Email News Archives - Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP

Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow

October 21, 2025 by Christine Costantino

Many of my clients ask me if the money they have inherited during a marriage is “off the table” in a divorce. This can be a complicated question, and I often reply, “It depends.”

The general rule in Oregon is that inherited or gifted assets to one spouse during a marriage are not subject to the presumption of equal contribution by the other spouse in a divorce. The exception to this general rule is if a judge determines it would be “just and proper under all the circumstances” to put it back on the table, then it may be divided between the spouses in a divorce.

Let’s break this down with some examples. If Spouse A inherits $100,000 and deposits the funds in an individual account only in Spouse A’s name, then these funds will, in most cases, be considered the separate property of Spouse A in a divorce from Spouse B. Meaning, they remain “off the table.” However, I said, “It depends.” In other cases, for example, where Spouse A transfers the funds to an account held with Spouse B, then those jointly held funds have now become marital assets and subject to a 50/50 division in a future divorce. Another example is where Spouse A takes the $100,000 and purchases a home with Spouse B where both are on title. Spouse A has now effectively commingled her $100,000 down payment with Spouse B. If the parties divorce in the future, then Spouse B is likely going to be entitled to 50% of the home equity including the benefit of any equity created by Spouse A’s $100,000 down payment. It is difficult to anticipate under which set of circumstances a judge might award Spouse B a share of Spouse A’s inheritance if Spouse A kept it separately from Spouse B continuously throughout the marriage.

Each case is decided on its particular facts. The moral of this story is you should never commingle any inheritance you may receive during a marriage without understanding the legal impact of such a decision. Keep it separate until you can consult with an attorney who can advise you before making costly mistakes you may not be able to reverse.

Oregon DOJ Warns of Fake Attorney Scam

September 2, 2025 by Victoria Blachly

Seal of the State of Oregon Department of Justice

Oregon’s Department of Justice Financial Fraud/Consumer Protection Section has a new scam alert warning of bad actors impersonating lawyers to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars. Here’s a link to the full text of the “New scam alert”.

In one recent case a fraudulent website impersonated an Oregon attorney and scammed victims out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while in another case the victim lost over $700,000 when scammers gained unauthorized access to both the attorney’s and the client’s email accounts, during the negotiations of a substantial settlement with false wiring instructions.

Be diligent. Pick up the phone and talk to trusted contacts. Meet face-to-face.

Oregon’s DOJ advises: “If you have been impacted by this scam:

File a report with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center » as quickly as possible
File a police report with your local police department
If money was delivered via wire, contact your bank and file a “Suspicious Activity Report”
File a report with the FDIC » regarding wire fraud
File a report with the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency » (OCC) as they investigate banks for unsafe or unsound practices, compliance violations, or breaches of fiduciary duty
File a report with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau » (CFPB)

If you are an attorney who has been impersonated:

Report the incident to the Oregon State Bar
File a police report with your local police office and provide the imposter website
File a report with the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center » and provide the imposter website

Additional precautions for attorneys:

In transactions involving wiring funds, obtain and confirm wiring instructions in-person, whenever possible.
If wiring instructions are received via email or another indirect method, verify them using a known and trusted phone number before initiating any transfers.”

-Victoria Blachly

Corporate Transparency Act Enforcement Suspended (Again!)

March 3, 2025 by Michael Walker

In February 2025 and the previous December, Samuels Yoelin Kantor LLP posted blog articles relating to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires certain companies to file beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN is the federal agency charged with enforcing the CTA.

In a confusing series of judicial and administrative actions, while FinCEN is not presently enjoined by the courts from enforcing the CTA, pending further administrative actions. However, in a press release issued by the Treasury Department on March 2, 2025, the Treasury Department announced that it was suspending enforcement against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies.

Here is a short timeline of the recent federal litigation involving the CTA:

December 3, 2024: In McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, a federal district court issued an injunction stopping the federal government from enforcing the CTA on constitutional grounds.
December 23, 2024: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halts the December 3^rd Texas Top Cop Shop
December 26, 2024: The Fifth Circuit reverses itself and reinstates the Texas Top Cop Shop
January 7, 2025: In Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, another federal district court issued a separate injunction stopping the federal government from enforcing the CTA on constitutional grounds.
January 23, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court stays the injunction in the Texas Top Cop Shop case, pending further proceedings in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
February 19, 2025: The federal district court in the Smith case lifted its own injunction. With this action, the Smith court opened the door for the federal government to resume the enforcement of the BOI filing requirements under the CTA.

In the March 2, 2025 press release, the Treasury Department stated:

“The Treasury Department is announcing today that, with respect to the Corporate Transparency Act, not only will it not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information reporting rule under the existing regulatory deadlines, but it will further not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect either. The Treasury Department will further be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only. Treasury takes this step in the interest of supporting hard-working American taxpayers and small businesses and ensuring that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest.”

So, what is the bottom line? Based on the Treasury Department’s press release, U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies will not be subject to penalties or other enforcement actions for failure to file BOI reports. Considering the personal information disclosure required by BOI reporting, along with the cost of compliance on businesses and their owners, SYK does not recommend that BOI reports be filed at this time. We will follow further developments and post additional blog articles as appropriate. If a company has non-US ownership, it does appear that there may be some BOI reporting that will be required in the future.

Finally, in a separate series of developments, Congress is trying to delay the CTA for a year (to January 1, 2026). A bill to that effect passed the House on February 10, 2025, by a vote of 408-0. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, but no further action has occurred in the Senate as of this writing.

– Michael D. Walker

Gray Divorces – What are they and do I need one?

February 24, 2025 by Christine Costantino

The term “gray divorce” has been trending for the last few years. It is a popular term, and not a legal one. It relates to couples who have been in long term marriages and who discover in their later years that they just don’t want to be married to their spouse any longer. These divorces have been on the rise in my practice since coming out of the pandemic. Clients have shared that sitting in isolation for those many months allowed them to consider changes in their lives and what that would look like for themselves, their soon to be ex-spouse, and perhaps their adult children who have since left the nest.

Gray divorces are not to be taken lightly. There are serious financial issues to consider when contemplating divorce in your 50’s and later. Many of my clients have done well saving for retirement and strategic tax planning and gifting throughout their marriage. In any divorce, gray or not, the collective bucket of money is divided and what was one set of household expenses is soon doubled.

Divorcing later in life carries its own unique considerations. Typically, retirement savings are divided in half, the marital residence which might finally be paid off is likely to be sold, and the tax planning benefits you may have had as spouses go away. Current interest rates continue to be high; so even if you aren’t selling the house, one of you will still need a place to live. For example, are you the one buying a new home and incurring a 15 or 30 year mortgage with an interest rate above 6% at age 55?

As in any divorce, it is important to know your rights, and understand the financial and emotional impacts it may have before you decide which way to go at the fork in the road.

– Christine Costantino

Federal Court Enjoins Government from Enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act

December 9, 2024 by Michael Walker

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was passed in an effort to combat financial crimes by and through companies. To do so, the CTA regulates “reporting companies,” or any corporation, LLC, or other similar business entity that is created or registered to do business in the U.S. by filing registration documents with the secretary of state or other similar office. The CTA contains a reporting requirement with a filing deadline of January 1, 2025, for all businesses that were formed before January 1, 2024. This reporting requirement mandates “reporting companies” to submit a report to FinCEN (the “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,” an arm of the Department of the Treasury) that includes information regarding the companies’ owners and officers. Failure to comply with this reporting deadline may be met with significant penalties, such as fines and jail time.

The passage of the CTA has been met with push-back from courts and lawmakers, who argue that the reporting requirements and procedures have not been properly publicized or clarified for companies to meet the January deadline. Additionally, the reporting requirements of the CTA have been challenged in several federal district courts, including Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., v. Garland, 2024 WL 4953814 (E.D. Tex.), a cased decided by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 3, 2024.

In Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., the plaintiffs successfully argued that the reporting requirements of the CTA substantially threaten plaintiffs with irreparable harm that outweighs any damage that an injunction would have on the government. The court agreed that the CTA’s reporting requirements cause damage to plaintiffs in two different forms. The first being the expenditure of resources and time to prepare the required report. The second is revealing confidential business information under threat of criminal punishment, which the court agreed could be a First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment violation.

In reaching this decision, the Texas court held that the CTA, together with the administrative rules that implement the CTA, are likely unconstitutional as outside of Congress’s power. Hence, the court held that the plaintiffs carried their burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore, granted plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction.

This means that for now, the government cannot enforce the reporting requirements of the CTA and therefore, the January 1 filing deadline is technically on hold.

In addition, on its CTA website, the government stated: While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN will comply with the order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for as long as it remains in effect. Therefore, reporting companies are not currently required to file their beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and will not be subject to liability if they fail to do so while the preliminary injunction remains in effect. Nevertheless, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

How should businesses proceed? In response to the court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction, on December 5, 2024, the government responded with notice that they are going to appeal the Texas court’s decision, upon which the court’s decision could be reversed or upheld. Given the uncertain nature of the CTA reporting requirements, companies that qualify as a “reporting company” may want to consider voluntarily filing their report to FinCEN if they have not done so yet.

