Here are the cases Rebecca Morgan and that guy she was carrying talked about this afternoon:
J.P. v. Mo. Fam. Supp. Div., 2010 WL 1539870 (Mo App, 04/20/10) — Missouri’s statute requiring that the institutionalized spouse be named as primary beneficiary of any annuity is interpreted to permit the community spouse to be the first beneficiary, the IS second, and the state third.
State ex rel. Indiana State Bar Ass’n v. United Financial Systems Corp., 2010 WL 1486902 (Ind, 02/14/2010) — Unauthorized practice of law complaint against a trust marketing group which charged $2695, paid an attorney $225 and the salesman $750 for each trust sold.
Alford v. Miss. Div. Medicaid, 30 So. 3d 1212 (Mississippi, Mar. 2010) — Mississippi Court of Appeals rules that community spouse can not seek an increased CSRA or CSMIA in court proceeding until after “administrative remedies” are exhausted.
Doherty v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 2010 WL 1053053 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1 Dist.) (03/11/2010)(unreported) — Trust for surviving spouse gave her the power to direct distributions. Trustee declined to make distributions, and the surviving spouse brought an action to (a) compel the distribution and (b) establish that the trustee’s failure to make the distribution created a vacancy in the office of trustee. State Court of Appeals agrees.
Miller v. Kresser, 2010 WL 1779899 (Fla. App. 05/05/2010) — spendthrift trust does not “merge” just because the trustee lets the beneficiary direct trust administration and distributions. Beneficiary’s creditors can not pierce the trust.
Wade, PR of Estate of Wade v. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. 2010 WL 1849376 (Mo.Ct. App. 05/11/2010) — recovery against mortgage company for abusive practices in marketing loans to vulnerable seniors to have them order home repairs. Very interesting narrative about how the loan company worked.
E.S. v. Div. Medical Assistance & Health Services, 990 A.2d 701 (NJ App, Mar. 2010) — 97-year-old mother paid daughter $56,550 for life care contract. State intermediate appellate court ruled that the agreement had no economic validity: “it is specious to suggest otherwise.”