Pocket Deeds Are Horrible Planning Instruments

I recently discussed with an estate planner the advisability of using a “pocket deed” to fund a revocable trust.  A pocket deed is a deed that is signed during a person’s life, but "pocketed," that is, not recorded, until after the person dies. Pocket deeds were traditionally used to transfer proper to heirs, but apparently in a more modern approach, it is now sometimes used to transfer property to a trust.  

This technique is usually intended to accomplish two goals:

1. Control – Unrecorded deeds allow the property owner to retain control of the property during his or her lifetime. Since the unrecorded deed is not a matter of public record, the owner remains the record owner of the property.  If the deed stays in the owner's possession )a bid assumption), the owner can destroy the deed if the owner changes his or her mind.
2. Probate – The recording of the deed after the owner's death is usually intended to avoid probate.  If it works (a big assumption), the transfer is treated as being effective when the deed was signed and the property won’t be included in the owner's probate estate.

The biggest objection I have to the modern approach is that it fails to appreciate the advantages of the trust.  In fact, advising a person not to record the deed  suggests that there is some disadvantage to transferring the property to the trust. If the trust is a revocable trust, and you are the trustee, you control the property before and after the transfer.  Since the purpose of the trust is to avoid probate, and transferring the property during your life accomplishes that, why not record the deed?

Pocket Deeds Frustrate Good Planning

Regardless, unrecorded pocket deeds are just a bad idea.  They are inconsistent with the fundamental bases of good planning, which assumes the worst, and on that basis implements a plan before the worst happens to derail the plan.  Worst cases include house fires, lost documents, improperly executed or authenticated documents, scrivener (drafting) errors, and the like. Implementing your plan today means that you will solve and resolve these problems.  Pocketing a deed for recording after your death means that these risks may frustrate your plan.  

Consider the following examples:

• A deed is prepared based upon the prior deed.  The County Engineer subsequently changes property description rules, and refuses to accept for recording property descriptions using historic references.  Years later the owner dies, leaving a signed deed that is not recordable given the subsequent changes.  The property must be probated. If the deed had been recorded when prepared, it would have been owned by the trust at the owner's death, and there would be no probate.  

• The result in the previous situation would be the same if there was an error in the title owner's name, or if the notary forgot to affix a seal, or the signature of the owner was defective, or the property description was defective.  If the deed is presented for recording and rejected by either the County Engineer or County Treasurer while the owner is alive, the owner simply corrects the deed and submits the corrected deed for recording.  If the deed is rejected after the owner has died, there is no one but the executor of the owner's estate that has authority to fix, correct, or amend the deed.  

• A deed is prepared and pocketed by placing the deed in a drawer.  After the owner's death, the family cannot find the deed, or inadvertently disposes of it when cleaning the drawer of other miscellaneous unnecessary paperwork.  Perhaps the person who finds the deed destroys it intentionally, in order to create mischief or opportunity (read on for an example how this might create opportunity).  A lost or destroyed pocket deed is unable to serve any purpose. The property must be probated. 

• A deed is prepared transferring several properties, each to a different child.  The deeds are placed in the family's home safe.  Several years later, one child finds the deeds while retrieving other paperwork from the safe.  He removes the deed transferring the property to himself and records it.  At a minimum the owner no longer controls the property.  More, the owner suffers the risk of loss realized by the child.  If the child declares bankruptcy, for example, the property may be lost to satisfy creditors.     

The foregoing examples simply describe how use of a pocket deed can result in the frustration of your estate plan.   But, that isn't the worst of the pocket deed story; pocket deeds can have significant adverse consequences.  The last example demonstrates how conveying property can create risks.  By the way, none of the examples are problems for an owner who simply conveys his or her real property to his or her trust.

Unrecorded Deeds Can Create a Cloud on Title

Under the laws of most jurisdictions, a deed is not effective until it has been properly signed and delivered.  The delivery requirement is important. Just signing the deed is not enough to complete the transfer.  Delivery of the property is presumed if the deed is publicly recorded.

In ordinary real estate transfers, the deed is delivered and recorded at the time of the conveyance.  But with pocket deeds, the deed is not recorded. There is no proof of delivery during the life of the owner.  This raises a number of questions.  Was the deed delivered to the transferee at all? Can delivery be proved? If delivery was not made, is the failure evidence that the owner changed his or her mind?  If the property is not delivered before the death of the owner, the transfer may be void or voidable.  If the transfer was a gift, meaning that no consideration changed hands, the transfer is not legally enforceable by the transferee.

Questions like these can create a cloud on title, meaning that title insurers will not write a policy on the property without some legal action to clear the title. The transferee would have every incentive to claim that the deed was delivered before the owner died, and the owner is not able to say otherwise. In these circumstances, title companies may be reluctant to simply accept the transferee’s word that the deed was properly delivered prior to the owner's death.  This is especially likely if the deed has remained in pocket (unrecorded) for years before the owner's death.

If the deed recording occurs shortly after execution of the deed, a title company will simply presume that there was valid delivery. But a conservative title company may require a declaratory action to quiet title before it will issue a policy on the property.  An action to quiet title will convert statements regarding delivery to legal testimony in a legal proceeding, after publication and notice to anyone who may claim otherwise. A title company can then be sure that there aren’t any competing claims to the property.

If a title company will not write a policy on the property without a declaratory action, the title to the property is unmarketable. The trustee or new owner will be unable to sell, mortgage, or otherwise deal with the property until the title issue is resolved.  The legal fees for bringing an action to quiet title are usually more expensive and time consuming than proper planning on the front end, and may result additionally in probate.

Unrecorded Deeds Can Give Creditors a Lien on the Property

An unrecorded deed does not put third party creditors on notice that the property has been transferred. This means that the transferor’s creditors (including creditors of his or her estate) may put a lien on the property. This leaves the transferee open to a claim by the transferor’s creditors. If that happens, the transferee would need a legal action to deal with the lien.

Unrecorded Deeds Can Create Tax Issues

Assuming that the owner does not have an estate that is taxable for Federal Estate Tax purposes (i.e., assuming the owner’s estate is worth less than $5.25 million under current law), it is usually better from a tax perspective for the owner to hold onto the property until death. This will give the new owner a full stepped-up basis in the real estate, effectively erasing any appreciation that accrued while the owner was alive. This can result in a significant income tax savings upon sale of the property. This tax planning opportunity is forfeited when a pocket deed is signed during the owner's lifetime.

Property gifted during the owner's life does not receive a step-up in basis.  The transferee would be forced to pay capital gains taxes on the sale of the property using the owner's original basis to determine the taxable gain.

In addition, the transferor is required to file a federal gift tax return (Form 709) for any transfer of property that exceeds the annual exclusion amount (currently $14,000). Since most real estate is worth more than $14,000, the transferor is usually required to file this return when the pocket deed is actually signed. The hassle and expense of filing the Form 709 can be avoided by holding the property until death.

The proponents of the modern version will correctly note that none of those opportunities apply when the property is transferred to a revocable trust.  But, the real nature of the transfer is nonetheless concealed until after the owner's death.  What if a taxing authority argued that the concealment suggested fraud (concealment is an indicia of fraud), and suggested the property was also actually conveyed to the heirs by an alternate pocket deed, which deed was destroyed upon the owner's death.  In this instance the parties conspire to structure a transaction so that it can be characterized in the most favorable way possible after the occurrence of one of several possible events.  In this way, the parties can "have their cake and eat it too."  This can result in the transfer being characterized so as to create a taxable event, and corresponding tax consequence, prior to death.  In other words, what would not have been taxable, can be made taxable by constructing the transaction is a suspicious way.

This danger is precisely why an Ohio senior should never prepare a pocket deed conveying the  home to a child.  The senior will likely claim a homestead exemption reducing the property taxes.  The homestead exemption is not available to the child, especially if the child is not living in the home.  When the the pocket deed is recorded after death, the child will be responsible for repaying the homestead exemption, since the senior was not entitle to the exemption after conveying the property to his or her child, together with interest and penalties for the unpaid taxes.      

Unrecorded Deeds May Invite Legal Challenge

Unrecorded deeds will not necessarily  avoid probate.  As explained above, anything that happens that prevents recording of the deed will necessitate probate of the property.  In addition, a pocket deed may create the opportunity for legal challenge or contest.

I once represented a child that was disinherited by his father's trust.  Of course, upon reviewing the trust, I advised my client that normally there would be little opportunity to contest the trust, and suggested he resign himself to the fact that the trust would be administered according to his father's wishes.  This was particularly unfortunate under the circumstances, because, although the son was once estranged from his father, the father and son had in the intervening years reconciled, and were for several year's before the death of the father on good terms.

Shortly after the father's death, a sibling shared the harrowing work the siblings were forced to perform in days before and after the father's death.  Apparently the deed was just one of many assets that were left out of the trust, until the father fell unexpectedly ill.  The new information breathed life into the son's claim under the trust.  Was it possible that the father has refused to fund the trust given reservations regarding the disinheritance?  If the trust was not an expression of the father's wishes through mistake or change in circumstances, the son would have a viable claim.  Although the matter could easily have been resolved in an expensive court action, it was resolved by settlement.  The settlement, regardless of the circumstances compromised the father's wishes; the son was neither disinherited nor treated the same as his siblings.  It is unlikely that is how the father intended his estate to be resolved.

A Last Will and Testament is more susceptible to challenge than is a trust.  If it is determined that the property is not owned by the trust, and the Will is successfully challenged, the distribution of the estate can be altered from what the owner intended.  If the probate estate is distributed intestate, i.e., without a Will, the estate is distributed according to the heirs at law.  Who the beneficiaries of the trust are is irrelevant to property being probated where there is no Will pouring the estate over into the trust.

In Ohio, perhaps the most famous case arising from a  contest to a deed recorded after death is the case Schueler v. Lynam, 80 Ohio App. 325, 75 N.E.2d 464 (App. 2 Dist. 1947). In that case, the court held that the pocket deed was null and void, in part because partys of the deed required completion after the death of the owner. 

But other states, too, have invalidated pocket deeds as perpetuating fraud. 

Unrecorded Deeds Surrender Intended Benefits of a Trust

Among the possible intended benefits of a trust are protection of the assets from court-appointed guardianship, protection from certain creditors after death, seamless management of the assets during periods of unavailability, incompetency, or incapacity.  These, and many other benefits of trust management are lost when assets are retained in the owner's individual name.  Quite simply, pocket deeds surrender any of the lifetime planning benefits of a trust.  Usually, this means that either the individual was not properly apprised of the benefits of trust planning, or if being directed by a professional representative (agent, financial planner, or attorney), the representative is unaware of the benefits, or is seeking to obtain some other objective.

Because pockets deeds don't always work, almost always take risks that could be avoided by simply implementing a plan, and have unintended consequences, like most attorneys, I do not recommend their use.  

Finally, if you  find an article written by an attorney concluding that pocket deeds are recommended and advisable, please send it to me.  If you are interested, there are many suggesting that pocket deeds should be avoided.  For example, go here, here, here, here, and/or here. 

  

Court Invalidates Pocket Deed As Fraudulent Effort to Defraud the Surviving Spouse

[The following is reprinted from my former newsletter, Your Estate Matters.]

A recent case from Tennessee illustrates the dangers inherent in using "pocket deeds." Pocket deeds are executed during the owner's life, but recorded after the owner's death.  While they are rarely used by attorneys or serious planners, they still find their way into the plans of individuals who may devise the schemes without legal advice.  

The case concerns the marriage of Ancie Lee Maness  and Jewell Maness,  When they married, he already had three grown sons and a 330-acre farm in Henderson County, Tennessee. He and Jewell both worked outside the farm.  Her income paid for food, utilities and household bills, but his  income was mostly used to pay expenses on the farm.

Mr. Maness ran a small herd of cattle at the farm, and allowed his sons to keep a few head of their own on the property. At different times, Mr. Maness even gave each of his sons an eight-acre parcel on the edge of the farm. It was clear, however, that Mr. Maness operated the farm, with only occasional help from his sons. Until 1992, the farm income, and Mr. Maness’ wages, went to pay off a mortgage on the farm as well.

Shortly after Mr. Maness’ death in 1993, one of the sons informed Mrs. Maness that he had transferred the farm to them nearly ten years earlier. When she investigated, she discovered that Mr. Maness had signed a deed to the property, conveying it to his three sons, and had given the deed to his son Willie. He had instructed Willie and his wife not to tell anyone about the deed, and to hold it in their safe deposit box.  They had removed it and recorded it three days after Mr. Maness’ death, and the title now appeared to be in the sons’ names.

Mrs. Maness sued to set aside the transaction, alleging that it was fraudulent because it had the effect of depriving her of her statutory right to inherit a portion of her husband’s property. In Tennessee, as in most states, a surviving spouse is entitled to at least a share of the deceased spouse’s estate, and Mrs. Maness argued that the transaction deprived her of that right.

Noting the secrecy with which the deed was cloaked, the Tennessee Court of Appeals agreed with Mrs. Maness. The court also noted that even by a conservative estimate the farm constituted nearly two-thirds of the value of Mr. Maness’ estate, and Mr. Maness’ behavior in hiding the transaction from his wife indicated that he had intended to defraud her of her inheritance rights. 

To read the entire case go here: Maness v. Estate of Maness, Tenn. Court of Appeals, November 12, 1997.

Life Estate Renders Medicaid Applicant Ineligible

Life estates are frequently used by seniors to gift real property to family members because the seniors are assured that the retained life estate secures their use and enjoyment of the property for the remainder of  their life.  These estates, however, present complicated tax and legal issues rarely considered and resolved prior to the gift.  

Life estates often complicate Medicaid eligibility.  See, for example, my prior article, "Entire Value of Property in Which Medicaid Recipient Had Life Estate is Recoverable in Idaho."    In a more recent example, North Dakota's highest court ruled that a Medicaid applicant who had a life estate in property is entitled to the income generated from that property, even though she argued she permanently gifted the income to her son. Bleick v. North Dakota Dept. of Human Services (N.D., No. 20140103, March 24, 2015).

Shirley Bleick transferred property to her son in 1988, reserving a life estate for herself, and then she moved off the property.  In 1992, her son leased a portion of the property to another farmer for $8,200 a year. The rental income went to Ms. Bleick's son. In 2011, Ms. Bleick applied for Medicaid benefits, but the application was denied. The state determined that Ms. Bleick should be receiving a portion of the rental income, so her countable assets exceeded the maximum limit.

Ms. Bleick appealed the state's decision, arguing she gifted the right to the income to her son. The trial court affirmed the state's decision to deny Medicaid benefits, and Ms. Bleick appealed.

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the income stream from the life estate exceeds the asset limits for Medicaid benefits. According to the court, if Ms. Bleick intended to gift all the income from the property to her son, she could have released the life estate and transferred title to the property. The court ruled that the rental income, if it is viewed as a gift, is an annual gift. One justice dissented, arguing that all the evidence indicates that Ms. Bleick intended to permanently gift the income to her son.

The lesson could not be more clear: consult with an elder law attorney before making gifts in order assure that the consequences of the transaction are fully understood and considered. For more information, see "Six Questions to Ask Before Making Gifts."    

For the full text of this decision, go to: 

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20140103.htm

Good News for Trusts that Manage Real Estate

In the recent Frank Aragona Trust case, 142 T.C. No. 9 (2014), the US Tax Court reached a taxpayer favorable decision, one that benefits trusts that materially participate in real estate business activities.  For years, the IRS has steadfastly refused to allow trusts to deduct net operating losses related to real estate activities against other ordinary income unrelated to the real estate; based on the so-called “passive activity loss” limitations.  Now, it may be possible for such trusts to deduct the losses associated with the real estate against other profitable activities to reduce income taxes.

Frank Aragona formed a trust In 1979, naming himself as the grantor and trustee and with his five children as beneficiaries. Frank Aragona passed away in 1981 and he was succeeded as trustee by six trustees. One of the trustees was an independent trustee and Frank Aragona's children comprised the other five trustees. Two of the five children had very little involvement with the trust or the business of the trust. Three of the five children worked full time for a limited liability company (LLC) that was wholly owned by the trust. This LLC managed most of the trust's rental real estate properties. It employed several people in addition to Frank Aragona's children including a controller, leasing agents, maintenance workers, and accounting clerks. In addition to receiving a trustee fee, the three children who were employed by the wholly-owned limited liability also received wages from the limited liability company.

During 2005 and 2006, the Frank Aragona Trust incurred substantial losses from its rental real estate properties. The trust also reported gains from its other (non-rental) real estate activities. In the Tax Court, the IRS argued that the trust's rental real estate activities were passive because a trust is incapable of materially participating in rental real estate activities. Alternatively, the IRS argued that even if a trust could materially participate in rental real estate activities, in the Aragona case, the court should disregard the activities of the three trustees who also work for trust's wholly-owned LLC because these trustees performed their activities as employees of the LLC and not in their duties as trustees. The trust contended that it could materially participate in its rental real estate activities, and that the activities of the three trustees who were also employed by the wholly-owned limited liability company should not be disregarded.

The material participation exception applies when more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer are performed in real-property trades or businesses where the taxpayer materially participates and performs more than 750 hours of services during the year in real-property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.

