Elder Law Prof Blog

Tate on Caregiving and Testamentary Freedom

Caregiving and the Case for Testamentary Freedom 

JOSHUA C. TATE Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law; University of Pennsylvania Law School

UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008

Almost all U.S. states allow individuals to disinherit their descendants for any reason or no reason, but most of the world's legal systems currently do not. This Article contends that broad freedom of testation is defensible because it allows elderly people to reward family members who are caregivers. The Article explores the common-law origins of freedom of testation, which developed in the shadow of the medieval rule of primogeniture, a doctrine of no contemporary relevance. The growing problem of eldercare, however, offers a justification for the twenty-first century. Increases in life expectancy have led to a sharp rise in the number of older individuals who require long-term care, and some children and grandchildren are bearing more of the caregiving burden than others. Recent econometric studies, not yet taken into account in legal scholarship, suggest a tendency among the American elderly to bequeath more property to caregiving children. A competent testator, rather than a court or legislature, is in the best position to decide how much care each person has provided and to reward caregivers accordingly. Law reform, therefore, should focus on strengthening testamentary freedom while ensuring that caregivers are adequately compensated in cases of intestacy.

Available on SSRN Accepted Paper Series:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1112522

National Guardianship Association: Call for Proposals

Deadline for Submissions:  March 1, 2008

The Annual Conference of the National Guardianship Association has earned a reputation for offering cutting edge information that is presented over a two-and-a half-day period of intense intellectual sharing and camaraderie. You are invited to become part of this exceptional event by making a presentation at the 2008 Annual Conference to be held Saturday, October 4 to Tuesday, October 7 in Nashville, Tennessee.

In 2007, nearly 500 professionals, firms, agencies, associations, judges, attorneys, and others attended the Conference, and based on the success of that program we anticipate an even larger audience for 2008. By sharing your expertise you will help improve the overall quality of guardianship services and highlight issues of interest and concern throughout the industry.

Because it allows the program to address a wider variety of timely topics, the sessions will not be restricted to specific themes or tracks. However, the conference program, as always, will acknowledge the interdependent and interdisciplinary nature of our work and address the broad interests that are shared by those involved in guardianship and surrogacy.

The committee is particularly interested in proposals for sessions that provide intermediate and advanced levels of information and education. The conference should provide working guardians and fiduciaries with knowledge they can take home and put to use immediately. Presentations and materials are expected to reflect the ethics and standards of the National Guardianship Association.

We encourage you to seriously consider contributing your expertise to this event and hope you will share this Call for Presentations with other people who you believe should also be solicited. Please note that NGA does not provide airfare, hotel costs, an honorarium, or a complimentary registration for presenters. However, a $100 discount on the Conference registration fee will be provided for each breakout session (not per speaker.)

To submit your proposal for a Conference presentation, please complete both pages of the attached form and return to them to the NGA business office by March 1, 2008. Proposals received after this date will be considered on a space-available basis only. Proposals will be reviewed by the program committee and selected upon the criteria of overall quality, originality, CEU applicability, and appropriateness to this program. Presenters will be notified of their acceptance in early April of 2008.

The Deadline for Submission is Saturday, March 1, 2008.
More information.

Send proposal by March 1, 2008 or call for more information:

National Guardianship Association
174 Crestview Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823-8516
Toll free: 877-326-5992
Fax: 814-355-2452
Email: info@guardianship.org

Upcoming T & E webcasts from ALI/ABA

Representing Estate & Trust Beneficiaries & Fiduciaries: July 19-20 (Boston/Webcast) | Skills Training for Estate Planners: July 23-27 (New York) | Modern Real Estate Transactions:   July 25-28 (San Francisco/Webcast) | International Trust & Estate Planning: Aug. 16-17 (Chicago/Webcast) | Basic Estate & Gift Taxation & Planning: Aug. 22-24 (Boston/Webcast)

Paperless world can leave heirs in the dark

From the Wall Street Journal: 

As people increasingly go "paperless" -- using the online features of banks and brokerages to manage their accounts -- it's complicating the process of helping your heirs sort out your finances once you're gone. The problem: If you don't keep careful records, your family might not even know where to start looking for accounts. In a worst-case scenario, some assets may never be found. But at the same time, you don't want to recklessly list all your private financial-account passwords somewhere for a bad guy to find. That would be an invitation to theft. There are several smart steps to take to build a roadmap to your assets. The five key components: information about your assets, names of advisers, details about safe-deposit boxes, your estate-planning documents, and a few other important documents.

Read more here:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117953111226908170.html?mod=rss_markets_main

Adult adoptee seeks share of IBM fortune

On an island liberally sprinkled with the affluent and well-connected members of such clans as Bush, du Pont, Rockefeller and Cabot, the Watson family occupies a special place.  The family, descendants of Thomas J. Watson Sr., the founder of I.B.M., owns more than 300 acres worth nearly $20 million on the northern tip of this sea-splashed idyll 90 miles northeast of Portland. Over four decades, various Watsons summering here have flown helicopters and other aircraft; driven antique cars and collected scrimshaw. The family has held an annual square dance at their compound, Oak Hill.  Recently, though, the Watson name has surfaced in a different context, a most unusual lawsuit. It concerns Olive F. Watson, 59, granddaughter of the I.B.M. founder and daughter of Thomas J. Watson Jr., the company’s longtime chief executive; and Patricia Ann Spado, 59, her former lesbian partner of 14 years.  In 1991, Ms. Watson, then 43, adopted Ms. Spado, then 44, under a Maine law that allows one adult to adopt another. The reason, Ms. Spado has contended in court documents, was to allow Ms. Spado to qualify as an heir to Ms. Watson’s estate.  But less than a year after the adoption, Ms. Watson and Ms. Spado broke up. Then in 2004, Ms. Watson’s mother died, leaving multimillion-dollar trusts established by her husband to be divided among their 18 grandchildren.  Re-enter Ms. Spado with a claim: Because she was adopted by Olive F. Watson, she said, she is technically Thomas J. Watson Jr.’s 19th grandchild and is therefore eligible for a share of the trusts.

Read more in the NYTimes.

CRS report: Estate and Gift Taxes--Economic Issues

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) repeals the estate tax in 2010. During the phase-out period, the new law increases the exempt amount to $3.5 million by 2009, lowers the top rate to 45% by 2007, and repealed the federal credit for state death taxes in 2005. The federal gift tax remains though the rate is reduced to the top personal income tax rate. After repeal of the estate tax, carryover basis replaces step-up in basis for assets transferred at death. The legislation includes an exemption from carryover basis for capital gains of $1.3 million (and an additional $3 million for a surviving spouse). However, the estate tax provision in EGTRRA automatically sunsets December 31, 2010. Thus, the estate and gift tax will be reinstated in 2011 as it existed before EGTRRA. In the 109th Congress, H.R. 8, which passed the House on April 13, 2005 (and it's Senate companion S. 420), would eliminate the sunset provision in EGTRRA, thus making repeal of the estate tax permanent. Repeal of the sunset (as in H.R. 8) would retain the EGTRRA changes to the taxation of capital gains of inherited assets and the gift tax. Supporters of the estate and gift tax cite its contribution to progressivity in the tax system and to the need for a tax due to the forgiveness of capital gains taxes on appreciated assets held until death. (The estate tax accounts for 1.2% of federal tax receipts.) Arguments are also made that inheritances represent a windfall to heirs that are more appropriate sources of tax revenue than income earned through work and effort. Critics of the estate tax argue that it reduces savings and makes it difficult to pass on family businesses and farms. Critics also argue that death is not an appropriate time to impose a tax; that much wealth has already been taxed through income taxes; and that complexity of the tax imposes administrative and compliance burdens that undermine the progressivity of the tax. The analysis in this study suggests that the estate tax is highly progressive, although that progressivity is somewhat undermined by avoidance mechanisms. Neither economic theory nor empirical evidence indicate that the estate tax is likely to have much effect on savings. Although some family businesses and farms are burdened by the tax, the estate tax applies to only a tiny fraction (approximately 3% or 4 %) of businesses that have, in most cases, sufficient liquid assets to pay the tax. Only a small percentage of estate tax revenues are derived from family businesses. Even though there are many estate tax avoidance techniques, it also is possible to reform the tax and reduce these complexities as an alternative to eliminating the tax. Thus, the evaluation of the estate tax may largely turn on the general appropriateness of such a revenue source and its interaction with incentives for charitable giving, state estate taxes, and capital gains and other income taxes. A number of alternative revisions are discussed including past proposals to reduce tax rates and exemptions as well as proposals to reduce the opportunities for tax avoidance and broaden the estate and gift tax base. This report will be updated as legislative events warrant.

Get it at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30600.pdf

Mary Radford (Georgia State) to visit at Phoenix School of Law

Mary F. Radford has joined the faculty at Phoenix School of Law as a Visiting Professor for the Spring and Fall semesters of 2007.  She will teach Wills & Trusts and Estate Planning.  Radford is a full-time faculty member at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta, where she has taught since 1984.  In 1990-91, she worked as a Supreme Court Fellow for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.  Prior to teaching, Radford practiced as an associate at the Atlanta firm of Hansell & Post.  She earned her J.D. from Emory University in 1981, and has also taught English and French at the high school level.  Among her many honors, Radford is an Academic Fellow, Regent, and Executive Committee Member of the American College of Trust & Estate Counsel and in 2006, was elected as an Academic Member of the American Law Institute.  She currently serves as the Reporter for the Georgia Trust Code Revision Committee.  The author of several publications and law review articles, Radford is a frequent presenter on estate planning, guardianship and elder law topics at local, national and international seminars.  She has been listed for three years by Atlanta Magazine of one of Georgia’s “Top 50 Female Lawyers” and was listed in 2006 among “Georgia’s Top 100 Lawyers.”

Professor Tate on Incentive Trusts

Joshua Tate (SMU) has just published "Conditional Love: Incentive Trusts and the Inflexibility Problem," the  Real Property, Probate, and Trust Journal.    Here's the abstract:

This Article examines the contemporary phenomenon of incentive trusts: trusts that use money to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. Using evidence from Internet websites, practitioner articles, and newspaper articles, the Article considers the likely provisions that a typical incentive trust might have, and explains how such trusts might lead to a problem of inflexibility when they are not drafted so as to take into account the possibility of changed circumstances. The Article also examines current law regarding trust modification and termination as well as recent reform proposals, and suggests some alternatives that might better take into account the particular characteristics of incentive trusts.

Get it here.

 

 

Elder Law Answers Seminar on Post - Deficit Reduction Act estate planning

 

Take the adversity and stress out of your practice, and feel comfortable in your knowledge practicing after the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Learn how to thrive in today's estate planning and elder law climate utilizing proven techniques to streamline services offered to clients while providing them up to date information and highly customized documents.

      

ElderLawAnswers and Cowles Legal Systems have combined forces for this practical, timely and hands-on event -- to guide you through practice as new legislation impacts planning techniques, and to provide you with substantive legal and technical resources to provide outstanding service to clients, while maximizing profitability to your practice.

For details and registration information, visit http://www.cowleslegal.com/seminar/seminar.htm

Here's how they voted...

                                                                                                               

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	216	13		2
Democratic		200		1
Independent		1
TOTALS	216	214		3

---- YEAS    216 ---
               

Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachus Baker Barrett       (SC) Bartlett (MD) Barton       (TX) Bass Beauprez Biggert Bilirakis Bishop       (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boustany Bradley       (NH) Brady (TX) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite,       Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp       (MI) Campbell       (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Carter Castle Chabot Chocola Coble Cole       (OK) Conaway Crenshaw Cubin Culberson Davis (KY) Davis,       Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeLay Dent Diaz-Balart,       L. Diaz-Balart,       M. Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Emerson English       (PA) Everett Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick       (PA) Flake Foley Forbes Fortenberry Fossella Foxx Franks       (AZ) Frelinghuysen

Gallegly Garrett       (NJ) Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Granger Graves Green       (WI) Gutknecht Hall Harris Hart Hastert Hastings       (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis       (SC) Issa Jenkins Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson,       Sam Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King       (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kolbe Kuhl       (NY) LaHood Latham Lewis (CA) Lewis       (KY) Linder LoBiondo Lucas Lungren, Daniel       E. Mack Manzullo Marchant McCaul       (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McKeon McMorris Mica Miller       (FL) Miller (MI) Moran       (KS) Murphy Musgrave Myrick Neugebauer Northup

Norwood Nunes Nussle Osborne Otter Oxley Pearce Pence Peterson       (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Poe Pombo Porter Price       (GA) Pryce       (OH) Putnam Radanovich Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers       (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers       (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Royce Ryan (WI) Ryun       (KS) Saxton Schmidt Schwarz       (MI) Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith       (TX) Sodrel Souder Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Taylor       (NC) Terry Thomas Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden       (OR) Walsh Wamp Weldon (FL) Weldon       (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson       (SC) Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL)

---- NAYS    214 ---
               

Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop       (GA) Bishop       (NY) Boren Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady       (PA) Brown (OH) Brown,       Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardin Cardoza Carnahan Carson Case Chandler Clay Cleaver Clyburn Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis       (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis       (IL) Davis       (TN) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Emanuel Engel Eshoo Etheridge Evans Farr Fattah Filner Ford Frank       (MA) Gerlach Gonzalez Gordon Green,       Al Green, Gene Grijalva

Gutierrez Harman Hastings       (FL) Herseth Higgins Hinchey Hinojosa Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson       (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson       (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones       (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy       (RI) Kildee Kilpatrick       (MI) Kind Kucinich Langevin Lantos Larsen       (WA) Larson       (CT) LaTourette Leach Lee Levin Lewis       (GA) Lipinski Lofgren,       Zoe Lowey Lynch Maloney Markey Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy McCollum       (MN) McDermott McGovern McHugh McIntyre McKinney McNulty Meehan Meek       (FL) Meeks       (NY) Melancon Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller       (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore       (KS) Moore (WI) Moran       (VA) Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal       (MA) Ney Oberstar

Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor Paul Payne Pelosi Peterson       (MN) Pomeroy Price       (NC) Rahall Ramstad Rangel Reyes Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan       (OH) Sabo Salazar Sánchez, Linda       T. Sanchez,       Loretta Sanders Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz       (PA) Scott (GA) Scott       (VA) Serrano Sherman Simmons Skelton Slaughter Smith       (NJ) Smith       (WA) Snyder Solis Spratt Stark Strickland Stupak Sweeney Tanner Tauscher Taylor       (MS) Thompson (CA) Thompson       (MS) Tierney Towns Udall       (CO) Udall (NM) Van       Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman       Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Wexler Wilson       (NM) Woolsey Wu Wynn

---- NOT VOTING    3 ---
               

Blumenauer

Istook

Miller, Gary

Ed:  Res ipsa loquitur...

Republicans target middle class seniors for budget cuts

From the Courier-Post On-line:

On Feb. 1, the House of Representatives will vote on a controversial law affecting most U.S. senior citizens. The proposed law, referred to as the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, would create a complete overhaul of our Medicaid system with respect to assets and nursing home care.

Under current law, gifts provided beyond three years of the Medicaid application are allowed. Under the proposed law, states will be required to look back five years to determine if gifts were provided. For example, if an elderly parent gave a gift to a child 59 months ago, the Medicaid application will be denied under this new law. Also under the proposed law, our senior citizens would have to produce five year's worth of financial records before a Medicaid application could be approved.

According to current Medicaid laws, a person can gift a small portion of his or her life savings to family members and still qualify for Medicaid. The exact amount that can be protected is based on the value of the estate, the amount of the gift and when the gifts were provided.

The proposed law would not allow any gifts of any amount during the previous five years. Therefore, if a mother transferred $11,000 to her daughter in 2001 and 2002, she would not be able to qualify for Medicaid at this time, even though she has no assets. She would be denied Medicaid for a period of time in 2006. Under the current law, these small gifts provided in 2001 and 2002 would have no relevancy to the Medicaid application today.

The proposed law would make it difficult for senior citizens to protect their life savings and assets for the benefit of their families in the event they require nursing home care. Under current law, there exists legal methods to protect a portion of the assets from the catastrophic cost of nursing home care that can easily exceed $100,000 a year. Under the proposed law, most senior citizens would not be able to protect even a small portion of their life savings for their family.

The proposed law would create undue hardship on families if a parent or spouse requires nursing home care. The proposed law affects the use of annuities, the protection of assets for a healthier spouse and, in many cases, a home will no longer be protected if the equity exceeds a certain amount.

The proposed law barely was approved by the Senate on Dec. 21.  Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast the deciding vote.

If you are concerned about this proposed law -- tagged S.1932  -- tell your Congressional representative.

 

Read the rest of the story.

Greenspan Opposes Estate Tax Cuts without Compensating Offsets

From the CBPP:

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan reiterated his opposition   to tax-cut proposals that increase the deficit and made clear that this   opposition applies to proposals that repeal or drastically reduce the estate   tax without fully offsetting the costs. 

With the reappearance of high deficits, Greenspan has called for   reinstating the “pay-as-you-go” rule (often-called PAYGO) that require the   cost of all entitlement expansions and tax cuts to be offset, so that they do   not increase the deficit.  Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Greenspan   about the affordability of estate tax repeal if the cost were not offset.    Greenspan stated that, despite favoring “reducing taxes on capital,” he only   supports such tax cuts “under PAYGO” and would advise Congress not to repeal   the estate tax if the cost of repeal were not offset.

Schumer also asked Greenspan about estate tax reform proposals that cost   nearly as much as repeal.  For instance, Senator Jon Kyl has proposed allowing   the first $8 million of an estate to be tax free ($16 million for a couple)   and setting the estate tax rate equal to the capital gains rate, which is   currently 15 percent.  This proposal would cost 93 percent as much as repeal,   according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.   Greenspan responded that he also would oppose such costly estate tax reform   proposals if they were not offset.

Get the facts on the budget consequences of "the Paris Hilton tax cut."    

