Garland Law Offices, P.A.

Financial Infidelity that Appears after One Spouse Dies

“The expression recognizes the blindness that many of us have in relationships to the spending habits of partners and the effect it has on our own finances.”

When one member of a couple handles all the finances and dies, the surviving spouse is often left with a serious problem. Locating investment accounts, passwords to online accounts and other important information becomes an overwhelming problem, according to the article “Why smart people don’t recognize financial infidelity” from The Mercury. It’s a relatively new term, but not a new problem.

Take the case of a recently widowed or divorced person who has met a new person who appears to be the new love of their lives. The person is kind to them, supportive, and well, perfect. It’s hard to believe that such a seemingly wonderful person could have a dark side. However, whenever a new friend, hobby, or investment idea starts having a major impact on the person’s financial life, or if they have simply been careless with their financial affairs, the impact can become catastrophic.

People who are not confident in their ability to manage money or investments often hand off that responsibility willingly to their partner. If in a prior life, your spouse managed all of the household money and you did not learn how to handle the tasks that are required to run a home or manage an investment portfolio (or work with advisors), you might be a little too willing to pass that job on to a new partner.

You may fall into the traditional role of one person being responsible for the outside bills and investments and the other handling all of the household tasks.

Financial infidelity also includes things like having accounts that are not known to the other spouse or taking out credit cards without the other person’s knowledge. The same goes for one spouse suddenly putting a lifetime of savings into a single investment, or someone who knows little about markets spending a great deal of time day trading with the family’s savings. Gambling or excessive spending can also be financial infidelity.

What can you do? Here are a few tips.

Don’t give up control of finances. It’s not uncommon for people to combine finances when they are first married. However, if you are heading into a second marriage, you may want to keep your money separate at first. Not paying attention to what’s going on with your money at any stage of life, can lead to problems.

Educate yourself about money. If one of you is better at money management, that’s fine—but the one who is not needs to get up to speed. There are classes in personal finance at the local high school or college, so cost should not be an issue.

Speak up. If one person is made to feel like they can’t talk with their partner about money, there’s a problem. There may be accusations of trust—but trust is not granted automatically. Trust is built between a couple through experience. Financial transparency between partners is a sign of respect.

Read and understand documents before you sign anything. If you have questions, don’t sign anything until you have a full understanding. You should not be pressured into making decisions or commitments until you are completely comfortable with all of the information. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer, don’t sign.

Part of your protection from financial infidelity is an estate plan. Speak with an estate planning attorney about creating a plan to protect your assets after you pass and while you are living. An estate plan needs to include a will, powers of attorney, power of attorney for healthcare and may include trusts, living wills, and other documents, depending upon your situation.

Reference: The Mercury (Jan. 29, 2020) “Why smart people don’t recognize financial infidelity”

Alternatives for Stretch IRA Strategies

“The elimination of the Stretch IRA is a game changer, especially for parents who were considering bequeathing savings in IRAs to their children.”

The majority of many people’s wealth is in their IRAs, that is saved from a lifetime of work. Their goal is to leave their IRAs to their children, says a recent article from Think Advisor titled “Three Replacements for Stretch IRAs.” The ability to distribute IRA wealth over years, and even decades, was eliminated with the passage of the SECURE Act.

The purpose of the law was to add an estimated $428 million to the federal budget over the next 10 years. Of the $16.2 billion in revenue provisions, some $15.7 billion is accounted for by eliminating the stretch IRA.

Existing beneficiaries of stretch IRAs will not be affected by the change in the law. But going forward, most IRA heirs—with a few exceptions, including spousal heirs—will have to take their withdrawals within a ten year period of time.

The estate planning legal and financial community is currently scrutinizing the law and looking for strategies will protect these large accounts from taxes. Here are three estate planning approaches that are emerging as front runners.

Roth conversions. Traditional IRA owners who wished to leave their retirement assets to children may be passing on big tax burdens now that the stretch is gone, especially if beneficiaries themselves are high earners. An alternative is to convert regular IRAs to Roth IRAs and take the tax hit at the time of the conversion.

There is no guarantee that the Roth IRA will never be taxed, but tax rates right now are relatively low. If tax rates go up, it might make converting the Roth IRAs too expensive.

This needs to be balanced with state inheritance taxes. Converting to a Roth could reduce the size of the estate and thereby reduce tax exposure for the state as well.

Life insurance. This is being widely touted as the answer to the loss of the stretch, but like all other methods, it needs to be viewed as part of the entire estate plan. Using distributions from an IRA to pay for a life insurance policy is not a new strategy.

Charitable Remainder Trusts (CRT). The IRA could be used to fund a charitable remainder trust. This allows the benefactor to establish an income stream for heirs with part of the IRA assets, with the remainder going to a named charity. The trust can grow assets tax free. There are two different ways to do this: a charitable remainder annuity trust, which distributes a fixed annual annuity and does not allow continued contributions, or a charitable remainder unitrust, which distributes a fixed percentage of the initial assets and does allow continued contributions.

Speak with your estate planning lawyer about what options may work best in your unique situation.

Reference: Think Advisor (Jan. 24, 2020) “Three Replacements for Stretch IRAs”

Avoiding Probate with a Trust

“In other words, family members who are not named to inherit anything in the will may still see the list of all of the assets. If you don’t want that result, you can avoid it by establishing a trust.”

Privacy is just one of the benefits of having a trust created as part of an estate plan. That’s because assets that are placed in a trust are no longer in the person’s name, and as a result do not need to go through probate when the person dies. An article from The Daily Sentinel asks, “When is a trust worth the cost and effort?” The article explains why a trust can be so advantageous, even when the assets are not necessarily large.

Let’s say a person owns a piece of property. They can put the property in a trust, by signing a deed that will transfer the title to the trust. That property is now owned by the trust and can only be transferred when the trustee signs a deed. Because the trust is the owner of the property, there’s no need to involve probate or the court when the original owner dies.

Establishing a trust is even more useful for those who own property in more than one state. If you own property in a state, the property must go through probate to be distributed from your estate to another person’s ownership. Therefore, if you own property in three states, your executor will need to manage three probate processes.

Privacy is often a problem when estates pass from one generation to the next. In most states, heirs and family members must be notified that you have died and that your estate is being probated. The probate process often requires the executor, or personal representative, to create a list of assets that are shared with certain family members. When the will is probated, that information is available to the public through the courts.

Family members who were not included in the will but were close enough kin to be notified of your death and your assets, may not respond well to being left out. This can create problems for the executor and heirs.

Having greater control over how and when assets are distributed is another benefit of using a trust rather than a will. Not all young adults are prepared or capable of managing large inheritances. With a trust, the inheritance can be distributed in portions: a third at age 28, a third at age 38, and a fourth at age 45, for instance. This kind of control is not always necessary, but when it is, a trust can provide the comfort of knowing that your children are less likely to be irresponsible about an inheritance.

There are other circumstances when a trust is necessary. If the family includes a member who has special needs and is receiving government benefits, an inheritance could make them ineligible for those benefits. In this circumstance, a special needs trust is created to serve their needs.

Another type of trust growing in popularity is the pet trust. Check with a local estate planning lawyer to learn if your state allows this type of trust. A pet trust allows you to set aside a certain amount of money that is only to be used for your pet’s care, by a person you name to be their caretaker. In many instances, any money left in the trust after the pet passes can be donated to a charitable organization, usually one that cares for animals.

Finally, trusts can be drafted that are permanent, or “irrevocable,” or that can be changed by the person who wants to create it, a “revocable” trust. Once an irrevocable trust is created, it cannot be changed. Trusts should be created with the help of an experienced trusts and estate planning attorney, who will know how to create the trust and what type of trust will best suit your needs.

Reference: The Daily Sentinel (Jan. 23, 2020) “When is a trust worth the cost and effort?”

