Estate Planning

In In the Matter of Williams Revocable Trust (2017), disputes arose between trustees and a charitable foundation following the decedent’s death. The court dismissed the foundation’s appeal on trustee removal due to lack of a final, appealable judgment, while unresolved damages claims proceeded to trial. The case underscores the importance of careful estate planning and qualified legal counsel to prevent and navigate complex trust disputes.

In Estate of Vess (2017), a niece challenged the validity of Howard Vess’s 2006 will on multiple grounds, including lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The court emphasized the importance of procedural correctness in caveat proceedings, ultimately allowing the case to proceed on substantive issues rather than technicalities. The case illustrates the complexity of will contests and the need for experienced legal counsel.

In Boyce Living Trust (2025), the court addressed a challenge to a revocable trust by the settlor’s grandchildren. The trustee successfully defended under MD Code §14.5-605, which imposes a statute of repose on trust challenges, barring claims filed after the set period. The appellate court confirmed that strict time limits apply, highlighting the importance of timely actions when contesting trusts in Maryland.

In In re: Trust Under Item Ten (2024), the court examined whether a trustee could be compensated for legal services performed while acting as trustee. The trial court initially denied compensation due to potential conflicts of interest under Maryland Trust law, but the appellate court allowed it, emphasizing that reasonable compensation is permissible if it benefits the trust and its beneficiaries. This case highlights the balance between trustee duties and fair compensation for additional services.

Powers of Attorney (POAs) are essential estate planning tools for married Marylanders, complementing wills and trusts. Unlike marital rights, POAs grant spouses explicit authority to make financial or medical decisions if the other spouse becomes incapacitated. Financial and healthcare POAs ensure proper management of assets and medical care, providing legal clarity and protection beyond the default powers conferred by marriage.

The Maryland case In re Albert G. Aaron Living Trust (2018) shows how ambiguous trust language can spark litigation. The court ruled that “my wife” referred to the settlor’s first wife, not his second, underscoring the need for precise drafting and updates to trust documents.

Blended families face unique challenges in estate planning due to the presence of natural children, stepchildren, and half-siblings. Trusts are especially valuable as they allow parents to control asset distribution privately and avoid probate. Well-drafted wills complement trusts by providing clear instructions that prevent confusion or disputes, ensuring assets are distributed according to the creator’s wishes rather than default intestacy laws.

In Maryland, the type of deed used for property ownership can have significant consequences in estate planning. This post compares normal title deeds—which require probate for transfer upon death—with life estate deeds, which automatically pass to remainder beneficiaries without probate.

This post explores the concept of fee simple determinable—a type of defeasible estate commonly used in estate planning to place conditional limits on property ownership. Unlike fee simple absolute, this interest automatically ends and reverts to a specified party if a condition is violated or a time frame lapses. By including precise grant language, Marylanders can ensure that real property is used for a specific purpose or transfers automatically under designated conditions.

The Mergner v. Estate of Mergner case underscores the binding nature of irrevocable trusts and marital property agreements in Maryland estate planning. The wife, who accepted nearly $450,000 in distributions from an irrevocable trust established by her husband, later sought to reclaim her right to an elective share despite having waived it in a marital property agreement.

Powers of Attorney (POAs) are vital tools in estate planning, allowing a designated agent (or attorney-in-fact) to act on behalf of a principal in financial, medical, or business matters. In Maryland, the statutory form POA—specifically the personal financial POA—is a standardized legal document carrying the full weight of state law. This form offers a streamlined, comprehensive way to grant authority while ensuring both principals and agents understand their rights and responsibilities.

Power of Attorney (POA) arrangements are vital legal tools that allow one person (the principal) to delegate decision-making authority to another (the agent or attorney-in-fact). Maryland’s General and Limited POA Act, modeled on the Uniform Power of Attorney Act but with unique state provisions, governs these arrangements.

Understanding Maryland’s estate tax is crucial for effective estate planning. As of May 2025, the estate tax exemption thresholds stand at $5 million for individuals and $10 million for married couples, with graduated rates up to 16%. Proposed reductions to these thresholds were recently defeated, preserving the current structure for now. Maryland’s estate tax is separate from its unique inheritance tax, which beneficiaries pay.

The 2018 case of Ibru v. Ibru illustrates how critical procedural accuracy is in estate litigation. This Maryland case revolved around whether a circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims related to a power of attorney, ultimately hinging on the distinction between estate matters and fraud claims.

Understanding the different types of bank accounts—individual, joint, and trust—is essential for effective estate planning in Maryland. This blog explores how each account type functions and how Powers of Attorney (POAs) can be used strategically.

In the Matter of Watkins (2017) marks Maryland’s first application of the unclean hands doctrine in an estate case, where a surviving spouse sought an elective share after allegedly procuring a marriage through undue influence. The appellate court found the doctrine applicable, barring the claim as it was tied directly to improper conduct. This case illustrates how equity principles can override statutory rights when fraud or manipulation is involved.