Too Good To Be True: Inheritance Scams

The Federal Trade Commission just posted a strong reminder on their Consumer Advice page:  If you get a letter from an alleged law firm claiming you are the beneficiary of large piles of money, to be split between the law firm, you and some charities – but you must keep it a SECRET – it is a scam.

They suggest you delete it, warn your friends and family of the scam and report it to www.ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

Then again, if you DO get a legitimate notice of a massive and unexpected inheritance, CONGRATULATIONS! – and make sure you meet with your SYK estate planners and update your plans.

This Is ALL Of Us: Musings From the End of a Television Series and The End of A Life

NBC’s “This Is Us” aired its penultimate show last night.  It is perhaps the most poignant and heart wrenching writing and acting that I have ever seen on television.  As the matriarch of the family, Rebecca Pearson, suffers with Alzheimer’s Disease and, in a way, had already left her family behind some time ago, as her memories failed her with the insidious disease.  Her final journey is then portrayed through a series of vignettes through the cars of a train, showing her family and other important people in her life, at various ages.  The thread woven through it all is love and sharing, and a good deal of open communication.  (Those Pearsons DO love to talk.)

Planning for an aging loved one’s journey is something we all need to face with compassion and courage, and the legal tools to get the right people situated for success is apparent in the show.   Take the time to talk with an elder law attorney or estate planner to make that journey less painful.

Nobody wants to plan for their final train, but leaving behind less stress for your loved ones is important.  As they said in the show, “If something makes you sad when it ends it must’ve been pretty wonderful when it was happening.”

Social Media & Child Custody

Celebrity divorces are not news and many celebrities go out of their way to keep their divorces out of the mainstream and social media.  One recent exception is the ongoing divorce of “Kimye” or Kim Kardashian and Ye (aka Kanye) West.  The “Kimye” divorce has not made the news because of the size of their multi-billion-dollar marital estate; but rather much of the recent publicity has been their dispute over their 8-year-old daughter, North’s, TikTok account.  In an interview earlier this year, Kanye said “My children [aren’t] going to be on TikTok without my permission.” North shares her TikTok account with her mother, Kim, who also manages North’s account.  To date, the California court has not made any public decisions about this issue as part of the child custody claim, but will in a final resolution if Kim and Kanye cannot settle their differences. 

The questions of whether and how a judge might consider a child’s use of social media in deciding which parent should be awarded custody of the child in a divorce are unsettled in Oregon. Meaning, there is no published opinion on how an Oregon trial judge has decided this question. 

Under Oregon statutes, Family Court judges determine which parent is awarded legal custody of a child by giving “primary consideration to the best interests and welfare of the child.”  With the role social media has come to play in the mental health and safety of youth, it is plausible that a court could factor in a parent’s approach to the child’s social media habits when determining custody. Factors likely to be considered are the child’s age, the nature of their posting, time allowed on social media, and whether there are any parental controls available. 

The main takeaway is that parents should use caution and seriously consider what is safe and reasonable, and what is crossing the line. Here are some things to consider if you find yourself seeking to resolve a custody dispute: 

  • Most social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter, require users to be a minimum age of thirteen. If a social media company determines that your child is too young to interact with social media, the court may find a child under the company’s age requirements is too young to have their own account.  
  • There have been a number of recent studies on the effects of social media on youth that provide fodder for both proponents and opponents of youth accessing social media.  Studies, such as those linking social media use by teenagers to worsened perspectives of themselves, highlight the negatives. Yet other studies have shown that social media can provide LGBTQ+ teens support by being able to access information and communities that might otherwise be unavailable to them. Staying informed can benefit your understanding of your child’s interactions with social media and show a judge that you are taking your child’s welfare seriously. 
  • In March 2022, Instagram launched a new feature allowing parents to monitor their children’s time on the platform. Known as “Family Center,” the feature allows parents to track their children’s time and activity on Instagram. Family Center also allows parents to get updates on the accounts their children follow and allows parents to set time limits for their children. Using this tool could evidence you are monitoring your child’s social media presence in a responsible way.  
  • Like Kim managing North’s TikTok account, managing your child’s social media could be a safe middle ground. The “bio” section of Kim and North’s TikTok account even states that the account is “Managed by an adult.” 

