brooklyn estate planning

FEDERAL COURT EXCEPTION TO PROBATE JURISDICTION

Published on: February 6, 2016 | by Ettinger Law Firm

FEDERAL COURTS ARE COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

There is little question that Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. If there is neither original jurisdiction, meaning a question of federal law or rights that arise as a result of federal legislation nor complete diversity of the parties, meaning that all of the defendants domicile in a different jurisdiction from the plaintiffs home state, then there is no jurisdiction for a federal Court to preside over a case. In all matters of diversity jurisdiction, the matter has to involve at least $75,000 in property or damages. Certainly at least some probate cases fit into the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Yet, there is generally a federal Court hands off approach to dealing with probate cases, known as the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.

A famous case from 1946 in the United States Supreme Court held that a federal Court can adjudicate various suits against a decedents estate, so long as they do not assume general jurisdiction over the probate proceeding itself or assume control over the property that is properly in the hands of the state probate Court. Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946). The meets and bounds of this holding have caused volumes of case law and law journal articles. It was not until 2006 with the celebrity, Anna Nicole Smith case that came before the United States Supreme Court that the Court expounded on the federal probate exception in any meaningful regards. Specifically the Supreme Court held that when one court is adjudicating a claim over a specific piece of property (or in the case of an estate, a bundle of property rights) a second court will not assume jurisdiction over the same property.

LACKING IN MENTAL CAPACITY AND FAMILY, WHO DECIDES

Published on: November 6, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

On June 24, 2015 a trial Court in California invalidated a California law as unconstitutional, which created a default surrogate decision maker when that individual is mentally incapacitated and does not have a family member, or anyone else for that matter, to make key decisions for them. The law and the issues addressed are not limited to California. Even though by definition, the law deals with individuals with no proxy decision maker, that does not mean someone did not exist in the past or could not step up to become one. Proxy decision makers pass away themselves, they move or simply just fade away and no longer attend to their responsibilities. New York law deals with these issues in a rather collaborative way. In 2010, New York enacted the New York Family Health Care Decisions Act, which creates a decision ladder for medical professionals who need to know with whom to check with for certain critical decisions. It was designed to avoid the parade of horribles that the California law dealt with. Certainly, no one wants a loved one or relative, even a distant relative, to have to rely on these provisions; they are used as a last resort.

DETERMINATION OF INCAPACITY

In the absence of a health care proxy, The New York Family Health Care Decisions Act begins to shape decisions, for all intents and purposes, at the time of the determination of incapacity.

WHAT OF MY ESTATE PLANNING IF MOVE TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION?

Published on: November 3, 2015 | by Ettinger Law Firm

Say you live here in New York and made significant plans to avoid probate. You have a will, own a business that you pass on and even set aside significant assets for your grandchildren. You worked hard to put your financial house in order. Now you find out that you have to move to another jurisdiction for work and will likely be there for some time. More likely than not your will and other plans to avoid probate will survive as legally enforceable documents in the new jurisdiction. Nevertheless, you worked hard for your plans to be finalized and do not want to live with the idea that “more likely than not” your plans will be followed. As such, it is always best to check with a local estate planning and review your plans.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

There are a few things to keep in mind when it comes to decisions on where to live and changes in law and nuances on how to handle the change. Most laws are relatively uniform throughout the country. Procedure may be different but substantive laws are similar in many cases. Except when they are not. Some issues have two different ways of handling things. A good example is common law states versus community property states. Community property states are generally Rocky Mountain states and west (Louisiana and Wisconsin are the exceptions). There are some important differences in their approach to passing on assets between the two camps. Another factor to address is that you need to clarify your residence or domicile or you may end up paying taxes in two different states, as what happened to the heir to the Campbell’s soup fortune in 1939.