Posts Tagged ‘Medicaid planning’
Tuesday, June 28th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
Americans who take time off work to care for their aging parents are losing an estimated $3 trillion dollars in wages, pension and Social Security benefits, according to a new MetLife study. Meanwhile, the percentage of adult children providing basic care for their parents has skyrocketed in recent years.
Nearly 10 million adults age 50 and over care for an aging parent, MetLife says. For the individual female caregiver, the cost impact of caregiving on in terms of lost wages, pension and Social Security benefits averages $324,044. For male caregivers, the figure is $283,716.
The study also identified a dramatic rise in the share of men and women providing basic parental care over the past decade and a half. In 1994, only 9 percent of women and 3 percent of men and were providing care. By 2008, the percentage of women caregivers had more than tripled to 28 percent, while the figure for men had quintupled to 17 percent. “Basic care” is defined as help with personal activities like dressing, feeding, and bathing. Daughters are more likely to provide basic care and sons are more likely to provide financial assistance, the study found.
“Undoubtedly, the impact of the aging population has resulted in increased need within families for family caregiving support,” the study notes.
At the same time, MetLife found that adult children age 50 and over who work and provide care to a parent are more likely to have fair or poor health than those who do not provide care to their parents.
The study was based on an analysis of data from the 2008 National Health and Retirement Study (HRS).
The findings have implications for individuals, employers and policymakers, MetLife concludes. Individuals, it says, should consider their own health when caregiving and should prepare financially for their own retirement. Employers can provide retirement planning and stress management information and assist employees with accommodations like flex-time and family leave.
On the policy side, although only a few states mandate paid family and medical leave, “clearly this policy would benefit working caregivers who need to take leave to care for an aging parent,” the study notes. MetLife also notes that the CLASS Act, a voluntary long-term care insurance program that is part of the new federal health reform law, will provide some coverage for long-term care needs as well as raise public awareness of the issue.
For more on the study, “The MetLife Study of Caregiving Costs to Working Caregivers: Double Jeopardy for Baby Boomers Caring for Their Parents,” click here.
For more information on estate planning and long-term care options, please contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, caregiver, caregivers, CLASS Act, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, MetLife, Moore McLaughlin, nurses, nursing home care, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, social security
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
Having power of attorney over a family member is a big responsibility and sometimes it makes sense to share that responsibility with someone else. But when two people are named co-agents under a power of attorney, conflicts can arise. Unfortunately, if the conflict can’t be resolved, it may be necessary to get a court involved.
A power of attorney allows a person to appoint someone called an “agent or “attorney-in-fact” — to act in his or her place for financial purposes when and if the person ever becomes incapacitated. A power of attorney can name one agent or it can require two or more agents to act together.
If you are acting as a co-agent under a power of attorney, but you and your fellow agent disagree on a course of action or one party has stopped participating in decision making, what can you do? The first thing is to check the wording of the power of attorney document to see if it sets up a procedure for resolving disputes. If the power of attorney itself doesn’t help, you should contact an elder law attorney. The attorney can tell you if your state’s power of attorney laws offer any guidance. There may be a state statute that deals with disputes.
If the dispute still cannot be resolved, the final step may be to file a petition in probate court to let the court decide it. Or if the court finds that one of the agents is not acting according to the incapacitated person’s best interests, it can revoke the agent’s authority. Unfortunately, taking the matter to court takes time and money.
If you are creating a power of attorney and want more than one agent to share responsibility, but want to minimize conflict, you can name two agents and let the agents act separately. Naming more than two agents can get cumbersome and make communication difficult. An alternative to naming co-agents is for the power of attorney document to name agents in sequence. The first-named agent acts alone, but if she cannot serve for some reason, the next person on the list will serve.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, attorney-in-fact, co-agents, durable power of attorney, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, health care power of attorney, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, power of attorney, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, social security, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The number of seniors facing credit card debt has been growing. The average credit-card debt for consumers over 65 more than doubled from 1992 to 2004, to $4,907. Credit card debt can be especially problematic for seniors, who typically have a fixed income. If you or someone you love is having trouble making credit card payments, there are several options:
- Try negotiating. A credit counseling agency or attorney may be able to negotiate with the credit card company for lower fees or interest rates. If the debtor is relying solely on Social Security for income, it may even be possible to have the debt forgiven. Note, however, that if the debt is forgiven it can count as income, which may create tax consequences or affect Social Security payments.
- Reverse mortgage. If the debtor owns a house and is over 62 years old, a reverse mortgage may provide enough money to pay off debt. With a reverse mortgage, instead of paying the bank money to build up equity, homeowners use the equity in their homes to take out loans. The loan does not have to be paid back until the house is sold or the homeowner dies. While reverse mortgages may look like no-lose propositions on the surface, they also have some significant downsides.
- Tap into life insurance. Permanent life insurance policies build a cash value, which can be used as collateral for a loan or withdrawn from the account. This money can be used for any purpose, including paying down credit card debt. Keep in mind, however, that loans or withdrawals will reduce the death benefit.
- Bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy is not an easy solution. In 2005, a tough bankruptcy law went in to effect, making it much more difficult to get bankruptcy protection. For example, bankruptcy is available only to individuals whose income is below a certain level, and the homestead exemption, which allows you to protect all or some of the equity in your home, is stricter. Before filing for bankruptcy be sure to discuss your options with an attorney.
- Do nothing. It may sound crazy, but one option is to do nothing and let the credit card companies sue the debtor. If the debtor owns a house, the court may put a lien on it. If not, the debt may be written off or reduced. An attorney can tell you if this is the right step for you take.
Regardless of what steps the debtor takes, debtors have the right not to be harassed by credit card companies. The Fair Debt Collection Act prohibits certain conduct by credit agencies attempting to collect debts. For example, creditors may contact debtors only between the hours of 8am and 9pm, may not use abusive or profane language, and must stop contacting debtors if the debtors request it in writing.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, credit cards, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Fair Debt Collection Act, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout
Friday, April 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The loss of a loved one is tough to begin with, but if the loved one left debts behind, it can be even tougher. Family members generally should not have to pay for a decedent’s debts, but it is important to know your rights because collection agencies may target the decedent’s relatives.
Usually the loved one’s estate is responsible for paying any debts. If the estate does not have enough money, the debts will go unpaid. The debt collectors may not collect payment from relatives (unless they were co-signers or guarantors). However, if you are the spouse of the decedent, you may have responsibility for any debts that were jointly held. Depending on state law, some assets — such as a house or car — may be exempt from debt collection. You should talk to an attorney to determine your responsibility, if any.
If a debt collector contacts you, give the collector the contact information for the personal representative (also called the “executor”) who is handling the estate. It is the personal representative’s responsibility to make sure all bills are paid. Whatever you do, do not give any personal information to debt collectors. Scam artists sometimes pose as debt collectors to prey on relatives.
If a debt collector won’t stop contacting you, send a certified letter to the collector saying you do not want to be contacted again. Once the collector receives the letter, the collector can contact you only to tell you that there will be no further contact or to inform you of a lawsuit. Report any problems with debt collectors to your state’s attorney general or to the Federal Trade Commission.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, attorney general, collection agencies, debt collectors, decedent's debts, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, estate, Estate Planning, executor, Federal Trade Commission, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, Massachusetts, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Financial workout, Tax planning
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
Elderlaw Attorney Jill E. Sugarman tells us that assisted living facility residents covered by Medicaid are at risk of being evicted if they leave the facility, even for a temporary hospitalization. The National Senior Citizen’s Law Center (NSCLC) warns of this problems in a recently released White Paper. Ironically, Medicaid officials in most states have the power to prevent these evictions but in most cases are not exercising it.
Most state Medicaid programs pay for services not just in nursing homes but in assisted living facilities, which are meant to provide a home-like alternative to nursing homes. But there is a crucial difference between nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The Nursing Home Reform Law authorizes Medicaid to pay a nursing home to hold a room for a Medicaid recipient who is temporarily absent due to hospitalization and entitles the resident to return to the first-available room.
In contrast, Medicaid does not make similar payments on behalf of residents of assisted living facilities and the facilities are not required to give admission priority to returning residents. This difference in treatment, the NSCLC asserts in its report, “Medicaid Payment for Assisted Living: Residents Have a Right to Return After Hospitalization,” diminishes the value of assisted living facilities as a community-based alternative to nursing home care. If assisted living facilities truly seek to offer “home or community-based” services, says the advocacy group, residents should have the peace of mind of knowing that they won’t be evicted if they are absent for a few days or weeks.
The NSCLC points out that in most cases states could remedy the situation. Most states pay for assisted living care though a Medicaid waiver program. In 2000, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) advised states that it would authorize the issuance of “retainer payments” to Medicaid waiver home and community based service providers during a Medicaid recipient’s temporary absence, such as for hospitalization. The guidance described the retainer payments as being comparable to room-hold payments for nursing home residents. However, it appears that most of the states either do not understand the federal guidance or have not implemented it. Exceptions include Georgia, Illinois, Montana and Washington, all of which make retainer payments to assisted living facilities on behalf of residents who are temporarily absent.
The NSCLC makes a number of recommendations:
- CMS should clarify that Medicaid-funded retainer payments are available for temporary absences from an assisted living facility;
- State governments should authorize retainer payments up to the federally allowed maximum;
- Federal Medicaid law should be changed to entitle residents of assisted living facilities to room holds, room-hold payments and readmission to the next available room after temporary absences;
- Room holds should apply regardless of the reason for an absence.
To view NSCLC’s White Paper and other materials on the issue, including a News Release and a Policy Brief, click here.
For more information regarding Medicaid planning, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 215.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, National Senior Citizen's Law Center, seniors, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
Monday, November 1st, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
December 31, 2010 is an important deadline for individuals who inherited an IRA from an IRA owner who died in 2009. Where there are multiple beneficiaries for the IRA, splitting up the account into several accounts no later than December 31, 2010, can yield important tax and other benefits for each beneficiary.
Background. Designating several beneficiaries for an IRA may put the younger one (or ones) at a disadvantage if they want to keep required minimum distributions (RMDs) as small as possible and keep IRA deferrals going for as long as possible. Reason: As a general rule, where there is more than one IRA designated beneficiary, the one with the shortest life expectancy (that is, the oldest one) is treated as the designated beneficiary for determining distributions.
Observation: The oldest-beneficiary rule comes into play for determining RMDs after the IRA owner’s death. Regardless of whether the IRA owner died before or after his required beginning date, if the IRA owner was older than any of the beneficiaries, the remaining IRA balance at the owner’s death is paid out over the remaining life expectancy of the oldest designated beneficiary.
Illustration : Anne designated her son, Seth, and her daughter, Carol, as equal beneficiaries of his IRA. Anne died in 2009 at the age of 74. Seth, age 50 this year, wants to invest the inherited IRA in emerging markets mutual funds. Carol, age 44 this year, wants to invest the inherited IRA in a target-retirement-date mutual fund. If the IRA is left as-is, annual RMDs for both Seth and Carol, which must commence in 2010, are based on Seth’s life expectancy, which is shorter than Carol’s. And they may find it hard to reconcile their differing investment philosophies.
Post-mortem planning solution. The beneficiaries can split up the IRA into separate accounts no later than the end of the year following the year in which the decedent died. Where an IRA is divided into separate accounts (i.e., subaccounts), the RMD rules separately apply to each separate account, effective for years after the year in which the separate accounts were created, or the IRA owner’s date of death, if later.
Thus, in the illustration above, if Seth and Carol direct the IRA trustee to split Anne’s IRA into two separate and equal IRAs no later than December 31, 2010, with each the sole beneficiary of one of the equal IRAs, Seth’s RMD will be based on his table life expectancy, and Carol’s will be based on her life expectancy, which is longer than Seth’s. Seth can invest his half of the inherited IRA in emerging markets mutual funds, and Carol can invest her half in the mutual fund of her choice.
For purposes of the RMD rules, separate accounts in an IRA account are separate portions of the IRA owner’s benefit reflecting the separate interests of the IRA’s beneficiaries as of the date of the IRA owner’s death for which separate accounting is maintained.
For the separate or “subaccount” IRA to be treated as a separate account for RMD purposes, it must be established no later than the last day of the year following the year of the IRA owner’s death. Additionally, a separate accounting must allocate all post-death investment gains and losses for the period before the separate accounts were established on a pro rata basis in a reasonable and consistent manner among the separate accounts. However, once the separate accounts are actually established, separate accounting can provide for separate investments for each separate account under which gains and losses from the investment of the account are only allocated to that account. Alternatively, investment gain or losses can continue to be allocated among the separate accounts on a pro rata basis. A separate accounting must allocate any post-death distribution to the separate account of the beneficiary receiving that distribution.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, Capital gains tax, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, income tax, individual retirement account, internal revenue code, Internal Revenue Service, IRA, IRS, IRS and state tax collections, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, Massachusetts, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, Providence, required minimum distribution, Rhode Island, rmd, seniors, Tax planning
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Self-directed IRAs, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
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.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid eligibility, Medicaid penalty period, Medicaid planning, nursing home care, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
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.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, nurses, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning
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%.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, internal revenue code, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tax planning
Posted in Uncategorized
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.
The 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.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, durable power of attorney, elder law, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, LegalZoom, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, Providence, Rhode Island, Tax planning
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning