Late-Life Will Changes and the Magical Mystery Tour of Litigation- Lessons From "In Re Estate of Corbett"

When an older adult suffers a serious health event, such as a stroke, and then executes or changes a will, the stage is often set for conflict. A recent Texas case, In re Estate of Corbett, shows how quickly those conflicts can escalate and how unpredictable the legal process becomes once it starts.  

Robert Corbett died in 2016, unmarried and without children. Shortly after suffering a stroke earlier that year, he signed a new will that benefited his maternal aunt and her son. Two first cousins later challenged the will, alleging fraud, and contending that Robert lacked capacity at the time it was executed. The aunt’s estate argued the cousins had no standing because even if the 2016 will failed, an earlier 1994 will would control and still excluded the cousins.  The trial court dismissed the contest, and the cousins appealed.  

The Court of Appeals heard arguments, and in December 2025, nine years following Corbett's death, reversed the trial court finding a genuine unresolved  question of fact about whether Robert would have died intestate (without any will). If both wills were invalid, the court held, the cousins (as heirs) would have a clear financial interest. The court could not adjudicate the validity of the prior (oldest) will, since only the latest will was officially presented to the probate court.  The case was sent back for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the lower court made unclear whether the first will was valid by buttressing it's validity by the mere existence of a prior, unproven, will. Years after Robert’s death, the dispute remains unresolved.

The Real Cost of “Just Letting It Play Out”

Some lawyers and planners treat family disputes as inevitable. They argue that most contests are limited in scope and that the system eventually "sorts things out." That view understates the possible damage. Litigation is a "magical mystery tour." No one, not the clients, not the lawyers, not even the judges, can reliably predict the path, the timeline, or the ultimate cost. A case that looks straightforward can spend years in motion practice, appeals, and remands. Along the way:

• Assets sit frozen or poorly managed;
• Family relationships fracture further;
• Legal fees steadily erode the estate; and
• Heirs who may ultimately prevail suffer real harm from delay and uncertainty.

In Corbett, the fight has reached the Court of Appeals and is still not finished. The aunt's/cousins' potential inheritance, the proper administration of the estate, and the family’s ability to move forward have all been held hostage to the process itself.

Tax Implications and the Quiet Erosion of Assets in Estate Disputes

Beyond the emotional toll and the pure legal fees, prolonged estate litigation carries real tax and economic costs that steadily shrink what beneficiaries ultimately receive. These costs are often underestimated when people decide to “let the process play out."  Consider the following examples:

Tax Friction: When a will contest or related dispute keeps an estate open for years, several tax consequences commonly arise:

• Income Taxes: The estate must continue filing fiduciary income tax returns (Form 1041). Estates and trusts reach the highest federal income tax rate at a much lower threshold than individuals. Income that could have been distributed to beneficiaries in lower brackets is instead taxed at compressed rates inside the estate.

• Delayed Distributions: Beneficiaries who needed cash for living expenses, taxes, or investment opportunities may be forced to borrow or liquidate other assets while waiting.  

Legal fees paid by the estate are generally deductible as administration expenses under IRC § 2053, but only to the extent they are necessary for the proper settlement of the estate. Fees incurred primarily for the personal benefit of one group of beneficiaries may be disallowed or recharacterized, creating additional controversy and potential tax adjustments.

If the estate is large enough to be subject to estate tax, prolonged administration can complicate the alternate valuation election, the timing of deductions, and the calculation of any marital or charitable deductions that depend on what actually passes to the intended recipients.

Concrete Examples of Asset Erosion

Consider an estate of $2.5 million that becomes embroiled in a will contest lasting three to four years (a realistic timeline once appeals are involved, as in In re Estate of Corbett):

• Direct Legal Fees: $180,000–$350,000 (or more) paid from estate assets for both sides’ counsel (assuming there are only two sides and two attorneys), expert witnesses, depositions, and appeals. Even if a portion is deductible, the principal is gone.  In larger families, there are often more than two represented groups, ad therefore more than two attorneys.  It is unclear from the Corbett case, for example, whether the  

• Lost Investment Return: Assume the contested assets would otherwise have earned a conservative 5% annually. Over three years the opportunity cost on $2 million of tied-up assets exceeds $300,000 in forgone growth (before considering compounding).

• Forced Liquidation: To pay ongoing legal fees, the executor may have to sell real estate or securities at an inopportune time, during a market dip or without proper marketing, thereby realizing lower values and triggering possible capital gains tax inside the estate.

• Illiquidity Cascade: Cash is consumed first. What remains for the eventual winners may be harder-to-divide assets (closely held business interests, real estate with title issues, or personal property), increasing the chance of further disputes or fire-sale discounts.

• Income Tax Drag: Investment income retained in the estate for multiple years is taxed at the compressed fiduciary rates. The difference between estate-level taxation and taxation at the beneficiaries’ individual rates can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars.

In more severe cases, the combination of fees, lost growth, unfavorable sales, and extra income tax has been known to reduce the net amount available for distribution by 20–40% or more relative to a clean, uncontested administration.

Why Late-Life Planning Carries Extra Risk

Documents signed after a major health decline invite scrutiny. Questions of capacity, undue influence, and fraud become easier to raise and harder to dismiss. Even when the document is ultimately upheld, the mere existence of a credible challenge can trigger years of expensive litigation.  The only reliable way to avoid this particular magical mystery tour is not to board the bus in the first place.

Solutions to Vulnerable Late-life Planning

Plan early. Plan while capacity is clear. Make the hard decisions about distribution while the person whose wishes matter can still express them cleanly and repeatedly.  Let your estate plan build resilience, rather than relying on a plan that lays dormant for years or even decades.  

Strong planning tools include:

• A well-coordinated revocable trust funded during life;
• Clear, consistent beneficiary designations;
• Contemporaneous evidence of capacity and intent (medical notes, videos, or independent witness statements when appropriate); 
• Keeping and maintaining a clear and powerful actionable digital asset inventory (independent evidence of capacity may be silently maintained on digital devices like a phone, watch, or tablet, or by accessing virtual assistant history- like Alexa or Siri).
• Regular reviews so that changes are made deliberately rather than in crisis.

Revision Timing. Change your plan based on changes in the circumstances of others, rather than waiting for changes in your own. In other words, rather than awaiting your own critical illness, diagnosis, or decline before implementing or revising your estate plan, treat significant life events in the lives of family members or close friends as your cue to act. When a sibling suffers a stroke, a parent receives a serious diagnosis, a peer dies unexpectedly, or a relative becomes entangled in an impairing life-altering event, use that moment as the prompt to review, reconsider, update, and properly fund your own documents. These external events provide clear, low-pressure opportunities to make deliberate decisions while your capacity and judgment remain strong, avoiding the far greater risks that come with last-minute changes made under the cloud of your own failing health or another person's influence or coercion.

CONCLUSION

When families wait until after a stroke, a hospitalization, or a noticeable decline, they often create the very conditions that invite challenge. Once the dispute begins, control shifts from the family to the court system, and the system moves on its own unpredictable timeline.

The Corbett case is a useful reminder: the cost of litigation is not limited to attorney fees. It includes years of uncertainty, frozen assets, and emotional toll. The only winning move is to plan proactively: plan early, plan well, and make clear decisions while you still can.  If your estate plan (or a loved one’s) has not been reviewed in light of current health and family circumstances, now is the time. Waiting until after the next health event is often the most expensive choice of all.

When an Estate Inherits an IRA: New IRS Guidance Allows Tax-Free Division into Separate Inherited IRAs

One of the most common and costly retirement-account mistakes is failing to identify beneficiaries on an IRA. When no beneficiary is designated (or the designation fails), the account passes to the decedent’s estate by default. That outcome usually produces worse required minimum distribution (RMD) rules and can create administrative headaches for the executor and the heirs. In PLR 202624001 (released February 20, 2026), the IRS confirmed a practical and taxpayer-friendly solution: an estate that inherits an IRA can divide the account into separate inherited IRAs for the individual beneficiaries named in the will, using trustee-to-trustee transfers, without triggering a taxable distribution.

The Facts of the RulingThe decedent owned a traditional IRA and died after reaching the age at which RMDs were required. No beneficiary designation was on file, so the estate became the sole beneficiary of the IRA. The decedent’s will left the residuary estate (including the IRA) equally to three children. 

The executor proposed to divide the IRA into three equal shares, and move each share by direct trustee-to-trustee transfer into a separate inherited IRA titled in the decedent’s name for the benefit of each child (as a beneficiary of the estate).  We'll discuss "why" the executor suggested this plan after reporting the ruling of the IRS.

What the IRS Ruled

The Service granted four favorable rulings.  The IRS ruled that:

• each beneficiary’s interest in the estate’s IRA may be segregated into separate IRAs for RMD purposes;

• the new accounts, properly titled and funded by trustee-to-trustee transfer, qualify as inherited IRAs under IRC § 408(d)(3);

• each beneficiary may take RMDs from his or her separate inherited IRA over the decedent’s remaining life expectancy (using the Single Life Table); and

• The trustee-to-trustee transfers themselves are not taxable distributions under § 408(d)(1) and are not treated as rollovers under § 408(d)(3).

