Rogers & Tartaro Business Litigation Blog : New York and Connecticut Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Rogers & Tartaro Law Firm : Commercial Litigation : Westchester County NY, Fairfield County CT

I used to enjoy watching Charles Kuralt on Sunday mornings. But a recent post in the Pennsylvania Fiduciary Litigation Blog shows his soothing voice and well written dialogues masked the real story in his personal life.

PFLB reports that when Mr. Kuralt died at age 62, his estate passed to his wife and his two daughters. However, after his death, it was discovered that Kuralt had a second, “secret” family for over 30 years. Kuralt’s will stated that his wife was the beneficiary of his estate, but before he passed away, Kuralt wrote a letter to his companion stating his desire to have her inherit the 90 acres of land he owned in Montana. A court found that the letter was considered a codicil, and was acceptable under Montana law.

 In New York, where Mr. Kuralt’s original will was probated (declared to be genuine by a court), a codicil must be executed with the same formalities as the original will- - you can’t just write a letter to amend your will. However, if Mr. Kuralt executed the codicil with the requisite formalities but the format just happened to be that of a letter, then it is truly a codicil in almost any state.

Interestingly, change the facts a little and the situation is not so unusual: a prior marriage and divorce . The estate plan would have to provide for the children from a prior marriage, a spouse and children from the second marriage. Conflicts abound.

There were also tax issues associated with the Montana land. Wills are often written with the provision that taxes are paid from the residuary estate. The taxes paid on the Montana property that went to his “secret family” came out of funds that were left to Mr. Kuralt’s known family. A complicated life requires a complicated plan, or inequities like this may ensue.

According to the PFLB report, Mr. Kuralt had other plans in mind but was suddenly stricken ill. This sad and unfortunate aspect of the story offers a valuable life lesson - - don’t put off your planning. Who knows what events may intervene?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I had the pleasure of attending the Boz Scaggs concert at the Ridgefield Playhouse  last week. The Director, Allison Stockel, did a great job running the preceding fund-raising auction, a show in itself. Unfortunately, I missed the Gala party which preceded both. But, in general, the evening’s program seemed to be very well attended and the ambiance, company and especially music all contributed to a very enjoyable evening.

This is not a strict “legal” blog and for a change of pace we do comment on other topics of interest and fun. This post is primarily in the “fun” category but it has a serious side.

The Danbury News Times reports that while the Gala was considered a success, the Playhouse is not out of the woods yet. It seems the town’s “gem” has been especially hurt by the challenging economy, and many people are not willing to pay the ticket prices demanded from the Playhouse. However, as Ms. Stockel stated to the News Times, the ticket price must cover the costs of the talent and operation of the facility.

I was surprised that there were negative comments posted after the News Times piece appeared last week. The opportunity to see a great show almost in my own back yard has no down-side to me. I believe the Playhouse provides great value, considering the top quality of the talent.  There are only 500 seats in the Playhouse, allowing for an intimate setting for music and culture. The acoustics are wonderful and simply put, there are no bad seats in the house.

Aside from the talent that is featured inside the Playhouse, the entity itself is a draw for the town. It is a well maintained venue that hosts diverse music and comedy acts and features for families.

Bev and I would like to congratulate Allison and her staff on a terrific evening.
 

The Ridgefield Playhouse

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Connecticut has eliminated the “cliff” from its estate tax. The Danbury News-Times, along with other media and legal blogs, reports that this change to Connecticut’s estate tax law, along with other significant changes, will go into effect for decedents who die on January 1, 2010 or later.

The aforementioned “cliff” refers to the fact that under prior tax law, an estate of $2,000,000 was exempt from taxation. However, add one more dollar to that, and the entire $2,000,001 was taxed, resulting in a tax liability of $101,700. With the new law, estates of $3,500,000 or less will not be taxed. This is similar to the federal estate tax threshold (or at least this year it is).

Under current law, the federal estate tax will be abolished next year, only to come back in 2011 with a threshold of only $1,000,000. The expectation is that the federal estate tax will be modified. On the other hand, that expectation has existed for some 8-10 years.  A clear explanation of the status of the federal estate tax is provided by this recent Wall Street Journal article.

In New York, the state estate tax threshold is a mere $1,000,000. But, in either Connecticut or New York, the federal tax takes a far bigger bite, with a marginal rate up to 45%. That’s right, 45%.

Here’s some good more news for Connecticut: estate tax rates are now being reduced by 25 percent, with a new maximum rate of 12%. But the estate tax and a return will be due six months after date of death instead of the current nine months.

In all three jurisdictions, (federal, Connecticut and New York), your “estate” for tax purposes includes almost everything you own: property, IRA’s, 401(k)’s, pension plans, the proceeds of life insurance and “In Trust For” accounts.

And one more point of potential confusion, specifically with respect to life insurance: the fact that beneficiaries do not pay income tax on the proceeds does not mean that the estate won’t pay estate tax.  A substantial life insurance policy can be enough to "tip: an estate into a taxable bracket.

A final piece of advice: take care of yourself and your loved ones.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Good news, bad news.

Bad news first:  Health officials are warning there will be another H1N1 virus outbreak this fall, potentially worse than last year’s.

Good news: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) anticipates that an H1N1 vaccine will be ready for distribution by mid-fall of 2009. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell announced that she will be making the flu vaccines free for all Connecticut residents. (The Ridgefield VNA is already planning flu and pneumonia clinics).

If there is flu pandemic, big business will likely go on as usual. However, according to a national survey recently conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, only one-third of businesses believe they can sustain operations without severe problems, if half their workforce were on sick leave for two weeks due to swine flu. Those in a smaller workplace should take precautions now.

Business Week suggests that employers update employee contact information and develop a “pandemic preparedness plan.” The Connecticut Employment Law Blog (CELB) offers specific steps from the CDC’s website, including encouraging sick workers to stay home, and providing flexible leave policies.

Employers should consider consulting an attorney for potential issues that may arise: what are the confidentiality guidelines for disclosing information about an employee’s health? How much sick leave do you have to provide?  We hope it would not be often needed but, in case of complications triggered by the flu, the Family and Medical Leave Act provides eligible employees with certain provisions of unpaid leave. CELB discusses other legal issues that may be of interest to employers.

According to the CDC, the best advice regarding H1N1 is relatively simple: cover your mouth when sneezing or coughing, wash hands well, and stay home when sick.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks