The story of Omer Morin, related in Tuesday’s newspaper, is an object lesson for the end-of-life plans too many of us either put off, or take for granted.

Morin, 90, executed a trust with his daughters in 1999. He neither read the trust document nor hired his own attorney to negotiate it. He, and his late wife, allowed their children to dictate the terms and agreed to them.

In 2007, his wife died. The trust then passed Morin’s property – including a beautiful seasonal cottage on Sabbathday Lake in New Gloucester – into the possession of the daughters. Morin was caught off guard and made his frustrations public.

Discord over the terms of the trust has soured the family’s relationship, to the point – Morin says – the father and his daughters don’t speak, even when both are at the cottage together. From the outside looking in, this appears to have been an avoidable conflict.

Morin’s situation is of his making. Yet his message – don’t let this happen to you – is quite valid. He feels victimized, which is understandable, but this emotion should be tempered by the fact he broke a cardinal rule of legal dealings: Read everything, before you sign.

The stronger lesson comes from Morin’s other oversight: allowing a third-party to make his end-of-life plans and failing to control the process from the start. This should be a cardinal rule too, especially in a graying state like Maine.

Life has certain inevitabilities. That it ends is one of them. And while “you can’t take it with you” is an obvious throwaway cliché, it’s also a fact that should be addressed sooner, not later. Proper end-of-life planning could save a family many future head and heartaches.

Taking the reins of this process is integral. End-of-life is a delicate issue, difficult to think about, much less address. Whether it’s having the right insurance, powers of attorney, trusts, long-term care or something else, there’s every reason to make wise decisions. Otherwise, the only person cheated is yourself.

There’s also incentive for family members to bring this issue to the table. Elders are often targets for shysters, for example, who are eager to separate them from their savings under the ruse of being diligent. Myriad, tragic examples have occurred. Why should there be one more, for lack of family intervention?

The quick answer is there shouldn’t. Not as long as end-of-life issues are addressed by elders and their families early, responsibly and openly. Of course, this ideal is not always possible. Each family has its individual challenges.

But the wisdom to do things right should trump those concerns, because if done smartly, the management of end-of-life affairs should provide a blanket of security around the elders and their family.

Other alternatives are less than preferable.

Ask Omer Morin.