Love & the Law: What Is Animus Anyway?
Animus (a-ni-mus) n. hostility or ill feeling. Animus malus n. evil motive. Animus was the central rationale for ‘Amendment 2’, a Colorado referendum proposing to change the state’s constitution, and the animus was targeted at Colorado’s LGBT community. However, the Supreme Court has long disliked the blatant taste of animus and so killed Amendment 2 in the Court’s hallowed courtroom at 1 First Street in 1996, with its ruling in Romer v. Evans. As the nails were firmly pounded into Amendment 2’s coffin, the right of LGBT persons to be protected from discrimination was placed squarely on the law books. The Facts. In the early ‘90’s, several Colorado municipalities passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ordinances applied to sectors such as housing, employment, education, and public accommodations. Sounds reasonable, right? Well, the Colorado legislature, speaking for the people of Colorado, thought otherwise and proposed Amendment 2, a referendum that would have changed Colorado’s constitution and repeal the ordinances. In essence, Amendment 2, after it was voted in, prohibited the protections the ordinances provided. Gay and lesbian Colorado citizens who were also employed by the state along with 3 of the municipalities sued on the grounds that enforcing Amendment 2 would cause the State of Colorado to discriminate against its LGBT citizens. The trial court and the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado agreed with the plaintiffs. Yet, the state persisted, arguing all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, that Amendment 2 treats LGBT persons just like everyone else, only denying them “special rights.” Reading the Court’s Opinion, one could almost feel the Court’s bristling at the State’s audacity. The Court stated that Amendment 2 DOES NOT DENY special rights but WITHDRAWS rights from LGBT persons that all other Colorado citizens have with respect to not being discriminated against. The Court explained that the ordinances in question weren’t providing special rights but exemplifying the growing number of municipalities across the country that was codifying the DUTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE. As a result, Amendment 2, as the plaintiffs argued, “imposes a special disability on [LGBT] persons alone.\” Continuing its admonition to the State’s defense team, the Court said that Amendment 2 not only deprived LGBT persons of protections afforded by the laws designed to eradicate particular discrimination but the referendum also removed protections of general laws that prohibited arbitrary discrimination. What does this have to do with love, one may be wondering. Well, if discrimination is prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation or gender, then one cannot discriminate against one woman because she loves another woman or one man because he loves another man (ala Lawrence) if the basis of your argument is that laws relating to love (read the right to marry – ala Loving) should be based on heterosexuality. In the beginning of Romer, Justice Kennedy read from Justice Harlan’s dissent of the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson, stating “the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”” Justice Kennedy anchored Romer stating emphatically that the only reason for the referendum and any law like it would be one based upon animus, and that this type of malicious motive could not be grounds for a legitimate government interest needed to uphold a law under the U.S. Constitution. Case closed. Coffin shut. Rights protected. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2 p.s. I went a little out of order here. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided before Romer, but Bowers is more closely related to Lawrence, so please excuse the reasonable digression.
Love & the Law: The Color of Love, So Sayeth the Law
In the first part of this series, \”Love & the Law,\” I discussed the undergirding of the marital relationship – privacy. This second part of the series examines a case that challenged the legal definition involving what parties to a marriage should look like, literally. Loving v. Virginia, which was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court a little more than 45 years ago to this day, banned laws prohibiting blacks and whites to marry. The facts of the case are fairly straightforward: In 1958, Mildred, who was African American, and Richard (Loving), who was white, lived in Virginia and were married in Washington D.C. They returned to Virginia to live and were charged and found guilty of violating Virginia state laws. The first law the Lovings violated was leaving the state to get married with the intent of returning to live as spouses when such a marriage was prohibited by Virginia state law, and theirs was such a marriage. In Virginia, interracial marriage was a felony, ergo, the second Virginia statute they violated, carrying with it prison time of 1 to 5 years. The Virginia court suspended their sentence for 25 years if, however, Mildred and Richard agreed to leave Virginia for the same length of time. The couple agreed and left, but they also appealed. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the State of Virginia had no rational reason for a law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Court stated that it “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose…which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” Clearly, to be found guilty of a crime for an immutable characteristic was and is ludicrous. The Court further held that the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Accordingly, Loving resulted in the recognition that marriage is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by persons regardless of their racial or ethnic origins as detected by one\’s skin color. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Love & the Law: Contraceptives
Updated May 27, 2023 As mentioned in last week’s post, to celebrate Pride month and advocate marriage equality, this piece and a few subsequent posts will revisit landmark cases in the area of “Love and the Law.” The first case on our docket is Griswold v. Connecticut, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1965. Though the issue in Griswold was whether a state law violated a married couple’s right to privacy and the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Douglas, asserted that it did, the concurring opinion written by Justice Goldberg provided the more compelling arguments and analyses. Facts Griswold was the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut and, with a licensed physician, advised a married couple on how to use contraceptives. At the time, Connecticut state law prohibited using contraceptives and also prohibited helping a person commit crime. Consequently, Griswold and the doctor were found guilty of assisting the married couple in the commission of a crime. The State argued that the case analysis should be based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to economic, business, or social situations. The Court disagreed and stated that Griswold didn’t involve those situations, but instead involved the “intimate relation of husband and wife and they physician’s role in one aspect of that relation.” The Court next discussed the various penumbras, i.e., implied rights, included in the Bill of Rights, particularly those of the First Amendment, such as the freedom to associate with others and the right to privacy. Within the right to privacy, the Court further explained, previous case law found privacy zones such as one’s house, person, papers, or effects. Finally, putting it all together, the Court stated that Griswold involved a case about a relationship – an “association” – within a fundamental zone of privacy, a married couple’s house. Accordingly, there could be no rational reason for having this kind of law. In his concurrence, Justice Goldberg fleshed out the reason why certain rights are “fundamental” in the first place: “In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the \”traditions and [collective] conscience of our people\” to determine whether a principle is \”so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental.\” Goldberg related the fundamental rights to the pursuit of happiness (read Loving v. Virginia) as discussed by the Founders along with the “right to be let alone”; sounds familiar? We\’ll get to Lawrence v. Texas, in a little bit. Goldberg then unequivocally stated that where fundamental rights are at stake, rational basis review (the lowest hurdle a law must overcome to pass constitutional muster) cannot be the standard of review for the law at issue affecting those rights. Unfortunately, Goldberg also included homosexuality in the acceptable array of intimate acts that the State also prohibited. However, this was 1965 and the courts were getting their fill of individual rights issues with the civil rights movement focused on racial equality. Lawrence, which decriminalized sexual activity between gays and lesbians, was almost 20 years away, but Griswold, albeit with this hiccup, was a start in the equality movement, recognizing marriage as a private, fundamental right for couples, irrespective of contraceptive use. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Love & the Law: Case Histories At-A-Glance
Updated May 27, 2023 Recently, courts across the country have handed down several decisions involving LGBT relationship rights. Additionally, June 12 was the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which held that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were illegal. Because the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is law in the United States, many speculate that the Court is going to eventually rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. So over the course of the next couple of months, I’ll provide a little case history on the decisions below (Griswold, Loving, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence, Prop 8, and Windsor) considered landmark decisions by many in the area of privacy and relationship rights. Windsor v. U.S. is not a Supreme Court case, but may be headed there just the same, and Proposition 8 (\”Prop 8\”) involves the California statute banning same-sex marriages that was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. Proponents of Prop 8 have already stated that they will appeal it to the the U.S. Supreme Court. Why does this matter to estate planners? Because we plan for families and the recent decisions are pointing toward a fundamental shift in the national, legal definition of family.
Love & the Law: The IRS v. NY
Edie and Thea had been together for more than 44 years; they became one of the first registered domestic partners of New York; and as Thea\’s health began failing dramatically, the couple legally married each other in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. When Thea died a few years after their lifelong relationship and marriage, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and taxed Edie\’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes. Ordinarily, whether a couple is married for federal purposes depends on whether they are considered married in their state. New York recognized Edie and Thea\’s marriage, but because of the so-called the \”Defense of Marriage Act,\” or DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples. After spending decades together, including many years during which Edie helped Thea through her long battle with multiple sclerosis, it was devastating to Edie that the federal government refused to recognize their marriage, their loving and solemnized dedication to each other. With representation by the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Edie challenged the constitutionality of DOMA and seeking a refund of the estate tax she was unfairly forced to pay. Edie alleged that DOMA violates the Equal Protection principles of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes existing marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara Jones ruled for Edie and against the IRS, stating that Section 3 of DOMA as it applies to legally married same-sex couples for purposes of estate taxation is unconstitutional. Though this isn\’t a Supreme Court ruling and, therefore only persuasive outside of NY, it is a large and critical step in the undoing of DOMA. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Will the U.S. Supreme Court Embrace Love Again?
On May 30, Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed lawsuits against the Illinois Cook County Clerk’s office alleging that the Clerk’s office discriminated against same-sex couples who wanted to get married in Cook County. The Clerk’s office has consistently turned away LGBT couples who requested marriage licenses because though Illinois passed the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act (Civil Union Act), the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) still states that same-sex marriage is against the state’s public policy. Additionally, the Illinois legislature failed to pass the bill proposing same-sex marriage legalization for Illinois. Illinois, similar to the U.S., has a conflicting legal perspective on same-sex marriage. The Civil Union Act states that LGBT couples who enter into Civil Unions have the same obligations, benefits, rights and burdens as married straight couples in Illinois. Yet, the IMDMA states that Illinois citizens are against same-sex marriage. Ironically, high-ranking government and judicial authorities across the nation are not in conflict: President Obama has denounced the so-called Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) as unconstitutional; The First Circuit Court has recently ruled Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional; The Ninth Circuit rejected an appeal for an en banc hearing on its decision that Prop 8, the California law banning same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional as applied to California citizens; Illinois Governor Pat Quinn supports same-sex marriage; And more than a dozen states also have laws that either allow same-sex marriage or provide a process where LGBT couples can receive substantially similar legal treatment to heterosexual married couples. However, that is the point – substantially similar is not equal – and all of the United States of America, including Illinois, should provide more. As I explained in an earlier post, the government providing rights to one group and denying those same rights to another group, simply because of an immutable characteristic that certain citizens don\’t like is unconstitutional; it is blatant discrimination. Accordingly, DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, violates the United States Constitution because it validates harmful and irrational discrimination. Furthermore, DOMA places states that allow for same-sex marriages and civil unions in a legislative quagmire, where the states can provide benefits to LGBT couples as long as those benefits aren’t derived through federal programs. Because of the inherent discord between the individual states, the Legislative Branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial Branch, increasing speculation is that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. That may be a good thing or it may be a not-so-good thing. The composition of the Court is conservative, so if it decides to take the case, it may use historical analysis and side with DOMA’s proponents. A number of members of the Court believe that the Constitution should be interpreted using the values and perceptions of the time in which it was written – the 18th century. I care not to argue the ridiculousness of that rationale. The next scenario is that the Court could decide not to hear the case, reasoning that “Congress has spoken” by passing DOMA. So then, Congress would need to speak again to invalidate the law. Given the tumult in Congress and the blockade against getting anything done, it is unlikely that Congress would even put repealing DOMA on its “to get to” list, let alone its “to do” list. The last scenario is that the Court would take the case and rule in favor of DOMA’s opponents and rule Section 3 or all of DOMA is unconstitutional. Hmmm…. Given that 2 out of 3 scenarios point to a no-win situation for LGBT couples, taking the fight to this Supreme Court is an eyebrow-raiser, at the very least. Still, one can hope that the Court would respect the more than 40 years of precedent, ala Loving v. Virginia, and progression, ala Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. But then, there’s that Citizens United decision, which overturned about 100 years of precedent.
3 Lessons from Summer Disaster Flicks
One hallmark of summertime in the U.S. is the onslaught of disaster movies. For me, there’s nothing like a great “the-world-is-under-attack-so-blow-‘em-up-real-good!” movie. So when temperatures crept into the 80s and trailers for “world under attack” started showing on TV, I couldn’t help but think about the “disaster” provisions in estate planning documents, aka “contingent beneficiary” provisions. Also, while reading a couple of cases and thinking about questions frequently asked by clients, I knew I had a winning screenplay, or a half-way decent blog post. So grab your popcorn and enjoy the move…I mean post. Ornery old Great-Grandma Cornelia Stamper decides to write her will and leaves one of her oil wells to her son, Harry. She names it “Harry Stamper’s Well.” Before she dies, though, Harry marries Anna and he and Anna have a daughter, Grace. Cornelia isn’t so keen on Anna, so she draws up a trust leaving income from the “Family Stamper’s Well” to Harry for his life and upon Harry’s death, the income from the well should be distributed equally among Cornelia’s heirs. Cornelia dies at the grand old age of 98 and Harry then draws up a trust leaving Harry Stamper’s Well to Grace and continues his life’s work – drilling in Alaska. Suddenly one day, Harry learns from his buddies at NASA that an asteroid is headed for Earth. Harry then changes his trust and adds a charitable contribution provision, giving part of the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Fronteirs and the rest to his descendants. Also, Grace has a trust created and leaves the income from Family Stamper’s Well to the same 2 charities. Fortunately, Harry’s NASA buddies blow the asteroid up real good and none of the particles cause any damage to Earth. A year later, while drilling near Russia, Harry is told that aliens attacked Earth and wiped out all his relatives including, Grace. Harry’s heart can’t take it and he dies. However, Grace actually escaped the attack but is the only Stamper left. Grace’s friends, David and Steven, however, blow up the alien ship real good and things return to normal – kinda. Half the world’s population is gone, so the Red Cross and Medicins Sans Frontiers have a lot of work to do. They are counting on Harry’s gift and know that the funds are available because the banks were saved. Go figure. Accordingly, they hire a lawyer; lots of us survived. But their meeting with the lawyer didn’t go well. My clients know why because these were their questions: 1. Can income from a life estate be given away by the owner of the life estate? In other words, could Harry bequeath income from Family Stamper’s Well? No. Cornelia left the income to Harry for his life only and then to Cornelia’s heirs. So unless Grace is feeling charitable during her lifetime, the nonprofits are out of luck until Grace dies. 2. What would have happened if Grace died in the alien attack but Family Stamper’s Well had dried up? In other words, what happens when the “gift” is no longer in the estate? If Grace knew the well was drying up and didn’t change her trust to provide for this event, then the gift would be considered “revoked,” or \”adeemed\” in legalese, and the charities out of luck. If Grace didn’t know and say the well was destroyed by the aliens, then the gift is still considered revoked unless she provided in the trust that the loss should be covered by insurance. 3. What would have happened if Grace died and she didn’t name anyone to take the income? That’s the real disaster. With all of the Stamper beneficiaries dead and no charity named, the income and well would probably go to the remaining population – bankers and lawyers.
A Fiduciary\’s Lesson on IRS Pre-emption
On April 11, 2012, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois filed an Opinion emphasizing the importance of a fiduciary’s role in trust and estate planning. As a fiduciary, an executor or trustee typically has the responsibility to ensure items such as the estate’s value and the relevant taxes are calculated correctly and, subsequently, paid. Accordingly, it is important for individuals to select appropriate fiduciaries. It is equally important for those approached to be fiduciaries to understand the scope of duties involved and the consequences if those duties are not performed properly. Case on point: People of Illinois v. Kole, No. 09-L-892. The Lay of the Land In 1993, Anthony F. Crespo named Julius Kole as executor and successor trustee of the Anthony F. Crespo Living Trust. Crespo died in 2002 and Kole paid $127,000 in Illinois estate taxes. Kole also filed a request for an extension to file the Illinois estate tax return, which was granted. Six months later, he filed the Illinois return reporting an approximate $81,000 estate tax liability. The Illinois Attorney General’s office received the return and issued a “Certificate of Discharge and Determination of Tax,” stating that, based on the information provided, the estate taxes were fully paid and, therefore, the estate was clear of any liens from the State. The Certificate of Discharge also relieved Kole from any personal estate tax liability for the Crespo estate. However, an IRS audit of the federal estate tax return reported in 2006 a revised value of the estate, increasing the value from more than $2.1M to $4.4M. This, of course, increased the Illinois state tax liability. Consequently, Illinois sued Kole, personally, seeking the additional estate tax owed plus penalties and interest, amounting to more than $300,000. The Arguments Kole first argued that the plain language of the Certificate of Discharge had relieved him of the obligation to pay additional taxes. The State replied that the Certificate of Discharge was routinely issued upon initial filings, which were based on the information provided at the time. So the initial issuance did not negate the need for supplemental filings if new information resulted in additional taxes owed. Kole’s response to the State, however, was enough to cause this reader to question her eyesight: “[Kole] admitted that the estate never paid any additional tax to Illinois or filed a supplemental return, but he then objected on hearsay grounds to the contents of the IRS Report.” Commentary and Conclusion To use the common vernacular, “Hearsay? Really?” Kole’s argument about the Certificate of Discharge’s plain language meaning at least had some merit, but arguing that an IRS Audit Report is hearsay was quite colorable. Even non-lawyers have watched enough Law & Order to learn the public records and business records hearsay exceptions. The trial court, however, agreed with Kole’s plain language argument. The Illinois AG appealed and the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision (see Lesson #2, infra). Lessons Choose a fiduciary who will obtain a correct valuation and pay the appropriate taxes due – whenever they\’re due; A Certificate of Discharge isn\’t really final until the IRS says so; and Take great care in accepting a fiduciary role.
Straight Couples & Civil Unions: Cutting Off Your Nose Off to Spite Your Face?
On March 29, 2012, I was given the honor to speak at the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA) CLE program on LGBT Employment and Relationship Rights Discrimination. My commentary addressed the challenges DOMA creates for members of the LGBT community and those providing them with needed services. If you\’re unfamiliar with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the statute’s language states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is husband or wife.” DOMA also states that this definition of marriage is the legally recognized definition for any federal or congressional law, “ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” Accordingly, if a federal law or regulation concerns married persons, the definition of ‘marriage’ used to determine the applicability of the law or regulation will be DOMA’s definition, despite what state law says. DOMA is the first time since Loving v. Virginia that a branch of our government defined what a marriage can look like, and, although the court in Loving got it right, Congress and President Clinton with DOMA got it wrong. Consequently, because of DOMA, gay or lesbian couples cannot take advantage of the more than 1,000 benefits afforded straight married couples by the federal government, even if the couple resides in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. This unfair result is the basis of current court challenges: Gill v. OPM, Windsor v. U.S., and Golinski v. OPM. Each case involves the denial of federal benefits, such as retirement, social security, and estate tax refunds, to LGBT couples. Consequently, it should be easy to see how this discriminatory law has caused significant and unnecessary implications for American citizens and the estate planning community. One BWLA program attendee asked if straight couples could benefit from the Illinois Civil Union Act that affords LGBT Civil Union partners all the obligations, benefits, responsibilities, and protections of Illinois married couples. Ironically, a recent article in the Illinois Bar Journal espoused the benefits straight couples could glean from entering into a Civil Union instead of getting married. My colleague used the Alternative Minimum Tax calculation to support her argument, dismissing the marital deduction and portability “issues” because these techniques are applicable to the very wealthy and impliedly are outliers. This is a reasonable argument for lower-income families; however, repeating the response I gave at the program, suggesting heterosexual couples enter into Civil Unions is questionable guidance because of the more than 1,000 federal benefits attached to marriage. Thus, if a heterosexual couple is considering a Civil Union and is not approaching or is not in retirement, a careful balancing of income tax liabilities and other assets and future income should probably be performed before considering a Civil Union. What may be gained in an income tax refund may be lost several times over in employee, health, and other benefits.
Ruby v. Ruby: Joint Tenancy Does Not Mean Joint Trust
In Ruby v. Ruby, the First District Appellate Court ruled that the doctrine of ademption, which previously had only applied to wills, applied to trusts. The court additionally continued to strictly construe in terrorem clauses similar to most courts and, finally, continued to follow the pro \”freedom to contract” position Illinois courts take. Ademption means that the person making the gift – testator or grantor – does something during his or her lifetime to make giving the gift impossible, such as destroying it or selling it. An in terrorem clause is the “contest this will or trust and you lose your bequest” provision. The facts of Ruby are interesting but the way the court reached its conclusion is even more interesting. It got it right, but using a quirky, off-the-mark analysis. A brother and sister – Irwin and Bernice – owned a condo together and a brokerage account at David A. Noyes & Company in joint tenancy. Exactly how they owned the condo together is not provided in the facts. In 2002, when Noyes changed clearing houses, Irwin and Bernice executed a medallion agreement for their brokerage account. In 2004, the 2 hired one attorney to do their estate planning. The attorney created a revocable living trust for Irwin naming Bernice as successor trustee. According to the terms of the trust, 100% of the contents of the brokerage account were to be distributed among 3 couples and 1 person (25% each); another provision provided for specific bequests totaling $255,000; and another provision provided that the residue of Irwin’s estate was to go to Bernice. So we can see where there could already be a little hiccup if the brokerage account and other assets in Irwin’s estate were insufficient to fulfill the specific bequests. Moving right along, in July 2004, Irwin transfers the assets from the brokerage account into another account. The following month, Irwin also transferred the condo to the trust account with Bernice’s consent and signature. However, Bernice later stated she didn’t understand what she was doing. Irwin passed away in 2006 and Bernice paid out the specific bequests, withdrew funds from the account for attorneys’ fees and funeral expenses, and then told the 3 couples and the individual that the gift had adeemed and there wasn’t enough in the original account to pay them all, but she kindly sent them, via her attorney, a check for $30,000. At that time, the size of the second account that the assets from the original account were transferred was about $1.4 million. So the beneficiaries sued for an accounting. Ya think? Bernice countered using the theory of ademption, the in terrorem clause, and joint tenancy. The lower court ruled in favor of Bernice on the theory of ademption but ruled the in terrorem clause inapplicable. The First District Appellate Court determined that the term “contents” was ambiguous because it didn’t foresee any additions or deductions from the assets in the trust, and so looked to extrinsic evidence to clear the ambiguity. Well, that’s a tad quirky because Irwin’s provision named the account and defined the account’s contents as “including cash and securities.” A few lines later, the court agreed with yours truly but continued analyzing extrinsic evidence for the meaning of “contents”; the court reversed the lower court’s ruling on ademption. Courts don’t like in terrorem clauses unless there’s a good reason, and this court found no good reason to change the lower court’s ruling. The beneficiaries were named as such in the trust and had a right to question Bernice\’s actions. Finally, joint tenancy was implicitly severed when Bernice signed the medallion agreement titling the assets to the trust. The lesson learned is found in the second paragraph: Even if a party owns something in joint tenancy, their interest should be secured in a trust of their own and not the other co-tenant’s trust.