You are currently browsing the archives for the Bella category.
| 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 | 30 | ||
January 8, 2009 by admin.
This past week, I met a jubilant, fascinating man named Jimmy, who is the manager of the Nine Zero Hotel in downtown Boston.
After a lengthy, interesting conversation about this and that, Jimmy took me on a tour of his hotel. I was very impressed. Having seen much of what the Nine Zero Hotel has to offer, I have determined to host estate planning seminars and similar events for clients in Nine Zero’s function facilities. (Stay tuned to this blog for more information on these seminars, or E-Mail me for more information.)
Unlike many Boston hotels (which tend to be of a more “traditional” style), the Nine Zero Hotel is fabulously modern and exudes excitement from every wall. There is a very slick – yet relaxed – feel to the place. The farther you delve into the hotel, the more it seems like you have left Boston and entered Manhattan.
That is, until you look out the window. Spacious views of Boston are to be had from any of the rooms facing Tremont Street (perhaps others as well, but those are the only ones I saw).
The most exciting part of my tour of the hotel came at the beginning. Jimmy showed me a luxury suite, typically renting in the neighborhood of $3,500 per night. When we approached the door, I saw this big metal and glass thing built into the wall.
“Is that…?” I thought to myself. “Nah… It couldn’t be…”
And it was.
The luxury suites have iris scanners in lieu of keycards. You just walk up to it, it scans your eyeball, and unlocks.So cool.
That is what the sign outside the Omni Parker House in Boston read on the day I met Jimmy. This led to a lengthy discussion between the two of us on businesses’ premises liability. Premises liability is the legal term used to describe a real estate owner’s duty to visitors (or, in legal terminology, “entrants”) to the property.
In Massachusetts, all real estate owners owe a duty of reasonable care to all lawful entrants upon their property. This includes a duty to reasonably inspect and a duty to make safe or warn. Here, because the Omni Parker House simply posted large, ridiculous signs that said, “BEWARE OF FALLING SNOW,” they most likely eliminated their liability should a big ol’ snow chunk fall on an unsuspecting passerby.
Jimmy told me about a major office building nearby that takes this one step further. They not only post signs to warn of falling snow and ice, but even hand out umbrellas to people as they leave the building. While this may be a bit too overcautious, the lawyers and accountants for that building’s management probably figured that it is cheaper to give out umbrellas than to even risk a lawsuit. This makes sense in this day and age, when even the very existence of a pending lawsuit – regardless of its strength – can be very expensive.
An attorney I worked for a couple of years ago told me that most of the practice of law does not involve litigation; rather it is about compliance. Litigation is almost always a last resort because of the great expense and vast amount of time it can take. As Danny DeVito’s character, Lawrence Garfield, put it in Other People’s Money when discussing lawyers: “They’re like nuclear warheads. They have theirs, so I have mine. Once you use them, they [screw] up everything.”
My parents’ Yorkshire Terrier, Bella (whom I discussed recently), epitomizes the type of attorney you should have.
![]()
Bella is normally a relatively quiet dog – with a caveat: Whenever anyone sets foot into my parents’ house – or comes near it – and Bella sees or hears them, she barks like crazy. She runs over to the person and does not rest until she sees the person, sniffs them, and – occasionally – licks their toes. In short, she is the perfect compliance lawyer.
This is not to say that your attorney should be actively sniffing you. That is probably a bit over the line. And if your attorney asks to lick your toes, you should probably leave his office straight away.
To put things another way: When Bella detects a disturbance – a new person, a new noise, that sort of thing – she perks up and focuses on it. Then, she immediately rushes to investigate, to ensure that the source of the noise is in compliance with how things in and around the house should be. Once she confirms the compliance, she turns back to her sweet, smiling self.
![]()
Granted, we have never seen Bella in a situation with an actual intruder who needs to be bitten and mauled by a Yorkie in a fairy costume; we don’t know if she would actually attack a bad guy, or simply lick his toes and happily prance away. It is the suggestion of the security that Bella provides, however, that is important. Bella keeps the bad guys at bay (presumably), and that is all that is important. What she would actually do to a bad guy is irrelevant.
The same is true of lawyers. The best use of lawyers is not as attack dogs – but as guard dogs. The ideal (and probably cheapest) time to hire a lawyer is before you need one. The best way to put a lawyer to good use is to have him provide you with the security and peace of mind in knowing that you are ready for anything. We lawyers like to be prepared – and to help our clients be prepared as well. That is how we thrive best.
If you have any questions about your premises liability, your estate plan, or other matters of preparation, contact an attorney you can count on today.
Posted in Seminars, Compliance, Premises Liability, LinkedIn, Bella, estate planning | Print | No Comments »
January 1, 2009 by admin.
Nearly one year ago, my parents adopted a puppy. She is an adorable Yorkshire Terrier named Bella.
My parents love this dog. LOVE this dog. Granted, she has a place in my heart, too, but…
Well, let’s put it this way: two quintagenarians cooing over this little puppy perhaps more enthusiastically than they might a grandchild is really a sight to see.
About two weeks ago, Bella turned one year old. My parents went all out and threw a birthday party for her.
A surprise birthday party.
For a dog.
Grown men and women hid, then shouted “Surprise!” at a puppy.
Then they had dog-safe cake.
(My mother – who has not baked so much as a cookie for her children in several years – baked an entire cake for the dog.)
Here is a picture of Bella dressed up for her birthday:
As you can clearly see from this picture, my parents either 1) absolutely adore Bella or 2) are insane.
Whatever the case, however – and despite the fact that Bella is of an entirely different species – my parents doubtlessly love Bella as a member of their family; this is something that is true of many – if not most – pet owners.
Unlike other members of the family, however, Bella cannot be provided for under traditional estate planning techniques. In simpler terms: poor Bella – beloved as she may be (perhaps even more than my brother and I) – cannot be a beneficiary under my parents’ wills.
As much a part of our families as our pets are – as much as we love our Rovers and Fluffies and Mr. Bun-Buns (et al.) – the law almost universally recognizes animals as no more than personal property. Under this premise, the law curmudgeonly concludes that, because items of personal property cannot inherit other items of personal property, it will not recognize gifts to pets.
The same goes for a trust – another common estate planning tool. To prevent trustees from doing things that trustees are not supposed to do, it is up to the beneficiary to enforce the terms of a trust. Under the traditional law of many states, an animal cannot properly enforce a trust; therefore, beneficiaries must be human.
So how does one provide for a beloved pet in their estate plan when only human beneficiaries are allowed in a will or a trust?
With a human beneficiary, of course.
Every trust has a purpose. Without a purpose, a trust fails.
The Honorary Trust was originally a device a grantor used as part of his last will and testament to ensure that one’s family members would take care of a piece of land or property – usually the grantor’s tomb (the grantor was frequently too distracted to take care of his tomb himself, being dead and all). Under an honorary trust, the beneficiaries use the money to take care of the designated property. They are under no legal duty to do so, but once they stop doing so, the trust’s purpose (i.e., the care and maintenance of the “honored” property) becomes frustrated, and the beneficiary loses all right to the trust money.
Obviously, a good way to ensure pet care post-mortem in states that have not legislated “pet trusts” is to set up an honorary trust to take care of the pet in question. Here, the pet is not the per se beneficiary, but receives the benefit of the trust funds by way of the human beneficiary. The human beneficiary is a beneficiary in name only; s/he is more of a guardian.
The trend is increasing in a number of states, however, to treat animals more like humans. Some states are making it easier to leave money to one’s pets outright. Additionally, as long ago as 1997, a Washington state court held that a chimpanzee could be an outright beneficiary of a trust (with a guardian ad litem, naturally).
For a nice, extreme example of the Honorary Trust in action, we need look no farther than the somewhat recently departed Queen of Mean herself, Leona Helmsley. The hotel empress and convicted tax evader provided in her will for a $12,000,000 trust to benefit (by way of a human beneficiary/guardian) her Maltese (“Trouble”) – an amount larger than any single bequest in Helmsley’s will. The appointed trust beneficiary/guardian estimated that care for the dog would run approximately $140,000 annually (most of this being for security; poor little Trouble had death threats against her at the time). Trouble’s veterinarian estimated that Trouble would live only another three to five years. In light of this information, a New York judge reduced the amount of Trouble’s trust from $12 million to $2 million – but upheld the trust otherwise (much to the chagrin, I imagine, of the human beneficiaries of Leona’s will).
So what’s the moral of this story? Well, I suppose it’s this (with apologies to the Helmsley Hotels):
If Leona Helmsley wouldn’t settle for an estate plan that didn’t adequately care for her pet, why should you?
As I mentioned above, Bella had a birthday cake at her party.
![]()
The cake is good for humans too. I had some. It is delicious.
Here is the recipe:
1 cup flour
1 tsp. baking soda
1 egg
1/4 cup peanut butter
1/4 cup vegetable oil
1 tsp. vanilla
1 cup shredded carrots
1 tbsp. honey (optional)
ICING/DECORATIONS: Cottage Cheese, Peanut Butter, Shredded Carrots
Mix flour and baking soda.
Add remaining ingredients.
Pour into greased 8″ round cake pan.
Bake at 350° for 30 minutes.
Let cool.
Puree cottage cheese in blender.
Ice cake with cottage cheese
Decorate with more peanut butter and carrots.
Serve and enjoy!
To see more of Bella, visit her website (yes, my parents have set up a website for her) at http://www.bellanaples.com.
- Joe Stanganelli, Esq.
Posted in LinkedIn, Bella, pets, estate planning | Print | No Comments »