The Revocable Trust In Florida: Fill & Download for Free

Problem #1: SitusI have no knowledge of either Florida or Maryland law. But Washington law provides that a Will written elsewhere if valid in that jurisdiction is valid in Washington. So if you moved from Florida to Washington, your estate documents if valid in Florida should be valid in Washington.Requisites of wills-Foreign wills.Problem #2: Using multiple documents for disposition of property at death.From what you have said, I infer that you have both a Will and a revocable living trust, both of which provide for disposition of interests in property at your death. At least in my experience, that’s an invitation for estate litigation, at least I’ve had a number of cases where both a Will and a living trust were used to dispose of property, and they did so inconsistently, resulting in litigation. I would encourage you to confine your dispositive provisions to one document, either a Will or a Living Trust (and if a Living Trust to also use a pour-over Will as a safety device).Problem #3: Life estate.Life estates, particularly for one’s home, are problematic; I cannot recall ever seeing a life estate used in a Will prepared by an attorney (and I’ve seen and probated thousands), and for good reason. Those many problems should be able to be solved in a Will using a testamentary trust or quite simply in a living trust. I would encourage you to eliminate your life estate and use a better method (namely, some type of trust) of obtaining virtually the same result (but without the problems presented by a life estate).Problem #4: Local attorney.Bottom line: I respectfully suggest that you could benefit from a consultation with an experienced estate and probate attorney in your new jurisdiction, Maryland, to determine its relevant laws and how they may affect you and your husband. If you don’t know where to turn to find one, you might call your local county bar association and ask to speak with its lawyer referral service, who should be able to consult with you for a modest fee. Alternatively, I have uniformly used the attorney list available on the NAELA.org website to find competent estate and probate counsel elsewhere.Richard Wills, retired probate attorney originally licensed in CA & WA

Curt Thurston wants to know:“Do you agree or disagree with this list of ten points in the Forbes article “Ten Lies Distort The Gun Control Debate”?”A link to a Forbes article is provided….Yeah, about that link; here’s a quote of the “journalistic integrity” that is at play in the “article:”thanks mostly to its long, unsecured border with North Alabamastan (sometimes called Indiana).Fucking really….Now, to the meat of the linked article:Lie #1: There is no connection between mass gun ownership and gun deaths.It seems obvious that a country flooded with guns will have higher rates of gun deaths than countries with few of these weapons. Why are land mines and hand-grenades forbidden in the so-called “Land of the Free,” despite their obvious value in home defense? Because everyone understands that placing these killing machines in circulation would get a lot of people killed. So why don’t we recognize the same problem with guns?Well, that’s kind of like saying a country with lots of cars will have higher rates of car deaths than countries with few cars.Landmines and hand-grenades are covered under the National Firearms Act as destructive devices.You can legally own them provided you canFind one for sale that you can afford.Pay the $200 per item transfer taxPass the background checkWait the 8 to 14 months for the background check to be completedFacts are important.There is also a conflation with suicides whereby the anti-gun crowd includes all firearm deaths, including those at your own hand, in the entirety of gun crime statistics.Given that the United States is about on par with Europe (126 per million versus 117 per million) for suicide rate I don’t think guns are the problem there. So too, when you look at South Korea and Japan, each with at least 2x the American suicide rate and either no civilian gun ownership or extremely restricted gun ownership the comparison finishes falling like the house of cards it is.Lie #2: We don’t need stronger gun regulation because gun violence is declining.This lie is fun because of the way it depends on careful framing. Gun violence, defined as crimes committed with guns, has been declining for decades. That makes sense, since crime in general has been declining for decades. However, despite a lower crime rate, guns are now competing with automobile accidents for one of the leading causes of premature death in the US. When accidents and suicides are included in the statistics, gun deaths have been consistently rising while most other causes of death declined. And when gun deaths and injuries are compared to rates in other countries, it is hard to build a chart big enough to properly picture America’s towering rates of slaughter.Yes, the lies on the anti-gun crowd do need careful framing.See above for suicides.As for automobile accidents, there is a massive push for driver education which is a key component in reducing automobile accidents.I’m all for education on guns, and I’ve said so many times.Given that schools now need to teach my kids how to swim, how to have safe sex, and that it’s OK for Billy to have two mommies I firmly believe they need to teach firearms safety. Firearms ownership is a fundamental right and the fact that shooting and shooting sports have been taken from schools (though that trend is reversing in some places) is part of the problem.“America’s towering rates of slaughter”Yeah, I’m going to leave the yellow-journalism alone…Lie #3: We didn’t have this problem “in my day” because people loved Jesus and didn’t play violent video games.According to Franklin Graham, gun violence happens because Americans “turned our backs on God.” His “kids these days” explanation of gun carnage is a favorite of drunk uncles in MAGA caps all over the country. Though these claims frequently sour Thanksgiving dinners, they lack empirical support.How utterly dismissive of a point of view that has some worth, unless the author of this yellow journalism tripe views any Conservative or Pro-gun view as worthless (which is likely the case).As to the “if it bleeds it leads” news cycle is it any wonder there are people willing to inflict mass carnage if they know, or have reason to believe, that they will have some measure of infamy in the wake of their actions?I believe it would be a “common sense” control to never use the name of the shooter in ANY news coverage, with a 1-day revocation of the license to broadcast for each infraction of the law.Perhaps without infamy these people wouldn’t be likely to go on their rampages.It was also quite telling that the shooting in Texas with a pump shotgun and a revolver, and with citizens who told the carpet-bagging (maybe need to be tea-bagged?) newsies to pound sand didn’t continue to stir the same level of outrage and astroturf reaction that the Florida school shooting evoked.It is also quite telling that the kid who was intrigued by ISIS and brought a bomb to school (it didn’t go off) got far less coverage than one would expect.It’s almost like there is a concerted effort to make a lot of air-time out of tragedies to push an agenda…Lie #4: The Second Amendment blocks gun regulation.Americans happily place curbs on our rights to religious freedom, blocking people from committing acts of violence, fraud or abuse in the name of faith. Free speech is limited by laws banning libel or incitement. Americans have a constitutionally protected right to obtain an abortion, yet many of the same people advocating Second Amendment absolutism suddenly lose interest in the constitution when the subject turns to reproductive rights. As a general rule, people tend to cite constitutional protections when they don’t want to debate the merits of an issue. Gun advocates are passionate about civil liberties until those liberties become inconvenient.Yeah, about that…I don’t disagree that there are some on the pro-gun side who meet those criteria.The “protected right” to an abortion is a bit of a stretch in my opinion as medical procedures are not covered under the Constitution while the right to keep and bear arms is.The laws governing libel or incitement don’t ban, or stop the speech; they provide punishment should you violate acceptable societal norms.I also find it funny that the anti-gun crowd is all for due process protections until it comes to something like putting people on the no-fly-list into the “prohibited persons” database for the NICS.Hypocrisy abounds on all sides, and this piece of yellow journalism stinks to high heaven.Lie #5: The solution to gun violence is more gun ownership.This lie would be too bizarre to earn column space, but politicians are actually using it build policy, putting guns in places like schools, churches and bars. There is no empirical basis for the claim, but it is sometimes accompanied by one misleading data point.In a twist on Lie #2, gun advocates sometimes point out that a massive rise in gun sales in recent decades has coincided with a long decline in crime rates. Reductions in crime have also coincided with a long trend of rising ocean temperatures, and an increase in the number of black quarterbacks in the NFL. Without some explanation of cause, this factoid is useless.Further complicating this argument is an inconvenient fact – crime rates have been falling in recent decades all over the civilized world. How has the surge in US gun sales somehow triggered simultaneous declines in criminal activity in Britain, Germany, France and so on? It hasn’t, because there is no connection between US gun sales and declining crime rates.There’s another interesting dimension to this lie. Gun sales have surged in recent years in the US, but gun ownership is declining. Fewer American households own a gun than at any point in the past half a century. Only three percent of gun owners possess about half of all the weapons in circulation in the US. Today in the US, the average gun owner possesses eight weapons. America has far more guns in private circulation than at any time in its history, but three quarters of Americans do not own one. Mass gun ownership has no relationship to declining crime rates.Yet there is empirical evidence to back the claim.Israel had a couple of incidents of school shootings.And then they added armed staff and haven’t had a school shooting since.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/why-school-shootings-are-so-rare-in-israel-where-guns-are-such-a-common-sight/2018/02/22/1fce546a-17e3-11e8-930c-45838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.67b1af4f3020Yeah, the whole second paragraph is literal shit and not worth my efforts to debunk it.The third paragraph… yeah, crime rates are NOT falling in the rest of the world.And with the rise in gun ownership in the United States one would think that our country would break the trend and have increased crime.I will need to do some digging because a quick Google-Fu of crime rates comparisons only comes up with data through 2010… hummm……As to the number of households owning guns… These are the same polling organizations that were predicting somewhere north of 300 electoral college votes for Twice Failed Candidate Clinton.Just as people won’t talk about wanting to vote for Donald Trump they likely won’t talk about gun ownership.But I could be mistaken.The 75% not owning guns is a bit off though.American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years, the number is about 64%, and that is based on what people are willing to admit over the phone.Then again the OP might be one of those people who think 1/4 is larger than 1/3.What's bigger: 1/3 pound burgers or 1/4 pound burgers?Lie #6: Chicago has tight gun restrictions and mass gun violence. Ergo, gun laws don’t work.Chicago’s seemingly intractable problem with gun violence is one of America’s fondest fascinations. It’s also a myth. Chicago has more gun murders than other large cities like New York and Los Angeles, thanks mostly to its long, unsecured border with North Alabamastan (sometimes called Indiana). However, Chicago’s murder rate still lags far behind the nation’s leaders, many of which are in red states with loose gun restrictions.America’s capital of gun violence is in deep-red Louisiana. New Orleans suffers from four times the rate of gun murders as Chicago. Such terrifying urban hellscapes as Kansas City, Memphis and Atlanta all rack up much higher rates of gun violence than Chicago. Expand the inquiry beyond crime, to include accidental gun deaths and suicide, and Chicago simply recedes from the frame. The obvious conclusion also happens to be an empirical fact: states with high levels of gun ownership have higher levels of gun death.With its supposedly restrictive gun regulations, why should Chicago even show up on the list? Only through a determination to avoid the obvious can one struggle with this question.A Chicagoan can walk across a street into Indiana and purchase firearms from an unlicensed seller with no tracking of that transaction. That person can then walk back across the street into Chicago and commit a crime. This is a common practice. Most of the guns used in a crime in Chicago are originally purchased in Indiana or Mississippi. And of course, Indiana’s rate of gun deaths is roughly a third higher than in Illinois.In a strictly technical sense, most of those untracked transactions are illegal. However, our gun laws have been crafted to make enforcement virtually impossible, a fine introduction to the next lie.Yeah, the yellow journalism is so fetid on this whole section I’m not inclined to deal with the steaming pile of bovine excrement.Lie #7: We should enforce existing gun laws before imposing new ones.Calls for more determined enforcement of existing gun laws are the most darkly cynical lie in the debate over guns. Our gun laws are carefully crafted to be unenforceable.One law stands out as the most critical obstacle to enforcement of gun restrictions. A minor provision of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act bans states or federal agencies from building gun registries. Six states already possessed some form of registry, thus were exempted, but further efforts to break the enforcement of gun regulations made it difficult for them to leverage that information in any useful way.Congress has protected gun companies from lawsuits. Threats from the NRA have blocked the Centers for Disease Control from researching gun deaths. State and federal laws block law enforcement officials from effectively tracking weapons used in crimes.Our gun laws are QUITE enforceable.The FBI knows when you try to buy a gun from a dealer and are a prohibited person. This happens over 35,000 times per year with less than 350 prosecutions.U.S. files criminal charges in fraction of gun denial cases, Mayors Against Illegal Guns saysCongress didn’t shield gun companies from lawsuits if their products are defective. Congress stopped the attempts to sue the gun makers out of business for the actions of criminals.Why did Congress grant firearms manufacturers an exemption from product liability lawsuits? Is this a good thing?The CDC isn’t blocked from researching firearms and violence. They are forbidden from putting their thumbs on the scales and passing off junk as science.Why we can't trust the CDC with gun researchAs to a national gun registry: Pound sand. There is zero need for one. At. All.Lie #8: We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.Claims of a Second Amendment right to overthrow the government may be false, but they get us very close to understanding the honest motives behind the gun lobby.I refer you to the Battle of Athens.The Battle Of AthensI refer you to the Riots in Los AngelesIn these cases the citizens needed firearms to protect their selves from government.In the first case it was a corrupt local government where the State and Federal governments didn’t protect the people.In the second case it was government retreat in the wake of civil violence that required dispatching federal troops.Enough of the lies about people not needing guns to protect against the government, because sometimes the protection is from government INACTION.Lie #9: No legislation can curb gun deaths in the US.Americans now have more guns in circulation than citizens. No credible regulatory scheme, no matter how smart or ambitious, is likely to bring the rate of gun deaths in America in line with global standards anytime soon. Whatever we achieve politically in the near term can only be a down-payment on a better world for our children.There are a few smart measures that could begin to slow the carnage and place us on a path to a safer future. If we start soon and persist over time, future generations can enjoy lives relatively free from mass gun violence while preserving their historic right to own weapons. Perhaps our most promising model would borrow lessons from the regulation of our other most dangerous product – automobiles.Registration and insurance would not stop every crime, just like they fail to stop every automobile death. They would, however, begin to bring down gun deaths almost immediately. Faced with registration and insurance costs, declines in casual gun ownership would accelerate. It would become very expensive to maintain a gun-nut arsenal of dozens of weapons. Insurance costs would power the spread of trigger locks, gun safes and other safety protections. Registries would empower police to enforce gun laws.Yeah, Progressives don’t REALLY want that…Why not treat guns like cars, i.e., why not license gun owners, register the guns and require gun owners to carry insurance?As to the enforcement schemes, not without voiding the Fourth and Fifth amendments.Really….Lie #10: Americans oppose tighter gun regulation.When presented with concrete proposals to regulate guns, majorities of Americans almost always favor them.I’m going to go back to this one:What's bigger: 1/3 pound burgers or 1/4 pound burgers?Yeah, most people don’t have a clue about what the current laws are.I would LOVE to craft the questions to account for that variable.This piece from Forbes is tripe, utter and complete fetid tripe.Easy to disprove with the clenched fist of truth.