Newsletter Mary Alice Smolarek, Editor Mary Beth Beattie, Secretary Anne W

msba section of estate and trust

Sharon J. Ritter, Chair Deborah A. Cohn, Chair-Elect Newsletter Mary Alice Smolarek, Editor Mary Beth Beattie, Secretary Anne W. Coventry, Editor

Spring 2012 Vol. 21 No. 2 Notes From The Chair

Sharon J. Ritter

t has been a very busy legislative regarding authorities associated with Sec. 8-106 to include for food and season. Not only does the Section qualifi ed retirement accounts owned beverages related to a wake or other ICouncil introduce bills that we by a principal; and clarifi ed that when gathering at the time of a funeral. think are important to the estates and a guardian is nominated in a power of trusts practice, but we also respond to attorney, the agent is the guardian of As mentioned in the last newsletter, the bills introduced by others that affect the the property. Section Council, in conjunction with practice. Sometimes these bills are well the Maryland Bankers Association, thought out and others are introduced The following bills passed in both has been working on the Maryland with no real understanding of this area Houses but as of this writing are not Trust Act. Although the bill did not of the law. Sometimes we are suc- yet signed by the Governor: pass this year, we hope that with the cessful in getting our bills passed and groundwork laid, we will be able to get signed into law, sometimes we are not, SB 787/ HB 772 modifi ed the Mary- the bill passed next year. In particular, I and sometimes it takes several years to land Uniform Principal and Income would like to thank Richard Wright and get bills passed. Act to conform to changes made by Jack Edgar for all of their hard work on the Conference of Commissioners on this project. This year we were successful with a Uniform State Laws specifi cally related number of bills that we proposed. The to distributions from retirement plans There were several bills proposed this following bills were signed into law to marital trusts and to distributions to year that did not pass but that we will by the Governor on April 10, 2012B trusts from pass-through entities. be working on next year. One of them 396/HB 822 redefi nes the term “court” in E & T article Sec. 13-301(e) to SB 787/HB 773 revises E & T article (continued on page 2) include Orphans’ Courts for purposes of UTMA accounts. SB 353/HB 318 increases the value of N HIS SSUE small estates from $50,000 to $100,000 Notes from theI Chair T ...... 1 I where the surviving spouse is the sole heir or legatee and from $30,000 to Heckerling 2012 ...... 3 $50,000 in all other cases. 2011 Advanced Tax Institute ...... 5 SB 711/HB 774 added language to the Commission Rates of Trustees in Judicial Sales ..... 9 statutory Power of Attorney form to Reality Bytes 13.0 ...... 11 allow for the designation of co-agents; added additional notices to agents Editor’s Note

Our goal is for the Estate and Trust Law Section Newsletter to provide current, useful information on areas of interest to Section members. The Newsletter can be better tailored to suit members’ needs with input from you. If you would like to suggest a future topic, change of format, or submit an article, please contact the Editors at:

Anne W. Coventry Mary Alice Smolarek Pasternak & Fidis, P.C. Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP 7735 Old Georgetown Road Suite 1100 One Charles Center Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6130 100 North Charles Street 16th Floor (301) 656-8850 Ext. 457 phone Baltimore, Maryland 21201-3812 (301) 656-3053 fax (410) 659-1318 phone acoventry@pasternakﬁ dis.com (410) 659-1350 fax [email protected]

Got News? Please send your professional news or announcements to one of the Editors at:

Anne W. Coventry Mary Alice Smolarek Pasternak & Fidis, P.C. Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP 7735 Old Georgetown Road Suite 1100 One Charles Center 16th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814-6130 100 North Charles Street (301) 656-8850 Ext. 457 phone Baltimore, Maryland 21201-3812 (301) 656-3053 fax (410) 659-1318 phone acoventry@pasternakﬁ dis.com (410) 659-1350 fax [email protected]

Notes from the Chair. . . (continued from page 1) is a new Slayer’s Rule. This bill was proposed Kelly M. A bill that came as a surprise was HB 101/SB 71, which Schulz (Frederick County) and was to be known as the Ann provides for the posthumous use of genetic material. Speciﬁ - Sue Metz Law, after tragic events experienced by a family cally, the bill affects the estates and trusts practice in that it in Delegate Schulz’s district. Professor Angela Vallario is permits a child born after a decedent’s death to be treated working with the delegate to ensure that the bill complies as a child for inheritance purposes so long as the decedent with Maryland case law and also to clarify its application to consented in a writing (made after October 1, 2012) to have probate as well as non-probate assets. his or her genetic material used for reproduction and to be the parent of the child. The bill was passed in both houses Senator Brian Frosh (Montgomery County) introduced a but as of this writing has not been signed into law by the bill on the Elective Share and Augmented Estate. The bill as Governor. If the bill is signed, the Section Council hopes to introduced is a new version of the elective share law from work with the bill sponsors in the next session to make some the Uniform Probate Code. A committee of Section Council amendments to address the effects the law has on estate and members will work with Senator Frosh to prepare this law trust administration. for introduction in the next session.

2 Heckerling 2012

By Richard T. Wright, Esq. The Wright Firm Each year, hundreds of estate planning professionals as- One particularly interesting program highlighted the in- semble in Orlando after the New Year to fi gure out what creased use of “trust advisers” and “trust protectors” with recently happened, what’s happening, and what’s likely to authority to direct or veto the actions of trustees. Although happen in our fi eld. This year’s Heckerling Institute on Estate the role has largely been derived from offshore asset Planning was the 46th annual gathering in that sequence. This protection trusts where the trust protector is played by a article seeks not to report on everything that happened at this character with intentionally arbitrary power, the Heckerling year’s Heckerling Institute. Instead my intent is to suggest program concentrated on the one recent American case on the themes that seemed to organize this year’s conference. this subject and whether this fourth trust participant need be (or is impliedly) a fi duciary. Answering this question is Recognize up front that beauty is very much in the eye of important because, absent arbitrary authority, trust protec- the beholder. Summarizing the themes of what occurred tor decisions can be resisted by directed trustees as actions at a Heckerling Institute depends on the perspective of the outside the scope of fi duciary authority; and any lack of writer. This year’s Heckerling offered 44 programs over 5 court supervision could be argued to knock out the equity days to some 2600 professionals. Given that spread, any leg underpinning the general concept of a trust’s existence. other attendee’s report on what happened may be quite dif- On the other hand, such arbitrary authority might be argued ferent from mine. Reporting on this year’s Heckerling is to be precisely what a settlor wants to avoid expensive liti- further complicated by the fact that the weather in Orlando gation between trustees and benefi ciaries or trust protectors was temptingly beautiful. It’s tough to stay focused inside and/or to turn on and off grantor trust income tax status. in January when it’s sunny and 76º outside and the hotel The consensus here was that, by default, a trust protector is surrounded by a challenging golf course featuring sand, is a fi duciary but that this status could be supers by express water, and at least 2 alligators! settlor direction to the contrary.

“Who the Hell knows?” Estate tax exemption portability (“Portability”) was another tool discussed to provide fl exibility in estate tax plan- That’s the response most prevalently heard to the question ning. Unlike our brethren in the accounting profession, underlying much of this year’s Heckerling Institute: “Will the we lawyers have all been conditioned to shun reliance on federal government actually allow the 2001, 2003, and 2010 Portability as a planning tool. In this regard, we know that tax changes (the “Bush Tax Cuts”) to expire on December there are no portable Maryland estate tax or federal GST 31, 2012?” As a result, the primary themes of this year’s tax exemptions, and, unlike credit shelter trusts, Portability Heckerling Institute focused on coping with this indecision fails to exempt from future estate tax the appreciation that and taking advantage of the current benefi ts that very well occurs to a decedent’s assets prior to the death of his sur- may expire on December 31st. viving spouse. In addition, reliance on inchoate “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” (or “DSUEA”) lacks the Foremost among the recommendations of this year’s speak- spendthrift protection from the surviving spouse’s creditors ers is the need to draft for fl exibility in uncertain times and to (and a second marriage spouse’s elective share) afforded know how to implement change when needed. Effective use of by a credit shelter (or marital deduction) trust, and DSUEA powers of appointment, benefi ciary trusteed fl exible trusts, “do can be lost on remarriage if the wrong spouse dies fi rst. over” strategies for modifying wills and trusts, trust migration Nonetheless, a presenter at this year’s Heckerling pointed to take advantage of differences in applicable law (especially out that credit shelter trusts also don’t offer Portability’s differing state income taxes), and trust protectors all received simplicity, opportunities for a second income tax basis step attention from speakers advocating various means to accom- up, and its signifi cant advantage where the decedent’s assets modate changes in law and circumstances. In particular, much are likely to decline in value. As noted by the speaker, “[t] attention was given to the developing law of “decanting”, i.e., his latter scenario is most likely to occur in an estate that documentary, statutory, or common law authority to “decant” consists mainly of retirement assets. Because the assets trust assets from one trust to another without violation of settlor are IRD, they will shrink by the income taxes incurred as intent or fi duciary duty. The overarching point here was that distributed, and they likely will need to be distributed more in times of situational and statutory uncertainty, we all need rapidly if allocated to a credit shelter trust.” For married to do a better job of helping our clients anticipate and allow for both foreseeable and unforeseen change. (continued on page 4)

3 Heckerling. . . (continued from page 3) decedents with estates that are top heavy with retirement the estate of the donor under I.R.C § 2001(b)(2) as it stands assets, using Portability with spousal IRA rollovers may be to revive on January 1, 2013. This fear becomes especially the perfect coupling of income tax planning with optimal acute where there is a signifi cant risk that gifted assets will use of the decedent spouse’s estate tax exemption. In ad- depreciate in value. Commentators at this year’s Heckerling dition, the Portability versus credit shelter contest need not Institute generally debunked that fear. Citing comments by result in an all or nothing outcome. Portability is a tool that Congressional staffers and their own legal analyses, “Recent can be used with a credit shelter trust where, for instance, Developments” presenters and writers, Dennis Belcher, Carol one might want to use a credit shelter trust to preserve the Harrington, Jeffrey Pennell, and Samuel Donaldson were Maryland estate tax “exemption” while preserving the de- unanimous in their belief that “‘Clawback’ is a Nonstarter”. cedent’s remaining DSUEA to shelter part of