Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» More on George Allen Smith IV Cruise Ship Death

I previously blogged about George Allen Smith IV's mysterious death and the probate proceedings surrounding it here and here.

The case is still in the news (here). Basically we're talking about a battle between the deceased honeymooner's wife and his parents. Note that, in Illinois, we wouldn't be talking about such a battle, assuming Mr. Smith died intestate (without a Will). In that case, he would leave only one heir: his wife. But in Connecticut, under this statute, the decedent's surviving spouse receives the first $100,000 and then 3/4ths of the rest of the probate estate, with the decedent's parents evidently receiving the other 1/4th. As a result, the decedent's parents have a very clear interest in the estate.

» Target Moms' Buying Power
Learn the top 5 ways to maximize sales from this enormous market.

» Geithner calls for SEC authority over say-on-pay

» Creditors and Trusts -- Society of Lloyd's

During a recent discussion on a ISBA (Illinois State Bar Association) listserv, the case of Society of Lloyd's v. Estate of McMurray case (available here) was brought to my attention. Given my interest in claims against non-probate property, it seems worthwhile to discuss it.

To begin with, this is a Federal (7th Circuit Court of Appeals) case. The issue is whether Society of Lloyd's can extra payment of a judgment from a decedent's trust. The order of events:

-9/11/96: deadline for payment of premium by McMurray
-9/18/96: McMurray creates (and later transfers property to) a living trust
-8/28/97: McMurray dies
-3/11/98: Society of Lloyd's obtains a judgment against McMurray in English court

The court's decision here seems pretty clear -- they use the language of the living trust to find that Society of Lloyd's is a valid creditor of the trust:

The trust instrument provides... in crystal-clear language, that at McMurray's death "the trustee shall pay from the residuary trust estate without reimbursement my legally enforceable debts."

Equally clear is the fact that the court does not hold trust creditors to the same limitations period as probate creditors:

Although the judgment is no longer legally enforceable against McMurray's estate, that fact is irrelevant for purposes of enforcing it against the trust.

What's tricky for estate attorneys, though, is the issue of what would happen if the trust did NOT allow for the payment of legally enforceable debts, or for the payment of any debts at all? Could the trust be forced to pay in that situation? If the answer to that question is no, then why would we as attorneys include language allowing the payment of debts in the trusts that we draft?

At bare minimum, I think it makes sense to draft a trust debt payment provision with specificity regarding when the debt is no longer considered valid. For instance, you could say that claims against a trust are only valid if they comply with the claim filing requirements of the Illinois Probate Act.

»  Grads May Soon Repay Student Loans Based On Income
Use our new student loan calculator to see if your monthly payments will drop.