BREAKING NEWS: IRS Issues Proposed Secure Act Regulations

By Jill Roamer, JD, CIPP/US on Feb 24, 2022 11:58:00 AM

BREAKING NEWS – IRS Issues Proposed Secure Act Regulations

On February 24, 2022, the IRS issued proposed regulations regarding the Secure Act. Public comments can be submitted via www.regulations.gov and there is a public hearing scheduled for June 15, 2022. We will be thoroughly analyzing the 275-page document and will post a blog at a later date with clarifications and highlights from the proposed regulations.

Continue Reading

Malpractice Insurance Company Must Defend Attorney Despite Exclusion Clause

By Jill Roamer, JD, CIPP/US on Jan 4, 2022 1:10:00 PM

Malpractice Insurance Company Must Defend Attorney Despite Exclusion Clause

Malpractice. The single word can send shivers down the spine of every attorney. Most attorneys have malpractice insurance to protect themselves and clients in the event the attorney makes an error. But how far does a malpractice insurance company have to go to defend the attorney? How does an exclusion clause affect the analysis? These issues were recently litigated in an Illinois appellate court.

Lisa died, leaving a last will and testament that named her two minor children as beneficiaries. Randy was appointed executor of the estate and he retained attorney Alan’s firm to represent him in the probate case. The probate court converted the case to supervised administration, whereas Randy could not pay Alan’s firm without prior court approval.

Continue Reading

A Trust Protector and Undue Influence

By Jill Roamer, JD, CIPP/US on May 25, 2021 9:43:00 AM

A-Trust-Protector-and-Undue-Influence

Can undue influence lead to a Trust Amendment via a Trust Protector who is an independent party? This issue was recently litigated in Arizona. In this case, Austin and Kay were married for 57 years. Near the end of their marriage, Austin was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease. Austin became romantically involved with his caretaker, Lindi. Austin and Kary divorced; thereafter, Austin and Lindi married.

During Austin and Kay’s divorce, Austin had his attorney, Paul, create an irrevocable trust. The trust provided for the following distributions upon Austin’s death: 45% to Kay, 45% to their children, and 10% to Lindi. The only person that could amend the trust was the Trust Protector, Paul. Paul was not subordinate to Austin within the meaning of IRC 672(c). After the divorce was finalized, Austin requested that Paul amend the trust. Paul added a no contest clause, eliminated Kay as a beneficiary, made Lindi the sole income beneficiary upon Austin’s death, reduced the children’s’ share, and added Lindi’s sons as remainder beneficiaries.

Continue Reading
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.