Tag Archives: alberts law

The Impact of Current Resource & Income Limits on SSI Recipients

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, , , ,

Supplemental Security Income, often referred to as SSI, is a federal welfare program that focuses on assisting the elderly and disabled who do not qualify for benefits under the various programs that are comprise Social Security. SSI recipients can receive a monthly income equal to the Federal Benefit Rate. This currently is less than 75 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. While that is not much, it at least is subject to cost-of-living adjustments. Meanwhile, much of this program seems completely frozen in time.

Because the SSI program is basically a welfare program, it has strict limits on earnings and resources that permit eligibility for these benefits. During 2013, Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona introduced legislation to raise resources that are counted when determining financial eligibility for SSI as well as the monthly exclusions of both unearned and earned incomes (“income disregards”) by approximately 550 percent. While this proposal may sound excessive, it is not so extravagant when viewed in the context of history of the program.

The starting point for Supplemental Security Income dates back to the presidency of Richard Nixon, who signed legislation creating the program in 1972. Since that time, the National Senior Citizens Law Center estimates that the cost of living has grown by more than 5-and-a-half times the amount from 1972. Meanwhile, the rate of growth of countable resources, as well as both types of income disregards, has been anemic, at best.

Countable resources did experience a growth spurt in the latter half of the 1980s. When the program began, these resources, which generally consider bank accounts, cash, and similar types of property, could not exceed $1500 for an individual and $2250 for a couple who both received SSI. This was true from 1974 through 1984 before these amounts were permitted to grow. In fact, for a five-year span from 1985 into 1989, the level of countable resources increased, reaching $2000 for individuals and $3000 for a couple receiving SSI. This amounted to the resource level – so long stagnant – increasing by one third in half of a decade.

However, an even more noteworthy situation has occurred during the 25 years that followed. Countable resources have remained at the 1989 level. Due to this, SSI recipients often are unable to afford to have cars and other common household equipment repaired because repair costs have advanced with the times — liquid assets such as savings accounts need to be tapped to pay for these. Meanwhile, a person on SSI continues to be allowed have relatively small amounts of such resources for emergency expenditures. People on SSI have little room to maneuver when unexpected problems arise because their incomes generally are far below the poverty level while lack virtually any resources to have the flexibility needed to handle emergencies.

The income disregards tell much the same story. In fact, these situations have been even worse over time. In a month, a person who receives SSI can receive unearned income, such as dividends, interest, or capital gains, totaling $20 before this type of income would result in a dollar-for-dollar deduction from SSI. While there was the brief five-year period when countable resource amounts did increase, the unearned income disregard of $20 today is the same amount as the unearned income disregard established at the program’s inception in 1974. Assuming that the cost of living has jumped 550 percent during this time frame, this means, relatively speaking,  that the unearned income disregard has plummeted to a level that is roughly equivalent to $3.64 in 1974, based on the cost of living from that year to the present time.

As for the earned income disregard, it may be $65 per month instead of $20 per month, but it did not have to climb to that level. Again, today’s amount equals the value from 1974, four decades ago. It should be noted that the earned income disregard can be as much as $85 if there is no unearned income and that earned income above the disregarded amount reduces SSI benefits by 50 cents for every dollar earned. However, this does not change the basic fact that recipients of SSI have fallen even farther behind the rest of the population in keeping pace with the cost of living.

What can be gained by raising the threshold levels mentioned here? It would not be a forced transfer of wealth but, instead, would allow SSI recipients to actually be able to use their resources and any additional income to help themselves. At the very least, providing fair increases in the current levels for countable resources and income disregards can offer new, if only modest, possibilities to those who are forced by law to remain deeply impoverished to do more for themselves while not taking anything away from others, an idea that would seem worthy of consideration.

A Fresh Start: The Bankruptcy Estate in Chapter 7

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, , ,

Most individuals who file for bankruptcy do so under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 13 can be very powerful when a person falls behind in payments on secured loans, such as mortgages or car loans, because it permits you to set up a plan up to five years in length to pay off those missed payments. However, you still need enough income for your necessary expenses, which include current payments of the debts on which you had fallen behind and are included in the Chapter 13 plan. Meanwhile, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy generally focuses on discharging debts that are not secured by any specific property, with a goal of giving you a “fresh” start by getting rid of these debts while keeping as much property as possible. The process of defining what is in your “bankruptcy estate” is crucial in Chapter 7. A brief look at how this means follows.

A fresh start can have no beginning if you are not honest about what you own. All of your property must be disclosed, with exemptions (with amounts and categories defined by the bankruptcy laws) applied to as much of this property as possible. Any property that can’t be exempted or isn’t excluded by law becomes part of the bankruptcy estate, which a bankruptcy “trustee” controls until the bankruptcy ends.

A major part of the trustee’s job is to sell as much of the bankruptcy  estate as possible in order to pay off as much of your debt as possible. Due to the ability to exempt certain amounts of various categories of property, hiding property is not the answer to protecting what you own in order to have an opportunity to make a fresh start after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If and when hidden assets are discovered, this property will end up in the bankruptcy estate, and you may face more serious consequences that can include the loss of the property to creditors, the denial of a discharge of your debts, or even criminal penalties.

As you prepare to file under Chapter 7, you begin the process of defining the bankruptcy estate. This starts with making an inventory of all of the things that you own – this means that you have to list everything to which you have some ownership right. Some property that you receive after filing also would have to be included once a right to it exists. For example, property that you inherit within 180 days after filing must be listed in the appropriate schedule.

After an thorough inventory has been completed, you will have an idea of what might be in your bankruptcy estate. To further define your bankruptcy estate, you need to place realistic values on your ownership rights in this property. Sometimes, this may not be possible due to the type of property involved. A good example of this problem is a potential lawsuit that you might be able to bring against another party because you need to consider what the potential award would be if you win, the likelihood of success (which impacts the value of the estimated award), and even the likely ability to collect any judgment that you might be awarded (because a judgment that can’t be collected won’t have much value). In a situation like this, your best approach may be to describe what your cause of action in the lawsuit would be and list its value as “unknown” when you file.

You usually will be able to place a reasonable value on your property, though. This can seem difficult, but an experienced attorney can help you as you work through the list of property that will comprise your bankruptcy estate, unless the property is exempted or, possibly, excluded by law. However, before you can exempt property, you have to make a good-faith effort to value so you can use the exemptions, which are capped at certain dollar amounts.

Individuals often have trouble with this. Sometimes, they may tend to overvalue some property — for example, many things do not retain much value once they have been used. Clothing and furniture fall into this category, but people often tend to value these items closer to the prices at which they were purchased. One approach to start this process is to consider what you might ask for, and be able to get, for something at a garage sale or on eBay. There also are resources that can be used to value an older car while a house may need to be appraised in order to satisfy a trustee and the court. Once you have an inventory of property in which you have rights and have made a good-faith effort at valuing it, you are at the point in which your actual bankruptcy estate will be defined.

First, you look for property is not part of the bankruptcy estate. An ERISA-qualified pension, by statutory definition, never is part of the estate. Next, you consider possible exemptions, which could be state or federal exemptions in Pennsylvania (with the choice depending on which protects your property to a greater extent). This step essentially removes some property from a bankruptcy estate, depending on the property’s value and the amount of the exemption available. For instance, a vehicle with a market value of less than $3675 currently could be exempted from the bankruptcy estate so the trustee handling your property cannot touch it. It should be noted that federal exemptions are adjusted every 3 years — the next adjustment would occur on April 1, 2016.

Eventually, as you move through the steps in this process, what remains is the property that makes up the bankruptcy estate. In many cases, all property will be exempted – this is a “no asset” bankruptcy in which a trustee has no assets to administer to pay any of your debts; in these situations, there basically is no bankruptcy estate. You also could have a “nominal asset” case in which the bankruptcy estate’s value, at best, is little more than the cost of trustee’s administration of it; you may be able to get the trustee to abandon the property that remains because it can be seen as more trouble to sell it than it is worth. If abandoned, the property would return to you.

On the other hand, if your bankruptcy estate has assets that have more than a nominal value, you might be able to pay the value of the bankruptcy estate to the trustee in order to keep your property or the trustee may sell these items to third parties. In either situation, the trustee would use the proceeds to make payments to your creditors.

In the end, this is why the bankruptcy estate in Chapter 7 is of such importance. You want to retain as much property as possible in order to get a fresh start after going through bankruptcy. This requires that, prior to filing, you to pay attention to property that might be lost if it would be turned over to a trustee as part of your bankruptcy estate.

The Third-Party Supplemental Needs Trust & Its Role in an Estate Plan

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, ,

A third-party Supplemental Needs Trust differs from the various Special Needs Trusts that have been created through legislation. While both types are designed to provide disabled individuals receiving means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid (known Medical Assistance to Pennsylvanians) with additional benefits while not affecting these other benefits, the third-party supplemental needs trust comes with another benefit: it is not subject to any Medicaid “pay-back” provision so that whatever remains in the trust when the disabled beneficiary dies can be distributed to “residual” beneficiaries named in the trust document. However, these must be drafted carefully because these and other benefits will be lost if the requirements for a valid Supplemental Needs Trust, which have been developed primarily through the courts in Pennsylvania, are not followed closely.

Since we are looking at estate planning, we need to focus on the essential elements when a trust is created in a Will. The most important issue in Pennsylvania is determining the intent of the settlor or grantor (both terms refer to the person who created the trust) regarding the use of the property placed in the trust (this property is referred to as the principal or corpus) as well as the income generated by that property. The starting point always is the language in the trust that defines the settlor’s intent. However, we also have to look at how the trust actually will function to really grasp the reason(s) that it was created.

