payment of claims on estates

When a person owes money and dies, collecting that debt can be a challenge.

The usual way people collect debts, is either to hire a debt collection service, or a law firm. Debt collection services mostly bother people with letters and calls and threats. Sometimes the threats are made good but that is where the law firms come into play. Businesses with many accounts hire collections services, and those services sometimes hire lawyers to sue the debtors.

For individuals with debts they want to collect from others, claims which emerge out of contracts, or other obligations, if the debtors won't pay, and the creditor can afford to sue, then, usually they go straight to the lawyers and skip the debt collection services. And where the debtors are deceased-- lawyers are certainly required.

These days we see debt collection services filing many claims especially for credit card companies. There are problems with that. There are questions of whether or not debts have been properly assigned. There are questions of verifying the debt and whether or not the claimant can prove what they allege. Sometimes there are questiosn of unauthorized practice of law, where debt collectors are not lawyers, and not assignees, but are presuming to file claims on estates. A lawyer handing an estate adminstration sorts out all these claims, helps a personal rerpesentative evaluate and at times defend against them.

Sometimes an estate lawyer is hired to collect a claim from an estate, where the matter may be one requiring difficult issues of law or fact which will need to be proven and the claim shepherded through what can be a rather opaque claims resolution process.

Here is an Indiana Supereme Court case decided published today, November 18, 2009, on what claims may be paid out of a wrongful death estate. Those are estates opened to collect personal injury damages, where the decedent has been the victim of wrong or "tort." In those cases, fewer sorts of claims may be taken out of the proceeds, in contrast to a wider range which may be filed on "regular" estates.


In the Matter of the Estate of Lawrence W. Inlow; Anita Inlow v. Jason L. Inlow, Heather N. Johnson, Jeremy H. Inlow, and Sarah C. Inlow, http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11180901bd.pdf

exogamous heir choice as grounds for disinheritance enforceable?

Fascinating case. Disinheritance, or rather, denial of an expectancy in a trust based on a child intermarrying outside of a religion, is not unheard of: if memory serves, the Wall St Journal ran an article on a famous Jewish candidate that was named trustee of a such a trust.

Would such a disinheritance be upheld by a court, considering the public policy articulated in Civil Rights laws, the Fourteenth amendment, in other areas, consider this to be unlawful religious discrimination? Or rather, even if the private act was lawful, would court enforcement of it be unlawful? I heard of a cy pres case that recrafted a charitable trust on such grounds-- though regretfully I have lost the citation; but also consider that the "court enforcement of private action is public action" argument has been stretched that far for restrictive covenant cases, so why not for this?

Here was such a case. I link the 2008 setup and then I will copy in the outcome thereafter.

http://joi.org/bloglinks/

All parties to the lawsuits swirling around the estate of Max Feinberg agree he was a Chicago dentist who made a lot of money and was proud of his religious heritage.The lawyers and judges also agree a provision of his estate planning poses a fascinating legal issue: Can a monetary prize be used to bind a family to its ancestral faith?After that, the bickering begins.Two of Feinberg's five grandchildren accused his daughter, who was administering his estate, of tapping prematurely into the funds Feinberg left to his wife, Erla.
Then the case ran into what has been dubbed "the Jewish clause." In his will, Feinberg expressed his wish to disinherit any descendant "who married outside the Jewish faith." The grandchildren behind the accusations had married gentiles, so under the clause it could be argued they are not heirs and have no standing to bring suit.Feinberg's son, Michael, whose daughter has accused him of misusing family funds, said he feels obligated to carry out his father's wishes as expressed in the will. His lawyer, Michael Durkin, said, "The case comes down to individual rights versus political correctness."For James Carey, attorney for Michele Trull, Michael Feinberg's daughter, the dispute turns not on philosophy but on greed. "At heart, this is a case involving very base motivations," Carey said.An Illinois Appellate Court has weighed in on the case, giving judges a chance to consider a question as old as the law itself: When an individual's rights are on a collision course with those of society, which has to give way?Can't a person do what he wants with his money—like ensuring the survival of the Jewish people? Judge Alan Greiman thought so, writing: "Max and Erla had a dream with respect to the provisions of their will and if you will it, it is no dream."But Judge Patrick Quinn feared that allowing the Jewish clause to stand could form a legal slippery slope. Suppose Max Feinberg had reservations about his descendants' marrying a black person. The judge asked: Do we really want courts "to enforce the worst bigotry imaginable?"
'Deceased,' then 'resurrected'?Quinn also noted that beyond smacking of religious prejudice, the Jewish clause posed a Solomonic technical problem. Using boilerplate legal language, Max Feinberg's will defined offspring who married non-Jews as "deceased." But what if one divorced and remarried within the faith?"The question arises as to whether the grandchild would be 'resurrected' upon marrying the Jewish spouse," Quinn wrote.In the end, the court ruled 2-1 that it would be "contrary to public policy" to honor Max Feinberg's wish. Greiman was the dissenter. Now Michael Feinberg, who is appealing the decision, is waiting to hear whether the Illinois Supreme Court will take the case.Some of Max Feinberg's offspring are not talking publicly about the legal battle. But the charges and countercharges of their legal papers speak volumes.Among other developments, Max Feinberg's daughter asked a judge to proclaim her children and their cousins legally "deceased" for purposes of doling out trust funds. His granddaughter Trull accused her father of looting his mother's bank account for unauthorized purposes—such as paying for Trull's wedding. Another grandchild told a court that Max Feinberg's widow had attended his wedding but did not warn him that marrying a gentile could cost him his inheritance.According to Michael Feinberg, this tangled affair began when his father discovered that a grandson was taking a gentile to the junior prom at Niles West High School in Skokie."My father let my son, Aron, know he wasn't happy with the idea of diluting the family's Jewishness," Michael Feinberg said.Max Feinberg then expressed his religious loyalty in his will. After he died in 1986, his money went into a trust for his wife, who would outlive him by 17 years. Their son and daughter, Leila Taylor, were the executors of Max Feinberg's estate and managed his widow's financial affairs. Of the couple's five grandchildren, four married gentiles.After Erla Feinberg's death in 2003, the lawsuits began to fly, as various family members accused one another of mismanaging her funds. Michael Feinberg's children accused Taylor, their aunt, and her husband of taking $1.6 million "not for Erla's benefit, but solely for their own."The Taylors fired back by asking the court to invoke the Jewish clause, which would disinherit both grandchildren for not marrying Jews. By doing so, Taylor in essence was disinheriting two of her children because they, too, had married out of the faith.As a mother, wasn't that a tough thing to do? "If I win, the money reverts to me," Taylor said. "I can do anything I want with it, including giving it to my children."Once the courthouse door was open, the legal papers really began to fly. Trull sued her father, accusing him of using Erla Feinberg's money to finish the floors in his house and buy a car and a summer home. In a deposition, Michael Feinberg said the money was "an advance on my inheritance."Aron Feinberg dropped out of the legal struggles after his sister sued their father. "Aron didn't want to be part of the fray," said his attorney, Charles Kogut.Trull has been winning in court. The Appellate Court threw out the Jewish clause, and the trial judge put her opponents on the defensive, shifting the burden of proof to them. Judge Susan Coleman ruled it is up to Michael Feinberg and Taylor to prove their handling of their mother's money "was not the product of fraud or undue influence."Michael Feinberg said he has spent $200,000 in legal fees and thousands more in asking for a review by the Supreme Court."There is nothing for me to win," he said. "I can only lose."
Upholding father's wishesSo why press the matter? By way of reply, Michael Feinberg recalled that his father, a child of immigrants, was a traditionalist in his work ethic as well as his feelings about intermarriage. Max Feinberg came to his dental office wearing a suit and tie for years, seven days a week. He was a shrewd investor whose broker called him to find out what the market was doing.Michael Feinberg said that while he might not share the ideas his father wrote into his will, he feels obliged to uphold them. It's painful to be sued by your own daughter, he added.His wife, Marcy, said Trull's actions are something like the old adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face. She might win in court, but she is exiled from the family dinner table."I have to think she misses the gefilte fish," Marcy Feinberg said.Tears came to her husband's eyes. He tried various ways of explaining why he keeps the battle going. Finally, he put his feelings in the form of a question:"Where do you stop?"

Great story. 2009, the answer: Illinois Supreme Court will uphold disinheritance based on exogamy outside the family faith.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/sep/25/local/chi-jewish-will-disinherit-25-sep25

Illinois Supreme Court: Wills can use religious tests
Jewish family restricted inheritance based on which heir married within their religion
By Manya A Brachear and Ron Grossman September 25, 2009
Though Erla Feinberg’s final act might have disappointed most of her grandchildren, it carried out her late husband’s dying wish in a way that held up in court.In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Max Feinberg and his wife, Erla, could legally disinherit any grandchildren who married outside the Jewish faith as long as the method of doing so did not encourage divorce.“Although those plans might be offensive to individual family members or to outside observers, Max and Erla were free to distribute their bounty as they saw fit and to favor grandchildren of whose life choices they approved,” Justice Rita Garman wrote.The origins of the case date to when Max Feinberg, a successful Chicago dentist and shrewd investor, discovered that a grandson was taking a gentile to the junior prom at Niles West High School. Besides communicating his strong feelings about religious loyalty to his grandson, Feinberg wrote those feelings into his will in a section that some family members have dubbed the “Jewish clause.” When Max Feinberg died in 1986, his son Michael Feinberg and daughter Leila Taylor became executors of trusts for their mother, Erla, who outlived her husband by 17 years. Max Feinberg had stipulated that upon Erla’s death their grandchildren would become lifetime beneficiaries of those trusts. However, if any of them married outside the faith and their non-Jewish spouse did not convert to Judaism within a year, he wanted their share of those trusts to revert back to their parents. After her husband’s death, Erla Feinberg came up with a different scheme, same intent. When she died in 2003, she bequeathed $250,000 to the one grandchild who had married within the faith. Those who had not – four of five – got nothing. Michele Feinberg Trull, a disinherited granddaughter, argued that the clause, dubbed the “beneficiary restriction clause” by the court, violated public policy by offering money to practice a particular religion. The court disagreed, pointing out that Erla Feinberg did not set up a system that encouraged heirs to divorce and remarry to claim an inheritance. “Erla did not impose a condition intended to control future decisions of their grandchildren regarding marriage or the practice of Judaism; rather, she made a bequest to reward, at the time of her death, those grandchildren whose lives most closely embraced the values she and Max cherished,” Garman wrote. Trull’s lawyer James Carey said his client was “disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision.Steven Resnicoff, co-director of the DePaul College of Law’s Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies, hailed the court decision as consistent with Illinois public policy. “It’s not just a Jewish clause. It’s a Catholic clause. It’s a Muslim clause,” Resnicoff said. “It’s not uncommon that people want to encourage children to follow in their footsteps. “Today’s decision emphasizes the principle that, with some exceptions, a person is free to allocate his or her assets as the person sees fit.”

FDIC troubles

Looks like FDIC insolvency looms larger as a possibility.

What does the "prudent investor rule" demand of a fiduciary with a large cash position if it looks like the FDIC is headed for the shoals? And at what point-- the dollar?

Just a couple questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/economy/27bank.html?_r=1

August 27, 2008
Agency’s Head Expects Banking’s Crisis to Worsen
By ERIC DASH and GERALDINE FABRIKANT
WASHINGTON — Sheila C. Bair anticipated the mortgage crisis long before most other regulators. But she never dreamed it would wreak so much havoc on so many banks.
More than a year after the credit crisis first flared, Ms. Bair, the chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, warned on Tuesday that the outlook for the ailing banking industry was bad — and getting worse.
The swelling tide of toxic home loans is proving to be even more worrisome than initially feared, Ms. Bair said. She is struggling to clean up the mess and forestall home foreclosures with a plan to ease loan terms for hard-pressed homeowners.
“It is going to be slog to work though this, but there is no easy way to do it,” Ms. Bair said about her plan during an interview in her office here. “We haven’t seen the trough of the credit cycle yet.”
Her downbeat outlook was underscored on Tuesday by the F.D.I.C’s latest quarterly assessment of the industry. The agency said the number of bad loans at banks ballooned to its highest level in 15 years during the second quarter.
Industrywide, bank earnings plunged 86 percent from April to June, to $4.96 billion, from $36.8 billion a year earlier, the agency said.
The F.D.I.C., which guarantees savings and checking deposits, also raised the number of banks on its list of problem lenders to 117, the most since mid-2003.
That is up from 90 at the end of the first quarter. The agency does not disclose which banks are on the list, but it said the troubled lenders had combined assets of about $78 billion.
For all the bad news, American banks are in far better shape than they were in the late 1980s and early ’90s, when the savings and loan crisis claimed hundreds of lenders across the nation.
But some worry that the agency has fewer people — and less money — than it needs to cope with the industry’s latest travails, particularly if several large institutions were to collapse. Nine lenders, most of them small, have failed so far this year. Analysts expect dozens more to run into trouble.
Ms. Bair’s agency is stretched. Dozens of staff members who had been through the banking crises of the early 1990s retired in recent years. Despite her efforts to bring some seasoned examiners back, her small army of examiners is largely untested.
Meanwhile, there are growing questions about the adequacy of F.D.I.C.’s insurance fund, which guarantees repayment on deposit accounts of up to $100,000 when banks collapse. The fund dwindled to $45.2 billion during the second quarter, from $53 billion in the first quarter.
To replenish its fund, the agency will probably have to raise the fees it charges banks by at least 14 cents for every $100 of deposits, according to estimates by analysts. Ms. Bair declined to comment on the likely size of any increase but said the agency was proposing to revamp its fees so that institutions engaging in high-risk practices would pay higher rates.
“It only seems fair,” Ms. Bair, 54, said. Such a move is expected to draw criticism from banks.
How Ms. Bair navigates the financial and political landmines ahead will help determine the course of the banking industry and, by extension, the broader economy. It will also determine her legacy.
“If the agency gets through the credit mess, having handled the bank failures that are to come, she is going to be widely seen as the person who prepared the agency for this,” said Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst for the Stanford Group in Washington. “If the cycle is worse than expected — and if the agency insurance fund isn’t big enough or they didn’t have enough examiners — she will become the fall guy.”
The centerpiece of Ms. Bair’s plan is to modify loans so that people can stay in their houses. “It is something we should put a priority on,” said Ms. Bair, who speaks at a rapid clip.
From her perch at the F.D.I.C., Ms. Bair has become one of the industry’s most influential policy makers and outspoken critics. She issued some of the earliest warnings on the housing market and prodded the Treasury Department to back a comprehensive approach toward freezing low teaser rates on certain adjustable mortgages, a stance that many investors have opposed. She has also walked a fine line between pressuring banks to raise capital and urging depositors to remain calm.
Ms. Bair’s blunt remarks have also drawn criticism, since the F.D.I.C.’s record is not pristine. The agency approved dozens of new bank charters in coastal hot spots, even as those housing markets were overheating. IndyMac Bank, the California lender that collapsed in July, was not even on the agency’s troubled bank list.
“It was more accelerated than we anticipated,” Ms. Bair said of IndyMac. “I wouldn’t say it was a surprise.”
Ms. Bair brings one of the most varied backgrounds of anyone to lead the agency, cultivating fans in financial circles from Wall Street to Washington and on both sides of the aisle. She is probably the only F.D.I.C. chairperson to write risk-capital policy briefs for bankers and short stories for Highlights for Children magazine.
A native of Independence, Kan., Ms. Bair got a taste of policy-making and pragmatic politics while working for former Senator Robert Dole, the Kansas Republican. After losing a close race for Congress in Kansas in 1990, she worked as a commissioner at the Commodities Trading Commission at later joined the New York Stock Exchange as its top government relations officer.
In 2001, President Bush appointed her assistant secretary for financial institutions at the Treasury. She soon left for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where, as a professor of public policy, she became known for her work on consumer protection issues.
Then the White House called again. The president asked her to lead the F.D.I.C. just as the housing market was peaking in mid-2006.
Ms Bair said that she became aware of the breakdown in lending standards after hearing several consumer complaints during her tenure at the Treasury. But when she arrived at the F.D.I.C. the staff began raising broader concerns, and the agency bought a database to study the industry’s loan performance.
“By the fall and winter 2006, we were looking at this market pretty hard,” she said. There were very low down payments, loans that never verified the borrower’s income, poor disclosure and huge payment shocks. “It was pretty eye-popping, some of the stuff we were seeing. We couldn’t believe it.”
As the housing market worsened, she warned that millions of borrowers might lose their homes as adjustable mortgages reset to higher interest rates. She called for a comprehensive approach to the problem, a concept that was woven into the recent housing legislation but has gotten little traction from the industry.
At the time, Treasury officials believed the housing crisis could be solved on case-by-case basis. Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said the subprime problem was largely contained. But behind the scenes, Ms. Bair was pressing her case.
“We eventually came to the perspective that a more systematic approach made sense,” said Robert K. Steel, the former undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic affairs who is now chief executive of the Wachovia Corporation. “She was there first and should get credit for that.”
At the F.D.I.C., Ms. Bair has embarked on an ambitious policy agenda. She was an early advocate of using special bonds to jump-start Wall Street’s business of repackaging loans into securities. And she has continued championing the idea that a sweeping program to modify loans is the best alternative for the industry, even using the agency’s takeover of IndyMac as a giant test case.
Not everyone agrees with her. “I think this will turn into a very expensive failure, and the banking industry will pay a price for it,” said Bert Ely, a longtime financial industry consultant in Alexandria, Va. “It could turn out to be a big black eye for the F.D.I.C.”
Ms. Bair brushes aside the criticism. Still, she is clearly disappointed that her program has struggled to gain widespread traction. “Not everything is coming together as fast as I would like,” Ms. Bair said.

misleading direct mail solicitations

If you're a registered agent for an Indiana business, then you've received this junk mail before now. Problem is many people don't understand that the mailers described below are just commercial solicitations, probably because of the misleading and confusing badges of "official-dom" that are splayed across the envelopes.

Here is a press release from the Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita's email newsletter about these direct mail solicitations.

Companies masquerading as an Indiana government agency ordered to stop harassing Hoosier businesses Indiana Corporate Compliance, International Corporate Compliance, Inc. and Papillon Global Marketing, LLC are no longer allowed to misrepresent themselves as a government agency to Indiana business owners thanks to an investigation conducted by the Indiana Secretary of State.
The Marion County Superior Court issued a permanent injunction requiring the companies to immediately stop sending any written notices or transmissions that could reasonably be interpreted as a compliance notice from a government entity.
In May, the Indiana attorney general's office filed a complaint
against the companies, most commonly known as Indiana Corporate Compliance, alleging multiple violations of Indiana's Deceptive Commercial Solicitation Act.
Individuals Aaron V. Williams and Lisa Diane Brown, both of California, were also named in the lawsuit. Indiana Corporate Compliance had been sending letters to businesses all over Indiana under the guise of the Business Services Division of Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita's office, citing a fictitious state law implying businesses were required to send up to $150 for record keeping services.
"The permanent injunction is an important step forward in our
ongoing efforts to prevent Indiana businesses from being deceived," said
Secretary Rokita. "Obtaining this judgment is the direct result of the tireless work by my investigators and the cooperation of hundreds of businesses from around the state who were targeted by this scam. My office will continue to make businesses aware of these types of scams, and I thank Attorney General Zoeller and his team for working with us to bring justice through the legal system."
The Secretary of State's office, which registers and certifies Indiana businesses, began an investigation as a result of complaints it received
from businesses. A hearing will be scheduled to determine the total amount of damages which could be awarded to those who fell victim to the scam. More than 150 Indiana businesses reported sending money in response to the letters from Indiana Corporate Compliance and its affiliates. Recipients of the letters reported believing the compliance notices were generated by a government agency and were misleading and confusing. As a result, the court found it reasonable that business owners would be confused and would comply with the notice.

[sidebar:]Did you know...State law requires periodic business entity reporting, but fees are nominal. $30 every two years for for-profit
entities $10 every year for non-profit organizations.
You can check the validity of any mailing from the Indiana Secretary of State's Business Services Division by visiting [its website]

custody of minor child of decedent?

The death of the "King of Pop" music Michael Jackson and its coverage reminds parents of the question, "what happens to our kids if we both die before they're adults?"

Generally, and certainly in Indiana, a person may nominate a guardian in a last will and testament. Such a nomination is just one factor a judge may consider when determining custody of a minor child of a deceased person, but a significant one.

Of course to be valid the will must be valid. Not only drafted properly but properly executed. Too often people foolishly choose to make their will job a "do-it-yourself" one. This is not the time to cut corners on professional help, especially since you wont be there to sort things out if done wrongly.

litigation begats itself

Litigation begats itself. After years of lawsuits, and the ouster of the top lawyer/ executive, another round in the squabble begins.

Excellent coverage of this lawsuit by numismatist, journalist, author,and attorney David Ganz.

http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=6735

ANA Alleges Theft in New Court Filing
By David L. Ganz, Numismatic NewsMay 28, 2009
Other News & Articles
ANA Alleges Theft in New Court Filing
Newest development in the litigation wars between the ANA and its fired executive director Christopher Cipoletti: the American Numismatic Association now says he committed civil fraud and stole thousands of dollars from the organization in papers filed with El Paso County Court on May 19.Removal of Cipoletti as executive director of the American Numismatic Association's board of governors on Aug. 13, 2007, set off a cavalcade of legal responses that eventually saw cross-claims filed by both sides against the other in a forum run by the American Arbitration Association in Colorado Springs, Colo., the home of both parties.The present two-year legal wrangle brought to a head a number of other legal battles that the ANA had found itself in, which the board of governors - the functional directors of organizational policy - instituted with the hearty recommendation of Cipoletti when he was its executive director.After Cipoletti's discharge, which the ANA board said was "for cause," a curtain of silence descended as the hearing of the controversy began in the murky world of commercial arbitration, which is notable for its lack of public review or oversight, the perfect forum to discretely launder dirty linen.Evidently, a lot of discovery - the exchange of evidentiary documents - was involved over the last several months, all preparatory to a hearing or trial before a panel of arbitrators who are privately paid by the litigants to rule on the case. The administrator, instead of a court, is the American Arbitration Association.Documentary exchanges are how parties acquire evidence that they utilize as proofs in their litigation. For example, the ANA demanded access to Cipoletti's tax returns; it is unusual for such a request to be granted, but evidently it was. ANA used this information to lead the attack against aspects of Cipoletti's work that it found was contrary to what the parties negotiated for. For example, the papers filed in May by ANA allege "Claimant's fraudulent conduct predates the parties' signing of the Employment Agreement. Claimant fraudulently induced the ANA to hire him and pay him $195,000 based on his representation that in the event he accepted the full time position as General Counsel he would lose money. Cipoletti was the top outside counsel to ANA before becoming an employee.Cipoletti "further alleged that it was necessary for him to maintain 'several clients' to offset his alleged reduction in pay," ANA says in its papers. But then a revelation from the income tax returns filed by Cipoletti: "Actually, the income tax records show that Cipoletti made $50,000 less than his starring salary at ANA during the year preceding the start of his employment at ANA;" the particular exhibits are then citedall coming from discovery documents.Another allegation by the ANA: In June 2004, Cipoletti "traveled to Indianapolis to testify on June 15, 2004, at a hearing on behalf of the ANA. He was "asked to testify about a person's membership ... and to testify about issues with regard to being a member in the ANA.""According to Mr. Cipoletti, he notified the ANA's Board of Governors "that he was going to act as an expert witness and that "we are being paid for it."" The story then continues in the ANA narrative.Cipoletti "submitted a Purchase Order to the ANA," which the filing said "detailed travel expenses" for the Indianapolis trip. "Two days later, on June 23, 2004, Christopher Cipoletti, P.C. issued a bill to the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg for services and travel expenses relating to" the same trip, the court filing says.Except for $18 not billed twice, ANA's brief says, "all of the expenses charged to" the Barnes law firm "had clearly previously been paid by the ANA." The result: a claim that Cipoletti had "converted over $6,500 belonging to the ANA, and was able to do so using his position as Executive Director-General Counsel" to conceal "the theft."As a result of a subpoena issued on Feb. 27, 2009 - just months ago - the ANA was able to confirm its claim that Cipoletti was paid, and had not turned over the check, or himself made payment to the ANA of the funds he in essence was given twice.ANA claims other instances of improper accountings, and goes on to say that its discovery of how Cipoletti failed to account for double reimbursements was his "production of false or fraudulent tax returns" which prevented ANA's own forensic experts from recognizing the problem. The returns were evidently produced under order from the arbitrators.The ANA claims that thousands of dollars it was entitled to were never turned over to it and that Cipoletti was properly discharged for cause. In a related development, the ANA's outside litigation counsel handling this matter has asked to amend the counterclaims asserted against Cipoletti to include a claim for civil theft.All of the claims involved in the arbitration are also part of a larger court proceeding in El Paso County, Colo., court in Colorado Springs. Cipoletti has the right to respond to the documents that were electronically filed with the court on May 19. He had not responded by press time.

settlement of "dry estates"

A cautionary note and wise suggestion from esteemed colleague Jim Voelz, Esq., of Columbus Indiana:

Just FYI. We have had a number of "dry estates" (as we call them) come into our office for settlement.
What seems to happen frequently is that the bankers, brokers, and financial advisors are advising their customers to name payable on death beneficiaries or transfer on death beneficiaries of their accounts and investments. When the person dies, then the accounts and investments are claimed by the beneficiaries leaving the estate with a house and no cash to pay the funeral, burial, utility bills, property taxes, insurance, appraisal fees, attorney fees, and other settlement expenses, etc. We then have to "beg" the beneficiaries to loan money to the estate so we have enough cash to pay bills, etc. Sometimes the beneficiaries don't want to cooperate.
So, we are counselling our estate planning clients to keep enough of their accounts and investments in their sole name so we have sufficient funds in their estates to pay expenses.

James K. Voelz Attorney at Law, Columbus , IN (812) 372-1303

pro se or "do it yourself" wills

Sometimes people decide to write their own wills. They do this for various reasons but usually because of the expense of hiring a lawyer. Now, even though hiring a lawyer to prepare a will is one of the least expensive jobs a lawyer may do for folks, still the expense is deemed too much by some.

So, people endeavor to use form will preparation books or software to make their own wills.

Here are a few questions to ask oneself before making such a dubious decision.

1-- Even if the will is drawn up correctly, do I know how to publish and witness it correctly under the law of the place where it will be signed? Do I know who is a proper witness under the law and who is not?

2-- Am I using an up to date form of will or something archaic or outdated that leaves out crucial recent developments in law? (For example, is the will self-proving or self-authenticating-- or will your executor be left trying to hunt down witnesses ten or twenty years from now when you die?)

3-- Have I put language into my will for gift or bequest that attempts to do something which is really not feasible in terms of adminstration, but which I wouldnt know about because I am ignorant of the practical limitations of court proceedings?

4-- Have I made an important tax error that will significantly expense my heirs?

5-- If I have tried to disinherit one of my natural heirs, have I done it lawfully-- and if I prepare my own will, rather than having a lawyer do it, will I invite a will contest that will by virtue of attorney's fees spent in litigation, destroy any benefits I tried to capture by "Doing it myself?"

In my opinion, a layman writing their own will is equivalent to attempting to pull one's own tooth with a pair of pliers. It might work and you might be fine! Of course the downside for losing a tooth is just pain. But for a will, you are trying to make arrangements which will apply only once you die. At that time you won't be around to fix it if things go wrong.

3--