the taxable To be fair, some commentators noted that this position is estate of the surviving spouse. not universally shared. However, they minimized these worries by noting that the advantages of large 2012 gifts (as Use It or Lose It: Clawback Has No Fangs listed above) will accrue even if Clawback occurs and that the $5.12 million could be signifi cantly rolled back and lost Another major theme at this year’s Heckerling Institute was after 2012. the repeated encouragement by speakers to counsel clients to use this year’s expiring $5.12 million gift tax applicable Potpourri exclusion amount (i.e., $5,120,000 less the sum of prior years’ applicable exclusion amounts) before it potentially ends on In addition to programs encompassing the foregoing themes, December 31st. Where clients can afford to give up some a description of the 2012 Heckerling Institute needs to men- or all benefi t from the donated property, such gifts remove tion that this year’s conference also included a range of pro- from the donor’s estate the appreciation on and income grams defying thematic categorization other than the notion from the property gifted, avoid state estate taxes where, as that estate planning as a profession now includes a variety in Maryland, there is no state estate tax on gifts, and transfer of nontraditional tangential areas of interest. Tracking the assets in a tax-exclusive manner rather than involving a tax- expansion of things that we as estate planners do, this year’s inclusive calculation of post-mortem estate tax. Such gifts Heckerling included a number of interesting topics of newly are especially tax effective where high basis assets can be signifi cant interest: asset protection developments, Medicaid utilized to minimize the drawback of losing the capital gains qualifi cation planning with income only irrevocable trusts, basis step-up. in-plan Roth rollovers and creditors’ rights in inherited IRAs, assorted valuation issues (including both family entity In this regard, the 2012 Heckerling Institute included two valuation discounts and how to deal with artwork), and the practical programs focused on gifting with various levels developing legal landscape for same-sex marriage, domestic of retained benefi t: planning for the “New Medium Sized” partnerships, and civil unions. Estate of $5 million to $15 million and planning for the large estate of over $15 million. The program on planning In short, the Heckerling Institute can be counted on each for estates under $15 million focused on freeze strategies year to provide diverse in-depth coverage of important to keep the taxable estate from growing and on strategies estate planning topics leading to a brain-fried departure and to use the gift tax exemption to remove donated value from the humbling recognition that one still has a lot to learn. the taxable estate while preserving needed income (e.g., That’s why Heckerling is my New Year’s present to myself forgiveness of loans that will probably never be repaid, non- each year: I know the coverage will be timely, the speakers reciprocal irrevocable spousal access trusts, domestic asset knowledgeable, and the surroundings comfortable (especially protection trusts, QPRTs, and Medicaid exempt qualifying if lectures are received while comfortably attired in one’s own testamentary trusts for the benefi t of surviving spouses.) hotel room). It gives me an opportunity to renew professional In the program on planning for larger estates, the emphasis acquaintances and to talk to others who deal with the same was on freeze strategies to avoid estate tax on appreciation issues as mine. It exposes me to new opportunities for my and gifts to remove or marginalize business assets from the clients. Most importantly, the Heckerling Institute gives me owner’s estate. a context each year to get away from my day-to-day practice, to contemplate larger estate planning issues, to listen to To date, many planners have been reluctant to make such smart people confronting those issues, and to plan where my gifts for fear that gifted assets will be “clawed back” into professional future should lead.