Two major factors in proving that a supplement needs trust was established are the number of beneficiaries for which the trust provides and whether the beneficiary who is disabled was receiving some type of means-tested assistance, such as SSI or Medical Assistance, during the settlor’s lifetime. Multiple beneficiaries, even if they are only residual beneficiaries, are important because the trustee in charge of handling decisions involving the trust has an obligation to all beneficiaries and cannot use the funds for only one beneficiary’s interests. The presumption is that the settler did not intend the entire supplemental needs trust to be used to help only one person to the exclusion of all other beneficiaries.

Also, if the settlor knew that the one beneficiary, perhaps his or her child, was getting means-tested government benefits such as SSI and Medical Assistance when the estate plan was developed, courts have presumed that the settlor would not want to jeopardize the eligibility of the child, for example. Passing these “tests” does not ensure that a trust will pass muster with the government. There are other factors that need to be handled properly to establish a successful third-party Supplemental Needs Trust.

Briefly, these include the beneficiary who receives government assistance being prevented from having any authority to terminate the trust or from directing that any part of the trust be used for her or his support and maintenance. Instead, the trustee must have complete discretion regarding what distributions will be made and for what purposes. Because a supplemental needs trust exists to supplement, not supplant, the benefits already being received, language is needed to keep the trustee from making distributions that would have a negative impact on the current sources of income (which, as noted above, generally is means tested). In fact, the trustee has to avoid giving money directly to the beneficiary since this would be considered income. However, as long as payments directly to third parties do not involve shelter or food (which SSI regulations look upon as income for the beneficiary), the trustee can purchase goods or services for the disabled beneficiary of the supplemental needs trust.

A couple of final points are to be remembered, as well. Any assets that go into the third-party supplemental needs trust must belong to someone other than the beneficiary – otherwise, this could not be a third-party trust, severely hindering the usefulness of the trust as a result. In addition, the settlor would be wise to include a “spendthrift” clause in the trust document so that creditors of disabled (and other) beneficiaries generally will be prevented from making any claims against the principal or income of the trust as long as money is not given directly to the beneficiary, which is an effective way to protect the wealth within the trust from creditors of a beneficiary other than the federal and state governments.

The third-party Supplemental Needs Trust has strengths and potential weaknesses that must be considered carefully to determine if it can work as part of your estate plan. If it can fit within your estate plan and if you believe that is needed due to your family’s circumstances, then you should seek out a professional to draft the trust due to its complexities. The crucial elements of a supplemental needs trust are set forth here, but you want to be sure that everything is in its proper place and worded properly so that your intent to assist a disabled beneficiary of the trust will be carried out successfully.

Creating an Estate Plan Involving a Disabled Child

Alberts Law, Estate Planning, ,

You may have heard of “special needs” trusts, particularly if you have a disabled child. A third-party Supplemental Needs Trust (SNT) often is considered a variation of this type of trust. However, in Pennsylvania, the third-party SNT grew out of a number of court cases as a way of helping someone on government means-tested benefits without making them ineligible for those benefits, which often include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid (or Medical Assistance in Pennsylvania), by providing additional fund犀利士
s and resources that won’t count against the individual’s eligibility. The benefits have strict financial requirements that can make estate planning when a disabled child is involved difficult, to say the least.

Due to these difficulties, various types of trusts and other possibilities, some more drastic in nature, are considerations when a disabled child (regardless of age) generally would be included in an estate plan. Parents could decide to disinherit the disabled child but often do not feel comfortable with this simple but seemingly harsh solution to protecting the person’s means-tested benefits. One common consideration is to leave share that the disabled child would inherit to another sibling, for example, with instructions that the sibling is to use this for the benefit of the disabled child. The inherent danger with this idea is that the parent’s wish is not legally binding, which is why it won’t count against the person who is disabled but also provides no guarantee that this plan will succeed as you had hoped. Also, if the other child has debts, the inheritance intended for the disabled child could end up benefitting the second sibling’s creditors, instead.

This may leave you looking upon the idea of disinheriting your disabled child while relying on someone else’s judgment and circumstances to allow your hope that this share of your estate will be used as you had wished to be too risky. If you really do not want to disinherit your disabled child entirely, then you need to explore other options. You could decide on an estate plan that simply leaves the share to your child who receiving SSI, Medical Assistance, or similar benefits, despite the possible consequences regarding such means-tested benefits. The most obvious of these consequences include a likely disqualification of the disabled child for those benefits for some period of time. In the end, there is no gain, only loss, with this plan because the inheritance, at best, merely replaces the government assistance. When you put together your estate plan, you are likely to want to find a better alternative than this option provides.

Particularly when you work with someone who has experience in estate planning, you probably will find out that better options do exist. One of these may be the third-party Supplemental Needs Trust in Pennsylvania. Although this can be hard to make effective when your estate is quite small, it is a powerful tool for helping your disabled child when your estate has enough resources for it to be cost effective and feasible to run in order to carry out your intent.

Importantly, this SNT can be set up in a way that will not jeopardize the government entitlements that the child receives while, at the same time, being available to supplement these benefits for an improved quality of life. Great care must be taken when you plan to use this type of trust because your intent has to be implemented through the document that creates the trust to accomplish your goal of providing additional benefits for your disabled child without putting the any of the other benefits from the government at risk. In the next post, we will look at some key points to remember your estate plan will include a third-party Supplemental Needs Trust.

Complications While Same-Sex Marriage Is Banned in Pennsylvania

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, Probate & Estate Administration, Topics of Interest, ,
[Note: On May 20, 2014, Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania actually issued the decision in Whitehead v. Wolf, in which he ruled as he anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court would rule. In short, based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, he determined that Pennsylvania could not justify its law banning same-sex marriages. He also entered an injunction against the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s law that was effective as of that date. The Commonwealth did not appeal so May 20, 2014 is the official date that Pennsylvania became part of the tidal wave of states across the nation that, willingly or not, recognized the legality of same-sex marriages.]

 

In Pennsylvania, same-sex marriage does not is against the law. Specifically, in the Domestic Relations Code, the legislature defines marriage as a “contract between one man and one woman” (Section 1102). Unlike its position on common-law marriage that was discussed in the previous post, it also has rejected the concept of comity, in which the laws of other states usually are recognized and respected. Instead, the legislature has invoked the “strong and longstanding public policy” exception to comity in Section 1704 of the Domestic Relations Code so that same-sex marriages, “even if valid where entered into,” are void here.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United   States v. Windsor, et. al. from June of this year may be the start of major changes throughout the country. Windsor dealt with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in which Congress defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The case concerned two women who were married legally in Canada and then moved to New York, which recognized their marriage. The widowed spouse was the beneficiary in the Will, but the IRS forced her to pay the federal estate tax even though a spouse would have been exempt from this tax. With Ms. Windsor believing that she faced unequal treatment due to her gender, she filed the lawsuit that ended up in the Supreme Court. In what was a landmark decision to put it mildly, the Court found the federal definition of marriage unconstitutional, basing this decision mostly on due process grounds.

Marriage generally is a state-law issue. Windsor does not alter this but does affect federal rights and benefits of legally married spouses of the same gender. Changing the type of marriage found in the example in the previous post from a common-law marriage to a validly entered same-sex marriage, the couple who got married legally in Washington, D.C. can remain same-sex partners but no longer are considered spouses when they relocate in Pennsylvania.

While federal law usually supersedes state law, some issues – including marital and property rights – have been left to the states in most circumstances. This is where Windsor leaves many unanswered questions. The Social Security Administration made an effort to deal with this by issuing regulations after the Windsor decision. In the example, the SSA instructs the person who married in Washington, D.C. and then became a Pennsylvania resident to apply for benefits on the work record of her same-gender spouse when eligible because the marriage originally was valid.

Due to residency in Pennsylvania when she applies, the SSA currently will put a hold on the application, but the application does establish the protective filing date for benefits that may be paid later if the same-sex marriage that does not exist in Pennsylvania becomes valid again as it was when the couple resided in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, had the surviving partner stayed in Washington, D.C., she could receive benefits now.

Bankruptcy law also relies on state law to define numerous rights, including property rights during marriage. Pennsylvania allows people filing for bankruptcy to choose to use federal or state exemptions for property. When a married couple owns their property as tenants by the entireties, this effectively prevents a spouse from transferring any ownership interest to a third party and generally puts the property out of reach for creditors of only one spouse. If most debt belongs to one spouse, the couple may decide that only that spouse will file, using the state exemptions to protect their joint property. However, a tenancy by the entireties can exist only when there is a valid marriage. Pennsylvania, by declaring same-sex marriage void, prohibits a same-sex couple from owning property in this way. Once again, there is different treatment at this point under federal law and under state law for individuals who, but for their genders, would be in the same situation.

Estates also are affected by marital status. Pennsylvania law gives rights to a surviving spouse preventing this spouse from being disinherited due to a deceased spouse’s Will. However, a person who entered into a same-sex marriage prior to settling in Pennsylvania becomes a virtual stranger regarding estate rights when the other person dies – the individual would not have the rights of a spouse. Instead, a Will would need to identify the person and specifically leave property to him or her (although the survivor essentially receives any part of the estate as a friend, not a spouse).

Also, Windsor provided that, regardless of gender, Ms. Windsor was a spouse and would be treated the same as other spouses under federal estate tax law, dropping her tax rate to zero percent as a result. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s inheritance-tax rate for a spouse is also zero percent, but, due to a same-sex marriage being void, an unrelated person of the same gender receiving property through a Will falls into the 15-percent tax bracket. In each of these situations, we see different treatment solely due to gender. Such issues will remain as long as same-sex marriage is rejected in Pennsylvania.