Extra Social Security Benefits for Divorced People

“While it's not the best idea to expect your benefits alone to support you in retirement (after all, Social Security is only designed to replace around 40% of your pre-retirement income), some retirees have no other option but to depend on their monthly checks to cover the majority of their expenses.”

According to the Social Security Administration, as many as 21% of married couples depend upon their Social Security checks for at least 90% of their retirement income. The same is true for almost half of all single beneficiaries. Therefore, if you are expecting Social Security to make up the larger share of your income during retirement, don’t overlook any possible additional benefits, says the article “Divorced? You could Be Owed Extra Social Security Benefits” from The Motley Fool.

People who have been divorced may have more due them than they expect.

A married person may be eligible to receive Social Security benefits based on their spouse’s work record, even if they themselves have never worked. However, divorced people are sometimes entitled to benefits based on their ex-spouse’s records, depending upon their situation.

There are a few eligibility requirements. For starters, the marriage must have lasted at least ten years. Second, you can’t have remarried—although if your ex has remarried, this won’t affect your ability to claim based on their record. Finally, the amount received in benefits based on your own work history must be less than the amount that you’d receive in divorce benefits, based on your spouse’s record.

You’ll also need to be at least 62 to start claiming benefits, and in most cases, your ex needs to have started taking benefits before you can receive monthly benefits. There is an exception: you have been divorced for at least 24 continuous months and your spouse is eligible to receive benefits, but just hasn’t started claiming them yet.

Note that you won’t receive the full benefit amount for regular Social Security benefits or those based on your ex’s work history until you claim at your full retirement age (FRA), which is 66, 66 plus a few months or 67, depending upon your birth year. Claim earlier than that, and benefit checks will be smaller, as they would be if you were claiming your own benefits before FRA.

If you are indeed eligible to collect divorce benefits, you may be able to collect additional benefits based on the ex-spouse’s record on top of your own benefits. You won’t get both. However, what you may get is your own benefits, plus a portion—up to 50%—of the amount your ex-spouse is eligible for, if you claim at his or her FRA.

Let’s say you’re receiving $800 a month based on your work record at your FRA. Your ex is eligible to receive $2,000 at her FRA. If you meet all the right requirements, you could collect 50% of her benefits in addition to yours. You could receive $1,000 a month: your $800 and an additional $200 in divorce benefits.

Bear in mind that Social Security is a big government organization, and likely will not make this type of adjustment on your behalf. You’ll have to advocate for yourself, filing for the benefits you believe you deserve and you may need to make more than a few phone calls. However, the additional income would be well worth it.

Reference: The Motley Fool (Jan. 30, 2020) “Divorced? You could Be Owed Extra Social Security Benefits,”

The High Cost of Medicare Mistakes

“She recently enrolled in traditional (Parts A, B, and D) Medicare and was hit with huge Part B and Part D monthly premiums. She had no idea why it was so high. After many letters, calls, and meetings with Social Security, she still had no idea.”

A 68-year-old woman knew that she had to sign up at age 65 for Medicare Part A for hospital care and Part B for outpatient care, since she did not have employer provided health insurance from an employer with 20 or more employees. She knew also that if she did not have health insurance from an employer and didn’t sign up immediately, she’d face a penalty with higher Part B and Part D premiums for the rest of her life when eventually she did sign up, reports Forbes in the article “Beware Medicare’s Part B Premium Penalty And Surcharge Traps.”

Here’s where it got sticky: she thought that Medicare provided an eight-month special enrollment period after one job ended to apply penalty free. She is employed on a sporadic basis, so she thought she had a window of time. Between the ages of 65 and 68, she had several jobs with large employers, and was never out of work for more than eight months.

She was out of work for 25 months total between ages 65 and 68, when she was not enrolled in Medicare. She thought that since she was never out of work for more than eight months, she didn’t have to sign up until she officially stopped working and would then enroll penalty free in traditional Medicare Parts A, B, and D.

She had read information on the Medicare website and her interpretation of the information was wrong. It was a costly mistake.

In determining whether you need to permanently pay a Medicare Part B penalty, Medicare counts up all the months between age 65 and the month you first enroll in Part B, even if you have a job with a large employer with no gaps in employment for more than eight months.

She got hit with a 20% lifetime Medicare Part B premium penalty. For every 12 months that you’re not covered by Medicare B after reaching 65 and before you enroll, the penalty is an additional 10%. And making things worse, she was hit with a Medicare Part B penalty based on the cumulative (not consecutive, which is an important difference) 25 months that she went without credible prescription drug coverage.

This is the sort of problem that does not self-resolve or get better over time. In this case, another mistake in timing is going to hurt her. She sold some assets and realized a capital gain in 2018, which increased her Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). In 2020, she’s going to have to pay the Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA). If your MAGI, two years before the current year, is less than $87,000, you are exempt from IRMAA in the current year. Her cost: $1,735.20 more this year. Had she instead realized those capital gains over the course of several years, her 2018 MAGI might not have crossed the $87,000 threshold. Most people are not aware of the IRMAA and take capital gains in larger amounts than they need.

This is a harsh lesson to learn, at a time in life when there’s not a lot of flexibility or time to catch up. Talking with an estate planning lawyer about Medicare and about tax planning, as well as having an estate plan created, would have spared this woman, and countless others, from the harsh consequences of her mistakes.

Reference: Forbes (Jan. 29, 2020) “Beware Medicare’s Part B Premium Penalty And Surcharge Traps”

Can You Apply for a Mortgage at an Advanced Age?

“Federal law, under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, forbids discrimination in the mortgage market on the basis of age. Nonetheless, loan officers say older borrowers often don’t realize they can get loans with terms that will expire on their 110th, 120th or nearly 130th birthdays.”

A senior loan officer with a mortgage company in Florida recently wrote a 30-year loan for a retiree who was purchasing a home in New Port Rickey. He didn’t expect to have trouble qualifying for the loan, but he was surprised that he did.

That’s because he was 97 years old.

Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, federal law forbids discrimination in the mortgage market on the basis of age, reports The Wall Street Journal in a recent article “You’re Never Too Old to Apply for a Mortgage.” However, most seniors don’t know that they can get loans that will expire on their 110^th, 120^th and even later birthdays. In fact, the Federal Housing Finance Agency says that borrowers over age 65 make up ten percent of all mortgages originated annually.

Some lenders are working harder to find ways to qualify retirees, including rolling out lending programs that allow borrowers to use their investment portfolios to qualify without taking monthly distributions. Loan officers, especially in areas with large numbers of retirees, have become skilled at adding up income streams, helping borrowers establish new ones and willingly guiding them through the process.

The simplest way is for a retiree to add up their monthly fixed income from all sources, which are then treated like a salary by the lenders. If those numbers are not high enough, the next step is to create an ongoing distribution from a retirement account, like an IRA or 401(k). For one mortgage lender, a retired borrower needs to show $8,000 of monthly income for a 30-year home purchase loan. The borrower set up a distribution for that amount from an IRA worth $500,000, and had her financial advisor draft a letter to the lending company about the new income stream. This made her qualified for the loan, even though at that rate, her entire IRA would be drained in five or six years. Fannie Mae rules only require that distributions are guaranteed to continue for three years.

If the property produces income, those funds can be counted towards the qualifying amount. However, the underlying value of the property, even if it is owned outright or if there is a lot of equity in the home, is not considered by the lender. Property tax and homeowner’s insurance are measured as debt in the debt-to-income equation.

If qualifying is still a problem, lenders are increasingly willing to include stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. This is very different than creating a distribution steam that counts as income. The borrower is not required to take a monthly amount from their portfolio. The lender uses a formula called “asset depreciation” or “asset annuitization or depletion” to impute a monthly distribution from the investment portfolio.

