Though Brooke Astor died in 2007, the battle over her estate has only recently been settled in a New York State probate court. Ms. Astor was a philanthropist and a descendent of America’s first multi-millionaire, John Jacob Astor. The settlement leaves her only son, Anthony D. Marshall, with an inheritance that has been slashed in half and without any control over her estate’s charitable contributions.

Ms. Astor left behind an estate worth about $100 million. Mr. Marshall will receive an inheritance of $14.5 million, which is only half of his original inheritance of $31 million. The rest of the funds will go towards establishing the Brooke Astor Fund for New York City Education, as well as to other charities such as city playgrounds, Prospect Park, and Central Park.

Shortly before her death, it was revealed that Mr. Marshall had engaged in elder abuse by stealing from his mother as he served as her guardian. Currently 87, Mr. Marshall was convicted three years ago of stealing from Ms. Astor, though he is appealing that conviction. Mr. Marshall, along with attorney Francis X. Morrissey Jr., were sentenced to one to three years in prison for defrauding and stealing from Ms. Astor as she was suffering from dementia in her final years. However, the settlement reached in the probate court will be binding regardless of the outcome of that criminal appeal.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

A recent story on National Public Radio reveals the potential broadening effects that the challenge to the Affordable Care Act may have. Though much of the attention on the recent Supreme Court arguments focused on whether the so-called “individual mandate” is constitutional, the court has also heard arguments on whether the federal government’s expanded Medicaid coverage requirements are coercive or not.

Under the law, Medicaid coverage will broaden to include many more Americans beginning in 2014. Because Medicaid is a voluntary program, states are not required to participate. However, any state that does choose to participate and receive federal funding must adopt these requirements or lose the additional funds.

The states challenging the healthcare law say that this practice is coercive. If the court agrees with this argument, it may jeopardize other federal programs that operate with similar requirements. Federal child welfare programs, educational programs, and other voluntary programs may suffer if the court agrees with the coercion argument. Though no lower court had previously accepted that the program is coercive, the Supreme Court was also not expected to hear arguments on the coercion issue. It’s got many legal experts taken by surprise, but they will all have to wait for the court’s final decision, which is expected to come sometime in June or July.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

For many people, the thought that you might one day have to rely on your children to take care of you is a frightening one. The idea that you might become a burden to your family, by asking them for money, for example, is almost too much for pride to bear. But if fear of becoming a burden is important to you, there are steps you can take now to ensure your retirement plans will allow you to care for your own needs.

Portfolio Management

For a lengthy retirement, you may want to divide your portfolio to target two different expenses: necessities and luxuries. The “necessity” portion of your portfolio should be composed primarily of tax-advantages and low-risk investments, while your “luxuries” portion should be slightly more aggressively structured.

Loan Source

If you need a loan, you should consider sources other than family members first. The emotional concerns and pressure a loan puts on a relationship should give you pause when seeking money from them. If you can, consider taking the money from savings, your portfolio or even a mortgage on a paid-for home.

Retirement-Light

Apart from the financial benefits of working past retirement, there are numerous social, psychological and personal health benefits you can get by going back into the workforce. Even if it’s only a part-time job, you can often give yourself a little wiggle-room and not have to rely on family for money.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

Last July, singer Amy Winehouse died of alcohol poisoning at the age of 27. At the time, early reports stated that she had left behind a last Will and testament and had either left everything to her former husband or had updated the Will and not left him anything.

However, newly released probate records show that Ms. Winehouse did not leave behind a Will and had died intestate. The documents show that she had a probate estate worth about $6.7 million, though that total was reduced to about $4.6 million after debts and estate taxes were taken into consideration.

While Ms. Winehouse died in England, the laws of the United Kingdom are very similar to those in the United States when it comes to intestate estates. Because Ms. Winehouse left behind no children and died unmarried, her entire estate will pass to her parents.

However, the probate assets may not represent her entire estate. Just like in the United States, the United Kingdom’s probate process only applies to those assets she left behind that were owned by her individually. If she left behind joint assets, assets that allowed her to name a beneficiary, or had a trust, those assets would pass outside of probate and would not be included in the court documents nor in the calculation of her estimated net worth.

Also like in the United States, her ex-husband is not entitled to receive any of her property because she died intestate. If she had left behind a Will and named her ex as a beneficiary, or if they had remained married, he would be entitled to receive at least part of her estate.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

Tip 1: If your property changes, so should your plan.

When you first create your estate plan, you do so with the knowledge that your property may change over the years. You may, for example, leave your children an equal portion of your estate. However, any significant increase or decrease in property, or the acquisition of real estate property in different states, should prompt you to make changes to your plan. Also, if your estate was not large enough to be subject to estate taxes but has since grown, you’ll probably need to make significant changes to address the estate tax concerns.

Tip 2: If your family changes, so should your plan.

The birth of a child or grandchild, a divorce, remarriage or any significant change in family circumstances should also prompt you to change your estate plan. This is especially important if you become a parent or guardian of a minor child and your previous estate plan made no provision for appointing a replacement guardian.

Tip 3: If time passes, you need to review your plan.

Even if you don’t experience significant life changes, it’s important to regularly review your estate plan. A good rule of thumb is to review it on at least a yearly basis, though sometimes every other year may be appropriate. This is important because even though your life and desires may remain the same, the laws that affect estate planning are constantly changing and you may need to adjust your plan to take these new changes into consideration.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

As the Supreme Court considers oral arguments on the case challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 healthcare reform law, potential Medicaid patients are also eagerly awaiting the court’s decision.

