Welcome to CPA at Law, helping individuals and small businesses plan for the future and keep what they have.

This is the personal blog of Sterling Olander, a Certified Public Accountant and Utah-licensed attorney. For over thirteen years, I have assisted clients with estate planning and administration, tax mitigation, tax controversies, small business planning, asset protection, and nonprofit law.

I write about any legal, tax, or technological information that I find interesting or useful in serving my clients. All ideas expressed herein are my own and don't constitute legal or tax advice.

Stepparent Inheritance Rights Under Utah Law

In Utah, as in every state, a surviving spouse has certain inheritance rights in the assets of their deceased husband or wife. Unless these rights are expressly waived, they exist even if the decedent attempted or intended to leave their entire estate to their children or other heirs. Since the issue of spousal inheritance rights often arises when the surviving children are not also the children of the surviving spouse, this discussion will assume that the relationship of the surviving spouse and decedent's children is that of stepparent and stepchildren.

Any part of a decedent's estate not effectively disposed of by will, trust, right of survivorship, beneficiary designation, etc. is considered part of their "intestate estate" and passes by the law of intestate succession. While the term "intestate estate” is not expressly defined in the Utah Uniform Probate Code, the simple fact that Part 1 of Title 75 of the Code determines who receives a decedent's assets can only mean that "intestate estate" refers to a decedent's assets that remain after all will, trust, and nonprobate transfers are effectuated.

"The intestate share of a decedent's surviving spouse is... the first $75,000, plus 1/2 of any balance of the intestate estate, if one or more of the decedent's surviving descendants are not descendants of the surviving spouse." Utah Code 75-2-102(1)(b). This seems simple enough, but it is relatively uncommon for all or even most of a decedent's assets to actually become part of their intestate estate. In all likelihood, most if not all, of a decedent's assets will be governed by a last will or will pass pursuant to the terms of a trust agreement, right of survivorship, or beneficiary designation. The two questions that often naturally arise are: What if the surviving spouse receives more than their statutory share of the intestate estate, and what if the surviving spouse is left very little?

One of the more confusing sections of the Utah Uniform Probate Code is the following: "For purposes of [75-2-102(1)(b)], if the intestate estate passes to both the decedent's surviving spouse and to other heirs, then any nonprobate transfer, as defined in Section 75-2-206, received by the surviving spouse is added to the probate estate in calculating the intestate heirs' shares and is conclusively treated as an advancement under Section 75-2-109 in determining the spouse's share." Utah Code 75-2-102(2). One of the confusing aspects of this section is that it borrows definitions and concepts from the "Elective Share of Surviving Spouse" statute, discussed below, even though the elective share is an entirely distinct concept from the intestate share of a surviving spouse. The reference to "advancements" adds to the confusion.

In plainer terms, Utah Code 75-2-102(2) is saying that if the remainder of a decedent's assets after the effectuation of rights of survivorship, beneficiary designations, etc. is greater than $75,000 (since that amount all passes to the surviving spouse anyway), and if a surviving spouse has already received assets from the decedent by virtue of being a surviving joint tenant, designated beneficiary, etc., then the surviving spouse's share of the intestate estate can be reduced, but without any requirement to refund assets already received, thereby increasing the intestate share of the decedent's other heirs such as stepchildren. The recalculation of the heirs' shares is done by adding up a theoretical "hotchpot" estate that includes "advancement" assets already received by the surviving spouse, as I explained in more detail in a prior post. Accordingly, in answer to the first question posed above, a surviving spouse can retain more more than their intestate share.

As for the second question posed above, the "elective share" is available to a surviving spouse who has not waived the right via a premarital agreement and who ends up left with very little, whether that is due to being expressly disinherited by a will or trust or due to stepchildren or other heirs being granted right of survivorship, designated as beneficiaries of accounts, etc. While the calculation and effectuation of the elective share can be complex, the key point is that a surviving spouse has the right "to take an elective-share amount equal to the value of 1/3 of the augmented estate." Utah Code 75-2-202(1). For maximum protection, a petition for an elective share must be filed within the earlier of nine months after the date of the decedent's death or six months after the probate of the decedent's will. See Utah Code 75-2-211(1). This is a very high-level introduction to stepparent inheritance rights and illustrates why competent legal counsel if critical in preserving these rights.

Estate Planning Without an Attorney

There are many software options that assist with the creation of an estate plan. Trust & Will is one such service, but there are many others. These products service an important need and are sufficient for the intended purposes but of course are not for everyone and cannot appropriatly address every situation. The following is a non-exhaustive list of situations that an app-generated estate plan is unlikely to be able to appropriately address:
  • Naming co-fiduciaries and defining how co-fiduciaries can act
  • Terms and conditions required by a professional fiduciary
  • Estate tax mitigation or any irrevocable trust planning
  • Supplemental needs trust provisions and planning for a disabled beneficiary
  • Protective, lifetime trusts for beneficiaries
  • Disinheritance of a natural heir or spouse
  • Income tax planning
  • Maintaining separateness of assets in a mixed family
  • Ensuring proper execution of the documents
  • Ensuring proper trust funding and updating of beneficiary designations
  • Updating an estate plan after a recent divorce
  • Asset protection planning
  • Medicaid planning
  • Restatements or amendments of existing trusts
  • Exercising powers of appointment
  • Closely-held business succession planning
  • Allowing a spouse or other current beneficiary limited use of trust assets in favor of a future beneficiary
  • Dealing with beneficiaries unable to manage money, addicted to drugs, etc.
  • Premarital or postnuptial agreements
If any of the preceeding situations apply, it will likely be well worth the cost of retaining a reputable estate planning attorney to assist with your estate plan.

Unauthorized Filings with Utah Division of Corporations

The Utah Division of Corporations is a good-faith filing office, which essentially means that almost anyone with a Utah-ID account who logs onto the Division's Business Registration System can file any document with any entity, including a Statement of Dissolution. Unauthorized filings can be reported but not undone, and depending on the filing type, an unauthorized filing may not be able to be reversed. For example, if a dissolution was filed more than 120 days previously, the opportunity to file a Revocation of Dissolution is lost. This could potentially have real-world tax impacts, interruptions to banking services, etc.

The Division's process for preventing unauthorized online filings is by associating an entity with an online account. By default, the online account responsible for forming new entities is the only account authorized to submit online filings with respect to that entity. Entities formed prior to the new Business Registration System rollout in late 2024 can be associated with an online account by request of the account user. The account user can request authority from either another account holder or, if no other account is associated with the entity, directly from the Division by filling out an Affidavit to Request Entity Authority, which must be notarized.

After emailing the Affidavit to Request Entity Authority to the Division, the Division will reply with an Invitation for Filing Authority that contains an authorization code. The designated user can enter that code in the Manage Entities and Authority section of their account, after which the entity will be added to the user's list of authorized businesses. Businesses formed prior to the new Business Registration System should take these steps in order to prevent unauthorized filings.

Trust Decanting Now Authorized by Statute in Utah

Pursuant to S.B. 206 (2025) - Estate Planning Amendments, Utah became the thirty-seventh state to statutorily authorize decanting a trust. Decant means “[t]o distribute (the assets of an irrevocable trust) to the trustee of a new trust with different provisions, often to correct drafting errors or to account for new circumstances.” Utah's decanting statute appears in the Utah Uniform Trust Code, Part 8 - Duties and Power of Trustee, section 75B-2-812.5.

Under this new law, unless the terms of the trust instrument expressly prohibit the trustee from doing so, "the trustee may: (i) distribute part or all of the income or principal to a trust governed by a trust instrument that is separate from the trust instrument of the first trust; or (ii) modify the terms of the trust instrument of the first trust." This assumes that the trustee "has discretion under the terms of a trust instrument to distribute income or principal to, or for the benefit of, a beneficiary of a trust..." and provides twenty days written notice to all of the trust beneficiaries. The trustee must also determine whether distribution or modification is necessary, and the beneficial interests in the trust cannot fundamentally be changed through the decanting.

Various other provisions of Utah Code 75B-2-812.5 restrict a trustee's decanting power (1) if a beneficiary can name themself as trustee or remove and replace the trustee with a related or subordinate party, (2) if the trustee is also a beneficiary, or (3) to protect the integrity of certain types of trusts or gifts to trusts. While decanting a trust was arguably within the trustee's common law power in Utah prior to Utah Code 75B-2-812.5, this statute serves as a valuable clarification and authorization of the decanting power.

Pros and Cons of Utah's Joint Tenancy Presumption Amendments

In the estate planning context, the most important implication of owning property in joint tenancy with another person is the fact that the surviving joint tenant will automatically inherit the interest of the first deceased tenant, irrespective of any last will or trust agreement of the first deceased tenant. For this reason, part of the estate planning process is a careful evaluation of how property is owned and often a change of ownership from joint tenancy to ownership by a trust.

It is very common for spouses to own their personal residence in joint tenancy unless they have completed an estate plan that includes the execution and funding of a trust. Importantly, joint tenancy ownership can be presumed even if the vesting deed for the residence does not specify joint tenancy ownership. For many years in Utah, "an ownership interest in real estate granted to two persons in their own right who are designated as spouses in the granting documents is presumed to be a joint tenancy interest with rights of survivorship..." Utah Code 57-1-5(a)(1)(i).

However, pursuant to H.B. 37 (2024), an ownership interest granted on or after May 1, 2024 to two or more persons in their own right is presumed to be joint tenancy even without the designation as spouses. This will have the benefit of avoiding the need to probate the estate of a first deceased spouse who owns their home or other real estate with the surviving spouse but without any reference to the marriage or joint tenancy on the deed.

On the other hand, this new law could create a problem where business partners take title to an investment property in their individual names without specifying their respective ownership interests in the property. It is unusual for a business partner to be the intended heir of another business partner's assets, but H.B. 37 would create exactly this result if the deed only lists the individuals' names and does not specify that ownership is to be as "tenants in common" or make a similar distinction. The obvious solution is to always specify what kind of tenancy is intended when taking title to real estate, and H.B. 37 makes this even more important for many co-owners of property.