On Mar 22, 7:39 am, "lenore" <blndeamaz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> when my father died almost 18 mos ago...he left everything in a trust
> to his wife
In which case, he had nothing left to his own name, to pass thru probate per his Will. He had already given everything (in trust) to his wife.
> a few weeks ago, she also passed away.
Sorry for your loss.
> my father had everything set up in a supplemental trust...
Yes, that's what you told us a couple of sentences ago.
> i have heard that it was possible for his wife to write a will
> that would disinherit me and my other siblings....
Um, if your father ALREADY left "everything" in a supplemental trust to benefit your (step?)mother, then you've already been "disinherited" -- by your father, not by his wife. That was HIS decision. Sorry, but that's the fact.
Now, as far as stepmom is concerned, she can write her will any way she wants, too. She can leave all to her favorite charity, or her dog Spot, or her own birth children, or her chauffeur. The only restriction on "disinheriting" someone by means of a Will, AFAIK, is that in most USA states, a surviving spouse is guaranteed at least a statutorily-prescribed share of the testator's gross estate, and can "elect" (by filing appropriate papers with the Court) whether to take her statutory share, or whether to abide by whatever is provided for her in the Will. Since your father predeceased her, she is free as a bird in that regard, with no legal restrictions on what she does with her estate.
> while leaving everything to her two sons...
That's her privilege, if that is her choice.
> who, by the way, were also included in my
> fathers' will. is this possible????
Is _what_ possible?
Sure it's possible for your stepmom to give her kids money even if they already got some from your dad. It's not a "one per customer" kind of deal.
But I don't think it's possible that they actually _got_ anything under your father's Will previously (even if they were "included" in it, whatever that means) if in fact, as you stated twice above, dad gave "everything" to the supplemental trust for his wife's care. Perhaps you're leaving out something important, or are confused about whether dad actually did put "everything" into the trust or did something else with some of the rest of his property. Maybe he only put some of it in trust.
Bottom line is, no one is _entitlted_ to receive an inheritance, from anyone, except a surviving spouse's statutory share. The law on intestate heirs only applies if there is no Will, and if there actually is property to be passed on thru probate -- in effect, the law assumes what most people would want to happen, in apportioning the estate to various close relatives. But there's nothing sacred about that; if there is a Will, that is what controls, as long as there is some property left to be distributed under it. If the testator (person whose Will we're talking about) has already given away all his property, to a particular Trust or anywhere else, there is nothing left to pass under the Will.
I can't help but read a wounded tone into your post, and we can understand that you might feel that way when you end up with nothing even though (presumably) you had a close relationship with your father. It's hard to tell whether you also had a good relationship with your stepmother but, as you mention, she was very ill with Parkinson's and your father needed to set up a way to provide for her care even after he was gone. What he did, favoring his wife over his children, is not such a bad thing in that context; she really needed it, and you didn't, if you are a self-sufficient, non-disabled adult. It's not like he threw it all away on partying with a bimbo trophy wife and left his own underage children starving. Keep this in perspective.
If you want to get upset with anybody, maybe the person to be mad at would be the professional who helped your dad set up the supplemental trust IF, and that's a big if, he ignored or misconstrued your dad's wishes to see that you, as well as your stepmom and stepsiblings, would be provided for in some way after he died. OTOH maybe what happened is exactly what your dad wanted to happen. We will probably never know for sure. But don't be mad at your dad for wanting to set up a way to take care of his gravely ill wife after he died. Be well,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Final distribution from a trust
On Mar 21, 7:29 am, "skiik" <skii...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am having a hardish time understanding this part of a first draft.
> Could someone explain it in to me please.
First of all, you've removed this from important context. 5.1 makes reference to para. 4, which you do NOT provide for our perusal, and 5.2 references 5.1; so how can we interpret any of it without knowing what para. 4 says? In any event, take all Usenet comments with a large grain of salt and get your own paid legal opinion from an attorney you hire, if it really makes a difference to you that you could measure in money.
That said,.
> 5 Final Distribution
>
> 5.1 The Trustees may, upon any distribution pursuant to clause 4
> to or for any Beneficiary or a descendant of a Final Beneficiary,
> direct in writing that the value (as determined by the Trustees) of
> all or any part of the property being so dealt with is to be taken
> into account in ascertaining the share of that Beneficiary on the Date
> of Final Distribution.
I'm just GUESSING, here, that para. 4 may refer to interim distributions that are made BEFORE the final distribution, e.g. if Uncle Joe needed $100k from the trust fund to go to college, that amount is taken into account as part of his share when the remaining funds are finally divvied up between all the cousins. So if, frex, there is $1m left in the Trust Fund at Final Distribution, and there are 4 equal beneficiaries, but Joe and Aunt Sally each got $100k advanced to them before the final distribution, then Ralph and Mary will each get $300k and Joe and Sally will each get $200k from the remaining fund, making a total of $300k paid out (at various times) to each of them equally (for a total of $1.2m: $2k paid out previously, and $1m paid out now).
