Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law Attorneys

» The Ethicist on Switching Guardians

"The Ethicist" column in today's New York Times magazine addresses the issue of whether to tell your friends that you are removing them as guardians of your children under your Will. The column is here.

I'm not an ethicist (insert attorney joke here), but I agree with Randy Cohen that there is no need to tell the friends about the switch. Especially when you are switching to family members (most people understand that blood is thicker than water). Maybe I feel this way because my wife and I did something similar. We named our friends as guardians of our daughter, but then switched to my sister and her husband once they got settled and had kids, and we saw that their parenting style matches ours.

A similar ethical issue (not discussed in "The Ethicist") involves telling people that they are named as guardians. I'm always surprised that people DON'T tell their friends/relatives that they have named them (or plan to name them) as guardians. I know this always makes for a heart-warming film ("lovable moppet(s) show up at the door of self-absorbed yuppie, who then discovers the value of family"), but it's significantly less heart-warming in real life. My advice: talk to those you plan to name, BEFORE you do so. (They may say no. That's what happened to the people my in-laws asked, when my wife was a kid.) And talk to those you have named, AFTER you do so, to fill them in on how things will work.

» 5 Things You Need to Know About the Estate Tax in 2010: #5 (2011 and on)

So where do we go from here? It's hard to know. If we're going to think in terms of what might happen, then we have to consider the following three possibilities:

#1: No action by Congress (no federal estate tax in 2010, but federal estate tax automatically comes back with a $1 million exemption in 2011 and thereafter);

#2: Prospective action by Congress (federal estate tax re-enacted for 2011 and thereafter -- and maybe for the rest of 2010 as well); and

#3: Retroactive action by Congress (so federal estate tax applies in all cases, even for 2010 -- obviously there's the retroactivity problem here).

If I had to guess, I'd say that #2 seems like the best possibility (maybe I should, but I'm not even including total repeal as a possibility). But even if that's the case, we have no idea what the re-enacted federal estate tax will look like. Will the exemption amount be $3.5 million? Or higher? Or lower?

The big question is, should any of this cause you to take action with respect to your documents right now? And my answer -- which I hate to give -- is, "I don't know." In a perfect world, you wait a month or so, we get some clarity on the estate tax, and then you have your documents updated. But what if that clarity doesn't come in a month or so (or ever)? Or what if you die during this period of uncertainty? Ultimately, I think everyone has to make the call on their own, depending on their situation and risk tolerance. The shameful part is that the very rich can afford to change their documents now, and then change them again and again. Can anyone else afford to do that?

» Small-Business Cards Now Carry Sizeable Risk
Banks can list your company's debt alongside your personal debt--lowering your credit score and loan worthiness.

» Baby Ita s Cold Outside, Better Call Your Estate Planner

It's cold here in Philadelphia on this last Friday in January, and some spouses may feel they've been left out in the cold if the federal estate tax is not reenacted and applied retroactively in 2010.

» The Unlikeliest Dividend Play
Buffett eschews dividends? Get real.