New Yorkers Planning to Make Gifts Towards the End of their Lives should Document them Thoroughly
{Read in 7 Minutes} As a Trusts and Estates attorney, I routinely represent?Executors?and Administrators of?Estates. Once a?Surrogate’s Court?has issued?Letters?to the Estate’s fiduciary, one of the first jobs of the fiduciary is to?investigate?and figure out what assets the decedent held. Some of them are easy and obvious, like bank accounts, brokerage accounts,?retirement accounts,?life insurance?policies, or tangible?personal property?in their home. However, sometimes a dispute comes up regarding a transfer that the deceased made shortly before death that the?beneficiaries?are now arguing about.
Here’s an example of how a scenario like this plays out:?
When one makes a gift of an item, there is often a dispute about whether it was a gift or a loan of the item. When the Surrogate’s Court makes a determination on this fact, they will look to see if the three elements of a gift are met. First, did the donor plan to make a gift? Second, did the donor deliver the item to the recipient? And third, did the recipient accept the gift? You may say, “Well, this shouldn’t be a problem because Mom’s adult child now in possession of the item can simply get on the witness stand and testify about their conversation with Mom.” Right?
WRONG. New York has a rule of evidence known as the “dead man’s statute.”?CPLR 4519?No, this is not the newest sequel to the?Pirates of the Caribbean?film franchise. Rather, it is a rule of evidence that precludes people from testifying about self-interested transactions with a deceased person. This means that this child is unable to testify about the discussion with Mom and is probably going to lose the case unless there is some other extrinsic evidence of this transfer.?
So, if you are planning on making a gift of a valuable item, or if someone is making a gift of a valuable item to you, consider the following:?
Note?— It doesn’t even have to be written. Consider this: Mom and adult child had a discussion about making the gift. Supposing one of them, with the consent of the other, took out their iPhone and turned on the video camera and recorded the conversation. That’s something that is admissible to Courts about what happened because it’s not simply one-sided testimony. The video speaks for itself and the?jury?will be able to draw their own conclusions.
领英推荐
Who are some good candidates for this? People who have a real relationship with Mom, who can testify that Mom was in?her right mind. She wasn’t under any sort of?undue influence, and detail exactly what Mom said. This person might be another family member. It might be a co-worker or an employee, or it might even be Mom’s attorney. Any of these people are great. However, you might want to consider having more than one person, and ideally, one who is younger than the donor because if they die, they also cannot testify. (To my knowledge, the Surrogate’s Court has yet to hold a séance!)
This is good advice whenever someone is making a gift, but also, if they are writing a Will?disinheriting?one or more close?family members.?
So, much like a lot of things in the Trusts and Estates world, a little bit of careful planning goes a long way. After all, what good is having an estate plan if it doesn’t effectively achieve a person’s wishes?
For more information on this topic, please?contact me.
Thomas Sciacca
(212) 495-0317