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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT