Why I Almost Never Recommend Naming Three Co-Trustees

When clients ask whether all three children, or all their beneficiaries, or just three trusted people, should serve together as co-successor trustees, I generally recommend against it. It may feel like the "fair" or inclusive choice. In practice, it often creates more problems than it solves. Here are the primary reasons, along with several secondary considerations.

1. Trust administration is largely an administrative function, not a deliberative one

Serving as trustee is, for the most part, a series of administrative tasks: paying bills, filing tax returns, managing accounts, making distributions, keeping records. These aren't decisions that benefit from group input the way a business strategy decision might. Think of how most married couples handle their finances. One spouse balances the checkbook and manages the day-to-day accounts, while the other is largely uninvolved. That division of labor works well precisely because it eliminates redundancy and delay. Trust administration is similar. It's typically not a job where "two heads are better than one." It's best done efficiently by one accountable person who can act without coordinating every check, filing, and distribution with two other people.

2. Multiple trustees create political dynamics that damage family relationships

In my experience, this is the more serious problem. When three siblings or family members are named as co-trustees, two of them almost always align, by personality, geography, or just a pattern of who talks to whom, while the third gradually feels left out. This is rarely intentional, at least at first. Think of any three people you know, and you'll likely find that two of them talk more easily to each other than either does to the third.

Over time, the excluded co-trustee begins to feel that decisions are being made without them. They're presented with a fait accompli instead of being genuinely consulted. That sense of exclusion breeds resentment. Keep in mind, too, that everyone is still grieving, and emotions and sensitivities may be heightened.  Resentment among co-trustees often escalates into full-blown disputes, sometimes over matters they would not ordinarily disagree on. Some of those disputes become serious enough to result in litigation or a will or trust contest. A single trustee avoids this dynamic entirely. So, usually, do two trustees with a genuinely good working relationship.

Additional reasons to avoid three co-trustees

• Delay. Unanimity or majority-vote requirements slow everything down. Banks, title companies, and other institutions often require all co-trustees to sign documents, even if the trust permits less or allows one trustee to bind all of them, which means routine transactions can stall while everyone waits on one person's signature or availability.

• Shared blame, regardless of fault. Each co-trustee has an independent legal duty to watch the others. Under most states' trust codes, a co-trustee isn't automatically on the hook for a colleague's misconduct simply by holding the title. But a co-trustee who fails to catch a serious breach, or fails to act once one comes to light,  can be held personally liable for it. In practice, that means each co-trustee faces real risk for decisions they didn't make and may not have fully understood. Not because the law assumes shared guilt, but because the law expects each of them to have been watching.

• Cost. More trustees usually means more communication, more questions, more meetings, and more professional consultations to get everyone comfortable with a single decision. All of that adds administrative expense and, in some cases, more trustee compensation to pay for it.

• Diffusion of responsibility. When three people are equally responsible, each one tends to assume someone else is handling a given task. Important deadlines and duties can fall through the cracks as a result.

• Majority rule has a cost. With three trustees, disagreements can resolve into a 2-1 vote rather than genuine consensus. That outcome doesn't solve the political problem described above; it just formalizes it.  The trustee on the losing end knows exactly who voted against them.

What I typically recommend instead

I typically recommend naming one trustee, with a full line of successors-- not just one backup, but two, three, or four, named in order, in case the first choice cannot or will not serve. Occasionally, two trustees make sense if they have a demonstrated history of working well together. Some family configurations invite two trustees by design: a representative from among the natural children serving together with a representative of the stepchildren, for example, giving each side of a blended family a seat at the table.

Naming a single trustee doesn't mean leaving that person unsupervised, and it shouldn't. The answer to "who watches the trustee" isn't a second or third co-trustee.  It's oversight that doesn't require day-to-day coordination.  In simple plans, beneficiaries take on this responsibility by reviewing decisions and reports and asking questions.   A trust protector with the power to remove and replace a trustee, a beneficiary's right under most state trust codes to demand a periodic accounting or report, or a corporate trustee paired with a family member in an advisory rather than co-equal role can all supervise a sole trustee without recreating the committee problem this article is about. 

I've written elsewhere about trust protectors and corporate trustees in the context of estate administration. The short version: supervision and shared administration are two different tools, and confusing them is part of why three-trustee arrangements go wrong.

If it's your trust, you are the boss. These are recommendations based on specific considerations, not hard-and-fast rules. You decide which considerations matter most in your estate plan.

These considerations preserve administrative efficiency while reducing the risk that the trust becomes a battleground for old family dynamics.

The Benefits of Owning a 529 Plan in a Trust

A 529 education savings plan is one of the most tax-efficient ways to save for qualified education expenses. When the account is owned by an individual, however, control, continuity, and multi-generational planning can be limited. Placing a 529 plan in a trust can resolve many of those limitations. The trust must be properly drafted for the 529 specifically, though; a generic trust will not do.

Key Benefits of Trust Ownership

When a trust owns a 529 account, the trustee, rather than an individual donor, controls the account. This structure offers several practical advantages:

• Continuity of Management: If the original contributor dies or becomes incapacitated, the trustee continues to manage the account. You don't need to retitle it or rely on a power of attorney that a 529 custodian may reject. Most 529 plans do let an individual owner name a successor owner directly on the account, and for a family whose only goal is continuity, that simpler step may be enough. A trust does more than a successor-owner designation can, though. It survives the death of both the original owner and any named successor, and it binds the beneficiary-change decision to the terms the family actually agreed on, rather than to whatever the next person in line happens to decide.

• Beneficiary Flexibility: An individual owner can already change the beneficiary to another qualifying family member under the federal rules. A trust adds structure around that decision.  The trustee exercises it according to the trust's terms, not at the unconstrained discretion of whoever happens to hold the account.

• Integration with the Broader Estate Plan:  The 529 becomes part of a coordinated plan rather than a standalone account that may be overlooked or mismanaged.

• Multi-generational Use. Unused funds can benefit later generations under the trust terms, subject to Section 529's rules on qualified beneficiaries. Moving funds to a beneficiary in a younger generation than the original one is not automatically free, however. Section 529(c)(5) can treat that kind of change as a taxable gift, and it may carry generation-skipping tax consequences. A trust intended to shift education funds down the family tree should be drafted with that rule in mind.

• SECURE Act 2.0 Rollover Opportunity. Up to $35,000 of unused 529 funds may be rolled into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary, and a trustee can oversee that decision. The opportunity comes with real conditions: the account must have been open more than fifteen years, contributions made within the last five years are not eligible, and each year's rollover is capped at that year's ordinary Roth IRA contribution limit. This is not a one-time $35,000 transfer.

These benefits make trust ownership especially attractive for grandparents or parents who want professional or successor management while preserving the tax-free growth and qualified withdrawals that make 529 plans valuable.

Revocable or Irrevocable: Which Is Better?

There is no universal answer. The better choice depends on the client's goals.  The bigger point, though, is that both revocable and irrevocable trusts can administer 529 Plans.  Each offers benefits: 

Revocable Trust. A revocable living trust offers maximum flexibility. The grantor can amend the trust, change the trustee, or terminate the arrangement entirely. For most clients who primarily want continuity and management during incapacity or after death, a revocable trust is often sufficient and simpler. It generally offers no additional creditor protection beyond what the account would have in the grantor's own name. On the estate-tax side, IRC Section 529(c)(4) already excludes 529 account values from the contributor's gross estate as a general matter, apart from a narrow clawback if the contributor dies during a five-year gift-averaging election. That protection exists independently of trust ownership. Whether it carries through cleanly when a revocable trust, rather than an individual, is titled as the account owner is a more open question, and one worth confirming with the specific plan rather than assuming either way.

Irrevocable Trust. An irrevocable trust can remove the 529 assets from the grantor's estate with more certainty and may provide greater protection from creditors. It can also support more sophisticated multi-generational planning, including generation-skipping structures. The trade-off is reduced flexibility. Once the trust is irrevocable and the 529 is transferred, changes are limited. Irrevocable trusts also require careful attention to gift-tax consequences at the time of funding, to the ongoing identity of the "account owner" for Section 529 purposes, and to the 529(c)(5) issue noted above if the plan contemplates moving funds to a younger generation later on.

For many families focused on education funding and incapacity planning, a revocable trust is the more practical choice. Clients with larger estates or specific asset-protection goals may benefit from an irrevocable structure, but only with precise drafting.

Financial Aid Treatment

Any comparison of ownership structures should also account for financial aid. Under current FAFSA rules, a 529 account owned by a grandparent or other third party no longer counts against the student; that changed a few years ago and reversed the older, less favorable rule. A trust-owned account, admittedly, sits in less settled territory. No uniform answer exists for how a trust-owned 529 is reported, or whose asset it is treated as, on the FAFSA or the CSS Profile. Families expecting need-based aid should consult with counsel, the plan administrator, and perhaps a financial aid specialist before assuming a trust-owned account will be treated the same as an individually owned one.

A Critical Caution: Generic Trusts Can Jeopardize 529 Benefits

Not every trust is suitable to own a 529 plan. Many generic or "form" trusts contain no language addressing 529 accounts. That silence creates real risk.

Section 529 plans have strict rules regarding the account owner, the designated beneficiary, and the use of funds for qualified education expenses. The plan's tax advantages can be threatened if a trust's terms are ambiguous about who may direct distributions, who may change the beneficiary, how the trustee must treat the account for a particular qualified beneficiary, or whether the trustee is authorized to take the actions the 529 custodian requires. In the worst case, distributions could lose their tax-free character, or the plan custodian could administratively reject the account.

A well-drafted trust should contain specific provisions that:

• Authorize the trustee to open, own, and manage 529 accounts,
• Direct how the trustee is to use the funds for a named or described qualified beneficiary,
• Permit changes of beneficiary only among eligible family members, with attention to the 529(c)(5) gift-tax rule when a change moves funds to a younger generation,
• Coordinate with the trust's distribution standards so that education expenses are properly paid or reimbursed, and
• Anticipate financial aid treatment where the family expects to seek need-based aid.

Without these provisions, the very benefits that make trust ownership attractive can be undermined. It is also worth checking the state's own 529 program. Many states offer an income-tax deduction or credit for contributions, and that benefit is often conditioned on who the account owner is. A trust-owned account may not qualify in every state, even when the trust itself is properly drafted for federal purposes.

Bottom Line

Owning a 529 plan in a trust can provide continuity, control, beneficiary flexibility, and better integration with an overall estate plan. A revocable trust is often the simpler and more flexible vehicle for most clients. An irrevocable trust may be preferable when estate-tax removal or asset protection is a primary goal. In either case, the trust instrument must specifically address 529 ownership and administration. Generic trust language is not enough and can put the plan's tax benefits at risk.

Clients who hold or intend to fund significant 529 accounts should review those accounts with their estate planning attorney. The goal is an ownership structure and trust terms that actually support the educational legacy the family intends to create, rather than one that quietly works against it.

The Ultimate Smart Home Toolkit for Aging in Place: 2026 Update

Aging in place isn't just about staying home; it's about living well at home, with technology quietly handling the heavy lifting so you can focus on the moments that matter. This 2026 update to our original smart home toolkit reflects a year of real movement — new watch generations, an AI companion robot that's now free in several states, and a humanoid-robot timeline that remains firmly out of reach. It covers everything from fall prevention to cognitive support, medication management to social connection, all while prioritizing privacy and ease.

As we've explored in "Frequent Use of Technology Slows Cognitive Decline" and "Take Charge of Your Cognitive Health with Simple Lifestyle Changes," small tech investments pay massive dividends in independence, safety, and peace of mind. Let's dive in.

Fall Prevention & Emergency Response

Device/App	Why It Works	Senior-Friendly Setup Trick	Cost	Best For
Apple Watch Series 11	Automatic hard-fall detection with a ~90-second window before it calls 911 on its own; added FDA-cleared hypertension notifications and up to 24-hour battery.	Enable Fall Detection + Emergency Contacts in Watch app; pair with Medical ID on iPhone.	$399–$429	Active seniors; seamless iPhone integration; those who want medical-grade sensors.
Apple Watch Series 10 (clearance)	Identical fall-detection system to the Series 11 — same sensors, same automatic 911 calling — at a discount now that Series 11 is the flagship.	Same setup as Series 11; look for third-party retailer pricing.	Reduced from $399	Budget-conscious iPhone users who don't need the newest chip.
Google Pixel Watch 4	Fall, car-crash, and now Loss of Pulse Detection; a June 2026 update added Emergency Sharing, so a detected incident calls 911 and texts chosen contacts automatically — with different contacts settable per event type.	Turn on Loss of Pulse and Fall Detection in the Pixel Watch Safety app; assign specific emergency contacts.	$349+	Android users, especially those with cardiac risk factors.
Samsung Galaxy Watch 9	New Snapdragon Wear Elite chip, a 5,000-nit display that's easier to read outdoors, and Samsung's fall-detection suite alongside irregular heart rhythm alerts.	Set "Hard Fall Detection" sensitivity; share via Samsung Health.	$349–$449	Android users who spend time outdoors or have low vision.
Medical Guardian MGMove	Dedicated medical alert watch with fall detection, GPS, and a caregiver app — no smartphone required.	Built-in speaker for two-way talk; no pairing needed.	$199 + ~$45/mo	Non-tech-savvy seniors who want 24/7 professional monitoring rather than a phone-dependent watch.
Life360 Family Locator	Real-time location sharing, arrival/departure alerts, SOS button.	Create "Places" for doctor, grocery; set geofence alerts.	Free (premium ~$8/mo)	Family coordination; works on any phone.

Pro Tip: Combine a smartwatch with Life360: family sees when you leave and arrive safely, and the watch itself calls for help if you can't.

A note on choosing between watches: independent 2026 testing consistently ranks Apple Watch fall detection as the most reliable, with the Pixel Watch 4 close behind now that Loss of Pulse Detection is live. If reliability matters more than platform loyalty, weigh that before committing to Android or iPhone.

Cognitive Health & Daily Structure

Tool/App	Benefit	Senior-Friendly Trick	Cost
Amazon Echo Show 15	Voice reminders, video calls, brain games, photo frames.	Set Routines: "Good morning" → news, meds, stretch video. Drop In for family check-ins.	$279
Google Nest Hub Max	Google Assistant reminders, video calls, photo slideshows, sleep sensing; now with deeper Gemini-based conversational reminders.	"Hey Google, call Sarah" or "Show family photos."	$229
Apple HomePod Mini + iPad	Siri reminders, FaceTime, Apple TV for games/shows.	"Hey Siri, remind me meds at 8 AM." Large iPad text for ease.	$99 + iPad $329+
GrandPad Tablet	Pre-loaded games, family photos, video calls, no ads.	Family uploads content remotely.	Subscription includes data
Lumosity / Elevate / Peak	Daily brain games associated with slowing measurable decline.	Voice-guided on Echo Show; short sessions.	Free–$59/yr
CaringBridge	Private site for family updates, mood logs, appointment sharing.	Reduces phone calls; family posts photos.	Free

Pro Tip: Use voice assistants for "memory anchors," e.g., "Alexa, play Frank Sinatra at dinner" to trigger positive recall, a technique consistent with using routine and familiar cues to support implicit memory in early cognitive change.

Medication & Health Management

Solution	Feature	Privacy Trick	Cost
Hero Pill Dispenser	Auto-dispenses meds, alerts family if missed.	Local storage only.	~$99/mo
CarePredict Tempo	Wearable tracks activity, eating, sleep; AI flags changes.	Family app alerts only.	Device + monthly fee
Withings BPM Connect	Wi-Fi blood pressure cuff, syncs to phone.	Share read-only.	~$130
Omron HeartGuide	Watch-style BP monitor.	Data on-device.	~$500
Kinsa Smart Thermometer	Fever alerts to family.	Encrypted sharing.	~$30
MedMinder Maya	Locked pillbox with lights/sounds, family alerts.	HIPAA-compliant.	~$59/mo
Automation	Link a pill dispenser to a smart speaker: "Alexa, did I take my pills?" → confirms.

Security & Peace of Mind

Device	Protection	Senior Hack	Cost
SimpliSafe	Door/window sensors, glass break, 24/7 monitoring.	Voice disarm with Alexa.	$15–30/mo
ADT Medical Alert Plus	Fall detection pendant + home security bundle.	One-button help.	$35/mo+
Arlo Essential Cameras	2K video, local storage option.	Motion zones for porch only.	$79+
August Wi-Fi Smart Lock	Keyless entry, temporary codes.	Auto-lock 5 min.	$229
Ring Doorbell + Neighbors App	Video doorbell, community alerts.	Quiet mode for naps.	$100 + $10/mo optional

Robotic Companions & Cleaning Helpers: 2026 Reality Check

This is the category that moved the most, and in a different direction than expected a year ago.

Device	What It Does	Readiness	Cost	Notable Change
ElliQ 4	AI companion — proactive conversation, medication and wellness reminders, mood check-ins, gentle exercise coaching.	Available now, widely deployed.	~$600–$1,000/year subscription; free through state aging programs in New York, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Washington.	The biggest shift in this whole category: state Area Agencies on Aging are now distributing ElliQ at no cost to eligible seniors, with New York reporting a large drop in loneliness among users after 30 days.
Roborock Qrevo CurvX / Dreame L40 Ultra Gen 2	Robot vacuum/mop with self-empty, self-cleaning mop pads, tangle-free brush design.	Available.	Roughly $700–$1,200 depending on model.	The $300–$1,000 tier now includes features that used to cost much more. Prices have compressed.
Tesla Optimus Gen 3	Humanoid robot for chores, companionship (prototype/factory use).	Still not for sale. Entered limited factory production in 2026.	Long-term target $20,000–$30,000; near-term consumer units estimated $50,000–$80,000+.	No pre-orders exist. Treat any site claiming otherwise as a scam.

Privacy-First Setup & Bonus Hacks

• Family Tech Hub: Dedicated tablet for caregiver access only.
• Local Storage: Choose cameras with local, non-cloud storage options where available.
• Two-Factor Everything: Use authenticator apps rather than SMS where possible.
• Bonus: Circadian-rhythm smart lighting, sleep-tracking rings, and meal delivery services with family-shared accounts round out a well-rounded setup.

If you were waiting on Optimus: don't build a 2026 or 2027 care plan around it. The realistic window for a general-purpose home robot at a household price point is still years out. ElliQ, by contrast, has gone from a promising pilot to a genuinely accessible option for many families; check with your state or local Area Agency on Aging before paying for a subscription.

What's New in This Update

For readers who read the original 2025 edition, here's what actually changed over the past year, and what didn't:

• Watches: Watches got more medically capable, not just more features. The Apple Watch Series 11 added FDA-cleared hypertension notifications and longer battery life; the Pixel Watch 4 added Loss of Pulse Detection and, as of a June 2026 update, automatic Emergency Sharing that texts different contacts depending on the incident type detected. Fall detection itself is now table stakes across all three major platforms; the real differentiation has moved to what happens after a fall is detected.

• ElliQ: ElliQ went from promising to genuinely accessible. The biggest change in this toolkit is that ElliQ is now distributed free through state aging programs in at least six states, rather than being a $ 250-plus monthly-fee purchase only wealthier families could consider. If cost was the barrier keeping this off your list last year, it's worth checking again.

• Vacuums: Robot vacuums got cheaper at every capability tier. Features that required a $1,500+ purchase in 2025, such as full self-emptying docks, mop-pad washing, and tangle-free brush design, are now common in the $700–$1,200 range, and even budget models under $500 include basic self-emptying.

• Humanoid Robots: The humanoid robot timeline slipped, as expected. Tesla Optimus remains unavailable to consumers. It entered limited factory production in 2026, but most analysts treat Musk's "end of 2027" target as optimistic, with 2028–2029 more realistic. If you were holding off on other home-safety investments while waiting for a general-purpose home robot, that wait just got longer; it's worth investing in the tools above now rather than planning around Optimus.

• What We removed: Miro-E Social Robot has been dropped from this update after remaining sold out with no confirmed restock, and several devices from the original list (Google Nest Hub Max's sleep-sensing aside) simply hadn't changed enough to warrant new commentary.  Where a device is unchanged from last year, we've kept the original entry rather than manufacturing false novelty.

Conclusion

 

This toolkit turns your home into a dementia-friendly, fall-resistant, caregiver-supported sanctuary, all while keeping you in control. Tech evolves fast, and this guide will keep evolving with it.  Readers should remain vigilant and consult professionals when evaluating specific risks. By combining awareness with proactive planning, families can safeguard independence and thrive as they age in place.

As always: this list moves fast, and the right combination depends on the specific person, home, and level of support needed. Consult a professional,  a geriatric care manager, an occupational therapist, or an aging-in-place specialist before making major purchases, especially subscription-based ones.

The Missing Pillar in Succession Planning: What Happens If the Owner Loses Capacity First

A recent piece in the Wealth Strategies Journal, "Putting the Success in Succession Planning" by Katherine M. Sheehan, J.D., AEP, ATFA, lays out a genuinely useful framework for family business owners: successful transitions integrate estate planning, tax strategy, governance, and family dynamics, rather than treating succession as a single document or a single transaction. As Sheehan puts it, "succession planning is a continuing process, not a single transaction." That framing is worth taking seriously, and the article is worth reading in full.  It walks through discovery questions advisors should ask, the tension between equal and identical treatment among children with different roles in the business, the importance of keeping governing agreements current, the tax traps that come from planning too late (or too opportunistically), and a clear-eyed tour of the standard transfer techniques, from outright gifts to grantor trusts to GRATs.

What the article doesn't have much room to say (understandably, since its focus is on tax and transaction structure) is what happens when the owner's capacity, not just their eventual death or exit price, becomes the constraint. That gap is where elder law belongs in this conversation, and it deserves to be treated as a fifth pillar alongside the four Sheehan names, not an afterthought bolted onto the estate-planning piece.

Death Is the Predictable Trigger. Incapacity Is the One Nobody Plans For

Sheehan's discussion of governing agreements lists disability and incapacity among the triggering events a shareholder or operating agreement should address, and that's correct as far as it goes. But in practice, most closely held business owners we see have governing documents that handle death cleanly; there's a buy-sell provision, a valuation formula, and a funding mechanism.  Most, however, handle incapacity badly or not at all. That asymmetry matters more than it might seem, because incapacity, unlike death, doesn't resolve anything. It just freezes decision-making at the exact moment decisions are most needed: payroll still has to run, contracts still have to be signed, and a buyer's letter of intent still has to be responded to.

Without a plan, the default answer to "who signs for the company now?" is a guardianship or conservatorship proceeding, in which a court appoints someone to step into the incapacitated owner's shoes. That is close to the worst-case outcome for a business. It is public, it is slow, it typically requires court approval for major transactions, and it hands the outcome to a judge who has never met the company, the family, or the successor generation Sheehan spends so much of her article helping families evaluate. A business under conservatorship is not a going concern being carefully stewarded; it's an asset in limbo while the litigation clock runs on customers, lenders, and key employees who were never going to wait around to find out how it will be resolved.

The fix is not exotic. It's the same tools elder law attorneys reach for in almost every incapacity-planning conversation: a trust to manage life-time decision-making, explicitly addressing business decision-making, coupled with a strong competency clause appointing a primary care doctor, or other trusted professional, to make binding decisions regarding competency and capacity, together with a durable power of attorney that specifically and explicitly addresses business decision-making, rather than a generic financial power of attorney that a bank or transfer agent will hesitate to honor when a signature line reads "President and CEO."  A successor trustee named in advance, who already knows the family and the succession plan because they were part of the conversations Sheehan describes, can step in immediately and without a court filing. That is the entire difference between a transition and a crisis.

The Family-Dynamics Section Gets Harder, Not Easier, as the Owner Ages

Sheehan is right that regular family meetings and independent consultants help prevent the surprises that damage relationships, and that equal treatment among children doesn't require identical treatment when their roles in the business differ. Those points track closely with what we've written here before about family harmony in estate administration generally: beneficiaries who understand the reasoning behind a plan, because the person who made it explained it to them while still able to answer questions, are far less likely to contest it later.

The complication specific to aging business owners is that the window for that conversation is often shorter and less predictable than families assume. A plan that gets rewritten or finalized only after a health scare — after the diagnosis, after the first hospitalization, after the family has already started quietly worrying about the person's judgment — invites exactly the kind of substance-over-form scrutiny we discuss routinely regarding late-in-life planning.  Late, isolated changes to who controls a valuable asset are the single most common fact pattern behind will and trust contests. The lesson isn't unique to businesses, but businesses raise the stakes considerably because the "asset" in question is everyone's livelihood, and because a successor's fitness to run the company is a much more loaded question than a successor's fitness to inherit a bank account. The honest answer is that succession planning for a family business should start earlier than most owners are emotionally ready for it — not because death or incapacity is imminent, but precisely because nobody can know in advance whether it will be.

The Liquidity Event Is Also an Aging-in-Place Planning Event

Sheehan's closing point, that a sale or transfer changes the balance sheet but doesn't complete the planning, deserves one more layer for owners in or approaching their later years. A liquidity event that converts an illiquid, hard-to-value business into a diversified portfolio isn't just a tax and investment-policy question. For an aging owner, it is very often the first time there is enough accessible, liquid wealth to actually fund the kind of care they'd prefer as they age: in-home care, modifications that let them stay in their own house, geriatric care management, the sort of support that a personal care agreement can formalize and compensate family caregivers for providing. 

That money should be positioned with that purpose in mind,  held in a trust structure that can respond to a long-term care need without a new round of court involvement, and coordinated with the same updated powers of attorney, healthcare directives, and beneficiary designations Sheehan rightly flags as post-sale housekeeping. A founder who spent decades building a company's resilience deserves a resilient plan.

None of this competes with Sheehan's framework; it completes it. Estate planning, tax strategy, governance, and family dynamics address who ultimately owns and runs the business. Incapacity planning answers a narrower but more urgent question: who is legally authorized to act tomorrow, if the owner can't. Every family business succession plan should be able to answer both.

The Missing Words: A $1.2 Million Lesson in Power of Attorney Drafting and Deployment

We've written on this blog before about how a general durable power of attorney can end up far weaker than the person who signed it ever intended. A Seventh Circuit decision handed down this summer is a clear illustration of that problem, and it cost one family roughly $1.2 million. The case turns on Wisconsin law, but the underlying rule- that certain high-stakes powers require express, specific authorization rather than general language-  shows up in some form in most states' power of attorney statutes and cases, so the lesson travels well beyond Wisconsin.

The Case

Havlik v. University of Chicago involved Edward Lyon, a physician at the University of Chicago who participated in two ERISA-governed retirement plans from 1960 to 1996. Like most married participants, his default benefit was a joint and survivor annuity with his wife, Valerie, meaning Valerie was entitled to lifetime payments after Edward's death unless Edward properly waived that right with Valerie's informed, notarized consent. Federal law requires consent to be explicit, in writing, and witnessed; a spouse's rights to a survivor benefit aren't something a participant can quietly sign away alone.

In 2014, Valerie signed a Wisconsin statutory power of attorney naming her son-in-law as her agent. The document was substantial; it gave him general authority across a wide range of subjects and specifically authorized him to change beneficiary designations on her accounts. Five years later, shortly before Edward's death, he submitted paperwork naming trusts for the couple's 36 grandchildren as primary beneficiaries, removing Valerie entirely. The required spousal consent was signed by the son-in-law, acting under the power of attorney.

The account custodian's recordkeeper initially rejected the form for what appeared to be a missing signature. It wasn't until January 2022, after both Edward and Valerie had died,  that the family learned the real problem: the power of attorney authorized the son-in-law to change beneficiaries, but it never expressly authorized him to waive Valerie's right to the survivor annuity itself. Under Wisconsin's power of attorney statute, those are treated as two distinct things, and the second requires an explicit grant of authority. Without it, the consent was invalid, the 2019 change failed, and the original 1998 beneficiary designation controlled instead, sending the money in a very different direction than the family intended.  

The children and trustees of the trust sued to enforce Edward’s November 2019 beneficiary designation. The court entered summary judgment against them, and they appealed.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against the family on every claim: the benefits claim, the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against the university, and the negligence claim against the plan's recordkeeper. By the time anyone realized the document had a gap, both principals were gone and there was no one left who could fix it.

Why the Statute Draws This Line

It's worth understanding why Wisconsin law separates "general authority to change a beneficiary" from "authority to waive a spousal survivor annuity," because the reasoning isn't just technical hairsplitting. Changing a beneficiary designation is common, low-stakes in the sense that it's easily revisited, and often uncontroversial. Waiving a spouse's statutory right to a stream of retirement income for life is a fundamentally bigger, less reversible decision, one Congress specifically protected with strict spousal consent rules under ERISA. Requiring an unmistakable, specific grant of authority before an agent can take that particular action is a deliberate safeguard against exactly this kind of ambiguity, not an accident of drafting.

The Result and Consequence

The plans therefore remained governed by the 1998 beneficiary designation, which split the value between Valerie (during her lifetime) and the Edward S. Lyon Trust.  After Valerie died, the court described the result as: the governing 1998 designation would split the accounts between Edward’s trust and, following Valerie’s death, her estate. Both Edward’s trust and the proceeds of Valerie’s estate would then pass in equal shares to their 12 children.  So the consequences were both likely tax and legal disadvantages.  The legal disadvantages include the requirement that Valerie's share be probated (if it has not already been).  If Edward's trust were terminated after his passing, his share might require probate; some cases hold that a terminated trust may not be "resurrected" by the trustee to avoid probate of later-discovered assets, and the Uniform Trust Code seems to provide that. 

But the more substantial consequences are likely to be tax consequences.  Because the $1.2 million went to the couple’s 12 adult children rather than to trusts for their 36 grandchildren, more of the money was likely taxed at higher rates. The children were already earning income, so inherited retirement distributions stacked on top of wages and other earnings and were taxed at their higher marginal brackets. Dividing the same amount among 36 grandchildren would have spread the income across many more people, often in lower brackets, and allowed more flexible timing. The failed designation therefore meant fewer taxpayers, larger shares, faster tax recognition, and a heavier income-tax bill than the family intended.

What This Means for Your Plan

This case is a direct, expensive illustration of a point we've made before: an older power of attorney, even a comprehensive-looking one, can be quietly obsolete for the exact purpose someone assumes it covers. A few takeaways worth acting on:

• "General authority" and "specific authority" are not the same thing, and your document needs to say so explicitly for the highest-stakes powers. If your power of attorney gives your agent broad authority to manage accounts or change beneficiaries, that is not the same as authorizing them to waive a spouse's survivor annuity rights, consent to a trust amendment, or take other actions your state's law treats as requiring express, specific language. A document can look thorough and still miss the one line that mattered.

• This is a reason to have your power of attorney reviewed, not just executed. Valerie's document was drafted with great care; it included special instructions, a general grant, and specific language regarding beneficiary changes. It still didn't cover this. That's not a sign of careless drafting so much as a sign of how easy it is for a gap like this to hide inside an otherwise solid document, especially as the law around powers of attorney continues to evolve.

• Retirement plan beneficiary designations deserve their own conversation, separate from your broader estate plan. This family's underlying goal, leaving retirement assets to grandchildren's trusts rather than passing everything to the surviving spouse and then to the children, is a legitimate and common estate-planning objective. The problem wasn't the goal; it was that the mechanism used to execute it.  The agent's signature on the change form was useless because the power of attorney lacked the specific authorization required by law.

• Timing worked against this family in an unusually cruel way. The custodian's rejection notice went to a stale address. By the time anyone learned what had actually gone wrong, both spouses had died, and the error was unfixable. You should follow up to verify that beneficiary changes have been processed.  If you're ever notified that a beneficiary form or waiver was rejected, treat it as urgent, not a paperwork inconvenience to be handled later.

The Takeaway

A power of attorney is one of the most common, and often the most important lifetime planning document in an estate plan.  This case is a reminder that "comprehensive" and "sufficient" aren't the same thing. If your power of attorney was drafted more than a few years ago,  or even if it was drafted recently, but you're not certain it contains the specific, express grants your state requires for high-stakes actions like waiving spousal rights, amending a trust, or making gifts,  it's worth having it reviewed now, while you (and your spouse both) have the capacity to sign an updated one. The family in this case didn't lose because of disloyalty, bad faith, or bad intentions. They lost it over language that simply wasn't there.

Havlik v. University of Chicago, No. 25-2821 (7th Cir. July 20, 2026).

The Roommate Solution: Unconventional Housing Arrangements Help Seniors Age in Place

A recent CNN article on New Yorkers finding creative ways to afford the city, from moving into convents, RVs, even a stranger's spare bedroom, mostly told the story from the young renter's side: how to survive $4,200-a-month median rents. But buried in that story is a housing arrangement that deserves its own spotlight from the other direction: seniors opening their homes to younger housemates, and finding that it does far more than pay the bills.

The Program Hiding in Plain Sight

One of the arrangements CNN highlighted involved a 25-year-old named Charles Jones, who needed housing fast and ended up moving in with a woman about 50 years his senior. He found her through the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens (NYFSC), a nonprofit that runs a formal home-sharing match program, one requirement being that one of the two housemates is 60 or older. Another CNN subject, William Swanson, described his time living with an older housemate named Aleyda as something he wouldn't trade for a more conventional apartment, even though cheaper, more standard housing might have been available.

It's worth pausing on why a young person would opt into this deliberately, not just out of desperation. NYFSC has reported rising interest from applicants 30 and under, climbing from roughly 16% to around 20% of program matches in recent years. That's not a rounding error; it suggests a growing number of younger renters see a genuine upside beyond rent savings, which lines up with what Swanson and Jones described.

These aren't stories of desperate seniors renting out rooms because they have no other choice. They're stories of arrangements that worked well enough that both sides describe them as more than a financial transaction.  That's exactly the pattern that makes home-sharing worth serious consideration as an aging-in-place tool, not just a rent-relief tool.

Why This Belongs in an Aging-in-Place Conversation

Most of what we cover here focuses on family caregiving and modifying the home to make it suitable for aging, whether grab bars, lighting, observation-based planning, or smart home tools. Home-sharing approaches the same goal, staying safely and comfortably in your own home, from a completely different angle: instead of changing the house, you change who's in it.

A vetted, formally matched younger housemate can offer:

• A second set of eyes: Informally filling some of the same role we've written about with observation-first planning, a roommate in the house day to day might notice a change in gait, a missed meal, or a fall risk developing, long before it becomes a crisis.

• Income: Rental income or shared expenses can offset property taxes, utilities, or the cost of paid home care, without taking on debt or selling the home.

• Help with tasks:  Particularly jobs that become harder over time, like carrying groceries, yard work, tech troubleshooting, occasional rides, van be formally or informally built into the arrangement as a partial rent reduction.

• Company: Personal interaction matters enormously and is easy to undervalue. Isolation is one of the more serious risks for seniors aging alone, and a home-sharing arrangement addresses it structurally, not just occasionally.  Chronic loneliness in older adults is linked to higher rates of depression, faster cognitive decline, and increased mortality risk, so this isn't just a quality-of-life nicety.