Some jumbo lenders who cater to high net worth individuals have more liberal asset depreciation programs. In New York, an 83-year-old retired co-op owner received a $1 million, 10-year, interest only adjustable rate mortgage for a re-finance at a highly competitive rate through a bank’s program similar to an asset depreciation plan. With the deposit of a few hundred thousand dollars into the bank, the owner qualified based on a portfolio of stocks and bonds valued at $1.6 million.

Speak with your estate planning lawyer before making this kind of large financial decision, since it may have a significant impact on your overall estate plan.

Reference: Barron’s (Jan. 16, 2020) “You’re Never Too Old to Apply for a Mortgage”

Should Retirees Buy Vacation Homes?

“While many retirees have considered purchasing a vacation home to escape cold winters, to rent out for income, or simply have a gathering place for far-flung family members, there are a number of financial matters to consider that could make ownership onerous.”

It sounds like a great idea. After all, it’s an investment in real estate and it could be passed along to the next generation. It might be a rental property, too, generating income when the owners aren’t able to enjoy it. However, there are some things to be careful of, warns Barron’s in the article “What Retirees Should Know Before Buying a Vacation Home.”

Taxes, maintenance, insurance and possibly the cost of hiring a rental-management company are just a few things to consider. Above all, don’t think of it as an investment This is because with real estate, there are no guarantees. For one thing, it’s not liquid. You can’t count on selling it for a good price, when you need some ready cash.

The first and most important question: can you afford it? Retirees are usually living on a fixed income. The cost of a vacation home can be loaded with surprises, just like any other property. If there’s enough of a nest egg to live on and there won’t ever be a need to sell fast, then it may be a good move.

If there’s enough money to purchase the home, then investing in someone to manage the property is a good idea. Empty homes are targets for thieves, and if there’s a maintenance issue, an uninhabited home is vulnerable to damages.

Where taxes are concerned, the sale of a second home does not give the seller the same capital gains tax exemption as the sale of a primary residence. That exemption is only available for people who have lived in the home as a primary residence for at least two of the previous five years. The exemption is up to $500,000 for married couples.

There is one way around it, if it makes sense for owners. Let’s say that they plan on downsizing from their primary residence. They sell it and use the tax exemption. They then move to the vacation home, for at least two years, using that as their primary residence. At that point, they can sell the home that has now become a primary residence, enjoy the generous tax exemption and then move to a new primary residence.

As a rental property, owners are permitted to rent for up to 14 days without owing any taxes on the rental income. After the 14-day period, taxes must be paid, but some of the rental expenses are tax deductible.

If the intent is to keep the house for as long as the owners are living, it becomes part of the estate and must be included in an estate plan. Leaving it to the next generation may be feasible, if all of the children want to keep the house and can afford its upkeep. Have the conversation with the children first. Giving the house to children can be accomplished by putting it into a limited liability corporation with an operating agreement that defines it. Each child will have a stake in the entity that owns the home, rather than the house itself.

Talk with your estate planning lawyer about how the purchase and inheritance of a vacation home may impact your overall estate plan before making a purchase.

Reference: Barron’s (Jan. 18, 2020) “What Retirees Should Know Before Buying a Vacation Home”

Retirement Fund Withdrawals Can Affect Social Security Benefits

“Social Security provides a guaranteed source of income in retirement, but what many don't realize is that you're not guaranteed to keep it all.”

Coordinating income in retirement takes a bit more thought than just collecting a paycheck. Take too much from Peter, you’ll end up paying Paul. Some retirees end up owing taxes on their Social Security benefits. If you want to avoid this scenario, master the details as explained in the article “Will My Retirement Fund Withdrawals Affect My Social Security Benefits?” from The Motley Fool.

