Posts Tagged ‘Estate Planning’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Effective for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) allows a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion to be shifted to the surviving spouse. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released an errata sheet pointing out an error in the statutory language defining “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” As explained below, the current statutory language may result in a lower-than-intended exclusion for the surviving spouse of an individual who was previously married and received a portable estate tax exclusion from his or her former spouse. The JCT says a technical correction may be needed to fix the defect.

Background. A credit (the “unified credit”) is allowed against the estate tax imposed on U.S. citizens and residents. The credit is equal to the tentative tax on the “applicable exclusion amount,” determined under the estate tax rate schedule.

Pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law did not allow for any unused portion of a decedent’s applicable exclusion amount to be used by the estate of the decedent’s surviving spouse.

Portable exclusion. Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of (1) the “basic exclusion amount” and (2) in the case of a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”

The basic exclusion amount is $5 million with an adjustment for inflation after 2011.

The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of:

(1) the basic exclusion amount, or

(2) the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, of the surviving spouse, over the amount on which the tentative tax on the estate of the deceased spouse is determined.

A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving spouse unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which the amount is computed, and makes an election on the return that the amount may be taken into account by the surviving spouse. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the estate tax return of the deceased spouse is filed after the due date (including extensions) for filing the return.

A surviving spouse may use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount in addition to his or her own $5 million exclusion for taxable transfers made during life or at death.

Illustration 1: Husband 1 dies in 2011, having made taxable transfers of $3 million and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. As of his death, Wife has made no taxable gifts. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

If a surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the amount of unused exclusion that is available for use by the surviving spouse is limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse.  This so-called “last deceased spouse” limitation applies whether or not the last deceased spouse has any unused exclusion, and whether or the estate of the last deceased spouse makes a timely election to allow the surviving spouse to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.

Illustration 2: Assume the same facts as in illustration (1), except that Wife subsequently marries Husband 2. He predeceases Wife, having made $4 million in taxable transfers and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. Although the combined amount of unused exclusion of Husband 1 and Husband 2 is $3 million ($2 million for Husband 1 and $1 million for Husband 2), only Husband 2′s $1 million unused exclusion is available for use by Wife because the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is limited to the lesser of the basic exclusion amount ($5 million) or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $6 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $1 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 2), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)

Remarried surviving spouses who predecease new spouse. The following illustration, based on an example in the Committee Report, says that if a surviving spouse remarries, and then dies survived by a new spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount included for the surviving spouse’s estate is determined by taking into account the deceased spouse’s applicable exclusion amount and not just the basic exclusion amount.

Illustration 3: Assume the same facts as in Illustrations 1 and 2, except that Wife predeceases Husband 2. Following Husband 1′s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. (Committee Report)

This view does not seem to reflect Code Sec. 2010(c)(4), which states that the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount equals the lesser of the basic exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), or the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of such surviving spouse over the amount on which the tentative estate tax is determined under Code Sec. 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such deceased spouse. Rather, under the current statutory language, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would seem to be increased by only $2 million.

The JCT Errata sheet confirms that the current statutory language does not support the conclusion in Illustration 3. It does so by adding a footnote to the example in the Committee Report on the 2010 Tax Relief Act. The footnote states that a technical correction may be necessary to replace the reference to the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse with a reference to the applicable exclusion amount of such last deceased spouse, so that the statute reflects Congressional intent.

Under the technical correction, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $4 million.

Under the technical correction, it would be possible for the new spouse’s applicable exclusion amount to exceed $10 million, the combined amount of the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse and the new spouse. For example, if, in Illustration 3, the Wife’s taxable estate were only $1 million, then Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $6 million (Wife’s applicable exclusion amount of $7 million less $1 million of taxable transfers). Thus, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be $11 million (Wife’s spousal unused exclusion amount of $6 million, plus Husband 2′s basic exclusion amount of $5 million).

Allowing a surviving spouse to wind up with a more than $10 million applicable exclusion amount is somewhat inconsistent with the last spouse limitation. That’s because the last spouse limitation prevents a spouse who survived two or more deceased spouses from getting an applicable exclusion amount that exceeds the combined basic exclusion amounts of a husband and wife. This combined figure presently is $10 million, but could exceed $10 million with inflation adjustments after 2011.

There is no word on when this or any other technical corrections may be forthcoming. Hopefully, IRS will address the matter when it provides guidance on the new portable exclusion.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

2011 Tax Law Signed

Sunday, December 19th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

At about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 17, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.” This new law is a sweeping tax package that includes, among many other items, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, estate tax relief, a two-year “patch” of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a two-percentage-point cut in employee-paid payroll taxes and in self-employment tax for 2011, new incentives to invest in machinery and equipment, and a host of retroactively resuscitated and extended tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Here’s a look at the key elements of the package:

  • The current income tax rates will be retained for two years (2011 and 2012), with a top rate of 35% on ordinary income and 15% on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains.
  • Employees and self-employed workers will receive a reduction of two percentage points in Social Security payroll tax in 2011, bringing the rate down from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees, and from 12.4% to 10.4% for the self-employed.
  • A two-year AMT “patch” for 2010 and 2011 will keep the AMT exemption near current levels and allow personal credits to offset AMT. Without the patch, an estimated 21 million additional taxpayers would have owed AMT for 2010.
  • Key tax credits for working families that were enacted or expanded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will be retained. Specifically, the new law extends the $1,000 child tax credit and maintains its expanded refundability for two years, extends rules expanding the earned income credit for larger families and married couples, and extends the higher education tax credit (the American Opportunity tax credit) and its partial refundability for two years.
  • Businesses can write off 100% of their equipment and machinery purchases, effective for property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and through December 31, 2011. For property placed in service in 2012, the new law provides for 50% additional first-year depreciation.
  • Many of the “traditional” tax extenders are extended for two years, retroactively to 2010 and through the end of 2011. Among many others, the extended provisions include the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes; the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers; and the research credit.
  • After a one-year hiatus, the estate tax will be reinstated for 2011 and 2012, with a top rate of 35%. The exemption amount will be $5 million per individual in 2011 and will be indexed to inflation in following years. Estates of people who died in 2010 can choose to follow either 2010′s or 2011′s rules.
  • Omitted from the new law: Repeal of a controversial expansion of Form 1099 reporting requirements.
  • Also not included: Extension of the Build America Bonds program, which permits state and localities to issue federally-subsidized municipal bonds.

Watch for upcoming posts containing more detail on this new law.  In the meantime, feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 1031 Exchanges, Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Self-directed IRAs, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

McLaughlin & Quinn Partners Release New Whitepaper – 9 Secrets to Success When You Owe the IRS

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Tax relief comes in many forms, whether it means eliminating penalties, settling your debt, or ensuring that the IRS does not seize your bank accounts or garnish your wages. If you owe money on your taxes, your plan for resolving this debt should include addressing all possible angles: Protection from IRS actions, determining ways to reduce the amount owed, and putting a plan into place that will permanently make worrying about taxes a thing of the past.

McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC has published “9 Secrets to Success When You Owe the IRS”  This list has been developed by the attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC over the course of dozens of years in private practice and dozens more working for the IRS. Avoiding these landmines will significantly increase the odds of getting one’s tax life in order and moving on. Failure to know these secrets, and use them to your advantage can turn a potentially minor problem into a federal case.

This is the most straight-forward guide you will find anywhere on resolving taxes. In it you will learn:

  • 9 Different Ways to Keep the IRS from Taking Action Against You
  • How not to be afraid of the IRS
  • How to avoid common mistakes
  • Simple steps to keep you out of trouble

Downloading this guide is absolutely free.

Click here to download this Free guide.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, McLaughlin & Quinn News, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Protecting Your House After You Move Into a Nursing Home

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

While you generally do not have to sell your home in order to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home care, it is possible the state can file a claim against your house after you die. If you get help from Medicaid to pay for the nursing home, the state must attempt to recoup from your estate whatever benefits it paid for your care. This is called “estate recovery,” and given the rules for Medicaid eligibility, the only property of substantial value that a Medicaid recipient is likely to own at death is his or her home. If possible, you should consult with an attorney before entering a nursing home, or as soon as possible afterwards, in order to discuss ways to protect your home.

In those states that have implemented the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the home is not counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes if the equity is less than $500,000 ($750,000 in some states). In all states, you may keep your house with no equity limit if your spouse or another dependent relative lives there.

Transferring a Home
In most states, transferring your house to your children (or someone else) may lead to a Medicaid penalty period, which would make you ineligible for Medicaid for a period of time. There are circumstances in which it is legal to transfer a house, however, so consult an attorney before making any transfers. You may freely transfer your home to the following individuals without incurring a transfer penalty:

  • Your spouse
  • A child who is under age 21 or who is blind or disabled
  • Into a trust for the sole benefit of a disabled individual under age 65 (even if the trust is for the benefit of the Medicaid applicant, under certain circumstances)
  • A sibling who has lived in the home during the year preceding the applicant’s institutionalization and who already holds an equity interest in the home
  • A “caretaker child,” who is defined as a child of the applicant who lived in the house for at least two years prior to the applicant’s institutionalization and who during that period provided care that allowed the applicant to avoid a nursing home stay.

While you can sell your house for fair market value, it may make you ineligible for Medicaid and you may have to apply the proceeds of the sale to your nursing home bills.

Lien on Home
Except in certain circumstances, Medicaid may put a lien on your house for the amount of money spent on your care. If the property is sold while you are still living, you would have to satisfy the lien by paying back the state. The exceptions to this rule are cases where a spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house is living there.

Estate Recovery
If your spouse, a disabled or blind child, a child under age 21, or a sibling with an equity interest in the house, lives in the house, the state cannot file a claim against the house for reimbursement of Medicaid nursing home expenses. However, once your spouse or dependent relative dies or moves out, the state can try to collect.

But there are some circumstances under which the value of a house can be protected from Medicaid recovery. The state cannot recover if you and your spouse owned the home as tenants by the entireties or if the house is in your spouse’s name and you have relinquished your interest. If the house is in an irrevocable trust, the state cannot recover from it.

In addition, some children or relatives may be able to protect a nursing home resident’s house if they qualify for an undue hardship waiver. For example, if your daughter took care of you before you entered the nursing home and has no other permanent residence, she may be able to avoid a claim against your house after you die. Consult with an attorney to find out if the undue hardship waiver may be applicable.

For more information on Medicaid planning, please contact Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

10 Reasons to Create an Estate Plan Now

Sunday, October 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many people think that estate plans are for someone else, not them. They may rationalize that they are too young or don’t have enough money to reap the tax benefits of a plan. But as the following list makes clear, estate planning is for everyone, regardless of age or net worth.

1. Loss of capacity. What if you become incompetent and unable to manage your own affairs? Without a plan the courts will select the person to manage your affairs. With a plan, you pick that person (through a power of attorney).

2. Minor children. Who will raise your children if you die? Without a plan, a court will make that decision. With a plan, you are able to nominate the guardian of your choice.

3. Dying without a will. Who will inherit your assets? Without a plan, your assets pass to your heirs according to your state’s laws of intestacy (dying without a will). Your family members (and perhaps not the ones you would choose) will receive your assets without benefit of your direction or of trust protection. With a plan, you decide who gets your assets, and when and how they receive them.

4. Blended families. What if your family is the result of multiple marriages? Without a plan, children from different marriages may not be treated as you would wish. With a plan, you determine what goes to your current spouse and to the children from a prior marriage or marriages.

5. Children with special needs. Without a plan, a child with special needs risks being disqualified from receiving Medicaid or SSI benefits, and may have to use his or her inheritance to pay for care. With a plan, you can set up a Supplemental Needs Trust that will allow the child to remain eligible for government benefits while using the trust assets to pay for non-covered expenses.

6. Keeping assets in the family. Would you prefer that your assets stay in your own family? Without a plan, your child’s spouse may wind up with your money if your child passes away prematurely. If your child divorces his or her current spouse, half of your assets could go to the spouse. With a plan, you can set up a trust that ensures that your assets will stay in your family and, for example, pass to your grandchildren.

7. Financial security. Will your spouse and children be able to survive financially? Without a plan and the income replacement provided by life insurance, your family may be unable to maintain its current living standard. With a plan, life insurance can mean that your family will enjoy financial security.

8. Retirement accounts. Do you have an IRA or similar retirement account? Without a plan, your designated beneficiary for the retirement account funds may not reflect your current wishes and may result in burdensome tax consequences for your heirs (although the rules regarding the designation of a beneficiary have been eased considerably). With a plan, you can choose the optimal beneficiary.

9. Business ownership. Do you own a business? Without a plan, you don’t name a successor, thus risking that your family could lose control of the business. With a plan, you choose who will own and control the business after you are gone.

10. Avoiding probate. Without a plan, your estate may be subject to delays and excess fees (depending on the state), and your assets will be a matter of public record. With a plan, you can structure things so that probate can be avoided entirely.

For more information on getting started with your estate plan, contact Estate Planning Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Recent Tax Developments, Part 9

Friday, October 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The following is the ninth in a series of blog posts providing a summary of the most important tax developments that have occurred in the past three months that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please call us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

Over-the-counter drug costs will no longer be reimbursable.

Effective January 1, 2011, unless prescribed or insulin, the cost of over-the-counter medicines cannot be reimbursed from flexible spending arrangements (FSA), health reimbursement arrangements (HRA), Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSA). The IRS has issued guidance explaining that an individual may be reimbursed for over-the counter medicines or drugs, so long as the individual obtains a prescription for the medicines or drugs. It also makes clear that expenses incurred for over-the-counter medicines or drugs purchased without a prescription before January 1, 2011 may be reimbursed tax-free at any time by an employer-provided plan, including an FSA or HRA, under the terms of the employer’s plan.

For more information, please contact Partner Moore McLaughlin at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Recent Tax Developments, Part 6

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The following is the sixth in a series of blog posts providing a summary of the most important tax developments that have occurred in the past three months that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please call us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

Legislation ends foreign loopholes and advance EITC.

The Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act, which was signed into law on August 10, 2010, includes provisions closing a number of foreign-tax-credit related loopholes and repealing the advanced earned income tax credit (EITC). Specifically, this legislation tightens the rules on the use of foreign tax credits that multinationals use to lower their U.S. tax bill. In general, these provisions attempt to (1) make foreign tax credits (FTCs) available only when the income to which the FTCs relate is actually taxed by the U.S., (2) prevent artificial inflation of foreign source income, and (3) modify the resourcing rules to limit FTCs. Also, under the new law, starting in 2011, eligible low- and moderate-income workers who qualify for the EITC will no longer be able to elect to receive the credit in advance.

For more information, please contact Partner Moore McLaughlin at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Bankruptcy, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

RI Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Introduces Estate Tax Reform Bill

Thursday, July 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

S. 3533, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 23, 2010), the “Responsible Estate Tax Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would:

  • Retroactively reimpose the estate tax and GST tax;
  • Adopt an applicable exclusion amount and GST exemption of $3.5 million per person;
  • Adopt a progressive rate structure, under which a 45% rate would apply on the taxable estate up to $10 million, 50% on the taxable estate above $10 million and below $50 million, and 55% on taxable estates above $50 million, and a 10% surtax on estates above $500 million;
  • Enact two loophole closures included in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget, requiring consistent valuation for transfer and income tax purposes, and requiring a 10-year minimum term for GRATs;
  • Eliminate the use of valuation discounts for entities that do not operate an active trade or business;
  • Allow reduction in the gross estate under Code Sec. 2032A , special use valuation for family farms and certain closely held business real estate, by up to $3 million; and
  • Expand the rules for conservation easements through increasing the maximum exclusion amount to $2 million and increasing the base percentage to 60%.
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

Online Legal Documents Company Sued Over Flawed Estate Plan

Sunday, June 27th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

LegalZoom, one of the most prominent sellers of do-it-yourself wills and other estate planning documents, is the target of a class action lawsuit in California charging that the company engages in deceptive business practices and is practicing law without a license.

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 27, 2010, by Katherine Webster, who is the niece of the late Anthony J. Ferrantino and the executor of Mr. Ferrantino’s estate.

Knowing that he had only a few months to live, Mr. Ferrantino asked Ms. Webster in July 2007 to help him use LegalZoom to execute a will and living trust. Based on LegalZoom’s advertising, Ms. Webster says she believed that the documents they created would be legally binding and that if they encountered any problems, the company’s customer service department would resolve them.

But after the living trust documents were created and signed, Ms. Webster could not transfer any of her uncle’s assets into the trust because the financial institutions that held his money refused to accept the LegalZoom documents as valid. Ms. Webster tried to get help from LegalZoom, with no success. The trust was still not funded when Mr. Ferrantino died in November 2007.

Ms. Webster was forced to hire an estate planning attorney, who petitioned the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust. The attorney then had to convince the banks to transfer the funds — a more difficult task following Mr. Ferrantino’s death. The attorney also discovered that the will LegalZoom created for Mr. Ferrantino had not been properly witnessed. All this cost Mr. Ferrantino’s estate thousands of dollars.

legalzoomThe lawsuit claims that Ms. Webster and others like her relied on misleading statements by LegalZoom, including that LegalZoom carefully reviews customer documents, that it guarantees its customers 100 percent satisfaction with its services, that its documents are the same quality as those prepared by an attorney, and that the documents are effective and dependable.

“Nowhere in the [company's] manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are only ‘customized’ to the extent that the LegalZoom computer program inputs your name and identifying information, but not tailored to your specific circumstances,” the lawsuit states, adding that “the customer service representatives are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice.”

Ms. Webster is suing not only on her behalf but on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, living will, advance health care directive or power of attorney. The lawsuit estimates this class embraces more than 3,000 individuals.

“LegalZoom’s business is based on nurturing the false sense of security that people do not need to hire a traditional attorney,” says San Francisco attorney Robert Arns, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “The complaint points out that LegalZoom advertises that you don’t need a real attorney because its work is legally binding and reliable. That’s misleading. Improperly prepared estate planning documents are a ticking time bomb that can result in improper tax consequences and other items that could cost the estate and heirs huge sums.”

“LegalZoom preys on people when they’re at their most vulnerable, when they are of advanced age or poor health and need a will or a living trust,” adds San Francisco elder abuse attorney Kathryn Stebner, Ms. Webster’s lead counsel.

One of the defendants named in the suit is LegalZoom co-founder Robert Shapiro, who appears on the LegalZoom Web page and TV ads and who is best-known for being one of O.J. Simpsons attorneys.

This is not the first suit against LegalZoom. In December 2009, a Missouri man who paid LegalZoom to prepare his will sued the company for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (Janson v. LegalZoom). The lawsuit is also seeking class action status. LegalZoom is trying to have the case removed from Missouri state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Estate Planning attorney, Jill E. Sugarman, has encountered documents adopted from an on-line document preparation service.  “In many instances, the documents themselves are not flawed, but the client has either used the wrong form and has left out important provisions,” says Jill.

If you are truly concerned about your estate planning needs and want to ensure that the documents you use are legally binding and appropriate for your particular needs, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »