FAMILY LEGAL CENTER TO OFFER DIVORCE MEDIATION
Divorce Mediation is not for all couples going through divorce. However, it is an alternative to the adversarial divorce litigation process. Beginning June 15, 2009 Family Legal Center, LLC will be offering Divorce Mediation services.
In considering divorce mediation, you need to understand how mediation works compared with the alternative.
- You and your spouse sit down together without any outside help to make all decisions as to parenting and property and write an agreement.
- Each of you hires a lawyer to represent you separately in the negotiations.
- With or without lawyers, you both agree to turn over the necessary decisions to a judge.
- You and your spouse meet together with a neutral third party, a mediator, who helps you make the decisions together and writes the agreement.
Mediation gives clients more control over the process and more flexibility in making informed decisions. To be sucessful in mediation, the parties must have the motivation to mediate, have self responsibility and the willingness to disagree as well as the willingness to agree with one and other.
If you are interested in mediation services, contact Family Legal Center, LLC and a consultation can be arranaged. contact@familylegalcenter.com
Right To Know
Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, also sometimes called the Open Records Act, requires that government agencies share documents and records with members of the public. The law was amended in 2008 to broaden the scope of open records and to set up an agency to assist citizens who seek access to public records.
The Office of Open Records has a website at www.openrecords.state.pa.us, where you can find a copy of the Act, a Citizens’ Guide to the Act, numerous forms, and additional information. You can also reach the office by telephone at (717) 346‑9903.
ESTATE PLANNING - Estate Tax Exemption
Employing the Expanded Estate Tax Exemption
.jpg)
If you're reading this, you may have qualified for a tax break worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
No, the previous sentence is not an Internet come-on. It refers to the laws on federal estate taxes, which changed when 2009 began. In 2009, the federal estate tax exemption rose from $2 million to $3.5 million per person. The federal estate tax rate remains at 45%. President Obama has indicated that he would like to keep the exemption and tax rate at current levels. If that proves to be the case, many families will benefit from huge tax savings.
Example #1: Bill Wilson is a widower with a $4 million estate. He has been seriously ill. If Bill had died in late 2008 and left everything to his children, his estate would have been $2 million over the limit. At a 45% rate, his estate would have owed $900,000 in federal estate tax. Suppose, instead, that Bill did not die until January 2009, when I he had that same $4 million estate. This year, Bill's estate is only $500,000 over the $3.5 million limit, so it will owe only $225,000 in federal estate tax. Extending his life from one year to the next saved Bill's heirs $675,000 in tax.
.
Prudent Planning
.
Your estate plan should incorporate the increased exemption.
.
Example #2: Joanne Adams is a widow with a $3 million estate. Her estate will owe no federal estate tax when she dies. Thus, she can plan the distribution of her assets without considering the impact of federal estate tax. The estates of single taxpayers worth over $3.5 million may owe federal estate tax. If such people won't need all of those assets during their lifetimes, they might shrink their estates by making gifts. In 2009, the annual gift tax exclusion increased from $12,000 to $13,000 per recipient. Within that $13,000 limit, a gift has no tax consequences as long as the recipient has a present interest in the gift: he or she must have immediate access to the transferred assets.
.
Example #3: Michael and Dayna Young have an estate that's far in excess of $ 7 million. Therefore, they have transferred assets between them so that both spouses have more than $3.5 million in assets. Each spouse can leave at least $3.5 million to their children (or to trusts for the children). Therefore, theYoungs can leave $ 7 million to their children, free of federal estate tax.
.
Caught in the Middle
.
“Such married couples should look at formula clauses in their wills and trusts," says Steve Siegel, president of The Siegel Group in Morristown, NJ, a consulting firm specializing in tax and estate planning. "A document drafted in the last 10 years may have been intended to create a trust holding $600,000-$2 million at the death of the first spouse. Now this trust might hold $3.5million." Couples with estates in this range may want to revise their estate plans. They can decide how much should be left to the surviving spouse and how much might be left to other heirs in order to use the estate tax exemption of the first spouse to pass away.
.
Siegel also notes that some states have estate taxes with lower exemptions. "Someone might leave an estate that generates no federal estate tax," he says, "but that estate could owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in state death tax." Therefore, a married couple might construct their estate plan so that the first spouse to die leaves to nonspousal heirs the amount of assets that will be exempt from federal and state estate tax, with the balance going to the surviving spouse.
.
Why? Assets left to a spouse avoid estate tax, so no estate tax will be due at the first spouse's death. The surviving spouse, who probably will have ample assets for living expenses, can spend down or give away assets to reduce estate tax at the second death, if that is a concern.
Driving Under the Influence
The combined effect of alcohol and drugs can cause unexpected symptoms. A Pennsylvania woman arrested and prosecuted for driving under the influence (DUI) recently tried to avoid conviction by claiming that she became unexpectedly impared when a pain "patch" that she was wearing heightened the effects of her alcohol intake. She admitted that she had failed to read the pain patch label, and claimed that her doctor did not advise her to avoid alcohol while using the patch.
Involuntary Intoxication
Pennsylvania has not yet formally recognized the defense of “involuntary intoxication.” Several other states have identified certain circumstances where a person’s impairment may be excusable. These circumstances include where the intoxication was caused by force, duress, or fraud, and where the intoxication was an innocent mistake. An innocent mistake can occur when a person takes an alcoholic drink or a narcotic pill under the mistaken belief that the drink is nonalcoholic or that the pill is a simple aspirin. Excusable circumstances found by other states also include occasions where the person suffers an unexpected overreaction to a legal intoxicant or has an unexpected impairment from a properly prescribed drug.
Pennsylvania courts have announced that if the defense of involuntary intoxication is to be adopted in Pennsylvania law, our legislature should address the issue. The courts have also observed that defendants will have the burden of proving the defense. In the case involving the woman who used the pain patch, the trial court and the appeals court rejected the woman’s defense largely because she did not call expert witnesses and failed to prove that her reaction was unique, unusual, or unexpected.
While taking prescription or over‑the‑counter drugs, be sure to avoid any substances, including alcohol or other medications, that could render you impaired. Unless your physical reaction to a combination of drugs and alcohol is documented as highly unusual, you cannot raise involuntary intoxication as a defense to DUI charges.
|
