Power of sale in independent administrations

(This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.)

Most well-drafted wills expressly give the independent executor the power to sell real property. However, some wills do not include a power of sale provision.  Also, when the distributees of an intestate estate agree on the appointment of an independent administrator, that administrator serves without the benefit of a power of sale provision.  In those cases, when can the independent administrator sell real property without the joinder of the distributees? Under prior law, there was no clear answer to this question.  As a result, most title companies would not insure title if an independent administrator without the power of sale tried to sell real property of the estate, unless the distributees joined in the conveyance.

SB 1198 attempts to clarify the rules about sales of real property by independent administrators and to provide a means for independent administrators with no express power of sale to obtain the clear authority to sell real property.

New Section 145A permits the distributees of an estate to give the independent administrator the power of sale in cases where there is no will or where the will does not contain language authorizing him or her to sell real property.  The distributees may give the independent administrator the power of sale by signing a consent prior to the appointment of the independent administrator, whereupon the court will include the power to sell in the order appointing the independent administrator. Thus, if the proposed independent administrator knows in advance that he or she may need to sell real property, he or she may ask the distributees to sign a consent giving the independent administrator the power of sale and file these consents with the application for appointment.  The court, seeing that the distributees have consented to giving the independent administrator the power of sale, can include the power of sale in the order appointing the independent administrator.  This permits title companies and other third parties to rely on that order when the independent administrator wishes to sell real property.  If the independent administrator waits until after he or she is appointed to get the power of sale, it is too late – the distributees also must sign the deed (unless the sale is necessary to pay expenses of administration, funeral expenses and expenses of last sickness of decedent, and allowances and claims against the estate – see below.)

New Section 145C confirms that an independent executor has the power to sell real property if that power is expressly given to him or her in the will. In most cases in the Probate Code, the term “independent executor” includes “independent administrators.” This is not the case in Section 145C, however.  While an independent executor has the power of sale given in the will, an independent administrator with will annexed does not, since the testator is deemed to have given the power of sale only to the persons he or she named as independent executors in the will and not to an unnamed person later appointed as independent administrator.

Section 145C also provides that, unless limited by the terms of a will, both independent executors and independent administrators have the same power of sale for the same purposes as a personal representative has in a supervised (dependent) administration, but without the requirement of court approval and without the need to comply with the procedural requirements applicable to a supervised administration.  Section 341 provides that a personal representative in a supervised administration with court approval may sell property when it appears necessary or advisable in order to:

(1)        Pay expenses of administration, funeral expenses and expenses of last sickness of decedents, and allowances and claims against the estates of decedents.

(2)        Dispose of any interest in real property of the estate of a decedent, when it is deemed to the best interest of the estate to sell such interest.

Clearly under new Section 145C an independent executor or independent administrator may sell real property if necessary to pay expenses, allowances and claims (Section 341(1)) regardless of whether the will contains a power of sale and so long as the terms of the will do not limit the power of sale.  It is not so clear if an independent executor or independent administrator without an express power of sale may sell real property “when it is deemed to the best interest of the estate” (Section 341(2)). Section 145C(b) says he or she has the same power of sale for the same purposes as a dependent administrator, and a dependent administrator may apply to the court for a “best interest” sale, so it appears that independent executors and administrators are given this power.  However, Section 145C(c) provides that a good faith unrelated purchaser of real property is protected if  there is a power of sale given to the independent executor in the will, if the court grants a power of sale in the order appointing the independent executor or independent administrator, or if “the independent executor or independent administrator provides an affidavit, executed and sworn to under oath and recorded in the deed records of the county where the property is located, that the sale is necessary or advisable for any of the purposes described in Section 341(1) of this code.” Since Section 341(1) permits sales to pay administrative expenses, allowances and claims, while Section 341(2) permits “best interest” sales, there is no third-party protection for “best interest” sales.

After chopping through the bushes on Sections 145A and 145C for a while, it appears that the power of sale in an independent administration may be summarized as follows:

• If the will expressly gives a power of sale, the independent executor named in the will has the power to sell real property for any purpose.

• An independent administrator with will annexed cannot use a power of sale granted in the will.

• If the distributees consent to giving the independent executor or independent administrator the power of sale and the order appointing the independent executor or independent administrator expressly grants the power of sale, the independent executor or independent administrator has the power to sell real property for any purpose.