> 5.2 Subject to any direction given by the Trustees pursuant to
> clause 5. 1, on the Date of Final Distribution, the Trustees shall
> hold whatever then remains of the Trust Fund on trust for such of the
> Final Beneficiaries who are then alive in equal shares.
That says that whatever is left over for Final Distribution at the expiration of the Trust is divided equally among all surviving primary beneficiares, EXCEPT where the Trustee specifically decides (under 5.1) to charge a previous cash advance against one beneficiary's total share. Assuming, of course, that this is what para. 4 refers to.
> If any of
> the Final Beneficiaries shall fail to survive the Date of Final
> Distribution leaving Issue who are living at that date, then such
> Issue shall take per stirpes as tenants in common in equal shares the
> share that their parent would have taken in the Trust Fund had that
> parent been living at the Date of Final Distribution.
This part accounts for what happens if one of the primary beneficiaries dies before final dstribution. In that case, the dead beneficiary's living offspring will step into his shoes and share equally "per stirpes" in what that dead parent (or grandparent) of theirs WOULD have taken, if he or she had stayed alive until the date the Trustee actually cut the final distribution check.
"Per stirpes" means that, at each generational level, the substitute beneficiaries descended from each dead primary beneficiary will take what their dead parent WOULD HAVE taken if the parent had remained alive. This is in contrast to a "per capita" distribution, where the beneficiaries all share equally regardless of their generational level. Per stirpes generally yields fairer results than per capita in the eyes of most people since the result for a member of a higher generation doesn't change just because one of their siblings or cousins happens to die first, and had more kids than they did; each branch of the family will get the same total share, no matter what, as long as SOME member of that branch survives.
Frex, let's say the Grantor of the Trust, Grandpa Bob, had 4 children as primary beneficiaries, Joe, Sally, Ralph and Mary. If all 4 survive to final disitribution (FD), the result is the same under either per capita or per stirpes: each gets 1/4.
Let's say Uncle Joe had 3 kids, Aunt Sally had 2, Ralph had 4 and Mary (a nun) had none.
If Joe dies before FD, Sally, Ralph and Mary each get 1/4, same as before, and Joe's kids each get 1/12 (an equal 1/3 of their parent Joe's 1/4 share of the total). But if it were per capita, Sally, Ralph, Mary and Joe's 3 offspring would each get 1/6 (since there are now 6 beneficiaries living at time of FD)
If Joe, Sally and Ralph all die before FD, then Mary still gets her 1/4 share, Joe's kids still get their 1/12 each as calculated above, Sally's kids each get 1/8 of the total pie (1/2 each of their late mom's 1/4 share), and Ralph's kids each get 1/16 (1/4 each of their dead dad's 1/4 share). But if it were "per capita", with 10 surviving beneficiaries each would get an even 1/10, Mary as well as her nieces and nephews.
If Mary dies before FD, with no offspring, then only Joe, Sally and Ralph (or their offspring) share in the FD; each surviving branch of Grandpa Bob's family then gets 1/3.
Does that help?
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I am having a hardish time understanding this part of a first draft.
> Could someone explain it in to me please.
First of all, you've removed this from important context. 5.1 makes reference to para. 4, which you do NOT provide for our perusal, and 5.2 references 5.1; so how can we interpret any of it without knowing what para. 4 says? In any event, take all Usenet comments with a large grain of salt and get your own paid legal opinion from an attorney you hire, if it really makes a difference to you that you could measure in money.
That said,.
> 5 Final Distribution
>
> 5.1 The Trustees may, upon any distribution pursuant to clause 4
> to or for any Beneficiary or a descendant of a Final Beneficiary,
> direct in writing that the value (as determined by the Trustees) of
> all or any part of the property being so dealt with is to be taken
> into account in ascertaining the share of that Beneficiary on the Date
> of Final Distribution.
I'm just GUESSING, here, that para. 4 may refer to interim distributions that are made BEFORE the final distribution, e.g. if Uncle Joe needed $100k from the trust fund to go to college, that amount is taken into account as part of his share when the remaining funds are finally divvied up between all the cousins. So if, frex, there is $1m left in the Trust Fund at Final Distribution, and there are 4 equal beneficiaries, but Joe and Aunt Sally each got $100k advanced to them before the final distribution, then Ralph and Mary will each get $300k and Joe and Sally will each get $200k from the remaining fund, making a total of $300k paid out (at various times) to each of them equally (for a total of $1.2m: $2k paid out previously, and $1m paid out now).
> 5.2 Subject to any direction given by the Trustees pursuant to
> clause 5. 1, on the Date of Final Distribution, the Trustees shall
> hold whatever then remains of the Trust Fund on trust for such of the
> Final Beneficiaries who are then alive in equal shares.
That says that whatever is left over for Final Distribution at the expiration of the Trust is divided equally among all surviving primary beneficiares, EXCEPT where the Trustee specifically decides (under 5.1) to charge a previous cash advance against one beneficiary's total share. Assuming, of course, that this is what para. 4 refers to.
> If any of
> the Final Beneficiaries shall fail to survive the Date of Final
> Distribution leaving Issue who are living at that date, then such
> Issue shall take per stirpes as tenants in common in equal shares the
> share that their parent would have taken in the Trust Fund had that
> parent been living at the Date of Final Distribution.
This part accounts for what happens if one of the primary beneficiaries dies before final dstribution. In that case, the dead beneficiary's living offspring will step into his shoes and share equally "per stirpes" in what that dead parent (or grandparent) of theirs WOULD have taken, if he or she had stayed alive until the date the Trustee actually cut the final distribution check.
"Per stirpes" means that, at each generational level, the substitute beneficiaries descended from each dead primary beneficiary will take what their dead parent WOULD HAVE taken if the parent had remained alive. This is in contrast to a "per capita" distribution, where the beneficiaries all share equally regardless of their generational level. Per stirpes generally yields fairer results than per capita in the eyes of most people since the result for a member of a higher generation doesn't change just because one of their siblings or cousins happens to die first, and had more kids than they did; each branch of the family will get the same total share, no matter what, as long as SOME member of that branch survives.
Frex, let's say the Grantor of the Trust, Grandpa Bob, had 4 children as primary beneficiaries, Joe, Sally, Ralph and Mary. If all 4 survive to final disitribution (FD), the result is the same under either per capita or per stirpes: each gets 1/4.
Let's say Uncle Joe had 3 kids, Aunt Sally had 2, Ralph had 4 and Mary (a nun) had none.
If Joe dies before FD, Sally, Ralph and Mary each get 1/4, same as before, and Joe's kids each get 1/12 (an equal 1/3 of their parent Joe's 1/4 share of the total). But if it were per capita, Sally, Ralph, Mary and Joe's 3 offspring would each get 1/6 (since there are now 6 beneficiaries living at time of FD)
If Joe, Sally and Ralph all die before FD, then Mary still gets her 1/4 share, Joe's kids still get their 1/12 each as calculated above, Sally's kids each get 1/8 of the total pie (1/2 each of their late mom's 1/4 share), and Ralph's kids each get 1/16 (1/4 each of their dead dad's 1/4 share). But if it were "per capita", with 10 surviving beneficiaries each would get an even 1/10, Mary as well as her nieces and nephews.
If Mary dies before FD, with no offspring, then only Joe, Sally and Ralph (or their offspring) share in the FD; each surviving branch of Grandpa Bob's family then gets 1/3.
Does that help?
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
What does a parking permit buy?
On Mar 21, 8:28 am, ian.david...@unn.ac.uk wrote:
> When applying for a permit, the following disclaimer is used.
>
> "The issue of a car parking permit does not guarantee a car parking
> space. It is the responsibility of the holder of a permit to find a
> suitable space and to park in a responsible manner".
>
> So, is it legal to charge for a service that the provider cannot
> guarantee deliviering?
A "permit" is just that -- it gives you "permission" to attempt to do something that you would otherwise not be allowed to do; but you still may not be _able_ to do it, for various other reasons having nothing to do with permission being granted. It does not lease you a private space, just lets you compete with everyone else for the available spaces. Similarly, a fishing "permit" doesn't guarantee you will catch a fish.
I don't know if such things are common in your area, but around here, many residential areas near commercial centers have "parking by permit only" signs posted on the streets, and such permits are issued only to residents of that neighborhood, for a fee, by the municipality. The purpose, of course, is to deny permission for daytime business commuters to take up the available spaces, which would leave the residents with nowhere to park. As in your situation, the permit does not guarantee the residents a reserved space; it just gives them permission to park in that neighborhood.
Noting that old favorite of prescriptive grammarians, the confusion of "can I" with "may I", all your employer is saying is, "for the price you pay, you may park in our lot, if you can find a proper space to do so".
A question you don't ask is whether it is legal for your employer to _require_ you to pay for this privilege if you decide it is a rotten deal and want to take your business to some other parking-space provider, or just park on the street for a separate fee as you indicated you sometimes have to do anyway. As long as they don't compel even their pedestrian employees to contribute to this Russian Roulette parking scheme, what harm is being done to you? You can buy a permit, knowing that it doesn't guarantee a space, or you can take your parking business elsewhere.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> When applying for a permit, the following disclaimer is used.
>
> "The issue of a car parking permit does not guarantee a car parking
> space. It is the responsibility of the holder of a permit to find a
> suitable space and to park in a responsible manner".
>
> So, is it legal to charge for a service that the provider cannot
> guarantee deliviering?
A "permit" is just that -- it gives you "permission" to attempt to do something that you would otherwise not be allowed to do; but you still may not be _able_ to do it, for various other reasons having nothing to do with permission being granted. It does not lease you a private space, just lets you compete with everyone else for the available spaces. Similarly, a fishing "permit" doesn't guarantee you will catch a fish.
I don't know if such things are common in your area, but around here, many residential areas near commercial centers have "parking by permit only" signs posted on the streets, and such permits are issued only to residents of that neighborhood, for a fee, by the municipality. The purpose, of course, is to deny permission for daytime business commuters to take up the available spaces, which would leave the residents with nowhere to park. As in your situation, the permit does not guarantee the residents a reserved space; it just gives them permission to park in that neighborhood.
Noting that old favorite of prescriptive grammarians, the confusion of "can I" with "may I", all your employer is saying is, "for the price you pay, you may park in our lot, if you can find a proper space to do so".
A question you don't ask is whether it is legal for your employer to _require_ you to pay for this privilege if you decide it is a rotten deal and want to take your business to some other parking-space provider, or just park on the street for a separate fee as you indicated you sometimes have to do anyway. As long as they don't compel even their pedestrian employees to contribute to this Russian Roulette parking scheme, what harm is being done to you? You can buy a permit, knowing that it doesn't guarantee a space, or you can take your parking business elsewhere.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Agent liability for contract with undisclosed principal
On Mar 19, 7:30 am, "Guv Bob" <brotherd...@YEOOOOOOOWWWbigfoot.com> wrote:
> Corp A is a sales organization for Corp B. Different name, different corp
> number, officers, phone., etc. Corp A owes us $1950.
This is a classic "undisclosed principal" situation. The fact that A was (maybe) acting as agent for B in buying stuff from you should not affect your rights against A if A never disclosed to you that they were merely acting as agent for B and not on their own account.
Actually, you probably can sue either A _or_ B in this situation.
> Corp B just filed for Chpt 11 and we received Form B9F. Our business is not
> with Corp B. Turns out that the manager of Corp A forwarded our invoices to
> Corp B, with which we never had any agreements.
One question you don't answer is whether the GOODS, not just the invoices, were passed on to B. If A was buying e.g. office supplies, etc. from you for their own use in accomplishing their job as sales agent for B, e.g. order pads or pencils or whatever, they would be liable to you even if they _did_ disclose that they were a sales agent for B.
But if A was procuring things from you that they then passed on to B, along with the invoices, _and_ if you knew that's what they were doing, then only B has any liability to you even if all your contracts were directly with A and B never signed anything with you.
> Can we take Corp A to small claims or do we have to go to the creditors
> meeting for Corp B.
Um, you could do both? Why not, unless it is a serious inconvenience?
I suggest you get real, paid legal advice from your company lawyer (if you don't have one, this is a good time to begin forming a relationship with one) before you make a decision to forego attending the creditors' meeting.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Corp A is a sales organization for Corp B. Different name, different corp
> number, officers, phone., etc. Corp A owes us $1950.
This is a classic "undisclosed principal" situation. The fact that A was (maybe) acting as agent for B in buying stuff from you should not affect your rights against A if A never disclosed to you that they were merely acting as agent for B and not on their own account.
Actually, you probably can sue either A _or_ B in this situation.
> Corp B just filed for Chpt 11 and we received Form B9F. Our business is not
> with Corp B. Turns out that the manager of Corp A forwarded our invoices to
> Corp B, with which we never had any agreements.
One question you don't answer is whether the GOODS, not just the invoices, were passed on to B. If A was buying e.g. office supplies, etc. from you for their own use in accomplishing their job as sales agent for B, e.g. order pads or pencils or whatever, they would be liable to you even if they _did_ disclose that they were a sales agent for B.
But if A was procuring things from you that they then passed on to B, along with the invoices, _and_ if you knew that's what they were doing, then only B has any liability to you even if all your contracts were directly with A and B never signed anything with you.
> Can we take Corp A to small claims or do we have to go to the creditors
> meeting for Corp B.
Um, you could do both? Why not, unless it is a serious inconvenience?
I suggest you get real, paid legal advice from your company lawyer (if you don't have one, this is a good time to begin forming a relationship with one) before you make a decision to forego attending the creditors' meeting.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Do tenant rights apply to unpaying overnight guest?
On Mar 19, 7:31 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
> Suppose I let somebody crash on my couch for a few nights
> for free. Next time he shows up at my door I hand him his
> suitcase with all his stuff and tell him not to come back.
>
> He sues. What does he win? Pick your favorite state, or
> preferably a typical state.
There was a reported MD appellate case arising in Hagerstown, Washington County, MD about a year ago IIRC, which apparently was a matter of first impression in this state, on that very subject. IIRC the upshot was, the non-paying social guest has none of the rights that would accrue to a tenant in a landlord-tenant relationship and can be turned out on a moment's notice, without any of the formal eviction procedures required for the protection of a tenant.
But don't try this at home, boys and girls, without seeking actual legal advice on your particular domestic arrangement. Lots of factors no one has mentioned yet on this thread could affect the outcome.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Suppose I let somebody crash on my couch for a few nights
> for free. Next time he shows up at my door I hand him his
> suitcase with all his stuff and tell him not to come back.
>
> He sues. What does he win? Pick your favorite state, or
> preferably a typical state.
There was a reported MD appellate case arising in Hagerstown, Washington County, MD about a year ago IIRC, which apparently was a matter of first impression in this state, on that very subject. IIRC the upshot was, the non-paying social guest has none of the rights that would accrue to a tenant in a landlord-tenant relationship and can be turned out on a moment's notice, without any of the formal eviction procedures required for the protection of a tenant.
But don't try this at home, boys and girls, without seeking actual legal advice on your particular domestic arrangement. Lots of factors no one has mentioned yet on this thread could affect the outcome.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Second Amendment judicial interpretation
On Mar 18, 7:36 am, s...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
> In article <b4qkv25f8famd99hjl9m89kjs1mcrrg...@4ax.com>,
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> > It's the court's job to determine what the law
> >is, not what it should be. Courts should not be second guessing
> >legislatures, no matter how stupid the laws they pass (subject, of
> >course, to constitutional and other statutory limitations).
>
> But do they? What about the recent decision in DC about the Second
> Amendment meaning what it says? How many time was the exact
> opposite ruled by courts?
I don't agree with Seth's premise that previous decisions found "the exact opposite" of the clear language of the Second Amendment. That language is not clear, it is in fact ambiguous, or else the reference to a "well regulated militia" is simply superfluous extra verbiage. Surplusage is something the courts are loath to find any clause of any law to be, especially one as weighty as a constitutional amendment. Every word is given meaning, if at all possible.
The courts that ruled the way Seth didn't like, also thought they were interpreting the actual meaning of the law, in determining that the "well regulated militia" language meant what it says, and that the public's right to own and bear arms was tied to and limited by the states' need to maintain a militia and, thus, individual firearm ownership could be regulated as such. Which is the interpretation I happen to agree with. Both Seth's, and my, versions are possible readings of the written law. And since there is ambiguity of meaning, it is up to the courts to decide.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> In article <b4qkv25f8famd99hjl9m89kjs1mcrrg...@4ax.com>,
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> > It's the court's job to determine what the law
> >is, not what it should be. Courts should not be second guessing
> >legislatures, no matter how stupid the laws they pass (subject, of
> >course, to constitutional and other statutory limitations).
>
> But do they? What about the recent decision in DC about the Second
> Amendment meaning what it says? How many time was the exact
> opposite ruled by courts?
I don't agree with Seth's premise that previous decisions found "the exact opposite" of the clear language of the Second Amendment. That language is not clear, it is in fact ambiguous, or else the reference to a "well regulated militia" is simply superfluous extra verbiage. Surplusage is something the courts are loath to find any clause of any law to be, especially one as weighty as a constitutional amendment. Every word is given meaning, if at all possible.
The courts that ruled the way Seth didn't like, also thought they were interpreting the actual meaning of the law, in determining that the "well regulated militia" language meant what it says, and that the public's right to own and bear arms was tied to and limited by the states' need to maintain a militia and, thus, individual firearm ownership could be regulated as such. Which is the interpretation I happen to agree with. Both Seth's, and my, versions are possible readings of the written law. And since there is ambiguity of meaning, it is up to the courts to decide.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Revising a Will vs. altering a Will
On Mar 17, 7:28 am, "NMtnS...@gmail.com" <NMtnS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At what point would the probate judge raise an eyebrow that
> someones will has been altered?
When he's presented with sufficient evidence showing that situation to be more likely than not, by someone filing the appropriate papers to bring it to his attention. If in doubt, get a local estates-and-trusts lawyer to look into whether you might have a pursuable argument, and, if s/he feels you might have a case, to represent you in formally contesting the Will. Many lawyers will give you a free first consultation to see if they want to take the case, but in any event ask first. At most it should cost you a couple hundred bucks to find out whether there is a claim worth pursuing. If there is a large amount of money at stake, that small investment in getting a definite answer is probably something you need regardless of whether you like the answer, just to put your mind at rest if nothing else.
> After the death of a male family member I now have 5 different copies
> of his last will. Only a codicil remained the same throughout all 5
> but not original to his first will.
I don't understand you here. What do you mean by "copies"? To me, that means multiple facsimiles of the same original thing, with or without additions or alterations, not 5 different Wills executed at different times.
The only Will that matters is the "last" one, i.e. the most recently executed one. If that Will is genuine, it doesn't matter whether the other ones are fakes, altered, or whatever.
And the codicil, if it was drafted before the last Will was, probably was voided by that Will too, especially if the Will specifically says so ("E.g. This is my last will and testament; I hereby revoke all previous Wills and Codicils").
> What a mess, there is one will drafted when the gentleman was of a
> younger and more sound mind but is the earliest of all. Thus voided
> by the more recent Last Wills.
Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. The most recent one rules.
> One will has him living in a state he didn't live in. Signatures
> look funky...... deletions from one copy to the next... is this
> common?
Again, either I misunderstand you, or you are asking a question that is so obvious it implies its own answer. The only reason anyone would execute a new Will and void the old one is to make changes in it. So, yes, "deletions from one copy to the next" is _exactly_ what you would find anytime someone executes a new Will and voids the old one.
> On the latest will everyone but the PR is now out. But
> according to last will all beneficaries are responsible for estate
> taxes even if no properties pass to them. Are you kidding me?
> The PR gets the property we get the tax bill?
Whaddaya mean "we", Kemosabe? If you're not getting anything under that Will, then by definition, you're not a "beneficiary" under that Will. "Beneficiary" is different from "Heir". Even though you may be one of the legal (intestate) "Heirs" solely by virtue of your relationship to the deceased, you are only a "beneficiary" if you are named as such in the final, applicable Will and receive a bequest.
> What are the chances of having an objection to the appointment of the
> PR and getting a court appointed PR? The PR is who sent out all 5
> wills but to different people. What's up with this?
Without knowing more than your (mildly confused) post provides, I have no idea. Make an appointment, bring all your relevant papers to the lawyer of your choosing, pay for (or take advantage of his free offer) of an hour or so of his time, and find out.
> The hearing for the PR appointment is coming up is this the time to
> object to their appointment and management is this the time to do so?
As the King of Siam once allegedly said, "There is no time like now." Call and make that appointment ASAP and find out whether you are getting all upset over nothing (one good result), or whether you are being royally screwed (in which case the lawyer can help you get un-screwed) (another good result). Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> At what point would the probate judge raise an eyebrow that
> someones will has been altered?
When he's presented with sufficient evidence showing that situation to be more likely than not, by someone filing the appropriate papers to bring it to his attention. If in doubt, get a local estates-and-trusts lawyer to look into whether you might have a pursuable argument, and, if s/he feels you might have a case, to represent you in formally contesting the Will. Many lawyers will give you a free first consultation to see if they want to take the case, but in any event ask first. At most it should cost you a couple hundred bucks to find out whether there is a claim worth pursuing. If there is a large amount of money at stake, that small investment in getting a definite answer is probably something you need regardless of whether you like the answer, just to put your mind at rest if nothing else.
> After the death of a male family member I now have 5 different copies
> of his last will. Only a codicil remained the same throughout all 5
> but not original to his first will.
I don't understand you here. What do you mean by "copies"? To me, that means multiple facsimiles of the same original thing, with or without additions or alterations, not 5 different Wills executed at different times.
The only Will that matters is the "last" one, i.e. the most recently executed one. If that Will is genuine, it doesn't matter whether the other ones are fakes, altered, or whatever.
And the codicil, if it was drafted before the last Will was, probably was voided by that Will too, especially if the Will specifically says so ("E.g. This is my last will and testament; I hereby revoke all previous Wills and Codicils").
> What a mess, there is one will drafted when the gentleman was of a
> younger and more sound mind but is the earliest of all. Thus voided
> by the more recent Last Wills.
Yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. The most recent one rules.
> One will has him living in a state he didn't live in. Signatures
> look funky...... deletions from one copy to the next... is this
> common?
Again, either I misunderstand you, or you are asking a question that is so obvious it implies its own answer. The only reason anyone would execute a new Will and void the old one is to make changes in it. So, yes, "deletions from one copy to the next" is _exactly_ what you would find anytime someone executes a new Will and voids the old one.
> On the latest will everyone but the PR is now out. But
> according to last will all beneficaries are responsible for estate
> taxes even if no properties pass to them. Are you kidding me?
> The PR gets the property we get the tax bill?
Whaddaya mean "we", Kemosabe? If you're not getting anything under that Will, then by definition, you're not a "beneficiary" under that Will. "Beneficiary" is different from "Heir". Even though you may be one of the legal (intestate) "Heirs" solely by virtue of your relationship to the deceased, you are only a "beneficiary" if you are named as such in the final, applicable Will and receive a bequest.
> What are the chances of having an objection to the appointment of the
> PR and getting a court appointed PR? The PR is who sent out all 5
> wills but to different people. What's up with this?
Without knowing more than your (mildly confused) post provides, I have no idea. Make an appointment, bring all your relevant papers to the lawyer of your choosing, pay for (or take advantage of his free offer) of an hour or so of his time, and find out.
> The hearing for the PR appointment is coming up is this the time to
> object to their appointment and management is this the time to do so?
As the King of Siam once allegedly said, "There is no time like now." Call and make that appointment ASAP and find out whether you are getting all upset over nothing (one good result), or whether you are being royally screwed (in which case the lawyer can help you get un-screwed) (another good result). Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Advice for a new law graduate miserable in the job
On Mar 16, 5:59 am, "miserable first year associate" <sherene.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **posting for a friend**
>
> Hi-- I am a first year associate in a midsize firm's small litigation
> group. I've been working for about six months now.... and not only do
> I hate the work, I don't think I am good at it
Those 2 points are probably related. If you were good at it you'd like it better. No aspersions intended, but not every lawyer is cut out to be a litigator. There are actually a lot more lawyers who do transactional work of one kind or another in every substantive area of law than there are lawyers who spend most of their time preparing and trying lawsuits.
And even if litigation might be something you could get motivated to succeed at, maybe the _type_ of litigation your firm does just doesn't appeal to you. What is your pre-law-school background, what are your interests? Where would you prefer to focus your efforts? Maybe you're doing labor law when you would rather be doing aviation law, or auto accidents when you would rather be doing antitrust. Use your non-legal background and experience to enhance your skills and marketability in a subject matter area _you_ like.
> am having a hard time
> meeting my hour requirements, and do not get calls for assignments.
Definitely signs that your superiors do not see you as the "go-to" person in your department for the tough assignments.
> am pretty convinced that the partners in my group are not happy with
> my work
Probably right, if even _you_ think you're no good at the kind of work they've been giving you.
> since they do not give me any feedback on assignments
That's not ideal, and maybe even self-defeating from their POV since it doesn't show you how you can improve so they can get better results from your efforts, but frankly many lawyers are too busy to give much feedback to their associates -- it winds up being "sink or swim" and "survival of the fittest", unfortunately.
> even when I do finish a project for them - rarely call me again with
> another assignment.
You are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Since a radical transformation of your own attitudes, background, and abilities is unlikely (I don't just mean you, but anyone's persona: "be true to yourself" is a good idea), the better option is to find a job (either at a new firm, or in a different role at your present firm) that is a better fit for who you really are.
> If this continues, I'm fairly sure I will not be
> able to meet my billable hours and might get fired.
Probably. Which is why you should start looking for a better situation _now_, and not wait until your first annual review, when you probably _will_ get feedback, but not the kind you want.
> not want to do this work for the rest of my life anyway, but I don't
> know what else I can do
Maybe you should consult with a legal placement specialist to help you find out where your interests really lie, and then pursue those options, either inside your firm or looking elsewhere.
> if I quit, what chance do I have of finding
> another legal job after working at a firm for only six months?
Hells bells, don't QUIT, at least not until you have ANOTHER job lined up. Don't cut off the vine you're swinging on until you've grabbed another one, Tarzan.
The MOST marketable time for an associate to try something completely new is within the first couple of years of practice. Headhunters (legal recruiters) are actively looking for associates with 0-3 years experience at _anything_ and can help you decide what other options you might want to look into.
But if you wait more than a few years before doing that, the potential employers will figure that what you do now is the only thing you're ever likely to be good at, and will only evaluate you on that. Can't teach old dogs new tricks, and all that. There's no shame in shifting gears and trying a different practice area, but do it sooner rather than later. If you wait too long, you may well be stuck with the label you get (e.g. "tax litigator") even if you hate it. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> **posting for a friend**
>
> Hi-- I am a first year associate in a midsize firm's small litigation
> group. I've been working for about six months now.... and not only do
> I hate the work, I don't think I am good at it
Those 2 points are probably related. If you were good at it you'd like it better. No aspersions intended, but not every lawyer is cut out to be a litigator. There are actually a lot more lawyers who do transactional work of one kind or another in every substantive area of law than there are lawyers who spend most of their time preparing and trying lawsuits.
And even if litigation might be something you could get motivated to succeed at, maybe the _type_ of litigation your firm does just doesn't appeal to you. What is your pre-law-school background, what are your interests? Where would you prefer to focus your efforts? Maybe you're doing labor law when you would rather be doing aviation law, or auto accidents when you would rather be doing antitrust. Use your non-legal background and experience to enhance your skills and marketability in a subject matter area _you_ like.
> am having a hard time
> meeting my hour requirements, and do not get calls for assignments.
Definitely signs that your superiors do not see you as the "go-to" person in your department for the tough assignments.
> am pretty convinced that the partners in my group are not happy with
> my work
Probably right, if even _you_ think you're no good at the kind of work they've been giving you.
> since they do not give me any feedback on assignments
That's not ideal, and maybe even self-defeating from their POV since it doesn't show you how you can improve so they can get better results from your efforts, but frankly many lawyers are too busy to give much feedback to their associates -- it winds up being "sink or swim" and "survival of the fittest", unfortunately.
> even when I do finish a project for them - rarely call me again with
> another assignment.
You are seeing the handwriting on the wall. Since a radical transformation of your own attitudes, background, and abilities is unlikely (I don't just mean you, but anyone's persona: "be true to yourself" is a good idea), the better option is to find a job (either at a new firm, or in a different role at your present firm) that is a better fit for who you really are.
> If this continues, I'm fairly sure I will not be
> able to meet my billable hours and might get fired.
Probably. Which is why you should start looking for a better situation _now_, and not wait until your first annual review, when you probably _will_ get feedback, but not the kind you want.
> not want to do this work for the rest of my life anyway, but I don't
> know what else I can do
Maybe you should consult with a legal placement specialist to help you find out where your interests really lie, and then pursue those options, either inside your firm or looking elsewhere.
> if I quit, what chance do I have of finding
> another legal job after working at a firm for only six months?
Hells bells, don't QUIT, at least not until you have ANOTHER job lined up. Don't cut off the vine you're swinging on until you've grabbed another one, Tarzan.
The MOST marketable time for an associate to try something completely new is within the first couple of years of practice. Headhunters (legal recruiters) are actively looking for associates with 0-3 years experience at _anything_ and can help you decide what other options you might want to look into.
But if you wait more than a few years before doing that, the potential employers will figure that what you do now is the only thing you're ever likely to be good at, and will only evaluate you on that. Can't teach old dogs new tricks, and all that. There's no shame in shifting gears and trying a different practice area, but do it sooner rather than later. If you wait too long, you may well be stuck with the label you get (e.g. "tax litigator") even if you hate it. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Embezzlement by Power of Attorney holder
On Mar 14, 8:50 am, "MaryZZZ" <bgrossn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> While I am gone she will have to pay the
> bills and I will give her POA on my real estate so that she can list,
> contract to sell, and sell.
>
> So how do I establish that it will be fraud, embezzlement,
> misappropriate of funds, etc if she does not act in the best interest
> of the company. I trust her, but she will have a lot of money
> available.
Embezzlement and misappropriation are crimes even if you don't say anything specific about prohibiting it, in your agreement with the employee. It is implied in the nature of your relationship as principal (you) and agent (her) that she will act in your best interest and not steal your money.
A Power of Attorney (POA) form is usually worded to indicate that the attorney-in-fact is empowered to act in the name of, on behalf of, and for, the principal, as if they were the same person, and may be worded so as to limit that ability to certain transactions, accounts, and purposes. Many states have a judicially-approved form which it is safest to follow; I believe NY does, frex.
> I do not understand what would allow me to prosecute and recover the
> money or property if there was fraudulent activity.
What will allow you to do that is, the laws of your state criminalizing such activity.
If you're still concerned that might not be enough, you may try including some language in your POA form that limits her access to the funds other than for your specified purposes. Just be sure that you give her enough flexibility to actually accomplish what you want her to do, or else the whole exercise will fall flat.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> While I am gone she will have to pay the
> bills and I will give her POA on my real estate so that she can list,
> contract to sell, and sell.
>
> So how do I establish that it will be fraud, embezzlement,
> misappropriate of funds, etc if she does not act in the best interest
> of the company. I trust her, but she will have a lot of money
> available.
Embezzlement and misappropriation are crimes even if you don't say anything specific about prohibiting it, in your agreement with the employee. It is implied in the nature of your relationship as principal (you) and agent (her) that she will act in your best interest and not steal your money.
A Power of Attorney (POA) form is usually worded to indicate that the attorney-in-fact is empowered to act in the name of, on behalf of, and for, the principal, as if they were the same person, and may be worded so as to limit that ability to certain transactions, accounts, and purposes. Many states have a judicially-approved form which it is safest to follow; I believe NY does, frex.
> I do not understand what would allow me to prosecute and recover the
> money or property if there was fraudulent activity.
What will allow you to do that is, the laws of your state criminalizing such activity.
If you're still concerned that might not be enough, you may try including some language in your POA form that limits her access to the funds other than for your specified purposes. Just be sure that you give her enough flexibility to actually accomplish what you want her to do, or else the whole exercise will fall flat.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Liens on property - effect?
On Mar 12, 6:40 am, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> "CAS" <2carolinesem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How does this affect my property?
>
> An abstract of judgment is a lien, though by itself it really does
> nothing. But when you go to sell or refinance the property the lien
> will be paid off first before you get anything.
Right; and, may I add, in all states AFAIK a judgment lien also accrues post-judgment interest from the date of the judgment, which also must be paid off along with the principal amount, before OP will see a penny from the sale.
In many states, MD frex (10%), the legal rate of post-judgment interest is substantially higher than the going rate for loans on the open market; so many judgment lienholders are content to just sit on their investment until the debtor decides to sell, doing nothing apart from recording the judgment with the public land records so the judgment becomes a.lien on the debtor's property.
> It is possible for the sheriff to sell the property to pay the
> judgment, but that is difficult to do and is therefore unlikely to
> happen.
If the lienholder is desperate to get cash quickly, they may well go ahead and do that despite the difficulty. Or they will sell the lien to a finance company or collection agency, usually at a substantial discount, which will then wait patiently until OP sells or transfers the property to collect their lien, plus interest.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> "CAS" <2carolinesem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How does this affect my property?
>
> An abstract of judgment is a lien, though by itself it really does
> nothing. But when you go to sell or refinance the property the lien
> will be paid off first before you get anything.
Right; and, may I add, in all states AFAIK a judgment lien also accrues post-judgment interest from the date of the judgment, which also must be paid off along with the principal amount, before OP will see a penny from the sale.
In many states, MD frex (10%), the legal rate of post-judgment interest is substantially higher than the going rate for loans on the open market; so many judgment lienholders are content to just sit on their investment until the debtor decides to sell, doing nothing apart from recording the judgment with the public land records so the judgment becomes a.lien on the debtor's property.
> It is possible for the sheriff to sell the property to pay the
> judgment, but that is difficult to do and is therefore unlikely to
> happen.
If the lienholder is desperate to get cash quickly, they may well go ahead and do that despite the difficulty. Or they will sell the lien to a finance company or collection agency, usually at a substantial discount, which will then wait patiently until OP sells or transfers the property to collect their lien, plus interest.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)