Timing of disclaimers for an inheritance vs. an interest in a trust? (USA) Context Update The context is a trust and beneficiaries who disclaimed earlier did so to help another beneficiary. The ones who want to disclaim now also want to do so to help the same beneficiary. Original Question Consider a situation where: There are many beneficiaries for an inheritance. Some of the beneficiaries disclaim while the grantor is alive. A decade passes and the grantor dies. The beneficiaries who did not disclaim earlier want to disclaim now. Do all disclaimers have to be "brought up to date," or is it OK that the disclaimers were executed over many years, and some while the grantor was alive and some when the grantor is dead? If this varies by state, then the state of interest is Utah. Does everyone need to disclaim within a similar timeframe (such as within 12 months), or can substantial time elapse between disclaimers (such as years or even decades)?
What Is A Disclaimer? A disclaimer is an unequivocal and irrevocable rejection of a donative transfer of property, such as a gift or inheritance, without providing any direction or guidance regarding who will receive it in lieu of the disclaimer beneficiary of the transfer. In other words, even if someone leaves you something in their will, you can refuse to accept it. Why Would Someone Make A Disclaimer? There are a variety of reasons someone might disclaim an inheritance. A disclaimer might reduce the amount of taxes owed related to the property disclaimed in the long run. The specifics of the tax laws that could cause this to be the case are beyond the scope of this answer. The person disclaiming the inheritance might have large outstanding debts that would lead to an imminent bankruptcy, such that the inheritance would just go to their creditors any way. The property inherited might have negative value before, for example, it is a toxic waste site that any owner of the property would have to clean up at the owner's expense. The property inherited might have negative emotional value to the person disclaiming it, for example, a firearm that was used by the decedent to kill their mother. Inheriting the property might disqualify the person receiving it from essential government benefits such as Medicaid coverage for a seriously ill person who could not obtain insurance otherwise and could not pay the medical bills that could have to be paid with the inherited assets since those assets are not worth much or are to illiquid to be sold in time to pay for necessary medical care. Inheriting the property might cause financial aid grants for someone in college to drop so much that almost all of the inheritance would be consumed by increased tuition bills. The person receiving the inheritance might believe that the person who will receive it if a disclaimer is made (i.e. the person who would have received it if the person making the disclaimer had predeceased the decedent leaving the inheritance), needs the inheritance more than the person who is entitled to it. Only Property Interests That Exist Can Be Disclaimed You can't disclaim the mere possibility that someone might leave you a gift or inheritance in the future, there has to be some presently existing right to give up before it can be disclaimed. (The technical name for a possibility like this is an &quot;expectancy&quot;.) So, you can't disclaim an inheritance (which is a right that comes into being only when someone dies) while they are still alive, although you could disclaim an interest as a beneficiary in a trust that exists already but only takes effect when someone dies. So, a disclaimer of an inheritance made before someone dies is meaningless and basically &quot;doesn't count&quot;. Describing a timely disclaimer following an ineffective disclaimer made during life as bringing the disclaimer up to date isn't really a very accurate description of what is going on, but yes, disclaimers made prior to death do need to be &quot;brought up to date.&quot; An Aside: What Is An Inheritance? The narrow meaning of &quot;inheritance&quot; is property received as a result of the death of someone who doesn't have a will, in contrast to a &quot;devise&quot; which is property received from someone who died under their will. But, often the word &quot;inheritance&quot; is used in a broader sense that includes property received both from intestate and testate estates - i.e. both from decedents who do and from decedents do not have wills. A very broad sense of &quot;inheritance&quot; includes all major donative transfers even if they take the form of lifetime transfers, beneficiary designations, jointly owned property, or trust distributions, but this very broad sense is less common. Normally, the terms &quot;grantor&quot; and &quot;beneficiary&quot; are used to refer to a person who creates a trust and who is entitled to benefits from a trust, rather than in connection with an inheritance. But, the tags &quot;wills&quot; and &quot;probate&quot; were attached to he question, which would be inconsistent with the existence of a trust. So, it isn't entirely clear what is really meant by the question. Disclaimer Deadlines For Federal Tax Purposes Most disclaimers, historically, were done for tax purposes and needed to be made within the nine month deadline from date of death for filing an estate tax return established by the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS deadline is found at 26 USC § 2518 as clarified by Treasury Regulation § 25.2518-2. Disclaimer Deadlines Under State Law Most states followed the IRS lead when they set deadlines for making disclaimers under state law (which governs whether, how and when it is possible to disclaim since a state does not have to allow disclaimers in every situation that the IRS does but can allow disclaimers that the IRS does not recognize as valid for tax purposes to have validity for other state law purposes). The current trend is for states to adopt more flexible rules as, for example, is the case in Colorado. In Utah, however, disclaimers are governed by Utah Code § 75-2-801, which tracks the IRS requirements for making a valid disclaimer for tax purposes. This lengthy statute has a lot of rules governing the mechanics of how a disclaimer is done, rules about when you can be disqualified from making a disclaimer, and how to count the deadlines, but the primary portions of that statute governing the deadlines which establish the nine month deadline are subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b): (2) The following rules govern the time when a disclaimer shall be filed or delivered: (a) If the property or interest has devolved to the disclaimant under a testamentary instrument or by the laws of intestacy, the disclaimer shall be filed, if of a present interest, not later than nine months after the death of the deceased owner or deceased donee of a power of appointment and, if of a future interest, not later than nine months after the event determining that the taker of the property or interest is finally ascertained and his interest is indefeasibly vested. The disclaimer shall be filed in the district court of the county in which proceedings for the administration of the estate of the deceased owner or deceased donee of the power have been commenced. A copy of the disclaimer shall be delivered in person or mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to any personal representative or other fiduciary of the decedent or donee of the power. (b) If a property or interest has devolved to the disclaimant under a nontestamentary instrument or contract, the disclaimer shall be delivered or filed, if of a present interest, not later than nine months after the effective date of the nontestamentary instrument or contract and, if of a future interest, not later than nine months after the event determining that the taker of the property or interest is finally ascertained and his interest is indefeasibly vested. If the person entitled to disclaim does not know of the existence of the interest, the disclaimer shall be delivered or filed not later than nine months after the person learns of the existence of the interest. The effective date of a revocable instrument or contract is the date on which the maker no longer has power to revoke it or to transfer to the maker or another the entire legal and equitable ownership of the interest. The disclaimer or a copy thereof shall be delivered in person or mailed by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person who has legal title to or possession of the interest disclaimed. Another Key Limitation On When A Disclaimer Can Be Made In addition to these deadline requirements, under federal law and the law of every state, a disclaimer must be made before the person entitled to receive the gift or inheritance takes any action which is inconsistent with a disclaimer such as receiving an economic benefit from the property that the person making the disclaimer would like to disclaim.
Under Copyright? The first question is: Is this novel still under copyright. This depends on the place and date of publication. In many countries copyright now lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Some countries use different rules. In the US, a work published before 1978 is in most cases copyrighted for 95 years. Works published after that are protected for 70 years after the death of the author. More complex cases are detailed in this well-known chart. Who holds the Copyright? For most novels, copyright is initially held by the author(s). The author may sell or give away the copyright at any time. If the author does not transfer the copyright during life, it will pass with other property st the author's death. It may pass by will or by default (intestate) inheritance in the absence of a will. The author's surviving spouse children, if any, are often the heirs to any copyrights, but not always. Authors with many works still in print may have s &quot;literary estate&quot; set up to handle their copyrights. Works with multiple co-authors usually have the copyright shared between all authors; in equal shares unless they agree otherwise. Any one copyright holder may license a derivative work such as a translation. A would-be translator of a work still under copyright must find the copyright holder(s) and obtain permission. If the holders cannot be found, no permission can be obtained, and any translation would be an infringement of copyright. The copyright holder could sue for damages after publication. Damages may be quite substantial in some cases. This varies by country and by the facts of the case. In the US The Federal Copyright Office will search its records to try to determine who holds a copyright. They charge a fee for doing so, and success is not guaranteed. Other countries may have similar services. Addition: There is no automatic or guaranteed way to find who now owns a copyright. In some cases the owner does not even know that s/he owns the copyright. If the holder died without heirs the copyright may belong to the government (state government in the US). Research into the author's life may reveal probable heirs. An obituary may list the author's children, if any. Finding them and asking is a reasonable place to start.
It doesn't matter if a debt arises as a result of normal commercial transactions or because of liability for a legal wrong - if you owe money you owe money. While you are alive you are responsible for settling your debts out of your assets as and when they fall due. When you die, your executor has the same responsibility. The executor's first responsibility is to settle the debts of the deceased - only after they have done this can they make distributions to the beneficiaries. One of their duties is to advertise the death of the person and invite anyone who has a claim against the estate (as a creditor or beneficiary) to come forward - the law puts time limits on how long they have to do so. If some of these liabilities are disputed then the executor must hold back enough funds to cover the disputed amount (and the costs of defending against it). Intangible assets (copyright, patents etc.) are no different from tangible assets - they can be offered to the creditor to (part) settle the debt or the can be liquidated (sold) to get cash to settle the debt if there is insufficient cash in the estate. Once all known debts have been settled or successfully denied the executor can distribute whatever assets are left in accordance with the will (or the law if there is no will). If they do all this in accordance with the law then they have no liability. The beneficiaries never have any liability. Sometimes the estate will be insolvent - its liabilities are greater than its assets. The executor's duty in that case is to follow the applicable bankruptcy law.
