Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

Agree 100%. Unless you live in a state that has a nightmare judicial system (*cough* California), or you have assets of over $24 million, you don't need a living trust. A testamentary trust (one established by the will) is fine. For minor children, you can make "the Trust for DC 1 established by the will of Parent XYZ" the beneficiary of any assets that allow the designation of beneficiaries.

Could you explain what this means?

I have a rental property, TSP, Roth, and brokerage account that would go to my minor child. Would a testamentary trust allow me to say that my child will get X amount of money at age 40, or can use up to X amount of money for college, etc. Thanks

Yes. The will would establish the trust upon death and it can have any restrictions that you want regarding what leeway the Trustee has to spend the $$ and when the child has full access. For those accounts that allow you to designate beneficiaries, if you just make the DC your beneficiary, then the money would go to them directly and they'd have full access when they're 18. If you make the testamentary trust the beneficiary, then the terms of the trust will control.

Thanks for the info!

I've been working on getting our estate planning done right now and have gotten a couple of quotes. A solo practitioner working out of their house quoted me 3K. A different solo practitioner working out of Bethesda office space quoted 2K. (Which surprised me - I just assumed the one working out of their house would be cheaper. But I did get the sense from talking with that attorney that they favored a more collaborative approach and would spend more time talking through options than the attorney charging 2K, so perhaps the more expensive attorney just knows they put more hours into each client.)

I'm waiting to hear back from a small boutique firm with 4 or 5 attorneys working out of Rockville for their quote, though they have told me thus far that they wait until after an initial consultation in order to decide whether they'll charge by the hour or charge a flat fee. Given the price differences, I do think it's worthwhile to call around. When my in-laws updated their estate planning a year or two ago, different attorneys in the Bethesda firm they went to charged different amounts. (The in-laws didn't remember what they paid when I asked.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

Agree 100%. Unless you live in a state that has a nightmare judicial system (*cough* California), or you have assets of over $24 million, you don't need a living trust. A testamentary trust (one established by the will) is fine. For minor children, you can make "the Trust for DC 1 established by the will of Parent XYZ" the beneficiary of any assets that allow the designation of beneficiaries.

Could you explain what this means?

I have a rental property, TSP, Roth, and brokerage account that would go to my minor child. Would a testamentary trust allow me to say that my child will get X amount of money at age 40, or can use up to X amount of money for college, etc. Thanks

Yes. The will would establish the trust upon death and it can have any restrictions that you want regarding what leeway the Trustee has to spend the $$ and when the child has full access. For those accounts that allow you to designate beneficiaries, if you just make the DC your beneficiary, then the money would go to them directly and they'd have full access when they're 18. If you make the testamentary trust the beneficiary, then the terms of the trust will control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

Agree 100%. Unless you live in a state that has a nightmare judicial system (*cough* California), or you have assets of over $24 million, you don't need a living trust. A testamentary trust (one established by the will) is fine. For minor children, you can make "the Trust for DC 1 established by the will of Parent XYZ" the beneficiary of any assets that allow the designation of beneficiaries.

Could you explain what this means?

I have a rental property, TSP, Roth, and brokerage account that would go to my minor child. Would a testamentary trust allow me to say that my child will get X amount of money at age 40, or can use up to X amount of money for college, etc. Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an estate planning attorney in a very small firm. I charge $1000 for wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives for a couple - so 6 docs. I charge $2000 if you want to do those 6 docs plus revocable trusts. I agree with the previous posters, though, that in today's estate tax world revocable trusts aren't needed for most people. I actively dissuade my clients from them except for certain circumstances like 2nd marriages, property in multiple states, high net worth, etc. Too many people get revocable trusts then don't retitle assets into them so its a big fat waste of time and money.

I thought the assets went into the trust upon death, no?

Also I paid $6k.

You likely have a pour over will which puts assets into the trust at death (these are what I draft) - but now you've lost probably the biggest current benefit of a trust ... avoiding probate. 100% of my clients who come to me wanting trusts do so because they don't want their kids or other loved ones to have to probate their estate. But assets that aren't titled into the name of the trust prior to death will still have to go through probate. There are exceptions, of course. In Virginia we have the small estate act that creates a speedier form of probate if your estate is below a certain value. A lot of assets these days have beneficiary designations - those don't go through probate either.

Anonymous wrote:I'm an estate planning attorney in a very small firm. I charge $1000 for wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives for a couple - so 6 docs. I charge $2000 if you want to do those 6 docs plus revocable trusts. I agree with the previous posters, though, that in today's estate tax world revocable trusts aren't needed for most people. I actively dissuade my clients from them except for certain circumstances like 2nd marriages, property in multiple states, high net worth, etc. Too many people get revocable trusts then don't retitle assets into them so its a big fat waste of time and money.

I thought the assets went into the trust upon death, no?

Also I paid $6k.

I'm an estate planning attorney in a very small firm. I charge $1000 for wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives for a couple - so 6 docs. I charge $2000 if you want to do those 6 docs plus revocable trusts. I agree with the previous posters, though, that in today's estate tax world revocable trusts aren't needed for most people. I actively dissuade my clients from them except for certain circumstances like 2nd marriages, property in multiple states, high net worth, etc. Too many people get revocable trusts then don't retitle assets into them so its a big fat waste of time and money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

Agree 100%. Unless you live in a state that has a nightmare judicial system (*cough* California), or you have assets of over $24 million, you don't need a living trust. A testamentary trust (one established by the will) is fine. For minor children, you can make "the Trust for DC 1 established by the will of Parent XYZ" the beneficiary of any assets that allow the designation of beneficiaries.

Yes--we own two rental properties in California and were advised to put them in trust because of the nightmarish probate process.

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

Agree 100%. Unless you live in a state that has a nightmare judicial system (*cough* California), or you have assets of over $24 million, you don't need a living trust. A testamentary trust (one established by the will) is fine. For minor children, you can make "the Trust for DC 1 established by the will of Parent XYZ" the beneficiary of any assets that allow the designation of beneficiaries.

Most people don’t need a living trust. It’s a money grab by the estate planning trade. It’s fine to direct the establishment of a trust in the event you die with minor children, but putting all your assets in a living trust is generally an unnecessary complication in life. Don’t let the attorney convince you that it is necessary to avoid probate because that is “such a long and expensive process.” That is also generally not true.

You can DIY your medical directives. Here’s link from the MD AG— http://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/Pages/HealthPolicy/AdvanceDirectives.aspx

There’s no real need to put your house in trust now, although your will would almost certainly be set up to create a trust for your assets after you both are gone if you have minor children.

$2k-$3K. Some(could be a lot) of the work will be on you to set up your beneficiary’s in your retirement accounts, investment accounts etc. differently than they are set up today. They will handle the titles on any real estate. Not sure about DC and MD but in VA cars and bank accounts under a certain amount will move the way you want without requiring it spelled out in a will or trust.

At a minimum you need to walk away with wills, POA’s and medical directives for both spouses. At your net worth you will probably want a trust. It basically allows you to dictate what happens with your $$ after you are gone. I.e. Kids get X at age 35 and then y at age 45.

We paid a solo practitioner almost $5000 I believe.

A solo practitioner can do it for $800-1500. A bigger firm will probably be more like $2000-4000. Bigger is not necessarily better.

We need to setup a will and trust. If we were to both die, our kids would get about $3mil including life insurance. What is a reasonable amount to pay for the estate planning?