Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/25/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB60 | |
| HB408 | |
| HB251 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 251 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 408 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 60 - UNIFORM PROBATE CODE; TRUSTS, WILLS
1:23:40 PM
[Contains brief mention that the committee had already heard and
passed out HB 144, the companion bill to CSSB 60(L&C).]
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 60(L&C), "An Act relating to the Uniform
Probate Code, including wills, trusts, nonprobate transfers,
augmented estates, personal representatives, and trustees; and
amending Rules 3 and 8, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1,
Alaska Rules of Probate Procedure, and Rule 37.5, Alaska Rules
of Administration."
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the companion bill to CSSB 60(L&C),
HB 144, had already passed from committee.
1:24:25 PM
ESTHER CHA, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 60 on behalf of Senator McGuire,
sponsor. She concurred that SB 60 is identical to HB 144. She
explained that SB 60 would amend the Uniform Probate Code, with
the aim of improving the ease of administration of wills,
estates, and trusts for Alaska residents. She relayed that the
Uniform Probate Code is a set of laws that govern the affairs of
decedents and their estates. She said Alaska is one of 15
states to have adopted the code in its entirety; the remaining
34 states have adopted only parts of the code.
MS. CHA said the climate for trusts and estate planning is
highly competitive, and the trust business is a multi-billion
dollar sector, which often crosses state lines in order to take
advantage of more attractive state trust laws. She stated that
most of the amendments made through SB 60 either clarify
language or eliminate unnecessary verbiage. Further changes
would: create a procedure for the establishment of will and
trust validity before death; add provisions that would allow a
settlor of a trust to designate a representative who could
represent or bind an incapacitated person in future proceedings
relating to trust administration; clarify property transfers
involving a deceased spouse; and address the venue proceeding if
the decedent lived outside of Alaska but held significant assets
within the state.
MS. CHA said SB 60 is part of an ongoing effort to modernize
Alaska's trust laws, thereby creating more jobs and revenue,
while diversifying the state's economy. She said Alaska has
directly received millions of dollars through insurance premium
taxes, and many jobs have been created in the trust, banking,
insurance, and legal professions as a result of the state's
competitive and contemporary trust laws.
1:27:11 PM
MS. CHA, in response to Representative Gatto, explained again
that the basis of the bill is to establish a pre-mortem validity
of a will. Further, the bill addresses those residents of
Alaska who have moved out of the state or a non-resident of the
state who has established a trust in Alaska; it would provide a
venue of proceeding.
1:29:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recounted an incident wherein a mother
died, and the inheritance was not divided equally between the
surviving children. Those who received more argued that the
mother's wishes were carried out, while the ones who received
less claimed the mother had not known what she was doing. The
result was that no one received money, except the lawyers. He
said he thinks the case would have been resolved differently had
the siblings been able to litigate prior to the mother's death,
so that she could have seen their point and responded. He asked
if SB 60 would provide for that to happen.
MS.CHA said she believes so.
1:30:56 PM
RICHARD W. HOMPESCH II, Attorney at Law, Hompesch & Evans PC,
relayed that the proposed legislation clarifies who a trustee
should notify in situations where the beneficiary is a minor or
incapacitated. In Section 1, the bill would provide that the
person setting up the trust can designate who should be served
or notified with respect to a minor, child, or incapacitated
person beneficiary. He explained the reason that is important
is that without such a designation, typically the trustee would
have to request that the court appoint a guardian ad litem for
the minor, child, or incapacitated beneficiary, which would
generally cost a lot more money than had the designation been
done in the trust instrument.
MR. HOMPESCH concurred with everything Ms. Cha said regarding
the lifetime probate provision that is in Section 8. He said
the disadvantage that the proponent of the challenged will has
is that the essential main witness, unfortunately, is always
dead. Section 8 would allow the court to ask questions of that
main witness - the person who wrote the will or trust - before
he or she dies. He offered his understanding that this would be
the first time this has ever been done, and he predicted it
would minimize litigation.
1:35:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related that he and his wife have set up a
will through which each child will receive equal assets, but
none will receive any assets before the youngest child has
graduated from college, if he/she desires to attend. He asked
Mr. Hompesch if that is legal.
1:35:47 PM
MR. HOMPESCH replied that it is legal to hold assets in a trust
until a child reaches a certain age.
1:36:21 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS said he's heard concern expressed regarding how
such laws are benefiting the state, where employment rates have
risen, which banks are becoming the depositories for these
funds, when this all began, and what the future potential is.
