Tread Carefully with Specific Bequests

Even those individuals who have not yet created an Estate Plan have certain goals in mind regarding their legacy. They may have had conversations with their loved ones regarding what they want to happen, including discussing detailed disposition of their assets upon death. Often, these goals reflect long-standing plans to reward a beneficiary for their devotion to the business or even to follow through on a promise to gift a particular asset to a beneficiary. When an individual creates a plan like this, it may seem straightforward; however, these “simple” bequests can prove difficult, if not impossible, to implement for a variety of reasons. For example, if the assets no longer remain in the estate, or if the value of the asset changes substantially between the time the documents are signed and the death of the donor, the fiduciary administering the decedent’s Estate or Revocable Trust may not be able to implement the plan as intended. Sometimes circumstances such as medical expenses require the sale of an asset prior to death, resulting in ademption of the asset. Sometimes changes in the assets and their values occur with the mere passage of time. This article explores what happens when an Estate Plan includes a specific gift and circumstances change such that the estate no longer owns that specifically devised asset or its value has changed drastically and the potentially catastrophic and likely unintended consequences that follow.

Specific gifts present an easy way to accomplish Estate Planning goals. Let’s assume that Johnny’s mother left a Will leaving him her business, Fran’s Flowers, worth $1 million. She left the remainder of her Estate, also worth $1 million to her daughter, Sally. Each child would receive an approximately equal share of mom’s estate. If Johnny’s mother sold the business and then died prior to updating her Will, in states that follow the common law doctrine of ademption, Johnny would receive nothing. For those unfamiliar with the term, ademption occurs when specific property given to a beneficiary no longer exists at the death of the donor. The testator may have sold or otherwise disposed of the property. It matters not how or why the property no longer exists, only that it’s gone.

Let’s assume that instead of her business, Johnny’s mom plans to give him her Aspen, Colorado vacation home because he travels there every winter for ski season. Mom contracts to sell the property, intending to buy a larger home, but dies prior to closing. Although the contract is executory, the doctrine of equitable conversion deems the purchaser the owner of the home from the moment the contract becomes enforceable. Even in this scenario, the specific bequest was adeemed and Johnny again loses out on his inheritance.

To further illustrate the point, assume that Johnny’s mom wants to give her diamond ring to Johnny’s sister, Sally. Shortly before Mom’s death, a thief steals the diamond ring. The personal representative makes a claim against Mom’s insurance and the estate collects the insurance proceeds. You might assume that Sally would receive the proceeds in place of the diamond ring. In most states that recognize ademption, the specific devise would be adeemed by extinguishment, notwithstanding the estate’s receipt of insurance proceeds. Sally would have no recourse, although receipt of the insurance proceeds made the estate whole. A few states have moved to enact statutes that give the insurance proceeds to the beneficiary when the asset no longer exists, but that’s not universal.

Some states, like Florida, will look to the testator’s intent to determine if a suitable replacement exists. Other states, like Wisconsin, have attempted to abolish the doctrine of ademption by extinction by awarding beneficiaries the balance of the purchase price of an asset sold prior to death. Yet others, like Virginia, have enacted statutes that carve out what happens with specific types of assets, such as stock certificates. Thus, if a new company buys the stock of the old company that was the subject of a specific devise and issues new stock, that specific bequest would not have been adeemed and the beneficiary would take the new stock in place of the old. Still others, like California, actively seek to avoid ademption whenever possible.

Now, let’s flip the scenario back to the original example in which Johnny receives the business and Sally receives the residuary estate. Assume that the business appreciates substantially between the time Mom signs her Estate Plan and her death. If Johnny receives the business valued at $8 million and Sally receives the $1 million residuary estate, Johnny receives many multiples of what Sally does. Obviously, this was not Mom’s intent, but most states would never get to intent in this situation because the documents were clear. This example highlights an extreme result of planning gone awry but represents an important consideration whenever a client wants to make specific bequests.

