Offit Kurman Blogs
Estates and Trusts
When Family, Assets, and Inheritance Laws Cross Borders
When inheritance expectations travel farther than the documents designed to carry them. Estate planning rarely fails because a family lacks a story. It fails because the documents do not account for how complicated that story has become. Families immigrate. Children live across states and countries. Real estate is held through entities. Family businesses grow. Cultural expectations endure, even when the governing law has changed. At death, those threads do not untangle themselves. They meet in probate court, trust litigation, or the uncomfortable space in between. Cross-jurisdictional planning is no longer an exotic concern. A client may live in California, own property elsewhere, hold interests in a family company, have relatives abroad, and still assume one domestic trust will quietly solve every problem. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it will not. The difference is whether the plan was drafted with the family’s full legal geography in mind. The Maryland dispute in Ahmad v. Ahmad, No. 634, September Term 2020, 2021 WL 6133796 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 27, 2021) (unreported), illustrates the risk. Mehdi Ahmad emigrated from Iran to the United States, built family businesses in Maryland, and later funded a revocable trust with his business interests. The trust “specifically excluded” his eldest child, M. Abraham Ahmad, from serving as trustee or beneficiary. After Mehdi’s death, Abraham sued to have the trust declared invalid and the estate administered under the fixed inheritance provisions of the Iranian Civil Code. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment against him. The case is not just about Iran, Maryland, or one family. It is about the collision between private expectations and public legal systems. A parent’s sense of fairness may be shaped by culture or family history. A child’s sense of entitlement may be shaped by the same forces. But a U.S. court starts elsewhere: with the documents, statutes, governing law, deadlines, and public policy of the forum. Abraham argued that Iranian law gave him an “indefeasible fixed portion” of Mehdi’s estate that “automatically vested at his birth.” The appellate court rejected the challenge on limitations grounds and made clear that foreign law has limits when it would impair the forum’s strong public policy. The court put it plainly: “To disregard Mehdi’s choice as expressed in his will in favor of applying Iranian primogeniture law to Mehdi’s estate would be contrary to Maryland public policy.” That sentence carries the planning lesson. Foreign-law expectations may influence family dynamics, but they do not automatically override a valid U.S. estate plan. If a client’s life crosses borders, the plan should say so. It should identify the governing law, coordinate the disposition of assets, address business ownership and control, and anticipate the legal or cultural framework a disappointed beneficiary may later invoke. Silence is rarely neutral. In estate planning, silence often becomes an invitation. This matters most where families own businesses, investment real estate, or assets in multiple jurisdictions. A trust may say who receives an ownership interest. But entity documents, title, management rights, buy-sell provisions, tax rules, and local probate procedures may determine whether that transfer is smooth or explosive. These problems are not limited to ultra-high-net-worth families. A blended family with property in two states, first-generation parents with relatives abroad, a business owner whose children disagree about succession, or an oral promise made around a kitchen table can all create the same problem. The question is not whether the family is international enough. The question is whether the plan reflects the jurisdictions, relationships, and expectations that actually exist. Clear drafting is the first defense. Wills, trusts, beneficiary designations, powers of attorney, and entity documents should speak to one another. They should identify the intended governing law, define beneficiaries and exclusions with care, and avoid language that leaves room for competing inheritance theories to take root. Communication matters, too. Not every family meeting prevents a lawsuit. But where expectations are likely to collide, a thoughtful letter of intent, a documented planning file, or a deliberate fiduciary choice may keep surprise from becoming litigation. Deadlines also matter. Cross-border disputes may sound grand and philosophical, but probate and trust litigation often turns on something far less dramatic: whether a claim was filed on time. A better approach is to build the plan around the actual family, not a simplified version of it. Where are the assets? Where do beneficiaries live? What law may apply? Who can realistically serve as fiduciary? How will business control pass? Do foreign documents exist? Are there inheritance expectations that may later be asserted? These are not side questions. They are the architecture of the plan. The Ahmad dispute is a reminder that planning across borders should not be left to assumptions. A favorable ruling after litigation is not the same as a well-designed plan before conflict. The goal is not merely to win the fight. It is to avoid making the fight necessary. When family, assets, and inheritance laws cross borders, an estate plan should do more than distribute property. It should translate intent across legal systems, narrow the gap between what the client meant and what a court may later be asked to decide, and make clear which law governs the legacy being left behind. If your family, assets, or business interests cross state or national borders, an estates and trust attorney can help evaluate whether your estate plan is prepared for the jurisdictions, relationships, and expectations it may one day need to withstand.
October 21, 2026
Estates and Trusts
Trustee's Standing in Estate Distribution: A Legal Analysis of Estate of Barry Tarlow
In a groundbreaking decision that could reshape the landscape of California estate law, the Court of Appeal in the Second District Division Four has ruled in favor of trustee David Henry Simon, affirming his right to seek a judicial determination of trust assets under Probate Code section 11700. The court's ruling clarifies the legal framework under which trustees can seek judicial determination of their rights to trust assets, emphasizing the application of Probate Code section 11700. This pivotal ruling is a must-read for estate law practitioners, trustees, and beneficiaries as it navigates the complexities of estate administration with unprecedented clarity and precision. Factual Background Barry Tarlow, a prominent criminal law attorney, executed a will in 2005, with minor modifications in 2006, which held terms for a testamentary trust. The will divided his estate between his siblings, Barbara and Gerald. Gerald was to receive his share outright, while Barbara's share was to be placed in the "Barbara Tarlow Trust," with David Henry Simon named as trustee. Following Barry's death in April 2021, Barbara and Gerald became executors of the estate, and Simon retained his role as trustee. The Barbara Tarlow Trust was a spendthrift trust, which provided that upon Barbara’s passing, the residue would go entirely to Gerald, if living, or otherwise, to a donor-advised fund at Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund. The estate administration process revealed that Barbara's share, intended for the trust, was valued at over $20 million. Barbara disagreed with the use of the spendthrift trust and purchased from the contingent remaining beneficiary, donor-advised fund at Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, the interest that might go to them to have a power of appointment. Further, to gain control over the trust assets, Barbara and Gerald filed an ex parte petition to replace Simon as trustee and modify the trust terms. After a denial of the ex parte petition, Barbara then disclaimed her entire interest in testamentary trust and Gerlad disclaimed his interest in the estate's personal property. As the joint executors, Barbara and Gerald filed a petition for final distribution, which would remove any distribution to the testamentary trust based on the disclaimers. This led to a series of legal disputes over the final distribution of the estate, including Simon filing a petition to determine beneficiaries of the estate under Probate Code section 11700. Legal Issues and Court's Analysis The central legal issue was whether Simon, as the named trustee, had standing to file a petition under Probate Code section 11700. This section allows any person claiming to be entitled to a share of the estate to seek a court determination of their rights. Simon argued that his role as trustee entitled him to such standing, while Barbara held that her disclaimer prevented such an interest to Simon as there was, therefore, no testamentary trust for him to administer. The court first analyzed the language of the code section as far as standing, providing that "any person claiming to be a beneficiary or otherwise entitled to distribution." In rendering their ruling, the court stated that this phrase, as included by the legislature, was broad and inclusive, allowing a wide range of individuals to file a petition for court determination. As such, it encompasses not only direct beneficiaries but also trustees and others who may have a claim to the estate assets. The Court of Appeals held that trustees are indeed "persons claiming to be entitled to distribution of a share of the estate" under Probate Code section 11700, reasoning that trustees are "persons entitled to distribution" because they are responsible for managing and distributing trust assets according to the terms of the will. This decision underscores the trustee's legal title to trust property, which vests as of the decedent's death, giving them a legitimate claim to the estate's distribution. The court's interpretation of section 11700 provides a clear precedent for future cases involving trustee standing in probate matters. Although Barbara argued that her disclaimer presumptive prevented Simon’s standing, the court highlighted that the presumption of the validity of disclaimers is not conclusive and can be challenged, which was contrary to the trial court’s assumption in these proceedings. This aspect of the ruling emphasized the need for a thorough judicial review of disclaimers and other estate-related documents. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the validity of Simon's claims and Barbara's disclaimer, indicating that factual disputes should be resolved through evidentiary hearings. Conclusion and Implications The Estate of Barry Tarlow marks a pivotal moment in estate law, reinforcing the vital role of trustees and the necessity of procedural rigor in probate proceedings. By affirming the trustee's standing and emphasizing the importance of judicial review, this ruling ensures that the administration of estates is conducted with fairness and transparency. Legal practitioners, trustees, and beneficiaries can look to this case as a guiding beacon, illuminating the path to equitable and just estate distribution. This ruling has significant implications for drafting attorneys, trustees and beneficiaries alike. For drafting attorneys, the decision underscores the need for precise and detailed trust provisions to account for potential court involvement, which could complicate the estate planning process and necessitate more extensive legal advice. Trustees gain enhanced authority to manage and distribute trust assets, but they must be vigilant against potential misuse of their standing and be prepared for increased litigation risks. Beneficiaries benefit from greater protection, as trustees can now more confidently seek court intervention to safeguard their interests. However, this ruling may also lead to more frequent challenges to trustee actions, potentially straining relationships and increasing disputes. Overall, while the ruling strengthens the legal framework for trustees, it introduces complexities that all parties must navigate carefully. As the legal community absorbs the implications of this landmark decision, it is clear that the principles established here will resonate through future probate and trust law cases, shaping the landscape of estate administration for years to come.
