Kentucky voter Address Confidentiality Program

"No eligible voter should be discouraged from voting out of fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her children. But because voter records are generally available to the public, many victims [of domestic violence] do not register to vote because they fear the perpetrators of the crimes against them would be able to determine their addresses, compromising their security."

Kentucky voter Address Confidentiality Program

"To become a participant, the eligible individual (or someone authorized on his or her behalf) must complete the ACP Application. Hard copies are available from the Secretary of State and county clerks' offices, as well as through authorized assistance agencies. Applications must be submitted to the Secretary of State's office.

"If you are certified, you will be allowed to vote via mail-in absentee ballot, and your name and address will not be included on any publicly available voter records.
Certification lasts for two years, unless it is cancelled or the participant withdraws before the expiration date. Certification can be renewed before the expiration date."

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ----------

Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

What is a nuncupative will?

A nuncupative will is an oral expression, as opposed to one in writing, of a testamentary intent, especially by a mortally wounded soldier or by anyone facing immanent death for any reason. Not all states recognize these types of oral wills under any circumstances. Kentucky does not.

Indiana, however, allows nuncupative wills by statute under very limited circumstances.

Indiana Code 29-1-5-4
Nuncupative will; requisites; limitations

(a) A nuncupative will may be made only by a person inimminent peril of death, whether from illness or otherwise, and shallbe valid only if the testator died as a result of the impending peril,and must be

(1) Declared to be his will by the testator before two (2)disinterested witnesses;
(2) Reduced to writing by or under the direction of one (1) of the witnesses within thirty (30) days after such declaration; and
(3) Submitted for probate within six (6) months after the death of the testator.

(b) The nuncupative will may dispose of personal property only and to an aggregate value not exceeding one thousand ($1,000)dollars, except that in the case of persons in active military, air or naval service in time of war the aggregate amount may be ten thousand ($10,000) dollars.

(c) A nuncupative will does not revoke an existing written will.Such written will is changed only to the extent necessary to give effect to the nuncupative will.

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ----------

Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Who gets my stuff when I croak?

Yes. My interests have shifted to death and the necessity to dispose of stuff.

There are three primary consideration that determine who gets my stuff when I croak.

1. The state of my residence at the time of death and the location of any real property. Laws are different in different states;
2. If I have a valid will at the time of my death, and;
3. If I am married at the time of my death.

Kentucky's laws of inheritance focus upon kinship, family and marriage. Spouses have special statutory rights called "dower and curtesy". Divorce prior to death ends those rights.

• If I die without a will in Kentucky, my children or their descendants inherit everything, subject to spouse's rights if I am married.
• If I do not have any children, then my parents inherit my stuff, subject to spouse's rights if I am married. 
• To brothers and sisters or their descendants, subject to spouse's rights if I am married. 
• If my parents are dead, I have no children, descendants of children, siblings or descendants of siblings when I die, then my spouse inherits everything if I am married.

• If these first four slots, children or their descendants, parents, siblings  or their descendants and spouse, are empty, then my stuff goes to more distant relatives.
• If there is no family, then my stuff goes to the state. This is called "escheat."

If I am married at the time of my death, my spouse has a statutory right to a spousal allowance of $15,000 plus one-half of the remaining stuff, whether or not I die with a will. My spouse has the option to opt-out of my will and to claim the statutory spousal dower.

So, if I am married with children and die without a will, this is what happens:

1. All my debts, expenses and taxes are paid;
2. My spouse gets the $15,000 allowance;
3. What's left over is split evenly between my spouse and my children.

With a will, I can give more to my spouse, but I cannot give less without her consent.

Of course, it can be a lot more complicated than this hypothetical example.

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ----------

Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Don't avoid probate . . . .totally

Some people believe that planning one's estate to avoid probate by the use of various methods is a universal blessing, but it has its weak spots. One clear benefit from probate is the shorter time limit allowed under Kentucky law for claims to be asserted against a decedent's estate.

KRS 395.011(1) provides:

"All claims against a decedent's estate which arose before the death of the decedent, excluding claims of the United States, the State of Kentucky and any subdivision thereof, whether due or to become due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, founded on contract, tort, or other legal basis, if not barred earlier by other statute of limitations, are barred against the estate, the personal representative, and the heirs and devisees of the decedent, unless presented within six (6) months after the appointment of the personal representative, or where no personal representative has been appointed, within two (2) years after the decedent's death." [emphasis added]

Probate and probate-avoidance strategies are not mutually exclusive. The advantage of limiting claims against the estate to six months after the appointment of a personal representative may very well outweigh any advantage of avoiding probate totally and living with a two year period of limitation after the date of death.  

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ----------

Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Washington Redskins' trademark tossed

The decision by the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in the case of Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc. was made on the basis that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and, as such, cannot be trademarked because federal law prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language. The board stated:

The recognition that this racial designation based on skin color is disparaging to Native Americans is also demonstrated by the near complete drop-off in usage of "redskins" as a reference to Native Americans beginning in the 1960's.

The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990. There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.

Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term "Redskin" disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging.

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ----------

Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.