Blog
Legal Line Broadcast November 12, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 47:55 — 43.9MB)
Radio Broadcast of Legal Line November 12, 2011
When will someone “pull the plug” on your life?
If you haven’t done a living will, your loved ones will have to guess about your wishes if you are ever in a vegetative state or terminal condition with absolutely no hope of recovery. Your loved ones will have a very difficult time, may argue with each other, and then feel guilty about their decision. In the worst of circumstances, a Judge may have to decide your fate. Remember the Terry Schiavo case out of Florida?
Here is a link to a free Washington State Living Will: http://washingtonlawhelp.org/documents/1543019501EN.pdf?stateabbrev=/wa/
You have no excuse for not doing a Living Will.
Now that you have your living will in place, sit down and write a letter to your loved ones to tell them what is important to you if you are in a terminal condition. Give them some guidance.
Let us know your thoughts on end of life issues and leave your comments for others to read.
Legal Line broadcast November 5, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:50 — 44.7MB)
Legal Line radio broadcast from November 5, 2011
Honk your horn if you like the Constitution
Like many of us, Helen lives in an area that is covered by restrictive covenants. You were given a copy when you bought your house and you probably never read them. Helen’s neighbor. Mr. V, read his copy and found that chickens were prohibited. Not the Kentucky Fried kind of chickens, or the baked 8 piece from Safeway, no, just the ones that are were living in Helen’s backyard. Mr. V complained and Helen received a letter from the homeowners’ association asking her to turn her chickens into the Kentucky Fried style. Helen was mad and got up early the next day and honked a car horn in front of Mr. V’s house, just a little before 6 AM, for about 5 to 10 minutes. She woke up Mr. V who promptly called the cops. Sergeant Casey arrived (hopefully with his siren silent) to take Mr. V’s complaint. Helen drove past and honked again, three times no less. The Sergeant, doing his duty, promptly arrested Helen for violating the local noise ordinance that prohibited the sounding of a horn for purposes other than public safety (although one might inquire about the safety of the about to be fried chickens). The district court judge and jury proceeded to convict Helen and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
Enter the Washington Supreme Court. Picture six of the nine Justices riding horseback onto the scene. We may all laugh a little at a horn honking chicken frying case making its way to the Supreme Court. But, listen to Justice Stephens, “A moment’s reflection brings to mind numerous occasions in which a person honking a vehicle horn will be engaging in speech intended to communicate a message that will be understood in context. Examples might include: a driver of a carpool vehicle who toots a horn to let a coworker know it is time to go, a driver who enthusiastically responds to a sign that says “honk if you support our troops,” wedding guests who celebrate nuptials by sounding their horns, and a motorist who honks a horn in support of an individual picketing on a street corner. Thus, we reject the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that horn honking is a type of conduct that does not involve speech. Horn honking does constitute protected speech in many instances, regardless of whether it would constitute protected speech in Immelt’s particular case.”
Think about it, Helen’s annoying early morning chicken protest honking is important to all of us, and the Washington Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reminds us of how important our Constitution is to us. The horn ordinance is “overbroad” in that it sweeps into its prohibitions constitutionally protected speech. Because the ordinance would stop you and me from honking our horns to support our troops or a picketer on a street corner, we must toss out Helen’s chicken honking case and free Helen. The Supreme Court is spot on and my hat’s off to the six Justices.
Take a little time and have a look at our Supreme Court at work, in State of Washington v. Immelt: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=833435MAJ.
If court cases can ever be fun, this one certainly makes the list. Honk your horn if you like the Constitution – it’s constitutional.
Legal Line radio Broadcast for Oct. 29, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:51 — 44.7MB)
Legal Line broadcast from October 29, 2011
Starting a business; second mortgages and I Love Lucy
In episode #79 of I Love Lucy (first airing on 1/11/1954), Lucy comes up with her million dollar idea. She will make and market her Aunt Martha’s old-fashioned salad dressing. She and Ethel proceed to lose money on every jar they produce. Maybe Lucy figures she can make it up on volume. A listener called in with his million dollar idea, but clearly was headed down Lucy’s road. Before you commit to your great business idea, give it the reality check of a business plan. How will you operate your business? Who will use your product or service? What costs are involved? Imagine you are borrowing from a bank and you must prove to the bank that you will be able to repay the loan. From a legal standpoint, have a look at The Legal Guide for Starting and Running a Small Business, by Fred Steingold. Fred walks you through the many legal issues confronting a small business start-up. Consider forming a limited liability company or corporation to operate your business, to give you some legal structure and protect your personal assets from a business failure. Assemble your team of advisors, like an accountant and attorney. Use your attorney as a coach.
On Saturday’s program, we had a call from a listener who holds a second mortgage (really a deed of trust) on someone’s home to secure payment on a promissory note. She wants to collect on the note. If the note is in default, she can foreclose on the home, but she’ll have to deal with the first mortgage. And, if the first mortgage is foreclosed, she runs the risk of having her second wiped out unless she is willing to step in and take over the first. As Ted pointed out, she can also consider suing on the note and obtaining a judgment that will potentially cover all assets and last for ten years (with the ability to extend for another ten years), unless, of course, the person declares bankruptcy. You become the bank when you loan money, so think about the options if there is a default and protect yourself.
