Posts Tagged ‘death’

Does an Agent’s Authority under a Wisconsin Durable Financial Power of Attorney end when the Principle dies?

Posted by

Answer: Yes. The Agent’s authority dies when the principle dies.

Like so many useful and good things in life, an agent’s authority must end. In this case, under the law, an agent’s authority under a Durable Financial Power of Attorney will end when the principle dies.

The applicable Wisconsin statute tells us how a power of attorney can end in Cheeseland. One way is the death of the principle… but there are other interesting ways, too.

Here it is …. [With some commentary]:

Wisconsin statue 244.10 – Termination of power of attorney or agent’s authority.

(1)  A power of attorney terminates when any of the following occurs:

(a) The principal dies.

(b) The principal becomes incapacitated, if the power of attorney so provides. [Durable FPOA states that it does not end in this instance, but the “Durable” status does not stop it from ending when the principle dies]

(c) The principal revokes the power of attorney.

(d) The power of attorney provides that it terminates. [Often an expiration date or upon an event]

(e) The purpose of the power of attorney is accomplished.

(f) The principal revokes the agent’s authority or the agent dies, becomes incapacitated, or resigns, and the power of attorney does not provide for another agent to act under the power of attorney. [Be sure to list a successor agent or two listed on your DFPOA … just in case]

People often assume that, as the financial power of attorney, they continue to have the power to act for their loved one following his or her death. That is just not true. Put simply, a financial power of attorney is no longer valid after death. It dies with the principle.

More information on powers of attorneys, See:  Living without Legal Capacity 


Why did you put Latin in my Will and Trust?

Posted by

 

The legal phrases: “by representation”, “per stirpes”, “per capita”, “per capita at each generation” and “survivorship” are found in both wills and trusts. While they may appear to be gibberish, the phrases have meaning in the probate and trust world.  They each provide for a distinct rule used to distribute assets after a person dies.

It is very easy to become confused when one comes across this kind of mumbo jumbo. The phrases are a far cry from plain English. They are definitely “old-school”.  The reason for using this old-school terminology is history. The phrases are based on old English law which was developed centuries ago and then handed down through the ages.

As one would suspect, each legal phrase produces a different result when used to determine the people receiving your assets when you die. “By representation”, “per stirpes” and “per capita” are there to help determine how assets flow to your descendants. “Survivorship” is a short stop/ everything to the one in a named group who survives the decedent. I like to call that the “king of the raft” approach. This was game I played in my youth where we tried to be the last one standing on a raft in the lake.

This  photo  shows three simplified examples that compare three commonly seen approaches (Per stirpes, Per Capita, and Survivorship):

The “per stirpes” model is by far the most popular choice for the clients in our practice. The families we deal with seem to like the branch approach to distribution, where a child’s share works its way down to survivors that are the heirs of that child if he or she dies before they do. “Per capita” is less popular, but can be used if the grandchildren are thought to be on par with the surviving children. The “survivorship” model is used most often with older clients who have already spent down a great deal of their assets and want to leave smaller amounts to the surviving children immediately below them rather than spread the minimal assets among an extensive family tree of heirs.

The State of Wisconsin has a statute that covers this topic too. Wisconsin Statue Section 854.04: “Representation; per stirpes; modified per stirpes; per capita at each generation; per capita”, does a nice job of explaining the differences as well. It goes as far as to delineate between a per stirpes and a modified per stirpes approach. It also equates the phrase “by representation” to “per stirpes”. Finally, it also lays out “Per capita at each generation” and “Per capita”. Section 854.04, in its final paragraph, says: If the transfer is made under a governing instrument (Will or trust, normally) and the person who executed the governing instrument had an intent contrary to any provision in this section, then that provision is not applicable to the transfer. In short, your will or trust can override the statute. This is often the way to go. A will or trust can be drafted to modify the general rule so that the distribution plan can be modified to fit your family’s unique circumstances.

Use care to consider what happens when the beneficiary dies before the person whose estate is being divided. Most folks want the children of the predeceased beneficiary to take the share which their parent would have taken had he or she survived the decedent. If the plan for distribution isn’t spelled out that way, the assets could be divided equally among the surviving heirs and the children of a deceased heir might not receive the deceased heir’s share.

Be sure to get solid advice on this and other important planning topics from a qualified expert. Do not hesitate to ask about the options available to you when you do sit down to plan your estate.  That way you can be sure that your hard-earned assets will go to your loved ones in the way that you intend.