Economics

The Perils of Probate

Published

10 years ago

February 22, 2016

By Tanya Dennis

Money matters. Home, possessions, bank savings and investments dictate the quality of life, and many people live with an intent to leave a legacy to loved ones.

Unfortunately, poor planning can decimate an estate. Some individuals leave a will, believing that their children or spouse will be taken care of.

Instead, children or the spouse face many months or years in probate court, watching estate assets dwindle away to pay attorney fees and court appointed examiners.

Too many families walk away with nothing after going through probate.

The reason may be poor planning. Another reason is that for decades, if not centuries, lawmakers in California have favored court and banking interests.

A will is not sufficient.

To avoid poor planning the next step after a will is to execute a revocable living trust. A will without a trust attached will be “probated” by the state to assure that the will is legal.

This leads to thousands of dollars in probate cost. For example, the average cost of probating a will for a $500,000 estate is approximately $23,000 in attorney and court fees, money that should go to the trustee’s beneficiaries.

The beauty of a revocable living trust is its flexibility and the protection it provides to the person who is the trustee of the trust and the person’s beneficiaries.

When a revocable living trust is executed, all transference of wealth to the trust occurs to the person now designated as the trustee. Although assets have been relinquished to the trust, the trustee as beneficial owner can sell, manage or give away assets and have the option at any point to change terms of the trust, change beneficiaries or even revoke the trust.

Once the trustee die, the revocable living trust becomes irrevocable, meaning what has been written is now etched in stone and cannot be changed.

Unfortunately, having a will and revocable living trust does not protect the trustee’s estate one hundred percent from probate court. Heirs will lose protection from probate court if the will or trust is contested, meaning that a family member fails to honor the wishes of the deceased and challenges the validity of the will or trust.

The majority of the time the will and trust are upheld in court, but meanwhile thousands of dollars or more are lost to the court. To avoid this from happening, it is imperative that family members sit down together and final wishes clarified.

This is the time to settle any dispute.

It is also helpful that family members have a copy of the will and trust, so that each item in the will and trust is discussed.

To discourage family members determined to contest the trust, insert a clause that anyone contesting the will and trust will receive one dollar for their efforts and lose any other benefits previously written in the will and trust.

An ounce of prevention can head off problems. When executing a will and revocable living trust, it is imperative that wishes of the deceased are honored and loved ones effectively avoid probate court.

A will and revocable living trust protects loved ones when they are most vulnerable.

Next week: Probate Court Drains Assets

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Business

California Launches Study on Mileage Tax to Potentially Replace Gas Tax as Republicans Push Back

Under current law, California depends heavily on revenue from the gas tax to fund roads, highways, and infrastructure, but those revenues are projected to shrink as electric vehicle use grows and overall gasoline consumption drops. The mileage study would look at a “road charge” system where drivers pay based on how many miles they drive, rather than how much gas they buy.

Published

9 hours ago

February 10, 2026

Oakland Post

Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City is the author of AB 1421. File photo.

By Tanu Henry, California Black Media

California lawmakers are moving forward with a study to explore a mileage-based tax as a potential replacement for the state’s traditional gas tax — a shift supporters say is driven by declining fuel tax revenues as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

The research, tied to Assembly Bill (AB) 1421, would extend and support work by the state’s Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee through 2035.

The bill does not yet enact a new tax. Instead, it extends the study and advisory work until 2035 and would have the Legislature receive findings and recommendations, with a report due by Jan. 1, 2027.

Republicans in the California Legislature have been vocal in their opposition. Assembly Republican Leader Heath Flora criticized the proposal.

“We already pay the highest gas taxes in the nation. Now Sacramento is talking about adding a new tax for every mile people drive,” Flora said. “Piling on another tax right now shows just how out of touch politicians in Sacramento are with the reality working families face.”

The plan has drawn broader GOP criticism from leaders outside the Legislature as well. California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton called a mileage fee “absolutely outrageous” and said, if elected, he would veto the tax, adding that tracking and charging drivers for every mile is unacceptable.

Supporters say the study is a pragmatic response to long-term funding challenges.

On the Assembly Floor on Jan. 29, Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D–Suisun City), the bill’s author, said that California’s transportation funding is “becoming less stable, less equitable, and less sustainable as more drivers switch to fuel-efficient and zero-emission vehicles.”

“Drivers using the same roads often pay different amounts for that use,” Wilson continued. “Low income and rural commuters who must drive farther and less efficient vehicles can pay more while others contribute less despite roadway impacts.”

Wilson and other supporters contend that a per-mile road charge could ensure that all drivers contribute fairly to the costs of maintaining roads, regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.