• Unless the terms of a will limits the power, any independent executor or independent administrator may sell real property to pay administrative expenses, allowances and claims or if it is in the best interest of the estate – even if the will or order grant no power of sale – but a good faith third party purchaser will be protected only if the sale is to pay administrative expenses, allowances and claims. The third party is not protected if the reason for the sale is the best interest of the estate.

Section 145C(c)(2) makes clear that the signature or joinder of a devisee or heir is not required as to acts undertaken in good faith reliance on the independent executor’s affidavit that the sale is for the purpose of paying administrative expenses, allowances or claims.  Section 145C(c)(3) makes clear that the fact that an independent executor or administrator has the power to sell real property does not relieve him or her from any duty owed to a devisee or her in relation, directly or indirectly, to the sale.

Sections affected:  Probate Code Sections 145A and 145C.

Inherited IRAs are Exempt from Creditors’ Claims

(This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.)

SB 1810 amends Section 42.0021 of the Property Code to provide that all IRAs, including inherited IRAs, are exempt from creditors' claims.  It provides that the interest of a person in an IRA acquired by reason of the death of another person is exempt to the same extent that the interest of the person from whom the account was acquired was exempt on the date of the person's death.

The exempt status of inherited IRAs was called into question by In re Jarboe, 2007 WL 987314 (Bankr. S. D. Tex 2007), and by similar cases across the country.

Section affected:  Property Code Section 42.0021.

Survivorship accounts: Holmes v. Beatty expressly overturned

(This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.)

Holmes v. Beatty, 290 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009), caused shockwaves in the probate and estate planning community for two reasons:

• First, and most importantly, the Supreme Court relaxed the standards for creating rights of survivorship with respect to community property, holding that a "joint tenancy" or " JT TEN" designation on an account is sufficient to create rights of survivorship in community property under Section 452 of the Texas Probate Code.

• Second, the Supreme Court held that stock certificates issued from a community property with right of survivorship brokerage account continue to be survivorship property even though the the certificates themselves do not meet the requirements for survivorship agreements.

SB 1198 overturns Holmes on the first of these points.  It adds this sentence to Section 452: "A survivorship agreement will not be inferred from the mere fact that the account is a joint account or that the account is designated JT TEN, Joint Tenancy, joint, or other similar abbreviation." Parallel language is added to Section 439, which governs non-community property multi-party accounts. SB 1198 specifically states that the bill is intended to overturn the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court in Holmes v. Beatty.

These changes were intended to bring Section 452 – regarding community property with right of survivorship accounts – in line with Section 439 and the principles established by the Texas Supreme Court in Stauffer v. Henderson,801 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1990). Those principles apply to community property with right of survivorship accounts notwithstanding the slight differences in language between Sections 439 and 452.

The bill is silent on the other significant holding in Holmes, so stock certificates issued out of community property with right of survivorship accounts may continue to be survivorship property, at least to the extent described in Holmes.

Sections affected:  Probate Code Sections 439 and 452.

Will unsworn declarations invade probate practice?

(This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.)

Because of HB 3674, which flew under the radar in 2011, arguably it is no longer necessary to have a notary in most cases were a sworn statement or affidavit is made.  The statute amends Section 132.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code – which previously only dealt with unsworn statements by inmates – to provide that an “unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute or required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted by law.”  The unsworn declaration must be in writing and subscribed by the person making the declaration as true under penalty of perjury.  A specifc form of non-notarized jurat must be used.  There are exceptions for an oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public. The bill becomes effective September 1, 2011, and applies to unsworn declarations made on or after that date.

Is a will containing an unsworn declaration self-proved as required by Section 59 of the Probate Code?  Probably not.  For one thing, the testator and each witness would have to make an unsworn declaration, not just the testator.  For another, a court is likely to find that the use of an unsworn declaration is not “in form and contents substantially” as required by Section 59.  Also, since the consequences of a court’s refusal to accept an unsworn declaration on a will is that it is not self-proved (rather than that it is not entitled to probate), it is hard to imagine anyone appealing a decision of a court refusing to accept it.

Sworn statements are permitted or required at least 70 times in the decedents’ estates portion of the Probate Code.  (The author grew tired of counting before getting to guardianships.)  With some of these statutes, it may be appropriate to permit someone to make an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury rather than a notarized statement.  In others, it clearly is a bad idea.

Time will tell if probate judges will permit the use of these declarations.  In the meantime, the simple, worry-free answer for a probate practitioner is to use notarized sworn statements and affidavits.

New will-signing procedure: the testator and witnesses need sign only once

(This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.)

Under prior law, in order to make a will self-proved, the testator and each witness had to sign the will twice – once on the will itself and once on the self-proving affidavit.  SB 1198 amends Section 59 of the Texas Probate Code to permit combining the execution of the will with the signing of the self-proving affidavit so that the testator and witnesses only have to sign once.  The statute includes the appropriate language to include in the will if the one-signature method is desired.

The one-signature method is optional.  Testators still may use the two-signature method.

The change to Section 59 corresponds with changes to Sections 677A and 679 made in 2009 which adopted a one-signature method for declarations of guardian.  Other changes in 2009 made it possible to use a notary public in lieu of witnesses on medical powers of attorney and on directives to physicians and family or surrogates.  As a result of the 2009 and 2011 changes, attorneys may greatly streamline the document signing ceremony:

• The statutory durable power of attorney, medical power of attorney and directive to physicians or family and surrogates may be executed before a notary public, and no witnesses are required.

• The will, the declaration of guardian for minor children and the declaration of guardian in the event of later incapacity require two witnesses, but the testator/declarant and the witnesses need sign only once.

The new will-signing method becomes available on September 1, 2011.

Probate inventory may be kept private

This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.

The 2011 legislative change that is likely to have the biggest impact on Texas probate lawyers is SB 1198’s amendment to Section 250 of the Probate Code permitting independent executors to file an affidavit in lieu of an inventory, appraisement and list of claims if there are no unpaid debts, except for secured debts, taxes and administration expenses, at the time the inventory is due.  The public disclosure of information in the inventory is unpopular with clients and drives some Texans to use a living trust-based plan when a will otherwise would suffice.

Here are the particulars of the change:

• Only independent executors and independent administrators are permitted to file an affidavit in lieu of an inventory. Dependent administrators must file a public inventory.

• The affidavit may be used if there are no unpaid estate debts, other than secured debts, taxes and administration expenses, at the time the inventory is due.  If the independent executor can pay all unsecured debts between the date he or she qualifies and the due date of the inventory, the independent executor can avoid the public disclosure of inventory information.

• The change does not mean that it no longer is necessary to prepare an inventory.  The independent executor still must prepare a verified, full and detailed inventory and deliver it to each estate beneficiary.

• Any person interested in the estate – specifically including a possible heir of the decedent or a beneficiary named in a prior will – is entitled to receive a copy of the inventory on request.  The independent executor is protected from liability to the estate or its beneficiaries if he or she provides a copy of the inventory to a person the independent executor believes in good faith “may be” a person interested in the estate.  If the independent executor refuses to give a person a copy of the inventory, he or she may apply to the court to compel the independent executor to do so.

The change to Section 250 necessitates changes to a number of related sections. An independent executor may be removed if he or she fails to file an inventory or the affidavit in lieu of aninventory (Section 149C).  Successor independent executors also may file an affidavit in lieu of an inventory (Section 227). If additional property or claims are discovered, the independent executor either must file a supplemental inventory or a supplemental affidavit in lieu of an inventory (Section 256). The setting apart of exempt property (Section 271), the setting of the family allowance (Section 286) and the sale of property to raise funds for the family allowance (Section 293) are tied to the filing of the inventory or an affidavit in lieu of an inventory.

While Section 250 permits the independent executor to choose to file an inventory or an affidavit in lieu of an inventory, beneficiaries may believe that the independent executor has breached his or her duties if (a) he or she fails to use the affidavit in lieu of an inventory if the estate is eligible to do so and (b) he or she fails to quickly pay the decedent’s unsecured debts (if it is possible to do so) in order to make the estate eligible for the affidavit in lieu of inventory. It may be hard for the independent executor to justify making an unnecessary public disclosure of asset information.

This change should make will-based plans more popular.  Clients still may wish to use living trusts for other reasons (out-of-state real property, disability planning or fear of a will contest, for example), but they may not have to forego a will-based plan merely to avoid a public disclosure of information.

An affidavit in lieu of an inventory may be used for the estates of decedents dying on or after September 1, 2011.  For persons who died before September 1, 2011, an inventory must be filed, even if the inventory is filed after September 1, 2011.

Significant changes to Section 128A notices to beneficiaries

This is one of a series of posts about 2011 legislation.

The 2007 amendment to Probate Code Section 128A caused much grumbling among probate lawyers.  It required the personal representative of a testate decedent to send certified mail notices to (or obtain waivers from) all beneficiaries named in the will.  The 2007 changes were a rush job to address concerns expressed in the Legislature over a sensational case in Travis County in which an independent executor was accused of misappropriating estate funds without ever telling the estate beneficiaries that he was the executor and that they had an interest in the estate.  Because it was a rush job, 2007’s Section 128A was rough around the edges and went further than has proven to be necessary.

SB 1198 amends Section 128A to make the rules about notices to beneficiaries much easier to meet.  Here are the key changes:

• The notice does not have to be given to a beneficiary who is receiving $2,000 or less worth of property or who has received all gifts to which he or she is entitled within 60 days of the order admitting the will to probate.

• The notice or waiver need not include a copy of the will and the order admitting it to probate if it includes a written summary of the gifts to the beneficiary under the will, the court in which the will was admitted to probate, the docket number assigned to the estate, the date the will was admitted to probate and, if different, the date the court appointed the personal representative.

• The personal representative does not need to notify a beneficiary of a trust whose right to receive income distributions is at the sole discretion of the trustee if the trustee has given the notice to an ancestor of the beneficiary and there is no apparent conflict of interest between the ancestor and the beneficiary.  This change may offer some help in the case of trusts permitting distributions to all of a person’s descendants, but it will not help if the distribution standard is based on the health, education, maintenance and support needs of the beneficiary, since this is not a wholly discretionary standard.

SB 1198 clarifies that notices are not required if the will is probated as a muniment of title and that notices are not required to a person whose interest arises on the occurrence of a contingency which has not occurred.

The changes made by SB 1198 apply to the estate of a decedent dying on or after September 1, 2011.  The old law must be followed for persons dying before that date.

2011 Texas Legislative update

Glenn Karisch's 2011 Texas Legislative Update is now available here in pdf format. This covers all of the key probate, guardianship and trust law changes made in the regular and first called session of the 82nd Texas Legislature. Most of the changes become effective September 1, 2011. Subject-by-subject excerpts will be posted to this site shortly.

Bill Pargaman's excellent and comprehensive legislative update is available here in pdf format.  Bill's paper includes the full text of the Probate Code and Trust Code changes.

Sine die

The 2011 regular session of the Texas Legislature ended May 30, 2011. Governor Perry has until June 19, 2011, to sign or veto bills. While the legislature is meeting in special session as of this writing (June 8, 2011), it is unlikely that any probate, guardianship or trust legislation will be enacted in this or any other special session. Most enacted legislation becomes effective September 1, 2011.

There are summaries of each enacted bill in the 2011 Legislation portion of The Texas Probate Website. Bill Pargaman's excellent and comprehensive legislative update is available online here. Here are some of the key changes:

You won't have to file an inventory in most independent administrations.

SB 1198 amends Section 250 of the Probate Code to permit an independent executor to file an affidavit in lieu of an inventory if there are no unpaid debts, except for secured debts, taxes and administrative expenses, at the time the inventory is due. The independent executor still must prepare an inventory and send a copy to each beneficiary, but the public disclosure of the decedent's assets which results from filing a probate inventory will no longer be required in the vast majority of estates.

The testator and witnesses need to sign the will only once.

SB 1198 amends Section 59 to allow a combined execution of the will and self-proving affidavit so that the testator and witnesses are required to sign only once, instead of having to sign both the will and the self-proving affadavit. The old way still works, but this provides a new way to speed up will signings.

Survivorship accounts -- the worst part of Holmes v. Beatty is overruled. 

SB 1198 amends Sections 439 and 452 to make it clear that, for both community property and non-community property multiple party accounts, a survivorship agreement will not be inferred from the mere fact that the account is a joint account or that the account is designated as JT TEN, Joint Tenancy, or joint, or with similar language. The effective date provision makes it clear that this was intended to expressly overrule Holmes v. Beatty, 290 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009).

Changes to Section 128A notices to beneficiaries.

SB 1198 amends Section 128A to make it easier on personal representatives. No notice is required if the beneficiary receives property worth $2,000 or less or if the beneficiary receives all property to which he or she is entitled within 60 days of the order admitting the will to probate. The notice need not include a copy of the will and the order admitting it to probate if the notice includes a summary of the gifts to the beneficiary, the court in which the will is probated and the docket number assigned to the case. The bill clarifies other issues about 128A notices.

