- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 1042 Views
- RIP David Krieger. A gofundme has been setup to assist his family.
- Here are the details on the memorial service for Melanie Andress-Tobiasson. [RJ]
- An article says law is the most stressful profession. [ABA Journal]
- After oral argument on attorney-client privilege issue, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case. [SCOTUSblog]
The GoFundMe for David because it essentially seems to be asking for money for attorneys' fees to fight his ex-wife.
*is interesting because
Really sad. Without too many details, I dealt with a case in which years after their divorce, the ex continued to say the most horrible, disgusting things to my client and acted just awful. It was truly beyond the pale and exposed their children to stress and trauma for years. Even the judge was disgusted and basically said as much in open court. People are terrible.
I appreciate the transparency. But of course we're hearing only one side.
Question, can a trust and an individual be joint tenants with rights of survivorship? I know this makes little sense practically speaking, but lets say that a client insists on it. I don't see anything in NRS 111 that prohibits it. Functionally, seems like it would really just be a situation in which the person holds an interest that would pass automatically at their death to the trust I guess. Anyway, any thoughts on this strange arrangement?
How can the individual have a right of survivorship if the trust can't die?
Why not just have the trust hold title and give the individual a life estate? (That's the best I've got off memory from law school)
Thoughts – You'll never get a title company, bank, brokerage, or other institution to agree to it. If the client insists, dump them. Trusts can't die. California has similar language, and Trusts can't be JTs there unless the transfer occurred during a narrow window of time in the past when it was more ambiguous.
I can't cite to authority, but practically speaking, 4:26 PM is right. A trust can't die, which means it's functionally a co-life estate with the human and trust followed by a remainder interest in the trust. Most importantly, there is no way a title company will insure it. That by itself is the end of the discussion. Sounds like a dumb client.
Short answer, no. A trust doesn't "die" so there is no survivorship. My opinion is that this would be construed as a tenancy in common with each owner (the individual and the trust) owning an equal, but separate interest. When the individual dies, their interest is then subject to probate. The trust's interest will pass according to the terms of the trust.
Is there a rule against perpetuities in that scenario?
That's an idiotic request by the client. NRS 111 deeds upon death and adding a future beneficiary as a joint tenant are used as a poor man's trust. Those are done primarily when someone's too cheap to create a trust. If you have a trust, have the trust own it. If they want to create a concept of an NRS 111 deed upon death or joint tenancy, just have the trust own a tenants in common interest and list the co-owner as the specific beneficiary of that property. The co-owner could then do an NRS 111 deed upon death that grants their ownership to the trust. Then if the co-owner natural person died the trust would inherit by the NRS 111 deed upon death. If the settlor of the trust died, then the co-owner would inherit their half.
There's no such thing as stupid questions, just stupid clients.
Isn't this the same thing as having the Individual act as the trustee of the trust?
Is this a bar exam question?
Why wouldn't emergency room physician be more stressful? As stressful as my job is, I don't treat kids who just were shot and are clinging to life. Doesn't seem even close.
I don't know what is more stressful, as I've never been an ER doctor. But, one difference between the practice of law and the medical field is, that doctor that you described gets to go home and night, knowing they did what they could to save the person and the next day brings a new day. In the practice of law, we don't get to leave behind what we did for the day. Deadlines constantly loom. They are never ending. You have to come back the next day and deal with the things you maybe put off the day before, or still deal with that horrible opposing counsel or client. In essence, I think other jobs, like medicine, are easier to compartmentalize your job from your personal like. Because that distinction is easy, you clock out and your day is done. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but that has always been my thought as to why this profession seems so much more demanding than others, including doctors. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. It's all about perspective.
*personal life
It depends how you define "stress." If instant life-saving decisions then Drs, if long-term drip drip of affecting society and perhaps thousands with the laws we make via precedent, etc. perhaps lawyers. But in the final sense, does it matter? Both professions are insanely important and require certain types of people. Insult me if you want but I feel I could do either because I am smart, able to handle stress, and have almost instant recall for troubleshooting steps i.e., Judge overruled objection do X, Y and Z or, I think, take vitals, keep airways clear, or whatever drs do. But I'll never know as I chose law.
Responding to 1:01 p.m., knowing many doctors personally (my dad, friends, etc.), they commonly have trouble leaving it behind when a patient dies on them.
Doctors collaborate with one another with a common goal to heal the patient. Lawyers are endlessly at battle trying to better a highly skilled and trained opponent. I think this is the stress difference.
I'd also think its because doctors get those "win" moments, such as saving the life, making a difference, healing a patient, etc. So while they deal with the lowest lows they also get the highest highs. I'm sure some attorneys have win moments like that but for most of us its a never ending grind. Victories are quickly forgotten as we are embroiled in the next dispute.
Here is your chance. I have heard a lot of complaining about the Nevada State Bar on this blog and their persecution of SOLOs, etc. The perfect storm has occurred in my life (retiring, have the money, have the will power) that has brought me to lead the fight. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to just receiving a Grievance or something. I have pondered this over for roughly two years. I am suing the SBN within the next 60 days. I have my own legal theories of course. And, if the NSB follows this blog, I do not want to give them up here. However, in the interest of crowd-sourcing, I ask the following. What do you think the best legal theory justifying a suit for their relentless persecution of SOLOs? What about the Equal Protection Clause as the largest client base is comprised of protected classes and the SOLO, in my case, represents that class, i.e., an attack on me is an attack on them. I understand the SBN will litigate hard, so I want it to be rock solid. Before you hammer me too hard, I have my own theories and the Complaint is roughly 75% done but I'm looking for anything else (maybe novel) I can get in there haha. Also, what is most likely to survive the inevitable MTD. Also, I now live in AZ but am licensed in NV. I am a long-time civ lit lawyer – I wish I knew more Con Law as I think it might lean that way. Thank you.
Equal protection is a toughy under these facts. Also, is the suit for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief? Are you suing as the lead plaintiff of a class or in your individual capacity? Sounds like any class claims would fail if you're trying to include all solos because some solos are members of protected classes. Here is some copy and paste info about selective enforcement in other contexts:
Selective enforcement requires the intent to single out for punishment a member of a protected class or person exercising a constitutional right. The fact that an ordinance/rule is not enforced uniformly against all potential violators does not render it discriminatory. An equal protection claim must be based on intentional discrimination against the plaintiff because of plaintiff’s membership in a particular class, not merely because plaintiff was treated unfairly as an individual. Nevertheless, while mere laxity in the enforcement of an ordinance, although it may result in the unequal application of the law to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection in the constitutional sense, it is otherwise in the case of deliberate or intentional discriminatory enforcement which is a denial of the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
To prevail on a claim under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that enforcement had a discriminatory effect and the government officials were motivated by a discriminatory purpose. To establish a discriminatory effect, the plaintiff must show that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted. To show a discriminatory purpose, a plaintiff must establish that the decision maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part “because of,” not merely “in spite of,” its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” In addition to the showing of a discriminatory purpose and effect, plaintiffs seeking to enjoin alleged selective enforcement must demonstrate the police misconduct is part of a “policy, plan, or a pervasive pattern.”
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will study this and reply later today.