Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
He served at the Pentagon as an army jag. He
graduated from Notre Dame and has two law degrees from
Boston University and Georgetown University. He's been practicing law for
over thirty years. He's your family's personal attorney. It's time
for the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello, and welcome to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney. In there is over thirty years. Yeah,
it's been forty two years. How about that. I guess
we're see we're all into the recycling, so we're recycling
the intros. Yeah. Well, you know, there's nobody works at
a radio station anymore other than my board operator. He's
(00:42):
the only guy there, so you know, you know, I
guess we'd have to send it to Hollywood to get
it redone. So we're not going to do that anyway.
Six one, six seven, twenty four to twenty four. That's
the number to call to get your question, comment or
concern on the air. You can also go to the
website David carry Your Law. You know it sounds like
it's spelled, spells like it sounds. Squish it all together
(01:06):
and go to the website on the website, you will
find our artificial intelligence assistant and you can actually have
a conversation there. So if you don't want to call
them the show, let's go to the website and talk
to the chatbot. But it's not a chatbot. See here's
the thing with the chatbots or what everyone calls chatbot.
All they ever do is say, give me all your
(01:27):
information and we'll have somebody call you back. Well that's
kind of frustrating, right, because you really you'd like some
ideas at least you can't call them answers because they're
not definitive, but point in the right direction anyway. And
that's what that's what the AI thing does, right. It
gets you to the point where it's not going to
(01:49):
fully answer a question, can't do a plan or anything,
but what it can do is point in the right
and it really is helpful. This is the this is
the thing that we're finding out very very hopeful in
navigating the website. Right, So instead of you having a
click all around looking for whatever it is you're looking for,
you can ask it and it will find the information
(02:12):
and give it to you. Do you see so very yeah,
I'm a real pat on the back for us for
doing that for you. Aren't we wonderful? Yes, of course
we are. So let's see we got some Do you
want to do some? I want to do some wonderful questions?
Some email email questions? There, sure, why not? Let's see. Oh,
(02:37):
here's a good one. When I inherited this home. I
inherited a home in twenty eighteen. Okay, when I inherited
this home, there was no lean on it. Now three
years later there is. The death was in twenty eighteen,
the lien was filed in twenty twenty one. Is this
legal and who pays? Well, it kind of depends, right,
I mean, if this was a he says inherited, So
(03:00):
whenever somebody says inherited, what you're thinking, legally technically anyway,
is that it went through probate. Okay, that's the inheritance. Now,
you may be a trust beneficiary could have gone through
a trust, could have done that, but who knows. The
thing is that if the person who owned the property
(03:23):
owed money to somebody, right, then that somebody is entitled
to get paid, right, And three years is certainly well
within the statute of limitations. Typically, you know, if it
was a contract or something so it's entirely possible. But
what can happen is that people will need property out
(03:45):
of the probated state or out of the trust when
they shouldn't have done that, right when they haven't actually
administered it. They just gave the stuff to the beneficiaries
without regard to the creditors. So if the question is
what you know, we've got like no detail here. So
I'm theorizing, but you know that's what you pay me for,
(04:07):
isn't it. Oh yeah, you pay me nothing. Yeah, okay,
good free advice and worth what you pay for it,
right anyway, Free theories worth what you pay for them. Anyway.
The idea is probably what happened here is, or at
least maybe what happened here is the there was a
probated state, they needed the property out. The guy inherited
(04:28):
the house got the deed for the property, but there
were creditors hanging around who figured out what was going on, okay,
who didn't receive proper notice perhaps, or who were not
dealt with. And now they're gonna they sue the estate, right,
and now they put a lien on lispending, you know,
a lean pending the outcome of the lawsuit. That could
(04:50):
be it, or there might have been a security agreement
that didn't get perfected, as we say, until later on.
Now they're filing the leaning against it. It could be
it could be as legitimate as the day is long.
It could be bogus as a three dollar bill. You
don't know. Okay, So somebody's got a you know, the
(05:14):
question is this legal and who pays? Ah? I don't know.
You haven't give me any enough meat to chew on,
but it's a pretty bare bone. What can I tell you?
But here's the thing. Just because you got the deed
out of a probated state, and I guess this is
why I kind of picked this one. It's like, then
you're not you're not out of the woods. Okay. It
(05:39):
could happen that the person does owe money to somebody.
So as a beneficiary, if you're getting a significant asset
and you don't want to worry about leans later on,
you have an interest in making sure that the administrator,
the executor, the personal representative of the estate is dealing
(05:59):
with it properly. Okay. That's a that's a big deal
because if if it wasn't, then that opens the possibility
that someone could come back later on. So and you
don't want that six one six seven some four twenty
four twenty four. That's sixty one six seven some four
twenty four twenty four. How do I how to put
(06:20):
my half interest as a tenant in common in a
revocable trust? Okay, I'm half owner as a tenant in
common with my mom. Well, that's good because if you're
a joint tenancy, trying to put it in the trust
would destroy the joint tenancy I just made. And you
can't do a joint tenants with rights of survivorship without
everybody joining in, and even then the trust is not
(06:42):
the anyway measuring life? Anyway? Can I make a deed
transferring my interest to in the revocable living trust? A second,
I just made a revocable living trust. Can I make
a deed transferring my interest too, says in the revocable
to the revocable living trust, without the consent of my
mom on the deed. Also, do I have to reference
(07:02):
her interest on my deed or need her signature on
the deed? Thanks? Well, the answer is it's your property now.
As a tenant in common, you own it in the
same degree as if you own as if you own
the whole thing. Now, the problem, the problem with this
(07:23):
is frequently if you quit claim, you just do a
quick claim deed is if you own the entire property. Okay,
same deed that you would do if you own the
entire property, and that's going to transfer any interest that
you have to the trust. The problem with that is
it looks like you're transferring the whole interest and somebody
(07:45):
else's half owner, and it's not that legally, technically it's
incorrect because remember what a quit claim quit not you know,
not quick quit q U I T quit claim deed
is it's a transfer of whatever interest you have into
the recipient into the grandee. Right, you're giving whatever it
(08:08):
is you have. You're not claiming to have anything, right,
but to the extent you have any interest, you're putting it.
You're putting it into your trust or you're giving that
interest to somebody else. And maybe you don't have any
interust Okay, you might not. But if you don't have
(08:28):
any interest, well you didn't transfer anything. If you own
the whole thing, you transfer the whole thing. If you
own half, well you're transferring half. Okay. So the problem
is when that gets recorded, and it goes through through
the township or the city or whoever's doing the taxes.
They screw it all up. Now they think you're the
only owner, and now they require you to have a
(08:49):
property transfer affidavit, and it messes things up. So you
always want a note on the deed right that it's
a fractional interest. Okay, note that it's a fractional interest.
That'll eliminate some of the some of the confusion. Do
you have to have mom sign off? I'm putting it
into the trust. No, no, you don't.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
You do not.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
You can do it all by yourself. It's a good idea.
You know, Mom just gave you half the house, or
you bought half the house, or whatever however that happened.
It is a good idea, right to let mom know
what the heck is going on. Sure, but you don't
have to reference to your interest because you have no
control over it. Your mom's interest is mom's interests. Your
(09:33):
interest is your interest. So but you do and you
should vollow your property transfer affidavit, you know, and make
sure that the thing is being taxed is being taxed appropriately.
That's really what you really what you want to do okay,
so you can put it in a revocable trust. Just
be careful about how you do it, which is why
(09:56):
doing this stuff at home is probably not the best bet.
