Summary Judgment in a Contested Accounting Proceeding- Part II

As explained in our prior post from May, the high standard imposed on a fiduciary creates a low burden for a party to contest the fiduciary’s accounting. Thankfully, the fiduciary may move for summary judgment to dismiss objections that ultimately turn out to be meritless.

But what happens when the opposing party questions the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s conduct. Is the appropriate exercise of the fiduciary’s discretionary power always a question of fact necessitating a hearing? The simple answer is no.

The general rule in New York is that a court will not interfere with the exercise of a trustee’s discretion except in limited circumstances (see e.g. Matter of Hilton, 174 App Div 193 [1st Dept 1916]; Matter of Mitchell’s Will, 30 Misc 2d 781 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1961]; Matter of Irrevocable, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 3899 [Sur Ct, New York County Dec. 14, 2005]). A party therefore may generally not advocate that the court should substitute its judgment for that of the Trustee’s. This is not the appropriate standard (see Matter of Hilton, 174 App Div at 193; Restatement [Third] of Trusts § 50). Rather, the party opposing summary judgment should tender evidence of fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion to justify a hearing (see e.g. Matter of Hilton, 174 App Div 193 [1st Dept 1916]; Matter of Mitchell’s Will, 30 Misc 2d 781 [Sur Ct, Kings County 1961]; Matter of Irrevocable, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 3899 [Sur Ct, New York County Dec. 14, 2005]).

In Matter of Hilton, 174 App Div 193 (1st Dept 1916), for example, the appellate court reversed an order of the court below for an increase in annual trust payments to the beneficiary, based on the lack of any evidence demonstrating an abuse of discretion (see also Matter of Irrevocable, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 3899 [Sur Ct, New York County Dec. 14, 2005]; Restatement [Third] of Trusts § 50). Similarly, Matter of Mitchell’s Will, 30 Misc 2d 781 (Sur Ct, Kings County 1961), the court declined to set the matter down for a hearing unless the Objectant submitted proof that “the trustees’ action amounts to an abuse of discretion, bad faith, arbitrary action or fraud.”

In short, there are numerous cases granting summary judgment in favor of the fiduciary in accounting proceedings. This is especially true where the trust agreement provides the Trustee with discretion and there is no evidence of any abuse of that discretion.

Inheritance By Non-Marital Children

I recently read an article on People.com about a poor young man who became “Lord of the Manor” after DNA proved he was the heir of a wealthy British aristocrat (https://people.com/human-interest/care-worker-inherits-60-million-english-estate-dna-test/). This got me wondering what happens in New York when a non-marital child shows up after the parent is deceased and demands his inheritance. Does he have a right to inherit Mom or Dad’s estate? How do the marital children, if any, respond to his demands?

New York Estates, Powers and Trust Law Section 4-1.2 specifically addresses the question of inheritance by non-marital children. In New York, a non-marital child is the legitimate child of his mother and can inherit from his mother and from her family unless specifically excluded.

But, the rules are different for a non-marital child to inherit from his father’s estate. Before a non-marital child can inherit from his father, paternity must first be established. Section 4-1.2 sets out three methods to establish paternity: (i) an order of filiation issued by a court during the lifetime of the father; (ii) a signed acknowledgement of paternity by the father; or (iii) clear and convincing evidence of paternity, which may include, but is not limited to, DNA evidence or evidence that the father openly and notoriously acknowledged the child as his own.

In some situations, the father either did not know about the child, or he kept the existence of his secret love-child from his family. One way an unknown or secret non-marital child can establish paternity would be through DNA evidence. The burden is on the non-marital child to prove he is the decedent’s child with clear and convincing evidence. First, the non-marital child must commence a Surrogate’s Court proceeding to establish inheritance rights to the father’s estate. A pre-trial motion can then be made for an order to posthumously perform a DNA test.

A court may grant a motion for posthumous DNA testing where the non-marital child provides some evidence that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity and establishes that the testing is practicable and reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. (Matter of Poldrugovaz, 50 AD3d 117, 129 [2d Dept 2008].) Factors that courts consider include (i) whether evidence presented demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the testing will establish a match; (ii) the practicability of obtaining the tissue sample for the purpose of conducting the test, including whether it is readily available; (iii) whether there is a need to exhume the decedent’s body or obtain the sample from a nonparty; (iv) whether appropriate safeguards were, or will be, taken to insure the reliability of the genetic material to be tested; and (v) the privacy and religious concerns of the decedent and or his family members. (Matter of Betz, 74 AD3d 1459, 1463 [3d Dept 2010].) The rule is to safeguard the estates of decedents from fraudulent claims. The last thing grieving families need is to have someone show up claiming to be their father’s child and demanding his inheritance without any evidence to back up his claim.

Contribution by Jacque K. Vincent, J.D.

An Interview with an Estate Litigation Attorney (Part 2)

Q. What skills should an Estate Litigation Attorney possess?

A. An estate litigation attorney is required to know the law in several critical areas. First, it is mandatory that the attorney fully understand the law pertaining to the making of a valid will or trust, as that is often the heart of the contest. An estate litigation attorney must know and understand how estate planning attorneys operate and how they develop and achieve a client’s estate plan.

An estate litigation attorney must also know the state and federal procedural rules of the court cold. The attorney is equally required to know how to prove the client’s case. For example, it must be second nature for the estate litigation attorney to prove that a will was properly prepared and signed under the statute that prescribes how to make a valid will or that a person making a will lacked legal capacity or was subjected to undue influence. An estate litigation attorney must not only know the four basic objections to a will, but also know how to either prove a valid objection or successfully defend against objections lacking merit in to obtain a dismissal.

Q. Are there other skills that come in handy?

A. Strong litigation and in particular, trial skills are a tremendous advantage. Many lawyers who draw a lot of wills and trusts and plan estates, try to handle the estate litigation. These well-intentioned but misplaced efforts often result in case failures or settlements too generous to the other side due to a lack of significant estate litigation and negotiation experience. Lawyers with a lot of experience in lawsuits are better suited to taking the deposition testimony of witnesses under oath as they are accustomed to dealing with non-cooperative and evasive witnesses, shades of truth and confrontations with documentary evidence.

Q. Do you need to understand medical proof?

A. It is mandatory. The estate litigation attorney must have significant professional experience with medical/legal matters. It is impossible to handle a case where the decedent’s capacity is an issue if you do not fully understand the medical details of the decedent’s condition. In order to properly handle the case, the lawyer must be fully versed in all medical issues involving the decedent, fully understand all of the medical records and charts, diagnostic tests and results and ultimately, know how to legally prove the decedent’s condition in court. There are countless dismissals of objections that allege only that the decedent was old, of advanced age, senile, demented, weak or sick. Without more and strong medical and lay person evidence, these claims are properly dismissed for failures of proof.

It is a recipe for disaster in a case where a lawyer is unfamiliar with the medical terminology, practices and procedures. Not only can it be embarrassing but the medical witnesses become frustrated with what they perceive to be a lack of preparation and skills.

Q. Why does the Estate Litigation Attorney need to know how lawyers work?

A. Inevitably estate and trust litigation often is an intense study and critique of the drafting attorney’s work and conduct. An objectant’s attorney ordinarily is critical of the work, seeking to attack it to cause the instrument to fail in court. The attacks range from the basics pertaining to the paperwork to the leveling of allegations of attorney misconduct and negligence. In these cases, a strong attorney defending the estate knows the standard of care required to be upheld by the drafting attorney and brings out the drafting attorney’s good work and fine product.

Q. Is invalidating a will or trust in New York courts easy?

A. No. The law favors validity of wills and trusts that are properly prepared and signed. The law makes it difficult to upset valid planning put in place by a decedent. This makes sense for a number of good reasons. First, the law favors and encourages people to plan their estates. The law is deferential to decedent’s lawful intentions rather than imposing generic dispositions. In New York, the law takes it a step further to add a presumption of validity to wills that are signed under the supervision of an attorney. Further, in New York the level of capacity required to make a valid will is quite low. The law sends a strong message to residents who take the time and often incur substantial expenses to plan their estates, that the law will make the success of the estate plan more likely than challenges attempting to destroy it.

Hard Promises – Multi Court Cases For Tom Petty

In 1981, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers released the album Hard Promises, containing the single:  The Waiting.  In it, Tom sings, “oh baby don’t it feel like heaven right now?  Don’t it feel like something from a dream?  Yeah, I’ve never known nothing quite like this”.

