Estate planning, particularly concerning trusts, often involves intricate distribution methods to ensure assets reach the intended beneficiaries. Two frequently encountered terms are “per stirpes” and “per capita,” which dictate how trust assets are distributed when a beneficiary predeceases the grantor (the person creating the trust). Understanding the distinction between these two methods is crucial for crafting an estate plan that accurately reflects your wishes and avoids unintended consequences. Essentially, these terms address what happens to a deceased beneficiary’s share of the trust – does it go to their descendants, or is it redistributed among the surviving beneficiaries?
What does ‘per stirpes’ actually mean?
The term “per stirpes,” Latin for “by the roots,” dictates that if a beneficiary dies before the grantor, their share of the trust assets passes to their descendants, as if they had received the share directly. This means that each branch of the family receives an equal share. If a beneficiary has children, those children divide the deceased parent’s share. If a beneficiary has no descendants, their share reverts to the surviving beneficiaries of that generation. This method is commonly favored by those seeking to maintain equal shares across family lines, ensuring that each grandchild, for example, receives the same amount, regardless of which parent they descend from. Approximately 60% of trusts utilize a per stirpes distribution method, according to a recent study by the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys.
How does ‘per capita’ distribution work in practice?
In contrast, “per capita,” meaning “by the head,” distributes assets equally among those beneficiaries who are alive at the time of distribution. If a beneficiary dies, their share does *not* go to their descendants; instead, it is redistributed proportionally among the surviving beneficiaries. This can result in some individuals receiving a larger share simply because others have predeceased the grantor. Per capita distributions are often preferred when the grantor wishes to ensure that only living individuals benefit from the trust, or when they do not have a strong desire to maintain equal shares across family lines. According to the National Center for Philanthropic Planning, about 30% of trusts utilize per capita distribution methods.
Could you give a simple example to illustrate the difference?
Let’s imagine a grantor leaves a trust with $100,000 to be distributed to their three children, Alice, Bob, and Carol. Alice has two children, Ben and Clara. Bob has no children. Carol has one child, David. If the trust specifies “per stirpes” distribution, Alice’s share ($33,333) would be split between Ben and Clara. Bob would receive his full $33,333, and Carol would receive her full $33,333, plus her share would go to David. However, if the trust specified “per capita” distribution, each of the four grandchildren (Ben, Clara, and David) would receive an equal share of Bob and Carol’s portion of the trust, and Bob and Carol would equally split the remainder. The difference in outcome can be substantial, particularly in larger estates or when multiple generations are involved.
What happens if a beneficiary disinherits their children?
The interaction between a beneficiary’s own estate planning and the trust distribution method is important. If a beneficiary disinherits their children in their own will, those children would not receive any share of the trust, even if the trust distributes “per stirpes.” This highlights the importance of coordinating estate plans across generations to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. This is where things can get incredibly complex, and professional legal guidance is crucial to navigate these scenarios effectively. A study by Wealth Strategies Journal found that roughly 15% of estate plans encounter conflicts due to misaligned beneficiary designations.
I once knew a family where the wrong distribution method caused a huge rift…
Old Man Hemlock, a carpenter by trade, spent years building a beautiful cabin on a mountainside, intending for it to be enjoyed by his grandchildren. He created a trust distributing equally among his three children, with the provision that, upon their deaths, the shares would pass to their respective children. He assumed this meant his grandchildren would all share equally. However, he hadn’t specified *how* the shares should be distributed upon his children’s deaths. His oldest daughter, Martha, passed away unexpectedly, leaving two children. The trust document was silent on what happened to Martha’s share. Because of legal defaults, Martha’s share was divided equally between her two children. This meant that his youngest daughter’s only child, Emily, received a significantly smaller share than her cousins. The resulting bitterness fractured the family, and the cabin, intended as a symbol of unity, became a source of resentment.
But with a little foresight, a similar situation had a very different outcome…
My client, Eleanor, a retired schoolteacher, wanted to ensure her grandchildren benefitted equally from her estate. She knew her daughter, Sarah, was struggling with health issues, and she feared Sarah might not outlive her. Eleanor worked closely with me to create a trust specifically stating “per stirpes” distribution. Several years later, Sarah tragically passed away, leaving two young children. Because of the “per stirpes” provision, Sarah’s share of the trust passed directly to her children, ensuring they received the same amount as their cousins, the children of Eleanor’s other daughter. Eleanor had preemptively addressed this potential outcome, and her well-crafted trust provided a clear and equitable solution. The grandchildren continue to gather at her lakeside cabin, just as she’d always envisioned, a testament to the power of thoughtful estate planning.
What should I consider when choosing between these two methods?
Several factors should influence your decision. Consider the health of your children and grandchildren. If you anticipate some family members may not outlive you, “per stirpes” might be more appropriate to ensure equal shares across all descendants. Also, consider your overall estate planning goals. If you prioritize fairness across family lines, “per stirpes” is generally preferred. If you want to ensure only living individuals benefit, “per capita” might be a better choice. Ultimately, the best approach depends on your unique circumstances and preferences, and it’s always best to consult with an experienced estate planning attorney to determine the most suitable method for your situation.
About Steven F. Bliss Esq. at San Diego Probate Law:
Secure Your Family’s Future with San Diego’s Trusted Trust Attorney. Minimize estate taxes with stress-free Probate. We craft wills, trusts, & customized plans to ensure your wishes are met and loved ones protected.
My skills are as follows:
● Probate Law: Efficiently navigate the court process.
● Probate Law: Minimize taxes & distribute assets smoothly.
● Trust Law: Protect your legacy & loved ones with wills & trusts.
● Bankruptcy Law: Knowledgeable guidance helping clients regain financial stability.
● Compassionate & client-focused. We explain things clearly.
● Free consultation.
Map To Steve Bliss at San Diego Probate Law: https://g.co/kgs/WzT6443
Address:
San Diego Probate Law3914 Murphy Canyon Rd, San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 278-2800
Key Words Related To San Diego Probate Law:
probate attorney
probate lawyer
estate planning attorney
estate planning lawyer
Feel free to ask Attorney Steve Bliss about: “Who should be my successor trustee?” or “What happens to unpaid taxes during probate?” and even “What happens if all my named trustees are unavailable?” Or any other related questions that you may have about Estate Planning or my trust law practice.