When I was younger, I used to love Now and Later candy , despite the "workout" it gave my mouth/teeth. You can enjoy the candy as a hard candy, and continue to enjoy it later when it is soft and chewy. It was like having having a different piece of candy, all in one piece. When I discuss a power of attorney document with a client, one of the questions that I go through is whether they want the authority to be a springing power or an immediate power. For example, do you want the person you identify to have authority to act on your behalf only when your doctor says you don't have sufficient capacity? Or, alternatively, do you want that person to have authority immediately , regardless of your capacity level? For many clients (and for many attorneys) the initial thought/answer is 'why would you give someone power over your assets when you don't need any help?' Here are my three responses: 1. You may have sufficient capacity, but you aren't around.
Showing posts from November, 2014
- Other Apps
I have previously posted previously pretty much on all of these items separately, but I thought I'd commit to the "checklist-mania" and add my own checklist. For individuals that are helping out with an aging family member, this can be a quick guide to get you started. (If you are taking advantage of an aging family member, then you need to get a conscience and turn yourself into the authorities.) While this list can be used for pretty much anybody, young or old, this can be a helpful guide for those assisting a parent/grandparent with planning. Power of Attorney (health) - This document enables health care decisions, such as medicine, doctor, facility, therapy, etc. to be made by a selected individual. While more than one can be named, it is typically preferred to name one responsible individual. Power of Attorney (financial) - This document provides for someone to handle financial matters. Iowa's recently updated statute provides significant changes to thi
- Other Apps
For the most part, I think our appellate courts do a pretty good job of deciding cases and justifying their rationale. I may not always agree with the result, but I can at least understand the reasoning. But in a recent ruling from Iowa Court of Appeals ( Mohr v. Langerman and Mohr, No. 13-1422, Oct. 15, 2014 ), I'm left scratching my head. As always, the facts are "interesting". Put all those pieces together and you have a case that makes you go hmmm. Facts: Jerry Mohr was married for 24 years. But, while he was married, he (1) intentionally had intercourse with another woman for the purpose of having a child and (2) lived with yet another woman and helped raise her child. While Jerry lived in Arizona, he died owning some property in Iowa. And, of course, he apparently didn't feel the need to have a will. Duh. So when the end came for Jerry, he left behind quite the legal mess. Following his death, the biological relationship was conclusively estab