No (in almost all U.S. jurisdictions). Truth or falsity is evaluated when a statement is originally made and doesn't have to remain true forever. Also, generally the law treats an ad like that as an invitation for you to make any offer to them, not a binding offer to form a contract that is held open indefinitely. So you can't force them into a contract simply by accepting their offer. The default rule is that an ad is an invitation to make an offer rather than an offer that can be accepted. And, even if it really is an offer, when it does not state any termination date, the default rule is that it can be withdrawn at any time.
What does this paragraph mean? Line by line. I give my Residuary Estate This is a gift, effective when the person writing the Will dies, of everything that is left over after all debts and taxes are paid and after any other gifts already in the Will (e.g. leaving a car or a house or a Monet to someone in particular) have been given. to the said [Full Name] absolutely I'm going give [Full Name] a name so that it is easier to follow this explanation. [Full Name]'s name for purposes of this answer is &quot;Luna&quot;. This says to give all that stuff to Luna when the person who wrote the Will dies, if Luna is still alive for whatever the required amount of time is after the person who wrote the Will dies. The required survival time period is either in the boilerplate provisions of the Will, or in the relevant statute if the Will is silent on the question. The Will says &quot;absolutely&quot; because historically, someone who received gifts of property in deed or wills in England only got to keep it for their lifetime, unless it clearly specified otherwise, after which someone else would get it. But in this case, if Luna survives this long, Luna gets all of this stuff with no strings attached. and if [Name] shall fail to obtain a vested interest leaving issue who survive me then such issue shall take by substitution If Luna dies before the person who wrote the Will does, or doesn't stay alive for the required number of days afterwards, then Luna isn't entitled to this stuff. Luna's descendants get it instead (i.e. Luna's descendants &quot;take by substitution&quot; what Luna would have gotten if Luna had lived, instead of Luna's probate estate getting the stuff). and if there shall be more than one of such issue they shall take in equal shares per stirpes but so that no issue shall take whose parent is alive and so capable of taking. If Luna predeceases and has exactly one living descendant who is alive when the person who wrote the Will dies, and that living descendant lives the required number of days after the person who wrote the Will dies, then the sole living descendant of Luna gets all of the stuff that is left over when the person who wrote the Will dies. If Luna has more than one living descendant, the stuff that is left over when the person who wrote the Will dies, then Luna's descendants gets broken up the way described below, which is called per stirpes: Create one share for each child of Luna who is alive and survives Luna by the required amount of time. If Luna has only one living child, that child gets everything even if Luna's child has children of their own. Create one share for each child of Luna who didn't live for long enough after the person who wrote the Will's death, if the predeceased child has descendants who are alive and remain alive after the person who wrote the Will dies by the required amount of time. This share is then broken up into one sub-share for each child of the predeceased child who is alive when the person who wrote the Will dies and is still alive after the person who wrote the Will dies by the required amount of time, and one sub-share for each predeceased child of the predeceased child who has living descendants who remain alive for the requisite number of days. Continue this process until 100% of the the residuary estate has been assigned to someone and give them their share of it once the estate is settled. If someone lives past the minimum number of days to outlive the person who wrote the Will, and then dies, that person's share goes that person's probate estate. For visual learners, a per stirpes distributions of assets looks like this: A per stirpes distribution to descendants is the plain vanilla ordinary way to giving stuff to the descendants of a dead person when you don't know in advance who will outlive you. What if Luna predeceases with no living descendants? Usually, this paragraph of a Will will be followed by another paragraph called the &quot;ultimate contingent beneficiary&quot; which says who gets the stuff that's left over in the residuary estate if Luna predeceases the person who wrote the Will and has no living descendants. Often, the ultimate contingent beneficiary will be one or more distant relatives, a list of friends, or a charity. If there is no ultimately contingent beneficiary in the Will, but Luna and all of Luna's descendants predecease the person who wrote the Will, then it goes to the next of kin (a.k.a. &quot;heirs at law&quot;) of the person who wrote the Will, if there are any relatives of the person who wrote the Will who are close enough to qualify to inherit under English inheritances law. If there is no one closely enough related to the person who wrote the Will to qualify under English inheritance law, then the stuff &quot;escheats&quot; (i.e. is inherited by default) by the King (or Queen) of England, as the case may be. There are some circumstances when the Will can be ignored. Everything above explains what this language in the Will means. This isn't always what happens, however. There are several exceptions to the general rule that property goes to the people that the Will says it goes to. I won't list them all here, but it is important when a Will is being written to understand that this is the case. For example, if the person who wrote the Will leaves nothing in the Will to their spouse of thirty years as of the death of the person who wrote the Will, who has no assets of their own, then the Court will partially ignore what the Will says and give some of the residuary estate to the surviving spouse. Also, the Will only controls assets that are in the &quot;probate estate&quot;. Some assets pass at death in what are called &quot;non-probate transfers&quot; that are not controlled by what the Will says. And, finally, of course, if the Will was written when the person signing the Will was of unsound mind, the Will can be invalidated in a &quot;Will contest&quot; in the appropriate court if the person contesting the Will's validity can prove that the person signing it was of unsound mind at the time. This is mediocre legal writing This paragraph gets the job done, but it is not very well written by modern legal Will drafting standards. It is adequate and probably meets the standard of care for a lawyer who hasn't committed malpractice. Lawyers in England have been writing paragraphs like this one for three or four hundred years. But it is not &quot;best practices&quot; legal writing in a Will. Good modern legal drafting for a Will would be much easier for a non-lawyer to understand, in addition to being clear and unambiguous.