In short, splitting the estate-owned IRA into separate inherited IRAs for the will beneficiaries does not create immediate income tax.

The Executor's Objectives

The main goals were administrative clarity, separate control, and cleaner tax reporting, while staying within the limited options available once the estate is the beneficiary.  Key benefits of the approved approach:

• Separate accounts for each beneficiary:  Each child receives their own inherited IRA. They can manage investments, take distributions, and deal with the custodian independently instead of everything flowing through the estate.
• Independent RMD tracking
  Each beneficiary satisfies the required minimum distribution rules from their own account. This avoids the need for the executor to calculate and distribute one combined RMD and then allocate it among the heirs.
• Avoids (or minimizes) estate-level income taxation
  When the IRA stays in the estate’s name, distributions are generally reported to the estate under its EIN. The estate may have to pay tax at compressed fiduciary rates if it retains the funds, or it must distribute the money out so the beneficiaries pick up the income. Splitting into separate inherited IRAs lets the income flow more directly to the individual beneficiaries.
• Non-taxable movement of the assets
  The IRS confirmed that the trustee-to-trustee transfers themselves are not taxable distributions and are not treated as rollovers. The tax is deferred until actual distributions are taken from the new inherited IRAs.
• Practical administration
  Once the separate inherited IRAs are established, the estate can close out its involvement with the retirement account more cleanly.

Note that the beneficiaries still had to use the decedent’s remaining life expectancy for RMDs. Because the estate (not the individuals) was the designated beneficiary, they could not use their own longer life expectancies or the more favorable 10-year rule that usually applies to designated individual beneficiaries.What If the Proposal Had Been Denied?

If the IRS had refused to allow the division into separate inherited IRAs, the practical and tax consequences would have been less favorable:

• The entire IRA would have remained titled in the name of the estate.
• All post-death distributions would be reported on Form 1099-R issued to the estate.
• The estate would include those amounts in its gross income (Form 1041).
  • If the estate retained the funds, it would pay tax at the compressed fiduciary income-tax rates (which reach the highest bracket very quickly).
  • If the estate distributed the money to the beneficiaries in the same year, the income could be passed out via Schedule K-1, but the timing and character still flow through the estate’s return first.
• The executor would have to continue administering the IRA as an estate asset, calculating the single RMD based on the decedent’s remaining life expectancy, and then allocating shares among the three children.
• Beneficiaries would have less direct control and more dependence on the estate administration process.
• There could be delays, extra accounting costs, and potential mismatches between when the estate receives the distribution and when the beneficiaries actually receive their shares.
• Alternately, the executor could have distributed the funds from the IRA, incurring immediate taxable consequences to either the estate or to the individual beneficiaries on the entire amount distributed, sacrificing any favorable tax deferral.

In short, the ruling gave the executor a clean, tax-free way to move from one estate-owned IRA to three separate inherited IRAs. That structure is administratively superior and generally more tax-efficient for the beneficiaries than leaving the account stuck inside the estate. It does not, however, improve the underlying RMD period; that limitation is locked in once the estate is the beneficiary. This is why proper beneficiary designations (or a qualifying look-through trust) remain far preferable to relying on this post-death rescue technique.

Why This Matters and Why It Is Still Second-BestThis guidance is helpful for executors who discover that an IRA has no designated beneficiary. It allows the estate to move the assets into individual inherited IRAs so each heir can manage his or her own share and satisfy RMDs independently.  The ruling, however, also underscores a critical limitation: because the estate was the beneficiary, the heirs are stuck with the decedent’s remaining life expectancy. They cannot use their own longer life expectancies, nor (in most post-SECURE Act cases) the more flexible 10-year rule that often applies to designated individual beneficiaries or qualifying look-through trusts. The result is typically faster forced distributions and higher income taxes over a shorter period.Planning Implications for Aging-in-Place and Elder Law ClientsThe following remain actionable and preferred planning tools:

• Name a Beneficiary:  A properly drafted see-through trust, but if not, an individual primary and contingent beneficiary or beneficiaries. The cleanest solution is still a direct beneficiary designation. This PLR is a rescue technique, not a preferred plan.

• Review Beneficiary Forms Regularly:  Marriage, divorce, births, deaths, and changes in relationships all require updates. Custodians’ default rules (often the estate) should never be left in place by accident.

• Coordinate the Will and Beneficiary Designations: Even when the will names the same people, the absence of a designation on the IRA form forces the slower, less favorable estate-as-beneficiary path.

• Executors should act promptly: Establishing the separate inherited IRAs and confirming the RMD method early reduces the risk of missed distributions or custodian resistance. Some custodians still prefer or require a PLR before allowing the split; this published ruling may ease that process.

• Consider the Income-tax Impact on the Heirs. Faster RMDs based on the decedent’s life expectancy can push beneficiaries into higher tax brackets, another reason to avoid estate-as-beneficiary status whenever possible.

Bottom Line

PLR 202624001 gives executors a clear, tax-free path to divide an estate-owned IRA into separate inherited IRAs for the individual heirs. That is welcome administrative relief. It does not, however, cure the underlying problem of a missing or failed beneficiary designation. The best protection remains proactive: keep beneficiary designations current, coordinate them with the overall estate plan, and avoid letting retirement accounts fall into the estate by default.

Clients who hold IRAs or other retirement accounts should review their beneficiary designations as part of any comprehensive aging-in-place or estate-planning update. A few minutes spent confirming those forms can save heirs both taxes and complications later.

Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 202624001 (released June 12, 2026).  

When Family Ties Turn Tangled: Lessons from Tharrett v. Everett on Trusts, Troublesome Beneficiaries, and the Power of Proactive Planning

In the worlds of estate and trust planning, aging-in-place planning, and business succession planning, a well-crafted revocable living trust isn't just a tool for avoiding probate, it's a shield against very real risks that can derail your legacy. Among these, and perhaps the most profound and intimate risk, is family discord.  The recent Kansas Supreme Court decision in Tharrett v. Everett, No. 125,999 (Kan. Aug. 8, 2025) , drives this home with a cautionary tale of sibling rivalry, delayed distributions, and mounting legal fees. Here, a beneficiary's persistent objections turned a straightforward trust wind-up into a multi-year battle, costing the estate, and ultimately the disruptor, thousands in attorney fees. For seniors and their families, this case underscores why trusts must be structured to deter "cake-and-eat-it-too" tactics from beneficiaries and to provide practical strategies for handling those who simply want to stir the pot. Let's break down the case, explore its implications, and chart a smarter path forward.

The Case: A Trust in Turmoil
Roxine Poznich, like many aging individuals, established a revocable living trust to efficiently distribute her assets to her five children upon her death in 2020. She named her daughter Sarah Tharrett as successor trustee, a common choice for its familiarity and cost-effectiveness. But family dynamics can upend even the best-laid plans. Roxine's son, David Everett, quickly challenged Sarah's role, filing a lawsuit in May 2021 to remove her as trustee. The suit was dismissed, but the damage was done: tensions simmered.
By October 2021, Sarah issued a final trust report and proposed distribution, which four siblings approved. David, however, objected, stalling the trust's closure and forcing Sarah to file a declaratory judgment action in June 2022 under Kansas statutes (K.S.A. 60-1701 et seq. and K.S.A. 58a-201(c)). The district court sided with Sarah: It approved the distribution, discharged her as trustee, ordered the payout of remaining funds, and, crucially, awarded Sarah $4,000 in attorney fees from David's share for the "extraordinary services" needed to defend the trust.
David cashed his distribution check but appealed anyway, arguing the judgment was void due to due process violations (e.g., inadequate notice and access to trust documents). The Kansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in May 2024, ruling that by accepting the benefits, David had "acquiesced" to the judgment and couldn't now challenge it inconsistently. It also denied Sarah's request for appellate attorney fees.
The Supreme Court granted review and, in an August 2025 opinion, largely affirmed but with a pivotal reversal. It rejected David's void-judgment claim outright: due process issues don't void a ruling unless they strip personal jurisdiction entirely, and David's active participation (filings, motions, in-person appearances) belied any such argument. The Court upheld acquiescence as a jurisdictional bar; David couldn't accept the payout (the "cake") and still fight for more (eat it too). The court reversed, however, on fees, awarding Sarah an additional $11,320 in appellate attorney fees under Supreme Court Rule 7.07(b)(1) and K.S.A. 58a-1004. Why? Equity demanded it: David's "repeated meritless attempts to get more money" had unjustly burdened the trustee and trust, and courts retain jurisdiction over fee disputes even when the merits are off-limits.
As the Court noted, quoting Kansas trust law: "[i]n a judicial proceeding involving the administration of a trust, the court, as justice and equity may require, may award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to any party, to be paid by another party or from the trust." This wasn't punitive (David's appeal wasn't deemed frivolous) but a fair allocation of costs to preserve the trust's integrity.The Takeaway: Trusts Serve as a Bulwark Against "Cake-and-Eat-It-Too" BeneficiariesWhat strategic angle should elder law planners take from Tharrett? Lean into trusts as proactive deterrents against beneficiaries who demand their inheritance while waging war on the process. In this case, David's acquiescence doctrine, rooted in Kansas precedent, served as a trapdoor: once he pocketed his share, the courthouse doors slammed shut on his appeals. This isn't unique to Kansas; similar rules apply in most states, preventing "inconsistent positions" that could "moot" challenges.
For aging clients, the message is clear: A revocable living trust, when properly drafted and funded, creates enforceable boundaries. Unlike probate, where courts micromanage distributions, trusts empower trustees to act decisively, distribute assets, seek court approval if needed, and surcharge objectors for bad-faith delays. Tharrett shows how this protects against "cake-and-eat-it-too" tactics.  Beneficiaries can't cherry-pick benefits while litigating the rest. Planners should emphasize in client consultations: "Your trust isn't just a distribution vehicle; it's a family peacekeeper, with teeth to enforce compliance."Handling Beneficiaries Who Just Want to Make Things DifficultEven the best families have outliers, those who object not from genuine grievance but to exert control or vent unresolved issues. Tharrett's David exemplifies this: his initial removal suit failed, yet he persisted, blocking closure for months and racking up fees. How do trustees (and planners) respond?

•Document Everything: From the outset, maintain meticulous records of communications, accountings, and approvals. Sarah's final report, approved by most siblings, isolated David's objections as outliers, strengthening her declaratory action.

•Invoke Statutory Tools Early: Under laws like K.S.A. 58a-1004 (mirrored in the Uniform Trust Code, adopted by 36 states), trustees can petition courts for instructions, distributions, and fee awards against unreasonable challengers. In Tharrett, this allowed surcharging David's share without depleting the whole trust.

•Leverage No-Contest Clauses: Draft trusts with in terrorem clauses that disincentivize frivolous challenges, e.g., forfeiture of a beneficiary's share for groundless contests. While Kansas enforces these judiciously, they deter most would-be troublemakers.  These can be expanded to include meritless or retaliatory legal actions that frustrate efficient trust administration.  

•Mediation Mandates: Build in requirements for mandatory and binding alternative dispute resolution before litigation. This cools tempers and often resolves issues without court, preserving relationships (and funds) for aging-in-place needs like in-home care.

•Appoint Neutral Successors: For high-conflict families, name a professional trustee (e.g., bank or trust company) as successor, reducing accusations of bias.

•Peace and Tranquility Clauses:  Consider including a provision that permits a trustee to surcharge a beneficiary who causes unreasonable costs or delays, or takes actions that unnecessarily increase the cost of administration.  Such a provision might deter a recalcitrant beneficiary, but if unsuccessful, it ensures that the resulting costs and expenses are borne equitably by the beneficiary who caused them. 

The case reminds us: when breach of fiduciary duty isn't evident (as here, with no proof of wrongdoing by Sarah), trustees should push for closure. Beneficiaries must accept distributions and final reports or face consequences.Why the Attorney Fees Ruling is a Game-Changer for ClosureThe Supreme Court's fee reversal is gold for elder law advocacy: it positions costs as a "reality check" for reluctant beneficiaries. In Tharrett, the $11,320 award, based on an attorney's affidavit and factors like reasonableness under Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5, wasn't about punishing David but equitably shifting the burden of his "meritless attempts." This aligns with the Court's view that trustees shouldn't bear personal costs for defending the settlor's intent.
For clients, highlight this as a reason to embrace finality.  "Accept your distribution and report because fighting it could cost you more than you gain." In low-stakes disputes (no clear breach), it encourages settlements, speeding assets to heirs for real needs. Planners can use Tharrett to illustrate that fees aren't optional; they're a trust's self-defense mechanism.Conclusion: Structure Your Trust to Safeguard Your LegacyTharrett v. Everett isn't just a win for trustees—it's a blueprint for efficient and effective trust administration. By deterring obstructive beneficiaries, enabling swift resolutions, and equitably allocating costs, revocable trusts ensure your assets support independence and  private administration, not costly public infighting. If family tensions loom, consult an elder law attorney now to fortify your plan with anti-litigation provisions. Don't let a David's delays dim your golden years—plan decisively, and let equity do the rest.
For the full opinion, see Tharrett v. Everett on Google Scholar.