More than ten years ago, in Mattie K. Carter Trust v. United States, 256 F. Supp.2d 536 (N.D. Tex. 2003), a Texas district court held that the material participation of a trust in ranch operations should be determined by reference to the persons and agents who conducted the ranch's business on the trust's behalf, including the trustee.  According to the court, in determining whether the trust materially participated in the real estate activities, the trust's non-trustee's fiduciaries, employees, and agents should be considered.

In the years since the Mattie K. Carter Trust case, the IRS has issued a series of rulings in which it disagreed with the holding of the case and stated that only a trustee could be considered in making the determination.  Further, according to the IRS, if the trustee is also an employee of the underlying business, a taxpayer could only consider the time spent by the trustee in his duties as a trustee, and not in his duties as an employee.

Prior to 2012, the issue did not garner much attention because it only affected those trusts involved in rental real estate activities whose operations incurred losses.  However, with the recent enactment of the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax, this issue has become a hot-button issue among tax practitioners.  Material participation is important in the context of the 3.8% Medicare tax because under §1411, "net investment income" includes income from a "passive activity (within the meaning of section 469) with respect to the taxpayer." Therefore, all rental real estate activities conducted through a trust or estate will not have to be concerned with the material participation rules.

    

The Tax Court held that, “[a] trust is capable of performing personal services [because …] services performed by individual trustees on behalf of the trust may be considered personal services performed by the trust.”  The Tax Court rejected the IRS’s argument that a trust is incapable of providing personal services, reasoning that, “[I]f the trustees are individuals, and they work on a trade or business as part of their trustee duties, their work can be considered ‘work performed by an individual in connection with a trade or business.’”

    

Also, the Tax Court rejected the IRS’s argument the work of certain trustees as employees of an LLC that managed most of the Trust’s rental real estate properties – which was wholly owned by the Trust – should not count because such work was performed as employees and not as trustees.  The Tax Court counted the work of the trustees which they performed as employees of the Trust’s wholly owned LLC because, “trustees are not relieved of their duties of loyalty to beneficiaries by conducting activities through a corporation wholly owned by the trust.”

The Tax Court did not, however, “decide whether the activities of the trust’s nontrustee employees should be disregarded.”

Given that the IRS expressly disregards the work of non trustee employees towards the material participation test, what is certain is that trusts can count the work of their trustees (even if performed as employees of a corporation wholly owned by the same trust).  Work performed by trustees as employees of a corporation that is unrelated to the trust might not count.

The Frank Aragona Trust decision is good news for those ongoing trusts that actively manage real properties as a business and have income tax losses in such activities. It may now be possible for such losses to be deducted against other activities.  

While the case resolves some uncertainties it does not resolve all uncertainties, most importantly whether to include the activities of trust employees who are not themselves trustees towards satisfaction of the material participation requirement.

Sources: Estate Planning: Good news for trusts that manage real estate

               Tax Court Gives Taxpayer a Victory in Frank Aragona Trust Case -- But Doesn't Go All the Way

Entire Value of Property in Which Medicaid Recipient Had Life Estate is Recoverable in Idaho

The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that the state may recover Medicaid benefits from the entire value of a property that a Medicaid recipient transferred to his daughter while retaining a life estate for himself. In re Estate of Peterson (Idaho, No. 40615, Aug. 13, 2014).

Melvin Peterson deeded property to his daughter, retaining a life estate for himself. He then applied for Medicaid benefits. When he died, Mr. Peterson had received a total of $171,386.94 in Medicaid benefits.

The state filed a claim against the estate to recover the Medicaid benefits it paid for Mr. Peterson's care. Under Idaho law, the state may recover any property that passes outside of probate, including any property that that the Medicaid recipient had a legal interest in that passes to a survivor through a life estate or "other arrangement." The trial court ruled that the life estate remainder interest, but not the retained life estate, was an estate asset, and the appeals court affirmed. The estate appealed, arguing Mr. Peterson had no interest in the life estate at his death, so it could not be subject to recovery.

The Idaho Supreme Court affirms in part holding that both the life estate and the remainder interest were estate assets subject to Medicaid recovery. The court determines that Mr. Peterson's life estate interest in the property was transferred to his daughter when he died, and under state law "when assets of a Medicaid recipient are conveyed to a survivor, heir or assign by the termination of a 'life estate,' the assets remain part of the recipient’s 'estate'" for purposes of Medicaid recovery. In addition, the court rules that the remainder interest Mr. Peterson's daughter received is also part of Mr. Peterson's estate as an "other arrangement."

For the full text of this decision, go to: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/40615.pdf