3 Traps to Avoid Wrapped in \”No Charge\”
There I was, sitting in a seminar, as my colleague began lecturing on powers of attorney. I was actually interested in hearing the next presentation on a more complex matter but, of course, you never know what nuggets can be gleaned from a refresher on the basics. Plus, Illinois laws change all the time. So I sat and appeared interested while deciding what to cook for dinner when suddenly another panelist blurted out quite fervently, “I disagree! A durable power of attorney is not better than a springing power of attorney!” My ears perked up; no one loves a good shark fight better than a little guppy like me. Somewhere in the annals of The Shark Free Zone is an article or 2 explaining POAs. However, as a refresher, powers of attorney are authorizations to allow others to make important decisions on your behalf when you’re incapacitated. Property POAs allow agents to make financial decisions. Healthcare POAs allow agents to make healthcare decisions. Individuals think because these documents are free that they’re simple. Well…let’s return to the shark fight. A durable POA goes into effect upon signing and lasts through incapacity until death. A springing POA has a designated beginning and ending, even though the agent signs the document. For example, the Illinois Statutory Power of Attorney forms suggest one designates a springing term to begin or end upon the determination of incapacity by a court. This suggestion shows why such basic forms aren’t so basic, even though free, and why they should be carefully reviewed before making the designations and taking the suggestions. Trap 1: Waiting until a court determination of incapacity in order to act under a property POA may result in financial mayhem if a loved one is too ill to pay the bills. Occasionally, individuals will say, “I don’t need a property POA because my child is also on my bank account with me.\” Trap 2: When a person is a joint owner on your bank account, that person’s creditor or creditors can place a lien or liens on the whole account. People also sometimes ask, “I have a living will, so do I really need a healthcare POA?\” If I were the smart-ass sixteen year-old I once was, then my answer would be, “Well, if the only time you want your agent to act is if there is a question about when to pull the plug, then no.” However, I am very far from being 16, thank goodness, and so I answer accordingly: A healthcare POA can include living will language and more. You can give you agent the authority to talk with doctors about your medical allergies, your medical history, and more. Trap 3: A living will only applies to individuals with terminal illnesses or who are in a vegetative state. A lot more can happen to one between a cold and a coma, and it helps you and your loved ones if you’re prepared for that “in-between-time.” Free doesn’t necessarily mean easy and suggestions are not rules.
4 Points to Ponder for Your Peace of Mind
The house is quiet. The treat you bought yourself is still in the fridge. You and your spouse have a dinner date in the middle of the week. Your cell phone is no longer a constant reminder of the triple life you lead: companion, professional, and parent. You’re a tad stiff in the morning, but nothing that a few asanas and a hot cup of coffee won’t cure. Plus, there’s nothing wrong with a little stiffness after the decades you’ve spent working out, right? Right. Your mind continually and comfortably drifts off to favorite travel destinations or that mid-week date during meetings you must attend in order to be a “sober second” when asked; and you’re getting asked less and less, thank goodness. Life is . . . pretty good. So, while you have some time on your hands, allow me to provide you with 4 points to ponder related to that pretty good life. Your children are out of the house for good, leading their own lives with their own families. Does this mean you have grandchildren to enjoy and then return to the fray? If so, have you thought about providing or helping to provide for their education? Your career has moved right along or your wok has become more and more tolerable. You’ve gone this far, so you’re in it for the long haul. Have you thought about what to do if, working near the end of the long haul, you are injured for a substantial length of time? Can you afford it? Do you have long term disability insurance or a strategy viable to ensure that you’ll still be able to assist with educating the little brutes or brutesses once they’re about to enter high school or university? The end of the long haul is clearly in sight. Accordingly, the previous point bears revisiting. Also, do you have a strategy for making it through the “Golden Years” comfortably? Do you know how you’re going to draw down your retirement funds so to maximize your money and minimize your taxes? People are living longer now so our resources must keep up. Will you be able to just sit on that old porch swing and smile? Family isn’t charity; it isn\’t a cause. Family is a wonderful responsibility and gift shared amongst its members. However, as those responsibilities, even to ourselves, wane and are fulfilled, how have we shown responsibility toward our community? Is there an organization, a group, a center whose work you admire and would like to try to help ensure the work and programming will continue? You see, estate planning isn’t just about planning for death. These 4 points to ponder prove it. How are you going to (1) help family, (2) help yourself heal peacefully, (3) protecting your porch swing, and (4) helping your community?
Why We Provide Wills for Heroes…
As serendipity would have it, my colleague, Stephen Hoffman, has recently posted a piece I wrote for him, leaving me with empty space, if I so choose, to fill with something a little different and something a little personal and I so choose: Congratulations to my \”brother,\” Kevin Bell, who retired today, with a full pension, from his position as a Detective for the Chicago Police Department. When Kevin received his first opportunity to request a patrol assignment, more than 20 years ago, he requested a patrol in the roughest, most gang-infested neighborhood on Chicago\’s south side. He knew that the African-American community needed to see and understand that all police weren\’t against them, but were sincerely patrolling to protect them. Kevin was shot at point blank range during that first assignment and survived because of his vest. He subsequently returned to the same assignment, undeterred. When we were out together for an evening of fun with friends and family, whatever side of the city we were on, if there was a disturbance, a person having difficulty, Kevin was there and helping out because he understood that, as a police officer for the City of Chicago, he was never really \”off duty.\” He was passed up for detective often; some say it was because of his ethnicity. Nevertheless, he stayed the course, undercover or in open blues, and was finally awarded his detective shield. Kevin has protected our streets – north and south, east and west – for decades. I pray that there is another officer, just as dedicated, moving up in the CPD ranks. But even if there is, I can\’t be as proud of him as I am today. An African-American man, with a private Catholic school background and a bachelor’s degree from a well-respected university, who consciously and intentionally decided to protect our streets, our homes, and our communities as his career instead of doing something more lucrative and safe, is a man who deserves, at the very least, a word of thanks from us all. Thank you, Detective Kevin Bell (Ret.), my cousin, my brother, my hero.
5 Ways to Protect 4 Critical Relationships
As mentioned in a previous post, once an adult starts working and accumulating assets, even if they’re simply a car and nice living room furniture, he or she also needs to start protecting their livelihood. The same holds twice as true for young couples.* Couples sometimes erroneously believe that they don’t need to protect themselves or their relationship until they get married, enter into a Civil Union, or have children. However, just like working single adults need protection, so do “young” couples. Therefore, once a decision to reside in one household as a loving and committed couple is made, the documents previously discussed – powers of attorney and life insurance – should be revisited to reflect this relationship. Moreover, depending on the legal status of the relationship, or the lack thereof, legally documenting your agreement about your assets is very important. For example, in Illinois, if you’re cohabiting, your relationship lacks legal recognition except by contract. Therefore, an agreement to share expenses and property is the bare minimum of what is required to at least document your relationship and its affect on your assets. Additionally, ensuring your testamentary documents – a valid will and trust – reflect your intentions toward your partner and the rest of your family is equally important. If a cohabiting partner dies intestate (without a will), unlike the surviving partner in a Civil Union or legally married couple, the surviving cohabiting partner will have no rights under Illinois laws. However, the next of kin to the deceased will have rights. Therefore, unless a document, such a shared expense and property agreement, is in place with mounds of receipts and statements providing supporting evidence of the agreement, the surviving partner will have no way of retaining assets that were obtained as a couple. Still, even with this agreement in place, the decedent’s relatives may still challenge by asserting their rights to inheritance under Illinois’ intestacy laws. Thus, to prevent a possible brouhaha, it’s advisable to have at least a valid will prepared, designating your partner as a beneficiary. But remember, because a will is public – see Whitney Houston’s will – your family gets to see who gets what. And if you have an evil twin who doesn’t like what he or she sees, the brouhaha will not be averted. So then what? You might have a revocable living trust prepared. Trusts are private – you can’t see what Michael Jackson left – and become irrevocable upon the grantor’s (trust maker’s) death. Civil Union and legally married couples are more fortunate than cohabiting couples with a caveat for Civil Union couples. The right to inherit and renounce bequests are generally universal rights for spouses through the U.S. and Civil Union couples typically have all the rights of spouses. However, Civil Union couples are not recognized in all states, so spousal rights are not available, placing them in the same position as cohabiting partners in unfriendly states. So for couples without children and without consideration for probate proceedings, the most basic ways to protect your relationships may resemble this:
Crashes, Collapses & Conflagrations, Oh My!
Living in Chicago, the second largest legal community in the U.S., has its benefits: I meet great colleagues who have a wealth of information valuable not only to their clients but also to the general public. So occasionally, The Shark Free Zone will feature a colleague who is willing to share his or her insights. This week, I welcome friend and colleague, Stephen L. Hoffman, discussing injuries, accidents, and insurance to help us protect our loved ones and property… Many of us try to avoid planning for our future. Much as we defer creation of estate planning documents, we are also unprepared when it comes to some basic, everyday requirements such as what to do in the event of an accident. Each year in Illinois, nearly 500,000 auto collisions occur and over 100,000 work injuries or illnesses are sustained. Auto collisions, work accidents, and home fires occur. Odds are that you, a family member, or contact will be involved in one of those events at some point. Personally, I have experienced a fire in my condominium building and an automobile collision, all within the last 5 years. And I\’m careful, cautious, and none were my fault. If you fail to verify that you have adequate insurance coverage, your life could be altered permanently, with no opportunity to undo the damage. If you ARE involved in an accident, then you should be prepared to do or have available a few basic things: Have your automobile insurance information with you and exchange it with the other driver and police. Take photographs of the scene, while you are still there, if possible. Get photos of all vehicles and persons involved, the cause of your fall, any visible injuries, or debris. This preserves evidence. Get medical treatment immediately. Insurance companies WILL use any delay in treatment against you! Contact the police, fill out an incident report, or write about the accident in some way. DO NOT SPEAK to anyone about this. DO NOT give a statement to an insurance adjuster! Contact an attorney immediately. More cases go south early on than at any other point. With respect to insurance, consider the following: Whether you are a driver, owner of a home, or the owner of a business, make sure you understand what your insurance covers and that your coverage is adequate. Get the most coverage from the best-rated company you can afford. Check your liability limits on your car policy. If you have any assets and your limits are below $500,000.00, you probably need to reexamine them. All it takes is a moment of inattention by a driver, including you, who may be uninsured or grievously underinsured, to lose your house, savings, and well-being. If you have substantial assets, a personal liability umbrella policy is likely well within your reach financially, and definitely worthwhile. Know what your homeowner\’s policy provides for in certain events, e.g., a fire in an adjoining condo unit. Can you move into a temporary residence if yours is uninhabitable and for how long? What is the damages limit? Tidbits Auto Insurance Illinois is a mandatory auto insurance state. However, this means that many people only have the BARE MINIMUM in coverage. If YOUR coverage (Uninsured Motorist and Underinsured Motorist) is not robust, you could conceivably be involved in a collision that is not your fault, with virtually no coverage available. Condominium/Homeowner\’s Insurance If you live in a condo, make sure your governing documents require other unit owners to maintain insurance on their units. All it takes is one accidental fire in one unit or a leak that causes a ceiling collapse to leave you and the rest of the association liable. Workers\’ Compensation The Illinois Workers\’ Compensation Act provides for payment of medical benefits, lost wages, and permanency for those injured while performing their job functions. This includes injuries occurring outside of an office and while in transit to or from a job usually. Plan ahead and be ready for the inevitable! Stephen L. Hoffman is the founder of Law Office of Stephen L. Hoffman LLC, a Boutique Personal Injury and Workers\’ Compensation law firm located in Chicago. Stephen is now in his 23rd year of practice representing injured people and fighting for their rights with dignity. Contact Stephen by phone (773-944-9737) or email stephen@hofflawyer.com. Information about Stephen and ways to further access him are through his blog and website, LinkedIn, Twitter (@hofflaw), and AVVO.
Love & the Law: Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep, We Were Wrong. Pt 1
Updated May 27, 2023 Finishing the “Love & the Law” series, this article reviews 2 cases at the heart of the right to privacy for the LGBT community: Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in June 1986, and Lawrence v. Texas, decided 15 years later in June 2003. First Bowers… Hardwick was arrested in 1982 and charged with violating Georgia’s sodomy law. The District Attorney refused to continue prosecuting the case for lack of evidence. Still, Hardwick sued on the grounds that the Georgia statute, prohibiting “any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another,” violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the suit for the failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Eleventh Circuit reversed using a right of privacy as its rationale, requiring the State to prove it had a compelling interest in maintaining the law. The State appealed; other courts disagreed, so the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. The Court framed the issue as being whether the U.S. Constitution provided a fundamental right to the LGBT community to participate in gay sex. Talk about a narrow frame. It further explained that gay sex was not a required component of privacy rights and though Hardwick argued on the grounds using other Supreme Court cases – Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court asserted that there was no link between those cases and his. Those cases involved family, marriage, or procreation; this case did not. The Court continued to explain that it was trying not to judge the case on ideological, moral grounds and would look to the defining essence of those rights that require a compelling interest be shown. That essence could be determined under one of 2 formulae: (1) if the activity was proscribed, there would be no liberty or justice; or (2) the rights were those “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.” According to the Court, gay sex didn’t meet either formula. Then, the Court continued to judge the case on ideological and moral grounds: “The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated…the courts will be very busy indeed.” Eleventh Circuit’s decision was reversed and the law remained valid until… Lawrence v. Texas… 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: Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep, We Were Wrong. Pt 2
Lawrence v. Texas… From the very beginning of the Lawrence Opinion, one could tell that the Bowers decision was in trouble. Sometimes justices write opinions in this manner to throw readers off, but it wasn’t the case in Lawrence when Justice Kennedy opened the Opinion by explaining that the cornerstone of the Fourteenth Amendment is liberty and embedded in liberty is the right to privacy. Facts Houston , Texas police were called to a house on a weapons disturbance tip. They entered the home to witness John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner engaged in sexual activity. Both were charged and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse,” a violation of a Texas statute. In their defense, they challenged the statute as unconstitutional with regards to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a similar provision in the Texas Constitution. The Texas Court of Appeals rejected the defense and Mr. Lawrence appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court saw Lawrence as presenting 3 issues, whether: The Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; The Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and Bowers was decided correctly. In analyzing the issues, the Court first turned to Griswold, which established privacy rights for marital relationships but, according to the Court, also set the foundation for individual privacy rights outside of marriage. So Mr. Hardwick was correct. The Court also considered another landmark case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, where personal rights of unmarried persons involving contraceptives was at issue. It then looked at Roe v. Wade and established the following rationale: Per Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe v. Wade, the privacy of a woman resulted in a woman’s right to “make fundamental decisions regarding her destiny.” It stands to reason that if the rights apply to women, then they assuredly apply to men. Accordingly, Due Process protection is much more expansive than the language implies. Next, the Court considered Carey v. Population Services International, where the Court ruled that a law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to persons under 16 years was invalid. The Court took these steps to show where the law had moved on the issue of privacy in intimate relations by the time the Bowers case was to be decided. It explained that Bowers was similar to Lawrence but the Georgia statute in Bowers applied to all Georgia citizens, whereas the Texas statute only applied to homosexuals. So equal protection of the laws was not provided to Mr. Lawrence. The Court then considered the framing of the issue by the Court in Bowers, stating that it was too narrowly framed because it failed to consider the issue of liberty. Hmmm… The Court stated that adults, including members of the LGBT community, may choose the kind of relationships they want to enter into without sacrificing their dignity. Addressing the issue of community and tradition as brought up by the Court in Bowers, the Court gave a history lesson on the law against homosexuals, stating that, in fact, there was no tradition of laws against gays until the late 19th century: Heterosexual couples participated in the same acts that homosexuals engaged in and it was the heterosexual behavior that was at issue initially. The prohibition was targeting non-procreative sexual activity, not homosexual activity per se. “It was not until the 1970’s that any State singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution and only 9 States have done so.” Read: Lawrence’s and Geddes’ fundamental right of liberty and the inherent right of privacy found within the right to liberty were violated. The Court acknowledged the importance of the Bowers’ rationale to a certain extent, recognizing that the Court in Bowers was rightfully giving a voice to those who held strong moral convictions. However, the Court qualified that recognition by also stating that the Court’s job is to define liberty, not push through society’s moral ideologies. The Court continued to explain that well-esteemed bodies of American and European jurisprudence considered such laws draconian and restated what it said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was decided after Bowers: These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Having re-established the principals laid out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court then proceeded to discuss Romer v. Evans, stating that one of the intended results of the Romer decision was the removal of the stigma associated with criminalizing conduct such as gay sex. After discussing Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Romer, the Court pointed out that the rationale for Bowers had been significantly weakened. Still, recognizing the doctrine of stare decisis in which precedent is given a very high amount of deference because of the legitimacy it gives to Court rulings, i.e., the law, and the stability it creates in the law and society, the Court nevertheless pointed out that the doctrine is not absolute. Hence, the Court concluded that Bowers wasn’t right when it was decided, and was not right now and therefore should not stand and, neither should the Texas statute. Thus, ends the Love & the Law series for now. Given the thorough analysis of liberty and the right to privacy performed by the Court in Lawrence, one can only wonder how long it will take before DOMA is constitutionally invalidated as it is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and likewise implicates the Fifth Amendment. Sidebar Recently, Massachusetts has requested that the Supreme Court should hear cases involving DOMA and invalidate the congressional statute because the statute forces States like Massachusetts, which perform and recognize same-sex marriages, to discriminate against its citizens and that per the Tenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress’s Spending power,
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: 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.