Tom’s lyrics uncannily describe an opposite reality of the evolution of what on its face appeared to have been careful and deliberative estate planning on his part.  The most recent turn in Tom’s estate plan is that his daughters (from marriage number one) have just filed their own lawsuit against his widow.  The fight continues for Tom’s valuable artistic catalogue.  We now have developing hard knuckles estate litigation.

It is increasingly common that a family’s estate litigation does not occur in a single court.  The trend is multiple legal disputes in more than one jurisdiction – sometimes at the same time.

In all of his work planning his estate, Tom likely never envisioned that his survivors would be fighting in court – let alone two courts at one time.  His wife Dana’s petition in probate court sought to have the court approve a professional manager to handle the catalogue of Tom’s legendary works.  In that probate court, his daughter Adria, filed another probate petition to wrestle control of the estate from Dana.  So, in Tom’s estate the initial battle line was formed by two applications for competing relief in the same court.  This is not all that uncommon.  Probate court is often confronted with dueling petitions competing for the same or similar relief.  The classic arguments are that one party or another is better suited or more fit to handle the fiduciary duties for the estate than another competing party.

Beyond dueling petitions (often termed “cross petitions”) in one court for the same relief, what prompts litigants in these cases to pursue more fights in various and different courts?  In many cases separate initiation of multiple suits by the same parties are driven by the nature of the relief available in a particular court.  In Tom’s case his daughters started their separate lawsuit in a state court in California.  That is not atypical in more complicated or asset laden estate disputes where the claims are directed by persons, seeking to gain benefit from the estate, against individuals who stand in their way or who have themselves allegedly benefitted to the detriment of the other party. 

While the Surrogate’s Court in New York has jurisdiction over the handling of the estate and many related proceedings, many estate disputes spawn and emanate satellite litigation in New York State Supreme Court.  Litigants start proceedings in that forum for injunctive (restraining orders) and other relief, including money damages.  Some litigants sue the other party for breach of a fiduciary duty in the other forum or sue to recover items of property (replevin) or money (conversion).  Sometimes the state court is called upon to address alleged breaches of contract or matters pertaining to administration of trusts related to the decedent’s estate.

In Tom’s case the claims seem to be less esoteric and more direct.  His daughters claim that his widow deprived them of their role in “equal participation” in determining how his works are released.  In short, their argument is that this phrase means that the two of them have a majority vote representing two thirds of the three ladies handling the decisions. 

That position and the argument is the same as that which they advanced in the probate court dispute.  What motivates advancing the same argument in another court?  Perhaps it is that his daughters are actually forum or judge shopping.  It could be that they sense that the probate court forum favors Dana.  Their logic may not be that far off.  It is often asserted that a probate or Surrogate’s Court is a friendly forum for the estate and the individuals designated by the decedent to handle the estate.  The thinking is that the probate court is overly protective of the estate and the decedent’s nominated fiduciary – often bending over backwards in deferential accommodation to the alleged talismanic “decedent’s intent”.  It is also possible that the daughters, after having filed their competing petition in the probate court, sense an unfavorable reception or perhaps even an imminent defeat.  In addition, the daughters have now upped the ante by seeking financial damages ($5.0M) from Dana in the state court case.  That claim is based on the contention that Dana usurped estate assets to the detriment of the daughters.

The daughters also made the classic move to justify activity in state court, getting around the probate court, by making Tom Petty Unlimited the plaintiff in the case they just started.  It is an LLC which was formed in March of 2018, to manage the assets after Tom’s death.  As we continue to learn more, it seems that this entity controls Tom’s rights as a recording artist and his memorabilia. In the suit the claim is advanced that Tom’s widow created another company, Tom Petty Legacy, to usurp the other LLC’s business and misappropriate its assets.

Tom is a classic rocker and despite his death his work is a staple for classic rock outlets.  It is widely enjoyed and listened to every day.  While his music plays, it certainly is becoming more apparent that his estate plan will unfold in the courts with the ultimate decisions pertinent to management and control being made by the courts rather than his family.

https://nypost.com/tag/tom-petty/

Renunciation Of An Inheritance Part 1

Most people welcome receiving an inheritance, but there are times when an inheritance causes problems for the beneficiary. Some beneficiaries want to avoid receiving their inheritance for tax purposes, while others may want to avoid paying a creditor. “Motives or reasons for the renunciation have no bearing on this statutory right, as long as no fraud or collusion is involved.” Matter of Oot, 95 Misc 2d 702, 705 (Sur Ct, Onondaga County 1978).    

Matter of Rosenberg, 2016 NY Misc LEXIS 261 (New York County, January 27, 2016) is an interesting case that involved renunciation for estate tax purposes. In this case, the decedent Paul Rosenberg, a Jewish art collector and dealer who lived in France, owned two paintings by Henri Matisse. In 1940, the Nazis confiscated the paintings. In 2012, the paintings were discovered and determined to belong to the Rosenberg’s who had immigrated to New York. The paintings were valued at over $12 million.

Paul Rosenberg died in 1959. Paul bequeathed half of his residuary estate to his son Alexandre or, in the event that Alexandre did not survive him, to Alexandre’s children. Alexandre died in 1987, survived by his wife and children. Alexandre bequeathed his residuary estate to his wife or, in the event that she disclaimed her interest, to a Marital Trust for her benefit. Alexandre’s wife did indeed disclaim, and as a result, his children were to receive any assets that pass as part of his residuary estate.

Alexandre’s wife petitioned the Surrogate’s Court to permit Alexandre’s estate to renounce an interest in the newly discovered paintings and any works of art discovered in the future that would be found to be assets of Paul’s estate. Her reason for the renunciation was to spare her children the cost of estate tax that would be payable otherwise. EPTL 2-1.11 (c)(2) gives the court discretion to extend the time to file and serve a renunciation upon a showing of reasonable cause. Here, the Court held that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warranted its allowance to extend the petitioner’s renunciation of assets found in the future.  

Subsequently, in 2014, after the Rosenberg family learned about the discovery of several stolen pieces of art held by a German citizen, the Court granted renunciation to the estate of Alexandre. 

Renouncing a property interest for purposes of avoiding creditors is also permissible. In Matter of Oot, Patricia Hoopingarner worked for William Prescott, the petitioner, as a receptionist-bookkeeper from 1972 to 1976. In 1976, the Prescott discovered that Hoopingarner had misappropriated over $40,000. Hoopingarner signed a confession of judgment which was filed in the Clerk’s office. In 1978, her mother, Marion Oot, died and Hoopingarner was named as a legatee under the will.

As long as the beneficiary has not accepted the disposition, a legatee has a statutory right to renounce any gift made by a will (EPTL 2-1.11). Hoopingarner filed a renunciation under the will to avoid paying the judgment against her. Prescott sought to set aside the renunciation as a fraudulent conveyance. The Court held that “the fact that the renunciation of a legacy might frustrate the claims of creditors is of no consequence if the statutory renunciation procedures have been meticulously followed.” Id. at 706.

By Jacque K. Vincent, JD

Renunciation Of An Inheritance Part 2

What happens when a person renounces a bequest?

Filing a renunciation has the same effect with respect to the renounced interest as though the renouncing person had predeceased the testator unless a provision relating to a possible renunciation is included in the will. In other words, if you decide to renounce your bequest, you will be treated as if you died before the grantor did, and your share is redistributed according to the terms of the will.

In Estate of Cooper, the decedent left residuary shares of his estate to his three daughters. He did not provide any provision relating to a possible renunciation of a bequest in his will. When one daughter renounced her bequest, that portion of the estate went to her children. Estate of Cooper, 73 Misc 2d 904, 906 (Sur Ct, Onondaga County 1973).

Because the daughter’s renunciation of the bequest was treated as if she had predeceased her father, the disposition vested in her surviving children, per stirpes, in accordance with the antilapse statute.

The antilapse statute provides that where a testator has made bequeaths to his issue or his siblings, and the beneficiary dies before the testator, the deceased beneficiary’s disposition vests in his surviving issue. EPT § 3-3.3.

By Jacque K. Vincent, JD

Renunciation Of An Inheritance Part 3

Unintended Consequences of Renunciation

One issue to note is that renunciation can negatively impact a distributee’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits or other public assistance. In assessing need and eligibility, the Department of Social Services will consider any financial asset or resource the applicant may immediately or potentially have available. Courts have held that a recipient of public assistance is obligated to utilize all available resources to eliminate or reduce the need for public assistance. Although when a distributee renounces his inheritance and the disposition never vests, the Courts still allow Social Services to consider the inheritance as a potential resource for the applicant when determining eligibility. Molly v Bane, 214 AD 2d 171, 176 (2d Dept 1995).

