Survey Sheds Light on the Perils of TOD and POD Account Registrations
A survey was recently circulated among the Philadelphia Bar Association Probate and Trust Section attorney members seeking commentary on their experiences with clients who have accounts registered as transfer on death (TOD) or payable on death (POD).
March 05, 2018 at 01:06 PM
6 minute read
A survey was recently circulated among the Philadelphia Bar Association Probate and Trust Section attorney members seeking commentary on their experiences with clients who have accounts registered as transfer on death (TOD) or payable on death (POD). These are accounts with special designations which cause the assets in the accounts to transfer outside of probate to the named designee, rather than pass under the probate estate (i.e., pursuant to the terms of the will). The common refrain of the attorneys responding to the survey was that TOD or POD account registrations often thwart well thought out estate plans and when not “fixed” before death, have resulted in asset dispositions at death that are inconsistent with the intentions of the account owner.
The overwhelming majority of the survey responses indicated that many clients have set up TOD or POD accounts without consulting with their estate planning attorneys, often inadvertently at the direction of the clients' financial advisers. A client may be advised that a TOD or POD account registration is beneficial because it avoids the need for probate, but the client (and perhaps the adviser) does not understand the effect this type of account registration may have on the client's estate plan. In many cases, clients may not even realize that their accounts are titled this way or do not understand that they had a choice when the account was set up.
At an estate planning meeting, even if the attorney asks the question about how accounts are registered, clients may change the title or designations on their accounts after the fact. This commonly happens when a client moves assets from one financial institution to another or when a client updates beneficiary designation forms for his or her retirement plans and a TOD account form is included in the mix for the nonretirement brokerage accounts, without the client really understanding that nonretirement accounts need not (and oftentimes should not) have beneficiary designations associated with them. There are often different considerations in naming a beneficiary for a tax-deferred retirement account than for a nonretirement account.
A shared concern was expressed by the surveyed estate planning attorneys that they have had estate administrations made significantly more complicated by TOD or POD accounts. Oftentimes, unintended and unpleasant issues arise in the estate administration process because of these designations, particularly in cases where a client doesn't realize (or forgets) that the account was titled in such way. If these accounts are not properly updated during the estate planning process (or if a client later changes the registration on an account to a TOD), beneficiaries under the intended estate plan may end up being unintentionally disinherited or bearing the burden of the inheritance and/or estate taxes and other estate administration expenses imposed on the POD/TOD assets passing outside of the probate estate. Sometimes only one child (or perhaps another individual) is named as beneficiary of the TOD account, excluding the other children, or, even if all of the children are named as beneficiaries of the TOD account, if a child predeceases the account owner, the TOD designation may not contemplate such deceased child's descendants, whereas had the account passed in accordance with the terms of the will or revocable trust, descendants of a deceased child would have been covered, as intended by the account owner. Another significant issue that these types of account registrations can cause is to disrupt the intended trust structures for family members under an estate plan, where the TOD designation named individuals directly (and not trusts) as the designated beneficiaries.
It seems that the main reason behind the TOD account registrations is the avoidance of probate (which, in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, is not nearly as much of an administrative burden or expense as in many other jurisdictions). An alternative to this, which would not disrupt an estate plan, would be to simply re-title the account into the name of the client's revocable living trust. This accomplishes the avoidance of probate, but also makes sure that the assets pass to the intended beneficiaries in the manner desired by the account owner, and may be easily updated by the account owner by an amendment without needing to update account titles or beneficiary designation forms at multiple financial institutions.
In response to the survey results, the Legislative Committee of the Probate and Trust Section will be considering potential changes to the applicable law to help alleviate the problems associated with unintended and undesired POD/TOD designations by clients. These types of nonprobate dispositions of assets at death have been around for a long time. However, based on our own experience and the survey results, it appears that it has become a more prevalent problem in recent years. This is likely due to the ease with which designations may now be made electronically, the greater amount of a typical client's assets passing outside of probate under IRAs and qualified plans than was the case for past generations, as well as the rise of the non-lawyer wealth advisers who provide holistic financial and estate planning advice to clients.
In our experience, the best use of TOD/POD designations is for small accounts which the account owner wants to direct separately from the rest of his or her estate plan; or, for estates where the account owner has elected not to establish a formal estate plan. For every account owner with a formal estate plan, until and unless the law is changed down the road to protect them from inadvertent TOD/POD designations that are inconsistent with their estate plans, extreme caution should be taken when making any updates to beneficiary designations, changing title on accounts, or opening accounts with new financial institutions. For such account owners (and their nonlawyer wealth advisers), it is always advisable to consult with the estate planning attorney to make sure that all account titles and beneficiary designations are properly coordinated with the existing estate plan. Truly, in this area, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and in many cases may be absolutely necessary to avert an incurable and undesired result.
Rebecca Rosenberger Smolen and Amy Neifeld Shkedy are members and co-founders of Bala Law Group. They focus their practices on tax and estate planning.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
Neighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readSeven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 2
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250