Since the issue of whether to use "one size fits all" legal forms (i.e. LegalZoom, etc) vs. hiring a lawyer comes up often on this forum, I thought some of you might find this story interesting.

Estate dispute caused by ‘E-Z Legal Form’ is a ‘cautionary tale,’ says justice

quote:

---

Concurring Justice Barbara Pariente saw the ruling as a cautionary tale. “While I appreciate that there are many individuals in this state who might have difficulty affording a lawyer,” Pariente said, “this case does remind me of the old adage ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish.’ …

“I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees—the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.”

---

Well crap.... the title should say "a cautionary tale"

A judge making a statement that might benefit the legal community? Shocking.

Let me go to google and find how many times someone got screwed by real lawyer....................




I'm back. Too many results to post but you get the idea.

quote:

---

A judge making a statement that might benefit the legal community? Shocking.

---

What's next, a CPA telling me I shouldn't do my own taxes

From a purely self-interested place there's a lot more for the legal community to make on the administration of a poorly done estate plan than on the drafting of a proper one. No one really likes to see all those avoidable problems though.

People don't generally try to be their own tailor, plumber, or mechanic and for good reason. Most of us shouldn't be our own attorney either.

I'm not sure how the judge gets to a place where she can comment that a ruling she made frustrated the testator's intent. But then, I'm no lawyer.

At the end of the day...if you have money...hire a professional.

The wealthiest people have one thing in common: they delegate.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how the judge gets to a place where she can comment that a ruling she made frustrated the testator's intent. But then, I'm no lawyer.

---

If the law sets forth a specific way something has to be done, it doesn't matter what your intent was. If you didn't do it right, you didn't do it.

This is especially true when it comes to estate planning and asset distribution. There are specific legal requirements to have a valid will. If you don't meet them, too bad. For instance, if you take a pen and scrawl out a will on a napkin and sign it, you have a valid will. If you type out the exact same will on your computer, print it, and sign it, you don't.

The law provides specific ways for a person to make their wishes legally effective. If you don't do that, then you're stuck with the default rules. The question isn't whether you have an estate plan or not, it's whether you have one you chose or one the state wrote for you. This lady didn't do it right so she ended up with the one-size-fits-all intestate distribution.

Then replace judge with legal system. No one seems to have any doubt about what the lady planned to do, but the legal system is so... something... that a judge can sit there and say "she clearly meant to do X, but instead we're going to do Y." I understand the need for precision in writing legal documents, and her family is evidence of that very need since they took this to court in the first place, but what is a judge for if not to make sure the right thing is done?

I guess I could take either side of the ensuing argument. Just seems odd. Big difference between a will hacked out on legal zoom by a little old lady and a corporate contract or the Constitution.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited 4/4/2014 10:02p).]

The thing is you could get 10 judges and 100 lawyers and they would all disagree about what is what!

I have been in meetings where they (Lawyers that worked for the Feds no doubt) argued the meaning of "and/or".

The reason for the strict requirements is that the testator isn't around to clear up confusion. One instance where a living trust may be smart is where the person knows family will be contentious (trusts can be contested and misconstrued too, but the issue may arise while the settlor is alive). A risk of relaxing formalities of execution is that there would be higher risk of fraud. That's why a will wholly in the testator's handwriting may be valid (though it will require witnesses to testify that it is the person's handwriting), someone typing that same will out and signing it with no witnesses doesn't create a valid will because witnesses can't confirm that it's the testator's handwriting.

It's also worth noting that attorneys can mess up too, but if this lady had gotten a will from an attorney and it had an error the family could sue the attorney. When you do your own legal work there's no one to sue if you mess up.

[This message has been edited by 2001%er (edited 4/5/2014 3:15p).]

quote:

---

but what is a judge for if not to make sure the right thing is done?

---

The judge's job is to apply the law. Even if that means "the right thing" is not done. It's a bedrock of the rule of law in our system

Of course plenty of judges are happy to make up crap to suit themselves but that's not how the system is designed to work

Why somebody would want to wing it on their own with some of the most important legal documents for their family's future is beyond me.