To all who live in the State of Illinois, it comes as no surprise that our lawmakers spend a great deal of time on worthless legislation. It also comes as no surprise that we are a State run by mostly Democratic, mostly corrupt, Chicago politicians. Our fearless Attorney General is, in my opinion, no exception. In January of 2012 I read the following article in the State Journal Register online:
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1069934542/Legal-wrinkle-creates-debate-over-debtors-prisons-in-Illinois
The gist of the article was that Ms. Madigan was fairly clueless about how the system operated and wished to make it easier for debtors to avoid paying their bills. It must be a burden for Democrats to continually worry about how they can make life easier for those that make no effort to better their own situation. But, I digress. In response to this article, I penned the following letter to our brilliant A.G.:
Office of the Attorney General
Attn: Lisa Madigan
500 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
RE: “Debtor’s Prison”
Dear Ms. Madigan:
I read with interest the January 21, 2012 article in the State Journal Register entitled “Legal wrinkle creates debate over 'debtors' prisons' in Illinois.” I must say, I am somewhat perplexed.
The article quotes you as stating, “When you fail to show up for a court hearing, that’s when a judge finds you in contempt of court for not showing up and there is a warrant out for your arrest.” You were further quoted as saying, “That gives the lawyers the ability to say (debtors) aren’t being thrown into debtors’ prison, they’re being thrown into prison for contempt of court. To me, that’s disingenuous.”
How is this a disingenuous statement? As in any civil court proceeding, when orders of the Court are not followed, a finding of contempt with a jail sentence is a possibility. Are you insinuating that people who have not fulfilled their financial responsibilities should be exempt from Court Orders?
You make reference in the article to a “pay or show” motion. I have personally never heard of this particular motion in a civil proceeding. However, if a pleading is properly filed and served on a Defendant pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, do you not believe the Defendant should be required to appear in Court on the specified date and time? If a party to a civil suit does not appear after proper notification, should a body attachment warrant not issue?
I am never surprised to see a media outlet misconstrue facts or be uninformed. However, I find your blanket outrage at debt collection to be misguided. It seems that your outrage would be much more properly directed at falsification of affidavits of service and at Judges who set unfairly high bail amounts. Attorneys who follow the rules of civil procedure and play by the rules are not “utilizing taxpayer dollars to collect private debt,” but are zealously pursing civil legal remedies on behalf of their clients.
I further find your outrage to be hypocritical. It would seem that your office spends a large amount of time, money, and manpower pursuing the enforcement of child support payments. Would this not be a debt for which your office utilizes the civil courts in this State to collect? Fortunately for your office, you have many other avenues and punishments at your disposal to collect child support debts. It could be argued that some of these additional punishments for non-payment are even harsher than being arrested for failure to appear.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your statements and positions on this issue and pursue future endeavors in the General Assembly that are actually of benefit to the citizens of the State of Illinois. I anxiously await your response.
Very truly yours,
William B. Bates, Jr.
CC: Representative Rich Brauer
Senator Larry K. Bomke
As I write this blog post, I am still "anxiously" awaiting Ms. Madigan's response. I assume I can take the fact that our esteemed Governor Quinn signed legislation last July that effectuated some of the changes advocated by Ms. Madigan as a pretty good indication of the weight my opinions have. But, a stock response with a stamped signature would have been a nice collector's item.
I realize that a somewhat sarcastic and condescending letter to the A.G. is not likely to win me any popularity contests in that office. However, at some point, it is time for a fundamental shift in the mindset of our leaders, or it is time for new leaders. If we now live in a society where a person cannot be held accountable for their valid debts, I believe we have reached that point.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Fiscal Cliff Averted?
Toward the end of 2012, you could not turn on your television without hearing about the so called "Fiscal Cliff." As with all things, the media beat this dead horse to an everliving pulp. Anyone that works with estate planning issues was curious what Congress would do about the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amounts. Congress certainly kept us guessing right up until the new year.
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
If Congress would not have taken action, the Federal Estate and Gift tax exclusion amount was set to drop from 5 million (adjusted for inflation) to 1 million in 2013. Additionally, an estate would have paid a 55% tax on its assets over and above that amount. Thankfully, for those individuals with substantial assets, Congress did take action in an attempt to remedy this potentially expensive issue. This article linked below does a good job of summarizing the action Congress took, and I do not see much future in re-creating the wheel.
NOTE: This information is for the Federal Estate and Gift tax issues and makes no reference to the State Estate and Gift tax issues.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2013/01/02/after-the-fiscal-cliff-deal-estate-and-gift-tax-explained/
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
My Take on Augusta
Augusta National Golf Club, located in Augusta, Georgia, is home to one of the greatest PGA events of the year, The Masters. Augusta National is a privately owned and operated golf club with notable members such as, Warren Buffet, Pete Coors, and Bill Gates. Membership is by invitation only and, needless to say, I have yet to receive my invitation. (I am sure it just got lost in the mail.)
Over the years, August has been heavily criticized for some of their membership criteria. Most recently, Augusta was lambasted for their men-only membership policy. The Chairman of the Board in 2002, Hootie Johnson, responded with the following:
"Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include Junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish."
Needless to say, this comment, along with others from Mr. Johnson, did not help to extinguish the controversy. Fanatics, such as Martha Burk, continued to espouse her opinion that Augusta was a "sexist" organization. (I have yet to have the opportunity to ask her opinions on the "sexism" of the Girl Scouts or all female sororities.)
Almost ten years after this widely publicized controversy, yesterday, August 20, 2012, Augusta National invited its first two women to become members of the golf club. Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore are both successful, powerful women who will now wear the coveted green jacket.
It is my hope that the members of Augusta have made this decision for the right reasons. In a time were political correctness and an everybody-should-feel-good-about-themselves attitude is overtaking our society, it is easy to be cynical. Hopefully, the members made the conscious decision to move in this direction and did not simply cave to the onslaught of pressure to be politically correct.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Johnson's sentiments regarding private organizations. (Obviously, this argument goes out the window if an organization accepts or is funded by public monies.) However, this is not to say that every person should agree or feel comfortable with the make-up of a private organization.
There are plenty of examples of private organizations that are, in my opinion, ridiculous. (Nazi organizations, Ku Klux Klan, Communist organizations, etc.) But, just as these organizations have the freedom to peacefully organize, I have the freedom to decline membership and laugh at the absurdity of their beliefs.
Political correctness has never been my strong suit, and I am sure, as with Mr. Johnson, many people will disagree with my opinions on this issue. So, to those who disagree, feel free to pick up your "participation ribbon" on the way out.
Over the years, August has been heavily criticized for some of their membership criteria. Most recently, Augusta was lambasted for their men-only membership policy. The Chairman of the Board in 2002, Hootie Johnson, responded with the following:
"Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include Junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish."
Needless to say, this comment, along with others from Mr. Johnson, did not help to extinguish the controversy. Fanatics, such as Martha Burk, continued to espouse her opinion that Augusta was a "sexist" organization. (I have yet to have the opportunity to ask her opinions on the "sexism" of the Girl Scouts or all female sororities.)
Almost ten years after this widely publicized controversy, yesterday, August 20, 2012, Augusta National invited its first two women to become members of the golf club. Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore are both successful, powerful women who will now wear the coveted green jacket.
It is my hope that the members of Augusta have made this decision for the right reasons. In a time were political correctness and an everybody-should-feel-good-about-themselves attitude is overtaking our society, it is easy to be cynical. Hopefully, the members made the conscious decision to move in this direction and did not simply cave to the onslaught of pressure to be politically correct.
Personally, I agree with Mr. Johnson's sentiments regarding private organizations. (Obviously, this argument goes out the window if an organization accepts or is funded by public monies.) However, this is not to say that every person should agree or feel comfortable with the make-up of a private organization.
There are plenty of examples of private organizations that are, in my opinion, ridiculous. (Nazi organizations, Ku Klux Klan, Communist organizations, etc.) But, just as these organizations have the freedom to peacefully organize, I have the freedom to decline membership and laugh at the absurdity of their beliefs.
Political correctness has never been my strong suit, and I am sure, as with Mr. Johnson, many people will disagree with my opinions on this issue. So, to those who disagree, feel free to pick up your "participation ribbon" on the way out.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Corporations are People
I recently had a very horrible experience with a service provider. I will not name any names, as the service provider is an enormous provider with many, many lawyers.
As a quick synopsis of the experience, this is the fourth time I have had to contact this company in the last few months. They have mis-billed me several times, the service was not working, they forgot to bill me for several months and then billed me for all those months without warning, etc. Needless to say, my patience was thin.
For anyone that has ever called a company such as this, you know that you will wait on hold for hours to only accomplish one of the following outcomes:
1. You are disconnected
2. You finally get to speak to a real human, but they unfortunately only speak Swahili
3. You hang up in frustration because you have burned your entire day and have to do something productive or your phone just died
If you are anything like me, you will eventually connect with a real person. Very infrequently are people at these types of companies very friendly. Let's face it, if you got paid minimum wage to talk to people like me about terrible experiences, you would not be very friendly either.
My conversation with this particular "customer service representative" went downhill rather quickly. I cannot (and probably would not) give a play-by-play of this conversation, as I quickly went into a blind rage. This person's day did not get off to a great start.
However, before I decided to abruptly terminate the conversation, I informed this provider that I would most certainly terminate my agreement with them if I ever was forced to grace them with another phone call.
Some may see this as abrasive, my wife included. I also feel somewhat bad for these individuals that have to take the brunt of frustrations that are very much outside of their control. But, it is the company places these people in this position, not me.
This entire encounter made me realize that, politics aside, Corporations are in fact "people." There are all types of people we deal with every day. Some of these people, much like my service provider, are jerks. Nobody really wants to deal with them, but they have something we need and we are forced to deal with them. Some Corporations are just there. Some are very friendly, and always pleasant to deal with.
There are many Corporations I have dealt with that are jerks. For the most part, I do not deal with them. Further, I take every opportunity to tell people I know to steer clear of them. Conversely, if a Corporation is a good person, I am glad to deal with them and recommend them to my friends and family.
So, I say this to any Corporation, don't be a jerk.
As a quick synopsis of the experience, this is the fourth time I have had to contact this company in the last few months. They have mis-billed me several times, the service was not working, they forgot to bill me for several months and then billed me for all those months without warning, etc. Needless to say, my patience was thin.
For anyone that has ever called a company such as this, you know that you will wait on hold for hours to only accomplish one of the following outcomes:
1. You are disconnected
2. You finally get to speak to a real human, but they unfortunately only speak Swahili
3. You hang up in frustration because you have burned your entire day and have to do something productive or your phone just died
If you are anything like me, you will eventually connect with a real person. Very infrequently are people at these types of companies very friendly. Let's face it, if you got paid minimum wage to talk to people like me about terrible experiences, you would not be very friendly either.
My conversation with this particular "customer service representative" went downhill rather quickly. I cannot (and probably would not) give a play-by-play of this conversation, as I quickly went into a blind rage. This person's day did not get off to a great start.
However, before I decided to abruptly terminate the conversation, I informed this provider that I would most certainly terminate my agreement with them if I ever was forced to grace them with another phone call.
Some may see this as abrasive, my wife included. I also feel somewhat bad for these individuals that have to take the brunt of frustrations that are very much outside of their control. But, it is the company places these people in this position, not me.
This entire encounter made me realize that, politics aside, Corporations are in fact "people." There are all types of people we deal with every day. Some of these people, much like my service provider, are jerks. Nobody really wants to deal with them, but they have something we need and we are forced to deal with them. Some Corporations are just there. Some are very friendly, and always pleasant to deal with.
There are many Corporations I have dealt with that are jerks. For the most part, I do not deal with them. Further, I take every opportunity to tell people I know to steer clear of them. Conversely, if a Corporation is a good person, I am glad to deal with them and recommend them to my friends and family.
So, I say this to any Corporation, don't be a jerk.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Turning Pro
I recently read a book entitled Turning Pro by Steven Pressfield, which was recommended by a blogger that I follow. It was a fairly short book, but a decent read. My fellow blogger states, "Turning Pro argues that the essential difference between an
amateur and a pro is not just the right approach, but the right habits,
done for the right reasons."
This past weekend, anyone who is a fan of golf watched the United States Open. If you did watch the Open, it would have been hard to avoid the story of Beau Hossler. This braces clad, 17 year old amateur headed into Sunday only three strokes back from the leaders of the tournament. At one point in the weekend, the young fellow was actually leading the Open at two strokes under par.
In a post-round interview, Hossler stated that he had gone into the weekend with the goal of being the low amateur. With a four stroke lead over the next closest amateur, this looked all but inevitable. However, Mr. Hossler decided to announce to the world that he had changed his goal and believed he was in a position to win the U.S. Open. I imagine if Mr. Pressfield was one of the millions viewing this tournament, he probably shook his head at this proclamation.
Johnny Miller, former PGA Tour Pro and Righteous D-Bag, commented that Hossler should have kept his bold statement to himself. (Miller could stand to keep all of his statements to himself.) I hate to agree with Miller, so I won't. In contrast, I would argue that Hossler simply should not have changed his original goal. When his goal was to be low amateur, there was a lot less pressure on him and he played great. When that goal changed, Hossler steeped a huge amount of pressure on himself.
A "pro" would never have changed his approach after having such great success the previous three days. If Hossler would have continued to focus on being low amateur, it is possible he could have played well enough to win the Open. Winning would not only have been a great bonus, but he would have accomplished his original goal.
Not only did Hossler fail to win the U.S. Open, he posted a 75 on Sunday and fell out of the top amateur spot. It would have been a great story, and shooting plus eight in the most punishing golf tournament of the year is certainly no small accomplishment. But, fans of the game, like myself, can only wonder "what if?"
What if Hossler would have won the U.S. Open? Would he have declared himself as a PGA Tour Pro and taken the almost 1.5 millon dollar purse? (I most certainly would have and would tell anyone do the same.) Would Hossler have gone back to his High School to complete his senior year? The golf world will never know.
"Turning pro" in golf can be as easy as declaring yourself to be a Pro and accepting cash winnings. However, "turning pro" as defined by Pressfield is much more involved. Even if he is not ready to "turn pro" in golf or as defined by Mr. Pressfield, I think it is fair to say the PGA has not seen the last of Beau Hossler.
This past weekend, anyone who is a fan of golf watched the United States Open. If you did watch the Open, it would have been hard to avoid the story of Beau Hossler. This braces clad, 17 year old amateur headed into Sunday only three strokes back from the leaders of the tournament. At one point in the weekend, the young fellow was actually leading the Open at two strokes under par.
In a post-round interview, Hossler stated that he had gone into the weekend with the goal of being the low amateur. With a four stroke lead over the next closest amateur, this looked all but inevitable. However, Mr. Hossler decided to announce to the world that he had changed his goal and believed he was in a position to win the U.S. Open. I imagine if Mr. Pressfield was one of the millions viewing this tournament, he probably shook his head at this proclamation.
Johnny Miller, former PGA Tour Pro and Righteous D-Bag, commented that Hossler should have kept his bold statement to himself. (Miller could stand to keep all of his statements to himself.) I hate to agree with Miller, so I won't. In contrast, I would argue that Hossler simply should not have changed his original goal. When his goal was to be low amateur, there was a lot less pressure on him and he played great. When that goal changed, Hossler steeped a huge amount of pressure on himself.
A "pro" would never have changed his approach after having such great success the previous three days. If Hossler would have continued to focus on being low amateur, it is possible he could have played well enough to win the Open. Winning would not only have been a great bonus, but he would have accomplished his original goal.
Not only did Hossler fail to win the U.S. Open, he posted a 75 on Sunday and fell out of the top amateur spot. It would have been a great story, and shooting plus eight in the most punishing golf tournament of the year is certainly no small accomplishment. But, fans of the game, like myself, can only wonder "what if?"
What if Hossler would have won the U.S. Open? Would he have declared himself as a PGA Tour Pro and taken the almost 1.5 millon dollar purse? (I most certainly would have and would tell anyone do the same.) Would Hossler have gone back to his High School to complete his senior year? The golf world will never know.
"Turning pro" in golf can be as easy as declaring yourself to be a Pro and accepting cash winnings. However, "turning pro" as defined by Pressfield is much more involved. Even if he is not ready to "turn pro" in golf or as defined by Mr. Pressfield, I think it is fair to say the PGA has not seen the last of Beau Hossler.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Perceptions
We all have perceptions about the people and places around us. When I see a person wear a white lab coat, I assume they are some sort of doctor/pharmacist/scientist. Likewise, if a man is wearing a suit and tie, I assume he is a businessman of some sort. It would be strange, and likely frowned upon, to see an attorney walk into a courtroom wearing a white lab coat.
Most of the time a person's wardrobe is dictated by their chosen profession. In my case, the Court dictates that attorneys wear a suit and tie in the courtroom. These rules get fuzzy with women's attire, but who am I to judge someone's dress flip-flops.
I think my favorite profession-dictated attire is that of a major league baseball manager. Why on Earth does a manager wear a full baseball uniform? Even if the team was down to eight players, could you imagine a guy like Don Zimmer waddling out onto the field to take his place at shortstop? I realize this probably would not even be legal, but I digress.
In addition to perceptions based on the way people dress, there are certainly perceptions based on the age of an individual. An older person is usually perceived to be extremely qualified through his years of experience, while a younger person is perceived to be less experienced, thereby less qualified.
PGA professional Rory McIlroy blows this flawed perception out of the water. In 2011, at the ripe age of 22, McIlroy won the U.S. Open by 8 strokes. This would have been a crowning achievement for anyone in the world. However, McIlroy was able to win in spite of his epic meltdown at the Masters only weeks before.
Somewhere along the way, McIlroy's father, Gerry McIlroy, was asked whether he believed Rory was old enough to attain enduring success in the PGA. His father was quoted as saying, "If you are good enough, you are old enough." Point, Gerry McIlroy.
While I likely will not be headed to Court in khaki shorts and a golf shirt anytime soon, I think it is fair to say that some perceptions are just plain silly.
Most of the time a person's wardrobe is dictated by their chosen profession. In my case, the Court dictates that attorneys wear a suit and tie in the courtroom. These rules get fuzzy with women's attire, but who am I to judge someone's dress flip-flops.
I think my favorite profession-dictated attire is that of a major league baseball manager. Why on Earth does a manager wear a full baseball uniform? Even if the team was down to eight players, could you imagine a guy like Don Zimmer waddling out onto the field to take his place at shortstop? I realize this probably would not even be legal, but I digress.
In addition to perceptions based on the way people dress, there are certainly perceptions based on the age of an individual. An older person is usually perceived to be extremely qualified through his years of experience, while a younger person is perceived to be less experienced, thereby less qualified.
PGA professional Rory McIlroy blows this flawed perception out of the water. In 2011, at the ripe age of 22, McIlroy won the U.S. Open by 8 strokes. This would have been a crowning achievement for anyone in the world. However, McIlroy was able to win in spite of his epic meltdown at the Masters only weeks before.
Somewhere along the way, McIlroy's father, Gerry McIlroy, was asked whether he believed Rory was old enough to attain enduring success in the PGA. His father was quoted as saying, "If you are good enough, you are old enough." Point, Gerry McIlroy.
While I likely will not be headed to Court in khaki shorts and a golf shirt anytime soon, I think it is fair to say that some perceptions are just plain silly.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Top 7 Reasons to Execute a Last Will & Testament
Who doesn't love a good list? There are countless reasons an individual should draft and execute a Last Will and Testament. However, I would like to outline what I believe to be the top 7 reasons:
#7. Avoiding Taxes.
Creating or establishing a plan to protect assets from the State or Federal Government is, in my opinion, always an excellent strategy. After all, you worked hard to obtain the things you own and less taxes paid to the Government means more assets for your beneficiaries.
#6. Protecting your beneficiaries from themselves.
Depending on the individuals or organizations you determine you would like to inherit your assets, it might be wise to protect those individuals or organizations from themselves. The easiest way to explain this is to use a couple hypothetical situations.
Ex. 1) Great Uncle Harry is a spendthrift, alcoholic, and drug user, but you would still like to provide for him. Additionally, you do not want him to blow his inheritance on a week long bender.
Ex. 2) You would like to see that your assets are protected and available to fund a project or cause indefinitely.
The possible examples which fall into this category are limitless.
#5. Nomination of Executor.
The person you select as your Executor will eventually gather your assets and distribute your Estate according to the terms of your Will. If an Executor is not nominated by a deceased individual by way of a Will, State law provides, by default, who may act.
I am of the opinion that a personally chosen individual is superior to a "default." (You might see a theme developing.)
#4. Waiving Bond or Surety on Bond.
Without getting too in depth, an individual appointed by the Court to administer an Estate of an individual may be required to post bond or surety.
The amount of the bond is largely dependent on the size of the Estate of the deceased individual. However, the ability to release your chosen Executor of this burden can be accomplished in a Will.
#3. Nominating a Guardian for Minor Children.
Any parent of a Minor Child (under 18) can move this to the number 1 reason on your list.
Considering who will care for that Minor in the event of an unfortunate event is a huge decision. However, if a nomination is not made, the person who ultimately becomes Guardian of that Minor may not be the same person you would choose.
#2. Choosing Beneficiaries.
You can choose the individuals and/or organizations you want to have your "stuff."
This reason is simple, yet one of the most important reasons I can offer. As you may have guessed, if you do not choose your beneficiaries, the government will.
#1. Letting your desires be known.
This is a broad reason, and encompasses many of the other reasons I have listed above. However, when you are gone, a Last Will and Testament is the only way to tell the world how to execute your wishes.
There is my list. I am sure there are other reasons to execute a Will, and I am sure there could be lively (for some) debate about my ranking of the reasons I have listed.
Always remember, once you have executed a Will, make sure you do not use it for a very, very long time.
#7. Avoiding Taxes.
Creating or establishing a plan to protect assets from the State or Federal Government is, in my opinion, always an excellent strategy. After all, you worked hard to obtain the things you own and less taxes paid to the Government means more assets for your beneficiaries.
#6. Protecting your beneficiaries from themselves.
Depending on the individuals or organizations you determine you would like to inherit your assets, it might be wise to protect those individuals or organizations from themselves. The easiest way to explain this is to use a couple hypothetical situations.
Ex. 1) Great Uncle Harry is a spendthrift, alcoholic, and drug user, but you would still like to provide for him. Additionally, you do not want him to blow his inheritance on a week long bender.
Ex. 2) You would like to see that your assets are protected and available to fund a project or cause indefinitely.
The possible examples which fall into this category are limitless.
#5. Nomination of Executor.
The person you select as your Executor will eventually gather your assets and distribute your Estate according to the terms of your Will. If an Executor is not nominated by a deceased individual by way of a Will, State law provides, by default, who may act.
I am of the opinion that a personally chosen individual is superior to a "default." (You might see a theme developing.)
#4. Waiving Bond or Surety on Bond.
Without getting too in depth, an individual appointed by the Court to administer an Estate of an individual may be required to post bond or surety.
The amount of the bond is largely dependent on the size of the Estate of the deceased individual. However, the ability to release your chosen Executor of this burden can be accomplished in a Will.
#3. Nominating a Guardian for Minor Children.
Any parent of a Minor Child (under 18) can move this to the number 1 reason on your list.
Considering who will care for that Minor in the event of an unfortunate event is a huge decision. However, if a nomination is not made, the person who ultimately becomes Guardian of that Minor may not be the same person you would choose.
#2. Choosing Beneficiaries.
You can choose the individuals and/or organizations you want to have your "stuff."
This reason is simple, yet one of the most important reasons I can offer. As you may have guessed, if you do not choose your beneficiaries, the government will.
#1. Letting your desires be known.
This is a broad reason, and encompasses many of the other reasons I have listed above. However, when you are gone, a Last Will and Testament is the only way to tell the world how to execute your wishes.
There is my list. I am sure there are other reasons to execute a Will, and I am sure there could be lively (for some) debate about my ranking of the reasons I have listed.
Always remember, once you have executed a Will, make sure you do not use it for a very, very long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)