ILNews

Appellate courts address estate tax, trust division regarding adoptions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

As adoptions have become more common and more accepted for expanding the family tree, courts have had to address some legal matters clarifying those familial ties.

Two opinions in recent months regarding inheritances for grandchildren – those adopted into the family and those adopted by another family – have shed some light on how the courts consider adoptions when it comes to trusts and inheritance tax.

While this is something that typically would fall under the umbrella of estate law, family law attorneys should also pay attention to these cases, said Indianapolis attorney Andrew Soshnick, chairman of Baker & Daniels’ family law group.

The cases are In Re The estate of Forrest W. Quackenbush, deceased, et al. v. Indiana Department of Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division, No. 49T10-0810-TA-61, which was decided by the Indiana Tax Court April 22; and Bonnie E. Taggart Paloutzian and Linda M. Taggart v. Gregory A. Taggart and Belle Delint-Eaglesfield, No. 49A02-0908-CV-812, decided by the Court of Appeals Aug. 13.

Forrest Quackenbush included his granddaughter Pamela Stewart Martin and her two children in his will. The estate treated them as Class A transferees and the Tippecanoe Circuit Court accepted the estate’s filing in February 2008.

However, because Quackenbush’s granddaughter had been adopted by another family, the inheritance tax division filed a petition for rehearing June 23, 2008, asking that Martin and her daughters be considered Class C transferees instead of Class A transferees.

On July 29, 2008, the probate court agreed with the inheritance tax division. On Aug. 28, 2008, the estate appealed to the Indiana Tax Court, which affirmed the probate court in April this year.

The difference between the two classes is a $100,000 exemption for inheritance tax purposes for Class A transferees, or $100 for Class C transferees.

In this case, as Class A transferees Martin and her children were found to owe $32,885.52 in estate taxes. But when they were considered to be Class C transferees, they were required to pay an additional $29,699.14.

“… The General Assembly has unambiguously determined that, for purposes of inheritance, a child adopted pre-emancipation by unrelated individuals should be placed in a family status equal to that of a natural child of those adoptive parents only. Thus, the child’s biological ties to her natural parents are legally severed,” Judge Thomas G. Fisher wrote for the opinion.

He went on to write that while Quackenbush still considered Martin his granddaughter regardless of the adoption, “The Court … cannot legitimize that familial relationship for inheritance tax purposes, as doing so would be the equivalent of restoring that which the law has already severed.”

In Taggart, the issue for review was whether Alex Taggart’s grandchildren who his son Henry G. Taggart had adopted were included in his trust, written in 1953, before his son married, adopted, or had children of his own.
 

Andrew Soshnick Soshnick

The trust stated, “In the event the said Henry G. Taggart shall leave a widow surviving him and any children surviving, one-third (1/3) thereof shall be distributed to said widow and the remainder of the Trust Estate shall be divided equally among the surviving children of the said Henry G. Taggart.”

Henry married his first wife after the trust was written. He adopted Gregory A. Taggart and Maria Taggart, his first wife’s children, when they were minors. He later divorced his first wife, remarried, and had three natural children prior to Alex’s death in 1972.

Henry died in 2008. He was survived by his wife, his two adopted children, and his three natural children.

In December 2008, the trustee, JPMorgan Chase Bank, filed a petition in Marion Superior Court, Probate Division. The trustee cited the stranger to the adoption rule, “when one makes provision in his will for a child or children of some person other than himself, he will be presumed not to have included an adopted child or children of such other person, unless there is something in the will or in the extraneous circumstances to rebut that presumption.”

While this rule existed in 1953, the Trust Code was amended 50 years later for adopted children to be considered equal to natural children when writing a trust, as long as they were adopted before the age of 21 and before the settlor’s death. The 2003 amendment included a retroactivity provision that this would apply to trusts executed before Sept. 2, 1971.

Following a hearing, the Marion Superior Court ruled the adopted children should be included as “surviving children of … Henry G. Taggart.” The majority of the Court of Appeals panel that heard this case of first impression affirmed the probate court.

However, in his dissent, Judge Terry A. Crone wrote, “When Taggart executed his irrevocable inter vivos Trust in November 1953, the stranger to the adoption rule was in effect, and we must presume that he was familiar with that rule. … Here, nothing rebuts the presumption that when Taggart provided for the distribution of the Trust corpus to Henry’s surviving children upon Henry’s death, he intended for the corpus to be distributed only to Henry’s surviving natural children.”
 

Rebecca Geyer Geyer

“Are these opinions inconsistent? In some ways they are,” Soshnick said, regarding how they treat people who have been adopted.

He said he understood why the Tax Court ruled the way it did in the Quackenbush case because it was a matter of interpreting the statutes for inheritance tax. Those statutes state once someone is adopted by another family, they become part of the adopting family and their rights are taken away in terms of their connections to the biological family.

He also said it was easy to understand why there was a split in the Taggart case.

“The big issue is the dissent focuses on the cardinal element of trust law: to try to derive the intent of the settlor,” he said.

He added in this case, even with the retroactivity of the 2003 amendment, it was not clear cut as to whether Alex Taggart meant to include his adopted grandchildren.

Rebecca Geyer, chair of the estate planning/elder law team of Hollingsworth & Zivitz in Carmel, said she thought the Tax Court decision was one that would be more likely to come up again. She said the Taggart case seems like it would be less common because she isn’t aware of many trusts that were created so long ago that don’t address if the adopted children should or shouldn’t be included in a trust.

She added other circumstances should be considered in estate planning when it comes to families with adopted children.

Soshnick agreed and said it was common for someone to adopt his or her stepchildren while married to the natural parent of those children. But if the couple later divorced, the relationship with the adopted stepchildren may not be as strong later in life. This could greatly affect how the parent views the children in terms of estate planning.

“I think it’s a reminder to everyone that you need to keep an eye on and update your estate plan regularly,” he said.

He added lawyers needed to keep up with the laws and remind their clients that some laws could have changed since they last updated their estate plans, including if they have adopted children or plan to.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT