Bingo! (sues Hazelrigg)

Bingo Investments, run by the Bingham family (who are married into the Fisher family) (read this article for background) are suing Tom Hazelrigg III, asking the Court to deny Hazelrigg a discharge of his debt.  The alleged basis for the nondischarge complaint is fraud and selling unregistered securities.  They claim that Hazelrigg and his associate, Scott Switzer, duped David Bingham, and the elderly Fran Graham into various real estate finance deals.  We wonder whether David Bingham or Mrs. Graham had a lawyer when all these “investments” were made, and if Mrs. Graham is elderly, was anyone looking out for her interests?

One of the allegations is that Switzer and Hazelrigg told Bingham the “investments” would save Mrs. Graham on estate taxes.  We’re not sure how that would have worked as an estate planning device… Fractional interest discounts maybe?

The discharge complaint is probably a “better safe than sorry” move by the Binghams.  With Hazelrigg having pleaded the Fifth, and refused to disclose basic information – like bank account numbers – it seems like the US Trustee will likely ask for a general denial of discharge on that basis.

Can They Take My Retirement? Basic Asset Protection Explained

Over  time we accumulate assets. We borrow money to buy a home and repay it.  The home usually appreciates in value (except for recently). Some of  us buy CDs or stocks, bonds, and life insurance. Or we contribute to an  individual retirement account (IRA) or a 401k.

These assets can be protected from creditors to some extent.    Continue reading

Federal Estate Tax Exemption Continues as Guessing Game

Get ready because estate taxes are about to change. Again. Perhaps dramatically.

Over  the years, federal estate tax exemptions have consistently been  inconsistent. In 2001 for example, the exemption was $675,000 – meaning  that every dollar more than $675,000 inherited from a non-spouse would  be subject to the tax. The exemption steadily increased each year, up  to $3.5 million in 2009, and then in 2010 there was no estate tax – the  exemption was unlimited. However, there was a catch: the exemption was  set to sunset, lowering to $1 million in 2011.

Just  days before that was about to happen, Congress stepped in and passed the  Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Jobs Creation  Act of 2010, which increased the estate tax exemption to $5 million.  This meant that any estate worth less than $5 million would be exempt  from the federal estate tax. (At the same time Congress also increased  the gift tax exemption, which is the amount someone can gift tax-free  over his/her lifetime, and lowered the marginal gift and estate tax rate from 55 percent to 35 percent.)

Again,  there was a catch: the $5 million exemption that is now in effect,  will sunset on Dec. 31, 2012. Unless Congress passes a new law, the  estate tax exemption will lower to $1 million on Jan. 1, 2013 (and  the marginal estate tax rate will increase back to 55 percent).

The  last time Congress was faced with an estate tax exemption about to  expire – the end of 2010 – it increased the exemption, albeit for only  two years. That time, the mid-term elections had passed, and Barack  Obama was two years into his presidency.

This time, while we wait to see what Congress does, congressional elections and the  presidential election are fast approaching. Estate taxes will likely  be one of many campaign issues, although there has been little  discussion about it in Congress to date. And the presidential  candidates have made little mention of it either, making a lot of folks  nervous that Congress will allow the $5 million exemption to expire, in  favor of the $1 million exemption.

The  wealthiest few – figuring that Congress won’t extend the $5 million  exemption and 35 percent estate tax rate – have already taken advantage and  made substantial tax free gifts in order to lower the value of their  estate.

For  the other 99.9 percent for whom gifting may not be so wise, things are  complicated because nobody knows what Congress will do. If Congress  votes to renew the current scheme, then nothing will have changed. On  the other hand, if Congress does nothing, and the exemption sunsets to  $1 million, a substantial number of inheritances will then become  subject to the tax. The other possibility – the more likely scenario –  is that Congress compromises and sets the exemption somewhere between $1  million and $5 million. That scenario will affect some estates, but  not others. But until that happens, taxpayers are left scratching their  heads wondering what it will be—and how to plan for the unknown.

Linda Mastro Files Appeal Brief

Linda Mastro attorney Michael Gossler filed what looks like a hastily prepared appellate brief.  No pun intended, but it’s pretty brief – touching on community property law, prenuptial agreements, estate planning and appellate review standards, all very complex subjects, without a whole lot of analysis. (We suspect this is good evidence Gossler is not getting paid and is making his best argument with little to go on).

Recall that the trial court ruled that the jewelry was not her separate property and thus subject to the court’s jurisdiction.  Linda Mastro’s brief argues the trial court erred in this respect – and that all the evidence shows that the jewelry was her separate property.

As for the judgments against Linda Mastro related to missing property, like the rings, gold bars, and money from an LLC, she argues that was error too.  She argues there was no evidence presented at trial that she had any control or even had knowledge about any of these transactions, and that the signatures related to these transactions, which purported ot be hers, were not actually hers, but Mike Mastro signing for her.

As it stands now, Linda Mastro remains on the lam, assumedly (but not necessarily) with Mike.  Also we assumed she has possession of the jewelry (or sold it, and has the cash), which the trial court ruled is not hers.

We can’t wait to read the Trustee’s responsive briefing.

Inheritance Disclaimer Conundrum

This question was presented on Oregon Bar Association’s probate/estate listserv.  We thought it deserved some attention.  Here’s the question:

Listmates:

I represent wife of deceased husband. Wife and husband had numerous joint accounts. The accounts were all joint accounts (right of survivorship). The total assets are in the approximate amount of two million dollars. Wife wants to disclaim the sum of one million dollars in order to use deceased husband’s one million dollar Oregon exemption. I recently learned that wife placed the joint accounts solely in her name shortly after husbands death. Other than placing the accounts solely in her name I do not believe that she has taken any other activity as to the accounts. We are still well within nine months from date of death.

Here are the thoughtful (unattributed) responses :

1. Too late. She accepted the survivorship interest by exercising dominion and control over the accounts when she transferred the funds.  Great example of why disclaimer trust planning is very risky and should be avoided whenever feasible.

2. Right on, …. Does Oregon have a counterpart to the Washington Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act (TEDRA) RCW 11.96A? We use this to create a court order to overcome many errors, like make irrevocable trusts revocable, defog ambiguities, etc….quite remarkable, in fact….both a judicial and non-judicial (stipulation) methods….please advise, not that I would use one in Oregon due to the garlic wreath I have around my neck when it comes to court… Continue reading

New Scam Exploiting Veterans

The Washington State Attorney General wants to hear from you if you have been scammed by anyone selling annuities, insurance or estate planning purposed to “protect assets” in order to qualify for VA benefits.  The AG is concerned with non-lawyers selling insurance products and/or irrevocable trusts to disabled seniors.  The scheme is sold as a way for veterans to shield their assets from the VA in order to gain acceptance for benefits.  We understand that some lawyers are also taking part in the scams.

To set the record straight, the VA does not have a look-back or penalty for gifting assets, making this what appears to be an easy sale for the annuity sellers, who charge for the service and receive commissions.

We hear that people are being talked into making unnecessary gifts to children, who then either put the funds into an irrevocable trust or annuity in order to keep them safe from the VA prior to applying for benefits.  This scam also has Medicaid disqualification implications.

If you have been scammed, let the AG know:  www.atg.wa.gov.