MR. HOMPESCH proffered that the Revised Limited Liability
Company and Limited Partnership Act of 1997 made limited
liability and partnership laws the most attractive in the U.S.
Prior to that Act, no one ever came to Alaska to form a limited
liability company or limited partnership, or if they did the
business was so inconsequential no one kept track of it. After
the bill was passed, in conjunction with other trust
legislation, Mr. Hompesch said he heard there were so many
attorneys from out of state that wanted to form Alaska limited
liability companies that an online filing process was started.
The state received a $250 filing fee for each limited liability
company. There was substantial work for the Division of
Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, and there
were substantial fees to the state. He said there is a biennial
tax of $100 that is paid every two years by each limited
liability company. He said that is one example, and he
suggested the committee could get more accurate information from
the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED).
MR. HOMPESCH offered another example, which was a bill of
several years ago, which changed the excise tax that is charged
on life insurance premiums. He explained that the State of
Alaska charges an excise tax on every life insurance premium
that is paid. However, before the aforementioned bill, the
state was charging approximately 2 percent on premiums in excess
of $100,000, and there were so few of those the state was never
getting any money from those large premiums. The bill reduced
the excise tax down to one quarter of a percent of any premium
over $100,000. As a result, many individuals in the Lower 48
who would have bought their life insurance elsewhere, started
buying premiums from Alaska, and the state started receiving
hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra premium tax as a
result of that change. Mr. Hompesch said a third example is
that he is contacted each week by lawyers in the Lower 48 who
have clients interested in creating trusts under Alaska law to
be administered by trust companies in Alaska, and that is
something that did not happen prior to 1997.
1:41:52 PM
JONATHAN G. BLATTMACHR, Attorney at Law, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley
& McCloy LLP, concurred with the comments of Mr. Hompesch. He
said there has been an addition of 15-20 management level jobs
in Alaska as a result of the legislation that began in 1997. He
said those are relatively high-paying jobs that have "made
Alaska look better." He said this is just another example of
where Alaska is at the forefront of one part of the financial
services industry. He said Delaware has got the corner on
forming corporations, but now Alaska is doing well in relation
to limited liability companies. Mr. Blattmachr said with the
right backing of the legislature, he thinks this could be an
enormous industry for the State of Alaska. He listed states
that vie with Alaska, including Delaware, South Dakota, and
Utah, and said "our group" gets together each year to try to
come up with the most creative ideas to obtain additional
business for the state.
MR. BLATTMACHR related that his brother is president of the
Alaska Trust Company, and he knows that that company has tens of
millions of dollars on deposit in various banks, which are
available to loan to Alaska businesses to help them grow. He
said there are about a dozen other states that are constantly
imitating Alaska's law, which is a compliment. He encouraged
the committee to support the proposed legislation.
1:45:39 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the trust community's goal is in coming
back to the legislature year after year to update Alaska's
statutes.
MR. BLATTMACHR replied that the other states are trying to make
their laws better than Alaska's laws, and every once in awhile
another state comes up with an idea that will be more attractive
to individuals who may want to create a trust or buy insurance
policies in a tax efficient manner. He said, "So, we keep on
those, and we come back and ask that we be able to be as good as
any other state in some areas. And we also come back to ask
that we be better than any other state in other areas." He said
the group puts in hundreds of hours each year to figure out how
to make Alaska the best state in the country to do trust
business. He noted that the aforementioned legislation Alaska
passed in 1997 was just adopted about a year ago by Nevada -
over a decade later.
MR. BLATTMACHR indicated that the trust community, which
considers these matters, spends time each year debating,
drafting, speaking with legal scholars, and considering the
impact of ideas on the state. He said the group thinks SB 60
will significantly reduce the burden on the court, because it
will "stamp out any likely will contest that would arise." He
indicated that people have a pretty good idea when there will be
a contested will, and the proposed legislation would head that
off and allow an arrangement to be made and the will admitted to
probate. He said he anticipates that the trust business will
continue to grow throughout the U.S., and he wants Alaska to be
a major part of that business.
1:48:47 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on CSSB 60(L&C).
1:48:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to report CSSB 60(L&C) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 60(L&C) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB408 Proposed CS version K 3.24.10.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 408 |
| 01 SB60 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 02 SB60 Bill L&C CS v. S.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 03 SB60 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 04 SB60-2-1-021010-LAW-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
SB 60 |
| 01 HB251 Proposed CS version E.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 02 HB251 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 03 HB251-1-1-031110-CED-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 04 HB251-2-1-031110-DOT-N.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 05 HB251 version R.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |
| 06 HB251 Support documents.pdf |
HJUD 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 251 |