because of the non-payment of a premium; rather, Mr. Gish cancelled the policies, which was his right as their owner. The appeals court confirmed this finding.

Should brokers be concerned?

This seems like an easy case for the judge to decide, as the facts show Mr. Gish cancelled the coverage. But what if the facts lined up differently?

As the appeals court judge commented, an insurer’s relationship with an insured is generally constrained to the terms of the policy and the governing legislation. The position of an insurance agent or broker is not so clearly delineated.

There is case law under which lawyers have been found liable to disappointed beneficiaries due to an error or omission in drafting wills or some other aspect of estate planning. Similarly, financial advisors have been found liable to disappointed beneficiaries where there was a failure to properly complete a registered plan beneficiary designation. In both cases, the professional was engaged in providing a service to a client, and the beneficiary’s claim would have required the services of that professional.

But would the law go so far as to impose an obligation on an advisor to seek out and advise a beneficiary of a right to pay a premium on a lapsed policy? I don’t know the answer, but if I am an advisor with knowledge of a potential lapse situation, I’d have the compliance department on speed dial. 

5 things to learn from a Client’s Will

Whether you see it as a core responsibility or a value-added proposition, reviewing a Client’s Will can be both a goldmine of information and a minefield of liability.  This is not a matter of second guessing legal advice, but rather a due diligence exercise to ascertain whether your financial advice properly aligns with the client’s estate planning.  

Effective financial advice requires a reasonable knowledge of a client’s intentions, and a comfort level that those intentions have been properly reflected in plans undertaken.  

A client may state and believe that his or her Will and surrounding estate planning is in order, but that may not necessarily be the case.  By digging a little further an advisor may uncover details that change the financial advice otherwise offered, or may discover information gaps that should be pursued with the client’s lawyer to assure that the combined advice achieves the intended results.

With one eye on providing useful and organized assistance to your clients, and the other firmly on your professional liability, take the time to advise the client in writing ahead of time what you are looking for in reviewing a Will and what you plan to do with it when you find it.  This way you manage expectations by tightly framing the inquiry, and in the process limit the potential of inadvertently straying into legal advice territory or otherwise having some unfortunate miscommunication.

Here are some high points to consider:

1) Is there a Will at all?

Despite an advisor’s thorough financial planning, the Will remains an important safety net that needs to be in place to catch things that are not disclosed or otherwise not adequately managed through the features available in financial products.

Apart from this protective attribute, the Will can be a launching pad for more sophisticated tax and estate planning that complements and boosts the value of financial product choices.  In particular, a Will can be used to create one or more testamentary trusts that can multiply future access to lower marginal tax brackets, which is the core of legally sanctioned income splitting.

Finally, a Will can be a great source of emotional comfort for the testator (the Will maker) now, and for the heirs in future at an otherwise bleak time.  In turn, this can ease estate administration costs and delays, and assist the advisor in securing an ongoing central role counseling the next generation. 

2) When was the last update?

Not surprisingly, most people are not clamouring to go back to their lawyer’s office to update their Wills any more often than they feel is necessary.  What each person may feel merits a review or revision, however, may not match up with legal reality.

A Will update is usually warranted where 

  • There has been a material change in the value or make-up of a person’s assets
  • Key people (or relationships with them) have changed, or 
  • There has been a significant passage of time

As well, significant matrimonial events – commencing or ceasing a common law relationship, marriage, separation and divorce – can affect a Will, sometimes causing its revocation and other times having little or no effect where one was expected and perhaps relied upon.

In the course of the financial advisor gathering a client’s information, one or more of these conditions may come to light.  If the Will pre-dates these conditions then the advisor may wish to inquire if the client has subsequently spoken with his or her lawyer.  Left unchecked, there is a risk not only that the client’s surrounding estate planning is uncertain, but further that the financial advisor’s own advice rests on a shaky foundation.

3) Are there trusts for minor children?

Every trust shares the characteristic of separating legal ownership from beneficial ownership, but the way each trust operates depends on how it is created.  Simply put, all trusts are not created equal.  

Never have truer words been spoken than when distinguishing trusts arising out of beneficiary designations on retirement plans and life insurance from those created under a Will.

A trust designation is often required in the forms used by a plan or policy issuer where a minor age beneficiary is intended to receive a benefit.  Be careful not to assume though that fulfilling this administrative requirement will be sufficient to properly manage the funds once the trust comes into being.  While the threshold creation of the trust may be achieved, the power to manage the trust property is often severely lacking. 

A Will can be used to cater trust terms that expand or restrict trustee powers and beneficiary entitlements, all as best suits the particular client’s needs.  Here are some fairly common provisions that can be used in a Will, but will not normally be available in a plan or policy trust designation:

  • Allowing the trustee discretion for fuller access to and use of funds prior to the beneficiary’s age of majority without having to seek government or court permission
  • Guarding against the uncontrolled distribution of all accumulated trust funds directly to the child at age of majority (or earlier for rolled over RRSP money)
  • Providing for contingency plans where unforeseen circumstances may arise: Disabilities, creditor problems, matrimonial problems, tax opportunities, etc. 

In uncomplicated situations, the plan or policy proceeds can simply be allowed to flow into the deceased parent’s estate as a conduit to arrive in the trust.  Where probate tax or estate creditors may be significant, more detailed drafting may be required to re-direct the funds into a separate trust that lies outside of the formal estate for these purposes.

4) References to beneficiary designations 

A common feature of many Will precedents is a blanket revocation of all past testamentary dispositions, sometimes including specific reference to beneficiary designations.  These boilerplate type references are likely insufficient to displace a proper existing beneficiary designation unless specific mention is made of the particular plan involved.  

Still, there is a danger that, upon a Will challenge, a solicitor’s notes indicate that the testator had indeed explicitly considered certain plans or policies in instructing the lawyer to draft the Will.  That may bolster a disappointed beneficiary’s argument that the Will supersedes one or more past such designations. 

Of course where a particular plan is mentioned, whether or not it is one managed through that financial advisor, that is a red flag.  Clearly the client (with the lawyer’s assistance) is willing to use the Will as an active instrument affecting financial products. Without clear and direct communication between the financial advisor and the lawyer, there is a risk that distribution of that component of the person’s estate becomes an unintended ping pong game based on whether the client saw the advisor or lawyer last.  

For a case where neither the Will nor the plan determined the ultimate recipient of life insurance proceeds, see the accompanying article on the Ogilvie case, entitled “Whither those life insurance proceeds.” 

5) Re-confirming beneficiaries, spelling and locations

Sometimes people give conflicting instructions to their professional advisors.  It could be: 

  • A considered uneven distribution
  • An unintended double counting of assets
  • A secret benefit for someone unknown to others
  • A failure to account for tax liabilities, or 
  • Just a misunderstanding of how assets may devolve if there is a death out of order.  

Clearly, where registered plans, insurance policies and Wills show different beneficiaries or significantly varied entitlements, it is worth inquiring whether this is intended or inadvertent.  

For a case where the apparent initial beneficiary entitlements were redistributed based on a judge’s exercise of discretion, see the accompanying article on the Doucette case, entitled”Challenging joint accounts.”

As to spelling of names, well typos do occur.  Whether the error is in the past information that made its way into the Will or in the current information provided to the advisor, a correction needs to be made.  It may in fact turn out that multiple names have been used in the past by the client, beneficiaries or other key people.  Either way, contradictory information can upset one or more elements of the financial and estate plan. 

With respect to the location of various people, a Will may refer to the general residence of an executor, trustee or beneficiary.  If these references are out of date with the advisor’s current information, particularly where provincial or national boundaries have been crossed, it may be that a Will revision (or at least a review) should occur.

In all cases this is not rocket science, just conscientious attention to detail.

——-

As stated off the top, inquiring about a client’s Will is a part of an advisor’s due diligence in providing the best – and best-suited – financial advice the advisor is capable of delivering.  A respectful, organized and informed inquiry will go a long way in solidifying the advisor’s value to the client.

Beyond that, such inquiries can be a springboard for discussions with a client’s estate planning lawyer, trustees and adult beneficiaries in an effort to complete the circle of planning for this client, and open up planning opportunities on into the next generations.