Ted and I are on the air each Saturday with a new edition of Legal Line, taking your general legal questions. Check it out.
Legal Line radio Broadcast for Oct. 22, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 48:53 — 44.8MB)
Legal Line Broadcast for Oct. 22, 2011
Have you written a letter to your children’s guardian?
If you have minor children, you are being irresponsible as parents if you don’t make a will that names a guardian for your children and establishes a trust for their inheritance. On this Saturday’s broadcast, Ted and I discussed wills and why you might need one. A child under 18 must have a legal guardian and the court will appoint one whether you have named one in your will or not. But, who will be appointed? The judge may be picking from several candidates and may or may not name the one you would have chosen, unless you take the time to name the guardian in your will. Unless you pick Jack the Ripper, the judge will more than likely appoint the guardian you have named.
What about your assets? Age 18 is not safe for anyone to inherit anything, except maybe bus fare. In your will, you need to call for the assets to be held in trust for your children. It’s really pretty simple. In your will you leave your assets to your children, but if they are under a specified age, then the assets are held by someone you name as trustee (usually not the guardian) and the trustee helps kids out with what they need until they attain the age you select. Education expenses – the trustee covers them. Housing, food, health care – the trustee takes care of the necessities. I remember asking one set of parents when their son should receive his inheritance. They thought and thought (and thought) and finally said, “65 should be about right.” What do you think? Sometimes, we split the inheritance into two or three installments, like 25, 30 and 35. Think about it. And then take action.
While you are at it, sit down and write a letter to your children’s guardian. What is important to you that you want the guardian to know? The guardian can’t call you with questions. You’re dead. So work on your letter, update it from time to time, and keep a copy with your will. If nothing else, you and the kids will have fun reading the letter when you don’t die. But, if you die before they are 18, your guardian will put extra flowers at your gravesite (and stop trying to call your cell phone).
In a later blog posting, we’ll talk about putting Saran Wrap around your children’s inheritance, to protect them from loss of their inheritance to a lawsuit or failed marriage. How would you like to wrap up your son or daughter’s inheritance so that the bad guys can’t get it?
On this week’s edition of Legal Line, we started up a weekly IQ test and tried out a lawyer joke of the week. We’ll see what the reaction is. Ted and I are on the air each Saturday, taking your general legal questions. Check it out.
Bob and Ted’s First Legal Line radio broadcast
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 47:49 — 65.7MB)
The first broadcast of Legal Line with Bob Pittman and Ted Barr, live on the radio Saturdays at 10am PST and put up online as a bobcast.
New Legal Line on the radio; creditor problem question
Criminal defense attorney, Ted Barr, and I cranked up a new edition of Legal Line on Saturday. Although Ted and I had not been together on the air for about 10 years, it seemed like yesterday as we eased back into the groove we had cut so many years ago. A few bumps in the road, like Ted’s headset not being hooked up, some uneasy transitions by a board operator not used to Bob and Ted, but all in all we had a good start to this new venture.
A caller brought up a question worth commenting on involving creditor problems. It looks like he may need to file for bankruptcy, but he is starting a new venture. Will his new business be safe from attack if he indeed files for bankruptcy protection? Here is the simple advice we all need to heed: if you have any inkling that you might need to file for bankruptcy, don’t just sit around and think about it. Run, don’t walk, to the nearest bankruptcy lawyer and engage in a strategy session to discuss your options, the pros and cons, and how to arrange your affairs, legally, to be in the best possible position to move on with your life. Do not wait until you have spent every last dime, drained your retirement account, and cashed in your life insurance. I’m not saying just to file for bankruptcy either. I’m suggesting that you have a strategy session early on with a bankruptcy attorney to understand your options and to put yourself and your family in the best possible position, all in a legal manner.
On a lighter side, here is what a caller to the online edition of Legal Line asked about. A caller recently explained that her family is living on the edge. “There is just too much month and not enough money.” We talked a little about the times and how tough they are for most of us. Then she told me about her husband’s method of picking up a little extra cash. It seems that when he goes to Lowe’s or Home Depot or maybe out to lunch with his buddies, he picks up the bill for everyone (on his credit card of course) and then gets the cash from his friends. Somehow the cash never ends up on the credit card bill, just in his pocket. He always seems to have a little extra spending money. What should she do?
Here’s where my extensive legal training really pays off. There is a little legal term called “precedent.” When a case is decided by a court of appeals, such as the Supreme Court, we say that the case sets a precedent for the particular set of facts and courts must follow the precedent in the future when they decide cases that involve substantially similar facts. Pretty slick, huh? In our caller’s case, there is a precedent. In Episode 100 of I Love Lucy (from the fourth season, airing on October 4, 1954), Lucy, who is in charge of the household, ends up on a budget administered by a business manager hired by Ricky. With only $5.00 in spending money for the month, but armed with an account at the grocery store, Lucy starts doing the grocery shopping for her neighbors. She charges their groceries to her account and pockets the money from the neighbors. The bill won’t come until the next month and will, she figures, be paid by the business manager. Luckily, a stock market windfall based on Lucy’s participation in the “market” saves the day (and Lucy). You can pretty much find the answer to most legal questions in an episode of I Love Lucy. Stay tuned.
And, check out Bob and Ted’s new edition of Legal Line next Saturday.
