ILNews

As boomers age, lawyers seeing new trends in estate and health care planning

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

In 2010, the oldest members of the “baby boomer” generation began reaching retirement age. Born between 1946 and 1964, boomers are not like generations that came before them with regard to estate-planning needs. Many of them are living longer and will be working longer – some by choice and others because the value of their retirement accounts has plunged in recent years. As they look toward their future, the boomers’ top concerns are asset protection and paying for long-term care, although each person may have a different approach about how to accomplish those goals.

Tax laws

Sullivan attorney Jeff Hawkins, chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Probate, Trust & Real Property Section, said that boomers are primarily concerned with planning for disability – not death.

huffman-keith-mug Huffman

“Death tax is not a concern for the majority of people, but now with long-term care costs rapidly approaching $100,000 per year, per person, suddenly that’s a much bigger issue,” he said.

Hawkins said that federal tax legislation enacted in December 2010 increased the estate and gift tax exemptions from $1 million to $5 million per decedent. He predicts that won’t change with the next Congress in 2012. But as South Bend attorney Richard B. Urda explained, estate planners are in a holding pattern until they know whether Congress will extend the tax breaks.

If the tax exemptions don’t change, a husband and wife could each pass $5 million to their children. But if in 2013 the tax rate reverts to its pre-2010 level of $1 million per person, about half of anything above and beyond $1 million will belong to the Internal Revenue Service.

“It’s kind of hard to tell a couple which way to jump at this point,” Urda said.

Long-term care

Sarah Pierce, an estate attorney for Muncie firm DeFur Voran, said long-term care is a top concern for clients.

“The number one question seems to be, ‘Am I going to lose everything if I have to go into a nursing home?’” she said.

Keith Huffman, attorney for Dale Huffman & Babcock in Bluffton, said he thinks long-term care may be the biggest threat to accumulated assets. Census population projections showed about 79,000 people were age 100 or older in 2010. By 2050, projections say about 600,000 people will be 100 or older. And that increase in life expectancy could mean longer, financially-draining stays in nursing homes.

Indiana Lawyer EXTRA
To see projected baby-boomer growth, click here.

“The first thing you always look at is genetics,” Huffman said. Someone who has many relatives that have lived well into their 90s is probably going to need long-term care at some point. Medicaid may pay for that care, but if an applicant for Medicaid has recently shifted assets to someone other than a spouse, paying for long-term care – at least initially – may be impossible.

In determining an applicant’s eligibility for Medicaid, the Family and Social Services Administration will consider a “look-back” period – the five years preceding the application date. If an applicant has, during that time, transferred money to anyone other than his or her spouse, penalties will apply.

In the case of Lola Austin v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, No. 64A04-1008-MI-514, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the FSSA’s finding that a $35,500 payment Lola Austin made to her niece and nephew was a “transfer penalty,” making her ineligible for Medicaid benefits for the eight months following the gift.

Huffman said that a simple loan to an adult child could end up counting against a parent’s Medicaid eligibility unless a promissory note shows the loan is actuarially sound, has periodic payments with no balloon payment, and is not cancelled at the death of the lender.

“No one’s ever heard of any of these rules until they’ve seen an elder law attorney,” he said.

Huffman advises clients to invest in long-term care insurance, which he said is the best way to protect assets. But he also advises clients to work toward a solid foundation first.

“You need to own your own home and have $150,000 in the bank before you look at nursing home insurance,” he said.

Late-life divorce and marriage

Connie Bauswell, a certified elder law attorney who practices in Schererville and Valparaiso, said that late-life divorce is becoming more prevalent.

“We’re going to continue to see that more and more people that are at retirement age and older are going to be getting divorced,” she said. Many factors may be to blame for late-life divorce, she explained, including the stress that comes from a lack of adequate financial planning.

Bauswell said that the generation that lived through the Depression was much more concerned than baby boomers about saving for retirement from an early age.

“And I’m not saying that baby boomers on the whole aren’t frugal,” she said. “They just weren’t of the same mindset, because they didn’t go through the Depression.”

Bauswell said Indiana statute nullifies a will that names a spouse as a beneficiary when the couple divorces. She encourages clients to revisit their estate plans periodically, especially in the case of divorce or other developments.

While some relationships may end after age 65, new romances pose challenges for estate planners as well.

“Increasingly, we’re having people living longer and marrying late in life,” Hawkins said. “They have a lifetime of assets accumulated and a desire for their kids to have those assets.” But, Hawkins said, even if a couple sets up separate wills that disinherit their spouse, the surviving spouse can still claim a $25,000 survivor’s allowance. That’s one reason why more couples are turning to prenuptial agreements – the only way to get around the survivor’s allowance, Hawkins said.

Pierce said she’s seen an increase in prenuptial agreements for second marriages.

“What I usually see is a client has basically been burned in a divorce,” she said. “So they’re very cautious when they remarry. That’s the reason that they want to have such an agreement, to protect their kids (of) their first marriage.”

Powers of attorney

With a longer life expectancy comes the possibility that at some point down the road, older people may lose the ability to make informed decisions about their own medical care. Urda, who has been practicing law for more than three decades, has noticed a significant increase in clients requesting powers of attorney.

“When I first started, powers of attorney were something that mostly elderly clients would use,” he said. “Now the clients will consider, no matter what their age, whether they want powers of attorney that would cover financial matters, health matters, and financial and health matters.”

Huffman, who is on the board of directors for Bluffton Regional Medical Center, said that health care decision-making is extremely important for clients to consider.

Huffman said that Indiana’s living will may not be the best choice for an advanced directive, as it puts doctors in the position of stating a patient is dying. “Each facility has to act if (a patient) has an advanced directive, but there’s very little uniformity from hospital to nursing home – very often, the patient’s wishes for end-of-life care don’t get heard. There really needs to be a focus on educating people about health care decision-making.”

Bauswell said she strongly believes clients should have a health care power of attorney. She said it’s one of the most cost-effective ways to ensure that a person will have the best quality of life possible. She urges people to choose wisely, noting that simply picking the oldest child or the relative who lives closest may not always be the best fit.

“My recommendation is to look at it through a different looking glass, to pick based upon who would make decisions that are most closely aligned with the decisions you would make, if you were able to,” she added.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT