Many elderly clients feel the need (and rightfully so) to plan for the protection of their home from creditors, including government interests, during their… Read More
Many people collect all kinds of things, and these collections come to hold tremendous sentimental and in some cases monetary value. As people age, they begin to think about who they would like to have certain items or entire collections, and sometimes, bold relatives or friends suggest they'd like to receive something special to remember you by. Gifts and promises of gifts are also made to honor a special relationship.
These type of collections can cause significant arguments after you are deceased. The best way to avoid such disputes is to clearly specify in writing exactly who is to receive what items. Verbally telling a relative or friend what you would like for them to have upon their death, and giving away significant items while you're still living, causes confusion and prompts some to get greedy.
It's the last thing anybody wants after they're gone.
Read More
In an unpublished opinion, a couple was apparently injured in a Warren County car accident case that involved three vehicles. According to the couple, they were hurt when their truck was struck from behind by a minivan that was rear-ended by another car while stopped at a traffic light. As a result of their harm, the couple filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the minivan and the car operator in Warren County Circuit Court.
Prior to trial, the couple resolved their claims against the driver of the car through mediation. Because of this, the motorist did not participate in a subsequent jury trial between the couple and the minivan driver. Still, jurors were provided with apportionment instructions related to both the minivan operator and the car driver at the close of trial. Following trial, the jury issued a verdict stating the driver of the car breached his duty to maintain reasonable control of his vehicle. In addition, the jury absolved the minivan operator of liability. The Warren County Circuit Court then issued a final judgment dismissing the couple’s complaint against the minivan driver. Read More
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial after evidence was improperly excluded in a bike accident case. In Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Thacker, a Pikeville, Kentucky resident was struck by a motor vehicle while riding her bicycle near Palm Beach, Florida. As a result of the crash, the woman endured multiple broken bones and a traumatic head injury. The woman also apparently required psychiatric treatment following the bike accident. After the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the full policy limits of $20,000 for her accident injuries, she filed a lawsuit in Pike County Circuit Court seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her own auto insurance company.
Following a trial, a jury returned a $3.9 million verdict against the woman’s UIM insurer. The jurors also found that the woman was 50 percent responsible for her injuries. The trial court offset the financial compensation the woman received from the motorist’s liability carrier before awarding her more than $1.9 million. The UIM insurer then appealed the jury’s verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More
Social media accounts include Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Foursquare, Vine and many others.
Virtually everyone these days has some variety of social media accounts, whether it be Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or some other form of social media (the list appears to be never-ending). Encompassing more than just social media, nearly everyone has Internet and other electronic accounts that require maintained passwords to access. What happens to a person’s social media accounts when that person dies? Who has a right to access the password-maintained accounts? Fortunately, these issues are starting to receive attention and are being addressed.
Facebook now allows its members to designate a “legacy contact” to manage the deceased persons account (to some degree) posthumously, a feature just added a few short months ago. Facebook's newsroom states:
Facebook is a place to share and connect with friends and family. For many of us, it’s also a place to remember and honor those we’ve lost. When a person passes away, their account can become a memorial of their life, friendships and experiences.
Today we’re introducing a new feature that lets people choose a legacy contact—a family member or friend who can manage their account when they pass away. Once someone lets us know that a person has passed away, we will memorialize the account and the legacy contact will be able to:
Write a post to display at the top of the memorialized Timeline (for example, to announce a memorial service or share a special message)
Respond to new friend requests from family members and friends who were not yet connected on Facebook
Update the profile picture and cover photo
If someone chooses, they may give their legacy contact permission to download an archive of the photos, posts and profile information they shared on Facebook. Other settings will remain the same as before the account was memorialized. The legacy contact will not be able to log in as the person who passed away or see that person’s private messages.
Alternatively, people can let us know if they’d prefer to have their Facebook account permanently deleted after death. Read More
Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is requiring the manufacturers of low testosterone drugs to change the labels of their products and to conduct further studies about the drugs. The FDA says some studies have indicated there is an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and even death while taking supplemental testosterone, while other studies have not. This has led the FDA to say that more research is needed by the manufacturers of the drugs as well as to require more warning labels on Low Testosterone drugs to better prepare doctors and patients for discussions about taking "Low T" drugs.
The FDA specifically called out clinics offering to treat the "signs of aging" in men which are often believed to be linked to gradually decreasing testosterone in the body. While decreasing testosterone may seem to be the culprit of fatigue or other similar problems, there's not been enough research of the side effects of taking Low T drugs simply to fight the signs of aging. The FDA says the drugs should only be used in men who are suffering from low testosterone as a result of "disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism."
Health care providers should make patients aware of the risk of possible cardiovascular events and even death due to taking testosterone, the FDA says. Read More
In Helton v. Lelion, a couple sued a driver who was operating a vehicle in which a tire became loose and hit their vehicle. The couple initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Wolfe County Circuit Court against the driver who lost her tire. The allegedly negligent motorist with the loose tire apparently did not carry liability insurance when the accident occurred. Because of this, the injured driver also demanded the full policy limits of her uninsured motorist coverage from her own auto insurer, as well as attorneys’ fees and interest.
The defendants removed the uninsured motorist case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), a federal court may exercise such jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. In response, the couple filed a motion to remand the case back to a Kentucky state court. Although the plaintiffs agreed that the parties were diverse, they claimed that federal jurisdiction was improper because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory minimum. The injured driver also signed a stipulation that the entirety of the damages she sought were less than $75,000. Read More
Nathan Vinson
By Nathan Vinson, Attorney
English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, LLP
An Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) may be a vehicle available to Kentucky residents to avoid Kentucky’s inheritance tax. The Kentucky inheritance tax is payable by the beneficiaries of a person’s estate, depending on what the beneficiary received and the relationship of the decedent to the beneficiary.
“Class A” beneficiaries are exempt from the inheritance tax and include parents, surviving spouses, siblings (whether full or half), children (including adopted children and stepchildren), and grandchildren.
“Class B” beneficiaries enjoy a partial exemption from the tax and include aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces (including by the half), daughter-in-laws, son-in-laws, and great-grandchildren (including those who are the grandchildren of adopted children and stepchildren).
All other beneficiaries are considered “Class C” beneficiaries and are afforded a nominal exemption from the inheritance tax. With the highest rate of Kentucky’s inheritance tax being 16%, Class B and Class C beneficiaries may take a big hit if they inherit any sizable amount from the decedent’s estate.
Here is where planning opportunities arise using IRAs. Read More
By Nathan Vinson, attorney
English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP
Life estates have long been an efficient and simple succession planning device for those who want to leave their homes to loved ones when they die.
Here is a basic illustration of how it works: Mom has survived Dad and owns her house outright. She still lives in the home, which has a value of $300,000. Mom wants to leave the home to her Son at her death. So, Mom gives her house to the Son (the “remainder interest”) and reserves the right to live in the home during her life (the “life estate”). Read More
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished opinion that a helmet is not an integral part of a motorcycle for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits. This issue was decided on in the case of Stallard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The case involved a motorcycle owner who was injured in an accident while riding with a group of other bikers. The man was riding in the center of a group of about two dozen motorcyclists when the group of riders suddenly slowed. As the man attempted to avoid an accident with another motorcycle, he sustained serious injuries when another motorcyclist’s unsecured helmet bounced into his tire.
When the motorcycle accident occurred, the motorcyclist carried uninsured motor vehicle (UM) insurance. Since the injured man was not hit by another vehicle, however, the motorcyclist’s insurer denied his insurance benefits claim. After that, the injured rider filed a lawsuit against his insurance carrier in Jefferson County Circuit Court.
In response, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was not required to provide benefits under the terms of the policy because the motorcyclist was not physically struck by another vehicle, nor was he injured by an integral part of another vehicle. The hurt rider countered that he should be compensated by his UM insurer because a motorcycle helmet is an integral part of a motorcycle. The trial court sided with the insurance company and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier. Read More
