Wealth and Honor

I am so Mad at My Mother! Finding the Funny in Family Caregiving

June 17, 2025 / David Russell

So begins Steve Martin’s monologue in his 1977 comedy album, “Let’s Get Small.” He continues:

I don’t know…she’s 102 years old. She called me up the other day and wanted to borrow ten dollars FOR SOME FOOD! I said, ‘Hey, I work for a living!’ So I worked out a deal with her and had her carry my barbells up to the attic."

Steve Martin

My friends and I looooved Steve Martin humor, and we listened to this monologue over and over. Now, nearly fifty years later, it’s still funny—but also a not-so-subtle reminder: I’m on deck.

To not be a burden on my children must be one of the top five goals of every client over the age of 65 that I have ever met with over my 40 years of personal financial planning. For a long time, I thought this meant to not be a financial or emotional burden, but in recent years I’ve come to realize that what it really means is that they don’t want to lose independence. Who does? I certainly don’t.

Planning for advanced age and dependence is even more difficult than planning for death. At least death is final—but dependency can last for years.

The Graceful Handoff: Planning for Generational Wealth Transitions

June 8, 2025 / David Russell

For most of his life, Arlen has been the unquestioned patriarch of his family and the driving force behind its considerable success — a man who built a thriving manufacturing business from scratch, expanded into real estate, and established a family foundation that still bears his name.

At board meetings, at family gatherings, even at the holiday table, Arlen’s voice has always carried the final weight. Decisions, direction, vision — all came from him. And for decades, that worked.

His son, Terrance, now 58, has supported his father loyally — though often from a distance, and always in his father’s shadow. He built his own career, raised his own family, but was never seen as “the leader” in family matters. That was Arlen’s role.

But now, something is shifting.

At a recent family meeting, Arlen’s once razor-sharp memory faltered when discussing a key trust matter. His hand trembled slightly as he passed the agenda to Terrance. Later, in private, he confided to his son, “I’m not as quick as I used to be. Maybe it’s time you started taking more of the reins.”

It was a moment both had seen coming — but neither had fully prepared for.

And so begins one of the most delicate transitions any family of wealth must navigate: the gradual, intentional handoff of leadership and control from one generation to the next.

When done thoughtfully, this process can preserve family unity, protect the founder’s legacy, and equip the next generation for responsible stewardship. When mishandled, it can lead to conflict, loss of wealth, and fractures that last for years.

How can families — and their advisors — approach this transition with both strategy and honor?

Let’s explore what it takes to plan a graceful generational wealth handoff.

Powers of Attorney: They’re Not Just for Aging Parents

May 29, 2025 / David Russell

A few weeks ago, I found myself trying to help my step-niece file a life insurance claim after the sudden death of her mother—my step-sister. It was an emotionally heavy situation, and I offered to help with the practical side of things: finding out what paperwork was needed, getting the right forms, and navigating the insurance company’s process.

But the moment I called the insurer, I hit a wall. They wouldn’t give me any information. Not the status of the policy. Not the claim process. Not even the name of the person handling it.

Why? I didn’t have a Power of Attorney (POA).

To make matters more complicated, my step-sister was a German citizen. Her children—the beneficiaries—are also German citizens, trying to deal with an American insurance company from overseas. Even though they wanted me to help, I had no legal authority to act on their behalf.

That’s when it really hit me: Powers of Attorney aren’t just for the elderly or for people at the end of life. They’re for anyone who might need help navigating complicated systems, from financial institutions to government agencies to medical providers. And in our increasingly mobile, cross-border, digital world, that’s just about all of us.

Let’s dig into what a POA is, what types are available, how they’re used—and what their limits are—so you don’t find yourself stuck when someone needs you the most.

When Hurt Turns to Heir Decisions

May 6, 2025 / David Russell

Should You Remove a Grandchild from Your Will After a Falling Out?

Family relationships can be complicated, especially across generations. As we grow older, we often reflect not just on what we want to pass on, but to whom—and why. Wills and estate plans become more than legal documents; they become reflections of the people and relationships that have mattered most to us. But what happens when one of those relationships is suddenly strained? What if someone who once held a dear place in your heart has deeply hurt you?

That was the question one thoughtful, heartbroken grandmother recently sent my way:

“I am very upset with my 25-year-old granddaughter and am considering taking her out of my will. For years we were very close and spent many vacations and special outings together. My husband and I helped her with summer camps and attended all of her sporting events. A few weeks ago, she asked me if I would buy her a car now that she’s graduated from college. She explained that she had a lot of school debt and that since I was ‘loaded,’ it should not be a problem for me. I’m widowed now and 79 years old, and I am by no means ‘loaded.’ I worry about what happens when I can’t live on my own. I have friends who’ve gone to nursing homes, so I know how expensive that is. I told her ‘no,’ and she became very upset and said some hurtful things. I thought it would blow over, but she’s not spoken to me since, and when I try to call her, she ignores my calls. I have other grandchildren who don’t treat me this way, so should I remove her to try and teach her a lesson?”

Sandra C.

My Response

She was obviously in pain and it was easy to see why she felt the way she did. It’s not easy to be hurt by someone you love, especially when you’ve poured time, care, and financial support into the relationship. In this case, the granddaughter’s request wasn’t just about a car. It touched on something deeper: assumptions about wealth, entitlement, and perhaps a lack of awareness about the vulnerability that often accompanies aging.

It’s easy in moments like this to reach for the most immediate form of accountability—changing the will, closing the door, ending the relationship on paper, if not in life.

But I offered her a different idea.

I told her to write her granddaughter a letter. In it, she could explain how deeply hurt she was by her granddaughter’s words. That she felt dismissed, misunderstood, even used. But also, that she still loved her and missed their closeness.

And then—I told her not to send it.

Instead, I asked her to seal the letter in an envelope, write “Open in six months” on the front, and tuck it away in a drawer.

Why? Because decisions about inheritance carry emotional weight and long-term consequences. Estate documents are meant to outlast the emotional storms of the moment. They should reflect your values and intentions, not just your pain.

That doesn’t mean you should ignore patterns of entitlement or disrespect. But not every lapse in judgment from a young adult means the relationship is beyond repair. Sometimes a little time and distance can bring clarity—or even reconciliation.

It’s also worth remembering that your will is a private document until it isn’t. Quietly updating or adjusting your estate plan, if needed, is an option. But so is waiting, watching, and seeing whether the rift begins to mend.

So, if you’re in a similar situation—feeling conflicted about whether to disinherit someone you love—pause. Ask yourself:

Is this an isolated incident or part of a larger pattern?
Have I given them a chance to understand how they’ve hurt me?
What would I hope they learn from this—and is cutting them out the best way to teach that?
How will I feel if this relationship heals and I’ve already shut the door?

There are no perfect answers. But I do believe this: when you choose how to shape your legacy, let it be from a place of clarity—not just anger. Let it tell the truth not only about your resources, but about your resilience, your values, and your hopes for your family.

Sometimes that truth calls for boundaries. Other times, it calls for grace—and a letter in a drawer, waiting for its moment.

Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice…

April 24, 2025 / David Russell

Family disputes over inheritance can be messy, emotional, and, as demonstrated in the California Court of Appeal case LINTZ v LINTZ, costly. This case serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of clear communication, professional advice, and understanding the concept of undue influence when it comes to estate planning. While we won’t delve into legal advice, let’s explore some of the missteps made and how families can potentially avoid similar situations.

The Case Overview

In Lintz v. Lintz, the central figures are Robert, a real estate developer worth millions, his third wife, Lois, and his children, Susan and James, from his second marriage. Interestingly, Lois was also Robert’s first wife, albeit for a brief six-month period. Robert had a complicated estate plan established before remarrying Lois in 2005. After their remarriage, Robert amended his trust several times, increasingly favoring Lois. Eventually, a new trust, the Lintz Family Revocable Trust, was created. This trust designated all of Robert’s property as community property, gave Lois an exclusive life interest in the estate, and even allowed her to disinherit one of Robert’s children and leave any unspent assets to her own children. Critically, this trust was not prepared by Robert’s long-standing attorney, but by Lois’ attorney at her direction.

After Robert’s death, Susan and James challenged the trust, alleging financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, constructive trust, and undue influence. The court found Lois liable for financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion of separate property. While the court found Robert had the testamentary capacity to execute the trust instruments, it also found Lois liable for undue influence in procuring Robert’s estate plans.

Missteps and Missed Opportunities

Several factors contributed to the unfortunate outcome in this case. Let’s examine some key areas:

Lack of Transparency: The increasing shift of assets towards Lois, especially the designation of all property as community property, appears to have occurred without clear communication or understanding from all parties involved. Open discussions about estate planning decisions can help prevent misunderstandings and suspicions.
Sudden Changes in Estate Planning: The series of trust amendments that increasingly favored Lois, culminating in the Lintz Family Revocable Trust, should have raised red flags. While people are free to change their estate plans, drastic and frequent alterations, especially when influenced by a new relationship, warrant careful scrutiny.
Disregarding Professional Advice: The fact that Robert signed the Lintz Family Revocable Trust against the advice of his own counsel is a significant misstep. Seeking and heeding professional advice from experienced estate planning attorneys can help ensure that decisions are made with full understanding and are free from undue influence.
The “Community Property” Assumption: Designating all of Robert’s property as community property, especially given that he had significant assets before the marriage, is a complex legal issue. It’s crucial to understand the implications of community property laws and how they affect estate planning.
Attorney Conflict of Interest: The Lintz Family Revocable Trust was prepared by Lois’ attorney, not Robert’s. This raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest and whether Robert received truly independent legal advice.
Isolation and Control: The court noted that Lois misinformed Robert’s lawyers of his wishes and ultimately discontinued their services under the pretext of a fee dispute. This suggests a level of control and isolation that can be indicative of undue influence.

Understanding Undue Influence

The concept of undue influence is central to this case. Undue influence, in the context of estate planning, refers to a situation where someone exerts pressure or control over another person, overcoming their free will and causing them to make decisions they wouldn’t otherwise make.

While direct evidence of undue influence is rare, courts often consider circumstantial evidence, such as:

The vulnerability of the person being influenced: Was Robert in a weakened state, either physically or emotionally, that made him susceptible to Lois’s influence?
The influencer’s opportunity to exert influence: Did Lois have close and constant contact with Robert, giving her ample opportunity to influence his decisions?
The influencer’s motive: Did Lois stand to benefit significantly from the changes to Robert’s estate plan?
Whether the result was unnatural: Were the changes to Robert’s estate plan inconsistent with his previous wishes or relationships with his children?

Legal Capacity vs. Undue Influence

It’s important to distinguish between legal capacity and undue influence. The court in Lintz v. Lintz found that Robert had the legal capacity to execute the trust documents. Legal capacity refers to a person’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. In estate planning, it means understanding that you are signing a will or trust, knowing what property you own, and understanding your relationship to the people who will inherit from you.

Even if someone has legal capacity, they can still be subject to undue influence. Undue influence is about how the decision was made, not whether the person understood the decision. It’s about whether their free will was overcome by someone else’s pressure or control.

Preventing Similar Situations

So, how can families prevent similar situations from arising? Here are some practical steps:

Open Communication: Encourage open and honest conversations about estate planning decisions.
Independent Legal Advice: Ensure that all parties involved have access to independent legal counsel.
Maintain Relationships: Encourage the person making estate planning decisions to maintain relationships with family and friends.
Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all estate planning decisions, including the reasons for those decisions.
Be Vigilant: Be aware of any sudden or drastic changes in estate planning, especially if they seem out of character.
Avoid Conflicts of Interest: Ensure that attorneys representing individuals in estate planning matters are free from conflicts of interest.

The Lintz v. Lintz case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of careful estate planning and the potential for family disputes when things go wrong. By fostering open communication, seeking professional advice, understanding the concepts of undue influence and legal capacity, and avoiding potential conflicts of interest, families can take steps to protect their loved ones and prevent similar unfortunate outcomes.

Little Red Riding Hood: A Cautionary Tale from a California Case.

April 17, 2025 / David Russell

[De Anda v. Guillen; California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division, Decided Apr 21, 2023]

Imagine trusting a loved one, only to discover they’ve betrayed that trust by exploiting your finances. This is the heartbreaking reality one grandmother, Julianne De Anda [Substitute Name] faced when her granddaughter, “Lisa Guillon [Substitute Name], misappropriated a $375,000 construction loan meant for De Anda‘s home remodel, using it for personal expenses and a failing business. The De Anda v. Guillon case serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities our aging loved ones face. By understanding the details of this case, we can better equip ourselves to identify potential issues and prevent similar situations from affecting our own families.

Key Findings and Preventative Measures

his case offers several key insights that can help families protect their aging loved ones from financial exploitation:

The Importance of Open Communication: In the De Anda case, the initial agreement seemed reasonable: housing and care in exchange for home improvements. However, the lack of clear, documented agreements and open communication paved the way for misunderstandings and abuse. The court noted that it was unclear to what extent the parties agreed that Guillon would be allowed to live in the home indefinitely, or that she would inherit the home entirely when De Anda died.

Preventative Measure: Encourage open and honest conversations about finances, living arrangements, and care plans. Regular family meetings can provide a platform for discussing concerns and making informed decisions together. Document all agreements in writing, with the assistance of legal counsel.
Be Wary of Joint Tenancy: Guillon persuaded De Anda that a joint tenancy was necessary for the loan. This highlights the danger of elders signing legal documents without fully understanding the implications. The court found that Guillon “persuaded” De Anda that she would not be able to obtain a loan to finance the Pasadena home remodel unless De Anda “deeded half the house to [Guillon] as joint tenants in common with the right of survivorship.”

Preventative Measure: Before signing any legal or financial document, especially those involving property, ensure your loved one seeks independent legal and financial advice. A neutral professional can explain the terms and potential risks. Emphasize that joint tenancy can have significant consequences, including loss of control over the property.
Monitor Finances: One of the most alarming aspects of this case was the misappropriation of funds. Guillon commingled the construction loan with her personal and business accounts, making it difficult to track. The court found that “Without any accounting, [Guillon] commingled construction money, Taco Factory money, her personal funds, [and] personal and business loans.”

Preventative Measure: If you are helping manage an elder’s finances, maintain meticulous records. Use separate accounts for specific purposes (e.g., a dedicated account for the remodel). Regularly review bank statements and credit card bills for any unusual activity. Set up alerts for large withdrawals or transfers.
Trust Your Instincts: De Anda’s children discovered the fraud when they noticed irregularities in her bank accounts and a forged document. This underscores the importance of paying attention to red flags. The court noted that De Anda’s ATM card was missing, as was over $200,000.

Preventative Measure: If something feels off, investigate. Don’t dismiss your concerns, even if the person involved is a family member. Trust your instincts and seek professional help if needed. Encourage other family members to stay involved and voice their concerns.
The Danger of Undue Influence: The court found that Guillon exerted undue influence over De Anda, leading her to make decisions that were not in her best interest. The court noted Guillon’s foreclosure, multiple debts, a prior judgment against her, and virtually no cash or assets other than the joint tenancy she had persuaded De Anda to grant her.

Preventative Measure: Be aware of situations where an elder is isolated or overly reliant on one individual. Encourage them to maintain social connections and seek advice from multiple sources. Watch for signs of manipulation or coercion.
Professional Oversight: The construction project in the De Anda case lacked proper oversight, which allowed Guillon to mismanage funds and leave the remodel incomplete. The court found that “two-thirds of the [remodel] loan money had been spent before building permits had been pulled.”

Preventative Measure: When undertaking significant projects like home renovations, involve reputable contractors and professionals. Obtain multiple bids, check references, and ensure contracts are clear and detailed. Consider hiring a project manager to oversee the work and finances.

Recognizing Financial Elder Abuse: Financial elder abuse often involves subtle manipulation and deception. It’s crucial to recognize the signs, which can include:

Sudden changes in financial habits
Unexplained withdrawals or transfers
Newfound isolation from family and friends
Unusual interest in the elder’s assets by a caregiver
Reluctance to discuss financial matters

The De Anda v. Guillon case serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities our aging loved ones face. Not only did this separate a grandmother from her granddaughter, but the entire family was fractured by this event.

By learning from this unfortunate situation, we can take proactive steps to protect our elders from financial exploitation. Open communication, careful monitoring, and a healthy dose of skepticism can go a long way in safeguarding their personal and financial well-being.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your specific situation.

Sibling Rivalry and Trust Troubles: Removing a Trustee for Being a Pain

April 10, 2025 / David Russell

Family trusts are often established with the best intentions: to secure a family’s legacy, ensure a smooth transfer of wealth, and provide for future generations. However, what happens when the individuals entrusted to manage these assets—often family members themselves—find themselves embroiled in conflict? A 2020 Texas case, Ramirez v. Rodriguez, [No. 04-19-00618-CV; Fourth Court of Appeals; San Antonio, Texas; Decided Feb 19, 2020] offers a compelling example of how family dynamics can undermine even the most well-intentioned estate plans.

The Ramirez Family: A Texas Story

The Ramirez family’s story is possibly a classic Texas tale. While the court transcripts do not provide detailed information about the family’s history or the reasons behind the creation of the trust, we can speculate that over generations, they accumulated significant land holdings, primarily used for ranching. The discovery of oil and gas on their property transformed their fortunes. As wise stewards of their newfound wealth, the Ramirez family may have recognized the importance of preserving their assets for future generations. Rather than dividing the mineral royalties into smaller, fractured interests among numerous heirs, they made the prudent decision to create a trust. This trust was designed to consolidate the management of the royalty interests, ensuring a stable and consistent income stream for the family for years to come.

The Setup: A Family Affair

In 1977, the Ramirez family established the Ramirez Mineral Trust to manage their oil, gas, and mineral interests. The trust agreement appointed four co-trustees, all family members, and stipulated that any action required the agreement of three out of the four. By 2008, the co-trustees were Santiago, Sonia, Victor, and Javier. This arrangement, intended to provide balanced oversight, eventually became a source of significant conflict.

The Plot Thickens: Accusations and Lawsuits

The situation began to deteriorate when Santiago and Ancient Sunlight, Ltd. (a company linked to the trust) filed a lawsuit against Sonia in 2019, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust. The other co-trustees—Sonia, Victor, and Javier—responded with a petition to remove Santiago as co-trustee, citing “other cause for removal” under the Texas Trust Code.

The accusations against Santiago were numerous and detailed. He was accused of sending unauthorized communications, undermining trust operations, and alienating key stakeholders. While many of these actions might seem like minor disagreements, some rose to the level of significantly disrupting the trust’s operations.

Disruptive Actions: Examples from the Case

One key example was Santiago’s communication with the trust’s former accountants. He sent letters and emails, without the authority of the other co-trustees, questioning their services and fees. This not only created a hostile environment but also led the accountants to decline further engagement with the trust. As a result, the trust incurred additional legal fees to locate a new auditor, diverting resources away from its primary purpose.

Another significant disruption involved Santiago’s communications with Chesapeake, a company involved in oil and gas operations on the trust’s land. Santiago attempted to negotiate with them independently, without the consensus of the other co-trustees. This undermined the trust’s collective decision-making process and created confusion and uncertainty for Chesapeake, potentially jeopardizing valuable business relationships.

These actions, among others, painted a picture of Santiago as someone who was not only difficult to work with but was actively hindering the trust’s ability to function effectively.

The Legal Tango: Citizens Participation Act

Santiago argued that the lawsuit against him was an attack on his right to free speech and right to petition. He sought to dismiss the case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, but the trial court didn’t rule in time, and the motion was denied by operation of law.

The appeals court then had to decide whether the trial court’s denial was correct. The key question: Did Sonia, Victor, and Javier present enough evidence to establish a “prima facie case” that Santiago’s actions warranted his removal?

The Verdict: Hostility Impeding Performance

The court sided with Sonia, Victor, and Javier. They found that Santiago’s actions were impeding the proper performance of the Trust. The court highlighted emails and letters demonstrating Santiago’s unilateral actions, his accusations of “conflicts, concealment, [and] corruption,” and his overall disruptive behavior.

The Takeaway: Family, Finances, and Fiduciary Duty

This case underscores the challenges that arise when family members are appointed as co-trustees, especially when personal agendas and conflicting opinions come into play. While the Ramirez family’s initial decision to create a trust was a wise one, the selection of co-trustees ultimately led to significant conflict and operational challenges.

A Better Solution?

Perhaps it’s time to consider professional trustees. Independent fiduciaries bring expertise, impartiality, and a focus on the best interests of the beneficiaries. They can navigate complex financial decisions, manage disputes, and ensure that the trust operates smoothly, without the added drama of family dynamics.

While it might seem impersonal, a professional trustee can be the key to preserving family wealth and avoiding the kind of legal battles that can tear families apart. Sometimes, the best way to ensure a trust fulfills its intended purpose is to bring in a neutral party who can focus on the bottom line, without getting caught in the crossfire of family disagreements.

When political values collide with Mom’s Need for Care: One Reader’s Crisis of Conscience.

March 10, 2025 / David Russell

"I find myself in a very conflicted position. I am 62 years old. I am a politically conservative person who has long believed that entitlement programs were a big part of this country's problems, and that Medicaid especially is responsible for creating a dependency on the government. Here's my situation: My 91 year old mother has depleted the savings that she and my dad worked to build, paying for care over the past five years. In five years, we have paid almost $400,000 between full-time sitters or nursing home care. Now she's out of money and the nursing home staff is telling me to apply for Medicaid for her. I could bring her home, but that would mean either me or my wife would have to quit our jobs or cut back on hours, and neither option is a good one. I can't afford to pay for her care out of my own pocket without severely impacting my own retirement, yet that's always been my belief - that families should take care of their own and not depend on the government. I'm in a real quandary as this goes directly against my beliefs, but I don't know what to do. I am an only child so there is no other family who can help."

Bill T.

First, you have my deepest respect for honestly confronting this clash of values that you have described. My personal opinion is that there may not be such a collision of values as you think. You seem to have taken personal responsibility for the care of your aging mother for the past five years, ensuring that the savings that your parents worked hard to accumulate have been used for her care in the best way possible. The fact that you feel conflicted about filing for Medicaid sounds less like a political view than a desire to continue that responsibility. You are certainly not alone as more aging parents from all political persuasions will likely need Medicaid’s assistance, and I want to gently challenge your belief that such programs only perpetuate government dependency.

Medicaid's Founding and Purpose

Medicaid was established in 1965 as part of the Social Security Act, with the purpose of providing health coverage to low-income individuals and families. Initially targeted at families receiving cash assistance, the program has since expanded to cover a broader population, including pregnant women, children, elderly adults, and individuals with disabilities. As of 2023, Medicaid covers over 83 million Americans, making it the largest source of health coverage in the United States. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, with total spending exceeding $600 billion annually. The program plays a crucial role in ensuring access to healthcare for millions of Americans who might otherwise be unable to afford it.

Criticisms of Medicaid

However, the cost and expansion of Medicaid have raised concerns among political conservatives. They argue that the rising expenditures place a significant burden on federal and state budgets, potentially diverting funds from other essential services. Additionally, some conservatives believe that the expansion of Medicaid encourages dependency on government assistance rather than promoting self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, well-documented cases of Medicaid fraud and abuse have contributed to a negative perception of Medicaid among many, but especially among more conservative Americans.

Reconsider Your Conflict

When people with conservative beliefs about personal responsibility face the need for help, such as caring for an aging parent without savings, they may encounter a conflict. Their value of financial independence clashes with the necessity to use government programs like Medicaid, which they previously saw as fostering dependency.

But is this really a moral and ideological dilemma that forces you to reconsider your beliefs in the light of your responsibilities and the stark financial realities you are confronting? The prevailing theme expressed by your beliefs seems to be taking responsibility, and you could consider that getting Medicaid support for your mother during what is likely the last remaining years of her life IS taking responsibility.

Applying for Medicaid does not negate the commitment to caring for your aging mother. Instead, it acknowledges the practical realities of the high costs associated with long-term care. By securing financial assistance, you are ensuring that your mother receives the best possible care, which is a responsible and loving act. Rather than creating dependency and irresponsibility in you, here are three things getting Medicaid for your mother would allow you to do.

Maintain Active Involvement: Even with Medicaid support, you can remain actively involved in your mother’s care. Regular visits, advocating for her needs, and staying informed about her health and well-being demonstrate your ongoing commitment and responsibility.
Focus on Quality of Life: By alleviating the financial burden through Medicaid, you can focus more on enhancing your mother’s quality of life. This might include spending more meaningful time with her, engaging in activities she enjoys, and ensuring she feels loved and supported.
Preserve Financial Stability: Seeking Medicaid assistance can help preserve your financial stability, allowing you to continue fulfilling other responsibilities and maintaining your independence. This approach ensures that you can care for your mother without compromising your own well-being and future.

So let yourself off the hook. You haven’t compromised your values, but perhaps you can see others in a more compassionate way. How many other Medicaid recipients value personal responsibility, but circumstances gave them few options but to accept the safety net that Medicaid offers? It’s ok to support Medicaid reform in order to make it more fiscally sound and free from fraud and abuse while also acknowledging its value to those who need it most.

Hollywood Cases Highlight the Benefits of Long Term Care Trusts.

March 4, 2025 / David Russell

When planning for long-term care, many individuals focus on purchasing insurance or setting aside assets to cover future expenses. However, financial abuse and mismanagement can derail even the best-laid plans. A long-term care trust offers a structured, protective approach to ensuring that funds are used appropriately, especially when an individual is no longer able to manage their own affairs.

What Is a Long-Term Care Trust?

A long-term care trust is a standby revocable trust designed to provide financial oversight for an individual’s long-term care needs. While the settlor (the person creating the trust) is capable, they retain control over the trust assets. However, the trust includes springing provisions—legal language that allows a successor trustee to step in and take over management if the settlor is deemed incapacitated.

The trust can own various assets, including long-term care insurance policies, life insurance policies with long-term care riders, and liquid assets designated for care-related expenses. Once the successor trustee takes over, they are responsible for filing insurance claims, paying expenses from the trust, and managing trust assets to ensure care needs are met.

Lessons from the John Amos and Mickey Rooney Cases

One of the most compelling reasons to consider a long-term care trust is to prevent financial exploitation, as tragically illustrated in the John Amos and Mickey Rooney cases.

John Amos, a well-known actor, who died in 2014, has been called a victim of elder financial abuse by his adult children, each claiming that the abuse was perpetrated by the other.

Mickey Rooney, another famous actor, provided powerful testimony before Congress about the financial abuse he endured in his later years. Rooney described how he was isolated, financially exploited, and left without access to his own money. His testimony shed light on the widespread issue of elder financial abuse and the devastating impact it can have on an individual’s dignity and well-being.

A long-term care trust may have helped prevent such abuse by placing financial oversight in the hands of a designated trustee rather than leaving assets vulnerable to manipulation by infighting siblings or self-serving outsiders. With a properly structured trust, all care-related expenses are managed transparently and according to predefined terms, reducing the risk of unauthorized withdrawals or misuse.

Key Benefits of a Long-Term Care Trust

Ensures Funds Are Used for Care Needs
By designating a trust to own long-term care policies and other assets, funds are explicitly earmarked for care expenses. This prevents potential misappropriation by well-meaning but financially strained family members.
Streamlines Insurance Claims and Payments
Managing long-term care insurance claims can be overwhelming, especially when a person is already facing health challenges. The trustee, as the legal owner of the policy, handles all paperwork, ensuring that claims are filed correctly and benefits are used as intended.
Protects Against Financial Exploitation
With a structured oversight system in place, there is a clear fiduciary duty to manage funds appropriately. The trustee must follow the trust’s terms, keeping records and providing transparency that minimizes opportunities for fraud or undue influence.
Reduces Family Conflicts and Burdens
Family members often struggle with decisions about paying for care, especially when different parties have competing financial interests. A long-term care trust provides clear guidelines, removing ambiguity and reducing potential disputes.
Offers Continuity and Professional Management
If a person becomes incapacitated, the transition of financial management is seamless. The springing provision allows for immediate oversight by the successor trustee, avoiding court intervention or delays that could disrupt care.

Selecting the Right Trustee: The Case for a Professional

Perhaps the most critical decision when establishing a long-term care trust is choosing the right trustee. While some individuals select a family member, this can create conflicts of interest, emotional strain, and potential mismanagement. Instead, using a professional trustee—either an institutional trustee (such as a bank trust department) or an independent professional trustee—offers significant advantages:

Objectivity – A professional trustee is neutral and bound by fiduciary duties, making decisions based on the trust’s terms rather than personal interests.
Expertise – Managing long-term care expenses requires financial, legal, and insurance knowledge that a professional trustee brings to the table.
Accountability – Unlike family members, professional trustees are legally required to keep records, report transactions, and manage funds prudently.
Reliability – Professionals are available long-term and will not face personal circumstances (such as illness or financial hardship) that might interfere with management duties.

A long-term care trust is a powerful tool for ensuring that assets are managed effectively, claims are handled properly, and financial abuse is prevented. By structuring the trust with springing provisions and selecting a professional trustee, individuals can safeguard their care needs and provide peace of mind for themselves and their families.

In a world where financial abuse and care mismanagement are real threats, a well-crafted long-term care trust offers a practical, protective, and proactive solution. Whether planning for yourself or helping a loved one, considering this option is a smart financial move that can make all the difference when it matters most.

When Our Care Plans Went Off-The-Rails

February 21, 2025 / David Russell

When my parents approached or passed 80 years, they lived more than 500 miles from my siblings and me. As they and their friends aged, the writing became clearly written on the wall of their minds. They needed to be closer to family. As they considered their options, the one that seemed to make the most sense was a highly rated CCRC facility only 15 minutes from us that would allow them to live independently in a detached home, with access to Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing all within the same campus.

The Move Into a CCRC Facility

They paid a significant entry fee of approximately $290,000 in 2009 as well as a monthly fee of around $3,000 that guaranteed them continual care for the remainder of their lives. In addition, future costs were predictable. The fixed monthly fee would only increase slightly each year, but that was much less than the monthly rate they would pay if either of them entered any of the care units only when they needed it. Prepaying while they were independent also gave them priority status over those who lived outside the CCRC campus on room availability.

About four years later, dad’s dementia got worse, and he moved to the memory care unit just down the street from their house. Not long after that, he was moved to the skilled nursing facility where he died within a year. Mom continued to live in independent housing for the next 10 years and maintained an active social life.

The Impact of COVID on Facility Staffing

In 2020-2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic, nursing homes around the country were limiting or curtailing visitation of family members. At the same time, nursing homes and other care facilities around the country were experiencing severe shortages of workers, either lost by attrition during the pandemic, or those who were working dropped out of the workforce and either did not return or found work elsewhere. Little did we know how this would impact mom‘s care later.

Mom's Move to Skilled Nursing Care

In late 2023, at age 94, mom suffered a bad fall resulting in stroke–like cognitive impairment that required her to move into the skilled nursing facility of the CCRC. She was also a fall risk, so leaving her unattended for even the shortest period risks her getting out of the bed or her chair (which she has done on more than one occasion), thus far avoiding a severe injury. We were informed by the staff that they did not have enough workers to monitor mom close enough to prevent a fall, so we were encouraged to hire private, 24/7 sitters for mom, because even at night when she is sleeping, she will try getting out of bed on her own.

Our Financial Plans Went Off the Rails

Financially, we are blessed. Mom and Dad had enough resources to enter a facility that is not feasible for many. However, the long term plan did not consider that in addition to the CCRC’s cost, we would also need to add private sitter costs on top of the CCRC cost. We believed – rightly or wrongly – that the CCRC would be all they would ever need from the time of their move until they both died. Now, fifteen years after their initial move to the CCRC, they have paid over $1 million to the CCRC and are currently paying nearly $20,000 per month because of the additional care we are having to hire privately.

As the financial planner for my parents when all of this began, I am lamenting my unpreparedness for this contingency – not because it means less of an inheritance for my siblings and I (we’ve all been given more than we deserve) but because financial planning is largely about adding certainly to uncertain outcomes, and I believed that the CCRC option provided more certainty. We may have still chosen the CCRC for many other reasons, but it was a mistake to think that costs would be predictable. After forty years practicing financial planning, if there is one lesson on repeat in my own life, it is that nothing is certain, and financial plans are best made using a pencil with a very fat eraser.

Moral of the Story

The moral to this story is that long term care is expensive. It is unpredictable, uncertain, and will look different than what you plan for. If receiving care is in your future – meaning you don’t die on the way towards some level of dependency – over-insure for it, over-estimate the cost of it, plan for receiving it longer than you think, and if you do have the resources to self-insure for it, discuss your plans with your heirs or adult children before you need care. Otherwise, that bumper sticker you used to see on the back of an RV traveling down the highway, might best be saved for the door of your room at the care facility.