Is there anything that can be done? Perhaps. clear drafting that indicates what should happen should the asset no longer be in the estate, or if an asset appreciates substantially, help keep the beneficiaries whole. In most states, if a specific devise fails because it has been adeemed, the intended beneficiary has little or no recourse and will not receive the value of the intended specific bequest from other components of the Estate. It matters not whether the removal was intentional or unintentional. Once the Estate no longer holds the assets, that’s the end of the inquiry. Some states consider a specific bequest of an asset that has changed substantially in character adeemed. In other situations, if the specific devise appreciates well above the value of all the other assets combined, children who were supposed to have equal treatment would end up with unequal treatment. While we often say that fair does not necessarily mean equal in Estate Planning, most individuals design their Estate Plans to treat their beneficiaries fairly and would loathe having the plan altered by outside factors. It’s important to take care of specific bequests and ensure that you consider all the possibilities for the asset and include appropriate adjustments as part of a comprehensive Estate Plan.

A Message from the Murdochs

Celebrity estates often go wrong and become the subject of ridicule and infamy. Given the numerous sources that detail the consequences of failed Estate Plans, it surprises me that anyone, let alone a person with any degree of fame, would fail to implement a proper Estate Plan prior to their death. Sometimes, it’s because they died an untimely death and never created the plan or created a convoluted plan. Other times it’s because they neglected to update the plan as family circumstances changed. Finally, some famous individuals do not follow the required formalities for their Estate Plan. None of these excuses outweigh the benefit of creating an Estate Plan and reviewing it regularly. Simply put, none of us should leave our legacy to chance.

Rupert Murdoch may understand the importance of legacy better than most other famous people. Indeed, Murdoch expects his children to compete for his respect by vying for control of the family empire. This family dynamic served as the inspiration for the television show, Succession. Much like what happened in the show, the “heir apparent” to the family empire changes over time based upon that individual’s action or inaction in a particular matter. In the show, when a child disobeyed or angered Logan Roy, he made changes and often pitted his children against one another. According to sources, that’s exactly what’s happening now with the Murdoch family. Late last year, Murdoch filed a petition to amend the terms of an irrevocable trust that holds Murdoch’s approximately 40% interest in News Corporation (“News”) (which owns The Wall Street Journal) and Fox Corporation (“Fox”). According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Murdoch initiated the petition because of his concerns regarding the politics of some of his children. He worries that their beliefs could influence News and Fox and ultimately, negatively impact the economic value of the entities.

Murdoch created the trust at issue in 1999. According to the New York Times, upon Murdoch’s death, the terms of the trust give equal voting control of the entities in the trust to Lachlan Murdoch, James Murdoch, Elisabeth Murdoch, and Prudence Murdoch, four of Murdoch’s six children. In the petition, Murdoch seeks instead to grant exclusive control of the entities to his eldest son, Lachlan. Lachlan began running News and Fox last year when Murdoch retired and aligns with his father politically. Notably, James, Murdoch’s youngest son, has clashed with his father politically and has criticized editorial content published by the media outlets. If Murdoch wins this lawsuit, it will strip James, Elisabeth, and Prudence of any power to control News or Fox.

Murdoch’s desire to change the terms of the trust may not come to fruition. The New York Times reports that the terms of the trust only allow changes made in good faith and for the benefit of the heirs. Sources indicate that Murdoch plans to argue that giving Lachlan sole control of News and Fox will protect the value of the companies and benefit the heirs by putting control in the hands of just one child thereby preventing intrafamily squabbles. James, Elisabeth, and Prudence oppose the change and it’s unclear how the court will view the proposed modification given that three of four children would lose their voting rights. The hearing will occur in September.

Interestingly, we get to watch this battle unfold during Murdoch’s life. In many disputes involving the estate of a famous individual, the battle occurs after that person’s death. Here, it occurs at Murdoch’s behest during his life, which provides insight into his true intentions. Beneficiaries rarely have the opportunity to understand the underlying reason for a plan that deviates from expectations or that treats children differently. That isn’t the case here. Murdoch’s children know what he wants to do and why and will have the opportunity to oppose the proposed revision. Unfortunately, no matter how the case ends, it may cause irreparable damage to the family.

While fascinating, it’s unfortunate that this matter will play out on a public stage. The family is no stranger to the press, lawsuits, and publicity. Typically, when intrafamily litigation ensues, only the lawyers benefit. Litigation takes time, causes stress, and costs money. Thankfully for the Murdoch family, the dispute plays out now, rather than at Rupert Murdoch’s death. While it will undoubtedly hurt feelings, having it play out now may give the parties time to heal and potentially reconcile while everyone lives. It may also motivate them to settle the dispute privately. These public feuds provide great lessons for all of us.