Business Week Provides Overview of Estate Planning for Laypersons

From the AP:

Families have a lot of misconceptions about estate planning.  Some think it's something only old people need to do. Others think it's all about avoiding taxes, or that it's only about money. But proper estate planning -- while it can involve all those things -- is much more. It's about who gets your possessions when you die. It's about who raises your children if they're still minors. It's about who makes critical medical decisions if you're incapacitated.

"Estate planning is important to anybody who cares about what happens after they die, irrespective of wealth or age," said David Ness, president of the Raymond James Trust Co., which is headquartered in St. Petersburg, Fla.

But many Americans apparently can't get over the emotions associated with death, and that stops them from putting their estates in order.

A recent Gallup Poll found that half of American adults do not have a will, the legal document in which you name the people who are to receive your property after you die. And nearly 60 percent of Americans haven't prepared a living will, which spells out the medical care you do or don't want to receive if you become incapacitated by an accident or terminal illness.

Read the rest in Business Week Online.

Yeah, whose property is it, anyway?

Here's a forthcoming article of interest...

The Intention of the Settlor under the Uniform Trust Code: Whose Property is it, Anyway?   

Alan Newman
University of Akron - School of Law
Akron Law Review, 2005

      

Abstract:    
The question of the extent to which the owner of property may transfer it gratuitously, but subject it to enforceable restrictions on alienability and use, has a long history. During much of that history, the law protected donees from such efforts by donors. This traditional hostility to restraints imposed on property by donors protected the living from control by the dead, as well as the alienability of property. Opposing those interests, however, is the interest in respecting the freedom of the owner of property to dispose of it subject to whatever restrictions he or she chooses to impose.

Three fundamental questions these competing policies have raised are (i) the Rule Against Perpetuities issue of whether a trust settlor can create contingent interests that will last into the distant future, (ii) the Claflin doctrine issue of whether the beneficiaries of a trust can terminate it before the date specified for its termination by the settlor, and (iii) the spendthrift trust issue of whether the settlor can prevent the beneficiary from alienating - voluntarily or involuntarily - his or her interest in the trust. For more than a century, these issues have been important ones in the development of trust law with respect to the extent to which a settlor will be allowed to control property he or she has transferred in trust for others. The question of the extent to which a settlor's intent with respect to such property will be respected is not, however, limited to those three issues, but also arises in a variety of other circumstances.

The Uniform Trust Code (the "UTC"), promulgated in 2000, is the first comprehensive national codification of the law of trusts. As such, it provides an excellent opportunity to examine current thinking on how the balance should be struck between the property rights of donors who wish to control the future enjoyment of their property by others, and the interests of donees when those interests conflict, or are perceived by the donees to conflict, with restrictions or limitations imposed by the donor. The purpose of this Article is to engage in that examination.

A unique feature of the UTC is that while it generally provides default rules that apply only if and to the extent that the settlor does not provide otherwise in the instrument, the settlor's ability to override the UTC's rules is expressly limited by mandatory rules on fundamental subjects that apply regardless of the settlor's intent to the contrary. Although the UTC's mandatory rules will serve as an important focus of this Article, the issue of the extent to which the settlor's intent will be respected under the UTC arises in a variety of other contexts that also will be analyzed.

The tension between the property rights of settlors and the interests of beneficiaries arises with respect to many trust issues addressed by the UTC, including (i) the modification and termination of trusts, (ii) the alienability of the beneficiary's interest, (iii) the rights of beneficiaries to receive information with respect to the trust, (iv) the ability of the beneficiaries to change the trustee, (v) the ability of the settlor to impose value limiting restrictions on the management and investment of trust assets, and (vi) the ability of the settlor to relieve the trustee from the duty to act in good faith and to exculpate the trustee from liability for breaching a fiduciary duty. UTC provisions with respect to the settlor's ability to control property transferred in trust also involve the settlor's ability to fix the trustee's compensation or to waive or require a trustee's bond, the requirements for creating a valid trust, including that its purposes not violate public policy, the ability of the beneficiaries and the trustee to act collectively in ways that circumvent the settlor's intent, and the court's overriding ability to act as necessary in the interests of justice.

The Article will demonstrate that the Uniform Trust Code has taken modest steps towards accommodating the interests of trust beneficiaries when those interests will not be served by strict adherence to the settlor's intent as set forth in the terms of the trust. In other respects, consistent with the common law, the UTC continues to honor the settlor's intent. Finally, in some respects the UTC provides greater protection to the settlor's intent than under common law.

Cite it as:  Newman, Alan, "The Intention of the Settlor under the Uniform Trust Code: Whose Property is it, Anyway?" -- Akron Law Review -- 2005
Get it from SSRN