Florida Probate Litigation Lawyer Blog

In a story that seems to be match made for an Alanis Morissette song (see, e.g., Ironic), the largest sole lottery jackpot winner in U.S. lottery history is none other than eighty-four year old Gloria C. MacKenzie of Zephyrhills, FL. With her net payout expected to be roughly $270 million, it is safe to say that Ms. MacKenzie should be able to live comfortably for the rest of her life (hopefully a life that will far surpass the ninety-eight years of the “old man” described in the aforementioned Alanis Morisette song). But, regardless of where Ms. MacKenzie’s winnings take her in life, one thing is certain: It is time for her to update her estate plan! Already off to a good start in avoiding the pitfalls that befall so many lottery winners, Ms. MacKenzie waited nearly three weeks before claiming her winnings, choosing instead to spend that time consulting with advisors to prepare for her newfound riches. In fact, on her trip to Tallahassee to claim her prize, Ms. Mackenzie was joined by her attorney, William Brant, as well as her financial advisor. Lottery Spokesperson David Bishop said that Ms. Mackenzie’s advisors were very prepared when they arrived and had taken the past few weeks to “get everything in order.”
Continue Reading

In Florida, a tenancy by the entirety is a form of property ownership which can only exist between a husband and wife. Under Florida law, when a married couple owns assets as tenants by the entirety, each spouse is said to own the property “per tout,” meaning that each spouse holds the whole or the entirety, and not a share or divisible part. Accordingly, property held by a husband and wife as tenants by the entirety belongs to neither spouse individually, but each spouse owns, in essence, an undivided 100% interest in the same asset. This may sound like mathematical nonsense because, of course, adding each spouse’s 100% ownership yields 200% ownership of the same asset. Nevertheless, the purpose of tenancies by the entirety is to grant each spouse an undivided right to the whole, even though property held by tenants in the entirety is beyond the exclusive control of either spouse.
Continue Reading

There are three issues that were raised by the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). One issue was whether or not Congress overstepped its authority by infringing on a matter that is traditionally left to the states. Historically, states have had authority to regulate marriage and issues relating to the family. However, Section 3 of DOMA defined marriage, albeit in the name of allowing states to determine their own definitions of marriage. Another issue was what level of scrutiny should be applied to government regulations that are based on a person’s sexual orientation. The final issue was whether or not DOMA impermissibly discriminated against a class of people in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Continue Reading

The Case
The Supreme Court of the United States recently overturned the Defense of Marriage Act when it found the act to be unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. The following provides the background of that historic and monumental decision.

In 1996, after Hawaii state court seemed likely to permit same-sex marriage, The House of Representatives felt it necessary to “defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage” in light of “the orchestrated legal assault being waged against traditional heterosexual marriage by gay rights groups and their lawyers.” H.R. Report 104-664 “Defense of Marriage Act,” 104th Congress. The result was the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). Section 2 of the Act established that states were not required to give effect to same sex relationships treated as marriage in other states, and Section 3 defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” DOMA was applied not only at the state level, but also the federal level. The result was that same-sex spouses could not benefit from over 1,100 federal benefits, even if they were legally married under state laws. One of the federal benefits that was denied to same-sex couples was the spousal estate tax exemption.
Continue Reading

Same-sex marriage has been a hotly debated topic lately, especially because the United States Supreme Court recently ruled on the subject in two separate cases. Because same-sex marriage is not allowed in a majority of states or under federal law, same-sex couples were until recently deprived of many of the privileges and benefits that married couples receive. One area in which same-sex couples who are unable to marry were disadvantaged is taxes.
Continue Reading

Estate planning for married couples offers many advantages. Married couples are able to file a joint Federal Income Tax return which can lead to an overall savings. There is also a Federal Estate and Gift Tax marital deduction for passing property to a surviving spouse. This deduction allows the transfer taxation to be deferred until the surviving spouse passes the property – either during life or through a testamentary transfer. A surviving spouse can also use the remainder of a deceased spouse’s allowable exclusion (which is $5.25 million per person as of January, 2013). There is also a spousal rollover option for individual retirement accounts that allows a surviving spouse to treat the deceased spouse’s IRA account as his or her own. Without this, the IRA becomes payable over the life expectancy of the oldest beneficiary of the account. Married couples can also own real property as a tenancy by the entireties. This is a joint form of ownership that has a right of survivorship. There is also an elective share available to the surviving spouse and entitlement to social security benefits.
Continue Reading

On February 26, 2013, Lorraine Bayless collapsed in the dining room of Glenwood Gardens, the independent living facility in California where she resided. The staff refused to perform CPR on Ms. Bayless, despite pleas from the 911 operator. As the 911 operator predicted would happen when a nurse on duty refused to administer CPR because it was against the policies of Glenwood Gardens, Ms. Bayless died before the ambulance arrived. The facility’s policy is that in the event of a health emergency, the facility will immediately call for emergency medical personnel for assistance and wait for the assistance to arrive. Fortunately for the independent living facility, Ms. Bayless had signed a Do Not Resuscitate form, and the family does not wish to pursue any potential claims that they might have against the facility. The family has said that it knew the policy of Glenwood Gardens and is at peace.
Continue Reading