Witness urges Senate Judiciary to adopt Uniform Disclaimer Act to remove nine‑month cutoff and broaden who may disclaim

Mark Langan, chair of the Probate Law Center for the association, testified before the Senate Judiciary committee in support of the Uniform Disclaimer Act, saying it would modernize state law and remove an unfair timing barrier for people and institutions that wish to refuse inheritances or gifts.

"Disclaimers are basically saying, I don't want your gift," Langan told the committee, adding that the draft act eliminates the statutory nine‑month cutoff that currently bars many later disclaimers. "There's no 9 month deadline anymore," he said, arguing the change would let beneficiaries, trustees and charities decline interests even after administrative delays or late discovery of a vested interest.

Langan traced the problem to federal and earlier state rules. He said that a provision added in the federal Tax Reform Act of 1976 set strict requirements—writing, delivery to the transferor, no prior acceptance of income and a nine‑month timing rule—for disclaimers to avoid being treated as gifts for tax purposes. He said the Uniform Laws Commission revised the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Act in 1978 and that state law adopted a similar timing regime in the 1980s, which now leaves some people unable to disclaim when they learn about an interest years later.

The bill Langan described would: remove the automatic nine‑month bar in many circumstances; allow disclaimers made before the creator's death; clarify apportionment for jointly held property; permit trustees and agents under powers of attorney to disclaim in addition to executors and guardians; allow partial or percentage disclaimers; and provide clearer delivery rules for non‑real‑property interests such as IRAs, annuities and insurance policies so assets need not be routed through probate when a valid disclaimer is filed.

Langan also said the draft incorporates the Electronic Signatures Act so documents executed as PDFs or by other electronic means would be valid for disclaimers. He cautioned that Medicaid eligibility rules operate independently, and a disclaimer could still affect Medicaid status under Medicaid rules.

Committee members asked questions about tax and revenue effects. One senator asked whether Langan's citation of the federal lifetime exclusion (which he referenced in testimony as $15,000,000) was the gift/estate exclusion; Langan confirmed that context and described federal filing and reporting obligations for large lifetime gifts. Another senator raised that because the proposal could affect state revenues, the bill might also need review by the Senate Finance Committee before advancing.

Langan described the draft as a modernization that he said simply ‘‘tweaks’’ long‑standing law to reduce unfair outcomes produced by the current timing rule. He noted a technical change circulated by a drafting committee member, "Matt," was accepted by that committee. Senators thanked Langan for testifying and said they expected the bill to come out of the Judiciary committee, with at least one senator offering to check with "Chair Cummings" and Finance about jurisdiction.

The Judiciary hearing produced no formal vote. The committee discussion closed with senators signaling they will consider a Finance referral to examine any revenue implications before final action.