Something else to be aware of is that proceeds recovered from an action for wrongful death cannot be renounced. Renunciation is limited to the distribution of testamentary or administration assets. Since proceeds from a wrongful death action are not passed through a testamentary instrument, renunciation is not applicable. In re Estate of Summrall, 93 Misc 2d 420 (Sur Ct, Bronx County 1978).


By Jacque K. Vincent, JD

How the “Sole Benefit” Rule Frustrates Supplemental Needs Trusts

Floyd Brown was charged with murder in 1993. Found incompetent to stand trial, he was sentenced to a psychiatric institution. In 2007, after fourteen years of confinement, he was exonerated. The appellate judge held that the lone piece of evidence, an elaborate six-page confession, was entirely too sophisticated for Mr. Brown to have dictated. Mr. Brown is intellectually disabled; he has an IQ of less than sixty and the mental capacity of a seven-year old child.  

Following his release, Mr. Brown was awarded approximately nine million dollars for his wrongful confinement. The net settlement was put into a supplemental needs trust (“SNT”), a special kind of trust available for people with disabilities which allows the beneficiary to exclude the trust corpus from asset calculation when applying or recertifying for means-tested government programs. The trust was meant to enhance his quality of life. Yet, with millions of dollars accruing interest, Mr. Brown’s simple request for a bouquet of flowers for his mother’s grave was denied, and he was living below the poverty line. 

Why? Because the flowers and other items Mr. Brown requested were not strictly for his benefit. According to the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) interpretation of the statutory language, which established SNTs, the trust must be established for the “sole benefit” of the beneficiary.

Likewise, until very recently, the SSA required that all trust disbursements be made for the “sole benefit” of the beneficiary. On April 30, 2018, the SSA relaxed its interpretation of the “sole benefit” rule in limited circumstances: trust disbursements made to third-parties for certain goods or services may now be for the “primary benefit” of the beneficiary.

However, outside of this limited exception, any other disbursement that violates this stringent rule ensures that the beneficiary will lose eligibility for essential government benefit programs, including Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).

Although Mr. Brown had millions of dollars, losing eligibility for public benefits meant the trust would likely be expended in a short time to provide medical care and necessities, and to repay state and federal programs for previous expenditures related to his cost of care.

To download the rest of the article, click here.

By: ELIZABETH A. WEIKEL

Ms. Weikel is a JD Candidate at Quinnipiac University School of Law.  She will be an associate here at Tabner, Ryan, & Keniry LLP in the late summer.

Damn the Torpedoes (40 Years Later) and Full Moon Fever (30 Years Later)

When Tom Petty tragically died of a drug overdose in 2017, he left a wife, Dana York Petty, and two daughters from his first marriage, Adria and Annakim. He also left a catalogue of music that his fans crave for, including the anticipated album “Wildflowers – All The Rest”, which was to feature unreleased tracks from the original “Wildflowers” recording session. The release was intended to coincide with the 25th year anniversary of the release of the Wildflowers album on November 1, 1994.

Tom Petty appears to have engaged in some substantial estate planning over the years. His trust named his second wife Dana as his sole successor trustee. Since his death, she served as trustee. His trust directed that Dana was empowered and directed to “create a California limited liability company (or such other entity as the Trustee deems appropriate) … to hold [Tom’s] Artistic Property”.

Tom gave Dana broad discretion in creating the entity, the execution of an operating agreement and establishing a governance structure. Tom provided only one caveat: that Dana, Adria and Annakim “shall be entitled to participate equally in management”.

The estate plan seems solid and simple enough. His fans eagerly await each release of subsequent Tom Petty compilations. Since his death in October of 2017, two complications have been released. Now the release intended for this coming November is in jeopardy and at risk and it seems that an unraveling of the planning of Tom’s estate is the heart of the problems.

The court filings and other reports indicate that Adria has apparently changed her mind on key decisions, including her stated intention to delete “and the Heartbreakers” off the artist name on one of the prior complications. She emailed two founding members of the Heartbreakers on that subject and stated: “what I don’t have the temperament for is having my entire life raped. Being disparaged. My dad being disgraced. And being surrounded by selfish, unreliable people and drug addicts.” Adria has stated an intention to delay and postpone release of “Wildflowers” and has gone further, stating to record executives that she will be taking over control of the estate in short order.