April 2, 2025
Estates and Trusts
The Impact of California Assembly Bill 2016 (AB2016) on the Probate Process
In April 2025, California bill AB2016 will take effect, significantly impacting the state’s probate process. Currently, probate is required if a decedent’s property exceeds a certain value, and AB2016 will raise this threshold considerably. AB2016 amends six sections of California’s Probate Code and repeals one. Starting on April 1, 2025, and lasting through March 31, 2028, the threshold for a real property to qualify for disposition without a full probate administration will increase to $750,000. As a result, more estates will be subject to probate, and the obligation to notify all heirs and devisees could lead to a rise in estate disputes. In the wake of AB 2016, it's crucial to understand the California probate process and consider planning strategies to avoid it. All too often the reasons provided to clients are probate avoidance or circumventing the Medi-CAL recovery. With the imposition of the new law set to take effect on April 1, 2025, the value for probate avoidance for real properties per Probate Code section 13151 will rise to $750,000 for a primary residence and then the additional small estate of personal property at $166,250. Of note, the law provides that the “primary residence” is not limited to the decedent’s residence at the time of their death. This provides a total exclusion anticipated for April 1, 2025, to be $916,250. However, Probate Code section 13100 is set to be adjusted for inflation every three years and based on the date of the enactment of this law, it is likely that the value will need to be adjusted upward with planners estimating a value of one million ($1,000,000.00) can be excluded aside from jointly held assets or payable on death accounts. This is a significant change in the basis previously required court involvement. Now, if not otherwise designated in an estate planning instrument, the assets below the threshold in the Probate Code can go through a shorter form procedure with the Probate Court in the determination of a real property of small value. Although this will still expose family assets to the public, it prevents many of the expensive aspects of probate. For starters, the statutory fees associated with probate will no longer apply. This means that neither a personal representative nor any counsel would receive compensation based on the values of the statutory estate. Instead, the work performed could be calculated at an hourly rate or other agreed upon compensation. While the law is meant to extend the notice to all potential heirs and beneficiaries, it does not address the notice requirements to governmental agencies such as the Department of Victims Compensation Board, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Department of Healthcare Services. or instance, under the Welfare and Institutions Code section 14009.5, the Department of Healthcare Services is only notified for a Medi-CAL recovery claim when there is a decedent’s estate as set forth in Title 42 of the United States Code. Pursuant to Section 1396p(b)(4)(A) of Title 42 of the United States Code, estate “shall include all real and personal property and other assets included within the individual’s estate, as defined for purposes of State probate law[.]” These techniques, as set forth in the Probate Code, provide an exclusion for the formal Probate Estate Administration procedures in California. This will eliminate a large sector from the reporting requirements for Medi-CAL recovery claims. While AB 2016 brings about significant changes to estate planning and probate law that could affect how estates are managed in California, the fundamental reasons for estate planning remain unchanged. Instead, it is a stark reminder of why practitioners advise in planning early. While AB 2016 provides a partial fix for transference of wealth after passing, it does not eliminate the concerns during a client’s lifetime. A properly executed estate plan can mitigate the need for court involvement during any period of incapacity. Further, it can provide for a mitigation of risk for abuse by others taking advantage of you as an elder with a truster contact named as a successor representative.