Or doing it online with a chatbot or a AI
expert whatever is probably not a probably not a great thing.
Not the way to not the way to do it.
Let's see, bought a house. Someone sold me a house
(10:17):
with termites. They know that they are, but doesn't know
that the disclosures that negligence. Bought a house keeps seeing
wings on on the window sills. Eventually you started to
see fasts. That's the poop from the termites. Pest control missed.
It turned out the old homeowners painted over and covered
holes in the ceiling. They admitted to knowing the what
termites are. Is that considered negligence. I don't think it'd
(10:39):
be negligence. I think it'd be more like fraud. So
when we get back, maybe we'll talk about that a
little bit. But they're covering up evidence of termite damage.
Not so good. You're listening to the David Carrier Show.
I'm David Carrier, your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
This hour of the David Carrier Show is pro bono,
So call in that now at seven seven four twenty
four twenty four. This is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Wellcome back to the David Carrier Show on David Carrier
your family's personal attorney. Now's the time to give us
a call. Sixty one six seven seven four twenty four
twenty four. That's six one six seven seven four twenty
four twenty four. We're getting through some of these questions
we got in here. Can I prevent Yeah, go to
(11:29):
the website. I said that, right, Davidcarrier Law dot Com.
Come to one of our free, free, free, free workshops,
the Three Secrets Workshops. These are the workshops we're doing
from San Diego to Staten Island. That's right. We've got
fourteen law firms now part of the Red Wagon Law.
And yeah, I mean the message is finally finally getting out.
(11:51):
You're not alone anymore. Isn't that nice? But I mean, seriously,
people ask me all the time, well, if you're so small, alright, ho, come,
everybody's not doing this, and it's like, yeah, that's a
I mean, that's a that's a solid question. Why isn't
Why is this considered not customary?
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Right?
Speaker 2 (12:12):
This is not customer. What we're talking about here, you know,
protecting your stuff for you. Oh that's not customary, right,
protecting it for your kids. Oh that's not customary. Yeah, right,
that's true. Oh, get your trust funded. Oh that's not customary. Right.
There's an awful lot of uncustomary stuff that we do here,
which is yeah, it's true. It's just the righteous thing
(12:32):
to I mean, that's my only consolation. It's the right
thing to do. So sorry about that. Can I prevent
So let's get to one of our letters here. Can
I prevent my recently widowed father from giving away large
sums of cash and high value gifts to late wife's
former caregiver. My father has a large estate. Oh, we
(12:54):
got Leslie on the line. Sorry, we'll get back to
generous dad or to see surviving spouse in just a minute.
Right now, we got Leslie. Good morning, Leslie. Welcome to
the David Nation.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
So excited to be on your show and get some
valuable information.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Well, we don't guarantee the value, but let's let's give
it a whirl.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Sure. I'm wondering if the laws have changed where the
marital interest of the spouse has been changed, reflecting on
a deed. So if a husband had separate like hunting properties,
it's in his name only. Has that affected marital interests
for the wife to like sign off or have to
sign off or even have right to it.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Yeah, the answer is yes. See, when Michigan first became
a state back in the what was the eighteen thirties,
most value right, there weren't pension plans, There weren't iras
or for or one k's all there were mostly was farms. Right,
So a wife had what's called under the Married Women's
(14:03):
Property Act, they had what's called a dour interest. In
other words, they had the right a life estate in
one third of the man's of the husband's real estate.
So as a practical matter, it was it was hey,
you know when you know and everyone was all about
(14:25):
firstborn male child gets the farm kind of thing, right,
So what this did was it and guys still died
first even back then. So the guy dies and now
mom is an unwelcome guest in her own home, right
kind of thing. Well, we didn't want that. So what
they said was one third of the proceeds from the farm.
Think about it that way, not that you get to
(14:47):
live in one third of a condo. No, it was
the proceeds from the farm. That's how you have to
think about it belonged to mom. So mom got one third,
had a life estate in one third of the real estate,
meaning you got to stay in the house, and she
got the produce from a third of the farm. That
was the idea. Well, add you know, one hundred years
(15:07):
to it and now, and this is this is where
the contradiction just became overwhelming. Was when they decided that
men could marry men and women could marry women. Okay,
when that got figured out, decided, well, how do you
have a Married Women's Property Act? Do the women each
get a one third interest in each other's share, or
(15:28):
do we expand this so now men have an interest
in the women's real estate or whatever. And what they decided,
which I think was kind of common sense, frankly, was
just to say, okay, the reason we had the Married
Women's Property Act, the reason we had that was to
make sure that married women didn't get you know, the
(15:52):
Cinderella treatment when the husband died. Okay, you know, evil
stepmother or whatever. We wanted to make sure that she
actually had a way. Maybe I get the wrong fairy
tale there, come to think of it. Anyway, the point is,
the point is, we didn't want women out in the
outer darkness where there's wailing and gnashing of teeth. No,
(16:14):
we wanted to make sure that she would have an
ongoing interest in the real estate. And that worked until
fairly recent you know, ten years ago, whatever it was,
and then they said, uh, well, this whole Married Women
Property Act doesn't really doesn't really address the current issues,
the current situation, because women are now fully you know,
(16:37):
participating members and society and all the rest, and it
doesn't make any sense to give someone a third interest
in a condominium or a tract house or whatever. So
we're going and we can't tell who the married women
are anymore because because we can't, and we're not going
to expend it to men, so we're just gonna ditch
(16:58):
the whole thing. And that's what they did. So if
your spouse, if your husband has hunting property in his name,
he can sell it and go to the casino with
the proceeds and you got nothing to say about it.
That's basically it. Hello, Well, that may not be what
(17:19):
you wanted to hear, but but that is that is
the way it is. And that's why it is the
way it is, okay. I mean, back in the day,
we had it to protect women, right, that was the idea.
We didn't want to leave them impoverished. And back then,
you know, we didn't have retirement plans and all the
other things that married people have interest in, you know,
(17:39):
in each other's stuff, you know, electing against the will
and all the rest of that, you didn't have. It
wasn't so much financial wealth was in real estate, and
it was in productive real estate farms, you know, the
Holy Grarian Society. Well you know yesterday's news. And we
kept on that idea of the married women's property, and
(18:03):
it didn't go both ways. You know, it wasn't It
was not an equal thing, and there were equal protection
challenges to it, but those never got any traction. Okay,
got the married women's property. I got upheld despite equal protection.
But when they said, okay, marriage is between two consenting
(18:25):
adults of whatever gender, agender, gender, whatever their agenda was
with their gender anyway, the agenda changed. And now we're
not protecting women anymore, and we're not protecting married couples
because we don't want to get into it. I mean,
that's that's one of the things where the law now
(18:48):
does not inquire into the financial arrangements that married couples make,
because the idea is that's part of that mystical, magical,
mysterious marriage thing, which as a court we're not it's
just too hard, it's too difficult for us to figure
that stuff out, and it's forget about it, we're not
(19:12):
doing it. That's that's basically where the courts are now.
That's my interpretation. But Sandrady O'Connor, you know when she
said that, you know, when they recognize the gay marriage thing,
right when you know it was like the you know,
she got all poetic about you know what marriage means.
The upshot of that is it's whatever you think it is, okay,
(19:35):
and whatever property arrangements you want to make good Anya. Now,
if you get divorced, then there's a whole other body
of law about who gets what. Yes, But if you're
not in the divorce context, right then it's mystical magical
and you guys get to decide, you know, whatever it
is you want, and we're not going to we're not
going to intervene in that. So it's different than it
(19:57):
used to be. Less rights for women yet. Yes, yes,
I mean, but that's that's part of the shakeout of
the of the deep changes that have been made in society.
You know, like it or not like it. That's the
way it is. You've been listening to the David Carrier
Show on David Carrier Your Family's Personal Attorney.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
David's got the how too you're looking for Just call
seven seven twenty four. This is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Wellcome back to the David Carrier Show on David Carrier,
Your Family's Personal Attorney. You know, we're going to get
to that email I was talking about with the with
the potential gold digger and all the rest of it
taking advantage of widow Dad. We will get back to that.
But there's a there's a case that's up in the
(20:48):
Supreme Court right now, and I think it's in I
think it's kind of important. So I'd like to just
talk about for just a minute. The idea here is
you ever heard of three branches of government? Right the
what the judicial, the legislative, and the executive rights. That's
how we do it in America. The whole checks and
(21:08):
balances idea. Well, if you're Congress, you don't like the
idea that the executive can do what it wants, right.
You want to control them to the extent that you can,
but you still want to get stuff done and you
don't want your fingerprints on it. See, so you got
to think about what is actually going on in the world. Okay,
(21:30):
So you've got the executive, which is the president, single executive,
one person gets to do that. And then you've got
the Congress, what five hundred and thirty five people who
you know, can't agree on what day of the week
it is. So you've got the five hundred and thirty
five fighting it. And now you've got, of course, thousands
of federal judges who think they're the executive. So it's
(21:51):
it's a morass. And if we could get back to
what the original idea was, it seems like to me
that there's you know, Congress uh passes the law, the
executive carries it out right, but Congresses are never happy
with the way the executive does it because half of
(22:13):
them are a different party and they're fighting and stuff
like that. So what they did back in the day,
during Roosevelt FDR's time, is they set up these independent
commissions and the idea was, we're going to control what
the executive can do with these independent commissions and you, executive,
(22:33):
these people are carrying out the law which the Congress
gives to you. They're executing the laws. Okay, that's what
these committeed of Federal Trade Commissions, secuse Exchange Commission, all
these commissions and stuff, right, and they had they had
price boards and all. They're all unbelievable control over the
economy back in the day. Right. But anyway, so there
(22:56):
was this thing called Humphrey's Executor. There's this case case up. So,
but understand what the conflict is. Right, You've got the
executive that says, you know, I had the power off, right,
they think they've got the power to exit faithfully execute
the laws. And then you've got Congress, which passes laws.
But Congress, however, he ever, gets anything done, which incidentally
(23:20):
is a feature, not a bug. It's good that Congress
doesn't get stuff done. You understand. I mean the whole
idea behind, you know, separation of powers and all the
rest of this was the people back then were looking
at what the kings and potentates around the world. Were doing.
(23:40):
Did they move quickly? Yes, too, quickly, too quickly, and
so they got into wars and fighting and all kinds
of stuff because you know, somebody stepped on somebody's toes,
god knows what. Right, So the whole idea in America
was we're going to slow it down, all right. You know,
you got Thomas Friedman writes for New York Times. Right,
he's like, oh, China is so wonderful. Look at all
(24:03):
the wonderful things that they're doing over in China. This
was down ten fifteen years ago, right, Oh, we should
be more like China. And it's like, now, what's happening?
You look over at China and all those things that
he thought was so wonderful. Okay, because there was no
because it was a unitary everything Communist Party took care
of everything, right, there were no checks and balances. And
(24:24):
those things are falling apart. The bridges are falling down,
the high rises. You know, they call it tofu dregs.
The idea is they made these things out of tofu
and not the good part of the tofu. Okay, that's
what happens when you've got power concentrated and you get
these people who think, oh, it be so great to
have concentrated power. No, it wouldn't be. It's worse than anything.
(24:47):
Now if you're an immature, imbecile, right and you oh,
I want stuff right now, I want it right now. Okay, fine,
that's what you get. That's that mentality, that infantile mentality
that I want what I want and I want it now. Okay.
That's what leads to disaster because you concentrate power too much.
(25:10):
So we've got this tension. You've got the laws that
are passed by Congress, which takes a long time to
do it. But those people they want to show results,
you know, they you know, they got the New York
Times and New Warshington boats. Oh, you got to get
stuff done right. And then you've got the executive, which
maybe it likes what Congress is doing, maybe it doesn't
like what Congress is doing, you know, kind of pokey
(25:30):
pokey about getting done what Congress actually wants to get done. So,
in order to get more control, Congress created all these
boards and commissions and stuff to carry out the executive functions.
And they gave themselves the power to appoint people to
these boards to tell the executive what to do. Okay,
(25:50):
that's the scenario. You've got this tension, right. I think
it's a good tension. I think it avoids the problems
of monarchy or totalitarian or authoritarianism, which nonsense, total nonsense. Anyway,
He's what it is. So Congress was trying to control
what the executive would do, which is not what which
(26:14):
is not what the constitution says. Because the executive is
over here, the legislative is over there. They're different, they
don't overlap.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Then in nineteen thirty five, there was this guy who
was appointed to one of these commissions and they fired
him and he died in office. The guy died, and
so his executor of his will said, hey, you shouldn't
have fired him. You owe us the money that he
would have made, right if you hadn't fired him. Are
(26:44):
you with me on this? So that was the case.
It wasn't you have to give this guy executive power. No,
it was you have to pay him the money, right
as if he kept working. That's what it was. And
the way it's been interpreted is that the president cannot
(27:06):
monkey with these commissions and boards and stuff that Congress
has created to usurp the executive function. Right, that's the case.
That they built all the sime and now we've got
another one, right, that's coming down the pike. And the
reason I'm mentioning it is because it's sort of like,
you know all this, Oh it's authoritarian. No, it's just
re establishing the original balance of power between the legislative
(27:29):
and the executive branch. Okay, maybe I've been listening too
much to these debates and stuff, but it seems like
a big deal. Right. People don't really under you know,
you hear people say stuff and it's like, do you
really know what they're talking about? Now you know what
they're talking about, at least from my perspective, Right, do
your own research. Go to the go to the website,
(27:50):
and that's the AI bot. Hey, what's the deal with
Humphrey's executor? You might get an answer, well, you get
some answer anyway. But what I think it is, what
I think is going on is a rebalancing and right
now the Supreme Court has kind of signaled that they're
ready to overturn Humphrey's executor. That idea that Congress can
(28:12):
say to the executive, the legislative can say to the executive,
we've got these people doing your job, right, creating regulations
that you have to follow and you can't do anything
about it. And I think that I think that's just
going the way of all flesh. I think that's going
to be going away. Because what they did was they
(28:34):
fired some people, and the lower court said, right, lower
court said, you can't do that, put them back in office.
And the Supreme Court said, you can't tell them. Judicial
can't tell the executive right to put these people in
charge of stuff that the legislatures should be in charge
of stuff when it wasn't the legislature's job to do it,
(28:56):
it was the executive's job. I think what we're going
to see here is rebalancing. I mean, you talk about
you talk about shaking the box. The idea. Let me
just give you an idea, a way to think about
the current politics that's going on with the executive branch
right now. Imagine that you've got a situation that isn't working, right,
(29:19):
You've got a whole all this built up stuff. You've
got a box full of stuff and it ain't working.
