Annual Jersey Shore Happy Hour & Networking Social

July 12, 2019
Professionals, Attorneys, Law Enforcement invited to Happy Hour & Networking Social
Friday July 12, 2019
at Bar Anticipation 
703 16th Ave. Lake Como/ Belmar, NJ 07719
Free !
5:30-7:55PM Hot & Cold Buffet
The reduced price Happy Hour is 6-7PM is $2.00 House Drinks, House Wine Bud/BudLt draft
Co-sponsored by NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court Section & several other organizations
Outdoor & Indoor music, prize giveaways. Bring your friends. Pass this along. Please bring a canned food donation for a community food bank, continuing to provide food and help to individuals in need.
Email Ken Vercammen's Law Office so we can put your name on the VIP list for wristbands. VercammenLaw@Njlaws.com
If your professional group, non-profit or organization wishes to co-sponsor the networking happy hour, please contact
KENNETH VERCAMMEN, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817
732-572-0500 VercammenLaw@Njlaws.com
Bar Anticipation is 5 blocks from the Belmar Train Station and 8 blocks from the Ocean boardwalk
https://www.facebook.com/events/221303922089336/

July 12 2019 Happy Hour Co-Sponsors as of 5/7/19
NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court Section
Young Lawyers Division YLD
Business Law Section
Casino Law Section
Construction Law Section
Criminal Law Section
Dispute Resolution Section
Elder and Disability Law Section
Immigration Law Section
Insurance Law Section
Labor and Employment Law Section
Local Government Law Section
Minorities in the Profession Section MIPS
Taxation Law Section
Health Law Section
Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section
Cannabis Law Committee
Consumer Protection Law Special Committee
Lawyers in Transition Committee
Government, Public Sector and Public Interest Special Committee
Renewable Energy, Cleantech and Climate Change Special Committee
Special Civil Part Special Committee
School Law Committee
Somerset County Bar
Camden County Bar Association
Hispanic Bar Association
New Jersey Defense Association
Paralegal Association of NJ
NJ Business & Industry Association NJBIA
Monmouth Regional Chamber of Commerce
Lakewood Chamber of Commerce
Retired Police & Fire Middlesex-Monmouth Local 9
Financial Planning Association of New Jersey
Edison Elks BPOE #2487 charity dept
Barter Depot
Central Jersey Morning Mastermind Networking Group

Estate obligated to obtain Release & Refunding Bonds IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY DREHER

Estate obligated to obtain Release & Refunding Bonds

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY DREHER, 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4800-17T3 

Deceased. ________________________________ 

Submitted March 11, 2019 – Decided April 8, 2019 

Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No. 2016-1203. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Rebecca Dreher-Palombi appeals from the trial court's May 11, 

2018 order denying her motion to enforce litigant's rights and awarding attorney's fees to defendant David Dreher, her brother. We affirm. 

This case arises from a dispute involving the estate of decedent Dorothy Dreher, the mother of the parties. After the decedent's death, defendant probated the decedent's will. Plaintiff thereafter filed a verified complaint objecting to the probated will, claiming that it was not representative of the decedent's wishes, was the result of undue influence by defendant, and was executed at a time when the decedent lacked testamentary capacity. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. 

After four intermittent trial days between January and March 2018 before Judge Paula T. Dow, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The settlement was placed on the record on March 8, 2018. Among other things, the settlement provided that the net estate would be split equally between plaintiff and defendant and that each party would bear his or her own legal fees. 

Relevant to this appeal, a settlement provision called for plaintiff to receive an immediate advance on her distribution in the amount of $100,000. On March 20, 2018, defendant's attorney sent a refunding bond and release to plaintiff's attorney, requesting that plaintiff execute the document to receive the $100,000 distribution. On March 27, plaintiff's attorney returned an executed refunding bond and release, with alterations. Among other things, plaintiff removed language requiring plaintiff to refund any part of her distribution 

2 

A-4800-17T3 

should the estate owe any debts or taxes that would not be satisfied with the remaining funds in the estate account. On March 29, 2018, defendant's counsel wrote back to plaintiff's counsel, objecting to the deletion of the refund requirement. 

On April 18, 2018, plaintiff moved to enforce litigant's right and receive the $100,000 advance distribution without being subject to the refund provision of the refund bond. Defendant cross-moved to enforce a prior November 16, 2017 order, which required plaintiff to pay defendant's attorney's fees incurred in connection with defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Defendant filed this motion after plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at scheduled case management conferences or respond to requests to schedule the deposition of plaintiff. Although the trial court declined to dismiss the complaint on this basis, it ordered that plaintiff was responsible for defendant's attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing and arguing the motion to dismiss.1 

After hearing oral argument on May 4, 2018, Judge Dow entered an order and written statement of reasons, denying plaintiff's motion and granting 

1 

The November 16, 2017 order directed defendant's counsel to submit a certification of services. On December 5, 2017, counsel submitted a certification of services, to which plaintiff did not object. The trial court did not enter an order granting attorney's fees in the requested amount at that time. 

3 

A-4800-17T3 

defendant's cross-motion on May 11, 2018. In denying plaintiff's request to receive the $100,000 advance without executing a refund bond, the judge reasoned: 

Plaintiff requests an Order enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement because the Settlement Agreement did not include the terms encompassed in a Release and Refunding Bond. Despite Plaintiff's assertion that the settlement "was for real money," it appears the parties agreed that each sibling will receive 50% of Decedent's net estate. The $100,000 requested by Plaintiff is not a cash gift, but rather is an early distribution made of her 50% share of Decedent's estate. Due to the nature of the distributions, as opposed to cash settlement payments, the refunding bond requirement of N.J.S.A. 3B:23-24, et seq., applies. It also appears the parties agree the $100,000 was intended to be a distribution from the Estate. The New Jersey statutes governing estate distributions must apply. 

The court denies Plaintiff's request to enforce the settlement because it appears all parties are acting in accord with the Settlement Agreement. Defendant, through [his attorney], is requesting a Refunding Bond and Release consistent with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 3B:23-24. This language allows the advance distribution to be given to Plaintiff, in accordance with the settlement agreement. In short, there is nothing the court can enforce as it is Plaintiff's own actions preventing the early distribution from the Estate. If Plaintiff is alleging the $100,000 remittance is a payment, and not a distribution, it is unclear why she did not take issues with the language of "cash bequest" in the Refunding Bond and Release. Further, the $100,000 payment was framed as a distribution when the parties placed the settlement on the record. The 

4 

A-4800-17T3 

language to which Plaintiff objects is not the language making the $100,000 an estate distribution, but rather that of the releasing the Executor and agreeing to refund. Essentially, Plaintiff is asking the court to order an Estate distribution as if it were a cash payment. This is unsupported by the statutory law and the Settlement Agreement on the record. 

With respect to defendant's cross-motion to enforce the November 16, 2017 order granting attorney's fees, the judge found that the order was entered prior to the parties agreeing to pay their own attorney's fees and was therefore still effective. Additionally, the judge found that the certification of services for the amounts of $1,785 in fees and $36.60 in costs was reasonable under RPC 1.5(a) and had not been objected to by plaintiff. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by: (1) violating the parties' settlement agreement and imposing pre-settlement attorney's fees; (2) refusing to enforce litigant's rights; and (3) issuing an order without making supporting finding of facts and conclusions of law. Having reviewed the record and governing legal principles, we affirm for substantially the sound reasons expressed in Judge Dow's thorough statement of reasons. We add only the following brief comments. 

N.J.S.A. 3B:23-24 requires the personal representative of an estate to obtain a refunding bond in order to make any distribution prior to the closing of 

5 

A-4800-17T3 

the estate, and N.J.S.A. 3B:23-26 requires the bond to be conditioned on the devisee returning any portion of the distribution if later needed to discharge any debt. Because the terms of the settlement provided that the $100,000 advance would be a distribution from the estate, these statutory requirements plainly apply. The judge, therefore, correctly concluded that defendant was statutorily obligated to have plaintiff execute a refunding bond to receive her advance distribution from the estate. Thus, the judge properly denied plaintiff's motion to enforce litigant's rights.2 

The judge also properly enforced the November 16, 2017 order granting attorney's fees to defendant. Prior to the parties reaching the settlement agreement, the judge had already shifted these fees to plaintiff due to her attorney's failure to appear at scheduled case management conferences and to respond to requests to schedule the deposition of plaintiff. The settlement agreement's terms did not alter the responsibility for these fees. Moreover, the judge determined that the amount of fees requested was reasonable, and plaintiff has not objected to the reasonableness of the amount of fees. 

2 While this appeal was pending, plaintiff executed a refunding bond and release on May 18, 2018. 

6 

A-4800-17T3 

To the extent we have not specifically addressed any issues raised by plaintiff, we find they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed. 

7 

A-4800-17T3 

Unsigned Will not admitted to probate -In re Estate of Connolly

Unsigned Will not admitted to probate -In re Estate of Connolly

DOCKET NO. A-3855-17T1 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. CP-0187-2017. PER CURIAM

Appellants, the godchildren of decedent Julia Eileen Connolly (decedent), appeal from a September 27, 2017 order, dismissing their application to admit to probate a will that decedent neither reviewed nor signed, and admitting to probate decedent's signed will from 1992. They also appeal from a March 23, 2018 order denying their application for counsel fees. We affirm the orders on appeal for the reasons cogently stated by Judge Walter Koprowski, Jr. in his oral opinions issued September 1, 2017, and March 23, 2018.

This case involves a purported will drafted by an attorney who never met decedent. He drafted a seventeen-page will based on a telephone conversation he had with decedent, who was then ninety years old and in fragile health. He never had the chance to review the draft with her, because she unfortunately died the day after their phone conversation. Hence, she never reviewed the completed draft will or even saw it, and she did not give her final approval of the document.

Nearly a decade ago, we held that an unsigned will cannot be admitted to probate under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 unless the decedent reviewed the will and, thereafter, finally assented to it.

We hold that for a writing to be admitted into probate as a will under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3, the proponent of the writing intended to constitute such a will must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) the decedent actually reviewed the document in question; and (2) thereafter gave his or her final assent to it. Absent either one of these two elements, a trier of fact can only speculate as to whether the proposed writing accurately reflects the decedent's final testamentary wishes.

[In re Probate of Will and Codicil of Macool, 416 N.J. Super. 298, 310 (App. Div. 2010).]

Two years later, we followed that holding in In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 N.J. Super. 64, 71-72 (App. Div. 2012).

We agree with Judge Koprowski that Macool is directly on point and definitively bars appellants' claim. Accepting appellants' invitation to focus exclusively on a decedent's intent, without the additional evidence Macool requires, would open the door to fraud and essentially vitiate the requirement of a written will.

We also find no abuse of discretion in Judge Koprowski's decision to deny appellants' counsel fee application, in light of the obvious legal and factual weakness of their case. See R. 4:42-9(a)(3); In re Reisdorf, 80 N.J. 319, 326 (1979) (stating that counsel fees will ordinarily be awarded to both sides in a will contest "[e]xcept in a weak or meretricious case").

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Before Judges Nugent and Reisner

Court errer in dismissing complaint without discovery IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE MACDONALD, deceased.

Court errer in dismissing complaint without discovery

IN THE MATTER OF THE
ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE
MACDONALD, deceased.
__________________________

                 Submitted February 6, 2019 – Decided March 6, 2019

                 Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.

                 On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
                 Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket No. P-
                 215616.

              SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                      APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                      DOCKET NO. A-3145-17T4




Plaintiffs Warren MacDonald III, Heather MacDonald, Ashley Minder,

and Kathleen MacDonald appeal from a February 5, 2018 order, dismissing their
amended verified complaint seeking to set aside the September 16, 2016 will of

decedent Josephine MacDonald and admit to probate a prior will from 2010 and

a 2011 codicil. On this appeal, our review is de novo. See Banner v. Hoffmann-

La Roche Inc.,  383 N.J. Super. 364, 373-74 (App. Div. 2006). We conclude that

the amended verified complaint stated a cause of action, and the trial court erred

in dismissing the complaint without permitting plaintiffs to take discovery.

Therefore, we reverse the order on appeal and remand this matter to the trial

court for further proceedings.

      Because we are reversing on procedural grounds, the essential facts can

be stated briefly.     Plaintiffs, who were decedent's daughter-in-law and

grandchildren, asserted that in a prior will, decedent had left them substantial

assets, but she disinherited them in her 2016 will. Plaintiffs alleged that around

the time decedent executed the 2016 will, she was mentally confused and

sometimes delusional, and lacked testamentary capacity. They also alleged that

decedent's daughter exercised undue influence so as to cause her mother to

disinherit plaintiffs and leave her entire estate to the daughter.        Viewed

indulgently, with an eye toward discerning a cause of action, Printing Mart-

Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp.,  116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989), the facts pled in the

amended complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action. See In re Estate


                                                                          A-3145-17T4
                                        2
of Folcher,  224 N.J. 496, 512 (2016) (undue influence); In re Will of Liebl,  260 N.J. Super. 519, 524-25 (App. Div. 1992) (lack of testamentary capacity).

      On November 9, 2017, the trial court issued a detailed case management

order, setting dates for discovery, a pretrial conference, and a trial. The parties,

in fact, propounded interrogatories, document demands, and deposition notices

on each other. However, without providing any discovery, defendants (the

Estate and the daughter) filed what they characterized as a motion to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).1           The motion was supported by

certifications essentially setting forth defendants' side of the case, including

certifications from the daughter and the attorney who prepared the will. Over

vigorous objection from plaintiffs' counsel - pointing out that he had not

obtained any discovery yet, including decedent's medical records and

information concerning certain assets left to his clients in the prior will - the

trial court converted the motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion and

dismissed the complaint. See R. 4:6-2.




1
    Before plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, defendants' counsel had
voluntarily provided plaintiffs' counsel with copies of decedent's prior will from
2010 and the 2011 codicil. However, defendants did not respond to plaintiffs'
interrogatories, document demands or deposition notices served after the case
management conference.
                                                                            A-3145-17T4
                                         3
      "Generally, we seek to afford 'every litigant who has a bona fide cause of

action or defense the opportunity for full exposure of his case.' When 'critical

facts are peculiarly within the moving party's knowledge,' it is especially

inappropriate to grant summary judgment when discovery is incomplete."

Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,  109 N.J. 189, 193 (1988) (citations

omitted).

      Reviewing the record with that standard in mind, we conclude that the

trial court acted prematurely in dismissing the complaint based on defendants'

one-sided presentation of evidence, without allowing plaintiffs to take any

discovery. We appreciate that the court may have believed plaintiffs' case was

weak and was concerned that the estate would be consumed with attorneys' fees.

Nothing precluded the court from carefully managing discovery, or even

permitting defendants to move for partial summary judgment after relevant

discovery was complete on a particular issue. However, it was premature and

improper to dismiss the complaint on summary judgment without permitting

plaintiffs to obtain any discovery.

      Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal, reinstate the amended

verified complaint, and remand this matter to the trial court.

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.


                                                                        A-3145-17T4

A Will cannot change who your beneficiaries are on accounts or house

A Will cannot change who your beneficiaries are on accounts or house

If there is a beneficiary or joint owner on an account, upon your death that person receives those assets. A basic Will cannot change who your beneficiaries are on accounts or house. Common examples are houses owned husband and wife, joint accounts or POD bank accounts, and anyone you name on IRA, retirement account or SEP.

POD Payable upon death accounts are not part of the Probate Estate or the Will

Assets held by the testator and another person jointly, with a right of survivorship, are said to be held as “Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship” (JTWROS); and pass by operation of law at the testator’s death to the surviving joint tenant. Bank accounts, securities and real estate are often held in joint tenancy. Assets that are titled this way are not subject to probate. The name on the bank or securities account application and the deed for real estate may read: “John Smith and Jane Doe, as Joint Tenants with Right of Survivorship.” Be careful changing title to existing assets because there can be tax and other consequences. Source http://www.bergencountysurrogate.com/whatisprobate.pdf

   Below are the details NJ statutes on joint bank accounts. Hire a NJ attorney if you are the Executor to make sure all taxes paid before bank accounts distributed and spent.

         Registration in beneficiary form may be shown by the words "transfer on death" or the abbreviation "TOD," or by the words "pay on death" or the abbreviation "POD," after the name of the registered owner and before the name of the beneficiary.

N.J.S. § 3B:30-6

NJSA 3B:1-1  Definitions A to H.
"Governing instrument" means a deed, will, trust, insurance or annuity policy, account with the designation "pay on death" (POD) or "transfer on death" (TOD), security registered in beneficiary form with the designation "pay on death" (POD) or "transfer on death" (TOD), pension, profit-sharing, retirement or similar benefit plan, instrument creating or exercising a power of appointment or a power of attorney, or a dispositive, appointive, or nominative instrument of any similar type.

Creditors have nine months max to mack claims agains tithe estate, except government, Medicaid & taxes due

Creditors have nine months max to mack claims agains tithe estate, except government, Medicaid & taxes due

3B:22-4. Creditors of the decedent shall present their claims to the personal representative of the decedent's estate in writing and under oath, specifying the amount claimed and the particulars of the claim, within nine months from the date of the decedent's death. If a claim is not so presented to the personal representative within nine months from the date of the decedent's death, the personal representative shall not be liable to the creditor with respect to any assets which the personal representative may have delivered or paid in satisfaction of any lawful claims, devises or distributive shares, before the presentation of the claim.

Nuts and Bolts of Elder and Estate Administration

Nuts and Bolts of Elder and Estate Administration (2019) Book

 Attorneys and professionals involved in Estate Planning

May 7, 2019 NJ Law Center  5:00 PM- 9:00 PM 

    Includes a 240 + page book, with sample forms, documents & checklists! and light dinner

  Authors

-WILLIAM P. ISELE, ESQ. Past NJ Ombudsman for the Elderly

-MARTIN A. SPIGNER, ESQ. Law Office of Martin A. Spigner, Cranbury

-KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ. Co-Chair, ABA Estate Planning & Probate Committee, Past GP Solo Section Attorney of the Year

Past NJSBA GP Solo of the Year  Edison, NJ

           Elder law continues to offer the legal profession a booming opportunity for growth. As your current clients continue to grow older, you need to position yourself to be able to offer them and their families the legal services required by the elderly in today’s society. Or, you may be looking for lucrative areas in which to expand your current practice, including administering their estates.

This practical book is designed to provide the nuts and bolts of elder law practice & estate administration practice to general practitioners and young lawyers, as well as to more experienced lawyers seeking to expand into this field.

          

May 7, 2019

Sale: $42.00 USD

http://tcms.njsba.com/personifyebusiness/public_web_prod/TOCS/s0159.18toc.pdf

Table of Contents
Page
Articles, Forms, Checklists
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. 1
New Client/Schedule Appointment 1 Confidential Will Questionnaire 3 Will Bill 8 Will Draft 9 Doctor Certification of Patient Capacity to Sign Legal Documents 11 Thank You for Referral 12 Power of Attorney Draft Letter 13 Will Execution Checklist 15 Will Signing Instructions for Wills or Power of Attorney Not Signed
in Law Office 17 Referral Out to Another Attorney 19 Letter Re: No Representation 20 Letter Re: Recommending Will to Client 21 Post Will Letter 23 Client Questionnaire/End of Case 25 Letter Re: Power of Attorney Taking Effect 27 Letter Re: Release and Refunding Bonds from Each Beneficiary 29 Will/Estate Bill 30 Revocation of Durable Power of Attorney 31 “Wills and Estate Planning: Save Money and Provide for Your
Loved Ones” 33 “Federal HIPAA Law Now Recommends New Power of Attorney –
Special Report” 37 “Living Wills” 41 “Gay Lesbians Partners - Problems if No Estate Planning” 49 “How to Prepare Letters of Instruction to Family, Employees, and
Executor Regarding Funeral Arrangements, Business Transfer and
Post-Death Procedures” 51 “Removing an Executor from an Estate” 55 “Estate Planning for Alzheimer Patients & Guardianship of Disabled
Adults” 61 “Answers to Questions About Probate and Administration of an
Estate” 65 “Ten Estate Planning Ideas for Divorced or Separated Persons” 73 “Executor of a Will – Duties and Responsibilities – Special Report” 75 “Prenuptial Agreements to Protect Your Assets in Case of Divorce
or Death” 81 “Undue Influence to Void a Will or Power of Attorney” 87 Attorney-Client Confidential Relationship 95 Agreement to Provide Legal Services – Probate 97 Letter Re: Recommendations to Executor 101 “Trust vs. Wills” 105 Caveat to Will 109 Agreement to Provide Legal Services – Probate 111 Letter Re: No Charge for Advice 115
Guardianship Bill 117 Will Signing Instructions for Wills or Power of Attorney Not Signed
in Law Office 121 Letter Re: Confidentiality of Files 123 Letter Acknowledging Receipt of Documents 125 Central Jersey Elder Law Website/Articles 127 “Dying Without a Will” 133 Elective Share of Spouse 141 Joint Bank Accounts Upon Death 149 What is a Probate Release & Refunding Bond? 163 Call Notes of ABA Aging and Law Networking Call 167 ABA Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Committee
Spring 2014 Report 171 Winter 2014 Report 175 Fall 2013 Report 179
ABA Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division Council
Agenda Report Form – Summer Annual 2013 183
“Ethics Committee Opinion 692 Clarified on Retaining Client Files” 187 Authorization for Release of Financial Records and Information 189
Index to Vercammen downloadable materials
ABA Wills and Probate Book Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
Elder and Probate Forms Additional Forms
Will Forms
Articles
Form Letters
Financing Nursing Home Care in New Jersey PowerPoint Presentation
William P. Isele, Esq.
Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law and Estate Administration Martin A. Spigner, Esq.
Why Do Estate Tax Planning?
The Survivor’s Choice (Disclaimer) Trust or the Unified Credit
Trust or No Trust; Are They Still Needed? 207 Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust 212 Gift-Giving 212 Intentionally Defective Grantor Trust (“IDGT”) 213
How the IDGT Works 213 Rev. Rul. 2004-64 215 IDGTs vs. GRATs 215
The Executor Basis Reporting Rules – Form 8971 216
Transferring Assets or Step-Up in Basis 217 -------- -
For additional supplemental material and a complimentary copy of the PDF E-Book version of this reference manual, please visit NICLE.com and click on "Your Portfolio."
[see downloadable material]
[see downloadable material]
[see downloadable material] [see downloadable material] [see downloadable material] [see downloadable material] [see downloadable material]
191
207
207
Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts
Martin A. Spigner, Esq. 219
Introduction 219 Irrevocability 219 Payments of Premium; Crummy Powers 220 Limiting Right of Withdrawal 220 Trustees 221 Administration of the Trust; Taxes; Fees 221 Spendthrift Provisions 222 Execution of Trust 222 Post-Execution 222 Attachments
Sample Living Will With POA for Health Care 225 Sample Durable General Power of Attorney 233 Sample Irrevocable Trust 239 Sample Revocable Living Trust 255 Sample Client Supplemental Needs Trust 279 Sample Survivorship Life Insurance Irrevocable Trust 291 Sample Affidavit of Trustee Appointment 300 Sample Client Memo (Executor) 301 Summary: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 309 New 2019 Federal Estate and Gift Tax Rules 313
About the Panelists... 315

      $137-$180.00    Superior Court Judges can attend for free

General   Tuition, reduced fee for NJSBA Elder & Disability Law Section and NJSBA Young Lawyers Division
 [Free for Superior Court Judges and Law students]

Seminar #   ICELD015918

https://tcms.njsba.com/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.aspx?TabID=1699&productId=13775317

https://www.facebook.com/events/133951353975842/

       

            NJSBA Member Price is reduced – To qualify for this reduced price, you must provide your NJSBA Member# at the time you place your order. If you place your order without providing your NJSBA Member#, you will be charged the regular price.

            More details contact New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education 
The non-profit continuing education service of 
The New Jersey State Bar Association  Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520 
Phone: (732) 214-8500   CustomerService@njicle.com

           Law students can attend for free,  without materials

NJ Law Center

One Constitution Square

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

           NJ CLE INFORMATION: This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 4.6 hours of total CLE credit. Of these, 1.2 qualify as hours of credit for ethics/professionalism.


           Presented in cooperation with the NJSBA Elder & Disability Law Section and NJSBA Young Lawyers Division