| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
July 30, 2009 by admin.
Would you rather spend a little bit of money now, or lose a lot of money later?
This week, I talked with a woman (not a client) who was having problems with a prospective landlord who had already broken a written agreement with her. The woman was in love with the building, however, and was torn whether or not to move forward with renting from this landlord. In questioning whether she should rent from this landlord or not, she bemoaned the fact that “there are so many legal loopholes” and that she didn’t want them to break another agreement with her because she “wouldn’t want to take the time or money to get legal representation.” This is exactly why making an appointment with a lawyer is not a waste of time. It doesn’t cease to amaze me when someone bemoans their legal fears about something that means a lot to them and in which they have invested a lot of time and/or money, but then says “but I don’t have the time or money to hire a lawyer.” That’s like saying, “I want to build the largest, most fabulous, most expensive beach house for myself, but I don’t have the time or money to hire a plumber.” In both instances, when you’re in deep, er, potential projectiles for Wuesi McGowan, it’s usually too late. If something means a lot to you and you’re already investing a lot of time or money into it, you’re only shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t at least talk to a lawyer. At or shortly after the first consult, a lawyer should be able to tell you if they are willing to take on your representation, why or why not, and a general outline of what steps s/he will take on your behalf. (Money, I grant you, is an important consideration for those who truly have money troubles. This is why more attorneys are making their first consults free and why there is a growing trend in the profession away from hourly billing and more towards flat or contingent fees.) Most of what a typical private attorney does all day does not involve going to trials. Most of it is boring paperwork and compliance work/preventative law. This makes it all the more frustrating for us when we have to turn potential clients away because it is too late for us to help them. By trying to save a few bucks in the short term, these potential clients waited too long to see a lawyer and are now up the proverbial creek. (This is especially true when dealing with potential plaintiffs, as there are statutes of limitations that limit how long someone has to file a lawsuit.) As I emphasize in this blog frequently: The best time to hire a lawyer is before you need one! All you have to do is pick a lawyer and talk to him. It’s that simple, and there is no reason not to do it. If you think you may possibly need legal protection or other legal advice for something going on in your life or business, please don’t wait until it’s too late. Contact Beacon Hill Law today. Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Beacon Hill Law
617-398-0769
Posted in Art Law, Music Law, Entertainment Law, Landlord/Tenant, Real Estate, Contracts, Massachusetts, Intellectual Property, Florida, Compliance, Premises Liability, Wills, Preventative Law, Landlords, Personal Injury, LinkedIn | Print | No Comments »
July 23, 2009 by admin.
I ran my own theatre and entertainment production company shortly after graduating from The University of New Hampshire with a B.A. in Theatre. I have also kept in touch with a number of my friends and colleagues from the entertainment industry, including the realms of theatre, film, music, and so on. Recently, a theatre professional in my network mentioned that he was working on a stage musical and wanted to use certain other existing (copyrighted) songs – but with the lyrics changed for satirical effect. He wanted to know if it would be “fair use” of these copyrighted songs to do so. “Fair Use” is a term that is bandied about so much in conversations about copyright that it is important to understand what it is – and is not. If something is protected under copyright, other people are restricted from using it without some sort of license or permission to do so. Simple Example: When you buy a music CD (or, as the technological case may be, buy and download a song on iTunes), you are purchasing a limited license to play that music for your (and, reasonably speaking, your family and friends’) private enjoyment. Under the doctrine of Fair Use, we can use portions of copyrighted works without licenses or permissions to a very limited extent because of our First Amendment rights to express our opinions about things. For instance, reviewers of film, stage, and music can insert small snippets from the work in their review such as may be necessary to review the work. Fair Use, however, is one of the most abused doctrines in our society because of how people misunderstand it. Many people commit outright copyright infringement and try to claim that it is protected by Fair Use. One needs only look no further than YouTube to confirm this. Users post tons of copyrighted material (not their own) on YouTube (especially scenes from TV shows and movies, as well as songs), and then become surprised and upset when YouTube takes their posts down. Many people, in a woeful misunderstanding of copyright law, even seem to think that if they include a disclaimer that the material isn’t theirs and it belongs to someone else, this exculpates them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, it only serves as an admission that they are knowingly infringing someone’s copyright. They try to claim that this is all covered under Fair Use, but they are wrong. To be honest, many of these people believe that “Fair Use” means that it is okay to break the law a little bit. Unfortunately enough, they misunderstand the very limited extent to which use of these copyrighted materials is permitted. It was refreshing for me, therefore, to hear from someone who had some grasp of the concept. As my colleague was aware, Fair Use most often comes up – and is frequently successfully defended – in the realm of parody and satire. For instance, in one famous case, the United States Supreme Court – in a unanimous decision – reversed a lower appellate court ruling and ruled that the rap group 2 Live Crew did not commit copyright infringement with their parody of Roy Orbison’s Oh, Pretty Woman, even though 1) they used some of the lyrics and the bass line from the original and 2) their song was commercially successful (i.e., making money). Additionally, in another well known case, an appellate court vacated a lower court’s injunction against publication Alice Randall’s parody of Margaret MitchellGone With the Wind – entitled The Wind Done Gone. Still, not even these First Amendment rights to satirize will protect excessive copying. In the latter case, both the appellate court and lower court found that Randall’s parody excessively copied the original Gone With the Wind; in the former case, the Supreme Court remanded the case to determine whether 2 Live Crew excessively copied Orbison’s original song. Only one thing is clear then: Fair Use defenses must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Anyone who anticipates asserting a Fair Use defense (and anyone wishing to combat such a defense in their own copyright infringement suit) should consult an attorney right away. Therefore, because of the case-by-case nature of this area of law, the only so-called “blanket advice” I could offer my colleague was the following: When in doubt, get permission (or, at least try). Even celebrated pop song parodist Weird Al Yankovic seeks permission for all of his songs. Ask yourself if it really is truly necessary to have your work be so similar to the original. Often, you can achieve your artistic goals while being truly, 100% original. Talk to an attorney, because if you’re putting this much time and effort into a work of art in which you truly believe, there is no point in skimping on the legal protection to save a few bucks (especially because it could be more costly down the road if you don’t get qualified legal advice).
Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Beacon Hill Law
Posted in First Amendment, Copyright, Federal Law, Software Law, Art Law, Music Law, LinkedIn, Preventative Law, Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law, Disclaimers | Print | No Comments »
July 20, 2009 by admin.
In my first “law” job, as a summer law clerk for a major firm in Florida, one of the attorneys for whom I worked told me that 90% of a lawyer’s work is preventative law.
This shaped my philosophy about what it means to be a lawyer a great deal.
Sure, television depicts lawyers doing little else but prosecuting or defending exciting, high profile trials (well, that and having sex with each other, depending upon the TV show in question). What television doesn’t show you as much is the even more important – however banal – desk work of a lawyer – researching, analyzing, and preparing paperwork.
When you see a case going to trial in the United States, by very virtue of the fact of what a trial is, at least one of three things has occurred:
• Somebody didn’t consult a lawyer in time.
• Somebody didn’t listen to their lawyer.
• Somebody’s lawyer didn’t do a good enough job.
This is true of every trial, civil or criminal, high stakes or small claims, state court or federal court.
Even today, I believe that most of what a good lawyer does – or, at least, should do – is prevent his clients from getting into any sort of legal trouble (or, at least, any more trouble than they’re in already).
Both an attorney friend of mine (we’ll call him “John”) and I welcome criminal defense work. We seem to differ, however, on this philosophy. John’s web page describing his services is, to my mind, a bit misinformed – at least, from my philosophical perspective. Specifically, John’s website invites people who have “been arrested or charged with a crime” to call his office.
To me, this invitation is woefully limiting.
A criminal case is like a race where the government already has a significant headstart. When a criminal suspect is arrested or formally charged, the government has already completed a substantial amount of work in preparing its case. If a criminal suspect waits until he has been arrested or charged, he is severely limiting his ability to successfully defend himself. Additionally, if a criminal suspect waits until he is arrested or formally charged with a crime, very likely he has already waived important Constitutional rights which would have aided him tremendously had he actually exercised them.
Therefore, a criminal suspect helps his case tremendously if he contacts a lawyer as soon as he believes that he is suspected of a crime. This might be after police attempt to question him (even if the police say that the questions are merely “routine”). It might be after something bad happens to someone with whom the suspect had some sort of personal relationship, whether the relationship was a “good” one (such as a family member, friend, or significant other) or a “bad” one (such as an enemy or rival). In the cases of some types of crimes, it might also be once the suspect notes some unexplained changes to his home or office environment (such as might occur when law enforcement places surveillance equipment in a room or on a computer).
If you are suspected of a crime, law enforcement has most likely already started building its case against you. If you contact a lawyer at the proper time, you can get the advice you need to build your case too. Additionally, if you are falsely accused, a lawyer may be able to advise you so as to place you beyond suspicion altogether – and allow law enforcement to find the real culprit.
After all, if someone blaming you for their injury told you, “I’m going to sue you,” would you wait until they had actually filed the paperwork before you consulted a lawyer about your liability? (Hint: The right answer is “No.”) Your answer should be the same if you are suspected of a crime. In the world of criminal justice, everything is on the line. Freedom. Family. Friends. Reputation. Job. A criminal suspect simply cannot afford to not speak with an attorney.
Don’t be behind in the race. If you are arrested for or charged with a crime, you definitely need an attorney – but you should also consult with an attorney if you are merely suspected or accused of a crime.
You owe it to yourself – and to your loved ones – to contact Beacon Hill Law.
Posted in Criminal Law, Preventative Law, Compliance, LinkedIn | Print | No Comments »
March 5, 2009 by admin.
EDIT: I am in the process of moving. The blog is on indefinite hiatus. Will return sometime before the summer is out.
Please feel free to contact me at Joseph@BeaconHillLaw.com
Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Florida, LinkedIn | Print | No Comments »
January 29, 2009 by admin.
What do you do if you want a new lawyer and the judge won’t let you have one?
This is the dilemma Wuesi McGowan – a home invasion robbery suspect – faced during his criminal trial.
Mr. McGowan had requested that San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser remove his public defender, Jeffrey Martin, from his case. Judge Fraser – who had previously denied an earlier motion by Mr. McGowan to let him represent himself – refused.
Fortunately for bloggers everywhere, Mr. McGowan came up with an innovative – and ultimately successful, albeit pretty gross – solution to his problem.
During a mid-morning break in his trial, Mr. McGowan smeared feces on his lawyer’s face and hair.
For good measure, he threw some feces at the jurors too.
Needless to say, Jeffrey Martin is no longer Mr. McGowan’s attorney.
It may also be worth mentioning (i.e., so nobody attacks someone with feces in a courtroom and then says, “Joe Stanganelli told me to do it!”) that Judge Fraser has issued a mistrial and quadrupled Mr. McGowan’s bail because of this incident. Mr. McGowan could also face assault charges for this, er, foul attack.
It goes without saying that if someone (other than a baby) has flung feces at you, you may want to contact a lawyer. And take a shower.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Beacon Hill Law
Posted in Weird News, Criminal Law, Personal Injury, LinkedIn, Disclaimers | Print | 1 Comment »
January 27, 2009 by admin.
Boston is apparently a dangerous city in the winter.
Walk around the city this time of year, and you’ll see signs on every other block that say something like: “Falling Ice! Use Caution!” As I wrote earlier this month, these signs are presumably posted in an effort to release landowners and others from liability.
Practically speaking, however, what is the reasonably cautious pedestrian supposed to do?
Not walk on that sidewalk?
Well, okay. I suppose a pedestrian could go out of his way to cross the street. But then what if the other side of the street has a sign just like it?
Of course, if the sign is right outside the building the pedestrian is going into, then there’s very little hope for the pedestrian…without looking silly, anyway. I suppose he or she could dash in to the building while holding his arms over his head.
Still, so long as the property owner him/her/self did not contribute to the dangerous situation, then the property owner would most likely not be held liable for any injury so long as s/he properly warned others. These prominent signs likely qualify.
But then there’s this situation:
![]()
My friend Leanne Heller recently took this picture and blogged about it, “translating” it like so:
Don’t go out this door! You might be impaled by a 3′ icicle. There is nothing we can do. Don’t even try. Abandon hope, ye who exit here.
It is hard to argue that this is not a sufficiently prominent warning; it’s right there at eye level as you try to walk out the door (assuming you’re not a child or “little person”).
The sign, however, outright tells people that the exit is not usable. Depending upon the actual level of danger, one can speculate how problematic this might be in the case of an emergency.
As many Bostonians are already aware, Boston was the site of the second-deadliest building fire in American history when a trendy nightclub – The Cocoanut Grove – burned in 1942.
As a subsequent investigation revealed, the place was a deathtrap waiting to happen. The decorations were extremely flammable and the exit doors swung inwardly (indeed, the Cocoanut Grove fire was the catalyst for strict fire codes that Massachusetts and other states subsequently enacted). Even more appalling, most of the exit doors were blocked or sealed shut (to prevent patrons from skipping out on their bill). Based on these and other facts, the owner of the nightclub, Barney Welansky (who knew of and authorized these dangers), was convicted on nineteen counts of manslaughter.
So how is this relevant?
In theory, if the exit door pictured above is truly dangerous, it may impute some duty upon the owner to remove the danger itself (i.e., by getting on the roof and manually removing the dangerous ice). After all, if some emergency were to arise, it is unfair to expect a reasonable person trying to escape that they should use a different exit. This is recognized in the English common law under the doctrine of “sciens non est volens” – which is Latin for “knowing is not volunteering.” A person knowing of the risk of something does not necessarily consent to it.
Case in point: successful tobacco lawsuits.
![]()
As I’ve been saying time and time again, the best time to hire a lawyer is before you need one. If you have any questions about your potential liability as a property owner – or if you’ve been injured and it was somebody else’s fault – consider contacting an attorney today.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Beacon Hill Law
Posted in Criminal Law, Warnings, Landlords, Personal Injury, Preventative Law, Premises Liability, Compliance, LinkedIn | Print | 1 Comment »
January 23, 2009 by admin.
Today’s post is the first in what I expect to be a series devoted to answering some of my readers’ E-Mail to me.
(Note that my Disclaimers in my first post and on my Notices page are still in full force. The following is neither legal advice nor financial advice – and is not intended as such. An attorney-client relationship is neither created nor intended in this and other blog posts. I merely present the below for entertainment and educational purposes for friends and clients.)
This first E-Mail comes from Geri, who runs a law firm marketing company. Geri has been very kind in offering me advice, and here is one such piece of it.
is there a way you can make your hyperlinks open another window rather than take you away from your site? i had to use my back button to get back to your site. usability standards consider hyperlinks that take you away from the original site to result in people reading less. . .especially if they then use another hyperlink in the site you’ve taken them to. (does that make any sense?)
Dear Geri,
That definitely does make sense. Wordpress has been frustrating at times to figure out. Additionally, it has been years since I’ve done any HTML programming, so I have only recently picked it up again. I appreciate my readers bearing with me as I strive to make and keep this blog excellent.
That said, I have recently figured out how to make my links open in a new window. All of the links on the Blogroll should now open in a new window, and all links included in future entries should do so as well. The next time I update the About page, I will similarly update the links within it. Links in blog posts prior to this one have not been updated to include this feature (at least, not yet).
Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it – and continue to invite my readers to contact me.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
The next correspondence I address comes from a new friend of mine, Richard. Richard works in the financial services industry. In response to my remarks on Suze Orman’s estate plan, Richard writes (over the course of multiple E-Mails):
All life insurance is term insurance. Take a look at those whole, universal, and variable policies, there is a section regarding the cost of either the Annual Renewable TERM or Decreasing TERM insurance that the company pays for.
All life insurance falls under those 2 categories. Yes ART can have a level period, but they all boil down to one of those 2.
…
It’s that one bone in my body that must have everything right.
Dear Richard,
Not being someone who is a life insurance expert (I deal with it only as it pertains to estate planning), I defer to the wisdom of those who are when it comes to life insurance definitions and the like. I haven’t discussed the above with others who know more about life insurance than I do because whether you are technically correct or not is irrelevant for my purposes (i.e., offering an estate planning perspective); I only meant “term insurance” in the “pure” sense, i.e., for a specifically enumerated, limited period of time, as a pure insurance tool (a.k.a. the sense just about everybody usually means when they use the term “term insurance”).
One of the ultimate purposes (albeit not the only one) of estate planning is to pass on the greatest amount of wealth possible to those you care about. I want to emphasize that I am looking at this strictly from an estate planning point of view – and when it comes to estate planning, pure term insurance is usually not as useful as those “impure term” policies.
I am aware that some “pure term” policies can offer better yields than whole, universal, or variable policies. Life insurance, after all, pays out when – and if – you die during the policy period. If your loved one has a “pure” term insurance policy on your life, and you’re still alive when it runs out, then it was useless from the estate planning viewpoint; it passed on zero wealth to said loved one. (True, some term insurance policies, such as an ART, are renewable, but often the premiums go up each year.)
In any case, thank you for educating me more about life insurance.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Next we have a comment from “SaxophoneMan” in response to my January 16 post. Saxophone Man writes:
“The law will arbitrarily decide who gets your assets” if you don’t have a will? That is not actually true. The law of intestacy is actually designed to prevent the arbitrary allocation of assets in the absence of a will. Rather, intestacy rules seek to provide order in the allocation of the estate. While such allocation may not be the deceased’s preference, it is far from arbitrary.
Dear SaxophoneMan,
I realize that one of the many dictionary definitions of the word “arbitrary” is: “established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute.” That is not how I use the word here.
Rather, I use the word in accordance with the following, alternative definition: “based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact.”
As a Massachusetts attorney, I am well aware of the existence of Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 190 (the Massachusetts intestacy laws). To say that the intestacy laws were “designed to prevent the arbitrary allocation of assets” is not really correct. While they may have been designed to prevent probate judges themselves from divvying up estate assets arbitrarily, that does not make the intestacy laws any less arbitrary themselves.
In writing and enacting the intestacy laws, the legislature has arbitrarily decided for you the succession of your estate assets without a valid will in force. You yourself acknowledge that “such allocation may not be the deceased’s preference.” It is hard to imagine how that is something other than arbitrary.
After all, what is the basis for “such allocation”? Why, nothing more than the discretion of a group of state legislators huddled around a consanguinity chart! Yes, blood relations can be definitively shown and proven (and are therefore more convenient from a legal perspective), but that doesn’t change the fact that they make for no less arbitrary a standard than anything else that is not the deceased’s wishes.
Add the spousal elective share into the mix, and things become even more wild. As I stated in an earlier post, one of the common goals of estate planning for a couple is to avoid estate taxes until the second death (i.e., the death of the surviving spouse). This is because all estate taxes can be avoided by way of the marital deduction (assuming that the decedent is married to a United States citizen) and the Unified Credit (i.e., the $2,000,000 estate tax exemption). The logical thing for the married decedent-to-be with a greater than $2,000,000 estate is to leave $2,000,000 to the kids (or whomever s/he wishes), and the rest to his/her spouse (and/or a qualified 501(c)(3) charity to take advantage of the Qualified Charitable Deduction).
When a married person with children dies without a will in Massachusetts, the spouse gets half of their estate and the children get the other half. Even if we set aside personal circumstances that would make this a ridiculous distribution, if the decedent’s estate exceeds $4,000,000, then this is a wholly illogical distribution for tax purposes; the portion of the children’s half that exceeds $2,000,000 would be subject to federal estate tax.
(This is even setting aside the fact that the Massachusetts state estate tax exemption is less than that of the federal estate tax exemption.)
There are many, many more cases where the intestate statutes just quite clearly fail to dispose of assets in the best possible manner – let alone succeed at indicating that they are anything other than arbitrary distinctions.
While the laws of intestacy, spousal shares, and the like do serve their purpose of providing a default (so that probate judges aren’t just left to wing it), it is hard to argue that the way they were written is anything other than arbitrary. What is more, the certainty of the intestate laws pale in comparison to the certainty a well-written will provides.
Thanks for your comment.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Beacon Hill Law is on its way to being officially open for business. I have but about half a dozen forms left to fill out, plus the construction of the website. Please keep visiting this blog for updates – and don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any feedback or if you think there is something I can do for you.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Wills, Unified Credit Trust, Children, Probate, Reader Mail, Preventative Law, Charitable Giving, Marital Deduction, LinkedIn, Disclaimers, Intestacy, Marriage, Estate Taxation, Life Insurance, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 20, 2009 by admin.
Today’s Topic: What is a Power of Attorney?
The Short Answer: It gives someone else the power to do or decide things that normally only you would be able to do or decide.
A Power of Attorney is often an important tool in one’s completed estate plan.
This news piece from ABC’s Good Morning America, however, details a situation of a Power of Attorney gone bad.
The article explains how an elderly widow was conned and bullied out of her life savings. When her husband passed a way, 83-year-old Betty Halligan signed a Power of Attorney over to her grandson – and deeded her house to him as well. Instead of protecting his grandmother and her assets, the grandson stole from her and began proceedings to evict her from her own home – using the Power of Attorney to do it.
Indeed, reports of Power of Attorney Abuse are increasing across the country. The AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) reports the following:
“[Power of Attorney Abuse] typically begins when an older adult, usually a woman whose husband handled the finances, becomes widowed and starts to fall behind on her bills. Often, an individual’s diminished mental capacity plays a role in the need for help from family or friends.”
And so the Power of Attorney has gotten a bad rap among some, what with all of the reports of Powers of Attorney being used for evil.
But as the old journalism adage goes: The news never tells you about the house that didn’t burn down.
A show of hands: Who here has seen Star Wars?
Unless you’ve been living under a rock with the people who have never heard of Suze Orman, you are most likely at least familiar with the Star Wars saga – and, therefore, with The Force.
In Star Wars, The Force – replete with a “Light Side” and a “Dark Side” – is a metaphysical power that can be used for good or for evil.
So too is the Power of Attorney.
We have obviously seen examples of the Power of Attorney being used for evil. How about for good?
As I learned as a child when my card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA cousin taught me about gun safety, the best way to protect yourself from the evils of something dangerous is to learn about it. Knowledge and understanding are your best defenses against many harms, such as Power of Attorney abuse.
A Power of Attorney designates another person to make important decisions – and act those decisions – on your behalf. This person then becomes your “agent.”
Generally, the purpose of a Power of Attorney is to allow your agent to make these decisions and take these actions in case you are unable to do so yourself. It can ensure that your finances and assets are properly maintained, even in the event of your absence or mental incapacitation. Alternatively (or additionally), it can give someone you completely trust the authority to make important health care decisions for you in case you become unable to do so for yourself (e.g., incapacitated, unconscious, etc.).
A Power of Attorney can be particularly necessary sometimes because hospitals, banks, government agencies, and other such entities may require a written Power of Attorney to allow someone else to act on your behalf. This makes planning ahead very important. Obviously, if you become incapacitated, you will be unable to execute a Power of Attorney during the very time that you need it.
I understand that many of my readers may think, “Well, I’m perfectly healthy right now, so I don’t need a Power of Attorney!” Remember, however, that estate planning is exactly that — planning. If you don’t set up your estate plan until you really need it, then it may already be too late. As I said in an earlier post, the best time to hire an attorney is before you need one.
One popular misconception of the Power of Attorney is that it makes someone your “boss,” granting your agent total control to override your life decisions should you and s/he ever disagree. This is absolutely not true. Your designated agent is just that – your agent. He or she works for you.
Additionally, you can always revoke a Power of Attorney – and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
A good analogy for a Power of Attorney is making a copy of a set of keys; you retain the originals for yourself, while giving a copy of they keys to a person you trust. Even if you grant a Power of Attorney to someone else, you can continue to make financial, medical, and other personal decisions for yourself. Additionally, just as you can make as many copies of your keys as you like, you can have as many Powers of Attorney as you like, designating multiple agents. For instance, it is not uncommon for people to designate one agent to handle their financial matters while a completely different person to handle their health care and medical decisions.
There are several different types of Powers of Attorney. As previously mentioned, some allow another person to handle financial affairs for you, while others entrust your health care decisions to an agent. Additionally, while a Power of Attorney can be general, it can instead be limited to a specific purpose or transaction (for instance, selling your car for you). This latter kind is sometimes known as a “Special Power of Attorney.”
Furthermore, you can even designate the time period for which your Power of Attorney will be in effect. You can have your Power of Attorney do one of the following:
The most important knowledge of this powerful estate planning tool that is the Power of Attorney is that it can grant someone a great amount of authority over your personal matters. Therefore, it is important that you totally trust the person(s) to whom you are granting a Power of Attorney, with full understanding of the weight of the authority you are giving them over your life.
(For this reason, a neutral attorney whom you fully trust can make an excellent choice as a Power of Attorney designee. Attorneys, as members of the Bar, are subject to additional laws and rules of ethics that govern how they must behave as fiduciaries.)
To learn more about the different kinds of Powers of Attorney and determine how one or more may be right for you, contact a qualified attorney today.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISCLAIMER: Use of any and all trademarks in this and other blog entries is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. Attorney Joe Stanganelli has no ownership of or affiliation with “Star Wars,” “The Phantom Menace,” “A New Hope,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” “The Force,” “The Light Side,” “The Dark Side,” and the like.*THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMER IS MADE PURSUANT TO THE MASSACHUSETTS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS AND RULES OF ETHICS:
Use of the term “Estate Planner” herein is intended to be merely humorous. Attorney Joe Stanganelli does not intend the term “Estate Planner” to be used to describe himself (although Attorney Joe Stanganelli does welcome estate planning work for clients). By the same token, Attorney Joe Stanganelli does not intend to be held to the same legal standards as an attorney who does use the term “Estate Planner” to describe him- or herself. Attorney Joe Stanganelli, as a competent attorney and member of the Massachusetts Bar, merely welcomes – along with many other types of legal work – clients who need estate planning advice. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney Joe Stanganelli does not wish to give clients or potential clients the notion that he is a “specialist,” “expert,” or similar designation in the area of estate planning – at least, any more so than a general practitioner of law in jurisdiction(s) within which he is licensed.
Posted in Elder Abuse, Power of Attorney, Health Care, Preventative Law, Elder Care, Elder Law, Disclaimers, LinkedIn, Grandchildren, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 16, 2009 by admin.
It’s a new year, and with a new year can come new developments.
Many new developments may have happened in your life in the past year or so; I know that that is true for me.
One of these events is my having gained about 9 pounds and a couple of inches on my waistline. This has led me to one my New Year’s Resolutions: Be Healthier. To accomplish this, I have joined an affordable gym, am working out more often, and am at least trying to eat less junk food (the soda I am drinking right now notwithstanding).
Many other significant things and events (more significant than gaining 9 pounds, even) have happened in my life within the past year or two. Because of this, another one of my New Year’s Resolutions is to write a new will for myself.
Why am I writing a new will for myself? After all, I am currently young, unmarried, childless, relatively healthy, and lacking in substantial wealth.
The fact of the matter is that most everybody probably *should* have a will. As I mentioned in a blog post earlier this month, when a person dies without a will, that is known as intestacy. Generally, intestacy is not a particularly good thing because it means the following:
For my own part, I am writing my will:
It is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan whenever you have new developments in your life, such as:
The above is not an exhaustive list, but should give you some clue as to when an estate plan is due for a review. Additionally, anyone with a net worth in excess of $2 million has no excuse to not have an updated estate plan in place.
Additionally, it is a good idea to have an attorney review your estate plan about every two to five years. If it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review, strongly consider contacting an attorney who can meet your estate planning needs today.
Now that we’re well into 2009, it’s important for clients and potential clients to realize how new tax laws impact their estate plans.
For starters, the annual gift tax exclusion has been increased to $13,000. The obvious implication of this is that an individual can now give up to $13,000 per donee per year tax-free. Additonally, these gifts can be split with one’s spouse – with the spouse’s consent – for a maximum of $26,000. Indeed, some married couples make their annual gifts as early in the calendar year as possible – to ensure that both spouses are alive at the time of the gifts (after all, a deceased spouse cannot consent).
Because of this, 2009 is a great time to review your trust plan and/or giving program (especially if it has been more than two years since your most recent estate plan review), so as to continue to maximize the use of lifetime gifting strategies. Additionally, all good trust plans, giving programs, and estate plans afford some degree of flexibility – not only to account for a client’s changing plans, priorities, and life developments, but also changes to applicable laws. Contact an attorney for your estate planning needs today.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Children, Gifts, Grandchildren, Gift Taxes, Probate, Wills, Living Trust, LinkedIn, pets, Intestacy, Divorce, Marriage, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 13, 2009 by admin.
A drop of water landed directly in my eye yesterday.
I was walking down School Street in Boston when it happened. It must have dripped off a building ledge. It was pretty gross.It reminded me that I need more eye drops, so I went to CVS. While shopping, I flipped through a copy of Suze Orman’s new book, Suze Orman’s 2009 Action Plan (you can download a free PDF version of the book until January 19, 2009, online here courtesy of Oprah.com).
(Suze Orman, for those of you who live under a rock, is the woman on TV who yells at people for spending too much money.)
I saw, as I flipped through the book near the pharmacist’s counter, that Suze Orman recommends to her readers that, in almost all cases, they opt for term life insurance over any other kind of life insurance.
To me, this is pretty ridiculous.
When I think of a life insurance agent, I think of Ned Ryerson, the ineffectual insurance salesman from the movie Groundhog Day. As grating as old “Ned the Head” may be, however, non-term life insurance is often a key component of a good estate plan.
Obviously, a young, healthy, single person with no dependents most likely has little need for any kind of life insurance. Indeed, because of the very nature of life insurance, the longer you can wait to get it, the better.
Nonetheless, the unexpected does happen; that is why people have estate plans.
One obvious benefit of whole, universal or a similar life insurance plan is to maximize the transfer of wealth tax-free. Life insurance is usually not subject to estate taxes when it pays out. Thus, a substantial policy is often a great way to transfer wealth.
Additionally, estate liquidity can be a major issue in estates – especially those that are just barely large enough to be subject to estate tax. Estate representatives sometimes have to sell the family home, the family business, and other valuable and/or sentimental assets to pay estate taxes that are due. With a sufficient life insurance policy in place, the problem is easily solved; the taxes can be paid with the life insurance money without having to sell the estate’s major assets.
Life insurance is also commonly used in business succession plans, wherein the business partners are designated the beneficiaries, and then use that money to buy the decedent’s share of the business back from the spouse, children, or whomever received the business in the will.
Life insurance is not for everybody, and there are many different types of life insurance that can be used for many different things. Life insurance has a great many uses for estate planning (but term life insurance – while it has its uses – can tend to be of limited utility for estate planning needs). For more information on this topic, you should contact a competent attorney, CPA, CFP, or similar, neutral professional who won’t be compensated when you purchase a life insurance policy (unlike an insurance agent).
But not Suze Orman. At least, not on this issue.
(In all seriousness, I admire Suze Orman. She started off as a waitress living in a van and is now a multimillion-dollar success. To me, she is a living Horatio Alger story and an embodiment of the American Dream, and has earned my respect.)
Speaking of Suze Orman, apparently her own financial concerns could in fact be solved with life insurance and other estate planning mechanisms.
According to an interview with The New York Times, Suze Orman is concerned about losing lots of money to estate taxes. More specifically, according to the interview, she is in a committed same-sex relationship with another wealthy individual (her producer). She is concerned that, because she and her partner cannot legally be married, they cannot make use of the marital deduction – and therefore a substantial portion of their substantial estates will be lost to estate taxes.
This presents an important, burgeoning issue in the estate planning field: GLBT planning. Neither the federal government nor any other jurisdiction in the United States (save Massachusetts) recognizes same-sex marriages (although some states have other, similar mechanisms, such as civil unions). This presents an additional challenge when it comes to estate planning for people in committed same-sex relationships. Typically, because of the marital deduction (i.e., the mechanism by which you can give things to your spouse tax-free), one common goal of estate planning is to reduce or eliminate estate taxes at the second death – because upon the first death between the married couple, the decedent spouse has presumably left everything (save for their initial $2,000,000 estate tax exemption) or most everything to their surviving spouse, tax-free. For couples who cannot enter into a marriage recognized by current federal law, like Suze Orman and her female producer, this is not an option.
First and foremost, Suze and her partner could each benefit from substantial life insurance policies, respectively (and it’s not like they can’t afford it, either; according to the same interview, Suze Orman’s liquid net worth is in the $25,000,000 neighborhood). This policy easily turns a few million dollars into several million dollars once it pays out. Furthermore, the life insurance payouts would be tax-free. This could easily make up for the loss to estate taxes.
Furthermore, Suze and her partner would each benefit from irrevocable living trusts set up for their partner’s benefit, set up to not pay out until the first death between them. This is especially ironic because Suze recommends to her readers in her 2009 Action Plan that they set up revocable living trusts. The problem with revocable living trusts is they are still subject to taxation as part of the grantor’s estate; because of their revocability, the grantor is still deemed to “control them,” and therefore own them as part of her estate.
Because Suze Orman is a good sport (I am assuming), I am going to give her some fun, free “legal advice” (I put “legal advice” in quotation marks so nobody can sue me later; this is all rhetorical and hypothetical, and not intended or presented as actual advice forming an attorney-client relationship. Please see the Notices Page for more information). Based upon the limited information I have, with all other things being equal, I would advise Suze to and her partner to each do the following:
And Suze, if you’re reading this and this information helps, feel free to mention my blog on your show.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in Estate Taxation, Marital Deduction, Charitable Giving, Unified Credit Trust, Living Trust, Life Insurance, LinkedIn, Marriage, LGBT, estate planning | Print | No Comments »