The difficulty I have encountered in trying to accomplish this short sale serves as notice of how regulation of the mortgage market can cause poor economic results.  There is a HUD regulation that requires the short sale price to be at least 95% of the appraised value of the property (the appraisal must be obtained by the mortgage holder, the buyer’s appraisal will not be acceptable.)  There also can be no seller’s concession as part of the purchase price, even if the contract price less the seller’s concession is still in excess of 95% of the appraised value.

I do not understand where the 95% figure comes from, it is quite arbitrary and has no relation to reality.  If the short sale cannot be accomplished, the home will go into foreclosure, which results in increased legal fees, court fees, and service of process fees. The foreclosure price at auction can easily be 75% to 50% of the appraised value.  There is also the issue of the damage that can occur to this home if it remains vacant for very much longer.  So if a purchaser makes an offer of 94% of the appraised value, my contact at the bank says that ”per HUD regulations the sales price must be 95% of the appraised value.” Because of this arbitrary 95% limit, more money will be lost in the foreclosure. 

Because the reverse mortgage is federally insured, the bank knows that it will be made whole whether the property sells via short sale or foreclosure auction.  It is the government, and we the people, who are on the hook.  The federal insurance is paid for through mortgage insurance premiums that are added to the cost of the mortgage, so hopefully the burden on the federal fisc is not so great. But the mortgage insurance premium increases the cost of the mortgage in the first place, and reverse mortgages are notoriously expensive.  So, why does HUD have a seemingly arbitrary regulation in place that kills the possibility of a short sale unless the sales price is 95% of the appraised value?  Particularly when we know that the only likely alternative, a foreclosure auction, will result in much greater economic loss, and increased costs for the loan in the first place?

<

A novel idea is also to give estates of persons passing away in the year 2010 the choice to either pay estate tax under the new system and receive stepped up basis, or not pay estate tax and deal with the carry over basis rules and the resultant capital gains taxes. Such a decision calls for an evaluation of the economics of paying the estate tax versus paying the capital gains taxes (generally, smaller estates will be better off paying the estate tax and getting the stepped up basis for estate assets, while larger estates far in excess of the exemption would likely be better off paying the capital gains tax).  Such an evaluation would be similar to the evaluation currently undertaken to determine whether it is more beneficial to report estate asset values as of the date of death versus the alternate valuation date.  

Back to my all too familiar refrain on this issue: stay tuned.

Now to blog business.  From a purely estate tax point of view, George Steinbrenner picked a pretty good year to pass on. There is no federal estate tax this year. The estate tax savings can be measured in the hundred’s of millions of dollars, considering a net worth north of one billion dollars.  I believe The Boss was domiciled in Florida, a state with no state estate tax, which results in additional estate tax savings.   On the other hand, The Boss may have owned some real property in New York, a state that can take a fairly good bite out of an estate with its estate tax.  But with no really good information as to his holdings and estate plan, it would be mere speculation to estimate what the New York estate tax might be.

It is more interesting to think about the possibility that  (more…)

1. Gary Coleman executes a Last Will and Testament in 1999 and a new Last Will in 2005.

2. Gary Coleman marries Shannon Price on August 22, 2007. Neither the 1999 nor 2005 Last Wills mentions Ms. Price, naturally.

3. In the end of 2007, Gary Coleman executes a Codicil (Amendment) to his 2005 Last Will, giving his entire estate to Ms. Price.

4. Gary Coleman and Ms. Price divorce on August 12, 2008, but apparently continue living together until his death on May 28, 2010.

While the Gary Coleman estate will in reality be subject to the laws of the state of Utah, there are several scenarios that could play out under South Carolina law with this set of facts.  (more…)

In December 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a tax bill that would make the 2009 federal estate tax law permanent, thus locking in the 3.5 million dollar per person estate tax exemption and 45 % top tax rate. The Senate never took up this bill. There has been some political rangling in the Senate lately, but Democrats are unwilling to take up a bill unless they are fully confident they can get a floor vote.  The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say that political rangling is preventing new federal estate tax legislation.

With the possibility of a double dip recession looming, the oil spill that will not end, and mid-term elections coming up that may dramatically alter the make up of Congress, one wonders whether anything will happen on this issue. 

What is interesting is what will happen to South Carolinians (more…)

The title of this post is Medicaid Planning.  This is a new topic to discuss methods of planning to help you qualify for medicaid services should they be needed, as well as the application process.

As a demonstration of the estate planning as a process mantra, consider the (more…)

To answer the question, you need to first determine whether the Will was executed before your date of marriage or after. If it was executed before your marriage, you are termed an omitted spouse, and pursuant to S.C. Code Section 62-2-301, you are entitled to receive your intestate share in the estate, notwithstanding that the Last Will says otherwise. (Click here to determine what your intestate share would be.)

If you are an omitted spouse, you must file a written claim with the Probate Court and to the personal representative within eight months after the date of death or six months after the probate of the Last Will, whichever period last expires. You will not be considered an omitted spouse if, however, the will appears to have intentionally omitted you, or your spouse has otherwise provided for you through other assets, such as life insurance, joint bank accounts, etc.

If you are not an omitted spouse under the law, you have the right to elect to receive a one third share of the probate estate, notwithstanding that the will says otherwise. (S.C. Code 62-2-201). The probate estate is defined to include all assets passing by will plus by intestacy, less funeral and administration expenses, and claims. (S.C. Code 62-2-202).

For elective share purposes, the probate estate will also include assets held in a revocable trust. Seifert v. Southern Nat. Bank of South Carolina, 305 S.C. 353 (1991). This is so because grantors of revocable trusts tend to remain in control of their assets, often serving as the trustee and beneficiary during their lifetimes, with full power to revoke the trust or otherwise direct where the assets will go. Such arrangments are considered illusory (for elective share purposes only) and will not be protected from the surviving spouse’s right of election.

To make a claim for elective share, the surviving spouse, his attorney in fact (or a court in the case of a protected person) must, during the surviving spouse’s lifetime, file a written petition for elective share with the Probate Court and the personal representative, within eight months after the date of death or six months after the probate of the Last Will, whichever period last expires.

Now that we have gone over some of the basics of the omitted spouse and the right of election, tune in next time for a discussion of what some unscrupulous people will do to be able to claim an elective share in an estate, and why sometimes it works.       

The U.S. and S.C. Constitutions hold the right to jury trial in high esteem, the right is a fundamental one. However, you are not entitled to a jury trial in all cases. The right to trial by jury attaches to actions at law. However, the right to trial by jury does not attach in cases in equity. An action at law is typically a case for money damages. An action for a breach of fiduciary duty is typically an action in equity, however, the court notes that it has been held that an action for breach of fiduciary duty could also be an action at law.

How do you draw the distinction? The Court looks to the remedies requested. In this case, the remedies sought included surcharge, disgorgement, and an accounting. These remedies fall squarely within the equity jurisdiction. Equity jurisdiction does not support a request for a jury trial. Thus, no right to a jury trial for the appellant here.