AUGUST IS NATIONAL WILL MONTH

Franks Paralegal Service
562-228-4840
franksparalegal@yahoo.com

Creating a Last Will: Pros and Cons

Having a last will in place at the time of your death is a smart choice, but as with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages to consider when drafting one. Some of these pros and cons are discussed below.
Advantages of a Last Will
• You can leave property to those you choose.
One of the greatest advantages to having a will is that you can choose who will receive what from your estate. Without a will, your estate is subject state laws of “intestacy.” That means the people you would like to benefit may receive little or nothing, while others with whom you’re not as close receive the bulk. Accordingly, if you are not married but have a long-term partner, he or she could receive nothing under such laws. Alternately, if you are in the process of a divorce but it has not been finalized, without a will, your estranged husband or wife could make a claim on your estate.
• You can name a guardian for children and provide for them.
A will allows you to choose a guardian for your children and set aside funds to make sure of their support and comfort.
• You can create a testamentary trust in the will.
You can create a testamentary trust within a last will, which is created upon your death and used to hold property for another person’s benefit, such as your children.
• You choose your executor.
The executor is in charge of making sure all your bequests are carried out. A will gives you complete control over deciding who this will be. The executor should be someone who is willing and able to handle everything that is involved with the closing of your estate. Without a will, a court appoints someone to administer your estate, and that person may not be someone you would choose.
• You can plan for personal matters.
From burial arrangements to pet care, you can use a will to dictate what type of services, if any, you would like, and other personal matters.
• You can amend it.
Circumstances change, and so can your will. Through a “codicil,” you can amend any provisions of your will at any time so that they better reflect your most current wishes and assets.
• You can revoke it.
If you find that a will no longer represents your interests, you can revoke it entirely and start over.
• Doesn’t have to be expensive.
Creating a last will can be surprisingly affordable, particularly if your finances, assets and beneficiaries are fairly straightforward.

Disadvantages of a Last Will
• Possible challenges.
Although it’s possible that someone could challenge your will, if you have followed all of the proper procedures in its creation, your will and its provisions will likely stand.
• May need to go through probate.
If you have assets that pass under your will worth more than a certain amount, your will must be filed for probate, the procedure through which a decedent’s assets are distributed; this can be a long process, which can, in turn, be costly for the estate. In contrast, a living trust does not require probate.
• It is public record.
A will becomes public record once it is filed for probate, which means anyone can search for it and see its contents.
Final Thoughts on Last Wills
All of the disadvantages listed above can be addressed with proper will planning and/or other estate planning documents, so don’t let the potential downsides discourage you from expressing your last wishes in writing.
Also, laws regarding last wills do vary by state, so it is crucial that you understand the requirements for drafting and signing a valid will in your jurisdiction to avoid further problems in its execution.
It’s National Make-a-Will Month! Protect your family. Call us or email us today.

We can prepare a will for you for $80.00 just for the month August only

United States Supreme Court rejects routine no-warrant DUI blood tests

The Supreme Court ruled that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

Justice Sotomayor wrote for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to jettison the requirement that police get a judge’s approval before drawing a blood sample.

Missouri and the Obama administration were asking the court to endorse a blanket rule that would have allowed the tests without a warrant.

Eight of the nine justices rejected that plea. The only dissent was from Justice Thomas who held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect’s constitutional rights.

The case is stemmed from the arrest of Tyler McNeely in a rural area of Missouri’s Cape Girardeau County. A state trooper stopped McNeely for speeding and swerving of his car. The driver, who had two previous dui convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.

He failed several field sobriety tests. The arresting officer stated that McNeely speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet. There seemed little dispute that the officer had enough evidence to get a warrant for a blood test, but chose not to. Instead, he drove McNeely to a hospital, where a technician drew blood.

McNeely’s blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, well above the 0.08 legal limit.

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a lower court order that threw out the results of the blood test. The state high court said the blood test violated the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police need a warrant to take a suspect’s blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence, the Missouri court stated.

The case is Missouri v. McNeely 11-1425

Supreme Court rules that Drug dog sniff is unconstitutional search

APRIL 8TH, 2013

The United States Supreme Court ruled that police cannot bring drug-sniffing police dogs onto a suspect’s property to look for evidence without first getting a warrant for a search, a decision which may limit how investigators use dog’s sensitive noses to search out drugs, explosives and other items hidden from human sight, sound and smell.

The high court was spilt 5-4 on the decision to uphold Florida Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out evidence seized in the search of Joelis Jardines’ Miami-area home. That search was based on an alert by Franky the drug dog from outside the closed front door.

Justice Antonin Scalia said a person has the Fourth Amendment right to be free from the government’s gaze inside their home and in the area surrounding it, which is called the cartilage.

“The police cannot, without a warrant based on probable cause, hang around on the lawn or in the side garden, trawling for evidence and perhaps peering into the windows of the home.” Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority. “And the officers here had all four of their feet and all four of their companion’s planted firmly on that cartilage-the front porch is the classic example of an area intimately associated with the life of the home.”

He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The four justices who dissented were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Antony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito.

Case: On the morning of December 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. DEA agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a majriunana growing operation. Detective Douglas Barteit arrived with Franky and the two went up to the house, where Franky quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.

That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its long occupant, Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officer pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than &700,000.

Jardines was charged with marijuana tracking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky’s sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.

The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.

That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court’s decision.

This is the second decision this year on the use of drug-sniffing dogs by police. The court unanimously ruled earlier in another Florida case that police don’t have to extensively document the work of drug-sniffing dogs in the field to be able to use the results of their work in court.

United States Supreme Court says government can be sued over guards’ actions

March 30, 2013

The United States Supreme court ruled unanimously that the federal government can be sued for abuse claims against prison guards.

The high court ruled for Kim Lee Millbrook, a prisoner at the federal prison in Lewisburg, Pa. who had accused prison guards of sexually assaulting him in May 2010. Prison officials said Millbrook’s claim was unsubstantiated.

The court accepted his appeal and appointed him a lawyer-Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that the lawsuit can move forward.

The Federal Torts Claim Act waives the United States immunity against lawsuits for civil wrongs intentionally caused by federal representatives, including federal law enforcement officers. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said immunity is only waived when the law enforcement officer is executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest.

Thomas said those terms describe what federal law enforcement officers can do, not what they can be sued for.

The exception waiving immunity from lawsuits against the government “extended to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence or making an arrest,” Thomas said

You can read more on this case at Millbrook v. United States 11-10362

Los Angeles Clippers to overhaul McBride Park, Long Beach

March 11th, 2013
The Los Angeles Clippers have decided to make improvements to one of Long Beach oldest park playground-McBride Park.

At no cost to the city, the Clippers-through a program called FIT Campus Playground and Court Refurbishment program—will donate planning, labor, materials and equipment with the approximate value of $90,000 to renovate the playground and basketball courts at McBride. The prime objective will be to replace the aging playground equipment and completely resurfacing the basketball court. According to the Press-telegram all equipment when finished will be painted Clippers red, white and blue.

The Long Beach City Council unanimously approved the right of entry permits for the program, which will allow the Clippers to begin their work at McBride Park.

The Los Angeles Clippers have requested a recognition plaque for the work, but have not asked for any further naming or sponsorship type benefits to this donation. The project aims to be finished by March 22.

JIMMY HOFFA: FORMER UNDERBOSS KNOWS WHERE HE IS BURIED

JIMMY HOFFA: FORMER UNDERBOSS KNOWS WHERE HE IS BURIED
Is this just another false lead?
Could this witness finally solve the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa?

After almost 40 years, a former high-ranking member of Detroit’s La Cosa Nostra says he knows where Jimmy Hoffa is buried and that he wants to end his silence about it once and for all.

Tony Zerilli, who rose to the ranks of “underboss” or second in command of the La Costra Nostra crime family, says that while he was in prison when Hoffa was killed, he knows what happened, who did it, and where the body is buried. He wants to put and end to the mystery of what happened to the legendary mafia figure.

Tony Zerilli, says that Hoffa went to meet 2 people-an alleged member of the Detroit mafia and a teamster from New Jersey at a restaurant in Detroit that summer day in 1975 and is buried less than 20 miles away from that diner.

Mr. Zerilli, has said that he was close to the boss and “If I wasn’t away in jail, I don’t think it ever would’ve happened, that’s all I can tell you”. “I would’ve done anything in the world to protect Jimmy Hoffa”.

FBI agents say they are hopeful that this could be the lead that actually goes somewhere.

“Clearly when he returned he would’ve been a person, based on his position in the hierarchy, who would have been able to learn the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance of James Earl Hoffa,” said United States Attorney Keith Corbett.

