As revealed by a recent by a recent decision rendered by an Illinois Court of Appeals, aggressive "strings" to control one's estate from the grave can turn into a "rope" which destroys the estate plan as being against "public policy."
In his estate plan, decedent Max Feinberg attempted to, in essence, control his grandchildren from the grave through a provision which would prohibit them from marrying "outside the Jewish faith, unless the spouse has converted or converts within one year of the marriage to the Jewsish faith." If such conditions were not met, then the grandchild would be "deemed to be deceased, along with all of his or her descendants."
Citing such authorities as In re Estate of Gerbing, 337 N.E.2d 29, 32-33 (1975); In re Keffalas' Estate, 233 A.2d 248, 250 (1967); and the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, § 29, Comment;, Illustration 3, at 64 (2003), the Court negated this restrictive provision, ruling that such a restriction "violated public policy."
While many properly drafted restrictive protective provisions (i.e., "strings") may be included in Wills and Trusts, if the individual elects to attach too many restrictions (i.e., "ropes") to his or her estate plan it may cause costly, time-consuming and privacy-invading litigation resulting in the provision being declared void and against public policy. (In re Estate of Max Feinberg, Court of Appeals, Third Division, June 30, 2008).
How does your estate plan stack up against others? Do you feel confident that you have included all of the desired protective features allowable under current law? Our firm has reviewed over 1000 such estate/asset protection plans and 99% of them fail to meet the desired protection? Visit us at www.professionalassetprotectionservices.com for more information and a Free 20 minute phone consultation concerning your estate/asset protection plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment