ILNews

Reed: ‘Gray divorce revolution’ alters traditional estate planning

July 16, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
reed-jim-mug Reed

By James A. Reed

Americans over the age of 50 are getting divorced at a record rate – doubling since 1990. Sociologists have coined the term “gray divorces” to describe this phenomenon. Some estimate that by the year 2030 there will be 800,000 gray divorces annually. These statistics are so significant that social commentators are calling this a “gray divorce revolution.”

In a gray divorce, each spouse often leaves the marriage with a grouping of assets unlike members of any other age group getting divorced. The family situation has changed dramatically – children are now adults and through college, many married and with children. The “gray divorcees” are in the midst of a completely changed or changing lifestyle. At this age there is less time to make any kind of financial rebound because the remaining time for significant earnings is short. The financial planning previously done for the joint husband and wife retirement is out the window or under serious renovation. Estate planning for “us” is now estate planning for “me.”

Estate planning for “gray divorcees” presents unique challenges for their legal and financial planning professionals. Hopefully, your client has involved a skilled financial advisor during the divorce. That advisor can provide invaluable counsel when figuring out what assets are better to take in the property settlement. They also can work with the client to develop a realistic budget for upcoming living expenses. I have found that in these divorces, regardless of the amount of assets, it often still makes good sense (financially and emotionally) to continue employment or obtain employment for the next several years. The longer a client can delay relying heavily on their assets to pay their bills, the better.

Divorce, especially gray divorce, forces a client to answer big questions like, “What in my life is most important to me?” or “What values do I hold most dearly?” or “What do I want my life to be and be about?” Many couples at this age have already been active in philanthropic efforts. The couple may have already established a family foundation or charitable fund. Does the client still value these specific efforts or move in a different direction individually? The estate planning objectives need to align with the answers to those questions and many others. Exploration and assessment are big parts of the client’s overall planning experience.

I advise clients to consider interim estate planning to cover the time before the divorce is final. At the time of the divorce, the estate planning with the gray divorcee basically starts from scratch. If not done already, the client needs an immediate inventory and review of all existing planning documents, especially any powers of attorney granting the former spouse legal authority or health care decision-making. Should the client’s child or children be placed in the roles of personal representative, contingent trustee of the client’s revocable trust, health care decision-maker, and attorney-in-fact possessing full legal authority? Is that child prepared and capable of acting in these critical roles? Does that child fully understand the parent’s wishes and honor the parent’s plans? The considerations involved in this decision-making process often provide a completely new parent/child relationship dynamic.

When married, spouses typically planned on each being available to care for or manage the care of the other if needed. After a divorce, planning for one’s own care is critical. What is the plan for temporary care in case of an accident or sudden illness? Do the legal documents and established plan allow for someone to manage the client’s affairs while incapacitated? Is long-term care insurance a viable option and a wise purchase?

Life insurance is something that is often overlooked in post-divorce planning. If your client has little or no life insurance coming out of the divorce, you should consider how and if life insurance needs to be a part of the plan. I often see so-called “second to die” life insurance policies in gray divorces. Typically, the “second to die” policy does not pay when the first spouse dies, and only pays upon the death of the second. Once divorced, the former spouses may no longer have a common interest in where the proceeds should go. Or, there may be a trustee of an irrevocable trust holding title to the policy with the proceeds funding the trust. Whatever the circumstances, a careful review of life insurance is part of the planning process.

It is not unusual for gray divorcees to find themselves involved in a subsequent committed relationship. A premarital agreement will allow your client to protect assets and define financial responsibilities in the event of a divorce. Also, a premarital agreement will allow your client to control the ultimate disposition of his or her assets at death. For those looking at a non-marital living together relationship, a cohabitation or “no nup” agreement may be advisable. Both agreements can avoid unintended consequences which may be imposed by law without a clear contract.

Estate planning with the gray divorcee client requires a thoughtful and deliberate approach to the unique circumstances these clients present. It is a time of significant life transition and exploration. Even once a plan is in place, these clients require more frequent review and possible plan adjustments than do your more traditional planning clients.•

__________

James A. Reed–jreed@bgdlegal.com–is a partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP. Reed focuses his practice on the legal aspects of relationship transitions of all types. Reed is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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. 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.

  2. 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;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT