Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog

I am just finishing up a trip to Shanghai China, Osaka, and Tokyo. I brought a MagicJack phone adapter.

This gave me a US local number that rang to my computer or what ever computer I plugged it into. The voice qualify was great and it worked flawlessly on both a Mac and PC.

One really nice feature was that I could plug the USB key into any computer and I had a free telephone to use.

It costs $39 for the first year and $19 for each year after that. No long distance charges or monthly charges.

I think anyone who travels should have one of these. If you would like to try it out, Contact me and I would be happy to call you or have you call me on it.

City of Key West v. Knowles, 948 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3 DCA January 10, 2007)

A surviving spouse sued the city of Key West, Florida claiming she was deprived of her property interest in her husband’s buried remains without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

The Court found that an individual has no constitutionally protected property interest to a decedent’s remains after the point of burial or other lawful disposition, the appellate court reversed the $15,000 jury verdict that had been entered in favor of the surviving spouse.

Chames v. Demavo, 32 Fla. L. Weekly S820 CR. Sup. Ct. December 20, 2007

An attorney owed fees from his clients under a retainer agreement attempted to enforce a lien against the homestead of the clients. The retainer agreement had expressly waived the parties’ constitutional homestead protection against claims of creditors.

Asking the Court to recede from prior Florida precedent in Carter and Sherbill, the appellant argued the 1995 constitutional amendment removing "head of family" changed the purpose of the creditor protection, that the trend in other states was to permit waivers, and permitting the waiver was consistent with other precedent allowing waivers.

The Court rejected the arguments of the waiver and concluded "the waiver of the homestead exemption will become an everyday part of contract language for everything from hiring of counsel to purchasing cellular telephone services ... [which will inevitably result in whittling away this century old constitutional exemption until it becomes little more than a distant memory."

A waiver of your homestead rights in a contract is still not valid in Florida (except with regards to pre and post nuptial agreements).

Phillips v. Hirshon, 963 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 2007).
The supreme court agreed to hear a case which will determine if Florida's revisions to the homestead laws allow for a cooperative apartment to be considered homestead property for descent purposes. We should have an answer on this question by the end of April.

If you own a property and are concerned about its status as a Florida Homestead please Contact a Florida Estate Planning Lawyer to discuss your circumstances.

Qarcia v. Morrow, 954 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3rd DCA April 4,2007)

This case involves competing petitions for appointment as personal representative filed by a decedent’s grandson with statutory priority to be appointed as personal representative and the former wife of the decedent’s son. After his mother’s death, and while in prison, the decedent’s son acquiesced in a state court order requiring him to transfer his mother’s condominium unit and certain financial accounts to his ex-wife to satisfy past-due child support payments. The son later executed a disclaimer of the interest in his mother’s estate and the grandson filed that disclaimer in support of his petition to be appointed as personal representative. The former spouse argued the fling of the disclaimer was an effort to work a fraud on the court and, without an evidentiary hearing, the court appointed the former spouse as personal representative. The appellate court reversed the decision and remanded for a further evidentiary hearing to determine whether the grandson "lacks the necessary qualities and characteristics" to be personal representative.

Glover v. Miller. 947 So.2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA January 31, 2007)

After a 16-year-old child was killed by a police officer, two separate men claimed they were his father and asserted the right to be appointed personal representative of the child’s estate for purposes of pursuing a wrongful death action. One man had been declared the decedent’s father in a paternity action 12 years previously and had been required to pay child support. Post-death DNA testing showed a 99% likelihood that the other man actually was the decedent’s natural father. The appellate court affirmed a trial court’s determination that the man previously declared to be the father was entitled to priority in appointment and that absent having the judgment of paternity vacated and a new determination of paternity entered, the man previously deemed the father was, for purposes of appointment of personal representative, the decedent’s "father in the eyes of the law, regardless of the results of DNA testing."

Hemandez v. Hernandez, 946 So.2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA January 19, 2007)

A trial court refused to appoint the decedent’s son as personal representative, despite the fact the decedent had nominated a son in his last will, instead appointing an unrelated attorney. The only basis for the courts ruling was that there was animosity between the nominated personal representative and his brother. Citing the absence of any evidence that the nominated personal representative does not meet the statutory criteria to qualify, and that there are no other "exceptional circumstances," the appellate court reversed the trial court.

Florida and The Medicaid Look Back Period -"Why you Can't Just Give It All Away"

Many people simply try to give their assets away to their children in an attempt to safeguard their estate. The Medicaid people have caught on to this. Many years ago, a popular planning technique was to transfer your assets into an irrevocable Medicaid Trust. This technique attempted to move your assets out of your name and control so that the would not be counted towards the asset test. Now any transfer to a Florida Revocable Trust is a disqualifying transfer for Medicaid purposes.

In 1993, the federal government partially closed this loop hole. Prior to February 2006, there were "look back" periods of 36 months or 60 months. Florida implemented these guidelines as of November 2007. This means is that if you have transferred assets to anyone other than your spouse (for less than value) within 36 months of applying for Medicaid, you will be denied Medicaid benefits and subject to an exclusionary period. The exclusionary period is equal, in months, to the dollar amount of the transfers divided by the average cost of a month of nursing home care (currently $3,300.00 in Florida). It is important to note that this number was rounded down and the exclusionary period was calculated from the date of the gift.

In February of 2006, the law changed! The Federal government has radically altered Medicaid qualification with the passage of the Debt Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA 2005). This law only applies to any transfer of assets after February 8, 2006 though the Department of Children and Families will enforce these and the other provisions of DRA 2005 only on asset transfers after November 2007. The "look back" period is now five years (60 months) for everyone. If you have transferred any assets for less than fair market value after November 2007, they will sum up the total of the transfers and divide by $3300. The resulting number is the number of months that you are disqualified from receiving Medicaid benefits from the time you apply for Medicaid. While it is impossible to know who will have a long term care event five years before it happens, do not transfer any assets after February 8, 2006. This includes gifts to your children, a charity or a church. You could be in a nursing home and private pay for three years (roughly $220,000) and still be denied benefits because you gave your church $5,000 four and a half years ago! Furthermore, DCF will no longer round down. This means any gift, no matter the value, will result in a disqualification period!

Gifts or transfers prior to November 2007 can be remedied by time. The current rate is $5000 for each month. You should Contact a Florida Estate Planning Lawyer to discuss how your specific needs are affected by any transfers.

Transfers include adding children's names to the title of assets such as deeds or bank accounts, removing your name from the title of an asset, or simply giving your children a check.

* Example: John adds his adult children, Beth and David, to the deed to his house within five years (60 months) of applying for Medicaid. The house is worth $132,000. Providing John remains on the deed as well and resides in the house, his portion would be exempt (Homestead). However, the portion transferred ($99,000 or 2/3 of $132,000) would not be exempt providing that the children did not reside with her and provide care for her. Thus, John would be denied benefits for a period of 30 months ($99,000/$3,300) from the time of application. Remember, the homestead is not counted. It is exempt. So there is no need to transfer it to your children.

Often clients do these types of transfers to avoid probate. There are other ways of accomplishing the goal of avoiding Florida Probate without risking the Medicaid ineligibility.

If you are a concerned relative or friend of an elderly person and need help with Florida Estate Planning, Elder Law, or Medicaid and are in the Jacksonville, Orange Park, St. Augustine, Fernandina Beach areas of North Florida, you should Contact a Florida Estate Planning Lawyer to discuss your Medicaid and Florida Estate Planning needs.

The Medicaid Asset Test

If you qualify under the income test or can create a Qualified Income Trust (QIT) you must still pass the Medicaid asset test. This test can be the most daunting and confusing. First, you must know the asset test limits. These vary between single and married individuals. The reason for this is so that a survivor of a Medicaid recipient is not left destitute by the spend down (more on this in a moment). The asset test level for an individual is $2,000 in countable assets and $104,000 (2008) in countable assets for a community spouse who not in a nursing home facility. For married couples, both persons must qualify under the asset test.

Second, you must understand the difference between exempt (countable) and non-exempt assets (non-countable). Exempt assets do not count towards the asset test limits and non-exempt assets do count towards the asset test limits. The following are exempt assets:

* Homestead of any value (with some limitations)
* First Car of any value
* Second car if >7 years old but <25 years old. (Cannot be a luxury car)
* Life Insurance up to $2500 or cash value of Life insurance if in face value is in excess of $2,500
* Burial Plots for you and your spouse and others in your name ($2,500 each)
* Household and personal belongings
* Irrevocable Burial Contracts
* The principal in certain annuities and IRAs or other qualified plans

There are some other non-countable assets but for the most part this is it. What this means is that checking and savings accounts, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s and trust assets are all counted towards the asset test. In short, any asset that is not exempt and can be turned into cash is counted. Please see the Florida Administrative Code Section 65A-1.712 (SSI ¬Related Medicaid Resource Eligibility Criteria) for a more technical analysis.

What happens if you (and your spouse's assets) are over the asset test limits? You will have to "spend down" until you qualify. In other words, you will have to spend your own assets on you or your spouse's nursing home care until such time as they are below the asset test limits and you can qualify. Some call this the "Pre-Death Tax".

However, there still are some things that you can do. Just as the income test had planning alternatives, so does the asset test. But first you need to know some other rules concerning the asset test.

If you are a concerned relative or friend of an elderly person and need help with Estate Planning, Elder Law, or Medicaid and are in the Jacksonville, Orange Park, St. Augustine, Fernandina Beach, you should Contact a Florida Estate Planning Lawyer or Florida Elder Law Lawyer.

Magee v. Magee, 32 Fla. L. Weekly 02307 (Fla. 2d DCA September 26, 2007)

In a challenge to the constitutionality of Florida’s elective share statutes, the Second District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that the statute is constitutional. The Court applied a test of whether there is "any reasonable relationship between the act and the furtherance of a valid governmental objective," and rejected the challenger’s argument that the "far more rigorous analysis" of whether the statute is "reasonably necessary to protect the public." The Court found that the state has a strong public policy concerning protection of the surviving spouse about
marriage in existence at the time of the decedent’s death and that, therefore, the provisions of the elected chair statutes serve a legitimate legislative purpose. On February 20, 2008, the Florida Supreme Court refused to accept jurisdiction for an appeal of this decision.

Today, I received a response from RocketLawyer about the article I wrote on using a Free Durable Power of Attorney and potential problems. The good news is they are asking for help to fix the problems. As noted in their email, they do encourage visitors to seek legal counsel from attorneys like me when they are unsure of doing something for themselves. My only question which I shall pose to them, is how is a consumer who is uneducated in legal matters supposed to determine when they are unsure of how to do something. Isn't the point of using a service like theirs to rely on their expertise to help create legal documents?
Below is a copy of their email

Dear David,

I recently read your critique of our Florida Durable Power of Attorney form on your blog. We strive to offer the best legal help to consumers online and we take criticism like yours seriously.

As such, perhaps you would be willing to help us perfect the form to remedy the defects that you think exist? We have our own staff attorneys who review our documents for accuracy regularly. But, that doesn’t mean that someone like you can’t add additional value for our visitors.

You also wrote about how to cancel a RocketLawyer.com membership. It is very easy. We stand by our promise of a free document, and [canceling] is clearly detailed on our support page, which is accessible from every page on the site. Our customer service reps are also trained to send people to this page immediately, as we have a 100% satisfaction guarantee.

Lastly, we also encourage visitors to seek legal counsel from attorneys like you, when they are unsure about doing something for themselves. Perhaps you would be willing to create a free profile at RocketLawyer.com to potentially help our visitors and even promote your services to potential clients?

Please feel free to contact me directly and perhaps after you have had a chance to create your profile and work with our editorial team, you may reconsider your assessment and help us deliver affordable legal help together.

Kind regards,
Charley Moore

I will keep you updated with the progress on this topic.

Vazpuez v. Bvrski, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2415 (Fla. 2d DCA October 10, 2007)

Prior to his death, a decedent entered a contract to sell real property. The decedent died prior to closing on the contract. The purchaser filed a Petition for Administration in which he expressly alleged the obligation based upon the purchase and sale agreement. The purchaser subsequently filed a Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem to represent the interests of unidentified heirs, and again alleged the obligation based upon the purchase and sale agreement. The personal representative of the estate subsequently filed a petition for authorization to sell the real property pursuant to the contract.
The guardian ad litem objected claiming, inter alia, the purchaser had failed to file a claim in the estate. The trial court agreed and denied the request for authorization to sell the property.

On appeal, the Second DCA reversed, finding that the initial petition for administration and subsequent documents filed in the probate proceeding, while defective as to form, sufficiently stated the character and extent of the claim and were substantially sufficient to place interested persons on notice of the claim.

I am currently in Shanghai China for the next 5 days and then heading to Osaka and Tokyo for 3 nights each. I am planning to keep posting new issues to my blog while I am gone. In addition, I will be responding to emails and will be available over my VOIP number for calls or issues that need immediate attention. Feel free to continue to send in your questions. I wanted to apologize upfront for any additional delay in responses. Please be conscientious that it is 12 hours ahead of EST and this along with being on vacation means I will typically respond to any issues between 8AM - 12 PM EST or 8PM to -12AM my time.

Fernandez-Fox v. Estate of David P. Lindsay, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D259 (5th DCA January 18, 2008)

Fox and the Decedent had owned real property they had intended to have titled joint with rights of survivorship. Because of an error, the title was not correctly designated in the public records and the decedent died before the error could be corrected. Fox initiated probate proceedings and filed claims for storage fees, funeral expenses, and maintenance of the property. One of the beneficiaries of the decedent’s Florida Will filed a Motion to Strike the claims, which was denied. In the interim, Fox initiated a quiet title action against the Estate and the estate beneficiaries. A personal representative was appointed, and the PR filed objections to the Fox claims nine months after being appointed.

Fox petitioned for an extension of time to file independent action on her claims. The Florida Probate Court denied the motion, ruling that the earlier Motion to Strike was an objection requiring filing of an independent action within 30 days.

On appeal, the decision was reversed on the grounds the Motion to Strike failed to meet the requirements of an objection pursuant to Florida Probate Rule 5.496. The appellate decision had good discussion of the types of actions and information that would serve to put an estate on notice of a potential claim and indicates a request for extension should be granted only if the estate can establish it would be prejudiced or unfairly surprised. Both parties requested fees, claiming their actions benefited the estate.

The court rejected both claims: 1 the reversal allowed Fox to pursue her claims, obviously not of benefit to the estate and 2 the Estate lost the appeal, will be required to litigate the claims and, in the opinion of the court, thus had not benefited the estate.

Major v. Rowe, 965 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2nd DCA September 28, 2007)

Appointment of a professional non-family Florida Guardian is appropriate even though a family member is willing to serve as a Florida Guardian for the ward. The court noted that "family members, if otherwise qualified, are generally entitled to preference in appointment as guardian over strangers, [but] that preference can be overcome if they, intentionally or unintentionally, engage in conduct detrimental to a ward’s best interests. Moreover, even when a family member has acted with the best interests of the ward in mind, there may well be instances where it would not be an abuse of discretion for the Florida Probate court to nevertheless appoint a non-family member guardian."

Graham v. Florida Dept of Children and Families (Graham II), 970 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA December 5, 2007)

This is the continuing saga of the battle between Luke and Laurence over their mother Betty, who DCF had determined was in need of guardianship after determining "Luke is the son who most has Betty’s interests in mind." After Laurence failed to comply with the guardianship court order to disclose the out-of-state location to which he had moved his mother, the court held him in civil contempt. The Court also appointed Luke as temporary plenary guardian of Betty’s person and property, electing to disregard an advance directive Betty had executed over 8 months after the guardianship proceedings had been initiated.

On appeal, the finding of contempt was reversed for failure to properly serve the order to show cause. The appellate court also reversed the order appointing temporary guardian, holding the trial court had failed to properly determine and indicate the specific grounds upon which the advance directive was revoked by the court. The court further noted that the surrogate under an advance directive is not under any duty to prove the validity of the advance directive. Finally, the court noted two of the examining committee reports were filed over two months before the final hearing and, relying upon two physicians’ affidavits filed before and after the hearing to determine incapacity use the wrong burden of proof - the correct burden of proof in a hearing to determine incapacity of a alleged incapacitated person (AIG) is by clear and convincing evidence. Thus the Court ordered the proceedings be dismissed.

Nebraska has joined the growing list of states in which we have a relationship with a lawyer who is familiar with the (NFA) National Firearms Act's requirements relating to the formation of trusts to purchase Class 3 weapons. These include silencers, short barrel rifles, and machine guns.

If you are looking to create a Nebraska NFA Firearms Trust, please Contact us and we can help make sure your trust deals with the many unique issues surrounding owning these firearms in a Revocable Trust

If you live in Indiana or another state and wish to create a NFA trust to protect your family and purchase NFA Class 3 or Class 1 firearms Contact a NFA lawyer in your state

If you are a lawyer licensed in any state and would like to work with us to provide NFA trusts to clients in your state, please Contact David Goldman a Florida Gun Trust Lawyer.

Weissenbom v. Graham (Graham 1), 963 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA August 1, 2007)