Ohio’s Proposed Property Tax Abolishment: Implications for Aging in Place and Elder Law Planning

On May 9, 2025, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost certified a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish property taxes by adding Section 14 to Article XII of the Ohio Constitution, as announced by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. This development marks a significant step in a citizen-led effort to reshape Ohio’s tax landscape, with potential impacts on seniors aiming to age in place. For readers of this Blog, understanding this amendment, its benefits, and the arguments surrounding it is crucial for planning long-term financial stability and maintaining independence at home. This article explores the purpose of the amendment, its potential benefits for Ohio citizens—particularly seniors—and the published arguments for and against this bold proposal.

The Proposed Amendment: Purpose and Process

The proposed amendment, spearheaded by the group Citizens for Property Tax Reform, seeks to eliminate property taxes in Ohio by adding a new section to the state constitution. Property taxes are a primary source of funding for local governments, including schools, public safety, and infrastructure. Abolishing them would fundamentally alter how these services are financed, potentially shifting the burden to other revenue sources like sales or income taxes.

Attorney General Dave Yost’s role in this process was to certify that the petition’s summary is a “fair and truthful representation” of the proposed amendment, a procedural step required under Ohio law. Yost’s certification, announced on May 9, 2025, clears the way for the next phase: review by the Ohio Ballot Board. On May 14, 2025, the board will determine whether the proposal constitutes a single amendment or multiple amendments—a decision that affects how organizers proceed. If approved as a single issue, Citizens for Property Tax Reform can begin collecting signatures. They need 413,487 valid signatures (10% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election) to place the amendment on a future ballot, potentially as early as November 2025.

Purpose of the Amendment

The primary purpose of the amendment is to relieve Ohio property owners of the financial burden of property taxes, which have risen sharply in recent years due to increasing home values and inflation. According to a May 11, 2025, article by Cleveland.com, the group behind the amendment, Citizens for Property Tax Reform, argues that property taxes are fundamentally unfair because they tax unrealized wealth. Spokesperson Beth Blackmarr told Cleveland.com: “We’re being taxed on money that we have not realized,” highlighting the strain on homeowners, especially those on fixed incomes like seniors, who may struggle to keep up with rising tax bills while their actual income remains static.

For seniors aiming to age in place, property taxes can be a significant barrier. Many older adults own their homes outright but face financial pressure from annual tax assessments, which can force them to sell their homes and move into more institutional settings, such as assisted living facilities. By abolishing property taxes, the amendment aims to alleviate this burden, allowing homeowners to retain more of their income and assets to cover other expenses like healthcare, home modifications, or in-home care—all critical for aging in place.

Benefits to Ohio Citizens, Especially Seniors

The potential benefits of abolishing property taxes are particularly pronounced for seniors and others on fixed incomes:

1. Financial Relief for Fixed-Income Households: Seniors often rely on Social Security, pensions, or savings, which may not keep pace with rising property tax bills. Eliminating property taxes could save the average Ohio homeowner thousands of dollars annually. For example, the median home value in Ohio as reported by Zillow.com exceeds $238,000.00, making the average property tax bill in Ohio more than $3000.00 per year, according to the Tax Foundation. For a senior couple on a fixed income of $60,000.00 annually, this represents over 5% of their income, for a single widow on a fixed income of $30,000.00, this represents 10% of their—a significant burden.
2. Supporting Aging in Place: The financial relief from abolishing property taxes could enable more seniors to afford home modifications (e.g., installing ramps or stairlifts), in-home caregiving, or other expenses that support independent living. This aligns with the core goal of aging in place: remaining in one’s home safely and comfortably for as long as possible.
3. Protecting Homeownership: Rising property taxes have forced some seniors to sell their homes, often leading to a move to more expensive care facilities. By removing this tax burden, the amendment could help seniors retain their homes, preserving their independence and emotional connection to their communities.
4. Broader Economic Impact: For all Ohio citizens, the amendment could increase disposable income, potentially stimulating local economies as homeowners redirect funds to other expenses or savings. This could indirectly benefit seniors by fostering more robust community services and resources.

Published Arguments Supporting the Amendment

Proponents of the amendment, as reported in various sources, argue that property taxes are an outdated and inequitable system:

• Unfair Taxation on Unrealized Gains: Beth Blackmarr stated in Cleveland.com (May 11, 2025), property taxes penalize homeowners for the rising value of their homes, even if they haven’t sold or realized that value. This is particularly burdensome for seniors who may have lived in their homes for decades and now face tax bills that far exceed their original purchase price.
• Relief for Vulnerable Populations: A May 9, 2025, article by 13abc.com notes that the amendment aims to address the “skyrocketing” homeowner bills driven by inflation and home value increases. Supporters argue that this relief is critical for vulnerable groups on fixed incomes, including seniors, who are disproportionately affected by these rising costs.
• Encouraging Homeownership: Advocates suggest that abolishing property taxes could make Ohio more attractive for homebuyers and long-term residents, potentially stabilizing communities and reducing turnover in neighborhoods—a benefit for seniors who value community ties.

Published Arguments Opposing the Amendment

Opponents of the amendment, while less vocal in the immediate aftermath of Yost’s certification, have raised significant concerns about its broader implications, as noted in related coverage:

• Impact on Local Services: Property taxes are a primary funding source for schools, police, fire departments, and other local services. A May 11, 2025, Cleveland.com editorial references critics who warn that abolishing property taxes could lead to severe budget shortfalls, potentially reducing the quality of public services that seniors rely on, such as emergency response or community programs. For example, in 2023, property taxes accounted for approximately 70% of local school funding in Ohio.
• Shifting the Tax Burden: Critics argue that eliminating property taxes will likely shift the burden to other taxes, such as sales or income taxes, which may disproportionately affect lower-income residents, including some seniors. Sales taxes, for example, are inherently regressive, meaning they take a larger percentage of income from lower earners, potentially offsetting the financial relief for some seniors.
• Uncertainty in Replacement Funding: Opponents note that the amendment does not specify how local governments will replace the lost revenue, creating uncertainty. A Cleveland.com editorial questioned, “What happens to the services that keep our communities safe and functional if property taxes are eliminated without a clear alternative?” This uncertainty could impact seniors who depend on stable local infrastructure to age in place.
• Potential for Increased Rents: While the amendment benefits homeowners, renters—including some seniors—may face higher rents if landlords pass on increased tax burdens (e.g., higher sales or income taxes) to tenants.

Implications for Aging in Place and Elder Law Planning

For seniors and their families, the proposed amendment presents both opportunities and challenges that should inform aging-in-place and elder law strategies:

1. Financial Planning: If the amendment passes, seniors could redirect funds previously spent on property taxes to other priorities, such as home modifications or in-home care. However, families should prepare for potential increases in other taxes by consulting with financial advisors to optimize their budgets.
2. Estate Planning: The abolishment of property taxes could increase the value of owning a home as part of an estate, potentially affecting inheritance planning. Seniors should work with an elder law attorney to update their estate plans, ensuring that their assets are protected and distributed according to their wishes, especially if local tax structures change.
3. Monitoring Local Services: Seniors who rely on local services (e.g., Meals on Wheels, public transportation) should stay informed about how municipalities adapt to the loss of property tax revenue. Advocacy may be necessary to ensure that essential services remain funded and accessible.
4. Contingency Planning: Given the uncertainty around replacement funding, seniors should have contingency plans in place, such as savings or long-term care insurance, to cover potential gaps in services or increased costs in other areas.

Conclusion: A Double-Edged Sword for Aging in Place

The proposed constitutional amendment to abolish property taxes in Ohio, certified by Attorney General Dave Yost on May 9, 2025, offers significant potential benefits for seniors aiming to age in place. By eliminating a major financial burden, the amendment could make it easier for older adults to afford staying in their homes, supporting their independence and quality of life. However, the potential downsides—reduced funding for local services, a shifted tax burden, and uncertainty about replacement revenue—could create new challenges, particularly for seniors who rely on community support to age in place safely.

As the Ohio Ballot Board prepares to review the amendment on May 14, 2025, and organizers gear up to collect signatures, this issue will likely spark robust debate. For now, seniors and their families should stay informed, weigh the pros and cons, and consult with elder law professionals to ensure their aging-in-place plans remain resilient, regardless of the outcome. Whether you support or oppose the amendment, one thing is clear: proactive planning is key to navigating the evolving landscape of aging in Ohio.

For more insights on aging in place and elder law, subscribe to our blog or reach out to an elder law attorney to discuss how this amendment might affect your future.

“Fate Worse Than Death”: Long-Term Care’s Independence Crisis: Aging-in-Place Planning Offers Solutions

A recent study highlighted by NBC Right Now, titled “Fate worse than death: Many long-term care residents lose all independence, study says,” paints a grim picture of life in long-term care (LTC) facilities. The headline is attention-grabbing, and for seniors and families planning for the future, the subject study underscores the importance of aging in place strategies to preserve independence and autonomy.

THE STUDY

Published on April 23, 2025, "Cognitive and Functional Decline Among Long-Term Care Residents," is a retrospective cohort study (meaning an observational study that uses existing data to examine individuals by looking back in time to assess how past variables relate to specific outcomes) involving more than 120,000 Canadian residents followed for up to 5 years.  One aspect of the study was interviewing residents to determine their goals in seeking long-term care and their feelings about long-term care. The study provides a compelling glimpse into older adults’ fears of losing independence, and the trajectories of needs while in long-term care. 

Study Results: Some of the key findings of the study include: 

• Many people lose all independence soon after entering long-term care;

• About 20% lose the ability to make everyday decisions within five years of admission, and 13% become totally dependent for all personal care including bathing, toileting and eating;

• Residents living with dementia may be at risk of spending more time living in states of impairment than residents who have no cognitive impairment; the increased survival of residents with dementia may reflect the natural history of dementia as a progressive terminal disease with great variability in survival time, ranging from 3 to 15 years.

• Advance directives may play an important role in reducing time spent living with severe disability; residents with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or Do Not Hospitalize (DNH) orders experience shorter periods of institutionalization while suffering profound impairment associated with a loss of all independence.

• The standard care practice of providing longevity can leave residents in states that they consider "worse than death," contradicting the goals that residents view as most important.

• Despite advance care directives, 25% of long-term care residents have at least 1 transfer to the hospital every 6 months, and many die shortly after a hospital transfer. 

Indeed, in the introduction to the study, the authors write:

"Patients, including healthy outpatients and those with serious illness, consider states such as being “unable to get out of bed,” “unable to communicate,” or “unable to reason or remember” as worse than death, and yet these outcomes are rarely explicitly discussed. [citations omitted].  Pursuing longevity-focused care when a person is living in a state they consider worse than death is contrary to resident-centered principles for which LTC homes strive. However, pursuit of longevity against a patient’s wishes may occur because preferences change when death is imminent and because substitute decision-makers and clinicians are partial toward life-prolonging treatment when clinical outcomes or resident preferences are uncertain."

Researcher Assessments: The researchers released statements regarding their findings and assessments:

• Dr. Ramtin Hakimjavadi, lead researcher, a resident in internal medicine at the University of Ottawa in Canada, and one of more than fifteen medical professionals that authored the study, characterized the findings:

"In interviews, long-term care residents have expressed that loss of independence is more distressing to them than the thought of dying. [Residents aren’t receiving the best care] if we don’t talk about the possibility of severe disability and ask about the circumstances when life prolonging treatments would not be acceptable."

• Senior researcher, Dr. Daniel Kobewka, an investigator at Bruyère Health Research Institute and adjunct scientist at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Services in Ottawa, advised that: 

“[r]esidents, their family members, and care teams should have open discussions about what quality of life means to the resident, considering the possibility of prolonged disability. Planning ahead can help ensure that future care aligns with personal values, including the choice to prioritize comfort and dignity over life-prolonging interventions.” 

Call to Action: The study represents a call to action. 

• The Health Care Industry:  Clinicians and health care professionals are called to consider critically  life-prolonging treatment, appropriate for the healthy and recovering, as being contrary to the wishes and consent of residents that "follow a frailty trajectory with no clear terminal phase...experienc[ing instead] a progressive decline in cognition and physical function after admission due [for example] to the accumulation of chronic conditions." Care for these residents must be guided by their wishes and goals, ensuring dignity and quality of life for residents and care partners. 

• Residents: Residents should make their wishes and goals explicit.  At a minimum that means executing Durable Powers of Attorney for Health Care, Advanced Directives in the form of a Living Will and Advanced Directives for Dementia, and a broad form HIPAA release in favor of trusted health care decision-makers. Residents and their families should consider a DNR, DNH, and where appropriate, Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Residents should also consider aggressive, comprehensive aging in place planning, and a robust estate plan to protect a resident's independence, decision-making, and dignity.   

Study Limitations: The authors acknowledge key limitations:  

• First, all studies that use administrative data have a risk of bias from misclassification or incomplete capture of variables, which the researchers addressed by using validated definitions when possible and maintaining consistency with previous research. 

• Second, the study did not stratify data by the type of dementia (e.g., Alzheimer, Lewy body, or frontotemporal dementia) given the available data. Although different dementia subtypes carry distinct trajectories and prognoses, the researchers concluded that their findings reflect residents living with Alzheimer dementia given its prevalence relative to other subtypes.

• Third, the length of stay observed in the study is subject to local admission and aging-in-place policies, which vary by jurisdiction.

• Fourth, while the study aimed to inform resident-centered decision-making in LTC through the identification of resident-important cognitive and functional impairments, resident and caregiver perspectives may differ from those of the patient partners who informed this study. The researcher believe that, nonetheless, their data provides a foundation for communication and future studies to consider functional and cognitive impairments as outcomes for prognostication. 

• Fifth, the  study has limitations in generalizability. The findings are generalizable to regions with a similar LTC population of mostly older adults with frailty and chronic conditions requiring continuous care. However, the  population studied may be older and have higher levels of frailty and health burdens at admission because of the prioritization of home care in Canada compared with regions with less emphasis on home care or with more flexible LTC eligibility criteria. Additionally, the publicly funded single-payer system in Canada may result in a more homogenous population compared with regions using a third-payer system, which may have a more diverse LTC population. This difference may limit the generalizability of our results to other regions.

The Study Is Worthy of Serious Considerations Despite the Limitations

There are number of reasons that this study deserves attention despite the acknowledged limitations.

1. Peer Review and Credibility: Published in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal with a strong reputation the study benefits from rigorous editorial oversight. The authors are affiliated with reputable institutions  and have expertise in health policy and aging, enhancing credibility. No funding conflicts are disclosed, reducing bias concerns.
2. Methodology: A retrospective cohort study afforded the researchers an immense sample size, and a fairly long period over which to follow subjects. The weakness of these types of studies, data quality/bias, was addressed by using validated definitions when possible and maintaining consistency with previous research. 
3. Generizability: There are obvious differences between the Canadian health care model and the U.S. model.  Aging in place planning is public policy in Canada and is heavily subsidized.  The concern was that Canadian residents might be older and in worse health than, say, in the U.S.  Although U.S. commitment to aging in place in Medicare  may not be as robust, there is some semblance of public support, for example, in the adoption of alternatives available in Medicare Advantage Plans, the recent "Hospital at Home" initiative of Medicare, and Medicare/Medicaid's Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) program for adults 55+ who need nursing home-level care but can live safely in the community, which provides comprehensive services (medical, social, home care) through an interdisciplinary team, centered at an adult day health center, with in-home support.  More importantly, with the risk of asset loss from long-term care spend down, U.S. residents are much more likely to avail themselves of institutional care alternatives, meaning the populations of LTC residents may not differ dramatically.  Moreover, it appears to me that the quality of care in Canada is higher given that the rehospitalization rate described in the study was an average of every six months, while U.S, residents run an almost one-in-three risk of rehospitalization in the first 28 days of care from just medical "mistakes."
4. Is the Headline "Fair?": The headline, “Fate worse than death: Many long-term care residents lose all independence, study says,” is undeniably dramatic. The phrase “fate worse than death” is emotionally charged, invoking despair and finality. While it risks overgeneralizing, implying that all long-term care leads to catastrophic outcomes, the headline isn’t entirely unfair. Loss of independence is a profound fear for seniors, and the study’s emphasis on this issue aligns with documented concerns. For example, a 2023 New York Times article notes that many aging Americans struggle to stay independent due to a fragmented long-term care system, supporting the study’s premise. The hyperbolic tone serves a purpose: it grabs attention and sparks discussion about a critical issue.

