legal news

The “S” is for Super Lawyers: Two ELSA Lawyers Named as Super Lawyers

Eustice, Laffey, Sebranek & Auby, S.C. is proud to announce that Kevin M. Laffey and Kimberly P. Sebranek have been named by Wisconsin Super Lawyers Magazine as two of the top attorneys in the state for 2013.  Each year no more than 5% of lawyers in the state receive this honor.

From the Super Lawyers website: (www.superlawyers.com/about):

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Attorney Laffey is a shareholder in the firm and has significant experience representing financial institutions, businesses and individuals in the areas of business law, creditors’ rights, civil litigation, commercial transactions, and real estate law.  He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School, and has been named a Super Lawyer in each of 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Attorney Sebranek is a shareholder in the firm with significant experience representing financial institutions and commercial clients.  Attorney Sebranek focuses her practice in the areas of creditors’ rights, bankruptcy (creditor side), banking, lender liability, business litigation, and business formation.  She is a graduate of Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, and received her law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. This is Attorney Sebranek’s third year as a Super Lawyer as she was selected in each of 2011, 2012, and 2013, after being honored twice as a Rising Star in 2006 and 2007.

Congratulations Kevin and Kym!

If you would like to meet with one of our Super Lawyers or one of our other experienced professionals about your legal needs, please contact us at (608) 837-7386.

Disclaimer:  Please note that reading and/or commenting on this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship with Eustice, Laffey, Sebranek & Auby, S.C. absent an express agreement between the firm and the client.  Contacting Eustice, Laffey, Sebranek & Auby, S.C. or any of its attorneys or employees via this website or via email does not create an attorney-client relationship.

The Wisconsin 2013-2014 Budget Bill May Have Severe Results for Medicaid Recipients

This is a very good article by Carol Wessels, who is an attorney who practices elder law in the Milwaukee area at the firm of Nelson, Irvings & Wessels, S.C.

http://wesselselderlaw.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/will-medicaid-recipients-ever-be-able-to-sell-their-homes-under-wisconsins-new-budget-law/

This article discusses the potential impact of the new real estate notice requirements for recipients of Medicaid. These new notice requirements were part of Wisconsin’s 2013-2014 Budget Bill that was signed into law on June 30, 2013.  This Budget Bill incorporates changes to the Medicaid program, including changes to the rules governing estate recovery, which expand the state’s ability to recover Medicaid costs from the estate of a deceased recipient of Medicaid.  The new real estate notice requirements are part of these changes to the estate recovery rules.  As pointed out in this article, these new rules could have severe effects on recipients of Medicaid and those recipients’ families.

If you or a close family member is a Medicaid recipient, you may want to consult an elder law attorney on what effects these new rules may have on you and what planning options may be available to avoid those effects.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in U.S. v. Windsor and Its Effect on Estate Planning

On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion, U.S. v. Windsor, in which it struck down a major part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional because it denies same sex couples equal protection under the law in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  In that case, Edith Windsor, who was married to her same sex partner in New York, where the couple also resided, and which recognizes full marriage rights for same sex couples, was denied the opportunity to claim the marital exemption from federal estate taxes upon her partner’s death based on the definition of marriage under Section 3 of DOMA.  This Section defines marriage for federal purposes as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” 1 U.S.C. § 7.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in a 5-4 decision determined that Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutionally denied Edith Windsor from taking advantage of the estate tax marital exemption, which would have been available to opposite sex married couples.  This thus violated the Fifth Amendment’s directive for equal protection under the laws by singling out and demeaning a certain class of people – same sex couples.  The Court also indicated that this provision interferes with the states’ power to regulate marriage.  Therefore, the Court struck down this section of DOMA.  Windsor, No. 12-307 (U.S. 2013).  For further information on the Windsor decision, see the article, “Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act in estate tax case” at http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/news/20138222.htm.  See also the article, “The Same Sex State Death Tax Trap Post DOMA” at  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2013/07/01/the-same-sex-state-death-tax-trap-post-doma/.

The effect of this ruling is that legally married same sex couples can now claim the same federal benefits and marital tax exemptions as opposite sex married couples can.  It remains unclear, however, whether federal benefits will be available to same sex couples who do not live in a state that recognizes same sex marriage.

What this means for estate planning is that the same estate planning tools and techniques utilized in opposite sex couples’ estate plans to minimize the federal estate tax owed may be used in same sex couples’ estate plans in states that allow same sex marriage.  In states that do not recognize same sex marriage, however, these estate planning techniques would not be effective and same sex couples in those states would not be able to avoid estate taxes in that way.

In Wisconsin, though domestic partnerships are recognized between same sex couples, same sex marriage is not.  It is therefore uncertain whether same sex couples would be able to take advantage of the federal estate tax marital exemption, since these couples cannot be legally “married” in Wisconsin.  We are hoping, however, that both the federal and state governments will provide guidance as to these issues and questions in the near future and will establish processes and procedures that will facilitate the implementation of these new policies.