City Passes New Laws To Protect Bicyclists – But Really, Do We Need More Laws?

Posted by admin

Re-Posted with permission of the author, attorney  Chuck Peterson of Peterson Law Office.   Originally posted on January 12, 2010 on http://www.idahocriminaldefenselaw.com/

Reports tonight indicate that the City of Boise has passed new city laws designed to protect bicyclists on our streets. The ordinances would arguably provide new ways to criminalize driving too close or too aggressively around bicyclists. The truth is the new laws may make us feel safer while riding two wheelers on the road but they will do nothing – unless the City decides to enforce those new laws in ways that it would not under the existing law. Was it against the law to drive recklessly and endanger the lives of pedestrians before these new laws? Of course. So why didn’t the police enforce the old laws by actively pursuing inattentive or reckless drivers?

Three people died last year because of driver inattention. Good people’s lives were lost and others ruined. Here is that all too simple truth – we can protect others – bicyclists and pedestrians and other drivers, by simply following that golden rule. If we all drive like we would want others to drive to protect our lives and the lives of our friends and family, the streets will be safer – new laws or not.

And riders need to do a better job too.

Last May I was almost hit near the corner of Broadway and Front. A driver in the “right turn only” lane changed his mind and went straight. I heard him accelerating behind me and off to the right just before he passed me on my right. I wondered if he would have passed one of his pals or maybe a kid that way. Had I not stayed put, I likely would have swerved in front of him as I moved to the right.

Let’s just try to do a better job of accommodating others on the road – bikes, kids, grannies and others. Thanks for the new laws Boise, but its new attitudes we need.

An Introduction to Social Media for Lawyers

Posted by admin

Reproduced with permission from The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar and the author, Stephen M. Nipper.

Back when we were kids, if our parents were asked to define the term “social media,” they would have likely come up with a pad of paper used in a game of charades.  Not a bad definition, even if it is a bit dated. 

So what is “social media?”  Wikipedia gives us the general definition of “[s]ocial media is media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques.”  Such a broad definition includes how we communicate, how we collaborate, how we share multi-media, and even how we share information about businesses.

For attorneys, one of the most relevant applications of social media is in the “communication” area.  For any businessperson (including attorneys), your success is defined by the size of your network.  Thus, there is a great incentive for attorneys to examine the possibilities offered by social media.  The three social media platforms best suited to this purpose are:  LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

LinkedIn.  Of the three social networks discussed here, LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com) is the most “professional.”  LinkedIn is, in a lot of ways, easiest understood as being your on-line curriculum vitae, much akin to what Martindale-Hubbell does in print (and on the web).  LinkedIn is a way for people to build networks by connecting with clients, former employees/employers, and former classmates.  LinkedIn even allows your past clients (with your permission) and colleagues to provide recommendations to your services. 

One of the advantages of LinkedIn is that it is a closed network: an individual cannot add you as a contact unless they have your permission first.  They can’t even initiate the connection process without first demonstrating to LinkedIn that they have sufficient contact with you (e.g., your email address).  Through such screening processes, LinkedIn does a lot of the work of eliminating and reducing the potential SPAM that is inherent in social media.  Attorneys should remember the model rules as they create their LinkedIn profile, making sure to not define their “specialties” in a manner which would violate the rules.  In my opinion, of these tools, LinkedIn is one tool which every Idaho attorney should be using. 

Facebook.   LinkedIn can be used to show your “professional” (work) side, whereas Facebook (http://facebook.com/) is how you show your “personal” (home) side.  While the lines between work and home are not very well defined, both do have a role in a lawyer’s social media presence on the Internet.  Facebook, at its core, is what the old website Classmates.com should have been, that is to say, a way to connect people online who know one another, whether that be old high school or college classmates.  While Classmates.com was around for years before Facebook started, Facebook quickly overtook Classmates.com, likely due to the price (Facebook is free, whereas Classmates.com charges a membership fee).  Facebook eventually went beyond the “connection” aspect, evolving into an entertainment platform where friends can connect with one another, play games together, share photos, chat, etc.  Recently, the fastest growing group of Facebook users has become the Baby Boomer generation; something that has surprised a number of people.

Facebook has recently expanded its offerings to include providing “pages” where businesses (including law firms) can establish a presence on Facebook and connect/engage with their customers.  While that function may be terrifying to some attorneys, it does provide one additional venue for lawyers to connect with their clients and stay in touch with what is important in their clients’ lives.   

While Facebook can be an excellent way to network with your customers, friends and colleagues, it can quickly become quite overwhelming, much akin to trying to drink from a fire hose.  One tip I give to attorneys looking at trying Facebook is to be very, very careful whom you add as “friends” on Facebook.  If it is not someone you are close with or if it is not someone with whom you have reason to build a personal or professional connection, you should consider carefully whether or not you want to add them as a friend.  This is due to the fact that every “friend” that you add increases the volume of information which you must filter or sort through in order to have conversations with people.  Also, a savvy attorney will make sure to examine Facebook’s privacy options carefully (and regularly) to control who has access to what information you provide.

Twitter.  Twitter (http://twitter.com/) is the other common social media platform used by attorneys.  As of last count, there are about a dozen Idaho attorneys I am aware of which use Twitter regularly.  Twitter is a “micro-blogging” platform whereby the blog posts are 140 characters or less in length.  The 140 character limitation is imposed because the platform was built to be friendly with cell phone text messaging, 140 characters being the maximum length of a text message.  While most people do not use Twitter via text messaging, the 140 character limitation has remained…forcing people to more quickly get to the point (something attorneys tend to be horrible at).

Think of Twitter as tool for facilitating conversations between people on whatever topics they choose:  from what they had for breakfast, what they are working on at work, to requests for a referral to a local attorney.  The local attorney example is true:  in the past few months, I have referred a number of clients to Idaho attorneys I know based upon posts on Twitter asking for recommendations.  Of course, attorneys whom themselves respond to such inquiries need to remember to follow the applicable model rules, including but not limited to the rules regarding “solicitation.”

As with Facebook, Twitter can itself be rendered useless by the sheer volume of people using it who are connected to you and can insert messages into the stream you are reading.  Because of that, it makes sense to limit the number of people you befriend on Twitter, or use Twitter’s “lists” feature to help you filter out the messages of people you truly want to follow the status of, versus the people you only occasionally have conversations with.

While it is a bit more complicated than charades, all attorneys should be aware of the social media tools their clients, friends and colleagues are using…tools that can be used to find new jobs, meet new clients, stay in touch with your friends and colleagues, monitor breaking news developments in your practice area, and even for simply enriching your social life.

Stephen M. Nipper is a Registered Patent Attorney with Dykas, Shaver & Nipper, LLP in Boise.  If you would like to test using any of the social media tools listed above with Mr. Nipper, you can find links to his social media accounts at http://imetnipper.com/.

MCLE Extension

Posted by admin

     If you did not complete your MCLE requirements by your December 31, 2009 deadline, you can get an extension until March 1, 2010 to obtain the extra credits you need. Send a written request and $50 MCLE extension fee to the Membership Department. Remember the licensing deadline is still February 1, 2010 and the rest of your licensing must be physically received in the Idaho State Bar office by that date to avoid the late fee. Courses taken to complete your MCLE requirements will be counted on previous reporting period. The final licensing deadline is March 1, 2010. Your MCLE requirements must be completed by that date. Please contact the Membership Department at (208) 334-4500 or astrauser@isb.idaho.gov  if you have any questions.

Law Blogs 101

Posted by admin

Posted with Permission of the Author, Stephen M. Nipper

Abraham Maslow once said that “…individuals who are incomplete in their knowledge or training of solutions propose the same type of solution to every problem they encounter.   They opt for the more familiar solution to one that may be more effective yet with which they are unskilled.”  The concept is often referred to as “Maslow’s Hammer,” in that as Maslow put it, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

It is easy for lawyers to fall into the same cycle of being too busy to continue their legal education by expanding their knowledge base, often only “learning new tricks” when forced to take MCLE courses to meet licensing requirements.

Much is to be learned from other attorneys willing to share their experience, their knowledge and their insight into the practice of law for free on the Internet.  Where?  Legal blogs. 

Often referred to as “law blogs” or “blawgs,” there are now an estimated 2,780 of them, according to blawg.org.  Law blogs tend to be written by sole practitioners and small firm attorneys, although a number of large firms have started their own blogs in recent years, covering every possible area of the law, including specific practice areas, ethics, marketing, and law practice management.

The easiest way to find a law blog to read is to use the American Bar Association’s “blawg directory” located at http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/.  The directory includes a nice breakdown of the law blogs by topic (subject matter).  The ABA Journal also publishes a yearly list of what they believe are the top 100 law blogs at http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/.  Both blawg.org (http://blawg.org) and Justia (http://blawgsearch.justia.com/) also have blawg directories.

Blogs traditionally provide their content both in standard HTML format (viewed by visiting their website) as well as in what is known as “RSS” format.  [Note:  If you’d like additional information as to how RSS works, I encourage you to view the “RSS in Plain English” video produced by CommonCraft.  The video can be found on their website at http://commoncraft.com as well as on YouTube. ]

While you can read a law blog “the old fashioned way” by creating a bookmark in your browser and manually visiting the website from time to time, savvy blog readers typically use a “blog reader.”  The blog reader (sometimes referred to as an “aggregator”) allows you to subscribe to the blog’s RSS feed, whereby when the blog has a new post, the post will be displayed in the blog reader for you.  The benefit to using a blog reader is that you do not have to visit a number of websites checking for new content, instead the new content will be downloaded for you. 

To add a blog’s RSS feed to your blog reader, you need to find the RSS feed.  Typically, a blog will include a handy “Subscribe” link or will use an orange RSS icon linked to the RSS feed.  Clicking on the icon/link will then take you to the feed’s URL which you can cut and paste into your blog reader.  If you are lucky, the feed will be “smart” and will ask you which reader you would like to use to subscribe to the blog.

Commonly used RSS readers include Google Reader (http://reader.google.com) and FeedDemon (http://feeddemon.com).  Newer versions of Microsoft Outlook allow you to use Outlook as your blog reader.  For instance, in Outlook 2007 you can add RSS feeds by selecting “Tools” then “Account Settings” then the “RSS feeds” tab.

Some of the law blogs I highly recommend include:

·       The Non-Billable Hour Blog (http://nonbillablehour.com) where former attorney Matt Homann writes on client service, innovation, marketing and technology topics.

·       3 Geeks and a Law Blog (http://www.geeklawblog.com) which focuses on knowledge management, Internet marketing and library sciences.

·       Adobe’s Acrobat for Legal Professionals Blog (http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/) which covers how lawyers can get the most out of Adobe Acrobat (e.g., how to redact correctly, how to Bate’s number).

·       The FutureLawyer Blog (http://futurelawyer.typepad.com/) which talks about “future technology for the lawyer of today.”

·       The Dennis Kennedy Blog (http://www.denniskennedy.com/blog/) where legal technologist Dennis Kennedy discusses tech for attorneys.

·       I Heart Tech (http://www.ihearttech.com/) where legal technology consultant Adriana Linares writes “how to” articles many lawyers would find useful.

·       In Search of Perfect Client Service (http://www.patrickjlamb.com/) where Patrick J. Lamb shares his insight on client service to fellow attorneys.

·       LawBizBlog (http://www.lawbizblog.com/) where Ed Poll shares an amazing collection of blog posts and video podcasts on the practice of law (for profit).

·       Law Practice Tips Blog (http://jimcalloway.typepad.com/lawpracticetips/) where Oklahoma State Bar Law Practice Management chair Jim Calloway shares the best law practice management tips he finds on the Internet.

·       iPhone J.D. (http://www.iphonejd.com/) which covers, you guessed it, how lawyers can better use their iPhones as a law practice tool.

·       Law Practice Management  (http://www.pa-lawpracticemanagement.com/), a blog provided by a consulting firm that does an excellent job of discussing new technology and how it will impact lawyers practices.

A number of Idaho lawyers also have blogs, including (but not limited to):

·       Chuck Peterson – http://www.idahocriminaldefenselaw.com/

·       Thomas Walker – http://www.ricolawblog.com/

·       Paul Stark – http://idahobizlaw.blogspot.com/

·       Brad Frazer – http://internetlawyer.blogspot.com/

·       Bob Shaver – http://bicyclepatents.com/

·       Bruce Perry – http://www.integralawblog.com

·       Barry Peters – http://barrypeters-law.com/law-journal-2/ 

Hopefully, I have encouraged you to check out some of the great content available for free to you via law blogs, and add a few new tools to your tool box, as Abraham Maslow would have encouraged.

About the Author - Stephen M. Nipper is a Registered Patent Attorney with Dykas, Shaver & Nipper, LLP in Boise.  He welcomes any questions, comments or feedback (nipper@dykaslaw.com).  His law blog (covers technology tips for lawyers) can be found at http://inventblog.com.

Givens Pursley Welcomes New Associate Emily McClure

Posted by admin

Emily McClureGivens Pursley LLP is pleased to announce the addition of new associate Emily McClure. Emily joins Givens Pursley following a clerkship with the Honorable Stephen S. Trott of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During her clerkship Emily also assisted the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

     Emily earned her B.A. with Honors in Political Science from Willamette University in 2002 and her J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2008.

New Counsel for Idaho Bankers Association

Posted by admin

Ken HowellWith the very sad loss of Pat Collins this past March, the IBA felt the acute loss of an excellent General Counsel and good friend. During the final months of Pat’s illness, Ken Howell, a partner with Hawley Troxell Ennis and Hawley LLP since 1991, stepped in to work with the IBA during the 2009 legislative session. That was fortunate as the 2009 session proved to be challenging, and Ken served as de facto General Counsel during that session. Ken had worked with Pat on banking issues for over 20 years and currently serves as the Chair of the firm’s Banking Practice Group.

     Ken was a natural fit for the IBA with his extensive knowledge of banking law and impressive experience with over 25 years at Hawley Troxell. Ken is a 4th generation Idaho native, born in Wilder, and has contributed in a wide range of community activities over many years. When he is not practicing law, his personal interests include woodworking (he is currently finishing a piece for the new Statehouse using wood salvaged from trees removed during the construction of the new Statehouse wings), scuba diving, electronics, and is an avid reader.

Courtesy of:   Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley

Portland University Selects Front Street Property for Boise Law School

Posted by admin

From Idaho Business Review

http://www.idahobusiness.net/

      Concordia University announced an initial agreement to purchase property at 501 Front Street in Boise for its planned law school, set to open in 2011.

     “We’re delighted about the prospect of settling the Concordia University School of Law in the heart of Boise, within close proximity of the courts, state and local governments and law firms,” said Concordia University President Chuck Schlimpert in a news release. “With our emphasis on community service and engagement, we look forward to contributing a wealth of new resources and talent to Boise’s downtown core and to the state as a whole.”

      The university says it evaluated approximately 40 potential sites during the past year before deciding on the Front Street location. The purchase is expected to close by April 2010, following a period of due diligence. Colliers International is the real estate broker on the transaction.

      Cathy Silak, former Idaho Supreme Court justice, has been named as dean of the new law school. The dean’s Advisory Council is chaired by Richard Fields, a partner at Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock & Fields, and includes 26 local and regional, business and civic leaders.

      “This site is a win-win for the City of Boise and the university, and we look forward to close collaboration with the city during planning and development of the property,” Silak said in the news release.

      The current Front Street property is a two-story brick building with approximately 17,000 square feet. Concordia will use the existing structure but also plans to develop an additional 30,000 square feet of space to meet the law school’s need for classrooms, offices and amenities. Union Corner Construction, the general contractor, plans to source all jobs and subcontractors from the local Boise area.

      The University of Idaho College of Law, based in Moscow, has been seeking to open a second branch in Boise, but its initial plans to do so were rejected by the Idaho State Board of Education in 2008. The college is now moving ahead with a more modest Boise expansion – from a semester-in-practice to a full third-year program, which it plans to launch in fall 2010.

Recent H1N1 Flu Outbreak Prompts Reevaluation of Workplace Health Issues

Posted by admin

“Employment Law Brief” – Summer 2009

By Jeff R. Sykes and Maureen Ryan

     In light of the current H1N1 outbreak, employers should reevaluate employee health practices to minimize the contagion and spread of infectious diseases.

     Although some of the media hype surrounding the novel H1N1, has died down, the virus continues to infect more and more people each day. In fact, according to the Center for Disease Control’s May 28, 2009, press briefing, influenza-like illnesses are increasing in Region 10, which includes Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

     Last week, an employer-client called with an interesting question related to H1N1. An employee wanted time off from work because the employee was concerned that the employee would be exposed to H1N1. The employee did not have any flu-like symptoms, but rather wanted time off because of the possibility of contracting the virus.

      What are an employer’s obligations when it comes to H1N1 or other outbreaks or pandemics? Certainly if the employee exhibited flu-like symptoms the employee should not come to work. But does an employer have an obligation to protect its employees from H1N1?

     Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), an employer does have an obligation to provide a workplace free from serious hazards and to comply with OSHA rules, regulations and standards. An employer, however, does not guarantee the safety of its employees. Although the legal obligations of an employer with respect to H1N1 may be limited, practical concerns such as absenteeism and workplace productivity should motivate an employer to take certain steps to ensure its employee health policies meet or exceed federal guidelines.

     In order to balance the employer’s obligations under OSHA with the practical difficulties of dealing with a viral outbreak or pandemic, an employer should review its employee health “best practices” and ensure that they comply with federal health recommendations. An employer should review not only its literature regarding hygiene and sick leave policies, but also its facilities and supplies (such as bathrooms, tissues, hand sanitizers, etc.). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has information about H1N1 on its website specifically designed for employers (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/business/). For example, the CDC recommends that sick employees stay home for 7 days after symptoms begin or until the employee is symptom-free, whichever is longer, in order to prevent infection. The CDC also publishes posters regarding hand-washing and covering your cough that employers can post in employee workspaces.

     Along with updating employee health best practices, an employer should also educate its employees about the best practices. The Center for Disease Control provides a PowerPoint presentation for employers on its website that includes general information about H1N1, symptoms, and everyday steps that can be taken to protect employee health. A meeting or presentation for employees regarding health best practices can decrease the risk of employees contracting and spreading H1N1 and other viruses.

     The best approach for an employer to take regarding H1N1 or other viruses is to update employee health “best practices” information and educate employees about those best practices. Check the CDC’s and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s website weekly for updates on H1N1 and other viruses and for valuable information specifically targeted to employers.

2010 Repeal of the Federal Estate Tax

Posted by admin

     Effective January 1, 2010, the federal estate tax and generation skipping transfer (GST) tax are repealed for the year 2010 unless congress enacts further changes. If no further changes are adopted, the federal estate and GST tax will return on January 1, 2011, with a $1,000,000 estate tax exemption (which is significantly reduced from the $3,500,000 exemption that was in effect in 2009). It is unknown if congress will attempt to adopt retroactive changes to the estate tax or if retroactive estate tax imposition would be found to be unconstitutional. Each state may continue to have a separate estate or inheritance tax, although Idaho has not adopted such laws.

     The federal gift tax will continue in 2010 with a $1,000,000 lifetime exemption and the $13,000 per person annual exclusion. However, taxable gifts in 2010 will be subject to a maximum top rate of 35% gift tax rather than the 55% rate that will apply in 2011 if there are no legislative changes. For estates of individuals dying in 2010, the assets in the estate will be subject to carryover basis under complex basis allocation provisions (rather than receiving a “step up” in basis to date of death fair market value). In 2010, the fiduciary can allocate up to $1,300,000 to increase the basis of assets and the fiduciary can allocate up to $3,000,000 to increase the basis of assets passing to a surviving spouse or a QTIP trust.

     As a result of the repeal of the estate tax and the basis carryover, if your planning documents incorporate any estate tax planning provisions such as a bypass trust, generation skipping transfers or disclaimer trusts, I strongly recommend you have these provisions reviewed to ensure your intent is protected and that the plan is appropriate based upon the present circumstances. Many of these tax planning clauses in existing documents are tied to provisions of federal law that may not exist or that may have no effect if a death occurs in 2010. By incorporating these tax planning concepts into the estate documents, concern exists that litigation will be required to judicially construe the provisions of a will or trust if no estate tax exists on death and yet the document relies upon these concepts for distribution of the estate. It is also important that provision be made in your documents for basis allocation under the present state of the law.

     Finally, the repeal of the estate and GST taxes has created an opportunity to make larger transfers to children and grandchildren at potentially lower cost. Any gifts will remain subject to the lifetime gifting exemption of $1,000,000 or the $13,000 annual exclusion. However, any taxable gifts will be subject to gift tax at the current rate of 35%. There would presently be no limit on transfers to grandchildren or trusts for grandchildren or other descendants because as of this writing there is no GST tax (other than the regular gift tax noted above). It is also possible that legislative changes or regulations may be adopted that significantly restrict the use of valuation discounts, such as may be applicable to limited partnership interests. Although there is no certainty that the gift tax rate will remain at 35% or that congress will not attempt to retroactively impose a GST tax, if you are interested in such transfers it is recommended the gifts be made as early in 2010 as possible to take advantage of the current lower gift tax rate, the repeal of the GST tax and the potential valuation discounts.

New Law Provides Flexibility for Owning Idaho Real Property

Posted by admin

SLC-bio-7-2008By: Sandra L. Clapp

Sandra L. Clapp & Associates, P.A., Eagle, Idaho

     It’s not often that new property laws appear to make life simpler for the citizens that it affects; however, recent changes appear to do this. Idaho has addressed the issue of how to efficiently transfer real property (real estate) between spouses while maintaining the estate tax advantages of community property law. Under existing Idaho law, married couples had few options to retain the community property character of Idaho real property and provide a means of simple title transfer upon death of the first person. Community property is the character of an asset where each spouse owns an undivided one-half (1/2) interest (as compared to separate property which is the sole property of the spouse who owns it). Effective July 1, 2008, Idaho law will authorize real property to be held by a married couple as “community property with rights of survivorship.” Prior to this law, it was common practice to title Idaho real estate as community property through designation on the deed using the phrase “husband and wife.” Upon death of a spouse, a probate proceeding is often required to transfer the decedent’s interest in the community real property to the surviving spouse. It can come as a surprise to the surviving spouse to learn that probate is required to accomplish this title transfer because many believe that jointly held property automatically transfers title to the surviving spouse. The need for a probate is often disclosed and required when the surviving spouse (or even the children or other heirs) try to sell the real property, only to learn from the title company that probate is required to obtain title insurance on the transaction. This is not time dependent and is required even years after a death and may result in a closing delay or losing the transaction.

     One presently available option to automatically transfer title to the surviving spouse is to hold the title as “joint tenants with rights of survivorship.” The risk of holding title as JTWRS is the possibility the income tax basis in the entire real property is not stepped-up or increased on death of the first spouse because the real property is not considered community property. Consider how fortunate Idahoans are to live in a community property state. Under current law, upon the death of a spouse all community property receives a “step-up” in the tax basis of the property. This applies to the entire property value not just half of it. For example, if a married couple purchased a parcel of real property for $100,000, the income tax basis in the real property is $100,000 (assuming no depreciation or other tax adjustments). If the parcel of real property appreciates to $500,000 when the first spouse dies, the new income tax basis for the community real property is “stepped-up” as of the date of death and, in this example, would be $500,000 (which avoids a potential capital gain of $400,000 which is the difference between the fair market value and the original income tax basis). In comparison, if the asset is considered to be joint tenancy (and not community property), the basis may only be stepped up in the interest owned by the deceased spouse (and not the entire community property). Using the foregoing example, if each spouse owned one-half (1/2) of the real property, the new income tax basis for the deceased spouse’s share would be $250,000 (1/2 of the fair market value) and the surviving spouse’s interest continues to have an income tax basis of $50,000 (1/2 of the original income tax basis).

     A second transfer option previously available for community property real estate was the use of a devolution agreement or community property agreement. This agreement is recorded with the county recorder, describes the real property using a valid legal description, and must be updated with each parcel of real property that is acquired. Many couples forget they even have such an agreement, let alone keep it updated as they move residences or acquire different real property. A community property agreement can cause results over time that are not expected and which may not be consistent with the testamentary plan of the decedent.

     The final option available under current law is to hold the real property in a revocable trust or other entity format. This option can generally be more cumbersome and costly than a simple change on the vesting deed.

     The new law will allow married couples to obtain the best of both worlds – an income tax basis step-up for the entire community real property and a simple title transfer through the “joint tenancy” designation. However, as with all title changes, please consult your legal or tax advisor to ensure the change in title is consistent with the character of the asset and doesn’t conflict with your estate and tax planning. This information is provided as general guidance and should not be relied upon in lieu of legal and tax advice that is particular to your situation. And if appropriate, let your state legislators and governor’s office know how much you appreciate their work in this area. It simplifies and clarifies real estate asset transfers for many of the state’s citizens.

www.clapp-legal.com