united-kingdom To extend on @ohwilleke's answer about US inheritance tax, I can answer the UK side of things. UK inheritance tax does not apply to inheritances from abroad, unless that person was domiciled in the UK or some of their assets were in the UK. If you are not a UK resident for tax purposes (which, from the context of your question is unlikely), then you wouldn't even have to pay tax on the interest you earned from depositing the inheritance. If the deceased were taxed for being domiciled in the UK, and the US taxed your inheritance, you'd actually qualify for tax relief from HMRC based on what you'd already paid the IRS. If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, and neither was the decedent you would owe precisely zero to HMRC in the UK. More info can be found here: https://www.taxoo.co.uk/uk-resident-receiving-inheritance-from-abroad/
Transfer of title must eventually occur, otherwise the property was never willed to another because the willing of the property is perpetually incomplete. One can place conditions on the transfer of title, but those conditions cannot last forever. They can last quite long, but there is a rule against perpetuities, especially created due to clauses constraining the transfer of of title in wills. This rule applies to a person who is transferring title, with a conditional clause that bars the full use of the property. If such a clause is limited, then it does not exist in perpetuity. The rule specifically addressed the will's call to reassign title if the transfer's clauses were violated. The maximum limitation historically was the lifetime of some person alive when the will was executed, plus 21 years, to permit an unborn grandchild to inherit. The reason this rule came about was due to the will of Henry Frederick Howard, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey. It effectively left the dead Earl managing his estates after his death, shifting properties that were bequeathed, based on the possibility of a &quot;more suitable&quot; heir being born after the Earl's death. This will eventually created the most complicated bit of common law that exists to date. In my totally amatuer attempt to summarize it; it is a combination of at least two ideas: a &quot;dead hand&quot; (deceased person) cannot guide the activities of the living forever transfer of property (title) must eventually be fully transferred Exceptions to the rule exist for conditional transfer of title back to the person who originally owned the property, but these exceptions cannot apply when the transfer is to a third party. This clause in Evan's will, &quot;If the state violates this clause, the property is to return to the heirs of the estate of Evan Carroll.&quot; would only be enforceable for a limited amount of time. First, the Estate of a dead Evan Carroll is not a lasting entity, eventually his estate would be closed. Finally, the transfer to the &quot;heirs&quot; of Evan Carroll would be a transfer to a third party, subject to the rule. Some states interpret their protections against the rule in different ways; but, nearly all states that have revoked the rule have done so by making a new rule (often with easier to manage time limits). A handful claim to have revoked the rule; but, they use other legal approaches to prevent this problem from occurring. Texas has extended the rule to 300 years while New South Wales, puts the limit at 80 years. Texas's extension seemed to be primarily to permit trust funds to operate legally long after the person establishing it had died. Consider what happens if such a rule doesn't exist. The title of the property could never be fully transferred, because the clause could never be proven to not have been violated. This would dramatically devalue the property, and clog the courts with suits claiming property held by one family for 100 years isn't theirs because of some evidence just uncovered about what happened 60 years ago. It also would massively complicate the selling of the property, because a clean title could never be proven. Note that this rule would have no bearing on a covenants not tied to the property's transfer of title. This rule even made it into a recent Disney case, which is explained far better than I can by the Legal Eagle, Devin James Stone
Until the estate is settled and the interest in the house is definitively resolved, the estate has to pay property taxes. There is no requirement for the house to be insured, unless there is a mortgage and insurance is mandated by the lender. The duties of the personal representative generally include taking reasonable steps to protect the assets of the estate, which would include reasonable insurance coverage -- which the estate would pay for. Necessary maintenance would also be included in the things that are to covered by the estate, for example the cost of repairing a broken water pipe (which can cause serious loss, if not repaired). Freshening up the paint in preparation for selling the house, assuming that the house is to be sold and the assets divided, would also be covered by the estate. Utilities, on the other hand, are not within the realm of things that need to be done to protect the interests of the beneficiaries: that is a benefit to whoever lives there, making it their responsibility. The question is foot-dragging is a separate issue, one that should be resolved with the aid of your lawyer. I do not understand why he would maintain that the estate is responsible for paying the utilities.