Aging-in-Place Solutions to Preserve Independence

The study’s findings underscore why many seniors prefer to age in place—remaining in their homes or communities with support tailored to their needs. Aging in place planning, a cornerstone of this blog, empowers seniors to maintain independence, dignity, and control. Below are solutions commonly explored here, designed to address the risks highlighted by the study:

• Home Modifications for Safety and Accessibility: Modifying the home to accommodate mobility or health challenges is a proactive step. Common upgrades include installing grab bars, widening doorways, adding ramps, or creating single-level living spaces. These changes reduce reliance on institutional care by enabling seniors to navigate their homes safely. For example, a walk-in shower can preserve independence in bathing, directly countering the loss of control noted in the study. 

• Multigenerational Living: Multigenerational living is a powerful strategy for aging in place, offering financial savings, emotional support, and caregiving flexibility. By reducing reliance on institutional care, families can avoid spend-down and preserve assets, aligning with elder law goals. However, success requires planning. For more see the article: Aging in Place: Multigenerational Living as a Strategy to Avoid Institutional Care and Support Family Caregiving.

• Deploy Technology for Safety, Health, and Communication: Technology serves two purposes.  First, technology use supports cognitive health. Second, technology offers solutions to challenges faced when aging in place that otherwise might demand institutionalization. 

• Revocable Living Trusts for Asset Protection: A revocable living trust, as discussed in our recent article “The Dangers of Last-Minute Estate Planning.” ensures assets are managed and distributed per the senior’s wishes, even if they become incapacitated. Unlike wills, trusts are transparent in asset titling (e.g., on deeds or accounts), deterring manipulation and supporting financial independence. Trusts can also fund home care or modifications, avoiding the asset depletion that forces some into long-term care, and protect against guardianships, and abusive guardians.

• General Durable Powers of Attorney (GDPOA): A GDPOA appoints a trusted agent to handle financial and healthcare decisions if a senior becomes incapacitated. This prevents the need for court-ordered conservatorships, which can strip autonomy, as seen in the Autry case. By ensuring a trusted person manages their affairs, seniors maintain control indirectly, aligning with the study’s call for personalized care.  Structuring trusts to prevent third-party guardians access to trust assets disincentivizes guardians, and helps prevent control of assets being wrestled away from trusted advisors and agents.  

• Aging-in-Place Care Coordination:  In-home care, such as nonmedical caregivers or telehealth services, allows seniors to receive support without leaving home. Emerging technologies like tele-dentistry or remote monitoring, noted in LTC News, enhance access to care for mobility-challenged seniors. Coordinating care through family, agencies, or professionals ensures needs are met without the institutional routines criticized in the study.

• Guardianship Protections and Nominations: Nominating a guardian in a GDPOA or trust ensures that, if guardianship is needed, a trusted individual is appointed. Structuring trusts to limit guardian access to assets, as discussed in “The Dangers of Last-Minute Estate Planning,” preserves the senior’s plan. This protects against the loss of control highlighted by the study, as seniors retain influence over their legacy.   Structuring trusts to limit guardian access to assets, as discussed in “The Perils of Last-Minute Estate Planning,” preserves the senior’s plan. This protects against the loss of control highlighted by the study, as seniors retain influence over their legacy.

• Medicaid Planning for Long-Term Care Costs:  Strategic Medicaid planning, using trusts or asset transfers, can preserve resources for in-home care rather than nursing home costs. Unlike the hasty Medicaid attempts in the Autry case (Dangers of Last Minute Estate Planning), a well-crafted trust allows crisis planning without disrupting the estate plan, supporting aging in place. Consideration of and implementation of asset transfers permissible to qualified family members under Medicaid are more certain and less expensive and disruptive than either monolithic irrevocable transfers so common from trust mills, or crisis planning planning.

• Lifestyle Changes: Simple lifestyle changes can support, protect, and improve cognitive and physical health as well as  emotional and psychological well-being, and build a broader community and social safety net thereby removing barriers and creating opportunities for home and community based care. 

These strategies and solutions, regularly featured on this blog, empower seniors to avoid the institutional settings critiqued in the study. By planning proactively, families can create environments where independence thrives, reducing the risk of a “fate worse than death.” 

Dangers of Incomplete and Last-Minute Estate Planning: A Mississippi Case Study

Estate planning is often delayed until the last possible moment, frequently done on an ad hoc basis- addressing issues as they arise without developing a comprehensive plan. A recent Mississippi case illustrates how such delays can leave seniors vulnerable to manipulation and undue influence, potentially unraveling their true intentions for their legacy. Havoc often ensues in the vacuum created by last-minute or incomplete planning. This article explores a real-life example of a will  invalidated due to the undue influence of a testator’s son, and how individuals and  families can protect themselves from similar risks.

The Case: A Will Invalidated Due to Undue Influence

In the case, In re the Matter of the Estate of Autry, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a ruling setting aside several deeds and invalidating a decedent's will due to lack of authentication, lack of  capacity, and undue influence.  The case is an object lesson regarding the benefits of  comprehensive estate planning.

Effie Mae Autry  and her husband made a will within 2014, but he predeceased her.  She had three sons, two of whom also predeceased her, leaving five grandchildren (three from one son, two from the other). Effie's 2014 will, stipulated that, if her husband predeceased her, 143 acres of real property would be divided equally:  one-third to her surviving son, Steve; one-third to her grandchildren from one deceased son; and one-third to her grandchildren from the other deceased son. Effie also provided for a $1,000 bequest to her church and specific bequests to Steve and each grandchild.

In early 2019, Marcus, one of Effie’s grandchildren, filed a petition for conservatorship after Effie’s bank notified him that Steve and his wife had accompanied Effie to the bank and tried to remove Marcus’s name from her accounts or close the accounts. Steve lacked a power of attorney to act on Effie’s behalf. Marcus later withdrew the petition because the conservatorship confused and upset Effie. Notably, Marcus' name was on Effie's accounts, suggesting that Effie had not executed a power of attorney; otherwise, Marcus would not have needed to file for conservatorship.  This indicates that Effie and her husband relied solely on wills for estate planning.

Later in 2019, Steve called the family’s longtime attorney who had drafted Effie’s 2014 will, to discuss drafting a new will and deeds. After meeting with Effie and Steve, the attorney refused to prepare new documents, citing a significant decline in Effie’s mental capacity and concerns about Steve's potential undue influence. The attorney even warned other attorneys about the situation.

Undeterred, Steve then engaged another attorney to draft a new will and deeds for Effie. Steve drove Effie to this new attorney's office, where the attorney, unaware of the prior attorney's refusal or 2014 will, discussed a new will with Effie. The attorney testified that Effie appeared competent and clear about her intentions. Several days later, Steve drove Effie, Effie’s "caregiver," and the caregiver’s sister to the attorney's office to execute the new will and deeds. Effie signed a will leaving all of her assets to Steve, providing for the grandchildren only if Steve predeceased her and omitting the church bequest. The caregiver’s sister and the attorney's secretary signed as witnesses but failed to include their addresses in a required affidavit. Effie also executed several warranty deeds conveying all real property to Steve, retaining a life estate for herself.

After Effie’s death in 2021, Marcus contested the validity of the 2019 will and the deeds. The court ruled that the will and deeds were invalid because: (1) improper authentication by the witnesses, (2) Effie lack pf testamentary capacity, and (3) Steve undue influence. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the ruling. The case highlights the risks associated with last-minute estate planning and the vulnerabilities seniors face without a comprehensive plan.

What Happens Next?

The case isn't over.  It now proceeds back to the probate court.  The next step is likely to admit the 2014 will, if that will is signed and authenticated properly. However, even a will drafted by an attorney and executed in an attorney's office, as the 2019 will was, can invalidated for technical errors or contested on other grounds.  If no valid will is admitted, he estate will be  administered as intestate. 

