Forum Replies Created
For persons who are searching on the topic of small succession affidavits, the maximum value amount of the succession was increased to $125,000.
Bessie, as to your question, it looks like to me that the 90 days is after the date of death, not “within”.
Here is the statute:
Art. 3434. Endorsed copy of affidavit authority for delivery of property
A. A multiple original of the affidavit authorized by Article 3432, shall be full and sufficient authority for the payment or delivery of any money or property of the deceased described in the affidavit to the heirs of the deceased and the surviving spouse in community, if any, in the percentages listed therein, by any bank, financial institution, trust company, warehouseman, or other depositary, or by any person having such property in his possession or under his control. Similarly, a multiple original of an affidavit satisfying the requirements of this Article shall be full and sufficient authority for the transfer to the heirs of the deceased, and surviving spouse in community, if any, or to their assigns, of any stock or registered bonds in the name of the deceased and described in the affidavit, by any domestic or foreign corporation.
B. The receipt of the persons named in the affidavit as heirs of the deceased, or surviving spouse in community thereof, constitutes a full release and discharge for the payment of money or delivery of property made under the provisions of this Article. Any creditor, heir, succession representative, or other person whatsoever shall have no right or cause of action against the person paying the money, or delivering the property, or transferring the stock or bonds, under the provisions of this Article, on account of such payment, delivery, or transfer.
C.(1) A multiple original of the affidavit, to which has been attached a certified copy of the deceased’s death certificate, shall be recorded in the conveyance records in the office of the clerk of court in the parish where any immovable property described therein is situated, after at least ninety days have elapsed from the date of the deceased’s death.
Yes, but you have to be careful. Most mortgages have a due-on-sale clause that allows them to foreclose if they did not consent to the change in title. There usually is no problem getting that consent with a provision that you are still personally liable on the loan.
The transfer would protect you as long as there is no pending litigation and assuming the transfer is not to avoid an existing liability.
If properly done, a creditor of the LLC would only be able to go after assets belonging to the LLC.
If property is titled to a deceased person, there is no way to have good title without a succession. If the estate is valued less than $75,000, however, there is a procedure that would avoid a full-blown succession. It is called a small succession affidavit and no court filing is required.
The usual practice is to get the payoff amount as of a certain date directly from the creditor and have an agreement with them that you will pay off the balance and they will directly give you a release. If the seller is not willing to give you contact information on the creditor, then walk away.
A usufruct can be legally terminated if the usufructuary is not keeping the property subject to the usufruct in good repair.
An executor does not have to reside in LA, but would need to name a LA resident as agent to receive service of process.
If she is appointing her son as executor of her will, then that would not be a conflict.
August 1, 2019 at 3:01 pm in reply to: Tenant moving out, would not allow spraying for roaches #4190
Like so many tenant cases, it can boil down to whether there is a written lease and, if so, what the lease says -if anything.
The smart thing to have done in this case when the tenant refused bug treatment, would be to have the tenant sign a release and agreement to withhold for any extraordinary treatment that results from the refusal of treatment. Retrospect is a bugger.
Of course, the expense can be withheld from the deposit and the tenant can try and do something about it -which is usually not financially feasible. You do have to worry about tenant rights legislation that has some protection for the tenant about returning the deposit. If you withhold, you have to (at a minimum) itemize for what was withheld and immediately refund the difference.
An act of donation, in some cases, can be revoked for the ingratitude of the donee. That could possibly apply here, but you need to see a lawyer ASAP since there are strict time restrictions on when you can seek to revoke a donation.
Certainly all living heirs can do a simple act of donation of their interest in the land to the granddaughter. However, she isn’t going to have clear title until successions are done on the deceased owners’ shares so that someone has authority to also donate or sell those portions to the granddaughter.
He can have whatever custodial arrangement he wants, but that has nothing to do with support -as you mentioned.
The real problem is once you enter into some agreement, the more time that goes by the more he will be stuck with the status quo. So, if he regrets not seeing his kids at some point, there may be nothing he can do. Plus, in my experience, it will not stop stalking behavior.
It would take a visit with a lawyer to look at the details.
Yes, it is against public policy to allow contracts of uncertain length and the contract could be voided on that basis. This is generally done by looking at all the surrounding facts to determine what is “reasonable” as to length of time.
One other aspect here is that many, many contracts are drawn up to make a person believe that they are in a legal trap when, in fact, they may not be -and the person preparing the contract knows that full well. These are generally know as contracts of adhesion -a contract where the writer of the contract has all the bargaining power.
Well, slander is defamation by spoken word while libel is defamation by written word.
In any defamation case, the defense is truth. If what was said/written was true, then there is no defamation.
A wrinkle here is that (in very general terms) a tort (libel is a tort) has to have court action brought within a year while contractual issues generally have a longer period of time that they can be brought to court. If the letter was done more than a year ago, then it might not be admitted in court. The contents of the letter, however, could be admitted in evidence to prove other facts about the person -like his believability.
Was there a succession? Was land “given” prior to his death? If not, the title to the land would be uncertain and nobody would have any legal right to give a portion or all of it away.
That is always possible depending on many factors. After all, there are plenty of fathers paying child support even when they have no custody at all.
In the seventies all children were forced heirs. In this case, without a will, the mother would have her half of the community and the children would inherit all of Dad’s part of the community. Mom would inherit a legal usufruct over the portion belonging to the forced heirs.
So, the children would be considered naked owners of the one-half belonging to the father -subject to a usufruct to Mom, that would terminate upon death or remarriage. At that time, the naked owners would own outright what they had all these years as naked owners.
The real-world problem in these cases is that it will be hard to figure out 1) what was owned by father that Mom has a usufruct over and 2) to what extent any changes over the years belongs to her estate or his estate at the end of the day. Much of this would be determined by her will -but she cannot will away that which she does not own. In other words, her usufruct terminates when she dies and that property goes equally to children. Her will can only apply to what she had back when Dad died.
You need to see a lawyer about this because there is alway the aspect of someone with a usufruct mis-using the assets that belong to the naked owners. It is possible to terminate a usufruct on that basis and a lawyer would have to advise as to where that is a good avenue. If that is done, the person with the usufruct would have to account to the naked owners for how “their” part of the estate has been handled. It may not be worth the legal fees and aggravation. The only thing that is certain here is that trying to go back over thirty or forty years of transactions will be difficult.
Well, in the first place we cannot give “advice” we can only discuss the relevant law in non-specific ways.
That being said, there are two ways to go here. One, as you already know, is for the two of you to give up 2.5% each of your shares.
The other thing you might look at is whether your sister got anything outside probate that could be counted towards the forced portion. That might be life insurance, IRAs and thing of that nature that pass outside the Succession.
The Bi-polar cases were decided the way they were because there was expert testimony that indicated that even if the potential force heir was not disabled now, there was a significant chance they would be disabled “one day.” So, not quite automatic but probably close.
You can thank the geniuses on our Legislature for throwing in the bit about a forced heir is anyone who, because of an inherited medical condition, might become disabled somewhere down the road. We lawyers warned that this was going to lead to litigation.
The forced portion is the forced portion and the disinherison aspect of the other Bi-polar cases should be irrelevant.