One way would be to go in and move this
and move that, and rearrange this and rearrange that. That's
a way to do it. The other way is to
take the box and just shake the living crap out
of it right, shake it up right, and let the
pieces fall back in and see where they land. Sound familiar, right,
(29:44):
And then if it's still not working, shake it up
some more. Let's see what else we can get going here.
Maybe we could get peace in the Middle East. Maybe
we could settle multiple squabbles where people are dying for
thirty years on it. Maybe we could settle some stuff.
Maybe we could reshape the box and better things would happen.
And maybe it looks chaotic, and maybe it looks whatever,
(30:07):
maybe it is okay, but maybe we get to a
better place. Maybe we get rid of Humphrey's executor. Just saying,
you've been listening to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
David's perking and working and taking your calls. Now this
is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Well, come back to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney. Now's the time give us a
it's too late for that. Go to the website Davidcarrier
Law dot com Davidcarrier Law dot com and talk to
the AI robot there trained on all of our stuff,
so you know you won't get the recycled crap, you'll
(30:49):
get the good stuff. And you know, and well, I
guess you make that decision. Anyway, give it a give
it a whirl. It's I think it's really I think
it's really cool. Anyway, come to our workshop. That's what
that's what you should do. And sorry for deviating there
into a sort of policy. But you know, when you
talk about marry women property acting, think about how much
(31:12):
things have changed, right, I mean, his history matters, right,
the way things were, the way things are, I mean
they have impact on our immediate life, on her daily life.
So anyway, I think that's why I get inspired for
that to go off on that tangent. Can I prevent
here's an email? Can I prevent my recently widowed father
(31:34):
from giving away large sums of money A large sum
of cash and high value gifts to late wife's former caregiver.
My dad has a large estate consist mostly of cash
plus his home which you owns. Spring Clear, seventy two
years old does not suffer from any cognitive disorders, although
he does lack sophistication. When you're prior to mom's death,
(31:55):
Dad and I, Okay, I are to live in female caregiver.
I'll call her Cruella Deville, aged sixty, who was the
former girlfriend of my dad's best friend. Okay, it doesn't qualified.
Cruella was not formerly trained, nor did she have prior experience,
but Mom had better liked her and was happy with her.
(32:19):
Cruella lived in another state and agreed to move to
our city. She signed a very lucrative contract with the
understanding that Mom was terminally ill on life expectancy a
year or less. Since Mom's death three months ago, Cindy
has not left my father's home. Oh, Spaghettio. I've now
learned that he has gifted her over a quarter million
(32:40):
dollars in cash, including in gifts including a new Mercedes,
a trip to Europe, and access to his credit card.
He also paid out one hundred thousand dollars contract, even
though Mom died before the contract was set to renew.
I don't know if I can prove undue influence since
he of sound mind. I don't trust her, and I
(33:02):
think she's taking advantage of my dad's grief. Now what
and the answer is, if you have somebody who is
legally incapacitated, legally incapacitated, right, cognitive decline, disorders, what have you?
No memory? Things like that, though, that's a basis for
(33:22):
a conservatorship. Okay, when you've got somebody who's got the
uh what do we say, sound mind? You know, who's
got the cognitive decline, who's got the neurological disorders? Stuff
like that, and that's what you typically think of imposing
a conservatorship for someone in that situation. However, however, you
(33:44):
don't have to show, you know, if you go in
for conservatorship, and I'm not advising it, because you got
to be real careful with this stuff, right, You got
to be real careful whenever you go to court on
a loved one. You've got to make sure that everybody
else is behind it, that every you know that you're
not acting maybe unconsciously out of selfish motives, stuff like that.
(34:09):
You've got to you've got to be very sure about
this stuff. But if you are very sure about it,
then you can go to court and you can have
a conservatorship imposed. Where all you're showing is that there's
in a state that would be wasted. Now is it wasting?
In a state to give, you know, three hundred and
fifty thousand dollars plus a credit card, trip to Europe
(34:31):
and a new Mercedes to someone who was supposed to
care for your wife after death. And now you're in
that emotional period. You know, what I keep hearing is
not to make any decisions for a year after your
spouse dies, right, because you're kind of discombobulated. Well, how
discombobulated is this? I don't know. Doesn't seem very good.
(34:57):
I don't know how long it's been three months? Right,
is not? I think that's what we said three months ago. Okay,
she only died three months ago, and in three months
we've given away three hundred and fifth that's called four
hundred thousand, all right, Because you get the credit card too.
Let's say she spent fifty thousand on the credit card,
so that's four hundred thousand in three months. That's a
(35:18):
million six every year? All right? How long can Cruella go?
I don't know. The Dalmatian puppy skins are tough, you know,
very expensive, So you know, in a situation like this,
should you get a conservatorship over dad? Well, it seems
like this is a this is definitely a what would
(35:41):
you say situation where where is there a likelihood that
the estate will be dissipated, you know, so that he's
not able to care for himself. Well, if you're spending money,
you know, at the rate of one hundred but one
hundred and twenty five a month, I think that's what
(36:02):
we get to three months. Yeah, roughly for he seventy five,
one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars. Think about that.
You spend what thirty thousand dollars a week? A week?
Holy cats, I mean, you can't keep that up for
very long. So that would be a good reason to
explore the issue, you know, to talk to dad about
(36:23):
it if he doesn't like it, and he may not
like he won't like it, you know, and you got
to you gotta bite the bullet there. That's a it's
a very difficult thing. I just have to say because
and so often what the result is kids kind of
wash their hands of it. You know, they're like, well,
you know, if you do anything about it, then he
(36:46):
turns on you because he's competent, and he writes you
out of the will or whatever else he got going. Okay,
that's not good. You don't like that, So it's a
it's a really a rock and a hard place where
you're at. But if you're going to do it, it's
legally possible to do it. Even if he's mentally competent,
(37:06):
you can still and you just say, look, there are
assets that would be wasted if the court doesn't intervene.
Is spending thirty forty thousand dollars a week on your
wife's on your best friend's former girlfriend who took care
of your wife for a couple of months, you know?
Is is that a good idea? I don't know, Maybe
it is, you know, And here's the other here's the
(37:29):
other thing. If you're Bill Gates and you're spending you know, uh,
you know, four million dollars a year on somebody, well
you know he's got a lot of millions. But if
you've got if you're a retired doctor or whatever, you
got three million, well you're going to be broke before
you know it. So that that, again is going to
(37:50):
play into it. So there are things that can be done.
There is legal recourse in a situation like this. Whether
or not you're smart to avail yourself of it, that's
another question. And If you do, you want to be
very measured, very step by step about it. Okay, So
that's my advice in a situation like this, You know,
(38:12):
first things first, talk to any family members. If you
have siblings, if his, uh, if your dad's, if your
aunts and uncles are still alive, I'd be I'd be
talking to them. The first move would not be to
file for conservatorship, although you know you might get you
might eventually. You might eventually get there. In the meantime,
(38:35):
you go to one of our three Secrets workshops. These
are the workshops we do every single week. We'd love
to see you there. Just go to the website Davidcarrier
Law dot com. You can sign up ask the AI
expert for the one that's posted to you. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (39:09):
You've been listening to the David Carrier Show, a lively
discussion addressing your questions and concerns, but not legal advice.
There is a big difference. So when making decisions that
affect your family, your property, or yourself, the best advice
is to seek good advice specific to your unique needs.
If you missed any of today's show or would like
additional information about the law offices of David Carrier, please
(39:31):
visit Davidcarrier law dot com.
He served at the Pentagon as an army jag. He
graduated from Notre Dame and has two law degrees from
Boston University and Georgetown University. He's been practicing law for
over thirty years. He's your family's personal attorney. It's time
for the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello, and welcome to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney. In there is over thirty years. Yeah,
it's been forty two years. How about that. I guess
we're see we're all into the recycling, so we're recycling
the intros. Yeah. Well, you know, there's nobody works at
a radio station anymore other than my board operator. He's
(00:42):
the only guy there, so you know, you know, I
guess we'd have to send it to Hollywood to get
it redone. So we're not going to do that anyway.
Six one, six seven, twenty four to twenty four. That's
the number to call to get your question, comment or
concern on the air. You can also go to the
website David carry Your Law. You know it sounds like
it's spelled, spells like it sounds. Squish it all together
(01:06):
and go to the website on the website, you will
find our artificial intelligence assistant and you can actually have
a conversation there. So if you don't want to call
them the show, let's go to the website and talk
to the chatbot. But it's not a chatbot. See here's
the thing with the chatbots or what everyone calls chatbot.
All they ever do is say, give me all your
(01:27):
information and we'll have somebody call you back. Well that's
kind of frustrating, right, because you really you'd like some
ideas at least you can't call them answers because they're
not definitive, but point in the right direction anyway. And
that's what that's what the AI thing does, right. It
gets you to the point where it's not going to
(01:49):
fully answer a question, can't do a plan or anything,
but what it can do is point in the right
and it really is helpful. This is the this is
the thing that we're finding out very very hopeful in
navigating the website. Right, So instead of you having a
click all around looking for whatever it is you're looking for,
you can ask it and it will find the information
(02:12):
and give it to you. Do you see so very yeah,
I'm a real pat on the back for us for
doing that for you. Aren't we wonderful? Yes, of course
we are. So let's see we got some Do you
want to do some? I want to do some wonderful questions?
Some email email questions? There, sure, why not? Let's see. Oh,
(02:37):
here's a good one. When I inherited this home. I
inherited a home in twenty eighteen. Okay, when I inherited
this home, there was no lean on it. Now three
years later there is. The death was in twenty eighteen,
the lien was filed in twenty twenty one. Is this
legal and who pays? Well, it kind of depends, right,
I mean, if this was a he says inherited, So
(03:00):
whenever somebody says inherited, what you're thinking, legally technically anyway,
is that it went through probate. Okay, that's the inheritance. Now,
you may be a trust beneficiary could have gone through
a trust, could have done that, but who knows. The
thing is that if the person who owned the property
(03:23):
owed money to somebody, right, then that somebody is entitled
to get paid, right, And three years is certainly well
within the statute of limitations. Typically, you know, if it
was a contract or something so it's entirely possible. But
what can happen is that people will need property out
(03:45):
of the probated state or out of the trust when
they shouldn't have done that, right when they haven't actually
administered it. They just gave the stuff to the beneficiaries
without regard to the creditors. So if the question is
what you know, we've got like no detail here. So
I'm theorizing, but you know that's what you pay me for,
(04:07):
isn't it. Oh yeah, you pay me nothing. Yeah, okay,
good free advice and worth what you pay for it,
right anyway, Free theories worth what you pay for them. Anyway.
The idea is probably what happened here is, or at
least maybe what happened here is the there was a
probated state, they needed the property out. The guy inherited
(04:28):
the house got the deed for the property, but there
were creditors hanging around who figured out what was going on, okay,
who didn't receive proper notice perhaps, or who were not
dealt with. And now they're gonna they sue the estate, right,
and now they put a lien on lispending, you know,
a lean pending the outcome of the lawsuit. That could
(04:50):
be it, or there might have been a security agreement
that didn't get perfected, as we say, until later on.
Now they're filing the leaning against it. It could be
it could be as legitimate as the day is long.
It could be bogus as a three dollar bill. You
don't know. Okay, So somebody's got a you know, the
(05:14):
question is this legal and who pays? Ah? I don't know.
You haven't give me any enough meat to chew on,
but it's a pretty bare bone. What can I tell you?
But here's the thing. Just because you got the deed
out of a probated state, and I guess this is
why I kind of picked this one. It's like, then
you're not you're not out of the woods. Okay. It
(05:39):
could happen that the person does owe money to somebody.
So as a beneficiary, if you're getting a significant asset
and you don't want to worry about leans later on,
you have an interest in making sure that the administrator,
the executor, the personal representative of the estate is dealing
(05:59):
with it properly. Okay. That's a that's a big deal
because if if it wasn't, then that opens the possibility
that someone could come back later on. So and you
don't want that six one six seven some four twenty
four twenty four. That's sixty one six seven some four
twenty four twenty four. How do I how to put
(06:20):
my half interest as a tenant in common in a
revocable trust? Okay, I'm half owner as a tenant in
common with my mom. Well, that's good because if you're
a joint tenancy, trying to put it in the trust
would destroy the joint tenancy I just made. And you
can't do a joint tenants with rights of survivorship without
everybody joining in, and even then the trust is not
(06:42):
the anyway measuring life? Anyway? Can I make a deed
transferring my interest to in the revocable living trust? A second,
I just made a revocable living trust. Can I make
a deed transferring my interest too, says in the revocable
to the revocable living trust, without the consent of my
mom on the deed. Also, do I have to reference
(07:02):
her interest on my deed or need her signature on
the deed? Thanks? Well, the answer is it's your property now.
As a tenant in common, you own it in the
same degree as if you own as if you own
the whole thing. Now, the problem, the problem with this
(07:23):
is frequently if you quit claim, you just do a
quick claim deed is if you own the entire property. Okay,
same deed that you would do if you own the
entire property, and that's going to transfer any interest that
you have to the trust. The problem with that is
it looks like you're transferring the whole interest and somebody
(07:45):
else's half owner, and it's not that legally, technically it's
incorrect because remember what a quit claim quit not you know,
not quick quit q U I T quit claim deed
is it's a transfer of whatever interest you have into
the recipient into the grandee. Right, you're giving whatever it
(08:08):
is you have. You're not claiming to have anything, right,
but to the extent you have any interest, you're putting it.
You're putting it into your trust or you're giving that
interest to somebody else. And maybe you don't have any
interust Okay, you might not. But if you don't have
(08:28):
any interest, well you didn't transfer anything. If you own
the whole thing, you transfer the whole thing. If you
own half, well you're transferring half. Okay. So the problem
is when that gets recorded, and it goes through through
the township or the city or whoever's doing the taxes.
They screw it all up. Now they think you're the
only owner, and now they require you to have a
(08:49):
property transfer affidavit, and it messes things up. So you
always want a note on the deed right that it's
a fractional interest. Okay, note that it's a fractional interest.
That'll eliminate some of the some of the confusion. Do
you have to have mom sign off? I'm putting it
into the trust. No, no, you don't.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
You do not.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
You can do it all by yourself. It's a good idea.
You know, Mom just gave you half the house, or
you bought half the house, or whatever however that happened.
It is a good idea, right to let mom know
what the heck is going on. Sure, but you don't
have to reference to your interest because you have no
control over it. Your mom's interest is mom's interests. Your
(09:33):
interest is your interest. So but you do and you
should vollow your property transfer affidavit, you know, and make
sure that the thing is being taxed is being taxed appropriately.
That's really what you really what you want to do okay,
so you can put it in a revocable trust. Just
be careful about how you do it, which is why
(09:56):
doing this stuff at home is probably not the best bet.
Or doing it online with a chatbot or a AI
expert whatever is probably not a probably not a great thing.
Not the way to not the way to do it.
Let's see, bought a house. Someone sold me a house
(10:17):
with termites. They know that they are, but doesn't know
that the disclosures that negligence. Bought a house keeps seeing
wings on on the window sills. Eventually you started to
see fasts. That's the poop from the termites. Pest control missed.
It turned out the old homeowners painted over and covered
holes in the ceiling. They admitted to knowing the what
termites are. Is that considered negligence. I don't think it'd
(10:39):
be negligence. I think it'd be more like fraud. So
when we get back, maybe we'll talk about that a
little bit. But they're covering up evidence of termite damage.
Not so good. You're listening to the David Carrier Show.
I'm David Carrier, your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
This hour of the David Carrier Show is pro bono,
So call in that now at seven seven four twenty
four twenty four. This is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Wellcome back to the David Carrier Show on David Carrier
your family's personal attorney. Now's the time to give us
a call. Sixty one six seven seven four twenty four
twenty four. That's six one six seven seven four twenty
four twenty four. We're getting through some of these questions
we got in here. Can I prevent Yeah, go to
(11:29):
the website. I said that, right, Davidcarrier Law dot Com.
Come to one of our free, free, free, free workshops,
the Three Secrets Workshops. These are the workshops we're doing
from San Diego to Staten Island. That's right. We've got
fourteen law firms now part of the Red Wagon Law.
And yeah, I mean the message is finally finally getting out.
(11:51):
You're not alone anymore. Isn't that nice? But I mean, seriously,
people ask me all the time, well, if you're so small, alright, ho, come,
everybody's not doing this, and it's like, yeah, that's a
I mean, that's a that's a solid question. Why isn't
Why is this considered not customary?
Speaker 3 (12:11):
Right?
Speaker 2 (12:12):
This is not customer. What we're talking about here, you know,
protecting your stuff for you. Oh that's not customary, right,
protecting it for your kids. Oh that's not customary. Yeah, right,
that's true. Oh, get your trust funded. Oh that's not customary. Right.
There's an awful lot of uncustomary stuff that we do here,
which is yeah, it's true. It's just the righteous thing
(12:32):
to I mean, that's my only consolation. It's the right
thing to do. So sorry about that. Can I prevent
So let's get to one of our letters here. Can
I prevent my recently widowed father from giving away large
sums of cash and high value gifts to late wife's
former caregiver. My father has a large estate. Oh, we
(12:54):
got Leslie on the line. Sorry, we'll get back to
generous dad or to see surviving spouse in just a minute.
Right now, we got Leslie. Good morning, Leslie. Welcome to
the David Nation.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
So excited to be on your show and get some
valuable information.
Speaker 2 (13:14):
Well, we don't guarantee the value, but let's let's give
it a whirl.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Sure. I'm wondering if the laws have changed where the
marital interest of the spouse has been changed, reflecting on
a deed. So if a husband had separate like hunting properties,
it's in his name only. Has that affected marital interests
for the wife to like sign off or have to
sign off or even have right to it.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Yeah, the answer is yes. See, when Michigan first became
a state back in the what was the eighteen thirties,
most value right, there weren't pension plans, There weren't iras
or for or one k's all there were mostly was farms. Right,
So a wife had what's called under the Married Women's
(14:03):
Property Act, they had what's called a dour interest. In
other words, they had the right a life estate in
one third of the man's of the husband's real estate.
So as a practical matter, it was it was hey,
you know when you know and everyone was all about
(14:25):
firstborn male child gets the farm kind of thing, right,
So what this did was it and guys still died
first even back then. So the guy dies and now
mom is an unwelcome guest in her own home, right
kind of thing. Well, we didn't want that. So what
they said was one third of the proceeds from the farm.
Think about it that way, not that you get to
(14:47):
live in one third of a condo. No, it was
the proceeds from the farm. That's how you have to
think about it belonged to mom. So mom got one third,
had a life estate in one third of the real estate,
meaning you got to stay in the house, and she
got the produce from a third of the farm. That
was the idea. Well, add you know, one hundred years
(15:07):
to it and now, and this is this is where
the contradiction just became overwhelming. Was when they decided that
men could marry men and women could marry women. Okay,
when that got figured out, decided, well, how do you
have a Married Women's Property Act? Do the women each
get a one third interest in each other's share, or
(15:28):
do we expand this so now men have an interest
in the women's real estate or whatever. And what they decided,
which I think was kind of common sense, frankly, was
just to say, okay, the reason we had the Married
Women's Property Act, the reason we had that was to
make sure that married women didn't get you know, the
(15:52):
Cinderella treatment when the husband died. Okay, you know, evil
stepmother or whatever. We wanted to make sure that she
actually had a way. Maybe I get the wrong fairy
tale there, come to think of it. Anyway, the point is,
the point is, we didn't want women out in the
outer darkness where there's wailing and gnashing of teeth. No,
(16:14):
we wanted to make sure that she would have an
ongoing interest in the real estate. And that worked until
fairly recent you know, ten years ago, whatever it was,
and then they said, uh, well, this whole Married Women
Property Act doesn't really doesn't really address the current issues,
the current situation, because women are now fully you know,
(16:37):
participating members and society and all the rest, and it
doesn't make any sense to give someone a third interest
in a condominium or a tract house or whatever. So
we're going and we can't tell who the married women
are anymore because because we can't, and we're not going
to expend it to men, so we're just gonna ditch
(16:58):
the whole thing. And that's what they did. So if
your spouse, if your husband has hunting property in his name,
he can sell it and go to the casino with
the proceeds and you got nothing to say about it.
That's basically it. Hello, Well, that may not be what
(17:19):
you wanted to hear, but but that is that is
the way it is. And that's why it is the
way it is, okay. I mean, back in the day,
we had it to protect women, right, that was the idea.
We didn't want to leave them impoverished. And back then,
you know, we didn't have retirement plans and all the
other things that married people have interest in, you know,
(17:39):
in each other's stuff, you know, electing against the will
and all the rest of that, you didn't have. It
wasn't so much financial wealth was in real estate, and
it was in productive real estate farms, you know, the
Holy Grarian Society. Well you know yesterday's news. And we
kept on that idea of the married women's property, and
(18:03):
it didn't go both ways. You know, it wasn't It
was not an equal thing, and there were equal protection
challenges to it, but those never got any traction. Okay,
got the married women's property. I got upheld despite equal protection.
But when they said, okay, marriage is between two consenting
(18:25):
adults of whatever gender, agender, gender, whatever their agenda was
with their gender anyway, the agenda changed. And now we're
not protecting women anymore, and we're not protecting married couples
because we don't want to get into it. I mean,
that's that's one of the things where the law now
(18:48):
does not inquire into the financial arrangements that married couples make,
because the idea is that's part of that mystical, magical,
mysterious marriage thing, which as a court we're not it's
just too hard, it's too difficult for us to figure
that stuff out, and it's forget about it, we're not
(19:12):
doing it. That's that's basically where the courts are now.
That's my interpretation. But Sandrady O'Connor, you know when she
said that, you know, when they recognize the gay marriage thing,
right when you know it was like the you know,
she got all poetic about you know what marriage means.
The upshot of that is it's whatever you think it is, okay,
(19:35):
and whatever property arrangements you want to make good Anya. Now,
if you get divorced, then there's a whole other body
of law about who gets what. Yes, But if you're
not in the divorce context, right then it's mystical magical
and you guys get to decide, you know, whatever it
is you want, and we're not going to we're not
going to intervene in that. So it's different than it
(19:57):
used to be. Less rights for women yet. Yes, yes,
I mean, but that's that's part of the shakeout of
the of the deep changes that have been made in society.