It all depends upon your income. This is defined as your adjusted gross income, or AGI, plus nontaxable interest plus half of your annual Social Security benefits. The AGI is a person’s income for the year, minus certain tax deductions, like self-employment taxes and contributions to tax-deferred retirement accounts. Withdrawals taken from traditional IRAs or most 401(k)s, which are tax-deferred retirement accounts, do count towards the AGI. However, Roth retirement account withdrawals do not. The only nontaxable interest in your combined income calculation would be tax-exempt bond funds.

For example, a single person with an AGI of $20,000 with $1,000 in non-taxable interest and a $12,000 annual Social Security benefit would have a combined income of $27,000 ($20,000 plus $1,000 plus $6,000 totals $27,000).

Single taxpayers with a combined income of more than $25,000 and married couples filing jointly with a combined income of more than $32,000 could pay taxes on as much as 50% of their Social Security benefits. Single adults with a combined income greater than $24,000 and married couples filing jointly with a combined income greater than $44,000 could owe taxes on as much as 85% of their benefits.

But wait—here’s a detail you need to know. Because you could owe taxes on 50% or 85% of your benefits does not mean you’ll actually pay this much. There’s a Social Security benefit tax formula that will help you understand how this works. Your estate planning attorney or your accountant can help you figure out how this might impact your retirement finances.

Can you avoid these taxes? With the right plan, maybe. Most retiree’s sole source of income is Social Security and withdrawals from retirement accounts. Being smart with those withdrawals, can reduce the likelihood of owing taxes on Social Security benefits.

If you know that you are approaching one of the Social Security threshholds, try to avoid withdrawing more money from tax-deferred retirement accounts. If you have Roth accounts, try to live from them, because they don’t impact your tax status. Another alternative is to pinch pennies for a while, or simply take the plunge and pay the taxes.

Delaying Social Security benefits as long as you can, up to age 70, is another way to reduce the likelihood of owning taxes on benefits. Yes, you can start taking Social Security at age 62, but you must wait to claim your full benefits until you reach your full retirement age. If you start taking benefits early, you’ll get less than your full benefit, and that smaller amount will be permanent.

You can’t pay taxes on benefits that you’re not receiving. Delaying benefits will increase their size, which will reduce the amount to be withdrawn from tax-deferred accounts. This will lower your AGI.

It’s possible that you may not be able to avoid paying taxes on Social Security benefits. However, knowing your unique situation in advance and planning accordingly, will be better than living with a reduced budget because you didn’t know and didn’t plan.

Reference: The Motley Fool (Jan. 17, 2020) “Will My Retirement Fund Withdrawals Affect My Social Security Benefits?”

Unintended Kiddie Tax Change Fixed in the SECURE Act

“The kiddie tax was created long ago to prevent wealthy parents from cutting their taxes by transferring a large amount of investments to their dependent children, who would be taxed at a lower rate.”

Families were hurt by a change in the kiddie tax that took effect after 2017, but they’ll be able to undo the damage from 2018 and 2019 now that a fix has become law. The SECURE Act contains a provision that fixed this unintended change, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent article, “Congress reversed kiddie-tax change that accidentally hurt some families.”

The kiddie tax was created many years ago to prevent wealthy families from transferring large amounts of investments to dependent children, who would then be taxed at a much lower rate than their parents. It taxed a child’s unearned income above a certain amount at the parent’s rate, instead of at the lower child’s rate. Unearned income includes investments, Social Security benefits, pensions, annuities, taxable scholarships and fellowships. Earned income, which is money earned from working, is always taxed at the lower rate.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 changed the kiddie tax in a way that had severe consequences for military families receiving survivor benefits. Instead of taxing unearned income above a certain level—$2,100 in 2018 and $2,200 in 2019—at the parent’s tax rate, it taxed it at the federal rate for trusts and estates starting in 2018.

Hitting military families with a 37% tax rate that starts at $12,750 in taxable income is unthinkable, but that’s what happened. Low and middle-income families whose dependent children were receiving unearned income, including retirement benefits received by dependent children of service members who died on active duty and scholarships used for expenses other than tuition and books, were effectively penalized by the change.

Under pressure from groups representing military families and scholarship providers, Congress finally added a measure repealing the kiddie tax change to the SECURE Act, which seemed as if it was going to be passed quickly in May. The bill was stalled until it was attached to the appropriations bill and was not passed until December 20, 2019.

There is a specific provision in the bill: “Tax Relief for Certain Children” that completely reverses the change starting in 2020. It also says that subject to the Treasury Department issuing guidance, taxpayers may be able to apply the repeal to their 2018 and 2019 tax years, or both.

The IRS has not yet issued guidance, but the expectation is that amended returns will be required, if a taxpayer elects to use the parents’ tax rate for that year.

Some parents whose children have investment income may be better off using the estate-tax rate for the two years that it is in place. In 2019, those trust brackets may actually allow more capital gains and dividends be taxed at the 0% and 15% rates than by using the parents’ rates.

Reference: San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 20, 2020) “Congress reversed kiddie-tax change that accidentally hurt some families”

Estate Planning for Unmarried Couples

“The number of unmarried couples who live together reached 18 million in 2016, a 29% jump from 14 million in 2007. Among adults age 50 and older, the increase was 75%: About four million were cohabiting in 2016, up from 2.3 million in 2007.”

For some couples, getting married just doesn’t feel necessary. However, they don’t enjoy the automatic legal rights and protections that legally wed spouses do, especially when it comes to death. There are many spousal rights that come with a marriage certificate, reports CNBC in the article “Here’s what happens to your partner if you’re not married and you die.” Without the benefit of marriage, extra planning is necessary to protect each other.

Taxes are a non-starter. There’s no federal or state income tax form that will permit a non-married couple to file jointly. If one of the couple’s employers is the source of health insurance for both, the amount that the company contributes is taxable to the employee. A spouse doesn’t have to pay taxes on health insurance.

More important, however, is what happens when one of the partners dies or becomes incapacitated. A number of documents need to be created, so should one become incapacitated, the other is able to act on their behalf. Preparations also need to be made, so the surviving partner is protected and can manage the deceased’s estate.

In order to be prepared, an estate plan is necessary. Creating a plan for what happens to you and your estate is critical for unmarried couples who want their commitment to each other to be protected at death. The general default for a married couple is that everything goes to the surviving spouse. However, for unmarried couples, the default may be a sibling, children, parents or other relatives. It won’t be the unmarried partner.

This is especially true, if a person dies with no will. The courts in the state of residence will decide who gets what, depending upon the law of that state. If there are multiple heirs who have conflicting interests, it could become nasty—and expensive.

However, a will isn’t all that is needed.

Most tax-advantaged accounts—Roth IRAs, traditional IRAs, 401(k) plans, etc.—have beneficiaries named. That person receives the assets upon death of the owner. The same is true for investment accounts, annuities, life insurance and any financial product that has a beneficiary named. The beneficiary receives the asset, regardless of what is in the will. Therefore, checking beneficiaries need to be part of the estate plan.

Checking, savings and investment accounts that are in both partner’s names will become the property of the surviving person, but accounts with only one person’s name on them will not. A Transfer on Death (TOD) or Payable on Death (POD) designation should be added to any single-name accounts.

Unmarried couples who own a home together need to check how the deed is titled, regardless who is on the mortgage. The legal owner is the person whose name is on the deed. If the house is only in one person’s name, it won’t become part of the estate. Change the deed so both names are on the deed with rights of survivorship, so both are entitled to assume full ownership upon the death of the other.

To prepare for incapacity, an estate planning attorney can help create a durable power of attorney for health care, so partners will be able to make medical decisions on each other’s behalf. A living will should also be created for both people, which states wishes for end of life decisions. For financial matters, a durable power of attorney will allow each partner to have control over each other’s financial affairs.

It takes a little extra planning for unmarried couples, but the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you have prepared to care for each other, until death do you part, is priceless.

Reference: CNBC (Dec. 16, 2019) “Here’s what happens to your partner if you’re not married and you die”