Power of sale in independent administrations.

SB 1198 attempts to clarify whether or not an independent administrator has the power to sell real property. In cases where there is no will or the will does not give the independent administrator or executor the power of sale, Section 145A permits the distributees of the estate to agree at the time the personal representative is appointed to consent to granting the power of sale, in which case the court will include the power of sale in the order appointing the independent administrator or executor. Section 145C attempts to clarify in which cases independent executors have the power of sale.

Deadline to make disclaimers extended to match 2010 tax law.

SB 1197 and SB 1198 change the disclaimer provisions in the Trust Code and Probate Code, respectively, to extend the deadling for persons dying after December 31, 2009, but before December 17, 2010, until 9 months after December 17, 2010. The tax law enacted by Congress in December 2010 gave those decedents until that date to disclaim for federal tax law purposes, so the Texas law change matches the federal change.

Creditor protection for inherited IRAs.

SB 1810 amends Section 42.0021 of the Property Code to provide that all IRAs, including inherited IRAs, are exempt from creditors' claims.  It provides that the interest of a person in an IRA acquired by reason of the death of another person is exempt to the same extent that the interest of the person from whom the account was acquired was exempt on the date of the person's death. The exempt status of inherited IRAs was called into question by In re Jarboe, 2007 WL 987314 (Bankr. S. D. Tex 2007), and similar cases across the country.

2011 Legislation

The 82nd Texas Legislature ended its regular session May 30, 2011. All probate, guardianship and trust bills passed during the session have been signed by the Governor, and most become effective September 1, 2011. One bill in the first called session (SB 1) contains guardianship changes and, as of July 8, 2011, was awaiting the Governor's signature. Each bill affecting probate, guardianship and trust law is listed below. 

All bills are labeled "Awaiting Governor's Signature," "Enacted," or "Did Not Pass."

Useful links: 

• Texas Legislature Online.

• Glenn Karisch's 2011 Legislative Update.

• Bill Pargaman's 2011 Legislative Update -- All of the bills, the full text of all of the changes to the probate and trust codes and helpful forms.

• Top Ten Things to Do Now -- Glenn Karisch's list of ten things estate planning and probate attorneys should do to address the legislative changes taking effect September 1, 2011.

Awaiting Governor's Signature: SB 1 (First Called Session) -- Transfers of guardianships

Caption: Relating to certain state fiscal matters; providing penalties.
Author: Duncan, Shapiro
Bill History
Bill Text

Relevance: In a rarity for probate and guardianship legislation, SB1 in the First Called (Special) Session makes some changes to the guardianship portion of the Probate Code. It is primarily a school finance bill, but it has been loaded up with provisions from bills which failed to pass during the regular session. It makes a number of changes to the provisions regarding transfer of guardianship proceedings (Sections 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618 and 619), including requiring the guardian of a guardianship that is transferred to give a new bond payable to the court to which the guardianship is transferred or to file a rider to the existing bond noting the court to which the guardianship is transferred. (Section 614) The bill also requires the court to which the guardianship is transferred to conduct a hearing within 90 days to consider modifying the rights, duties, and powers of the guardian. (Section 619) SB1 also alters the procedures for dealing with interstate guardianships (Sections 892, 893, 894 and 895). New Section 895 provides a means for a court in which a guardianship proceeding is pending to determine if it is the most appropriate forum for the guardianship. 

Enacted-Effective 9/1/11: HB 3573 -- Disclosures about and eligibility of members of charity's board

Caption: Relating to limiting the disclosure of certain information regarding certain charitable organizations, trusts, private foundations, and grant-making organizations.
Author: King, Susan
Bill History
Bill Text

Relevance:  This bill prohibits a charity from disclosing certain information about officers, board members, trustees and members of the charity unless those persons give written consent to the disclosure.  It also prohibits a governmental entity from prohibiting an individual's service on a charity's board or as an officer of a charity based on the individial's donor status or familial relationship to a donor. The bill provides that it does not limit the authority of the attorney general to investigate or enforce laws in accordance with the attorney general's duty to protect the public interest.

Enacted-Effective 9/1/11: SB 1810 -- Inherited IRAs exempt from creditors

Caption: Relating to the exemption of certain retirement accounts from access by creditors.
Author: Carona
Bill History
Bill Text

Relevance:  This bill would make it clear that inherited IRAs are exempt from creditors' claims.  There are cases nationwide which have gone both ways on this issue.