You know, like it or not like it. That's the
way it is. You've been listening to the David Carrier
Show on David Carrier Your Family's Personal Attorney.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
David's got the how too you're looking for Just call
seven seven twenty four. This is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Wellcome back to the David Carrier Show on David Carrier,
Your Family's Personal Attorney. You know, we're going to get
to that email I was talking about with the with
the potential gold digger and all the rest of it
taking advantage of widow Dad. We will get back to that.
But there's a there's a case that's up in the
(20:48):
Supreme Court right now, and I think it's in I
think it's kind of important. So I'd like to just
talk about for just a minute. The idea here is
you ever heard of three branches of government? Right the
what the judicial, the legislative, and the executive rights. That's
how we do it in America. The whole checks and
(21:08):
balances idea. Well, if you're Congress, you don't like the
idea that the executive can do what it wants, right.
You want to control them to the extent that you can,
but you still want to get stuff done and you
don't want your fingerprints on it. See, so you got
to think about what is actually going on in the world. Okay,
(21:30):
So you've got the executive, which is the president, single executive,
one person gets to do that. And then you've got
the Congress, what five hundred and thirty five people who
you know, can't agree on what day of the week
it is. So you've got the five hundred and thirty
five fighting it. And now you've got, of course, thousands
of federal judges who think they're the executive. So it's
(21:51):
it's a morass. And if we could get back to
what the original idea was, it seems like to me
that there's you know, Congress uh passes the law, the
executive carries it out right, but Congresses are never happy
with the way the executive does it because half of
(22:13):
them are a different party and they're fighting and stuff
like that. So what they did back in the day,
during Roosevelt FDR's time, is they set up these independent
commissions and the idea was, we're going to control what
the executive can do with these independent commissions and you, executive,
(22:33):
these people are carrying out the law which the Congress
gives to you. They're executing the laws. Okay, that's what
these committeed of Federal Trade Commissions, secuse Exchange Commission, all
these commissions and stuff, right, and they had they had
price boards and all. They're all unbelievable control over the
economy back in the day. Right. But anyway, so there
(22:56):
was this thing called Humphrey's Executor. There's this case case up. So,
but understand what the conflict is. Right, You've got the
executive that says, you know, I had the power off, right,
they think they've got the power to exit faithfully execute
the laws. And then you've got Congress, which passes laws.
But Congress, however, he ever, gets anything done, which incidentally
(23:20):
is a feature, not a bug. It's good that Congress
doesn't get stuff done. You understand. I mean the whole
idea behind, you know, separation of powers and all the
rest of this was the people back then were looking
at what the kings and potentates around the world. Were doing.
(23:40):
Did they move quickly? Yes, too, quickly, too quickly, and
so they got into wars and fighting and all kinds
of stuff because you know, somebody stepped on somebody's toes,
god knows what. Right, So the whole idea in America
was we're going to slow it down, all right. You know,
you got Thomas Friedman writes for New York Times. Right,
he's like, oh, China is so wonderful. Look at all
(24:03):
the wonderful things that they're doing over in China. This
was down ten fifteen years ago, right, Oh, we should
be more like China. And it's like, now, what's happening?
You look over at China and all those things that
he thought was so wonderful. Okay, because there was no
because it was a unitary everything Communist Party took care
of everything, right, there were no checks and balances. And
(24:24):
those things are falling apart. The bridges are falling down,
the high rises. You know, they call it tofu dregs.
The idea is they made these things out of tofu
and not the good part of the tofu. Okay, that's
what happens when you've got power concentrated and you get
these people who think, oh, it be so great to
have concentrated power. No, it wouldn't be. It's worse than anything.
(24:47):
Now if you're an immature, imbecile, right and you oh,
I want stuff right now, I want it right now. Okay, fine,
that's what you get. That's that mentality, that infantile mentality
that I want what I want and I want it now. Okay.
That's what leads to disaster because you concentrate power too much.
(25:10):
So we've got this tension. You've got the laws that
are passed by Congress, which takes a long time to
do it. But those people they want to show results,
you know, they you know, they got the New York
Times and New Warshington boats. Oh, you got to get
stuff done right. And then you've got the executive, which
maybe it likes what Congress is doing, maybe it doesn't
like what Congress is doing, you know, kind of pokey
(25:30):
pokey about getting done what Congress actually wants to get done. So,
in order to get more control, Congress created all these
boards and commissions and stuff to carry out the executive functions.
And they gave themselves the power to appoint people to
these boards to tell the executive what to do. Okay,
(25:50):
that's the scenario. You've got this tension, right. I think
it's a good tension. I think it avoids the problems
of monarchy or totalitarian or authoritarianism, which nonsense, total nonsense. Anyway,
He's what it is. So Congress was trying to control
what the executive would do, which is not what which
(26:14):
is not what the constitution says. Because the executive is
over here, the legislative is over there. They're different, they
don't overlap.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
Then in nineteen thirty five, there was this guy who
was appointed to one of these commissions and they fired
him and he died in office. The guy died, and
so his executor of his will said, hey, you shouldn't
have fired him. You owe us the money that he
would have made, right if you hadn't fired him. Are
(26:44):
you with me on this? So that was the case.
It wasn't you have to give this guy executive power. No,
it was you have to pay him the money, right
as if he kept working. That's what it was. And
the way it's been interpreted is that the president cannot
(27:06):
monkey with these commissions and boards and stuff that Congress
has created to usurp the executive function. Right, that's the case.
That they built all the sime and now we've got
another one, right, that's coming down the pike. And the
reason I'm mentioning it is because it's sort of like,
you know all this, Oh it's authoritarian. No, it's just
re establishing the original balance of power between the legislative
(27:29):
and the executive branch. Okay, maybe I've been listening too
much to these debates and stuff, but it seems like
a big deal. Right. People don't really under you know,
you hear people say stuff and it's like, do you
really know what they're talking about? Now you know what
they're talking about, at least from my perspective, Right, do
your own research. Go to the go to the website,
(27:50):
and that's the AI bot. Hey, what's the deal with
Humphrey's executor? You might get an answer, well, you get
some answer anyway. But what I think it is, what
I think is going on is a rebalancing and right
now the Supreme Court has kind of signaled that they're
ready to overturn Humphrey's executor. That idea that Congress can
(28:12):
say to the executive, the legislative can say to the executive,
we've got these people doing your job, right, creating regulations
that you have to follow and you can't do anything
about it. And I think that I think that's just
going the way of all flesh. I think that's going
to be going away. Because what they did was they
(28:34):
fired some people, and the lower court said, right, lower
court said, you can't do that, put them back in office.
And the Supreme Court said, you can't tell them. Judicial
can't tell the executive right to put these people in
charge of stuff that the legislatures should be in charge
of stuff when it wasn't the legislature's job to do it,
(28:56):
it was the executive's job. I think what we're going
to see here is rebalancing. I mean, you talk about
you talk about shaking the box. The idea. Let me
just give you an idea, a way to think about
the current politics that's going on with the executive branch
right now. Imagine that you've got a situation that isn't working, right,
(29:19):
You've got a whole all this built up stuff. You've
got a box full of stuff and it ain't working.
One way would be to go in and move this
and move that, and rearrange this and rearrange that. That's
a way to do it. The other way is to
take the box and just shake the living crap out
of it right, shake it up right, and let the
pieces fall back in and see where they land. Sound familiar, right,
(29:44):
And then if it's still not working, shake it up
some more. Let's see what else we can get going here.
Maybe we could get peace in the Middle East. Maybe
we could settle multiple squabbles where people are dying for
thirty years on it. Maybe we could settle some stuff.
Maybe we could reshape the box and better things would happen.
And maybe it looks chaotic, and maybe it looks whatever,
(30:07):
maybe it is okay, but maybe we get to a
better place. Maybe we get rid of Humphrey's executor. Just saying,
you've been listening to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
David's perking and working and taking your calls. Now this
is the David Carrier Show.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Well, come back to the David Carrier Show. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney. Now's the time give us a
it's too late for that. Go to the website Davidcarrier
Law dot com Davidcarrier Law dot com and talk to
the AI robot there trained on all of our stuff,
so you know you won't get the recycled crap, you'll
(30:49):
get the good stuff. And you know, and well, I
guess you make that decision. Anyway, give it a give
it a whirl. It's I think it's really I think
it's really cool. Anyway, come to our workshop. That's what
that's what you should do. And sorry for deviating there
into a sort of policy. But you know, when you
talk about marry women property acting, think about how much
(31:12):
things have changed, right, I mean, his history matters, right,
the way things were, the way things are, I mean
they have impact on our immediate life, on her daily life.
So anyway, I think that's why I get inspired for
that to go off on that tangent. Can I prevent
here's an email? Can I prevent my recently widowed father
(31:34):
from giving away large sums of money A large sum
of cash and high value gifts to late wife's former caregiver.
My dad has a large estate consist mostly of cash
plus his home which you owns. Spring Clear, seventy two
years old does not suffer from any cognitive disorders, although
he does lack sophistication. When you're prior to mom's death,
(31:55):
Dad and I, Okay, I are to live in female caregiver.
I'll call her Cruella Deville, aged sixty, who was the
former girlfriend of my dad's best friend. Okay, it doesn't qualified.
Cruella was not formerly trained, nor did she have prior experience,
but Mom had better liked her and was happy with her.
(32:19):
Cruella lived in another state and agreed to move to
our city. She signed a very lucrative contract with the
understanding that Mom was terminally ill on life expectancy a
year or less. Since Mom's death three months ago, Cindy
has not left my father's home. Oh, Spaghettio. I've now
learned that he has gifted her over a quarter million
(32:40):
dollars in cash, including in gifts including a new Mercedes,
a trip to Europe, and access to his credit card.
He also paid out one hundred thousand dollars contract, even
though Mom died before the contract was set to renew.
I don't know if I can prove undue influence since
he of sound mind. I don't trust her, and I
(33:02):
think she's taking advantage of my dad's grief. Now what
and the answer is, if you have somebody who is
legally incapacitated, legally incapacitated, right, cognitive decline, disorders, what have you?
No memory? Things like that, though, that's a basis for
(33:22):
a conservatorship. Okay, when you've got somebody who's got the
uh what do we say, sound mind? You know, who's
got the cognitive decline, who's got the neurological disorders? Stuff
like that, and that's what you typically think of imposing
a conservatorship for someone in that situation. However, however, you
(33:44):
don't have to show, you know, if you go in
for conservatorship, and I'm not advising it, because you got
to be real careful with this stuff, right, You got
to be real careful whenever you go to court on
a loved one. You've got to make sure that everybody
else is behind it, that every you know that you're
not acting maybe unconsciously out of selfish motives, stuff like that.
(34:09):
You've got to you've got to be very sure about
this stuff. But if you are very sure about it,
then you can go to court and you can have
a conservatorship imposed. Where all you're showing is that there's
in a state that would be wasted. Now is it wasting?
In a state to give, you know, three hundred and
fifty thousand dollars plus a credit card, trip to Europe
(34:31):
and a new Mercedes to someone who was supposed to
care for your wife after death. And now you're in
that emotional period. You know, what I keep hearing is
not to make any decisions for a year after your
spouse dies, right, because you're kind of discombobulated. Well, how
discombobulated is this? I don't know. Doesn't seem very good.
(34:57):
I don't know how long it's been three months? Right,
is not? I think that's what we said three months ago. Okay,
she only died three months ago, and in three months
we've given away three hundred and fifth that's called four
hundred thousand, all right, Because you get the credit card too.
Let's say she spent fifty thousand on the credit card,
so that's four hundred thousand in three months. That's a
(35:18):
million six every year? All right? How long can Cruella go?
I don't know. The Dalmatian puppy skins are tough, you know,
very expensive, So you know, in a situation like this,
should you get a conservatorship over dad? Well, it seems
like this is a this is definitely a what would
(35:41):
you say situation where where is there a likelihood that
the estate will be dissipated, you know, so that he's
not able to care for himself. Well, if you're spending money,
you know, at the rate of one hundred but one
hundred and twenty five a month, I think that's what
(36:02):
we get to three months. Yeah, roughly for he seventy five,
one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars. Think about that.
You spend what thirty thousand dollars a week? A week?
Holy cats, I mean, you can't keep that up for
very long. So that would be a good reason to
explore the issue, you know, to talk to dad about
(36:23):
it if he doesn't like it, and he may not
like he won't like it, you know, and you got
to you gotta bite the bullet there. That's a it's
a very difficult thing. I just have to say because
and so often what the result is kids kind of
wash their hands of it. You know, they're like, well,
you know, if you do anything about it, then he
(36:46):
turns on you because he's competent, and he writes you
out of the will or whatever else he got going. Okay,
that's not good. You don't like that, So it's a
it's a really a rock and a hard place where
you're at. But if you're going to do it, it's
legally possible to do it. Even if he's mentally competent,
(37:06):
you can still and you just say, look, there are
assets that would be wasted if the court doesn't intervene.
Is spending thirty forty thousand dollars a week on your
wife's on your best friend's former girlfriend who took care
of your wife for a couple of months, you know?
Is is that a good idea? I don't know, Maybe
it is, you know, And here's the other here's the
(37:29):
other thing. If you're Bill Gates and you're spending you know, uh,
you know, four million dollars a year on somebody, well
you know he's got a lot of millions. But if
you've got if you're a retired doctor or whatever, you
got three million, well you're going to be broke before
you know it. So that that, again is going to
(37:50):
play into it. So there are things that can be done.
There is legal recourse in a situation like this. Whether
or not you're smart to avail yourself of it, that's
another question. And If you do, you want to be
very measured, very step by step about it. Okay, So
that's my advice in a situation like this, You know,
(38:12):
first things first, talk to any family members. If you
have siblings, if his, uh, if your dad's, if your
aunts and uncles are still alive, I'd be I'd be
talking to them. The first move would not be to
file for conservatorship, although you know you might get you
might eventually. You might eventually get there. In the meantime,
(38:35):
you go to one of our three Secrets workshops. These
are the workshops we do every single week. We'd love
to see you there. Just go to the website Davidcarrier
Law dot com. You can sign up ask the AI
expert for the one that's posted to you. I'm David Carrier,
your family's personal attorney.
Speaker 1 (39:09):
You've been listening to the David Carrier Show, a lively
discussion addressing your questions and concerns, but not legal advice.
There is a big difference. So when making decisions that
affect your family, your property, or yourself, the best advice
is to seek good advice specific to your unique needs.
If you missed any of today's show or would like
additional information about the law offices of David Carrier, please
(39:31):
visit Davidcarrier law dot com.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.