Life Estate & rent

[Kong]

Mr. George

dont know a lot about Deeds but a Beneficiary Deed would avoid tax's if the Beneficiary is a close relative. I understand full exception plus the added benefit that if Grantor has change of mind it (Deed) is revocable. Am I on the right track?

[George Boutwell]

I used TOD's and POD's and the Lady Bird Deed because I wanted to avoid probate for my son.

That can work for people who have only one child, and no grandchildren. You're assuming that your son will outlive you, so you aren't concerned about alternate beneficiaries. If you don't have much, you don't have much to worry about.

[George Boutwell]

Beneficiary Deed

dont know a lot about Deeds but a Beneficiary Deed would avoid tax's if the Beneficiary is a close relative. I understand full exception plus the added benefit that if Grantor has change of mind it (Deed) is revocable. Am I on the right track?

Arizona is one of only a few states with beneficiary deeds, so others here may not know what you are talking about. (A beneficiary deed is a revocable P.O.D.-type document.) If you want to finance or refinance your home, your bank may not know what you are talking about either, because most of them are now headquartered in states like North Carolina. One of my clients with a beneficiary deed applied for a bridge loan through Bank of America, a few years back. The bank insisted that they had created a life estate, and wouldn't make the loan.

One disadvantage to a beneficiary deed is that it must be recorded. Not only does your beneficiary know who gets the property, but so does the rest of the world, sometimes decades before your death. The major advantage, of course, is that it can be revoked, unlike the life-estate arrangements favored by the ignorant.

[Davc]

Does anyone remember about a year ago the man on TV news that emptied his gun on the attorney as they ducked back and forth with a tree between them?

An excellent argument for gun control.

[thomtax]

An excellent argument for gun control.

Of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, I remember the incident and don't remember anything being said about this being an illegal weapon. It may well have been very legal and it was just an ordinary person that snapped. In that case, you can make as many onerous laws as you wish and it will not stop anything. It all comes back to responsibility of the individual. If he had been using a hatchet, licensing hatchets would be of little help.

LT

[Davc]

Of course, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, I remember the incident and don't remember anything being said about this being an illegal weapon. It may well have been very legal and it was just an ordinary person that snapped. In that case, you can make as many onerous laws as you wish and it will not stop anything. It all comes back to responsibility of the individual. If he had been using a hatchet, licensing hatchets would be of little help.

LT

Boy did you ever take that the wrong way. If the irate gentleman knew how to control his gun, there'd be one less lawyer to worry about.

[George Boutwell]

Or if he knew how to control his liquor

If the irate gentleman knew how to control his gun, there'd be one less lawyer to worry about.

The man who was videotaped by cameras covering the Robert Blake murder case outside a Van Nuys courthouse shooting his lawyer five times while he ducked behind a small tree has been sentenced to life in prison plus 25 years.

William Strier, 66, was filmed shooting attorney Gerald Curry in the neck, arms and shoulder outside the courthouse on Oct. 31, 2005. Strier was reportedly upset with Curry for the way he handled a $98,000 trust fund that Strier received after he was struck by a car.

During the trial, Strier testified that he didn't remember shooting Curry, that he had taken pain medication, a diet pill and two shots of whiskey earlier that day. During the sentencing he was removed from the courtroom for being disruptive, after he tried to read a statement condemning the jury for his conviction.

http://crime.about.com/b/a/253505.htm

[OldJack]

An excellent argument for gun control.

Yes .. guns should automatically lock on target so you don't miss.

[thomtax]

Sorry

Boy did you ever take that the wrong way. If the irate gentleman knew how to control his gun, there'd be one less lawyer to worry about.

..that I took it the wrong way. I'm afraid that I am frustrated with people using "My momma spanked me"; "I wasn't allowed to go to Disneyland",etc, etc as an excuse ( and it works ) and then someone comes along and wants to make a law against not taking your child to disneyland.

I've always questioned the "hate crime" laws. It is already against the law to murder someone. Enforce that law. I think that I probably would hate someone if I was willing to kill them - don't know - never tried it. Although I have met a few, and I mean few, clients that probably deserved to be shot.:-)

Again, sorry for the previous post.

LT

[jainen]

ducking behind the tree

>>If he had been using a hatchet, licensing hatchets would be of little help<<

No, but ducking behind the tree would have been. What made this such a dangerous encounter was not that this guy was upset or crazy. It's that this crazy, upset guy had a gun.

[OldJack]

>> It's that this crazy, upset guy had a gun.<<

Yeah sure, Jainen. Are you going to tell us that you have not been a little crazy at times and that you don't have a gun?

[jainen]

now and then

>>Are you going to tell us that you have not been a little crazy at times and that you don't have a gun?<<

Well, I get kind of obsessive at times and depressed at other times. I hope I've never been actually homicidal, but maybe I was too crazy to know.

Anyway -- no, I've never had any guns (except for that M-1 down in San Diego in the spring of '67, and a little clay pigeon workout at Boy Scout camp now and then).