Pets and Estate Planning (The basics)

When I die, what will happen with your pets? Who gets them? Will they be cared for?  If I die before I wake, who will feed "Jake"? Huge, legit concerns. And one of them made for a pretty fine country song back in 1991. I'm not telling you which.

In Kentucky, and most states - when someone dies (decedent), a court procedure must be initiated to ensure their belongings are disposed of properly. This is probate. In Kentucky, the rules for disposing property differs depending on if the decedent had a will (testate), or not (intestate); and if the property is real estate (real property/realty) or personal (chattel).

As with many areas of the law, probate uses terminology that sounds like something right out of Game of Thrones. This is mainly because most of the terms came over from England; and have somehow stuck around. I'm not even joking.

In the eyes of the law, pets are considered personal property.

If the decedent died intestate, there are statutes that clearly and strictly govern how property is to be disposed. This is called "intestate succession", and trust me - you don't want to read about it because its incredibly boring. But....the important part is you have absolutely no control over who gets your pets. None. The law is clear, its followed to a tee, and no one will have any ability to deviate from it. Not what you want.

If the decedent had a will, courts GENERALLY follow it; with some exceptions that I wont go into for fear of putting you to sleep. Your will, gives you the tools you need to care for your pets after you die. You can name who you want to care for your pet, leave money for that person to care for your pet, etc.

My favorite pet friendly estate planning vehicle? Trusts; testamentary trusts (OK Im allowed one lame Bond/estate planning joke per piece). A trust is a legal entity created by law, where one person (Grantor) places property (corpus) in the possession of another (Trustee), for the benefit of someone/something (beneficiary). A testamentary trust is a trust created by a will.

Why do I like it better? Wills go through probate, probate goes through court, and a probate case must be eventually closed. Also, if you will money to someone to care for your pet; there's no legal requirement they use the money properly. They could go buy a new car, new clothes, etc.

A trust on the other hand, doesn't require judicial oversight; and it's perpetual until the money runs out or the purpose for the trust ends. Plus the trustee has a fiduciary duty to use the money as directed in the trust, pursuant to the restrictions/guidelines in the trust document and state law. Finally it lets the will go through probate, and the probate be closed while the trust continues on.

I prefer trusts, but they too have their own limitations. Each state and each case is different; so definitely consult with an attorney to discuss which choice would be best for you and your pet.

What Happens with Lloyd Tubman?

There's been much discussion regarding the recent Lloyd Tubman news. There are two related, yet mostly separate issues in regards to Tubman and UK:

1) Legal - Tubman was presented to the grand jury (Id be interested in seeing a transcript, as Im guessing it was a softball presentation) and the grand jury reported No True Bill. This means the grand jury didn't believe probable cause exists to believe the crime was committed. Further, the prosecution stated they would not present this case again. It is not a declaration of innocence; but its the closest thing.

The victim appears to be sticking to her story, which is smart IF she testified at the grand jury; otherwise face perjury if she later changes her story. She can not appeal. However, there is no statute of limitations for felonies; so Tubman could be presented again at any time should a prosecutor so choose. Very unlikely, unless new information surfaces.

Ive tried multiple serious, serious rape cases. The law presumes innocence. However make no mistake - for these types of cases, Defendants are usually viewed as guilty until proven innocent. These are very emotionally and politically charged cases, which make them potential nightmares for any elected prosecutor. Ive seen prosecutors hammered in the press and/or election ads for dismissing rape cases that should have been dismissed.

2) UK's PR issues - Tubman wasn't fully cleared, but seems he wont be prosecuted. However there are potential PR landmines with this case. In the court of public opinion, anyone accused of rape is considered guilty; period. Don't believe me? Look at Bill Cosby (an example for the media treatment of these cases, not a comparison of facts in the case).

Media comes down so fast and hard on these cases, UK had no choice but to suspend Tubman immediately. No "we'll wait on the investigation", etc. Just an immediate, indefinite suspension. For comparison look at the Barker, Baker, Dubose situation. That's the difference in a rape allegation and an assault allegation.

Where does UK go from here? I think Tubman can come back, if his academics, etc are in order. I think there will be a minor, short term social media outcry. Maybe. But nothing major. I think the real question is: does Tubman want to come back? If so, is there anything else preventing him from re-joining the team (ie academics, out of shape, no longer wants to pursue football, etc)?