Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts.

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts.

Here is a link to a Washington Post article that show's a blatant disregard for due process by our IRS.

How would you like your tax return garnished without any notice of why, or an ability to fight it, or without the government having to prove you received a payment decades ago.

I hope the Federal lawsuit will bear some fruit and force the IRS and Social Security Administration to produce the normal level of due process and proofs that any other entity seeking to garnish an account would have to provide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

Michigan Senate Bill regarding rights to digital accounts HB 5370

This is at least a step in the right direction.  The Michigan Senate has introduced a bill that would require those holders of our electronic accounts (email, facebook, etc) to give access to those accounts to Trustees of a Trust.  The bill also ties in the same requirements for Personal Representatives of your will, and even an attorney-in-fact of your Durable Power of Attorney.

This is a good start, but what we really need is Federal Legislation, so that we don't eventually have 50 states with 50 different laws covering such access.

So you want to be cremated in Michigan? Not so fast!

Michigan law does not provide for a living person to direct his disposition after death (i.e. cremated, buried) – that would violate the due process rights of post-mortem interests in the body (I can't make this stuff up!).  This is a problem for someone who wants to be cremated.  Unless a living spouse, after death of the other spouse, signs the authorization to have the body cremated, cremation requires unanimous approval of the next of kin.  So if your son or daughter refuses, you can't be cremated--at least in Michigan.

But, other states such as Indiana and Ohio, permit the appointment of a personal representative to authorize someone's final arrangements.  BUT, don't haul the body in the back of your truck, use a licensed mortuary to arrange for pick-up of the decedent in Michigan.

Another way to address this is to include a clause in your will or trust stating that if any beneficiary refuses to cremate you after death, they are cut out of your will (notwithstanding statutory beneficiaries).

Beware of email SCAM telling you are being sued!

Beware that there is a current email scam making the rounds that purportedly tells you that you are required to appear at an out of state court on a particular date.  The email directs you to a link or a ZIP file to download.  DO NOT go to the LINK or Download any file in the email, it is most likely a phishing or virus program.

For the non-legal types, service (delivery) of a Summons or Complaint is almost never allowed by email.  In most jurisdictions, the first notice you get of a lawsuit is personally delivered to you, or in some states sent registered mail with a return receipt required with your signature.

Below is an example of one of the scam emails I received today!

**************

Pretrial notice,

Hereby we inform that you are obliged to come as a defendant
to The Court of Louisiana in February 18, 2014 at 11:30 a.m.
for the hearing of your case of illegal software use.
If necessary you have a right to obtain a lawyer for your protection.

You are kindly asked to have an identity document with you.
Personal appearance is compulsory.

Please find the plaint note with more detailed case information
attached to this letter and study it thoroughly.

Court clerk,
Chloe Mason

Your 30-year shingles are just like your 50,000 mile tires!

So you think you have a 30-year replacement warranty for those 30-year shingles on your house?

Think Again.  A recent December 2013 Michigan Appeals Court case affirmed a defendant Shingle Supplier's win over a grieved Plaintiff who sued the supplier after about 13 years because his 30-year shingles were failing.

The plaintiff claimed that there was a breach of implied warranty and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Federal Law).  The court ruled that where a plaintiff seeks to recover for economic loss caused by a defective product, the exclusive remedy is provided by the Uniform Commercial Code(UCC).  There was no evidence of any express warranty.

Unfortunately for the Homeowner Plaintiff, the UCC has a defined statute of limitations.  The UCC, codified at MCL 440.2725, has a four-year limitations period for a breach of implied warranty.  Therefore the filing of the lawsuit after 13 years was way past the limitations period and therefore time-barred.  The claim under the Magnuson-Moss act also failed for the same reason.

While the shingles were marketed as “30 year shingles,” that is NOT the same as having an express warranty with full coverage for 30-years.  In this case, there was no proof of any express warranty, therefore the lawsuit was filed over an implied warranty and it was too late for that.

Today, the reality is you will be given an express warranty that reads something like this:   During the first five years defendant would pay the full cost of labor and materials to repair defective shingles or apply new shingles to replace defective shingles. After five years, a limited warranty provides for prorated coverage for materials only.

The Homeowner loses!  Your 30-year shingles are just like your 50,000 mile tires!

Do you need a driver's license to "travel"?

I've never heard the argument in person, before today.  I am certainly not advocating their position, but it was interesting hearing it in open court this morning. 

The defendant was caught for driving without a valid license.  The defendant engaged in a "sovereignist" argument,  making the argument that because one of the fundamental rights under the US Constitution is the right to travel, there should be no licensing requirements that would impinge on that right.   He repeatedly referred to himself as a "traveler", not a "driver" of a car.

In short, here's his argument:

1. It is well established that a Fundamental Right under the US Constitution is the right to travel.

2. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.  Miller v. US, 230 F.2d 486, 490 (1956).

3. By requiring a drivers license to "travel", a state has converted this right to a privilege, a privilege that can be, and is often, taken away.  If you drive without a license, the city and state laws and ordinances make it a crime.

4.  Therefore, any law or ordinance that requires a driver's license is invalid and the court has no jurisdiction to convict or sentence someone for not having a drivers license, as it can't be a crime to do so.

Predictably, this argument did not go very far with the Judge. It is well established that the states have the right to license and regulate for the safety and security of their residents.  Requiring a driving test, a written test, and an eye test certainly fall within established parameters providing for the safety and security of the state's residents, whether they are the drivers, passengers or pedestrians.

This "sovereignist" argument can be akin to the movement that believes the IRS doesn't have the power to collect taxes, and so those in the movement either file under protest or don't file at all.

Issue -- Family Law, Change of Circumstance for Custody purposes

Issue -- Family Law/Custody:  Is it a "change of circumstances" if there is an escalation or expansion of disagreements between the parents?

In November 2013, the Michigan Court of Appeals said yes in Gates v. Kadoguchi.

The court held that the trial court properly awarded the defendant-father sole legal and sole physical custody of the parties' children.  On appeal, the court first rejected the plaintiff-mother's argument that the trial court's finding of proper cause or COC was against the great weight of the evidence, holding that an incident involving plaintiff calling the police, which occurred after the judgment of divorce, constituted a COC. It found the incident relevant to several best interests factors, and noted that plaintiff's subsequent "inability to control the children" based on the incident was "a change in the children's environment that would have a significant effect on their well being."

The court found that the trial court did not commit clear legal error and its findings regarding best interest factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (h), (j), and (l) were not against the great weight of the evidence. "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing custody."