Legislative Updates

Guardianship proceedings – learn the facts and the Florida laws

January 13, 2022 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

In November 2021, after Britney Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, was suspended as conservator of his daughter’s conservatorship, a judge finally ruled to end the conservatorship. This decision signaled the end for the restrictive supervision that had been in place since 2008. Back in June 2021, Britney Spears made headlines as she gave an emotional testimony pleading for her conservatorship to be lifted, echoing the online social media movement #FreeBritney. After nearly fourteen years, Ms. Spears is finally poised to assume complete autonomy of her life and regain many of her most fundamental individual rights.

What is a conservatorship?

Under California law, where Ms. Spears resides, “[a] conservatorship is a court case where a judge appoints a responsible person or organization (called the “conservator”) to care for another adult (called the “conservatee”) who cannot care for himself or herself or manage his or her own finances.” The state declares one to be a conservatee if he or she is intellectually incapacitated and unable to make independent decisions, usually involving ailments such as dementia, serious mental illness, or other metal disabilities. Once the court establishes the conservatorship, the conservatee loses the right to make certain decisions, such as deciding medical treatment, controlling financial assets, marrying, and signing contracts, to name a few.

Tax planning, Estate planning, Trust documents – Be proactive now and do not regret indecisiveness in 2021

April 15, 2021 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Bernie’s “For the 99.5% Act”: Is It Time to Start Thinking about Tax Planning?

For the year 2021, each individual has $11,700,000.00 of estate tax credit (or $23,400,000.00 for married couples), otherwise known as the “applicable exclusion amount.” For estates that exceed the applicable exclusion amount, the tax rate is up to 40.00% of the amount in excess of the applicable exclusion amount. The current estate tax credit is scheduled to maintain that level, indexed for inflation, until December 31, 2025, at which point the applicable exclusion amount will be reduced to approximately $6,000,000.00 ($12,000,000.00 for married couples). However, since the Biden administration proposed major estate tax reform, there has been much discussion about whether the estate tax credit will be reduced earlier.

On March 25, 2021, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the “For the 99.5% Act,” which proposed, among others, the following tax reforms:

President Biden’s potential move on Estate Tax – What you need to know now

February 18, 2021 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

2021 Biden Administration Proposed Tax Changes: Will My Estate Be Subject to Estate Tax?

Over the course of the last several decades, the federal estate tax credit has increased to the point that only very high net-worth individuals and families need to concern themselves with estate tax planning. For the year 2021, the “applicable exclusion amount” is $11,700,000.00 per individual (23,400,000.00 for married couples). The gift tax exclusion amount is the same, that is, each individual may give $11,700,000.00 during their lifetime without incurring any gift tax. If the sum of lifetime gifts and assets transferred at death is greater than the applicable exclusion amount, then such transfers will be taxed at a rate as high as 40%.

However, the Biden administration has proposed a reduction of the applicable exclusion amount to $3,500,000.00 per person for estates, $1,000,000.00 for lifetime gifts, and increase the tax rate to up to 45%. Such a change is made more likely by the fact that, in January, the Democratic party has consolidated power in both branches of the U.S. Congress. Last year, there was even fear that, if such a change came in to effect at any time during 2021, congress could make the change retroactive to January 1, 2020, prompting many families to make gifts before the end of the year to ensure their use of the current applicable exclusion amounts.

Part 2: The Secure Act – Look at your trust, your beneficiaries, and get it reviewed

March 20, 2020 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Do I Need to Amend My Trust Because of the Secure Act?

Last month, in our last blog, we addressed the basics of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (the “SECURE Act’) and how retirement plan beneficiary designations will be impacted for individuals who die in or after 2020. But what if you already set up an estate plan with a trust as beneficiary of your retirement account? Do you need to amend your trust or your beneficiary designation form as a result of the passage of the SECURE Act?

The answer is that it depends on whether the trust is an “accumulation” trust or a “conduit” trust and how you want such retirement accounts to be treated. Generally, in an accumulation trust, assets payable to the trust are to be distributed in the trustee’s discretion. A conduit trust, on the other hand, generally requires that assets must be distributed to the beneficiary – in other words, the trust simply acts as a conduit to deliver the assets to the beneficiary, and the assets cannot stay (that is, cannot accumulate) in the trust. It is possible to draft the trust as an accumulation trust with respect to all assets except retirement accounts, just as it is possible to draft a conduit trust that requires only outright distributions of retirement accounts (leaving the remainder of the funds at the trustee’s discretion).

Part 1 – The Secure Act (the rules changed very recently for beneficiaries)

February 21, 2020 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

The Secure Act: Retirement Accounts and Your Estate Plan

Beginning on December 20, 2019, the Secure Act substantially changed the rules for designated beneficiaries of retirement plans, with wide raging implications for estate planning.

The old rule used to be that upon the death of a retirement account owner, the beneficiary of the plan would be able to take required minimum distributions based on that beneficiary’s life expectancy. This was beneficial especially for younger beneficiaries with long life expectancies who could “stretch” the payments over many years, allowing the assets to stay invested in the plan longer. It was also possible for beneficiaries to receive these stretch payments if a trust for their benefit was named as the beneficiary, as long as the trust qualified as a “see-through” trust. If no beneficiary was named, or if a non-see-through trust was named as beneficiary, the entire plan had to be distributed within 5 years of the date of death of the participant. Because many clients wish to leave their assets in trust for their children, much of the focus of estate planners up until this point had been drafting trusts so that they qualified as see-through trusts in order to avoid the 5-year rule.

The Florida Digital Assets Act

March 5, 2019 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Understanding Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Under Florida Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act

Social networking, e-mail, and digital platforms are here to stay; unfortunately, we are not. Internet users must plan for the management and disposition of their assets in similar ways that they make plans for tangible property.

Florida statutes define a digital asset as “an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest.” When a user with digital assets passes away or becomes incapacitated, a representative may want access to these digital assets to collect financial records of the decedent, to prevent identity theft, or even for sentimental reasons. There are various state and federal privacy laws, however, that may prevent one from acquiring this information. Amongst these laws is the Florida Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. The Act applies to a fiduciary acting under a will, trust, or power of attorney executed before, on, or after July 1, 2016 Fla. Stat. § 740.08. Chapter 740 generally prevents access to electronic information and assets without specific authorization from a user, even if a general grant of authority has been given to a fiduciary. As such, if the user desires that the agent have access to electronically stored information digital information or digital assets, they must curate the operating document to include a special authorization to that effect.

Home health care owners and operators, be smart

October 30, 2017 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Do you own a home health care agency or nurse registry? Safeguard your referral sources through a non-compete agreement and enforce it!

The home health care industry generally includes businesses that provide skilled nursing, physical therapy, and other health-related services to homebound patients. If you run a home care company, you know that referrals are crucial. This is because patients typically seek out home care services after a referral from a “middle man,” such as a physician, hospital, or skilled nursing facility. As a result, home care companies hire marketing representatives to promote the companies and cultivate relationships with the middle men in hope of securing future patient referrals for their business.

Imagine that you hire such a marketing representative, train her, and give her access to your company’s internal referral source database, preferences, and strategies. Naturally, you want to protect your sources, so the representative signs a confidentiality and non-compete agreement as part of her employment contract. After some time, the representative quits, and all of a sudden you start receiving significantly less referrals from the sources that the representative worked on while employed by you. Coincidence? It turns out that the representative started working for your direct competitor and used her relationship with your precious referral sources to your competitor’s benefit, in direct violation of the non-compete agreement. Surely the law is on your side, right?

Recent Florida Supreme Court case law update – Hess v. Patrick

September 5, 2017 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Great news for Creditors! Up to 20 years to enforce a domesticated foreign judgment

Over 30 years ago, Florida enacted the Florida Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (FEFJA) providing a simplified procedure for domesticating foreign judgments. In other words, FEFJA allows a judgment from any other US state or the US federal government to be recognized and enforced as if it were a Florida judgment. Until recently, Florida creditors remained uncertain as to one crucial aspect of this important mechanism – what is the “expiration date” of a domesticated foreign judgment?

To understand the implications of this issue, we must look to the applicable statute of limitations. Under Florida law, the expiration date for a judgment or decree issued by a Florida court is 20 years. Fla. Stat. 95.11(1). Contrarily, a judgment or decree of any court of the United States, any other state or territory in the United States, or a foreign country, expires after only five years. Fla. Stat. 95.11(2). Therefore, the question as to which of these time limitations apply to a domesticated foreign judgment clearly bears far-reaching consequences.

Same Sex surviving spouses, a recent Florida law change

April 6, 2017 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Florida same-sex surviving spouses may be added on a death certificate without a court order

In 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its pioneering decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), holding state laws prohibiting or refusing to recognize same-sex marriages unconstitutional. After Obergefell, Florida started recognizing same-sex marriages and began to list a same-sex surviving spouse on the deceased spouse’s death certificate, where the marriage was lawfully entered into in another jurisdiction. However, the surviving spouse was out of luck if the marriage was entered into before Obergefell, unless the surviving spouse obtained an individual court order approving the correction.

This obtrusive situation has changed for now. In a recent order from March 23, 2017, a federal judge granted a summary judgment to a certified class, ordering that Florida must amend any death certificate without a court order when the decedent was lawfully married to a person of the same-sex at the time of the death. The same judge issued an order striking down Florida’s marriage ban in August 2014. The plaintiffs in this case were two gay surviving spouses, married before Obergefell, who filed the case not only on their behalf, but on behalf of other similarly situated persons as well. The plaintiffs sought to have their spouses’ death certificates show they had been married, but the state argued that Florida law prohibited amending the death certificates without a court order.

Probate Court and Family Court collide

November 28, 2016 | by Chepenik Trushin LLP

Florida Appeals Court Comes Down Against Probate Creditor Claims From Child For Child Support Arrearages

On May 11, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Davis v. Hengen regarding creditor claims for child support arrearages against a decedent’s estate, when the decedent dies with unpaid child support obligations.

Upon the dissolution of their marriage, Clifford Davis and his then wife entered into a marital and property settlement agreement. According to the agreement, Clifford was obligated to pay monthly child support to his ex-wife to support their daughter, Deborah. When the father died, he died intestate. At the time of his death, the father had outstanding child support payments due. Deborah and Clifford’s current wife, Acaia, were appointed co-personal representatives of Clifford’s estate.