Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/06/2010 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB354 | |
| HB253 | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 253 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 354 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 287-UNIFORM ACT: PROPERTY INTEREST DISCLAIMER
1:58:03 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN announced HB 287 to be up for consideration.[CSHB
287(JUD) was before the committee.]
1:57:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, sponsor of HB 287, introduced
Gretchen Staft, his chief of staff who is a member of the Alaska
Bar. He said this updates the existing Uniform Probate law
specifically, AS 13.12.801 that deals with "disclaimers." A
disclaimer is a device in probate law where if a person is given
a bequest, is a devisee under a will or is a beneficiary of a
trust, he can say he doesn't want to take a particular asset.
It can be done for a number of reasons: because for example the
person isn't able to manage it if it's a business or a house
that requires active management or for tax purposes. For
example, if he leaves money to his son and he is elderly or in
bad health and doesn't want to be taxed on that particular
bequest he can disclaim it and it goes directly to his heir, the
grandson. That saves a substantial amount of federal taxes.
He explained that originally this issue was covered in a single
section and since then the world of probate law has gotten more
complex and tax law has changed. As a result the commissioners
on uniform state laws have enacted the Uniform Disclaimer of
Property Interest Act, which repeals the original section and
updates it in a separate act. This just updates the existing
law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said they made very few changes, but
one they did make was to the question of whether any creditor
claims would survive. An amendment says you cannot escape child
support obligations by disclaiming, because some people would
rather see their money go away than see their ex-spouse get it
and take care of the kids and that is not good public policy.
2:02:14 PM
SENATOR MEYER noted that this started in 1999 and 16 states have
adopted it since then. Why haven't more states jumped on board?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that he thinks that the
Commission on Uniform State Laws has a lot of bills on a variety
of subjects; some of them are very timely and important like the
Uniform Electronic Signatures Act that has to keep pace with
commerce. Others are less publicized, and only one or two
probate laws get passed a year. Probate laws aren't very sexy
and many lawyers don't deal with them. One of the bills they
brought last year was the UCC update, which they did. Sometimes
it has to politically find someone who wants to push it. That
doesn't mean it's controversial.
The only controversy he is aware of is a series of law review
articles between the reporter who drafted this and one other
practitioner from different parts of the country who have some
basic philosophical differences.
2:05:00 PM
TERRY THURBON, Chief Administrative Law Judge and Uniform Law
Commissioner, State of Alaska, said she wasn't aware of anything
in the Act that should be a problem for Alaska, and since 23 or
24 other states have enacted this already, that provides the
needed momentum.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this bill was introduced several
years ago by Representative LeDoux, and the there was some
controversy about the child support. That was cured and
Representative LeDoux is no longer here, so it took a little
while to pick it up again.
He stated that the folks in Alaska brought this bill forward;
it's a uniform act, but the commissioners traditionally only
bring two or three bills a year to the legislature.
2:07:30 PM
DAVE SHAFTEL, estate and trust attorney, Anchorage, Alaska, he
is a member of an information group of lawyers who work in this
area and have been working with the legislature since 1997 to
suggest what they think would be good additions to Alaska law.
This bill came to his attention a couple of years ago through
Representative LeDoux and they asked for time to study it. They
worked on it and consulted with a law professor at Florida State
University who had written a number of articles about it. He was
supportive but suggested changes that were very good. Some of
them that they thought fit Alaska were incorporated into the
legislation. They came back with the bill last year, which was a
very busy year and the bill didn't get through then. They think
it's a very good bill.
2:09:21 PM
SENATOR THOMAS asked for an example of the situation on page 7,
line 13, paragraph (e) that says "in the case of an interest
created by a beneficiary designation made before the time the
designation becomes irrevocable, disclaimer shall be delivered
to the person making the beneficiary designation."
MR. SHAFTEL explained that this whole section is procedural and
describes how the knowledge of this disclaimer gets transferred
according to the rules stated in this statute or according to
directions in the instrument that created that property right
and goes on to whomever is entitle to it. Lines 13-15 talk about
an interest created beneficiary designation made before the time
the designation becomes irrevocable. For example, you might have
a life insurance policy and you might make a beneficiary
designation in that policy of your son or daughter that is not
irrevocable. That beneficiary designation can be changed at any
time. But if your daughter does not want to receive that
property and would rather it go to her children, she can
disclaim that interest. The disclaimer's notice would be
delivered back to the person making the beneficiary designation.
He said these provisions attempt to answer questions of how to
make a disclaimer effective.
SENATOR THOMAS asked if someone passes away, does that create
the situation where the designation becomes irrevocable.
MR. SHAFTEL answered yes.
CHAIR PASKVAN asked what his thoughts were about the addition of
the child support obligation.
MR. SHAFTEL said it is just fine. It's one exception that
appears in other areas of trust law.
2:14:50 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN closed public testimony.
SENATOR THOMAS moved to report CSHB 287(JUD) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
2:15:55 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN found no further business to bring before the
committee and adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|