(310) 316-2400 info@ledwitzlaw.com
Contact Us

Estate Planning

South Bay Bar Association “Ask a Lawyer” Program May 1, 2014

by | Last updated Jul 6, 2019 | Estate Planning

Members of the South Bay Bar Association will be available to answer your legal questions at no charge in celebration of National Law Day. The Law Firm of Bezaire, Ledwitz & Associates, APC will be participating in the “Ask a Lawyer” Program. Mark your calendars if you would like to come meet representatives from our firm who will be participating. Date: Thursday, May 1, 2014 Time: 8:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Address: Torrance Superior Court, First Floor, 825 Maple Avenue, Torrance, California 90503 For more information, visit their website. You can also contact our firm at...

DOMA: Perry Doesn’t Address State Law Concerns

by | Last updated Feb 22, 2023 | Estate Planning, Same Sex Estate Planning

DOMA: Perry Doesn’t Address State Law Concerns As discussed in previous posts by this blog and numerous other commentators, the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor resulted in the Defense of Marriage Act (commonly abbreviated as “DOMA”) being ruled unconstitutional, causing same-sex married couples to be federally recognized. What many people do not know is that another case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was not decided by the Court due to procedural reasons. The Perry case could have had the same effect on state law as Windsor had on federal law—invalidating state laws that did not recognize same-sex marriages. The Court’s refusal to rule on the merits of Perry allows state courts to have the ultimate decision about whether state laws that ban or fail to acknowledge same-sex marriage are constitutional. Because the states have no federal precedent to obey, considerable uncertainty exists about how same-sex couples are treated within individual borders. The lack of uniformity means that despite being recognized for federal purposes, a same-sex married couple can be disregarded within a state depending on local law. This is a highly variable situation, as Paul Ferrara, Senior VP of Wealth Management at US Trust, aptly describes in the following scenario: “Imagine a same-sex married couple travels by train from Boston to Washington, DC. The train made stops in Providence, New Haven, New York, Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore and then Washington. If the couple disembarked the train in Providence, New Haven, New York, Baltimore and then Washington, their marriage would be recognized. However, if they disembarked in Newark, Philadelphia or Wilmington, the marriage would not be recognized. The...

Estate Planning For Your Children – It’s Not Just About The Money

by | Last updated Feb 22, 2023 | Advance Health Care Directive, Children's Trusts, Estate Planning, HIPAA, Living Trusts, Trusts, Wills

Most people near the age of majority do not have large estates (money or property) and many families assume that this means an estate plan is completely unnecessary. This is simply not true. A comprehensive estate plan does much more than protecting property from probate and directing the disposition of assets—estate plans also tell medical and financial institutions who is authorized to make decisions on your behalf. Without current, effective documents, these institutions may refuse to release medical information and will likely not allow family members to make healthcare decisions.

DOMA and Estate Planning

by | Last updated Feb 22, 2023 | Estate Planning, Same Sex Estate Planning, Trusts

Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled on United States vs. Windsor—a case that argued the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA’s Section 3 controversially defined a “marriage,” for federal tax law and benefits, as only between one man and one woman, and defined “spouse” as a person only of the opposite sex. Section 2 of DOMA also stated that states that did not allow same-sex marriages did not have to recognize those marriages from other jurisdictions. The Windsor court struck down Section 3 as unconstitutional—removing it from the statute as though it had never existed. Section 2 was not ruled on, leaving some gray area when it comes to states’ recognition of out-of-state same sex marriages. The IRS, following the decision, was decidedly less equivocal—issuing Revenue Ruling 2013-17, stating that same-sex couples, legally married in a state or foreign jurisdiction that authorizes the marriage, will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes. In California, Hollingsworth v. Perry held that Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in the state, was also unconstitutional—allowing California same-sex couples to join into IRS-recognized valid marriages. Notably, this does not apply to civil unions, registered domestic partnerships, or other non-marital relationships, regardless of what rights or privileges are bestowed upon those types of unions by states. So what does this decision mean for same-sex couples in an Estate Planning context? Prior to the Windsor decision, same-sex couples historically faced challenges to planning their estates, including: Persistent need to define property rights by contract. High chance of Will contests. Difficulty enforcing inheritance rights of adopted children. Simply, the IRS ruling...