Next year could be a watershed year for Pennsylvania marriage law due to numerous court cases that involve possible recognition of same-sex marriages. A change could come soon after June when Whitewood v. Wolf, which directly attacks Pennsylvania’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage, is scheduled to be heard in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The ban on same-sex marriage and its resulting complications easily could be history in Pennsylvania before 2014 ends. Time – and, most likely, the courts – will tell.

The Status of Common-Law Marriage in Pennsylvania

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, Probate & Estate Administration, Topics of Interest, , ,

Until January 2, 2005, a woman and a man in Pennsylvania could consider marrying each other without any type of ceremony or written documentation. There was not even any requirement that they lived together for any amount of time, despite a common belief to the contrary. Basically, if there was no reason why they could not marry, such as being too young or being currently married to someone else, they basically needed to exchange words in the present tense – without even needing witnesses – showing that they intended to establish the relationship of wife and husband, and a common-law marriage was created.

A marriage created in this way could create difficulties when one had to prove the date of the marriage or, even, its very existence. As a result, courts made an issue of the problems with marriages that could exist without any documentation. A 1998 decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear that the common-law marriage certainly was disfavored but that the legislature would have to act to abolish the practice. Then, in 2003, due to the lack of legislative action, the Commonwealth Court took it upon itself to act in place of the legislature and decided that common-law marriage no longer existed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, all that this really did was to create more confusion.

With a Pennsylvania court saying one thing and the legislature saying nothing, the government needed to clarify what the law really was. Finally, the legislature passed a statute preventing anyone from attempting to create a common-law marriage beginning with the day after New Year’s Day in 2005. This did not invalidate such unions that took place through January 1, 2005, thereby ensuring that a possible common-law marriage that either the man or the woman involved asserted had occurred prior to the cutoff date still could prove troublesome. However, even with Pennsylvania’s abolition of the right to enter into a common-law marriage, problems caused by this concept remain.

Beyond the difficulties presented by a possible common-law marriage created in Pennsylvania prior to the beginning of 2005, there are problems because some states continue to permit a woman and a man to enter into this type of marriage at this point. They include Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah (which does add the requirement of an administrative order regarding the marriage), and Washington, D.C.  A com威而鋼
mon-law marriage from any of these states eventually could have an impact in Pennsylvania. While the reason often is thought to be the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution, this is not involved. Instead the concept of comity is the cause.

Through comity, states generally recognize and respect the laws of other states as long as the law is not deemed offensive to public policy in a particular state. Since Pennsylvania has long favored the institution of marriage (between men and women), it continues to recognize common-law marriage, despite the problems with proof that led to practice being abolished here, as long as the marriage occurred in one of the states where it was valid. Although it could not be created here, public policy in Pennsylvania favors marriage so it remains valid as long as it was valid from its beginning.

Therefore, a woman and a man could enter into a common-law marriage in Washington, D.C. in 2011 and then move to Pennsylvania. If the marriage was valid in the District of Columbia, the comity doctrine continues its validity here.

This means that these spouses will have the same rights and obligations that other married couples have in Pennsylvania. They will remain married until death – or until a divorce. While entering a common-law marriage has none of the formalities of a ceremonial marriage, its ending can occur only in the same way that any other marriage can end. Because a divorce is required while both spouses are alive, there can be equitable distribution of marital property. Meanwhile, the death of one of the spouses leaves the other with the same inheritance rights as any other surviving spouse in Pennsylvania has.

In addition, because the marriage is valid, there are rights to payments from the Social Security Administration that can vest when a spouse retires if they have been married for at least ten years. A common-law marriage also affects a bankruptcy. If one spouse basically has all of the debt while property, such as a residence, is owned as tenants by the entireties in Pennsylvania, then the bankruptcy law can be used to protect the house, with only the spouse with the debts filing for bankruptcy to get a fresh start by having these debts discharged. The marriage may have begun elsewhere, but – by the time that the couple has arrived in Pennsylvania – the fact that it was a common-law marriage in the beginning is of no consequence, regardless of Pennsylvania’s abolishing the right to enter into such marriages years ago.

In the next post, we will see another married couple that relocates from Washington, D.C. to Pennsylvania but finds the consequences much different. Instead of a common-law marriage, we’ll look at a couple that has gone through a ceremonial marriage after obtaining a marriage license, making the marriage much easier to prove. This won’t matter once they move to Pennsylvania, where they will be treated as if they virtually are strangers to one another. Their “problem” is that they happen to share not only their lives but also the same gender. The evolving area of law of same-sex marriage and its current (and possible future) implications in our changing society will be examined.

Possible Liability of the Personal Representative of an Estate and How to Avoid It

Alberts Law, Probate & Estate Administration, , ,

The personal representative (known as the executor when a Last Will is being probated or the administrator when a person died without a Last Will) is in charge of handling a decedent’s estate, with one of the major responsibilities being the payment of debts owed by the estate. The personal representative should not pay any debts or distribute any assets until determining if the estate is solvent, what debts exist, and whether or not all of the bills can be paid.

The reason for this is simple: the personal representative can have liability to a creditor that cannot be paid because property was distributed to a beneficiary or heir and also can be liable for an overpayment if a creditor receives more than it should have. Either way, the personal representative would be responsible for making up the difference to creditors that were underpaid.

However, if you end up being the personal representative of an estate, you can avoid any problem with liability by following the path set forth in the applicable laws. When you take the oath to be the estate’s personal representative, you are granted letters to administer the estate. Pennsylvania law requires you to advertise the grant of letters in a local newspaper of general circulation and the designated legal periodical for publishing such notices (for example, the Pittsburgh Legal Journal for Allegheny County).

In general, creditors with unsecured claims (basically, debts for which no estate property is collateral for any debt) have one year from the date of the first full advertisement of the grant of letters to give you notice of their claims. If they fail to do so, then estate property can be distributed without any liability for these claims.

It should be noted that two types of claims are treated specially under the notice requirements when applicable, and you must follow the requirements to avoid potential liability. These include claims that are owed to the Commonwealth or any political subdivision for maintenance of the decedent in an institution in which the decedent died as well as claims owed to the Commonwealth for medical assistance paid on behalf of a decedent for all nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services. Both involve time periods that are shorter than one year and require that you inform them of the grant of letters.

Also, an exception is made for any “secured” claim, in which there is estate property that guarantees payment of the claim (up to the value of the property that acts as security for the repayment). This has to be paid even if no notice is given so your potential liability would equal the secured value. Beyond the amount of the secured claim, any additional amount is treated as other unsecured debts are in terms of payment and liability.

When an estate’s assets are not sufficient to pay all of the estate’s debts, Pennsylvania law establishes the order of payment of unsecured claims, which also means liability to the personal representative if debts are paid in the wrong order, leaving debts that should have been paid outstanding. The order is as follows: (1) costs of administration of the estate; (2) the family exemption provided under Pennsylvania law; (3) costs of the decedent’s funeral and burial, costs of medicines furnished to the decedent within six months of death, costs of medical and nursing services (including costs of services furnished under the Commonwealth’s medical assistance program) performed for the decedent within that time, and costs of services performed for the decedent by any of employees within that time; (4) the cost of a grave marker; (5) rent for the occupancy of the decedent’s residence for six months immediately prior to death; (5.1) claims by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; and (6) all other claims.

No claim within each class has priority over others in the same class, but claims in a higher ranking class must be paid before payments to the classes that follow. Otherwise, the personal representative faces liability for making improper payments. Also, when an estate is unable to pay all of its debts, the personal representative must pay claims owed to the federal government according to the priority established under federal law. Personal representatives who do not give federal claims their proper priority have liability for these claims if they are not paid.

If you are in charge of an insolvent estate, which cannot pay all of its debts as a result, you can avoid the problems that can arise in this situation by taking necessary precautions to protect against payment mistakes that can trigger liability. For example, a distribution to a beneficiary or heir that is not done with court approval is an “at risk” distribution; if you decide to do this, you at least should have the recipient sign an indemnification agreement requiring repayment to the estate if the property later is needed to pay debts; otherwise, you will be found liable for the incorrect payment. However, the safest course – especially with an insolvent estate – is to prevent personal liability for any distributions simply by not acting until the court approves your proposed actions. You also should consider retaining an estate attorney to help you through this process and its potential minefields.

Social Security Disability: The Trial Work Period and Beyond

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, ,

The trial work period (TWP) often is misunderstood by people who receive Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits and want to supplement this income by working. You need to be aware of the impact of the TWP before you accept even a part-time job because you could end up losing your SSD benefits and, at some point, find yourself unable to remain in the workforce, leaving you without a steady income.

The trial work period can be difficult to understand because, as often is the case with the Social Security Administration, it often is a lengthy process that has various exceptions. Knowing what the trial work period really means and what rights you have after the end of your TWP can help you to protect yourself from significant difficulties later on.

The first thing to remember is that a trial work period applies only if you receive Social Security Disability. Anyone who only receives Supplemental Security Income, for example, does not have to worry about the meaning of a trial work period. However, you receive SSD (which, in general, is based on your work record), you need to be aware of the impact of completing a TWP.

As suggested above, you really must understand what a “trial work period” actually is before you make plans to attempt to get a job to increase your income.. The Social Security Administration allows people who are disabled to try to return to the work. The TWP looks at work during any period of 60 consecutive months after a person becomes eligible for SSD benefits. If, within any 60-month period after this, there are nine months in which your earnings are at or above a specific amount set by the Social Security Administration prior to each year, then you have completed the trial work period.

SSD recipients sometimes assume that this income level equals the amount for Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA), which are the standard usually used in disability determinations. Actually, income earned during any of the nine months needed to complete a trial work period is around 72 percent of the SGA level. For example, if you worked in 2012 (when SGA was $1010 per month) and earned at least $720 in four months and then earned at least $750 in another four months this year (when SGA equaled earnings of $1050), then you will complete your trial work period after the first month in 2014 that you earn $770 since your earnings in nine months from 2012 into 2014 would be at or above the levels set by the Social Security Administration. It also is important to remember that, counting the initial month of the TWP (which is when your earned income first was greater than the permissible monthly amount), you have to be concerned for 60 consecutive months that your gross earnings do not exceed the monthly level during eight additional months within this period

However, even though the trial work period will end when you have “excessive” income in nine of 60 (or fewer) months, all is not lost in terms of benefits. After the TWP ends, you are entitled to an “Extended Period of Eligibility” (EPE), which lasts for 36 months immediately following the final month of your trial work period. You are eligible for your SSD benefits in any month of this three-year period that your earnings drop below the Substantial Gain Activity level (which is higher than TWP earnings, as explained above). SGA earnings will rise to $1070 in 2014. This payment of SSD benefits will occur during the EPE as long as you have not had a medical improvement that ends your disabling condition – this improvement would end any right to disability benefits. During your Extended Period of Eligibility, you will not receive SSD in any month when your gross earnings are above the Substantial Gainful Activity level. However, because your earned income (and not your health) is the reason that you are not disabled, your case is viewed accordingly. Since your disabling impairment continues, whenever your gross earnings fall below the SGA level, you will receive your monthly SSD payment without having to reapply for disability.

Once the 3-year EPE ends, your right to SSD also can end quickly. In the 37th month after the trial work period ended, you still can receive your SSD benefits as long as you remain medically disabled. Your SSD benefits can continue on a monthly basis until there is a month when your earnings reach the SGA level. When this occurs, you would receive your full SSD benefits for three more months, at which time these payments generally end. There is an exception to this rule, however.

For the first five years after your Extended Period of Eligibility ends, if you cannot continue working at the SGA level due to the disabling impairment that originally made you eligible for SSD, you can request to have your benefits reinstated without being forced to reapply, which would mean starting from the beginning as you did when you first are awarded disability benefits. Instead of a new application, you would request Expedited Re-Instatement, which is a potential way to regain disability benefits that stopped only because of your work and earnings.

The major point to gain from understanding the trial work period and the steps after its completion is that you do not have to avoid working (or attempt to hide this fact from the government) if you receive Social Security Disability. Instead, this shows how you can test your ability to work again, allowing you to find out what your capabilities are despite having a disabling impairment. It also highlights the importance of knowing what the consequences of making this decision if you do not take the time to learn what is permitted under the regulations of the Social Security Administration.

Disability Claims and Unemployment Compensation

Alberts Law, Social Security Disability, ,

At first glance, a disability claim filed with the Social Security Administration and a claim for Unemployment Compensation benefits would seem to be contradictory. After all, when a person files for disability, the individual basically is stating that she is unable to work for health reasons. To file for Unemployment Compensation, that same person is saying that she is “able and available” to work. However, the current position of the Social Security Administration (SSA) is that these two claims can coexist, allowing one person to file for both benefits at the same time.

This policy is found in a memorandum, dated November 15, 2006, which was written by Frank Cristaudo when he was the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). He issued the policy to clarify an issue with which some of ODAR’s Administrative Law Judges continue to struggle, even after this directive. There may seem to be something inconsistent when a person collects Unemployment Compensation, reporting to Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry that they can work, while the same person tells a federal agency that he or she is entitled to benefits because a disability prevents work. However, the issue is not as simple – or inconsistent – as this would seem.

Disability, according to the definition of the Social Security Administration, does not mean that someone is not capable of doing any work. Basically, what disability means when an individual in terms of a claim for benefits filed with the SSA is that the person cannot perform work activities on a full-time basis, which is termed “substantial gainful activity.” This does not mean that this person is unable to do any work at all.

As for Unemployment Compensation in Pennsylvania and many other states, when a person is able and available for work, this includes part-time work and not necessarily a full-time job. In this situation, there are two definitions of work being used, and neither definition actually rules out the other one.

The memorandum does advise Administrative Law Judges that Unemployment Compensation and the work being sought to qualify of this benefit should be considered in determining whether a person is disabled, but it is only one of many factors. In part, the Chief Administrative Law Judge acknowledged the reality that disability determinations by the Social Security Administration generally involve a lengthy process that can force an individual to make the decision to apply for both benefits just to survive the financial hardships that can occur while awaiting a final decision regarding a disability claim.

In fact, one of the SSA’s own regulations directs individuals who apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to apply for all benefits, which includes Unemployment Compensation, for which they could be eligible. To force a person to apply for this and then automatically deny the disability claim because the individual did what was required would lack logic, at the very least.

