TIP of Week Archives

Scroll Down to view Past Articles

DEALING WITH LAYOFFS

ADVANCE PLANNING CAN PREVENT COSTLY LAWSUITS

Shaving the salaries of some employees may help a company's bottom line, buit it could also invite trouble with state and federal regulators, or lead to lawsuits because the employer failed to plan for the worst. Very few companies have a solid, carefully-planned system in place for the evaluation of employees. The need for such a plan is especially important to stave off any disparate impact claims.

Going by seniority can be problematic when workers over the age of 40 are involved, because of the protection afforded under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Also, claims of relaliation are becoming more common-pllace, particularly in wake of two recent Supreme Court decisions expanding the ability of workers to sue for retaliation. (See, CBOCS West v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, and Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321).

Forcompanies with 100 or more employees, under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act employers must give employees at least 60 days' prior notice of any pending layoff or face costly statutory damages. This also applies if companies are sold and some or all of the acquired employees are let go. (See, LawyersUSA, "It's RIF out there: Dealing with layoffs", by Kimberly Atkins, July 7, 2008).

August 2008:

Dealing With Layoffs, Advanced Planning Can Prevent Costly Lawsuits

June 30 - July 7, 2008:

WHY MANY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS DON'T WORK?

As noted by attorney Denis A. Kleinfeld, "What I find amazingly perplexing is that a significant proportion of very successful people who carefully analyze every business proposition - or every restaurant cheque - and spend a small fortune on lawyers, accountants and other professionals for advice (even planning in minute detail their golf or fishing outings) do virtually no planning for what they will do if and when they lose a lawsuit . . . .Human beings are quite capable of all kinds of behaviour that may involve dishonesty, fraud, antisocial behaviour, or malicious actions . . . .As the worl closes in and the exposure to losses increases it is clear that asset protection planning is now as important as it was in the days when building a castle was the best protection plan." (Offshore Investment, 4-08, Issue 185, pages 47-48, "Asset Protection for High Net Worth Clients needed now more than ever.")

The PROBLEM is, as revealed by Trusts & Estates magazine (Sept. 2003): (a) "Top Law Schools Fail To Train Students in Trusts nd Estates"; (b) "clients want asset protection plans" but the vast majority of lawyers don't consider them because "they don't quite know how", and (c) "lawyers anticipate a rise in litigation as baby boomers being inheriting from their parents - and taking the ensuing will disputes to court."

If one desires a viable, protective asset protection and estate preservation structure, then highly competent and experienced professionals with expertise in these fields are required.

June 2008:

DOES YOUR STATE HAVE FRIENDLY TORT LAWS?

According to the "U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2008 Report," North Dakota ranked the best in terms of tort costs and litigation costs. On the other side, Florida ranked dead last in cost and litigation risk and Rhode Island ranked the worst in tort laws.

States that have effective tort laws, reasonably low costs and few litigation risks are: Alaska, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Utah.

States with weak tort laws, high court costs and high litigation risks are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

States which have weak tort laws but currently have low court sosts and few litigation risks, thus leaving such states vulnerable, are: Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Virginia.

States which have strong tort laws, but moderate to high tort costs and litigation risks are: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas.

So, where does your state rank?

April 2008:

GUIDELINES FOR PROPER ESTATE PLANNNING

Estate planning attorney, Barbara H. Cane, while primarily addressing "special-needs heirs", provides the following guidelines: (a) use a revocable living trust as the backbone of the plan; (b) flexibility is the key to a good plan; (c) never let the beneficiary receives assets in his or her own name; (d) plan to prevent "accidental gifts" to the beneficiary; (e) choose competent trustees; and (f) think hard about how much to provide for each child if there is more than one. (Financial Planning, December 2007).

Key elements of a proper estate preservation structure should include a properly drafted, comprehensive Living Trust, Pour-over will, Advanced medical directive (durable power of attorney for health care), Living will and General Durable Power of Attorney.

The Mississippi Supreme Court recently held that a daughter who did not have a power of attorney for her mother (who became incapacitated due to an unexpected stroke) was not entitled to her mother's medical records and, thus, to deal with the nursing home on behalf of her invalid mother. (ElderLawAnswers, January 22, 2008).

"Sources say the uncertain fate of the estate tax has to some extent shifted the focus of estate planning from tax avoidance to equally important financial objectives. Chief among these are providing for the welfare of a survivng spouse, controlling the disposition of assets to be passed to heirs and protecting assets from creditors." However, when the "language is less than precise, funds intended for heirs can be sent into indefinite limbo" due to the "unwillingness of financial institutions to honor the intent of estate planning documents." (National Underwriter, "Estate Planning in '08' by Warren S. Hersch, January 14, 2008).

March 15 - 30, 2008:

"CONVENTIONAL" ASSET PROTECTION & ESTATE PRESERVATION PLANS DO NOT WORK

"A family falsely believing that it has the right documents to secure assets is worse off than the family that knows it needs a plan but just hasn't acted. Unintentional defects in documents or execution all to frequently occur, resulting in some combination of expensive legal solutions, excess taxes paid, or unprotected access to assets. . . . Financial advisors and estate attorneys, for example, have observed that many problems evolve from lawyers who practice estate planning as a sideline rather than as a specialty." (Investment Advisor, "Protecting Family Assets", Lewis Schiff, January 2008).

For asset protection purposes, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best) an LLC or FLP rates about a 4, a domestic asset protection trust (DAPT) coupled with an LLC rates about a 6, an offshore asset protection trust (OAPT) coupled with an LLC rates about a 9. HOWEVER, this desired asset protection is only available if: (a) the documents are prepared by a specialists in domestic and international tax law and asset protection strategies (there are only 14 law firms in the entire U.S. which meet this criteria); (b) the documents themselves are comprehensive and not simplistic (as is often the case); (c) the various entities are located in one or more of the most protective (domestic and/or offshore) jurisdictions; and (d) the structures are properly managed and operated at all times.

David Ness, president of the Raymond James Trust Co., decalred that instead of using a local general practitioner or do-it-yourself approach using simplistic documents available on the internet, "most people would be well-advised to seek the help of attorneys who specialize in estate preservation." "in life, there are two things you should never scrimp on - a parachute and your estate planning documents. In both cases, you only use them once, and they have to work." (Business Week online, 7-21-06).

We have been working with one of the top 14 law firms in the U.S. for a number of years now and are fully capable of handling all of your domestic and/or international asset protection & estate preservation needs. Give us a call TODAY for a FREE 20 minute phone consultation to find out how we can help protect yourself, your heirs and your business from costly estate planning and/or asset protection problems.

March 1 - 15, 2008:

IMPROPER REQUESTS/INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (i.e., BANKS AND BROKERAGE FIRMS)

The presence of real privacy is a rare commodity in the U.S. today, but some financial institutions would make privacy even more rare with their misguided interpretations of the Patriot Act. It has bee brought to our attention that some banks and brokerage firms (i.e., financial institutions) have refused to open accounts for irrevocable trusts, limited partnerships and/or limited liability companies (which have their own separate Taxpayer Indentification Number) unless the applicant provides a list which identifies the "beneficial owner of the funds involved."

While this request is valid for such entities which engage in financial transactions outside the United States, such request appears to be improper and contrary to law if the entity engages in financial transactions soley within the U.S. In this regard, Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 53, Subchapter II of Section 5318A(b)(1)(B)(iii) specifically provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may require (i) the identity and address of the participants in a transaction or relationship, including the identity of the originator of any funds transfer; (ii) the legal capacity in which participant in any transaction is acting; (iii) the identity of the beneficial owner of the funds involved in any transaction but only "with respect to a jurisdiction outside of the United States, financial instritution operating outside the United States, class of transaction within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States, or 1 or more types of accounts" id primary money laundering concern.

February 2008:

Readers should become much more aware of the quality, or lack thereof, of the services provided by their "local" estate planning and/or asset protection practitioner. Attorney Roy M. Adams, a prominent estate planning attorney, was a speaker on October 12, 2007 at the 33rd Annual Notre Dame Tax and Estate Planning Institute.

According to Mr.Adams, a recent survey conducted by the Internal Revenue Service revealed that "one-third" of the marital deduction provisions contained in Trust and Will agreements do NOT meet IRC requirements and are disallowed by the IRS. Obviously, such disallowance results in a substantial increase in estate taxes, interest and penalties.

Mr. Adams further revealed that "estate litigation" resulting from disgruntled and/or greedy heirs is now the "number one litigation" issue in the United States. While we have warned against such potential problems for many years, most individuals tend to ignore these warnings as only applying to the "other guy". Unfortunately, reliance on a local general practitioner for viable comprehensive estate planning and asset protection documents can be a costly mistake.

Obviously, this means that many practitioners lack the expertise required to best serve their clients and to protect their client's estates from excessive death taxes and litigation.

September 14 - 30, 2007:

THE LATEST IN LITIGATION

The judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner filed an opposition to the defendants' motion for legal fees, arguing that he should not have to pay the $82,907 that the owners of the business incurred in defending themselves against his frivolous lawsuit. (The New York Times, August 11, 2007).

A Washington state jury awarded $4.5 million to the widow of a 61-year-old artist and photography instructor who died after the symptoms from his brain tumor were misdiagnosed as panic attacks. (Lawyers USA, August 13, 2007, page 31).

The D.C. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the president of a corporation can be held personally liable for sexually harassing a subordinate African-American female employee. (Lawyers USA, August 13, 2007, page 21).

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer may be liable for religious discrimination and retaliation where it terminated a Christian employee after he expressed discomfort with and declined to participate in worlplace programs and exercises based on Buddhist and Hindu beliefs. (Lawyers USA, August 13, 2007, page 21).

The foregoing prove that corporations do not always isolate individuals from costly lawsuits nor are individuals immune from the costs of defending against frivolous litigation.

September 1 - 14, 2007:

HOMESTEAD & ERISA EXEMPTIONS - DO THEY WORK?

Under a decisions issued on August 7, 2007 by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it is now clear that those who heavily rely on various state and federal homestead and retirement plan (ERISA) exemptions may sometimes be barking up the wrong tree.

Under this holding, those creditors who can successfully utilize the government to seek restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA") can obtain garnishment and restitution from assets otherwise claimed to be exempt by the debtors under various homestead and ERISA exemption laws and statutes.

Charged with "fraudulent conversion" and "mail fraud" in the amount of "$317,678.16 plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest", the debtor, Phillip Hyde, found that his claims of homestead exemption was to no avail. The Court ruled that the "MVRA supercedes the homestead exemption" and that the "MVRA's provisions apply '[n]otwithstanding any other Federal law,'" including the 'non-alienation provisions of ERISA".

As we have long claimed, unfortunately not all alledged asset protection strategies work.

August 1 - 20, 2007:

Don’t think to yourself "It can’t happen to me."

"All charges against Dr. Osvaldo Orengo have been dropped said his attorney, Dwight Carpenter, in a press conference held at his office Wednesday, June 20 . . . After the trial was over, the jurors were interviewed and we found that they (the complainant and the witnesses) weren’t credible". The charges against Dr. Orengo consisted of "first degree criminal sexual conduct," "second degree criminal sexual conduct, attempted second degree criminal sexual conduct and assault and battery." As a word of warning to licensed practitioners, Carpenter stated: "I worked on cases from similar claims in Mount Pleasant, there is no doubt in my mind that these ladies learned their traits from those cases and they were (also) ready to sue if Dr. Orengo was convicted." Carpenter said, "they simply jumped on the bandwagon for a piece of the pie."

THINK ABOUT THIS - Dr. Orengo was a highly respected physician, both by his professional associated and his patients, in Clare County, Michigan. Yet, due to these serious, but later unsubstantiated charges, Dr. Orengo suffered a "13-month ordeal" and is now working on "getting his (lost medical) license back." (The Clare Sentinel, June 26, 2007, page 1).

Not only are doctors the targets of the greedy, but small businesses are also the targets of unscrupulous people wanting nothing more than to get a "piece of your pie."

"A customer could sue a grocery store for injuries allegedly caused by slipping on a grape, Massachusetts’ highest court (citing 19 other states) has ruled in adopting the ‘mode of operation’ approach for determining premises liability." (Lawyers USA, May 7, 2007, page 27).

"A $15 million punitive award to an employee who was fired as a result of her panic disorder must be reduced to (a paltry) $2 million, the California Court of Appeals has ruled. The discharged employee was also awarded slightly more than $2 million as a compensatory award." (Lawyers USA, January 29, 2007, page 18).

"When a co-worker of an employee claiming to be sexually harassed tells a manager, and the manager fails to follow-up, the employer is on notice of the harassment and a jury could find it acted negligently, the 7^th Circuit has ruled." (Lawyers USA, April 23, 2007, page 24).

"A Palmyra (Pennsylvania) truck driver who suffer5ed permanent brain injuries when he slipped on an ice-covered, poorly-lighted parking lot where his trailer was parked . . .has settled a negligence lawsuit against Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and a snow-removal firm (All-Green Turf Management, Inc.) For $7 million." (Courier-Post, March 20, 2007).

"A Miami (Florida) jury awarded $5 million (against the owner and developer) to the mother of a 12-year-old autistic boy who drowned in a lake on the grounds of his apartment complex." (Lawyers USA, March 26, 2007, page 24).

July 15 - 31, 2007:

INCAPACITATION IS AN ASSET PROTECTION ISSUE

Despite numerous news articles pertaining to the costly problems of incapacitation, particularly if the individual has failed to purchase long-term care insurance, individuals still erroneously believe that if they become incapacitated they can obtain support from Medicare and/or Medicaid without the loss of their properties. Nothing could be further from the truth! Medicaid only covers nursing home care for a maximum of three months, and, Medicare only pays after the individual has, in essence, becoem impoverished. For example:

Upon the death of her husband, their Testamentary Trust was divided into a Marital share and a Family (decedent's) share. Recently the Minnesota Appeals Court ruled that the deceased husband's Family trust share was really a "support trust for his wife's benefit and is an available asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes." (The ElderLaw Report, 2/07).

An Iowa Appeals Court recently held "that the state may reopen an estate to make a claim for a Medicaid debt because executors must provide notice of probate by mail to the state Medicaid agency regardless of whether it is a reasonably ascertainable creditor." (The ElderLaw Report, 3/07).

A Missouri Appeals Court ordered "a judge to open a probate estate at the request of a state agency holding a Medicaid lien, finding that under state law judges must open an estate upon the request of an interested party, whether or not the estate has any assets." (The ElderLaw Report, 5/07).

A New York Appellate Court ruled "that the spouse of a Medicaid recipient who exercised her (legal) right to refuse to contribute to the cost of her late husband's nursing home care must (still) reimburse the state for benefits paid." (The ElderLaw Report, 2/07).

The foregoing are typical examples of why it is extremely difficult to protect against the loss of assets when an individual becomes incapacitated and the family elects to apply for Medicaid under the erroneous belief that such assets will be protected against seizure.

CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUSTS

Many individuals have accumulated real estate holdings over a period of many years and, over time, such properties have been fully depreciated. In electing to liquidate such properties, the owners discover that they are facing significant state and federal capital gains taxes, and, that such properties may also contribute to higher state and federal death taxes.

One viable solution to this dilemma is to transfer such property(s) to a Charitable Remainder Trust in return for an annuity payable to the former owners for their lifetimes(s). This CRT arrangement will: (1) avoid the payment of capital gains taxes; (2) increase the amount of money available to generate income for their retirement; (3) remove such properties from their taxable estate; (4) enable the former owners to claim a charitable income tax deduction on their annual 1040; and (5) remove the assets from attachment by future creditors. And, if so desired, part of such annuity payments can be utilized for the payment of insurance premiums on policies held by an Irrevocable Trust for the benefit of children, grandchildren, etc.

April 10 - 20, 2007:

ASSET PROTECTION WITH SWISS ANNUITIES

Those who have liquid assets and desire asset protection, but do not wish to establish a domestic or offshore asset protection trust structure, then under certain circumstances a Swiss annuity may be a viable product. When properly structured, Swiss annuities have proven to be a solid investment vehicle for long-term asset protection and estate planning. Swiss annuities are cost efficient, highly liquid and provide a safe international diversification of assets.

According to the London Times: (a) "Swiss banks manage 40% of the world's offshore private wealth"; (b) Switzerland is the 3rd largest financial center in the world - after London and New York"; and (c) Swiss Banking and insurance are subject to the toughest capital requirements in the world."

When the annuity is properly structured, the invested assets are entirely protected from creditors under Swiss life insurance law which has existed for over one hundred years. Under Articles 79, 80 and 81 of the Swiss Insurance Act, to be protected from debt collection initiated by a policyholder's creditors and for the assets to be excluded in Swiss bankruptcy procedures, the policyholder must designate as beneficiaries either (a) his or her spouse and/or descendants; or (b) any other third party, such as an irrevocable trust.

Under Swiss law, the creditors of a foreign investor/policyholder that resides outside of Switzerland cannot seize assets of the insurance policy protected under Swiss law (see Articles 77, 79, 286 and 288), even if the judgment is enforceable in Switzerland unless it can be proven that Swiss fraudulent conveyance laws were violated.

Article 18 of the Swiss Code of Obligations provides that if a Swiss insurance company receives a policyholder's request to revoke a beneficiary designation and the insurance company knows that the policyholder is under duress and that the request does not reflect the real intention of the policyholder, under Swiss law the insurance company can ignore such a request. Despite U.S. law and provided that a fraudulent conveyance has not occurred as defined under Swiss law, the law clearly dictates that the law of the issuing Company's domicile (i.e., Switzerland) governs any matter between the issuing company and the policy's owner.

For those with large estates and who are subject to the U.S. estate tax laws, it is strongly advised that a special type of irrevocable trust be named as the irrevocable beneficiary of the annuity. In order to maintain the income tax deferral on the inside build-up of the annuity's funds, the irrevocable trust must be deemed to be a "grantor trust" under the provisions of Section 72(u) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. In order to obtain income tax deferral the annuity must be a variable annuity, the investments adequately diversified, and the owner is prohibited, under I.R.C. Section 817, from directing the investments. However, the owner is allowed to select from certain viable categories of investments (See U.S. Treas. Regs. Section 1.817-5(f) and I.R.C. Section 817(h)(4)).

A Swiss annuity: (a) offers significant asset protection, tax and investment benefits; (b) when held by an irrevocable trust it offers substantial long-term estate planning benefits; and (c) also offers a viable "fair-value" defense and is more likely to be accepted by a U.S. court as a reasonable method of protecting one's investment assets.

March 10 - 17, 2007:

OFFSHORE TAX EVASION PROBLEMS "A secret U.S. program to monitor millions of international financial transactions for terrorist links violated Belgian and European Law". Such illegal monitoring involved "millions of global financial transactions" among "7,800 banks in 206 countries and territories." (Washington Post, 9-29-06). The IRS Criminal Investigation Division's raid on a "well-known professional athlete's" house resulted in accusations of drug possession, drug distribution, and, money laundering - none of which full under the Internal Revenue Code." (2006 TNT, 1-11-06). According to press releases by the U.S. Department of Justice, "five persons associated with Innovative Financial Consultants (IFC) were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for promoting 'pure trust organizations'." (6-29-06) And, it has sued two Southern Californians to "block them from promoting two alleged (sham trusts) tax scams." (8-16-06).

If you are concerned about real offshore asset protection, "what works and what doesn't" contact our offices today so that we may help you understand the law in properly protecting you wealth before you become the victim of a scam trust promoter.

January 2 - 20, 2007:

KEY FACTS ABOUT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES

The use of Limited Liability Companies ("LLC's"), particularly for asset protection purposes, is becoming widespread throughout the U.S. However, in many instances the LLC has been situated in a state which, in fact, may NOT provide the desired asset protection.

For example, to date only seventeen (17) states have enacted statutes which specifically limit a creditor's remedy solely to a charging order. Thus, in the absence of such a statutory limitation the creditor may subsequently obtain a judicial order for foreclosure and sale of the charged LLC member's interest. Should such an event occur, the LLC member will find himself in a very financially precarious situation. Of these 17 states, five (5) states also impose some form of taxes on LLC's thus making that state a far less desirable location.

In other instances, the client who establishes an LLC may decide that he can ignore the formalities and chooses to operate the LLC somewhat as if it does not exist and as his own personal "piggy bank". The old adage that one "can not have his cake and eat it too" is equally applicable to the operation of an LLC. Should such an event occur, the LLC will be ignored for asset protection purposes and will be treated as nothing more than an "alter ego" or "mere instrumentality of the individual". Thus, the LLC's assets will be available for attachment by a judgment creditor. (See, In re Teknek, LLC, 343 B.R. 850, 863 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2006); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Employers Co., Inc., 2006 WL 2457478 (E.D. Mich. 2006)).

Thus, as a "word to the wise", the failure to locate the LLC in the proper state or the election to ignore the statutory and operative requirements can result in more costly legal problems that the LLC was created to avoid.

December 15 - 30, 2006:

BEWARE OF TRUST AND INVESTMENT SCAMS

For over 25 years we have repeatedly warned Americans to avoid those who claimed to have certain trust "expertise" which they could use to assist their clients in eliminating and/or minimizing income taxes and to protect their assets against unwarranted litigation. In addition, most such promoters also claimed to provide investment "expertise" services which their clients could utilize to obtain financial returns far superior to those available in the United States.

According to two Press Releases issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on November 27, 2006, the following individuals have plead guilty to tax and/or investment fraud schemes: Lanny R. White of Orem, Utah; Orem, Utah attorney Todd Cannon; Valencia, California attorneys Martin Arnoldini and Jerrold Boschma; David J. Orr of Salt Lake City, Utah; Sandy, Utah attorney Michael Behunin; R. Scot Stokes of Henderson, Nevada; former IRS Revenue Agent Marissa Hyde of Overland, Kansas; Edward T. Woodger of Sandy, Utah; and Max C. Lloyd, a Midvale, Utah CPA licensed in California. White also admitted that, as part of his role in the conspiracy, he falsely claimed to be a licensed CPA.

From 1993 to 2004, White and his co-conspirators used such business names as Advanta Strategies, World Contractual Services, Rockwell Services, CornerStone West, Ventures Limited, and Whiven Financial to market and sell a "fraudulent trust scheme" to hundreds of clients. Such fraudulent trust and investment schemes were also promoted at "offshore seminars hosted by the Institute of Global Prosperity" of which several individuals have been convicted of felony tax charges. In addition to the unpaid assessed tax liabilities coupled with penalties and interest totalling in the millions of dollars now due the IRS, the so-called "investment" losses of such "clients" are estimated to exceed $21,000,000.

The old adage that "a fool and his money are soon parted" is still true. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it is! If you are approached by someone making such claims, please contact our office PRIOR to spending your money on such fraudulent schemes

November 15 - 30, 2006:

ANOTHER REASON WHY A CHILD SHOULD BE A RESTRICTED CO-TRUSTEE

An Ohio attorney, Jacintha Balch, prepared a Will and Trust Agreement for each of William Lutz's parents. Both trusts were revocable until each parent died, at which time they became irrevocable.

After his prent's deaths, William Lutz sued Ms. Balch for legal malpractice on the grounds that she had negligently prepared the Wills and Trust Agreements by failing to minimize estate taxes. In response, Ms. Balch argued for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Lutz did not have standing to sue her.

The trial court agreed with Ms. Balch and, upon appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, holding that the son did not have the necessary privity to maintain a legal action against the attorney. According to the court, because the son (William Lutz) was only a potential beneficiary of the trusts until both his parents died, he had no vested interest in the trusts and no attorney-client relationship with the attorney. Lutz v Balch (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dis., No. 06AP-247, August 31, 2006). As we have maintained for many years, a child listed as a Co-Trustee can be of great benefit when unexpected problems occur. In this case, as a co-trustee the son would have had an attorney-client relationship and would have had legal standing to sue the attorney for malpractice.

Sign Up for our FREE monthly A. P. Newsletter!

First Name*

Last Name*

Email Address*

Search by Keyword

Site Map