You may not be a celebrity with hundreds of thousands of people clamoring to see what your celebrity children are up to, but that doesn’t mean that your child’s social media presence isn’t important. When it comes to deciding what is in the “best interest” of your children, be aware that their social media accounts could play a role in how a court perceives you as a parent in your child custody dispute. 

In Memoriam

 

Stephen E. Kantor

May 22, 1949 – November 14, 2021

We mourn the passing, and celebrate the life, of a beloved friend and a leader of our Samuels Yoelin Kantor family.

 

 

Celebrate National Estate Planning Awareness Month

With our adoration of All Things Estate Planning, here at SYK, please take a minute to enjoy the festivities that come around this time of year for National Estate Planning Awareness Month.  What are they?  Presents?  Decorations?  Delicious food?  Feats of strength?  No such luck – just an acknowledgement that you owe it to those loved ones you leave behind to have your affairs in order.  In addition to working with excellent estate planners, to make sure you have your will or trust, power of attorney and advance directive in place, Easeenet is a local company that provides another valuable estate planning service.  They help you create a real-time password manager and provide document storage and sharing that helps you “seamlessly” transfer your online information to your next-of-kin or fiduciary.

May you live as long as you want, and never want as long as you live.

Important Changes to Oregon’s Safe Employment Act

On June 15, 2021, Governor Kate Brown signed and enacted Senate Bill 483 into law, amending the Oregon Safe Employment Act (OSEA) to include a significant new protection for employees alleging claims for employment discrimination and retaliation under the Act. Previously, if an employee brought an action alleging discrimination or retaliation under the Act, the burden ultimately rested on the employee to prove that the action taken by the employer was discriminatory or retaliatory. However, the amended law now shifts that burden of proof on the employer—that is, depending on the timing of the employer’s alleged adverse actions.

Effective immediately, ORS 654.062(7)(a) provides that in any action brought for discrimination or retaliation under the Act, there is now a rebuttable presumption that a violation has occurred “if a person bars or discharges an employee or prospective employee from employment or otherwise discriminates against an employee or prospective employee within 60 days after the employee or prospective employee has engaged in . . . protected activities[.]” ORS 654.062(7)(a) (emphasis added). Protected activities include expressing opposition to unsafe workplace practices, filing complaints, initiating proceedings, and reporting assaults that take place on the premises. As noted above, under this new provision the person accused of violating the Act bears the burden of persuasion and may rebut the presumption that a violation has occurred only by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged adverse employment action was not discriminatory or retaliatory.

In addition, Senate Bill 483 included an emergency clause and a provision that the rebuttable presumption applies retroactively to complaints that have not been issued a final decision by BOLI as of June 15, 2021. Thus, on July 19, 2021, BOLI announced that it would be implementing new rules to respond to complaints made under the new measure, and “complaints that meet the criteria of the measure must now be investigated based on the rebuttable presumption, thus shifting the burden of proof and the investigatory process of the Civil Rights Division (CRD).” By enacting temporary rules, BOLI now has the ability to immediately respond and investigate complaints brought in accordance with Senate Bill 483.

Still, the new legislation does not modify existing law with respect to adverse actions occurring more than 60 days after an employee has engaged in a protected activity. ORS 654.062(b) (stating “[i]f a person bars or discharges an employee or prospective employee from employment or otherwise discriminates against the employee or prospective employee more than 60 days after the employee or prospective employee has engaged in any of the protected activities . . .  such action does not create a presumption in favor of or against finding that a violation . . . has occurred.”) (emphasis added). In those circumstances, the burden remains on the employee or prospective employee to establish a causal link between an employer or prospective employer’s adverse action and the protected activity.

Notably, prior to the enactment of this legislation, employees could frequently create a triable question of fact regarding an employer’s alleged retaliatory intent by establishing a proximate temporal link between an employee engaging in a protected activity and an employer’s adverse employment action. However, this new law will have a significant impact on litigation moving forward. in that the burden is now presumptively on employers to show that adverse actions were based on legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons when taken within two months of the employee engaging in a protected activity. Thus, moving forward, employers may want to consider carefully evaluating the timing of any disciplinary actions for employees, and maintaining detailed documentation in support of any disciplinary action taken after an individual has engaged in a protected activity under the Act.

Blachly Recognized by Oregon Super Lawyers

Oregon Super Lawyers recently interviewed Victoria Blachly for her outstanding work on elder law cases. Complicated families and complicated medical conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia increase the challenging legal issues in preparing for end-of-life events, but Blachly strives for soft landings.  Read the article written about her impactful work, “Soft Landings:  Victoria Blachly Speaks For Those That Can’t Speak For Themselves.”