A final note for the moment involves how receiving Unemployment Compensation affects someone who is receiving SSI, which is a needs-based program (akin to federal welfare), versus someone who gets Social Security Disability (SSD), which is based on a person’s work record. The person who receives SSI and has received Unemployment Compensation will lose some of the SSI payments that would have been received because there is a deduction from the federal payment when there is additional income, such as Unemployment Compensation, available to the individual because this means that there is less need for the SSI, which is based on need.

However, SSD benefits are not tested against a person’s additional income or resources when determining monthly payments. Therefore, the level of Social Security Disability paid to the disabled individual will not be adjusted due to the receipt of Unemployment Compensation. Also, certain other types of income – for example, Worker’s Compensation – cause an offset that is deducted from SSD benefits because Pennsylvania that would require repayment of Worker’s Compensation benefits in this instance if the recipient later is found to have been disabled by the Social Security Administration during the period that the other income was received. Since eligibility for Unemployment Compensation is not based on injury or illness, it does not trigger an offset involving disability benefits.

As always, if there are questions or any need for clarification regarding what can seem to be a complicated system of rules and regulations, you can contact me about these issues.

Diligent Preparation Is Essential When Filing for Bankruptcy

Alberts Law, Debt Relief & Bankruptcy, ,

Preparation is necessary in any area of law, but even the simplest of bankruptcy cases involves a tremendous amount of collaborative preparation between clients and attorneys. A client must provide detailed and extensive information that the attorney must review thoroughly in order to discuss the client’s options, including non-bankruptcy debt relief. Without this, the attorney cannot understand a person’s financial situation and give advice on the range of options to be considered prior to any work in preparation of a bankruptcy filing, if this action would be the best way to achieve a client’s reasonable objectives.

When bankruptcy appears to be the best choice after a thorough assessment of all possibilities, even more preparation and collaboration is required to successfully navigate this process. At its most basic level, bankruptcy involves the interplay among a person’s debts, assets, and budget. A bankruptcy should not be filed unless there is sufficient debt that can be handled through one of the various types of bankruptcy. This amount of debt is somewhat relative as it would depend on your financial situation viewed as a whole because, for example, the less income that you receive in an average month, the fewer non-bankruptcy options that will be available at any level of debt.

Meanwhile, your necessary monthly expenses (such as shelter, utilities, and food) also must be examined closely because, if these expenses generally are larger than income on average during the prior six months or more, then you need to address this problem prior to pursuing a bankruptcy. Again, this means preparation by you to provide all of the information about these financial matters so that the attorney can prepare an accurate analysis of what benefits and problems are likely if you file for bankruptcy.

As for assets, most people want to protect what they have. The attorney needs full disclosure in order to determine what might be lost if you seek the protection under a particular bankruptcy chapter. For example, a basic objective of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is to discharge debt while protecting property through the use of exemptions. The other common type of bankruptcy for individuals involves Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. You may have fallen behind on payments of a debt for which specific property of yours acts as collateral, essentially. This could be mortgage debt that is secured by your home. What can you do? It depends on the facts of your situation. Your preparation of these facts for the attorney’s review must be thoroughly for the attorney to be able to present the realistic options that are available to you.

There is a reason that detailed preparation by both you and the attorney is emphasized here. At the beginning of any discussion of a person’s financial problems, the attorney has to see various documents to have solid foundation for developing the set of possible actions that you need to consider. Meanwhile, the attorney has to help you with this preparation by requesting the necessary information. Billing statements, loan documentation, tax returns, paystubs, bank statements, and credit reports are some of the pieces that are required to understand the situation. You and your attorney must work together to put all of the necessary pieces together.

The attorney must take the time to be sure that you are aware of the need for full and accurate disclosure. Debts owed to friends and family are debts that have to be included in a bankruptcy. The inventory of assets has to be complete so that your property can be protected to the greatest degree possible, and the attorney needs to explain how you should go about the process of placing value on all of these items, including clothing and worn-out furniture. Here, the preparation begins with the attorney and ends with you in order to get a complete picture before various schedules and forms that are included in a bankruptcy filing can be drafted. Accuracy and attention to detail are crucial during this collaborative process. Your property may be exempted, allowing you to protect it in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, the attorney has to emphasize the importance of including everything that you own because anything that is not listed generally is not exempted, which means that you may lose it if you decide to file. The attorney has to be observant that things that might be overlooked are included here. Again, preparation is responsibility that falls to both you and your attorney.

In addition to information supplied by the client, the attorney has to look at outside sources, such as public records, to verify and supplement as much as possible. Also, while reviewing the provided information, the attorney must be able to spot inconsistencies in order to know what questions to ask to clarify this situation. For the attorney, preparation goes beyond filling out the forms – finding information, obtaining additional information, and explaining why this is so important are responsibilities that the attorney owes to you as the client as well as to the court. It takes a collaborative effort for end result to be successful.