In Mississippi, intestate distribution (Miss. Code § 91-1-3 (2024)) mirrors Effie’s 2014 will: one-third to Steve, one-third to the grandchildren of one deceased son (split equally), and one-third to the grandchildren of the other deceased son (split equally). However, certainty is elusive. The grandchildren could argue that Steve’s share be withheld due to his wrongdoing, or Steve might contest Marcus’s share, citing the conservatorship attempt. Other tort claims, such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, could arise, though Mississippi does not recognize the tort of intentional interference with an inheritance. 

Additionally, Medicaid estate recovery could complicate matters if Effie qualified for long-term care after transferring assets, now invalidated. While unlikely, this highlights an overlooked risk: Effie’s family likely did not anticipate the full consequences of their reactive decisions. Discord is common even in well-planned estates, but incomplete planning exacerbates conflict.

A Word On Motivations

In my practice, I focus solely on my client's motivations, assuming the worst from others in order to protect the client.  Courts evaluate actions based on legality, not intent.  However, considering motivations can illuminate the consequences of poor planning.

It’s tempting to view Steve as selfishly attempting to seize the estate. Yet, the court noted intriguing details: Steve was married but had no children, and the 2019 will, upon Steve’s death, distributed assets to most grandchildren, excluding Marcus and his sister (possibly due to the conservatorship). The will did not benefit Steve’s wife, suggesting alignment with Effie’s broader intentions. Effie’s severe dementia and need for around-the-clock care, partly provided by the caregiver whose sister witnessed the will, further complicate the narrative.

The deeds, retaining a life estate, likely represented a hasty Medicaid planning attempt to protect assets from nursing home costs. Marcus’s dismissal of the conservatorship may reflect a shared family goal to avoid asset loss, as a finding of incompetency would have invalidated transfers. These dynamics underscore how complicated last-minute planning can be, and how a comprehensive estate plan could have prevented conflict and better served the family.

The Weaknesses of Incomplete and Last-Minute Planning

Last-minute estate planning often occurs when seniors are vulnerable— due to illness, cognitive decline, or emotional distress, making them susceptible to manipulation. In Autry, Steve exploited his mother’s weakened condition to influence the will. Rushed decisions, especially without proper legal guidance, often fail to reflect the testator’s true intentions. Courts scrutinize last-minute changes, particularly those deviating from prior plans or disproportionately benefiting one person.

Vulnerabilities Seniors Face Without a Comprehensive Plan

Without a comprehensive estate plan, seniors are exposed to several risks, including, but not limited to:

Lack of Legal Protections: Without powers of attorney or trusts, no trusted individual is authorized to act if the senior becomes incapacitated.

Increased Risk of Manipulation: Seniors without a plan are more likely to be targeted by those seeking to exploit their assets, as there are fewer legal safeguards in place.

Family Conflict: Ambiguous or incomplete estate plans can lead to disputes among family members, causing emotional and financial turmoil.

In Autry, the absence of a robust plan not only made it made it easier for the son to exert influence, but it allowed conflict that could only be resolved by the court.  

How a Complete Estate Plan Would Have Prevented

 and Resolved the Autrey Case

A revocable living trust offers transparency and protection. Unlike a will, which remains private until probate, a trust’s existence is evident in deeds, bank accounts, insurance policies, and other assets. This visibility deters manipulation, as third parties (e.g., new attorneys) are aware of the existing plan. In Autry, a trust would have prevented Steve from engaging an unaware attorney to draft a new will, and the 2019 will’s invalidity due to authentication errors would have been irrelevant.. 

 

In the Autrey case, one person exploited the limitations of a will, to obtain legal counsel to make a new will, that counsel being wholly unaware of the prior estate plan, such as it was.  The son might argue today that the grandchildren also exploited the weaknesses of the will by so easily contesting the second will, which was legally invalid even though it was drafted by an attorney, executed in the attorney's office, and a staff member of that attorney served as a witness.  The court did not need to find undue influence because the will was invalid as executed!  The reason I suspect the court considered and resolved the undue influence claim is to solve the problem of technical invalidity- a will can be invalid as a will for technical reasons, but evidence a clear intention to replace a former will.  That circumstance  results in no will, increasing the cost and complexity of the administration.  Your trust protects you from such exploitation.

Powers of attorney, which accompany every revocable trust, help protect you from conservatorship and guardianship by making them unnecessary, and if drafted properly, protect the trust assets from guardian control.  They even disincentivize third-party guardians (those appointed by a court that are not your family) by limiting what a guardian can manage of your entire estate.  Finally, in states that are required to give preference to agents nominated under a power of attorney when appointing a guardian, they help in getting your most  trusted family or advisors  appointed. 

Ad hoc solutions, like adding Marcus to Effie’s accounts, create uncertainty and risk. Banks rarely document the context of such changes (e.g., whether the account holder was advised or accompanied). Adding a co-owner can inadvertently make the account vulnerable to the co-owner’s creditors, a risk banks may not explain, as they are not legal advisors. Seniors often first learn the consequence of adding a child to an account when they are advised of a garnishment against a child as creditors seek to  remove assets from their account. 

      

If Medicaid planning motivated the deeds, a trust would have been superior. Modern Medicaid rules in many states, including Mississippi, scrutinize life estates, potentially valuing them as assets. A trust not only allows, but encourages crisis Medicaid planning without relying on the grantor’s competence, enabling an agent or trustee to create an irrevocable planning trust that preserves the original distribution plan. This would have avoided the need for questionable transfers and protected Effie’s estate.

Keep in mind that the real world result of the Autrey case is that Steve may ultimately receive nothing.  If he was acting in what he thought was the best interest of his mother and family, this result is tragic.  Comprehensive estate planning might have prevented such a result. 

An Actionable Plan to Protect Your Legacy

To prevent a situation like this from becoming your family’s reality, it’s essential to take proactive steps well before any health crises or vulnerabilities arise. Here’s an actionable list to help safeguard your estate and ensure your wishes are honored:

Create a Trust: A trust allows you to manage your assets during your lifetime and ensures they are distributed according to your wishes after your death. It can also provide protection against undue influence by clearly outlining your intentions in a legally binding document. It can assist in aging in place, reduce the risk of guardianship, and protect assets from third-party guardians.  Additionally, a trust can help avoid probate, reducing the likelihood of costly public disputes.

Establish General Durable Powers of Attorney (GDPOA): A GDPOA allows you to appoint trusted individuals to make financial and medical decisions on your behalf if you become incapacitated. This prevents someone from stepping in and taking control without your consent. Be sure to choose someone you trust implicitly, as this role carries significant responsibility.

Nominate a Guardian: Nominate someone in advance, usually in your GDPOA. This ensures that if a guardian is required, it’s more likely to be someone you’ve chosen, not someone appointed by the court who may not have your best interests at heart.

Incorporate Aging in Place Planning: Aging in place planning involves making arrangements for your care and living situation as you age, ensuring you can stay in your home or a suitable environment. This can include modifications to your home, arrangements for in-home care, or plans for assisted living if needed.

Include Guardianship Protections in Your Trust: Your trust should include provisions that prevent a guardian from easily accessing or altering the trust assets. This adds an extra layer of protection, ensuring that even if a guardian is appointed, your estate remains secure and distributed according to your wishes.

These steps should be taken well in advance, while you are still of sound mind and not under any undue influence. Waiting until the last minute can leave you vulnerable to manipulation, as seen in the Autry case.

The Emotional and Financial Toll of Undue Influence

Cases like this don’t just result in legal battles—they can tear families apart. The emotional toll of fighting over a loved one’s estate, combined with the financial costs of litigation, can be devastating. By taking proactive steps now, you can help protect your family from this kind of heartbreak and ensure your legacy is preserved as you intended.

Conclusion: Don’t Wait—Plan Today

The Autry case serves as a powerful reminder of the dangers of last-minute estate planning and the vulnerabilities seniors face without a comprehensive plan. By creating a trust, establishing powers of attorney, nominating a guardian, and incorporating aging in place and guardianship protections, you can safeguard your estate and ensure your wishes are honored.

If you haven’t already, now is the time to take action. Consult with an experienced elder law attorney to create a plan that protects you and your loved ones from the risks of undue influence and ensures your legacy is secure.