The one very big thing that is working against Mr. Zerilli, is that he is 85 years old and needs money. So only time will tell if he is telling the truth or not.

NEW LAWS FOR CALIFORNIA FOR 2013

NEW LAWS FOR CALIFORNIA FOR 2013

As 2012 is coming to and end new laws will take effect for California residents in 2013. Here are just some of the new laws that will go into effect on January 1, 2013:

GOOD SAMARITAN OVERDOSE PREVENTION LAW This law encourages people to call 911 and seek medical help for someone who experiences a drug or alcohol overdose without fear or being prosecution for minor drug crimes.

MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS

Amber Alert for Seniors: Similar to Amber Alert, the CHP would activitate a silver alert upon request if a person, age 65n or older, is reported missing to a law enforcement agencies and that agency determines that certain criteria is met.

D.U.I.: A person who has been arrested and is suspected of driving while under the influence of a DUI of drugs, no longer has the option of a urine test. Prior to this changing a person had the option of submitting to either a urine or blood test to determine the drug content of the blood. Now the driver will only be able to submit to a blood test.

New California Laws for 2013 Affecting REALTORS

Landlord Must Disclose Notice of Default to Prospective Tenants: Starting January 1, 2013, every landlord who offers for rent a residential property containing one-to-four units must disclose in writing to any prospective tenant the receipt of a notice of default that has not been rescinded. This disclosure must be made before executing a lease agreement. If a landlord violates this law, the tenant can elect to void the lease and recover one month’s rent or twice the amount of actual damages, whichever is greater, plus all prepaid rent. If the lease is not voided and the foreclosure sale has not occurred, the tenant may deduct one month’s rent from future amounts owed. The written disclosure notice as provided by statute must be in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean. A property manager will not be held liable for failing to provide the written disclosure notice unless the landlord has given the property manager written instructions to deliver the written disclosure to the tenant. This law will expire on January 1, 2018

Landlord May Dispose Abandoned Personal Property Less Than $700: Commencing January 1, 2013, the total resale value of personal property left behind by a tenant after termination of a tenancy that the landlord must sell at a public auction (rather than dispose of or retain for his or her own use), has been increased from $300 to $700, if certain procedures are followed. This law, however, also prohibits a landlord from assessing any storage cost if the tenant reclaims personal property within 2 days of vacating the premises. The statutory notices of Right to Reclaim Abandoned Property have been revised to reflect these changes. Furthermore, a landlord’s notices of termination of tenancy and pre-move out inspection must contain specified language that former tenants may reclaim abandoned personal property left on the premises, subject to certain conditions.

Tenant Entitled to a 90-Day Notice to Terminate After Foreclosure: Effective January 1, 2013, a month-to-month tenant in possession of a rental housing unit at the time the property is foreclosed must be given a 90-day written notice to terminate under California law. For a fixed-term residential lease, the tenant can generally remain until the end of the lease term, and all rights and obligations under the lease shall survive foreclosure, including the tenant’s obligation to pay rent. However, the landlord can give a 90-day written notice to terminate a fixed-term lease after foreclosure under any of the following four circumstances: (1) the purchaser or successor-in-interest will occupy the property as a primary residence; (2) the tenant is the borrower or the borrower’s child, spouse, or parent; (3) the lease was not the result of an arms’ length transaction; or (4) the lease requires rent that is substantially below fair market rent (except if under rent control or government subsidy). The purchaser or successor-in-interest bears the burden of proving that one of the four exceptions has been met. This law does not apply if a borrower stays in the property as a tenant, subtenant, or occupant, or if the property is subject to just cause rent control. This law will expire on December 31, 2019. This new California law is similar, but not identical, to the 90-day termination notice requirement under the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (12 U.S.C. § 5201, et seq.) (as extended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act), which is set to expire on December 31, 2014.

New California Employment Laws to Take Effect in 2013

• A.B. 1844 states employers cannot fire, threaten to fire, discipline or retaliate against employees for not disclosing a username or password for accessing a personal social media website.
• A.B. 2674 requires employers to maintain personnel records for at least three years after termination and to provide current and former employees (or their representatives) the opportunity to inspect their records within 30 days of the request, except when a lawsuit relating to a personnel matter is pending.
A.B. 1964 amends the Federal Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to include a religious dress practice or grooming practice as a belief of observance covered by protections against religious discrimination. However, if a person’s religions practice requires him or her to be segregated from the public or other employees, that is not considered to be a “reasonable accommodation” under the law.