It all seemed so clear when Tom provided his lawyers with his instructions and they presumably wrote them into the documents correctly and clearly. Certainly there was no room for interpretation or ambiguity. Three people shall be entitled to participate equally in management.

According to Adria and Annakim, participation equally means just that. Each person has one vote in the management decision making. Adria has texted that all decisions shall be “majority rule” and that it will be smoothly run as a result. They argue that this was Tom’s intention and his words were clear.

On the other hand, Dana argues that Tom did not intend to give his daughters the right to rule by majority and he did not intend to disenfranchise Dana entirely. She argues in her petition filed with the court that “equal participation in management can only be ensured by requiring consensus for significant decisions; otherwise the opportunity of the majority – Tom’s daughters from his marriage to Jane- to abuse and exclude [Dana’s] minority position, which will inevitably lead to endless litigation, would be a virtual certainty”.

What happened here? Did the drafting attorney fail to consider the family dynamic of children from a prior marriage managing a business with the second spouse?

From a litigation standpoint, the LLC concept should be clearly defined in order to reduce the chances of what seems to be a highly likely dispute in a case like this. Second spouses and children from a first marriage are harbingers of estate litigation. Knowing this, the drafter could have specifically designated the second spouse and the two children from the prior marriage as the co-managers of the LLC and that each manager has one vote – if that was the intention. Otherwise, if the creator of the trust intended operations to be in perfect harmony, he could have said so. He could have specified that management decisions must be unanimous. While that seems a set up for paralysis, it could have been his intent that his highly valuable and substantial artistry collection be managed and operated in a holistic and collaborative fashion.

This type of estate plan could have also added a tie breaker and deadlock breaker provision. If desired, the creator of this type of plan could have included a dispute resolution provision with requirement first for a friendly mediation facilitated by a third party neutral and then for arbitration.

Who Will Take Care of Your Pet? A Pet Trust is the Answer

People love their pets. I know from my own experience that my dog Kirby is a very important member of my family. I believe most pet parents feel the same way. What happens when you die, and you leave your poor pet all alone? Are you confident that someone will step in and care for him and love him? Well, unless you have included a pet trust in your estate planning, there is no guarantee that he will be taken care of after you are gone. It is not unreasonable to believe that your pet may outlive you. Some animals have a long life span. For example, a tortoise’s average life span is 75 years, a parrot’s average life span is 22 years, and a horse’s average life span is 18 years.

It may be hard for an animal lover to fathom, but New York law considers animals as personal property. Because they are property, you cannot leave money directly to your pet through a will. However, New York’s Estates, Powers and Trust Law § 7-8.1 was specifically designed to allow a pet owner to set up a trust for the care of a pet. Under this statute, the pet becomes a beneficiary of a trust and a legally visible being who can claim equitable title in the income and assets of the trust. Of course, your pet cannot assert his rights on his own or hire an attorney, therefore the law allows the pet parent to designate an individual to enforce the trust, or if no one is designated, the court is authorized to appoint someone to enforce the trust.

A pet trust is a contract between the pet owner and a trustee. The pet owner agrees to fund the trust and specify its terms, and the trustee agrees to carry out those terms. Those terms may include:

• designating the animal(s) who are the beneficiaries of the trust, including a detailed description of the pet(s) – such as photos, microchips, and even DNA samples;
• designating a custodian to physically care for your pet;
• designating the trustee and successor trustee;
• designating an enforcer who can bring the custodian or trustee to court to force him to carry out the terms of the trust for the benefit of the pets;
• detailed instructions for the care of the pet, such as,
• name of the veterinarian to care for the pet
• any medical conditions or allergies
• specify in detail the standard of living and care to be given to your pet
 brand name of pet food and snacks
 grooming instructions
 boarding instructions;
• instructions for the final disposition of your pet (for example, burial or cremation); and
• how the unexpended trust property is to be distributed after the death of the pet.

Under the statute, the trust will terminate only when all the animal beneficiaries of the trust are no longer alive. This provision creates an exception to the rule against perpetuities which would have limited the life of the pet trust to 21 years. Upon termination of the trust, the trustee will be required to transfer the unexpended trust property as directed in the trust.

Now, pet parents can be assured that their pets are going to be well cared for even after they are gone by setting up a pet trust.

Contributed by Jacque K. Vincent, J.D.