December 13, 2024
Estates and Trusts
Protecting Your Legacy: Trust and Estate Planning for Musicians
Understanding how to protect and transfer these invaluable assets can ensure that a musician's creative legacy endures and continues to benefit future generations. Embarking on the journey of music copyrights and estate planning is like composing a symphony of legal and financial strategies for musicians and their heirs. Unlike many professions, a music career brings a distinct set of legal and financial challenges, making it crucial for artists to manage their legacies with care. Given the unpredictable nature of the music industry and the substantial value of intellectual property (IP) assets, having a solid plan is not just advisable—it’s essential. Understanding how to protect and transfer these invaluable assets can ensure that a musician’s creative legacy endures and continues to benefit future generations. One of the most important things musicians must pay attention to is their IP rights. It’s important to recognize that with music copyrights there can be multiple copyrights involved in a single song, including the copyright of the composition and the lyrics if they were composed with a partner and separately from the score. So, there are a lot of moving parts to track with a musical piece. Understanding the basics of music copyright is essential before delving into estate planning. A copyright is a collection of legal rights initially owned by the author, including the right to perform the work publicly. These rights are treated like other intangible assets and can be owned jointly, held in trust, or transferred by gift or at death. Properly inventorying and valuing your music copyrights is a critical first step in estate planning. A qualified appraiser can help determine the worth of these assets by examining their income history or market value, which aids in evaluating estate planning options and predicting potential gifts or estate taxes. Ensuring that copyrights for compositions and recordings are registered correctly and that proper powers are provided to trusted successors is key to a portfolio, inheritance, and a comprehensive estate plan. For example, assigning these rights to a trust is an excellent way to provide ongoing income to beneficiaries. Musicians must also account for how royalties should be managed and distributed. This can involve setting up trusts specifically for royalty income. One idea is for musicians to set up management companies to handle their IP assets that can provide continuity and professional management of the musician’s works after death. Let’s take a lesson from Taylor Swift. The key lesson is to protect yourself early. Swift owned the composition of her music; however, she didn’t own the master recordings, and they were purchased without her blessing. To remedy that, Swift famously and with fanfare re-recorded her songs to secure rights to master recordings for most of her catalog. Musicians must also carefully consider who will oversee monetizing their music and brand after they die. Who do they want to decide how their image is used, whether their songs can be used in movies or TV shows, or whether they want to be a hologram? Musicians often have dependents, such as children or elderly parents, who rely on their income. Like many who pass without advance planning or an estate plan, a musician’s assets may go through probate, a time-consuming and public process. Estate planning tools like trusts can help avoid probate, ensuring a smoother transition for heirs and provide for these dependents long-term. Estate planning for musicians also involves navigating complex tax issues, especially when significant estates that may be subject to federal and state estate taxes are involved. Proper planning, including using trusts and charitable donations, can help mitigate these taxes. Beneficiaries may have to pay taxes on royalties and other income from the musician’s IP. Structuring the estate to minimize these taxes is crucial. Musicians making substantial gifts during their lifetime should be aware of potential gift tax implications. Key Legal Instruments in Estate Planning Several legal instruments are crucial in the estate planning process for musicians: Wills: A will is a foundational document in estate planning that outlines how a musician’s assets should be distributed upon death. A will provides for the distribution of property you own at the time of your death. This can include your instruments, gear, and assets related to your music career. You can also designate who will be responsible for managing your music and other intellectual property after your passing. Generally, you may gift your property in any manner you choose. However, wills must go through probate, which can be avoided with other tools. Trusts: A trust is a legal arrangement that allows you to transfer ownership of your assets to a trustee, who can manage those assets for the benefit of your beneficiaries. This can be a useful for musicians to ensure that their loved ones are taken care of after their passing. Trusts are flexible tools that can manage and distribute a musician’s assets according to specific instructions. They can be beneficial for managing ongoing royalty streams and providing for dependents. Of importance for artists is how the handling of the intangible assets known as digital assets are managed post-mortem. These are issues properly handled in an estate plan. In a comprehensive estate plan, there can be multiple trust structures for planning and gifting. Revocable Trusts: A trust created during one’s lifetime may be revocable. Like it suggests, this means it may be revoked or changed by the settlor (“Introduction to Wills—American Bar Association”). These trusts allow musicians to retain control over their assets during one’s lifetime and provide instructions for distribution after death. Irrevocable Trusts: An irrevocable trust means it cannot be revoked or changed by the settlor. This is useful in gifting strategies for artists considering their taxable estate. Health Care Power of Attorney: You have the right to decide who can make decisions about your health care. These documents allow musicians to designate someone to make healthcare decisions on their behalf and outline their instruction for medical treatment if they become unable to communicate. It is not only important to create an estate plan for musicians, but also critical that the estate plan is kept up to date. Things change, mangers change, people get divorced, and children get added, as do grandchildren. Perhaps the person who was first designated as the manager of the estate is out of the picture. It is essential to keep the estate plan up to date as circumstances change, and to make sure that family is aware of updates. In the world of music, where creativity and complexity blend, trust and estate planning strike the right chords for crafting a lasting legacy. By partnering with legal experts who understand the intricacies of intellectual property and the unique needs of entertainers, musicians can craft a plan that not only safeguards their legacy but also ensures their artistic vision endures. This thoughtful approach transforms a vibrant career into a timeless legacy, preserving the essence of their contributions for future generations. Reprinted with permission from the September 10, 2024, issue of The Recorder. © 2024 ALM Media Properties, LLC.
September 18, 2024