Who This Works Best For

Home-sharing isn't a fit for every senior or every household, and it's worth being honest about that upfront. It tends to work best for homeowners with a spare bedroom who are socially open and reasonably independent; seniors who want companionship and light practical help more than intensive caregiving, and who are comfortable sharing common spaces and negotiating clear house rules with someone outside the family. It's a less natural fit for someone with significant cognitive impairment, complex medical needs, or a strong preference for complete privacy; those situations generally call for a different kind of support, whether that's professional in-home care or a living arrangement built specifically around medical oversight.

What Makes This Different From Renting to a Stranger

The arrangements CNN described weren't Craigslist gambles. NYFSC and similar nonprofit home-sharing programs, many cities and counties have their own version, sometimes through Area Agencies on Aging, typically handle screening, background checks, and matching based on compatibility (schedules, habits, expectations around shared space), and often provide a written agreement covering rent, responsibilities, and house rules before anyone moves in. That structure is what separates a home-sharing program from simply taking in a boarder, and it's the piece worth seeking out deliberately rather than improvising.

A few things worth doing before pursuing this route:

• Utilize Homesharing Programs:  Look for an established nonprofit or county-run home-sharing program. In contrast with an informal listing where you are responsible for screening, the screening and mediation support are real value.

• Get it in Writing:  Even when it's facilitated by a reputable organization, you want a written agreement addressing  rent, duration, responsibilities, and an exit plan if it isn't working.

• Bring in Others:  Consider looping in family and a family or elder law attorney on anything involving a long-term arrangement, especially if it touches on caregiving expectations, access to the home, or anything resembling a future claim on the property. A home-sharing agreement is not an estate planning document, and it shouldn't be treated as a substitute for one.

• Check the Tax and Benefits Implications:  Before signing anything discuss the financial implications for taxes and eligibility for government benefits, particularly if you are already a recipient, or seriously considering an application.  Rental income is generally taxable, and depending on the amount and the senior's circumstances, it can also affect eligibility for needs-based programs like SSI, and in some cases Medicaid. This is worth a conversation with an accountant or benefits counselor, not just an assumption either way.

• Address What Happens if Care Needs Increase. A companionship-and-light-help arrangement can change quickly if the senior's health declines. The written agreement should say what happens then: does the arrangement end, adjust, or convert into something more formal?  Best to consider and address before,  rather than leaving that to be sorted out during a crisis.

• Keep Directives Current:  Keep powers of attorney and health care directives current, and apprise agents in advance.  If a decision-maker needs to step in, they shouldn't be caught off guard by a living arrangement they don't fully understand or have the authority to address.

• Be Honest About What You're Looking For:  Explicitly describe your expectations and  wishes.  Companionship, income, occasional help, or genuine caregiving support are different needs, and a match works best when both sides are clear about which one this is.

The Takeaway

The instinct in aging-in-place planning is almost always to ask "what does the house need?" CNN's story about New Yorkers finding unconventional ways to afford the city is a reminder that sometimes the more interesting question is "who else could be in the house?" For a senior who owns a home with more space than they need, a formally matched younger housemate isn't a downgrade or a last resort.  For people like Swanson and Aleyda, it was better than the conventional alternative. That's worth taking seriously as a real aging-in-place strategy, not just a curiosity in someone else's rent story.

Check the tax and benefits implications before signing anything. Rental income is generally taxable, and depending on the amount and the senior's circumstances, it can also affect eligibility for needs-based programs like SSI, and in some cases Medicaid. This is worth a conversation with an accountant or benefits counselor, not just an assumption either way.

Address what happens if care needs increase. A companionship-and-light-help arrangement can change quickly if the senior's health declines. The written agreement should say what happens then — does the arrangement end, adjust, or convert into something more formal — rather than leaving that to be sorted out during a crisis.

If you, a relative, or a client has a spare room and an open mind, it's worth looking up whether a formal home-sharing program exists through the local Area Agency on Aging or a senior-services nonprofit.

Alabama Supreme Court Confirms Circuit Courts Can Check Probate Judges — A Win for Conservatorship Oversight

Families with a loved one under a conservatorship in Alabama got an important, if technical-sounding, piece of good news this week. On August 24, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled unanimously that circuit courts retain the authority to oversee probate courts, including the power to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a probate judge to vacate an order. The opinion, written by Justice Will Sellers, rejected the argument that a probate court operating under expanded local powers answers only to the Alabama Supreme Court itself, with no circuit-court check in between.

That may sound like a jurisdictional footnote. For anyone with a family member relying on a conservator, such as an adult with a severe disability, a person living with dementia, or a child receiving a settlement, it's the opposite. It means there remains a nearby, accessible court that can step in when a probate judge's order raises due-process concerns, rather than requiring families to appeal all the way to the state's highest court to get a hearing.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

The dispute traces back to Jefferson County, where Probate Judge Yashiba Blanchard ordered a forensic audit of roughly 146 conservatorship cases in January 2026. The accounting fees tied to that audit were uncapped and were to be charged directly against the individual accounts under conservatorship, the very funds meant to support the vulnerable people the audit was ostensibly protecting.

According to reporting cited in the case, the 146 cases broke down as follows: 14 were guardian-only matters with no money involved; 77 had already been closed with final settlements examined by court staff (75 of which had final judgments that would ordinarily limit the court's jurisdiction to revisit them); 18 had completed final hearings and were simply awaiting closing paperwork; and 37 remained genuinely open.

Attorneys Ripon Britton Jr. and Gregory H. Hawley, who represent conservators in a number of these cases, challenged the audit order. They argued it lacked case numbers and specific findings, violated due process, exceeded the probate court's authority, and ran afoul of Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which requires notice, a defined scope, and case-specific findings before a court can order this kind of sweeping accounting review. Their attorney, Alan Duke, put the objection plainly: "Nobody objects to auditing a conservator. The objection is to auditing cases the court had already audited and closed, without notice or cause, and charging an uncapped fee to the protected persons."

When Britton and Hawley took the matter to circuit court, Judge Elisabeth French dismissed it on March 30, 2026, citing earlier Alabama Supreme Court precedent suggesting that only the state's highest court, and not a circuit court,  could review a probate order. That dismissal is what the Supreme Court has now reversed, sending the case back to Judge French for consideration on the merits.

It's worth being precise about what the Supreme Court did and didn't decide: the ruling does not determine whether Judge Blanchard's audit order was itself lawful, and it does not adjudicate the separate judicial-ethics complaint against her, discussed below. It decides only that a circuit court has jurisdiction to hear the audit challenge in the first place, thereby restoring a layer of judicial review that the earlier dismissal had effectively closed off.

The Broader Context: A Judge Facing Ethics Charges

This ruling doesn't exist in isolation. The audit order is also cited as evidence in a formal complaint the Judicial Inquiry Commission has filed against Judge Blanchard, alleging seven violations of judicial ethics standards. Judge Blanchard was suspended from the bench in May 2026 after a 120-page complaint accused her of, among other things, failing to hear any involuntary commitment hearings during her first nine months in office, capping her docket at four cases a day, and retaliating against attorneys who crossed her.

The complaint frames the January 2026 audit order, the one now headed back to circuit court, as part of a pattern directed specifically at Attorneys Britton and Hawley: Blanchard had filed a State Bar complaint against Britton in October 2025 seeking his suspension or disbarment, the Bar declined to act on January 26, 2026, and the forensic-audit order followed just three days later, on January 29, i.e., the same day Blanchard filed a police report claiming she felt threatened by Britton.

Separately, and this is worth flagging as a matter of sourcing, since it comes from news reporting on county and court records rather than from anything the Supreme Court reviewed or ruled on,  records examined by WBRC found that a discretionary fund under Blanchard's control, built from $11 recording fees on county property transactions and worth an estimated $7.3 million when she took office in January 2025, had been drawn down substantially. Reporters' review of those records found at least $637,000 paid to one communications firm, over $142,000 in broadcast advertising, and dozens of personal reimbursements to the judge herself. A state audit of that fund began in March 2026, and Blanchard's trial before the Court of the Judiciary is scheduled for November 2026. She denies wrongdoing and, through her attorney, has declined to comment specifically on the conservatorship case. None of this spending, and none of the ethics allegations, was before the Supreme Court in the ruling discussed above; the Court decided only a jurisdictional question.

Why This Matters for Aging-in-Place and Elder Law Planning

For families navigating guardianship or conservatorship, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, this case is a useful reminder of a few things that rarely get discussed until something goes wrong.

First, oversight of conservators is legitimate and necessary; the problem in this case was never that audits happen, but how and against whom they were ordered. A conservator who is properly discharging their duties has nothing to fear from a well-scoped, properly noticed accounting review. What families should watch for is an audit or any court order   that lacks a defined scope, skips notice, or imposes open-ended costs on a protected person's own funds.

Second, jurisdictional questions are not just lawyer technicalities. Whether a circuit court, rather than only a state supreme court, can review a probate judge's order determines how realistic it is for an ordinary family to actually get a decision reviewed. A remedy that technically exists only at the state's highest court is, for most families, no practical remedy at all. This ruling keeps a more accessible venue open.

Third, this case is a reminder that the professionals overseeing a loved one's conservatorship-  the conservator, the attorney, and the court itself- operate within a system of checks that can and does break down, and that families and their advocates benefit from knowing those checks exist. Anyone currently involved in a conservatorship or guardianship matter in Alabama or another state should ask their elder law attorney what avenues of review are available if a court order affecting a protected person's account appears to be improperly scoped, uncapped in cost, or issued without adequate notice.

Even a well-run, properly reviewed conservatorship is still a court-managed substitute for aging-in-place planning, i.e., powers of attorney, health care directives, and funded trusts, that could have kept those same decisions within the family in the first place. That's the deeper, preventive lesson this case offers, and it's worth turning into a concrete checklist.

Building the Checks Before You Need a Court's

None of the steps below require a legal background; they require reviewing documents before a crisis makes guardianship or conservatorship the only available option.

• Keep durable powers of attorney and health care directives current, specific, and properly executed. A document signed a decade ago, naming an agent who has since died or moved away, does little to prevent a court from stepping in.

• Consider supported decision-making agreements or carefully drafted instructions before authority is stripped by a court. Many states, including Alabama, recognize less restrictive alternatives to full guardianship or conservatorship.

• Fund the trust, not just sign it. A revocable living trust that never had assets retitled into it won't keep a probate court out of the picture when it matters.

• Treat "closed" as a word that should mean something. If a professional fee gets charged against a loved one's account tied to a case that was already closed and settled, that's a signal to call an elder law attorney, not a routine administrative matter.

• Ask, in advance, who reviews the reviewer. Before agreeing to any conservatorship or guardianship arrangement, ask what court sits above the one making day-to-day decisions, and how a family could challenge an order it believes is wrong.

Looking Ahead

The underlying merits in this case, whether Judge Blanchard's audit order was lawful, will now be argued back in Jefferson County Circuit Court, and the separate ethics case against her proceeds on its own track toward a November trial. We'll follow both as they develop. But the more durable takeaway for readers of this blog isn't about Jefferson County at all: it's that the best time to decide who controls a loved one's money and medical care is before any court is asked to decide it for you. The documents above are how families keep that choice for themselves, and this case is a good reminder to check that those documents are actually in place, current, and funded, rather than waiting to see whether a circuit court will be there to help if something goes wrong.

Sources: Jennifer Horton, WBRC, "Alabama Supreme Court rules circuit courts can check a probate judge's power; why it matters to you" (Aug. 24, 2026); WBRC, "Records show suspended Jefferson County probate judge spent millions on PR firms, advertising, personal expenses while court fell behind" (July 21, 2026); NASGA – Stop Guardian Abuse blog.