– Michael D. Walker, SYK Partner, and Josepheen Strauss, SYK Law Clerk

New Oregon Center for Behavioral Health and Aging Announced

November 4, 2024 by Victoria Blachly

Portland State University, together with Oregon Health & Science University, just launched OCEBHA: Oregon’s Center of Excellence in Behavior Health & Aging (oregonbhi.org/center-for-excellence). The focus of the center is “to address the behavioral health needs of Oregon’s aging population by improving access to services and supports.”

With involvement from the PSU Institute on Aging, PSU School of Social Work, OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, OHSU School of Medicine, and OHSU School of Nursing, let’s hope for greater education, awareness, and a pipeline of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of our aging Oregonians.

Details are few, but you can sign up for their newsletter to stay informed.

Clause for Concern: How Consumers May Unknowingly Click Away Their Right to Sue

October 7, 2024 by Adriana G. Cunha

In today’s digital age, many of us have signed up for various online services without giving much thought to the fine print of the Terms and Conditions. If you have signed up for Uber Eats or Disney+, chances are you scrolled right past the binding arbitration provision which can limit your ability to sue Uber Technologies, Inc., or The Disney Company in Court. While many individuals struggle to envision a scenario where they would want to engage either of these corporate entities in litigation, some users of these apps have discovered that they unknowingly waived their right to a trial when they accepted the terms of service.

A recent case involving a married couple from New Jersey has once again brought attention to the powerful impact of arbitration clauses in “terms of service” agreements. A Husband and Wife were involved in a devastating car accident during an Uber ride in March 2022, which left them with significant physical and psychological injuries. Despite their efforts to sue Uber, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that they were bound by an arbitration agreement they had previously accepted when ordering food on Uber Eats, effectively blocking them from pursuing a trial, even though the meal delivery app is a service separate from the ride-sharing platform. This decision overturned a prior lower court ruling, which had argued that Uber’s pop-up notification did not adequately inform users about the arbitration clause. The appellate court, however, sided with Uber, and found that the terms were valid and enforceable.

A similar matter involving Disney made headlines this summer. In 2023, a Disney Parks guest died after suffering an allergic reaction from food served on the premises, and her widower later filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the corporation. Lawyers for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts tried to get the case thrown out of court and sent to arbitration, pointing to the binding arbitration clause embedded in the Terms and Conditions for Disney+, for which the widower had received a free trial years earlier. In August 2024, Disney reversed course and waived their right to arbitration, with their lawyers citing a desire to “put humanity above all other considerations.” The court ultimately did not make any determinations on the merits of Disney’s arguments.

Both cases underscore the growing trend of companies using arbitration clauses to shield themselves from public lawsuits. As arbitration clauses become more common, and more legal precedent supports their enforcement, individuals may find it increasingly difficult to take companies to court, even in severe cases involving personal injury or death. Consumers should be proactive and get informed before accepting the terms of service without first reading the fine print. If you have questions about the Terms and Conditions of a service you are contemplating signing up for, consider contacting an attorney before clicking “accept.”

– Adriana G. Cunha, Associate

Wendy Williams: Planning to Avoid a Guardianship

March 4, 2024 by Victoria Blachly

TV host and personality, Wendy Williams, has been in the news recently for her challenging health issues, marital drama, and legal woes, after a bank froze her bank accounts due to concerns about whether she needed a protective proceeding/guardianship due to her mental and physical ailments.

Her team recently revealed Ms. Williams has dementia, and rumors abound that it may be alcohol related. A new Lifetime four-part docuseries, Where is Wendy Williams, chronicles the sad tale.

Note that Ms. Williams is only 59-years old, so she likely never expected to face such cognitive challenges that require legal planning and preparation. While she did have a Power of Attorney that identified who should manage her finances, were she to be incapacitated, the court got involved and made a determination that the nominated fiduciary was not the best person suited for that job, and appointed someone else to be her guardian for financial decision making.

Other options that could have been taken to protect herself and her assets include setting up a Trust, where a successor trustee would take over, once she became incapacitated. Naming a professional third-party professional trustee, trust company or bank may have been a better option for Ms. Williams, and may have resulted in a different ruling with the court in New York.

Nobody wants to think of the worst case scenario when discussing their future, but an excellent estate planner will help you talk through your options to bring peace of mind: Plan for the worst and hope for the best!

Subscribe to our blog