The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA

Florida Board of Bar Examiners Publishes Exam Survey Results

Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:13:31 GMT

The post Florida Board of Bar Examiners Publishes Exam Survey Results appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Supreme Court Removes Two Topics from Bar Exam Part A

Tue, 04 Feb 2020 21:19:00 GMT

Juvenile delinquency and dependency will no longer be among the possible topics covered in Part A of the Florida Bar Exam.

Read the full article here .

The post Supreme Court Removes Two Topics from Bar Exam Part A appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

What’s your plan when it comes to estate planning?

Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:44:00 GMT

Happy New Year everyone! This time of year, we see an influx of estate planning clients. Most people’s New Year’s resolutions include getting their affairs in order. So, once you decide to take the first step and meet with an attorney, how do you decide which plan is right for you? My answer… it depends. There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to estate planning. Below are some of the things I discuss with a client to determine which estate planning documents are appropriate.

Once of the factors we discuss is the client’s family. This can be tricky to navigate. I look at whether a client has a blended family and what the family dynamics are. We also determine if a client has minor children and if we need to do any preneed guardianship planning. Some other questions I ask are: Does a client have a special needs child who requires care once they pass? Will the person or persons inheriting from a client’s estate be responsible to handle an inheritance, or do we need to do additional planning to protect them?

Another factor I look at are a client’s assets. This includes real property, personal property, and that Precious Moments collection from Grandma. We address how property is titled and if the property is financed. Another topic that may need to be addressed is if the client owns property in another state as probate rules and procedures vary between states.

Another important factor I discuss with the client is who they wish to put in charge to carry out their wishes. We encourage our clients to have this discussion with the person or persons prior to executing their estate planning documents. Naming someone as a Trustee, Personal Representative, Power of Attorney, or Healthcare Surrogate is a big job requiring this person or persons to make difficult decisions. It is important this person or persons understand what they are being asked to do and if they are comfortable making these decisions.

These are just a few things to consider when beginning the estate planning journey. I am here to assist clients from start to finish including any changes in between.

The post What’s your plan when it comes to estate planning? appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Electronic Wills and Remote Notarization Law Takes Effect

Tue, 07 Jan 2020 21:05:00 GMT

Read the full article here.

The post Electronic Wills and Remote Notarization Law Takes Effect appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Low-Income Florida Veterans Now Have Access to Statewide Legal Helpline

Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:52:00 GMT

Read the full article here .

The post Low-Income Florida Veterans Now Have Access to Statewide Legal Helpline appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

April 23, 2012. The day that changed my life.

Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:28:00 GMT

For a while now I have been contemplating the topic for my first blog post. This seemed to be the most fitting. Exactly six years ago today my bar exam results came out. I remember this day so vividly. I was sitting at home in front of my computer. I kept refreshing the page waiting to see if the results had been posted. I hit the refresh button one last time and there they were. The results were posted. I froze. As much as I wanted to know, I also didn’t want to know.

I had my bar exam number in my hand. The scores were posted by number and not your name. This was very kind of the Florida Bar in case you did not pass your name was not plastered everywhere. My hands were shaking as I clicked down to find my number. There it was. I saw my results and I froze again. I screamed and I cried. I passed the Florida Bar Exam. The hard work, the sacrifices, the sleep I will never get back. In this moment it was all worth it. This was the day that changed my life. From this moment forward, well technically not until April 24 ^th when I was officially sworn in, I was a lawyer.

People decide to become lawyers for different reasons. Ever since I was little I wanted to be a lawyer and help people. Don’t get me wrong, it is not a perfect profession and there are some days where the judge agrees with someone else’s opinion. But it is worth it. Every single day. To me, it is a calling and not a job. I take my responsibilities seriously and know that people put their trust in me. It is a privilege to practice law and everyday I am grateful that I get to do this.

The post April 23, 2012. The day that changed my life. appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

NAR: Fair housing should remain a primary HUD mission

Tue, 13 Mar 2018 23:34:00 GMT

WASHINGTON – March 12, 2018 – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) might change its mission statement to remove what it calls antidiscrimination language. HUD Secretary Ben Carson has led the charge and wants to add in “self-sufficiency,” a major focus of his since taking the helm of HUD.

A draft of the new proposed mission statement: “HUD’s mission is to ensure Americans have access to fair, affordable housing and opportunities to achieve self-sufficiency, thereby strengthening our communities and nation.”

HUD’s current mission statement: “HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination and transform the way HUD does business.”

The mission statement has not been made final yet, nor have any updates been made to a draft of the statement on HUD’s website. HUD’s current mission statement, which still appears on its website, is much longer and promises “strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all” and to make communities “free from discrimination.”

HUD spokesman Raffi Williams says HUD is considering “modest changes” to its mission statement, just as previous administrations have done.

“You can be sure of one thing – any mission statement for this Department will embody the principle of fairness as a central element of everything that we do,” Williams said in a statement. “HUD has been, is now, and will always be committed to ensuring inclusive housing, free from discrimination for all Americans.”

Carson has been an advocate of “self-sufficiency” in housing and pushed programs that allow low-income Americans who receive federal assistance to better their situations and not get stuck relying on aid. In December, he announced an initiative to add Envision Centers near public housing developments. The centers would help train people in educational advancement, leadership, and health and wellness.

The National Association of Realtors® (NAR), however, wants HUD’s commitment to fair housing issues to remain in the mission statement.

“As Realtors join with our industry partners, allies and consumers throughout 2018 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, we believe that fair housing for all should remain a core part of HUD’s mission,” says NAR President Elizabeth Mendenhall.

“The Fair Housing Act provides that HUD will enforce the Act and administer its programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing,” she says. “When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law, he exclaimed that fair housing for all – all human beings who live in this country – is now a part of the American way of life. Not only is fair housing integral to the ethical commitment of our members, as outlined in the Realtor Code of Ethics, it is critical to our ability to serve our customers, clients and the community. We look forward to continuing our work with HUD to advocate for inclusive sustainable communities free from discrimination.”

Source: “Ben Carson Removes Anti-Discrimination Language from HUD Mission Statement,” HuffPost (March 6, 2018) and “Ben Carson’s Mission Statement for HUD May No Longer Include Anti-Discrimination Language,” The Washington Post (March 7, 2018)

The post NAR: Fair housing should remain a primary HUD mission appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Lenders preying on veterans also hurt other homebuyers

Wed, 21 Feb 2018 01:15:00 GMT

WASHINGTON – Feb. 16, 2018 – Could predatory lending practices affecting veterans also be inflating interest rates paid by thousands of unsuspecting homebuyers using FHA loans?

The answer appears to be yes and the underlying abuses in home loans to veterans are prompting action by federal authorities and legislation on Capitol Hill.

Here’s what’s happening: According to officials, some lenders active in the Department of Veterans Affairs home-mortgage program have been inducing borrowers to refinance their loans frequently in order to generate fat fees for the lenders themselves, rather than benefiting veterans with lower costs or better loan terms.

The lenders use baiting tactics reminiscent of the housing-boom era – “teaser rates,” promises of zero payments for one or two months, refunds of escrows, switches from long-term fixed rates to short-term floating rates, and a grab-bag of bogus claims about saving money.

In fact, many veterans have ended up paying more for their loans after the predatory refinancings and some have found themselves left with little or no equity in their homes. Officials estimate that anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 veterans have been affected by these marketing tactics during recent years.

All this may sound horrible, but it gets worse: Abuses in the VA mortgage-lending arena have spilled over onto borrowers in the much larger Federal Housing Administration market, which primarily serves first-time home purchasers and others who lack significant cash for a downpayment.

The linkage is via a little-publicized but exceptionally important agency, the Government National Mortgage Association or Ginnie Mae. Ginnie connects individual homebuyers and refinancers using federal mortgage programs with deep-pocket investors around the world – giant pension funds and banks, among others. Ginnie pools VA, FHA and U.S. Department of Agriculture rural housing loans into mortgage bonds and provides a federal guarantee of timely payments to investors.

The inevitable result of the VA lenders’ predatory activities is an unusually high number of refinancings within the pools, which disrupts the expected long-term payment flows to investors. That, in turn, prompts investors to lower what they’ll pay for the bonds, and has the side effect of raising lenders’ interest-rate quotes to VA, FHA and rural homebuyers and refinancers.

Michael Fratantoni, chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, told me “it absolutely impacts interest rates” adversely when investors cut the prices they’ll pay for Ginnie Mae bonds. It sounds complicated, but the simple fact is this: If pension funds or banks are less enthusiastic about Ginnie’s bonds, individual borrowers sitting across from loan officers or making applications online end up paying higher interest rates on their government-backed loans.

Michael R. Bright, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Ginnie Mae, estimated in an interview last week that the abuses in VA refinancings have caused interest rates on VA, FHA and rural housing recently to be one-quarter of a percent to one-half of a percent higher than they otherwise would have been.

What does that mean in dollar terms to applicants? Steve Stamets, senior loan officer for The Mortgage Link Inc. in Rockville, Md., told me that on a $300,000 FHA loan, a half a percentage point rate increase could add more than $1,000 a year to a homebuyer’s payments.

“It’s heinous,” said Ted Tozer, immediate past president of Ginnie Mae. “People don’t realize this affects all borrowers who are getting a (government-backed) home loan.” Given the fact that FHA alone insured 882,000 new single family-home purchase loans in fiscal 2017, you can begin to grasp how many borrowers may have been overcharged on their mortgage interest.

What’s being done to end this scandal? Last week, Ginnie Mae announced that it has notified a small group of lenders who allegedly have been abusing veterans on refinancings that they face potential exclusion from Ginnie’s principal bond program if they don’t stop what they’ve been doing. That would effectively cut them off from their main source of institutional funding for loans – a severe penalty. The agency did not identify specific lenders, but Bright told me the first penalties could be imposed as early as next month.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation that would block lenders from foisting rotten refi deals on VA borrowers. The “Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending Act” is co-sponsored by Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. The legislation would require lenders to produce a “net tangible benefits” analysis – demonstrating real savings to borrowers before initiating a refinancing and guaranteeing decreases in interest rates.

Source: Florida Realtors

The post Lenders preying on veterans also hurt other homebuyers appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Court ruling overturned in ‘Assignment of Benefits’ case

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:11:00 GMT

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Feb. 12, 2018 – As state lawmakers continue to grapple with the controversial insurance practice known as “assignment of benefits” (AOB), an appeals court Friday backed a restoration company in a breach-of-contract lawsuit involving the issue.

A three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal overturned a lower-court decision and ruled in favor of Restoration 1 CFL, LLC in a dispute with ASI Preferred Insurance Corp.

In assignment of benefits, homeowners who need repairs covered under the property insurance policies “sign over” their insurance benefits to a contractor. The contractor, in turn, pursues payments from insurance companies.

The issue has become controversial. Insurers argue that it has led to increased litigation and costs, driving up homeowners’ premiums.

In the case Friday, the restoration company provided emergency water-cleanup services for Alex Tchekmeian, an ASI Preferred policyholder. Tchekmeian then “assigned” his benefits to the restoration company, which then sought payment directly from the insurer.

However, Tchekmeian’s mortgage lender, Wells Fargo, did not agree to the AOB, and ASI Preferred said that his insurance policy required their consent for any assignment of benefits. The restoration company then pursued a lawsuit against ASI Preferred for unpaid or underpaid invoices.

An Orange County circuit judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the appeals court rejected that decision. It pointed to a December appellate-court ruling that said AOBs could not be restricted by requiring agreement from a mortgage lender.

“Because here, as in that case, the clause improperly restricts the assignment of post-loss claim benefits, contrary to Florida law, we reverse the dismissal of appellant’s (Restoration 1 CFL’s) action and remand (to the lower court) for further proceedings,” according to Friday’s ruling, written by appeals-court Judge F. Rand Wallis and joined by judges Richard Orfinger and Vincent Torpy.

The ruling came as the insurance industry lobbies the Legislature to make changes dealing with assignment of benefits, but the Florida House and Senate remain divided about the issue.

Source: News Service of Florida

The post Court ruling overturned in ‘Assignment of Benefits’ case appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Wave of foreclosures expected in February

Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:48:00 GMT

MIAMI – Nov. 14, 2017 – Housing experts worry that millions of foreclosures will surface in Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico after recent hurricanes forced owners from their homes. Many lenders extended grace periods for affected customers, but consumer advocates fear that many will simply walk away from their mortgages once that grace period ends.

“I’m anticipating a wave of problems coming in February,” says Amir Befroui, a foreclosure specialist with Lone Star Legal Aid in Houston. “It’s going to get worse before it gets better. We’re in the calm before the storm.”

About 4.8 million properties with a mortgage were in the paths of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. That represents $746 billion in unpaid principal balances, according to Black Knight, a financial data firm.

The number of loans more than 30 days past due in September jumped 67 percent in areas affected by Hurricane Harvey and 48 percent in areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, according to Black Knight. The firm did not yet have numbers on Hurricane Maria.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac implemented a three-month suspension of foreclosure sales, late fees and credit score reporting in hurricane-ravaged areas. The mortgage giants also allowed lenders to work out forbearance plans that could delay some homeowners from having to make a mortgage payment for up to a year.

But historically, those measures have not been enough in the past to prevent foreclosures. When Hurricane Sandy struck New York and New Jersey in 2012, homeowners continued to struggle to pay their mortgages even after their forbearance period ended, according to a 2013 report by Legal Services NYC.

Mortgage servicers tend to not release insurance payments until homeowners have a contractor lined up to make repairs to their home. However, construction companies are facing months-long waiting lists, forcing homeowners to delay cleanup – which could cause further damage.

Consumer advocacy groups last week issued a letter to Fannie, Freddie, and other mortgage-related agencies, requesting that homeowners affected by recent disasters, including the wildfires in California, be able to suspend their mortgage payments for up to two years. The advocacy group also urged servicers to give homeowners access to $10,000 of their insurance money so that they can fund their most pressing repairs immediately.

In response, the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA), which oversees Fannie and Freddie, said it would allow affected homeowners to extend their loan terms. The FHFA also said it would issue guidance for servicers to release more insurance money up front.

However, some groups fear even those policy changes will not be enough because private investors and banks own about 40 percent of the affected mortgages; Puerto Rico has an even higher percentage. Banco Popular, one of the largest banks in Puerto Rico, is offering only a three-month forbearance.

“There needs to be a moratorium, and then they need to set up special courts to hear these properties,” says Nate Hendricks, an attorney in Florida who started the Puerto Rico Legal Project to defend homeowners facing foreclosure. “There’s going to be a slew of [foreclosures].”

Source: “Hurricanes Could Bring Another Disaster: Foreclosures,” CNNMoney (Nov. 10, 2017)

The post Wave of foreclosures expected in February appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Hurricanes could hit mortgages more than predicted

Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:05:00 GMT

MIAMI – Sept. 22, 2017 – The impact of the recent hurricanes Harvey and Irma on mortgages could be worse than predicted, according to new estimates from Jacksonville-based Black Knight Financial Services.

Black Knight data suggests that as many as 300,000 borrowers in Houston could become delinquent on their loans, and 160,000 could become seriously delinquent (more than 90 days past due) once banks initiate foreclosure proceedings.

In Florida, the sheer volume of homes hit by Hurricane Irma will likely cause an increase in mortgage delinquencies, though any comparison to Katrina won’t work because of the different natures of the storms. Florida did not see sustained flooding, although there was considerable wind damage, especially in the Keys.

There are 2.08 million mortgaged properties in Irma-related FEMA disaster areas – more than four times that of Katrina and twice as many as Harvey. Total unpaid mortgage balances for Irma areas are $370 billion.

If the correlation to Katrina worked, there could have been half a million mortgage delinquencies in Florida; but, again, the storms were different. Florida borrowers likely have more insurance and less exposure to loss, but for those homes with the most damage, homeowners will be making the same calculation.

Another issue in Florida is that the housing market is still recovering from the foreclosure crisis.

Five percent of Florida borrowers still owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, and an additional 5 percent have very little equity in their homes.

It’s too early to predict what these homeowners will do if their home is now damaged and underwater, but at least a marginal spike in foreclosures is likely.

Source: CNBC.com (09/13/17) Olick, Diana

Original Article

The post Hurricanes could hit mortgages more than predicted appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR FLORIDA HURRICANE IRMA SURVIVORS

Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:38:00 GMT

A legal aid hotline is now available for Hurricane Irma survivors in Florida who cannot pay for an attorney : 1-866-550-2929 . The hotline operates thro ugh a partnership between The Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division, the American Bar Association (ABA) Young Lawyers Division, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Both English and Spanish voicemail recordings give instructions for callers to leave a message requesting storm-related legal assistance, and to provide their name, telephone number, county of residence, and a description of their legal problems.

Assistance through this hotline is available to qualified Floridians affected by Hurricane Irma in all Florida counties. Those who qualify will be matched with Florida lawyers who have volunteered to provide free legal help such as:

· Securing FEMA and other benefits
· Making life, medical and property insurance claims
· Dealing with home repair contractors
· Replacing wills and other important legal documents destroyed in the hurricane
· Helping with consumer protection matters, remedies and procedures
· Counseling on mortgage-foreclosure problems or landlord/tenant issues

Callers can leave a message on the hotline at any time. Calls will be returned within two business days between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. There are some limitations: for example, assistance is not available for cases in which fees are paid as part of a settlement or award from a court. Such cases will be referred to a lawyer referral service. Funding for this hotline comes from FEMA under the authority of Section 415 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency assistance Act (Public Law 100-707).

Additional Resources for Floridians
Additional Florida Bar resources and information are listed at www.floridabar.org/hurricaneinfo and include:

Legal Assistance Consumer Guide – The Florida Bar’s “Mass Disaster” consumer guide provides information for consumers on whom to contact for legal assistance and how to protect their legal rights in the event of a mass disaster: linked here y en español aquí .

Florida Free Legal Answers – Florida Free Legal Answers is an online advice clinic to match low-income Floridians with licensed attorneys who can answer basic legal questions at florida.freelegalanswers.org . A temporary increase of the qualifying cap has been lifted so that Floridians affected by Hurricane Irma can post questions and receive answers from attorney volunteers through this Florida Bar/ABA program.

Legal Aid Assistance – Resources and volunteer opportunities for legal aid and pro bono attorneys and information to help Floridians seeking civil legal aid are listed at this webpage . The Florida Bar Foundation created the Florida Hurricane Legal Aid Fund for civil legal assistance for Floridians affected by Hurricane Irma and any subsequent hurricanes that make landfall in Florida.

Unethical Conduct – Those who feel they have been unfairly treated by a lawyer should contact The Florida Bar’s Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) at 1-866-352-0707. Only Florida Bar members who are eligible to practice can give legal advice and provide legal services. If Floridians are concerned about a non-lawyer or organization giving legal advice, these consumer pamphlets provide information on “ Hiring The Right Person To Help Me With My Legal Problems ” and “ Filing An Unlicensed Practice of Law Complaint ” y en español aquí .

Price Gouging – Attorney General Pam Bondi activated Florida’s price gouging hotline for all consumers in Florida at 1-866-9-NO-SCAM (1-866-966-7226). Problems with insurance companies can be directed to the Attorney General’s office by calling 1-866-966-7226 or by calling the Florida Department of Financial Services at 1-800-342-2762.

Court Closures – The Florida Supreme Court webpage lists updates on all court closures and tolling orders.

La información anterior se encuentra disponible en español en esta página web .

Major Disaster Declaration
The full list of counties covered for FEMA Assistance to Individuals and Households (IA) is currently: Broward, Charlotte, Clay, Collier, Duval, Flagler, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns (additional counties may be added later). See announcements in the Federal Register: https://www.fema.gov/disaster/notices/amendment-no-1-8 and https://www.fema.gov/disaster/notices/amendment-no-2-3 .

People who have sustained property damage as a result of the severe storms and flooding are urged to register with FEMA, as they may be eligible for federal and state disaster assistance. People can register online at DisasterAssistance.gov or via smartphone or Web-enabled device at m.fema.gov . Applicants may also call 800-621-3362 or 800-462-7585 (TTY) from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. Flood survivors are also encouraged to call the FEMA hotline to report their damage. For more information on Florida’s recovery: https://www.fema.gov/hurricane-irma

Low-interest disaster loans from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) are available for eligible applicants. SBA helps businesses of all sizes (including landlords), private nonprofit organizations, homeowners, and renters fund repairs or rebuilding efforts and cover the cost of replacing lost or damaged personal property. Disaster loans cover losses not fully compensated by insurance or other recoveries.

For more information, individuals may contact SBA’s Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center by calling 800-659-2955, emailing disastercustomerservice@sba.gov , or visiting SBA’s website at disasterloan.sba.gov . Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals may call 800-877-8339.

For more information on Florida’s recovery, visit the disaster Web page at https://www.fema.gov/hurricane-irma and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/fema .

Beware of Fraud
Both FEMA and the Florida Attorney General’s Office are warning Florida residents of the risk of fraud and common scams in the wake of the severe weather. Common post-disaster fraud practices include phony housing inspectors, fraudulent building contractors, bogus pleas for disaster donations, and fake offers of state or federal aid. Floridians are urged to ask questions and to require identification when someone claims to represent a government agency.

Survivors should also keep in mind that state and federal workers never ask for or accept money, and always carry identification badges with a photograph. There is no fee required to apply for or to receive disaster assistance from FEMA, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), or the state. Additionally, no state or federal government disaster assistance agency will call to ask for your financial account information. Unless you place a call to the agency yourself, you should not provide personal information over the phone as it can lead to identity theft. Those who suspect fraud can call the FEMA Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721 (toll free). Complaints may also be made to the Florida Attorney General’s Office Consumer Protection Hotline at 866-966-7226.

Background
When the U.S. President declares a major disaster, FEMA, in cooperation with the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, helps to establish a toll-free number for disaster survivors to request legal assistance. Funding for the toll-free line comes from FEMA under the authority of Section 415 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency assistance Act (Public Law 100-707). The American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division in turn partners with state bar associations and other legal organizations to recruit volunteer lawyers in affected areas to handle survivors’ cases. In Florida, the partners utilize the hotline offered by The Florida Bar and The Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division, which provides legal information and referrals for civil legal issues. Survivors should be aware that there are some limitations on disaster legal services. For example, assistance is not available for cases that will produce a fee. Such cases are referred to a local lawyer referral service. To determine whether an issue qualifies for free legal assistance, individuals should call 800-310-7029.

Partner Organizations
The following organizations have joined forces to establish a toll-free phone line for Florida hurricane and flood survivors to request free legal assistance, and to provide volunteer attorneys to handle cases arising from recent Hurricane Irma and the resulting flood damage.

Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division – The purpose of the Young Lawyers Division is to assist The Florida Bar in its purposes, to stimulate and encourage the interest and participation of YLD members in the programs of The Florida Bar, to provide a full and complete program of activities and projects designed to be of interest and assistance to YLD members, and to engage in such activities as shall tend to further the best interests of the legal profession. The section coordinates the activities of YLD members and to serve as a medium for fostering discussion and free interchange of ideas relative to the duties, responsibilities and problems of YLD members.

American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division – The ABA YLD, the largest national organization of young lawyers, provides leadership in serving the public and the profession, and promotes excellence and fulfillment in the practice of law. Its parent organization, the ABA, is the national voice of the legal profession and one of the largest voluntary professional membership groups in the world.

Federal Emergency Management Agency – FEMA coordinates the federal government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. Through an agreement with the American Bar Association, FEMA underwrites the cost of operating toll free legal assistance lines for survivors in areas designated as federal disaster sites.

National Disaster Legal Aid Online – NDLA (available at: disasterlegalaid.org ) is a collaborative effort of Lone Star Legal Aid, the American Bar Association, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and Pro Bono Net.

Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc. – Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida (CLSMF) is the primary provider of free legal aid for low to moderate income residents in Central Florida. CLSMF has approximately 90 lawyers, advocates and support staff who work in 8 offices serving 12 counties in Central Florida: Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Hernando, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter and Volusia. Since 1966, CLSMF has provided legal assistance and advocacy to help the people of Central Florida obtain the basic necessities of life: food, shelter, health care, safety and education. The organization’s mission is to increase access to justice and empower vulnerable communities through legal advocacy and education.

Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. – Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. is a private, non-profit corporation which provides free civil legal services to indigent families and low-income elderly people in thirteen counties of South Central Florida. FRLS also provides legal assistance to migrant workers throughout the state of Florida. FRLS has seven offices that serve Charlotte, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, Polk, and St. Lucie. Since 1966, they have been dedicated to providing quality legal advice, representation, and education for low income people and communities.

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. – Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. is the largest provider of broad-based civil legal services for the poor in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, and is recognized in the state and in the nation as a model legal services program. Legal Services of Greater Miami is passionately committed to equal justice. Legal Services of Greater Miami provides clients with legal services in three languages from regional offices located in Miami and South Dade , which also serves residents of Monroe County .

Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. – Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit corporation that works to ensure low-income people have equal access to the courts. LSNF serves individuals and families in sixteen counties across the central and western panhandle, including Franklin, Jefferson, Leon, Wakulla, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, Gulf, Holmes, Washington, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Calhoun, Gadsden, Jackson, and Liberty. Since 1976, LSNF has provided legal aid and advised low-income and elderly persons.

Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. – Bay Area Legal Services is a nonprofit, public interest law firm that provides civil legal assistance to low-income residents in the Tampa Bay region. BALS serves Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties. Over fifty years ago, Bay Area Legal Services first opened its doors to provide free civil legal services to low-income Tampa residents.

Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. – Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. is a private, non-profit corporation which provides free civil legal services to low-income, eligible clients in seventeen counties throughout North Florida. Three Rivers Legal Services has three offices that serve Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Nassau, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor and Union Counties. Since 1978, they have been dedicated to the provision of quality legal assistance to the poor, abused, disabled and neglected, and to empowerment through preventive legal education.

Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida, Inc. – The mission of Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida is to improve the lives of low income persons in its community through advocacy, education, representation and empowerment. CCLA began providing legal services to the low-income population of Broward County in January 2004, and serves Broward and Collier counties.

Original article: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-news/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnnews01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2Fe64fb15a598b1d248525819a005bf74a

The post FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE FOR FLORIDA HURRICANE IRMA SURVIVORS appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Recent Amendments Bring Important Changes to Florida’s Elective Share

Tue, 29 Aug 2017 21:36:00 GMT

by Lauren Y. Detzel and Brian M. Malec

In 2013, the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (RPPTL) Section of The Florida Bar convened an ad hoc committee to take a fresh look at Florida’s elective share laws, ¹ with the objective of identifying and remedying certain issues that, over the years, practical experience proved to be in need of change. Prior to their study, Florida’s elective share laws had not been substantially revised since 1999. While not every recommendation of the committee survived legislative scrutiny, amendments enacted during the 2016 and 2017 legislative sessions provide additional protections for surviving spouses and should contribute toward the timely and equitable resolution of elective share disputes. This article discusses many of the important statutory changes made during the prior two years, including the motivation for enacting such changes.

Elective Share Is a Floor, Not a Ceiling
Prior to 1999, Florida law provided a surviving spouse could elect to receive at least 30 percent of the decedent’s probate estate. ² By limiting the elective share to only probate assets, it became all too easy for a decedent to disinherit a spouse, because nonprobate transfers, such as retirement accounts, life insurance, transfer-on-death accounts, and revocable trust assets, were excluded. This changed in 1999 when Florida’s elective share laws were substantially revised ³ to replace the decedent’s probate estate with an elective estate concept that incorporated virtually all nonprobate assets of a decedent in addition to probate assets. ⁴ It was not until these changes were enacted that the elective share truly promoted Florida’s general public policy of protecting surviving spouses.

For years, many practitioners understood the elective share to provide the baseline for the minimum amount that a decedent must leave his or her spouse; one could always leave more, but not less. Therefore, Florida attorneys routinely advised surviving spouses in situations in which the adequacy of such spouse’s inheritance was uncertain that they could not be disadvantaged by making the election. The elective share, in essence, was viewed as a protective election. If it was determined during the administration that the decedent left assets to the surviving spouse totaling more than 30 percent of the elective estate, then the spouse would retain the inheritance he or she received via probate and nonprobate transfers. On the other hand, if it was determined that the decedent left the surviving spouse assets totaling less than 30 percent of the elective estate, the beneficiaries of the decedent’s other assets were obligated to remedy the shortfall. This understanding seemed consistent with the overall policy of protecting surviving spouses, especially considering that it was not uncommon for an estate to take several months, or even years, after the deadline for filing the election to calculate the final value of the elective estate.

Florida’s elective share was unexpectedly turned on its head in December 2015, however, when the Third District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmed opinion in the case of Richardson v. Perez , 207 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). In Richardson , the surviving spouse timely filed for the elective share within six months of the decedent’s death and did not withdraw her election within eight months of the decedent’s death in accordance with §732.2135(3). Upon calculating the elective share, it was determined the surviving spouse would receive more than 30 percent of the decedent’s elective estate when the cash and real property gifted to her under the decedent’s will were augmented by the nonprobate assets passing to her. The trial court ruled that the elective share operated as an election to take against the decedent’s will, and that, by making the election, the surviving spouse forfeited her right to receive assets in excess of 30 percent of the elective estate. In other words, the election operated to cap the surviving spouse’s inheritance at the elective share amount. The Third District’s decision to affirm the trial court’s ruling without a written opinion shocked many in the Florida probate community because several prominent practitioners, including some who had even worked on the drafting committee for the 1999 overhaul of the election share regime, believed the law was clearly the opposite.

Recognizing the significant impact that Richardson could have on Florida’s elective share, an eleventh-hour amendment aimed at overturning Richardson was inserted into House Bill 540 during the 2016 legislative session. Specifically, clarifying language was added to §732.201 stating, “The election does not reduce what the spouse receives if the election were not made and the spouse is not treated as having predeceased the decedent.” The final bill also included a statement of legislative intent that the amendment to §732.201 was made to clarify existing law. ⁵ Thus, once House Bill 540 was enacted on April 6, 2016, the amendment to §732.201 could be applied to all pending elective share proceedings as of that date.

Extension of Time to File
Under prior law, §732.2135 generally provided the surviving spouse must file an elective share election on or before the earlier of 1) six months after service of the notice of administration on the spouse, attorney-in-fact, or guardian of property of the spouse, or 2) two years after the decedent’s death. A surviving spouse or an attorney-in-fact or guardian of the property of the spouse, however, could petition the court for an extension of time to make the elective share election as long as the petition was filed within such six-month or two-year period, as applicable. Extensions were typically filed in cases in which assets of the decedent or their value could not be finally determined within the six-month period.

Section 732.2135(2) was amended in the 2017 legislation to extend the time period in which a petition for an extension of time to make the elective share election can be filed. Specifically, the surviving spouse, attorney-in-fact, or guardian of the property of the surviving spouse may now file an extension of time to make the election within the later of 1) the time period provided under prior law, or 2) 40 days after the termination of any proceeding effecting the amount that the spouse is to receive for the elective share. The drop-dead deadline for the spouse to file for an extension, however, remains two years after the decedent’s death.

One example of why this change was necessary is when the decedent’s testamentary disposition is contested after the six-month election period, which, if successful, would reduce the amount the surviving spouse inherits. For example, suppose wife ’s will disinherits son and leaves all of her estate to husband . Suppose, further, that son does not receive a notice of administration, but husband does. Husband may decide not to file for the elective share within the six-month election period assuming the will to be valid, and that he will receive all of wife ’s estate. Suppose, finally, that son files a will contest six months and one day after husband was served with notice of administration. Son ’s will contest is timely because he never received a notice of administration, but under prior law, it would then be too late for husband to make the election to take the elective share. The amendments to §732.2135(2) now permit husband in these circumstances to petition the court for an extension of time to file for the elective share.

Homestead
Under prior law, the manner in which the marital residence was titled at the decedent’s death could have a dramatic impact on the amount of the elective share to which the surviving spouse was entitled. This anomaly resulted from the interplay between Florida’s homestead laws, under which a surviving spouse can receive a life estate, fee simple title, or a one-half tenants in common interest (depending on circumstances), and the differing treatment under the elective share statute of protected homestead versus tenants by the entireties property. Specifically, property that was protected homestead ⁶ of a decedent was excluded from the elective estate whether held by the decedent individually or by a trust at the decedent’s death, ⁷ and it was not an asset to be considered for purposes of satisfying the elective share. ⁸ In contrast, if the homestead was held as a tenants by the entireties (a common ownership alternative), then 50 percent of the value of the homestead was included in the elective estate and credited toward satisfying the elective share. ⁹ Accordingly, the surviving spouse of a decedent with protected homestead of significant value often received more upon the decedent’s death than a surviving spouse that owned property with the decedent as tenants by the entireties solely because of the asset titling.

Amendments have been made to the treatment of protected homestead under various sections of Ch. 732 aimed at minimizing the potential discrepancies in the amount a surviving spouse receives that may result from individual versus tenants by the entireties ownership of the homestead. Specifically, §§732.2035 and 732.2055 now include in the elective estate 50 percent of the net value of the protected homestead if the spouse receives a life estate ¹⁰ or elects to take a one-half tenants in common interest, or 100 percent of the net value if the spouse receives a fee simple interest. The same value for the interest included in the elective estate is counted toward satisfying the elective share. The protected homestead is still excluded from the elective estate, however, if the spouse has waived his or her homestead rights under §732.702, and the spouse does not actually receive any interest in such homestead upon the decedent’s death. ¹¹ Maintaining this exclusion ensures that a surviving spouse who has waived homestead rights does not indirectly receive any benefit from the value of the homestead by claiming an elective share.

The impact of the statutory changes to the treatment of the protected homestead becomes evident with a simple example. Assume husband has one adult descendant from a prior marriage and assets consisting of a protected homestead worth $400,000 and cash and marketable securities totaling $1 million. Husband dies and attempts to disinherit wife by bequeathing his entire estate to descendant . Under prior law, wife would receive a total of $500,000 of assets from husband , comprised of an elective share of $300,000 (30 percent of $1 million elective estate) in addition to either a life estate or one-half tenants in common interest in the homestead valued at $200,000. ¹² If the residence was owned by husband and wife as tenants by the entireties, however, wife would only receive assets totaling $360,000 (30 percent of $1.2 million elective estate), which was satisfied by husband ’s 50 percent interest in the residence valued at $200,000 and an additional $160,000 of cash and securities. ¹³ Accordingly, wife would receive substantially more of husband ’s assets if the residence was owned solely by husband .

Under the 2017 amendments, the elective estate totals $1.2 million in the above example if the residence is husband ’s protected homestead, because the portion of the homestead included in the elective estate is one-half of its fair market value. Likewise, the elective estate totals $1.2 million if the residence is owned as tenants by the entireties by husband and wife . Therefore, wife will receive assets totaling $360,000 in satisfaction of the elective share regardless of whether the residence is owned as protected homestead or tenants by the entireties.

The total value received in satisfaction of the elective share by a surviving spouse under the protected homestead scenario and tenants by the entireties scenario will not always be equal under the 2017 amendments. The composition of the family and the assets at issue, coupled with the value of the homestead in relation to the aggregate value of the nonhomestead assets, will directly influence the outcome. Such amendments, however, should reduce, and in many cases eliminate, the disparity in a surviving spouse’s inheritance that resulted by virtue of the homestead ownership under prior law.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
There are numerous opportunities for disputes to arise in elective share proceedings before the elective share is actually paid, including the composition of the assets that are includible in the elective estate, the value of such includible assets, and even whether the spouse has previously waived the right to the elective share under a marital agreement. Under most circumstances, litigation involving the elective share is rarely quick or inexpensive.

Prior Florida law did not include a clear entitlement for a surviving spouse to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the elective share. In fact, surviving spouses had the threat of attorneys’ fees and costs being assessed against them if a court determined the spouse’s pursuit of the election was in bad faith. ¹⁴ As a result, it was not uncommon in the committee’s experience for the personal representative of a decedent’s estate to use the threat of lengthy and costly litigation as a tactic to pressure the spouse into settlement. While personal representatives have estate assets at their disposal to fund litigation, surviving spouses who claim the elective share routinely do not have the resources to outlast the estate. Moreover, a surviving spouse who litigated his or her elective share under prior law was basically funding the litigation out of his or her future elective share recovery — as the litigation costs increased, the net recovery decreased. Thus, estates often benefitted from extending litigation until it no longer became worthwhile for the surviving spouse to dispute.

Section 732.2151 has been added to provide a court may award taxable costs as in chancery actions, including attorneys’ fees, for any proceeding involving an objection to, or dispute over 1) the entitlement to, or amount of, the elective share; 2) the property interest included in the elective estate or its value; or 3) the satisfaction of the elective share. Further, the court is granted discretion to direct the payment of such attorneys’ fees and costs from the estate, a party’s interest in the elective share or the elective estate, or other property of a party. ¹⁵ Notably absent from the language of §732.2151 is the ability of the court to award attorneys’ fees and costs in uncontested elective share proceedings, such as the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in preparing and filing the election. ¹⁶ Moreover, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is not limited to a surviving spouse; rather, any party involved in the elective share litigation may make a claim to attorneys’ fees and costs. The “as in chancery actions” standard adopted in §732.2151 is the same standard used in §§733.609, 732.615, 732.616, and 736.1004 for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for claims for surcharge or to modify or reform a will or trust. This brings the award of attorneys’ fees and costs for contested elective share proceedings in line with nearly all of the attorneys’ fees and costs standards used in the Florida Probate Code and Trust Code.

The well-settled rule in chancery actions is that “costs follow the judgment unless there are circumstances that render application of this rule unjust.” ¹⁷ Utilizing this standard in elective share proceedings provides the trial court with the discretion necessary to determine whether, and in what proportion, attorneys’ fees and costs will be awarded. A court may, in its discretion, order that attorneys’ fees and costs follow the result of the suit, that attorneys’ fees and costs are apportioned between the parties, or that all attorneys’ fees and costs be paid by the prevailing party. It is, therefore, possible for attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to different parties when multiple issues are litigated depending upon the outcome of each issue. The committee believed this standard would place the court in the best position to decide whether an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is warranted and who is the most appropriate party to receive the award based on the particular circumstances of the case instead of implementing a one-size-fits-all rule entitling the surviving spouse to attorneys’ fees and costs in all elective share contests.

It is important to note that §732.2151 applies to all proceedings commenced on or after July 1, 2017, without regard to the date of the decedent’s death. Accordingly, the surviving spouse of a decedent who died prior to July 1, 2017, has the opportunity to make a claim for attorneys’ fees and costs provided the elective share proceedings were not commenced until on or after July 1, 2017.

Interest on Delayed Distribution
It is not uncommon for the payment of the elective share to be delayed for several years if litigation is involved. Under prior law, this meant the estate (or other holders of nonprobate assets obligated to satisfy the elective share) could retain income, interest, or appreciation generated on the elective share assets while the litigation was ongoing. It was, in essence, an interest-free loan from the surviving spouse. As with the inability to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, estates were effectively rewarded for delaying the payout of the elective share and surviving spouses were, yet again, at a disadvantage for litigating their statutory right to the elective share. It was only 90 days after an order of contribution was entered that the spouse became entitled under prior law to accrue interest at the statutory rate on the unpaid portion of his or her elective share. ¹⁸ With some practitioners reporting elective share litigation lasting four or more years, the impact to the surviving spouse was thought to be unjust.

Section 732.2145 has been amended to provide the surviving spouse is entitled to receive interest at the statutory rate on any portion of the elective share that is not satisfied within two years of the decedent’s death, regardless of whether an order of contribution has been entered. The liability for interest falls upon the estate and any direct recipients of property required to contribute toward payment of the elective share. ¹⁹ Accordingly, the direct recipient of, for example, a transfer-on-death account or asset owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship with the decedent at death, would become obligated to pay statutory interest to the spouse beginning two years after the decedent’s death if the direct recipient has not contributed his or her share toward the payment of the elective share. This two-year grace period is intended to encourage the settlement and prompt resolution of disputes in contested elective share estates. For elective share estates that are not contested, this grace period provides a balance between awarding the surviving spouse a fair return until full payment is received and permitting the personal representative adequate time to administer the estate and resolve tax issues before incurring an interest obligation. The opportunity to claim interest pursuant to §732.2145 is available only to surviving spouses of decedents who died on or after July 1, 2017. ²⁰

Sliding Scale Denied
When the elective share was being totally overhauled in 1999 to include all of the assets in which the decedent had an interest, the RPPTL Section proposed a sliding scale for the amount of the elective share based on the number of years of marriage between the decedent and the surviving spouse. Through the legislative process, however, the sliding scale was rejected, and the final bill passed by the 1999 legislature fixed the elective share at 30 percent regardless of the length of the marriage. ²¹

The committee determined there were substantial policy reasons to reconsider the concept of a sliding scale in connection with current proposals to amend the elective share statute. Many other states (if not a majority) use some form of a sliding scale to determine the amount of the elective share. In fact, the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) provides a phase-in of the elective share over a 15-year period. ²² The comments to Part 2 of the UPC note that this is based on the contemporary view of marriage as an economic partnership in which there is a presumed unspoken agreement between the spouses that each is to enjoy a one-half interest in the property acquired during the marriage.

The committee surveyed attorneys around the state for input on the sliding scale and received a response that was overwhelmingly in favor of it. It was generally perceived that a surviving spouse should be entitled to a higher percentage the longer his or her marriage to the decedent. Fairness dictates that a spouse of 30 days should not receive the same share as a spouse of 30 years. Accordingly, the proposal initially submitted to the 2017 legislature provided for the percentage of the elective estate to be based upon the length of the decedent’s most recent marriage to the surviving spouse as follows: 1) less than five years: 10 percent of the elective estate; 2) at least five years but less than 15 years: 20 percent of the elective estate; 3) at least 15 years but less than 25 years: 30 percent of the elective estate; and 4) 25 years or more years: 40 percent of the elective estate.

Unfortunately, as in the 1999 legislature, the 2017 legislature had concerns about the sliding scale and omitted that provision from the bill. The legislature’s reasoning is not fully understood. One comment indicated that the sliding scale itself was not objectionable, but the percentage should be increased to a top rate of 50 percent. Other comments indicated that the elective share amount should be equivalent to the amount received in divorce (which does not use a sliding scale in the equitable distribution). These comments, however, misunderstand two inherent differences between equitable distribution and the elective share. First, equitable distribution only applies to marital assets, and all premarital or separate property of the spouses is excluded from the marital pot subject to equitable distribution. In contrast, the elective estate encompasses all assets of the decedent, including nonmarital and separate property. Second, equitable distribution includes the marital assets of both spouses, whereas the elective share only includes assets owned by the decedent, not the surviving spouse. Therefore, it is inappropriate to compare the assets received by a spouse from the elective share with those received by a spouse in a divorce.

The committee firmly believes a sliding scale that rewards a spouse of a longer term marriage with more of the decedent’s assets is consistent with Florida’s public policy. Further, the sliding scale is compatible with the modern partnership theory of marriage. The general effect of applying the partnership theory to the elective share is to increase the entitlement of the surviving spouse in a long-term marriage and decrease the share of the surviving spouse in a short-term marriage (for example, a marriage later in life in which neither spouse contributed much, if anything, to acquisition of the other’s wealth). Hopefully the legislature will rethink its opposition to the sliding scale in determining the elective share amount.

Conclusion
The amendments made to Florida’s elective share laws during the 2016 and 2017 legislative sessions should be welcome news to surviving spouses. The protections enacted, including the opportunity for surviving spouses to obtain attorneys’ fees and costs in litigation and their entitlement to interest on delayed elective share payments, further Florida’s public policy and remove the inequities that disadvantaged surviving spouses in elective share litigation under prior law. Given the importance of the elective share, however, do not be surprised if additional legislative proposals are made to continue refining perceived injustices in the current regime. ²³ ^q

¹ See Fla. Stat . §§732.201-732.2155.

² Fla. Stat . §732.207 (1998).

³ See Ch. 1999-343, Laws of Fla .

⁴ Fla. Stat . §732.2035,

⁵ Ch. 2016-189, §4, Laws of Fla .

⁶ For purposes of the Florida Probate Code, real property owned as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants with right of survivorship is not “protected homestead.”
Fla. Stat . §732.201(33).

⁷ Fla. Stat . §732.2045(1)(i).

⁸ Fla. Stat . §732.2075

⁹ Fla. Stat . §§732.2035(3), 732.2075.

¹⁰ The drafting committee believed it was appropriate to value a surviving spouse’s life estate at 50 percent regardless of the age of such spouse, because the surviving spouse can elect to take a one-half interest as a tenant in common in the protected homestead in lieu of the life estate. Fla. Stat . §732.401(2).

¹¹ Fla. Stat . §732.2045(1)(i).

¹² See Fla. Stat . §§732.2035, 732.2045, and 732.2075 (2016).

¹³ See Fla. Stat . §§732.2035 and 732.2075 (2016).

¹⁴ Fla. Stat . §732.2135(5).

¹⁵ Fla. Stat . §732.2151(2).

¹⁶ If, however, a personal representative fails to file a petition to determine the amount of the elective share in accordance with Fla. Prob. R. 5.360(d)(1), and the surviving spouse files such petition, then the spouse may be awarded from the estate attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the preparation and filing of such petition. Fla. Stat . §732.2151(3).

¹⁷ In re Estate of Simon , 549 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Wilheim v. Adam , 136 So. 397 (Fla. 1931); Schwartz v. Zaconick, 74 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1954).

¹⁸ Fla. Stat . §732.2145; see also Price v. Florida Nat’l Bank of Miami , 419 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

¹⁹ Fla. Stat . §732.2085.

²⁰ Ch. 2016-189, §13, Laws of Fla .

²¹ See Ch. 1999-343, Laws of Fla.

²² Unif. Probate Code §§2-202 and 2-203 (amended 2010).

²³ The authors thank Jeffrey S. Goethe for his contributions to the portion of this article addressing the 2016 legislative changes.

Lauren Y. Detzel is chair of the estate and succession planning department at Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A., in Orlando. She is board certified in wills, trusts, and estates by The Florida Bar and is a former chair of the Tax Section and the Certification Committee for Wills, Trusts, and Estates. Detzel is the 2005 recipient of the Gerald T. Hart Outstanding Tax Attorney of the Year Award, presented by The Florida Bar, and is currently a member of the executive council for The Florida Bar’s Tax Section and Real, Property, Probate and Trust Law Section. She is a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, where she is immediate past chair of the Asset Protection Committee, member of the Estate and Gift Tax Committee, and serves as a regent.

Brian M. Malec is a shareholder in the Orlando office of Dean Mead, P.A. He is board certified in wills, trusts, and estates, and holds leadership positions in both the Tax and Real Property, Probate and Trust Law sections of The Florida Bar.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Andrew O’Malley, chair, and Douglas Christy and Jeff Goethe, editors.

Original Article: https://www.floridabar.org/news/tfb-journal/?durl=%2Fdivcom%2Fjn%2Fjnjournal01.nsf%2F8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829%2F1fa262bb10f76228852581830069475e

The post Recent Amendments Bring Important Changes to Florida’s Elective Share appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .

Welcome to our new website!

Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:48:00 GMT

Welcome to our news and resources page! I am so excited to launch this website and hope to create a user friendly experience for clients. On this page, you will find current news articles and blog posts relating to the law and our law office. We will soon add a video’s page where you will be able to watch brief video’s explaining the different areas of law.

The post Welcome to our new website! appeared first on The Law Office of Shannan M. Field, PA .