Close this search box.

Placing Home And Accounts In Child’s Name May Be Mistake

Print Article


When Vera Smith first came to our office, she was looking for help with her estate plan. She had heard about living trusts and knew that she wanted to avoid probate on her death, but wasn’t sure whether the explanations she had heard applied to her situation. When we inquired about her assets, she told us that she had put her daughter’s name on her home and her bank accounts. She had done this shortly after the death of her husband, “for convenience.”

What Mrs. Smith had done was quite common. She didn’t want her four children to have to go through much bother when she died, and she trusted her oldest daughter completely; she was surprised that we would counsel against the actions she had taken. In fact, she was seriously considering just changing the home over to her daughter’s name alone, since she had heard that nursing home care might consume her estate if she became ill in the future.

There are a number of reasons why it may be inadvisable, even dangerous, for people like Mrs. Smith to transfer property into joint names with their children, or to put property in a child’s name alone. The most obvious is the power that such a change gives to the child. Not only does the child have access to bank accounts and other liquid assets, but Mrs. Smith will be unable to sell her home (or borrow against it) without her daughter’s approval and signature. If she now transfers the home to her daughter’s name alone, she has given complete power to sell the house, encumber it with loans or even evict Mrs. Smith if she and her daughter later disagree, say, about Mrs. Smith’s need for nursing home placement.

Even if Mrs. Smith is justified in trusting her daughter so completely, there are still problems. Among the issues to consider before making such a decision:

  • If Mrs. Smith’s daughter were to declare bankruptcy, have delinquent tax problems, or get sued for an automobile accident, Mrs. Smith’s bank account and home might be affected. Even if Mrs. Smith was able to show that she still owned and lived in the home, she might incur substantial legal fees to prove her ownership.
  • Mrs. Smith qualified for property tax abatement because she is a widow (rules differ in each state). In her case, she lost that favorable tax treatment. As it happened, the property tax cost of placing her daughter’s name on the home was greater than the likely cost of probate of her estate, although the same might not be true in states other than Arizona. Of course, since her daughter owned the home, she should be paying the property taxes anyway, but they might be completely avoidable if Mrs. Smith simply kept the home solely in her own name.
  • Mrs. Smith’s gift to her daughter might require that she file a gift tax return with both the federal and state governments. She would not have to pay any tax, but the return still should be filed.
  • Upon Mrs. Smith’s death, her daughter may or may not choose to share the home and accounts with the other children. She might well decide that Mrs. Smith intended to leave the property to her, since she was the oldest and the one who lived nearby. If she decides to share the property, she will have to file a gift tax return herself, and may end up owing more estate tax at her later death because of her willingness to follow her mother’s wishes.
  • If Mrs. Smith takes her name completely off her home, when it is later sold the capital gains tax will almost certainly be substantially more than it would have been if she had owned an interest at the time of her death. This tax may be very large, particularly if Mrs. Smith has owned the home for a long time, and she survives her husband for many years.
  • If Mrs. Smith requires nursing home placement within the three years after the transfer, she may have made herself ineligible for government assistance with that care.

Mrs. Smith may ultimately decide that she is not concerned about the points we raised. She was surprised, however, at the complexity of the issues and the danger inherent in a simple set of decisions she had made “for convenience.”

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.