How Life Events Can Affect Your Estate Planning Goals
For the most part, with a flexible estate plan in place there isn't always the need to revisit it too often. What does bring clients back to reevaluate their plans are "life event" changes. These can involve events such as marriage, divorce, the birth of children or grandchildren, the death or incapacity of family members or other individuals named in the documents.
September 01, 2022 at 10:56 AM
7 minute read
A well thought out estate plan usually lasts quite a while. As a result, we have found that the majority of our estate planning clients tend not to be repeat customers. By that, we mean that they don't come back to us very frequently once they have their core estate planning documents in order. And that's the goal—to make sure that they have an estate plan in place that will last a while. Of course, we do have some clients with whom we meet with more regularly (generally no more frequently than annually), but this is generally the exception and involves the monitoring of more complicated planning strategies. For the most part, with a flexible estate plan in place there isn't always the need to revisit it too often. What does bring clients back to reevaluate their plans are "life event" changes. These can involve events such as marriage, divorce, the birth of children or grandchildren, the death or incapacity of family members or other individuals named in the documents, the purchase of a house, start of a business, sale of a business, just to name a few. Having said that, this article mainly focuses on "life events" such as the events or circumstances described above. Although not the focus of this article, tax law changes as it relates to the federal estate and gift tax exemption amounts (currently $12.06 million per individual or $24.12 million for a married couple) also tend to cause an influx of repeat business (or at least discussions about whether to consider additional 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This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllThe Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readPennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
8 minute readFalling Back in Love With Certain Estate Planning Strategies in a Falling Interest Rate Environment
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 2'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 3FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 4California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
- 5Law Student Sues NY Attorney Grievance Officials, Seeking Materials Over Sexual Assault Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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