Disinherit Your Child?  Sure – It’s Your Money.

Christine Fletcher had an article in last month’s online Forbes, entitled “Should You Disinherit Your Child?”  The full text of the article is below, but I have to say that – to me – the answer is not one that should be made by an attorney, but by the owner of the assets.  If someone wants to disinherit their child, as long as that someone has legal capacity to do so and is not being unduly influenced by a wrongdoer, then that someone should do whatever they want with their estate plan.  While some have a bias that all children should inherit equally, an inheritance is a gift, not a given.  Such that the person giving the gift can decide exactly what they want to do with their money, or exactly what they do not want to do with their money. 

As a fiduciary litigator, I have handled many cases where a disinherited child simply cannot fathom why THEIR money wasn’t left to them, in spite of piles of evidence confirming it was their own poor choices that alienated them from their parent, but those children also forget that it wasn’t THEIR money to begin with.    

An experienced estate planner can talk a client through the pros and cons of disinheriting a child, but the decision rests with the client and must be respected. 

Article:  “Most people should not disinherit their child. If your child does not buy you a birthday present or forgets to call you on Mother’s Day – even if it is every year without fail – do not run to your lawyer and cut them out of the will. Those are not reasons to disinherit a child.  

Political differences are also not a reason to disinherit a child. You should have stronger familial bonds with your children that can withstand differences of opinion and political views.  

Your will is often the last act you will do (or not do) for your child. I encourage people to use their will to treat their children equally to the extent possible and include all their children. I have seen children reduced to tears by what their parent left them in their will, and others who had difficult relationships with their parents solidified by being cut out. The child was always the outcast of the family, and mom’s will reinforced that. Your will can be used to heal old wounds or to deepen them. 

There are, however, times when children should be disinherited. These situations mostly involve children who have experienced extreme addiction or mental illness issues that have been left untreated and have caused severe pain within the family. It can be difficult to get clients to discuss these children, but it is important to know the story behind the disinheritance.  

People do not come to the decision to disinherit a child easily and often spend months or years agonizing before making the decision to cut them out of the will. I often counsel clients to think about the child’s siblings and whether disinheriting the child will worsen his or her relationships with siblings. Perhaps including the child in the will can help foster better relationships with his or her siblings in the long run.  

If the decision is made to include the “problem” child, consider trust provisions that will limit the child’s access to the inheritance. This could be a matter of life or death if a child has a drug addiction. It can also preserve family assets for grandchildren if the child has a gambling issue or a greedy spouse. 

If you are going to disinherit a child, be sure to review your entire estate plan thoroughly with your advisors. In addition, you want to avoid probate. In most states if a will needs to be probated, all your children will receive notice of the court proceeding even the disinherited ones. This is because they are your heirs and are entitled to notice under the law. You can avoid a court hearing by transferring your assets to a trust during your lifetime and having assets pass by beneficiary designation where possible.    

Sometimes, someone wants to leave a child out of a will because the child has sufficient assets. For instance, a widow wants to leave all her assets to her daughter Sally because Sally has three kids and is divorced. The widow’s son Billy is cut out because he is a successful investment banker. That situation will work if Billy is fine with this arrangement. Be sure to speak with Billy and make sure that he is on board with this plan and pleased that his sister will be well provided for. Perhaps he is not as well off as his mother thinks he is, or perhaps he will feel slighted if he is cut out. In this situation, full disclosure is the best course of action.  

Think long and hard before disinheriting a child. The consequences could have lasting effects on them and it could leave a legacy that you did not intend.”

Oregon Office of Taxpayer Advocate: House Bill 3373

 

In early 2021, Representative Fahey sponsored HB3373 in an effort to establish the office of the Taxpayer Advocate in the Department of Revenue. The bill is currently awaiting the governor’s signature and the office will become an active office in the Department of Revenue on January 1st, 2022.

The purpose of the Office of Taxpayer Advocate is to provide understandable and concise information to taxpayers to answer common questions about tax policy, Department of Revenue policies and procedures, audits, collections, and appeals. The office will also assist with questions about preparation and filing of returns and locate documents filed with those returns and audits. Semi-annual reports will be provided to the legislature on any identified issues relating to issues or barriers of equitable and fair collection of taxes. The Taxpayer Advocate office will also be responsible for receiving and evaluating any complaints of improper, abusive, or inefficient service by employees of the department and recommending appropriate action to the director.

The Office will be particularly helpful for low-income Oregonians, says Alicia Temple of the Oregon Law Center in their April 15th testimony letter. Temple points out that many low-income Oregonians have a fear of the Department of Revenue and taxes in general and see the Department as “an agency that is simply out to take their money”. The Office of Taxpayer Advocate is anticipated to appease those fears by increasing transparency and developing trust between taxpayers and the Department of Revenue, which should prove beneficial to all Oregonian taxpayers and tax practitioners. The Office will benefit practitioners by making available additional materials about common tax issues and providing an additional, accessible pathway to relief for clients.

In addition to the creation of the Taxpayer Advocate Office, the bill now authorizes the Oregon Tax Court to order attorney’s fees if an opposing party disobeys any court order or makes claims and assertions without an objectively reasonable basis. Attorney’s fees can now also be awarded in cases involving transit self-employment taxes.

The bill is expected to have no revenue impact, a $571,682 fiscal impact for the 2021-2023 biennium, and a $758,937 fiscal impact for the 2023-2025 biennium. This cost includes furniture and equipment, legal costs, all salaries, and anticipated related expenses.

Changes Coming to Oregon Noncompete Agreements

Changes Coming to Oregon Noncompete Agreements

On May 21, 2021, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 169, amending Oregon’s statute governing employee noncompete agreements, ORS 653.295. Effective January 1, 2022, employee noncompete agreements entered on or after that date will need to comply with four notable changes under the modified statute.

Unlawful Noncompetition Agreements are Void Instead of Voidable

Under the current version of ORS 653.295, a noncompete agreement that fails to satisfy the requirements of the statute is voidable rather than void—meaning that an employee bears the burden of taking some affirmative step to demonstrate their intent to void an unlawful noncompete agreement. Under the new iteration of the statute, noncompete agreements that fail to comply with all of the requirements of ORS 653.295 will be rendered “void and unenforceable,” regardless of what steps an employee does or does not take to void the unlawful agreement.

Revised Minimum Salary Requirements

Currently, for a noncompete agreement to be valid, employees must earn a salary that exceeds the median income for a four-person family, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Moving forward under the amended statute, an employee’s annual gross salary must exceed $100,533 at the time of the employee’s termination, and this compensation amount will be adjusted annually for inflation.

Reduced Limit on Post-Employment Restriction Period

The current maximum period for post-employment restrictions in a noncompete agreement is 18 months, and any restricted period that exceeds 18 months is voidable rather than void. With the amendments to the statute, the period for post-employment restrictions is limited to 12 months, and any post-employment restriction period that exceeds 12 months is rendered void and unenforceable.

“Garden Leave” Option for Non-Qualifying Employees

Under the current statute, an employer can impose a noncompete agreement on an otherwise non-qualifying employee—that is, an employee that is not paid on an exempt, salary basis, or an employee who is not paid the statutory minimum compensation mentioned above—by use of the statute’s “garden leave” option. Using this option, an employer can unilaterally enforce a noncompete agreement on a non-qualifying employee by paying the employee during the restricted period: (1) a minimum of 50% of the employee’s gross annual salary at the time of the employee’s termination; or (2) 50% of the median income for a four-person family, as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The option to enforce noncompete agreements against non-qualifying employees remains available to employers under the amended statute. To exercise this option an employer will need to confirm, in writing, payment to the employee that is the greater rate of either: (1) 50% of the employee’s gross annual salary at the time of the employee’s termination; or (2) 50% of $100,533, as adjusted for inflation.

Outside of the amendments, several existing limitations on noncompete agreements will remain unchanged under the new version of ORS 653.295. These continuing limitations include—among others—a requirement to notify employees in writing two weeks before the first day of employment that a noncompetition agreement is required as a condition of employment, and providing the employee with “a signed, written copy of the terms of the noncompetition agreement” within 30 days of termination of employment.

Finally, the limitations set out by ORS 653.295 do not apply to all types of restrictive employment agreements. Most notably, under the current and amended statute, the law only applies to employee noncompete agreements and does not apply to confidentiality agreements or agreements not to solicit an employer’s customers or employees.

Accessibility