Under the terms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or just the Affordable Care Act, about 16 million previously ineligible Americans will be able to receive Medicaid coverage beginning on January 1, 2014. The law changes who is eligible for coverage and bases eligibility on income levels. Previously, only low income families with children, people with disabilities, and the elderly typically receive Medicaid.

The new income requirements state that anyone who earns 133 percent or less of the federal poverty level is eligible for Medicaid. In 2014, this means that an individual who earns about $14,850, or a family of four who earns about $30,630 per year can receive Medicaid.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its determination on the case in June or July of this year. In the meantime, five states and the District of Columbia have already adopted the expanded eligibility criteria, and Illinois is also set to implement these changes as well. Though the court is expected to rule primarily on the constitutional basis of the law’s individual health insurance mandate requirements, its ruling may also impact eligibility requirements for Medicaid patients.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

Rosa Parks, the beloved civil rights icon whose act of civil disobedience served as cornerstone symbol of the civil rights movement, left behind a valuable estate after her death in 2005. Since then, members of her family and a non-profit organization she founded have been fighting over who owns some of her property in a Michigan probate court. Now it appears as if the lengthy probate contest is coming to a final resolution.

In December of 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a ruling on the probate dispute. The dispute centered around who have the right to some of Ms. Parks’ personal memorabilia and intellectual property, all of which was estimated to be worth between about $8 million and $10 million. Fifteen of Ms. Parks’s nieces and nephews claimed the right to the property as Ms. Parks’ heirs, while representatives of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development also claimed ownership rights.

A previous Michigan appeals court ruling had declared that the nieces and nephews were entitled to the property. The Supreme Court decision in December of 2011 overturned this ruling and declared that the nonprofit Institute was the rightful legal owner. Last week, a probate court judge in the Detroit area stated that he would issue an order formalizing Supreme Court’s ruling and ordering the memorabilia turned over to the Institute. The order will also specify that if the Institute ever sells the memorabilia, 20% of the proceeds will go to the nieces and nephews.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

Researchers have recently revealed the results of a study that showed that Medicaid patients are much more likely to visit a hospital emergency room instead of visiting their private physician. The study, published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, showed that Medicaid patients visited the hospital ER about 40 percent of the time within the prior year, while those with private insurance only did so about 18 percent of the time.

The survey looked at about 230,000 adults between 1999 and 2009. Survey participants answered questions about their health care and their lives. Those who said they had significant barriers to receiving primary care were much more likely to visit emergency rooms and be on Medicaid. Common barriers included not having transportation to visit the doctor’s office, being unable to leave work or get to the doctor’s office during business hours, or not being able to communicate with the doctor over the telephone.

If a person had more than one barrier to getting to the doctor, this substantially increased the likelihood that the person would visit the emergency room. Medicaid patients with two or more barriers visited emergency rooms about 61 percent of the time within the prior year, while privately insured patients did so about 29 percent of the time. Further, Medicaid patients tend to be in poorer health than those with private insurance, a factor that also led to the increased likelihood of an emergency room visit for Medicaid patients.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

The Federal Trade Commission reports that the number of consumer complaints it received in 2011 rose by 25 percent from 2010. Many of these complaints involved scams or fraudulent investment opportunities aimed at the aging baby boomer population. Let’s take a look at some of the most commonly used tactics that con artists use so you can know when to avoid fraudulent offers.

Tactic 1: E-mail solicitations from strangers.

Because it’s so easy to send e-mail and doesn’t cost a con artist money, many of them rely upon e-mail solicitations as their only way to find victims. If you get an offer from a stranger, simply delete it. This holds true if you don’t know who sent the offer or if you are unsure about who sent it.

Tactic 2: Free giveaways.

Many fraudulent or misleading offers come with the offer of a free dinner, vacation rental, or similar giveaway. Once you accept the free giveaway, you are then usually subjected to high pressure sales tactics that are designed to cloud your ability to properly judge the offer. Just avoid the situations altogether by not accepting a free gift.

Tactics 3: Pressure to act now.

Con artists don’t want you to think. They want you to act impulsively, which is why they often tell you there is a limited amount of time associated with the offer. If you’re ever pressured to sign something immediately or give money before you have time to investigate, this is almost a sure sign of a scam.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.

For many who begin the estate planning process, the macabre notion of planning for what happens after you die soon gives way to a joy knowing that you can care for your family even after you are no longer alive. For many celebrities, however, estate planning is a method through which they can continue to express their unhappiness with their children by disinheriting them from an inheritance. There are any number of examples of famous people who have disinherited their children or, at the very least, left behind only a token inheritance.

• Marlon Brando. As one of the most renowned actors of his time, Mr. Brando left behind the film legacy that stretched over decades. After his death in 2004, however, he also left behind numerous children, yet did not leave an inheritance to all of them. Though his estate was estimated to be worth about $30 million, Mr. Brando did not leave an inheritance to one of his daughters, as well as a grandchild from a daughter who had previously died.

• Joan Crawford. The well-known actress had adopted four children, though after she died she left only two of them an inheritance and the other two she left nothing. The inheritance she left to her two children however, was only $77,500 each. She offered very little explanation for why she did this, though she did state in her will that she made her gifts “for reasons which should be well known to them.”

• Michael Jackson. Leaving behind an estate estimated to be worth about $500 million, Michael Jackson created the trust for the benefit of his children and his mother, though all other family members were excluded from his estate. This includes his father Joe Jackson, as well as all of his brothers and sisters.

John R. Vermillion & Associates, LLC is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.