Trust Administration vs. Probate—Practical Differences for Advisors

By
In the JD Supra article, “Trust Administration vs. Will Probate: Which Process is Best for You?” Sharan Sekhon of Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & Ebberson PLLC outlines the key distinctions practitioners should understand when guiding families through post-death settlement choices and processes. The focus is on comparing timelines, oversight, costs, privacy, and practical pitfalls that often determine whether a revocable trust or a will-based plan better serves client goals.

Analysis/Commentary:

  • Core Distinction—Court vs. Contract
    • Probate is a court-supervised legal process to administer an estate under a will or intestacy.
    • Trust administration is a non-court, fiduciary process governed by the trust instrument and state trust law.
    • The client’s asset titling before death usually dictates which path controls.
  • Timeline and Predictability
    • Probate often follows statutory waiting periods and local court calendars, extending timelines.
    • Trust administration can proceed faster when assets are properly funded into the trust.
    • Bottlenecks commonly arise from missing paperwork, unclear beneficiary designations, or contested issues.
  • Cost and Fee Dynamics
    • Probate can involve court filing fees, publication costs, and potential statutory or percentage-based fees in some jurisdictions.
    • Trust administration costs are typically professional fees (legal, tax, advisory) without court fees, but disputes or poor funding can erase savings.
    • Early organization and clear documentation reduce both paths’ costs.
  • Privacy Considerations
    • Probate filings may become public records, revealing asset information and beneficiaries.
    • Trust administration is generally private, limiting public exposure and minimizing unwanted outreach to beneficiaries.
    • Privacy can be a decisive factor for public figures or families with sensitive holdings.
  • Creditor Claims and Notices
    • Probate often includes formal creditor notice and a defined claim window, offering clearer liability cutoff.
    • Trust administration may require similar notice procedures under state law, but practices vary.
    • Advisors should coordinate timely notice to mitigate lingering creditor risk.
  • Funding and Titling Pitfalls
    • A well-drafted trust fails if assets are not re-titled or beneficiary designations are not aligned.
    • Pour-over wills can capture stray assets but may force those assets through probate.
    • Audit account titles and designations during lifetime reviews to prevent post-death surprises.
  • Tax Reporting and Compliance
    • Both estates and trusts may require fiduciary income tax returns (Form 1041) and valuation work.
    • Funding choices affect basis, income allocation, and distributable net income timing.
    • Coordinated CPA and attorney involvement avoids mismatches in elections and reporting.
  • Multi-State and Specialty Assets
    • Real property in multiple states can trigger ancillary probate; trusts help consolidate administration.
    • Closely held business interests, IP, and mineral rights benefit from trust planning to avoid fragmented probate.
    • Confirm governing law and situs provisions to streamline cross-border issues.
  • Dispute Risk and Forum
    • Probate offers a built-in forum for will contests and judicial supervision.
    • Trust disputes typically proceed via trust litigation without initial court oversight, which can be quicker—or just as contentious.
    • Clear no-contest clauses and communication strategies reduce litigation incentives.
  • Incapacity Coverage
    • Revocable trusts provide continuity during incapacity, reducing the likelihood of guardianship or conservatorship.
    • Powers of attorney complement, but often do not replace, the need for trust-based authority.
    • Trustees’ acceptance of role and readiness is critical for seamless management.
  • When Probate May Be Preferable
    • Estates anticipating heavy creditor issues may benefit from probate’s structured claim bar dates.
    • Highly contentious families may need court oversight for transparency and legitimacy.
    • Small estates in states with simplified procedures may not justify trust complexity.
  • Practical Playbook for Advisors
    • Start with asset inventory, titles, and beneficiary designations; reconcile to the estate plan.
    • Set expectations on cost, timing, privacy, and creditor handling to align with client priorities.
    • Document trustee/PR responsibilities and ensure a handoff plan with tax and legal professionals.

Lessons from the Commentary:

  1. Match Process to Assets: Align probate vs. trust administration with how assets are titled and where they are located to avoid unintended detours.
  2. Prioritize Funding Discipline: Ensure lifetime trust funding and beneficiary alignment to capture the intended efficiencies.
  3. Weigh Privacy Needs: Use trust administration when confidentiality is a priority, especially for sensitive family or business matters.
  4. Plan for Creditors: Choose structures and notice strategies that provide clear, timely resolution of creditor claims.
  5. Coordinate Tax Workflows: Integrate legal and tax reporting early to optimize basis, timing, and compliance across entities.
  6. Anticipate Disputes Early: Draft for clarity, communicate expectations, and consider oversight needs based on family dynamics.
  7. Think Across Borders: Use trusts to mitigate multi-state probate exposure and simplify administration of specialized assets.

For tax and estate planning professionals, understanding when trust administration meaningfully reduces time, cost, and public exposure—and when probate’s structure is advantageous—is essential to designing plans that perform under real-world pressure and reduce administrative friction.

The full article is available here.

Scroll to Top