• Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Linkedin
Call Us At: (408) 553-0801
Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri
  • Home
  • Locations
    • San Jose
    • Santa Cruz
  • About
    • Why LPEP
    • Our Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Family Law
      • Annulments
      • Certified Family Law Specialists
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Child Support
      • Divorce and Your Estate
      • Divorce Litigation
      • Divorce Planning
      • Domestic Partnerships
      • Domestic Violence
      • Enforcement and Modifications
      • Extramarital Affairs
      • Grandparents’ Rights
      • Harassment
      • Legal Separation
      • Mediation and Collaborative Divorce
      • Parental Relocations
      • Paternity
      • Postnuptial Agreements
      • Prenuptial Agreements
      • Property Division
      • Restraining Orders
      • Same Sex Divorce
      • Spousal Support and Alimony
    • Estate Planning
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Power of Attorney
      • Probate
      • Trust Administration
      • Trust and Probate Litigation
      • Trusts
      • Wills
  • FAQ
    • Estate Planning FAQ
    • Family Law FAQ
  • Blog
  • Pay Now
  • Resources
    • Family Law Resources
    • Estate Planning Resources
  • Contact Us
    • Careers
  • Get a Free Consultation
  • Menu
Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Tennessee Supreme Court Prohibits Lifetime Alimony for Ex-Spouse

November 30, 2011/0 Comments/in Family Law /by Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

On September 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that a woman who earned $72,000 a year was not entitled to lifetime alimony (permanent alimony) from her higher-earning ex-husband.

In Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 2011 WL 4116654 (Tenn. Sept. 16, 2011), Johanna and Craig were married for twenty-one years with two adult daughters.  Johanna earned $72,000 a year in an IT position and Craig earned more than $137,000 a year as an accountant.  At the trial level, the court declined to award spousal support of any type to either party.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered the husband to pay the wife lifetime alimony in the amount of $1,250 per month until her death or remarriage.  The court reasoned that, although there was no need for economic rehabilitation given that Johanna was a college graduate and had a steady career, alimony in futuro was ‘necessary to mitigate the harsh economic realities of divorce’ due to the disparity in the parties’ incomes.  Craig appealed.

The issue before the Tennessee Supreme Court was whether permanent alimony should be awarded to a spouse who has a college degree, good health, a stable work history in a relatively high paying job, and a lack of demonstrated need for such long-term alimony.  The court reversed the appellate court decision, noting that it is unlikely that both parties will be able to maintain their pre-divorce lifestyle given two persons living separately incur more expenses than two persons living together and there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court.  Thus, Johanna should not be awarded permanent spousal support.

This decision affirmed Tennessee’s traditional analysis of considering both ability and need in making permanent alimony determinations.  While Craig may have had the ability to pay lifetime alimony, Johanna did not have the need.  In California, courts consider need and ability to pay when setting temporary spousal support, which may be ordered after separation pending trial.  However, when setting permanent spousal support, the court must consider approximately fourteen statutory factors, including need and ability to pay, when determining permanent spousal support.  As such, it is likely that the Gonsewski case would have been similarly decided in California grounds given the higher standard provided by the fourteen factors set forth in section 4320.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex and heavily disputed divorce and support issues. If you are contemplating divorce, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis of your issues.  Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

 

https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png 0 0 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri2011-11-30 23:55:412011-11-30 23:55:41Tennessee Supreme Court Prohibits Lifetime Alimony for Ex-Spouse
Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Update: Gifts to Caregivers Prohibited

November 18, 2011/0 Comments/in Estate Planning /by Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

Recall that gifts to caregivers are generally prohibited by law under California Probate Code section 21350.  (See blog: Gifts to Caregivers Prohibited noting what activities constitute “caregiving”).  However, section 21351, enumerates several exceptions to this general rule.  One of the exceptions—found in Section 21351(a)—provides that section 21350 does not apply if the transferor is related by blood or marriage to, is a cohabitant with, or is registered as a domestic partner of the transferee.  Cal. Prob. Code § 21351(a) (West).  The issue in a recent California case was whether this provision applied to a stepdaughter by marriage.

In Hernandez v. Kieferle (October 31, 2011), the Second Appellate District of California reviewed a probate court decision which invalidated an amendment to a trust designating stepdaughter Claudine Kieferle as the trustee and sole beneficiary of her stepmother Gertrude’s estate.  The designated beneficiary of a prior amendment, Gertrude’s next-door neighbor Florentina Hernandez, challenged the validity of the second amendment removing her as the trustee and principal beneficiary of the estate.  The probate court found for Florentina noting that section 21350 established a presumption that transfers to care custodians are the product of fraud, duress, menace, or undue influence and, since Claudine lived with Gertrude and cared for her in the evenings, Claudine was disqualified from taking under the trust.

In reviewing the lower court ruling, however, the Appellate Court reversed this decision and concluded that it was an error not to apply the exception found in section 21351(a).  The Court rejected the argument that the exception did not apply to Claudine because she was not an “heir”—where her stepmother’s estate did not actually contain property attributable to her father (who passed away eleven years prior)—and found that a person is the transferor’s heir if some intestate rule identifies the person as the transferor’s successor, regardless of whether the transferor’s estate includes the type of property distributed under the rule.  Therefore, the section 21351 exception applied and the second amendment was deemed valid allowing Claudine to remain as the trustee and sole beneficiary of Gertrude’s estate.

If you are interested in learning more about making amendments to a trust or creating an estate plan, please contact  the San Jose estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri, LLP.  Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png 0 0 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri2011-11-18 13:26:462011-11-18 13:26:46Update: Gifts to Caregivers Prohibited
Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

2011 Tax Laws Affecting the Inheritance of Real Property

November 11, 2011/0 Comments/in Estate Planning /by Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri

In 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act (Tax Relief Act) of 2010 extended the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) for two years through 2012.  For those who may be inheriting real property in 2011, it is important to note that the “step up in basis” rules will remain through 2012.

In order to adequately explain what this concept entails, here is an example from the Wall Street Journal:

Suppose your Uncle Joe died earlier this year and left you some valuable stocks, bonds and other items. Those assets have risen in value over the years. You’re thinking of selling them to buy a new home or to invest in something else.  How would you figure out your tax cost for capital-gains tax purposes?

Typically, your tax cost is the fair market value of the assets on the date your uncle died — or, in certain cases, their value six months later. That means you don’t have to worry about figuring out what Uncle Joe originally paid for them. You don’t have to rummage through his old records or search the Web.

All that should matter is their fair market value on the date he died (or, in certain cases, six months later). This is known as “step up in basis” because your tax basis on those appreciated assets typically gets stepped up to the date-of-death value.

The General Basis Increase (the sum of the aggregate basis increases) is the maximum allotted amount the Tax Code will allow to be “stepped up.”  The EGTRRA of 2001 preserved the step up in basis for up to $1.3 million dollars (plus an additional $3 million for assets given to a spouse) through 2010.  Then the Tax Relief Act of 2010 extended the EGTRRA to 2012.  Thus, the General Basis Increase for 2011 will remain at $1.3 million, and if assets are given to a spouse, up to $4.3 million.  Therefore, if the value of assets inherited totals more than $1.3 million, assets beyond that sum will not be “stepped up.”

While creating an estate plan, it is always important to consider tax consequences on the estate, any named beneficiaries, and the planner himself.  Any named beneficiaries who have an interest in real property should also be aware of the taxes they will be responsible for after inheriting real property.  The Tax Code is intimidating and daunting; however, the Estate Planning Attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri can help clarify the process.  If you are interested in learning more about taxes on your estate plan or how you may be affected by receiving an inheritance, please contact the experienced estate planning attorneys at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri for further information.  Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png 0 0 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LPEP_PC.png Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri2011-11-11 11:55:242011-11-11 11:55:242011 Tax Laws Affecting the Inheritance of Real Property
Learn more about estate planning with a free resource
Read all about family law and child custody
Learn more about family law matters such as private divorce counseling.

Categories

  • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Family Law
  • Firm News
  • In the Community
  • News
  • Personal
  • Probate
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

5 + 3 = ?

Link to: Contact Us

Contact Us

LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI

1871 The Alameda, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 553-0801 | Fax: (408) 553-0807 | Email: contact@lpeplaw.com

Located in San Jose, Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri handles matters for clients in northern California, especially San Jose and Silicon Valley. Our services are available to anyone within the following counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.

DISCLAIMER

This web site is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Nothing in the site is to be considered as either creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri or as rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri Web site without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

About | Why LPEP | Contact | Blog

© 2019 Copyright Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved.

Scroll to top

LPEP COVID-19 Office Protocol