4 2011 Advanced Tax Institute

By Edwin G. Fee, Jr. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P.

The 2011 Advanced Tax Institute Day 3 (Estate Planning) was sponsored by the Maryland State Bar Association and the Reliance upon portability of the federal estate tax exemp- Maryland Association of Certifi ed Public Accountants, and it tion is generally less effective than traditional bypass trust featured presentations on current developments, subchapter planning, due to the creditor protection benefi ts of a bypass S corporations, trust administration, and special needs trusts. trust, the ability of a bypass trust to shelter appreciation of This article summarizes portions of the live presentations and assets, the fact that the portable exemption is not indexed for the written materials. infl ation after the fi rst spouse’s death, and the possibility that portability will be eliminated in the future. On the other hand, Current Developments portability may be extremely useful for retirement benefi ts, which might suffer adverse income tax implications if used Turney P. Berry, Esq., of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP in to fund a bypass trust. Louisville, Kentucky, spoke on “Notable Developments of Interest to Estate Planners.” If a qualifi ed terminable interest property (“QTIP”) election is not necessary in order to reduce federal estate tax, then an Congress may have unintentionally provided for “claw- estate may not elect QTIP treatment for the purpose of per- back” of pre-2013 gifts in excess of the donor’s estate tax mitting a step up in basis for the QTIP trust assets remaining exemption after 2012. For example, suppose a donor gives at the surviving spouse’s death. Rev. Proc. 2001-38; PLR away $5,000,000 in 2012; the estate tax exemption reverts 201112001. In order to achieve a step up in basis, the surviv- to $1,000,000 in 2013; and then the donor dies. Clawback ing spouse could be granted a general power of appointment would mean that the $5,000,000 gift would be subject to (for example, a power of appointment in favor of the creditors estate taxation using only the $1,000,000 exemption. Under of the surviving spouse’s estate). current (i.e., 2012) law, there should be no clawback, because Internal Revenue Code section 2011 provides a credit for A surviving spouse who has received a required minimum the gift tax that would have been paid on lifetime gifts, and distribution (“RMD”) from an individual retirement account the credit is based on the rates in effect when the gift was (“IRA”) may not disclaim the RMD or the income attribut- made, rather than the rates in effect on the date of death. able to it, but may disclaim all or a portion of the balance of Unfortunately, the provisions in Code section 2011 that allow the IRA. Rev. Rul. 2005-36; PLR 201125009. this favorable credit expire on December 31, 2012. Thus, unless Congress extends the favorable credit, clawback may In an era of historically low interest rates, extremely long result by default. term GRATs may be an effective strategy for reducing federal estate tax. For example, a grantor could create a 99 year The $5,120,000 gift tax exemption ($5,000,000 indexed for GRAT, knowing that the grantor will die during the GRAT infl ation) in effect for the rest of 2012 makes large gifts at- term, causing inclusion in the grantor’s estate. The amount tractive, especially in light of the possibility that the estate includable is the amount required to produce the annuity us- and gift tax exemptions could revert to $1,000,000 in 2013. ing the Code section 7520 rate in effect at the grantor’s death. There are many ways to take advantage of the large gift tax If interest rates rise signifi cantly between the creation of the exemption, including discounted gifts using entities, grantor GRAT and the grantor’s death, then the amount required to retained annuity trusts (“GRATs”) that are not zeroed-out produce the annuity (and thus the amount included in the for gift tax purposes, and grantor trusts for the benefi t of a grantor’s estate) could decline substantially. donor’s spouse and descendants. Subchapter S Corporations Children who have more assets than their parents should consider making gifts to their parents. The gifts could be annual Jeremiah W. Doyle, IV, Esq., of BNY Mellon Wealth Man- exclusion gifts or zeroed-out GRATs, in order to minimize agement in Boston, spoke on “Estate and Fiduciary Income the use of the child’s gift and estate tax exemptions. The Tax Planning for S Corporations.” parents then could structure their estate planning so that the gifted assets would not pass back to the donor child upon the death of the parents. (continued on page 6)

5 Advanced Tax Institute. . . (continued from page 5)

The death of a shareholder does not terminate an S elec- An ESBT is more fl exible than a QSST, because an ESBT may tion, but distribution of S corporation stock from a dece- (1) have more than one benefi ciary; (2) accumulate income; dent’s estate to an ineligible shareholder does terminate and (3) sprinkle income and principal among benefi ciaries. the S election. Nevertheless, there is a cost for this fl exibility. The portion of the trust that consists of the S corporation stock is treated For the year of an S corporation shareholder’s death, S cor- as a separate trust for income tax purposes, and the trust is poration income, losses, deductions, credits, etc. are reported taxed on the S corporation income at the highest income tax pro rata on the decedent’s fi nal income tax return and on the rate for trusts. An ESBT election is made by the trustee. estate’s fi rst fi duciary income tax return. Generally, there is no income in respect of a decedent (“IRD”), because the A QTIP trust cannot be an eligible S corporation shareholder decedent has reported his or her share of the S corporation unless it also qualifi es as either a QSST or an ESBT. A income. Nevertheless, if the S corporation (at the date of qualifi ed domestic trust (“QDOT”) cannot be an eligible S death) had a right to an item that would have been IRD if corporation shareholder unless the spouse becomes as U.S. held by the decedent directly, then the decedent’s share of that citizen. A section 2503(c) trust can qualify as a QSST as long item would be IRD to the recipient of the decedent’s stock. as the trustee distributes or is required to distribute the income The portion of the value of the stock that is attributable to at least annually to the benefi ciary. A charitable remainder IRD is not entitled to a step up in basis. annuity trust (“CRAT”) or a charitable remainder unitrust (“CRUT”) cannot qualify as a QSST. When an S corporation shareholder dies, the corporation may elect (with the consent of all shareholders) to treat the Trust Administration current tax year as if it consisted of two separate tax years, the fi rst of which ends on the date of death. Trent Kiziah, Esq., Regional Fiduciary Offi cer for the Greater Los Angeles Region of U.S. Trust, Bank of America There is no restriction in the Internal Revenue Code on how Private Wealth Management, spoke on “Practical Issues Aris- long an estate may own S corporation stock. Nevertheless, ing During Trust Administration.” state law may require that the estate distribute assets within a reasonable amount of time. Because the estate itself is In a trust that gives the trustee discretion to distribute income the S corporation owner while the estate is administered, S or principal, a trustee must act, rather than remain passive. corporation income potentially could fl ow through an estate A trustee breaches its fi duciary duty to the benefi ciary if to a benefi ciary who otherwise would be ineligible to own the trustee refuses to make a determination whether or not S corporation stock. to make a distribution. The trustee must be reasonably in- formed regarding the terms of the governing document and Certain trusts are eligible S corporation shareholders, includ- the circumstances surrounding a benefi ciary’s request for ing grantor trusts, a trust that was a grantor trust prior to the a distribution. A trustee must act impartially and in good grantor’s death (but only for two years after the date of death), faith regarding distributions to benefi ciaries. A grantor a testamentary trust (but only for two years after the transfer might create discretionary distribution powers in order to of assets to the trust), a qualifi ed Subchapter S trust (“QSST”), give benefi ciaries incentives (for example, to obtain an and an electing small business trust (“ESBT”). education, embark upon a career, pursue charitable goals, or raise a family). A QSST must distribute (or be required to distribute) all of its income to one U.S. citizen or resident benefi- Internal Revenue Code section 2041(b)(1)(A) provides that ciary and may not distribute principal other than to the a discretionary distribution provision that is limited to an income beneficiary. The income beneficiary’s interest “ascertainable standard” related to “health, education, sup- must terminate at the earlier of the income beneficiary’s port, or maintenance” does not constitute a general power of death or when the trust terminates. If the trust terminates appointment. Accordingly, discretionary distribution pow- during the income beneficiary’s life, then the trust as- ers often contain the so-called “HEMS” standard or similar sets must be distributed to the income beneficiary. The language. Under Treasury Regulations section 20.2041-1, income beneficiary must elect to be treated as owner the term “comfort” does not constitute an ascertainable stan- of the portion of the trust consisting of S corporation dard when it is used alone, but it can form an ascertainable stock. Generally, the election must be made within two standard when it is used in conjunction with one of the other months and sixteen days after the S corporation stock is transferred to the trust. (continued on page 7)

6 Advanced Tax Institute. . . (continued from page 6)

“HEMS” magic words. According to the regulations, the 114, the prudent investor rule applies to some trustees terms “welfare” and “happiness” do not constitute ascertain- automatically, and to other trustees only if they elect to able standards. The regulations provide that the term “health” have the prudent investor rule apply to them. includes “medical, dental, hospital and nursing expenses and expenses of invalidism.” The regulations also specify that Special Needs Trusts “education” includes college and professional education. Under the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, section 50 (2003), Michael Gilfi x, Esq., of Gilfi x & La Poll Associates LLP the term “education” also includes living expenses, fees, and in Palo Alto, California, spoke on “Supplemental or Spe- other costs of attending an institution of higher education. cial Needs Trusts: Essential Estate Planning for Disabled The regulations treat “support” and “maintenance” as syn- Family Members.” onymous. According to the Restatement, these terms extend beyond bare necessities to a benefi ciary’s accustomed stan- Some government programs are not based on financial dard of living. The regulations state that it is “immaterial” needs, such as Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) whether a benefi ciary must exhaust his or her own income in and Medicare, but other government programs are based order to receive a discretionary distribution from a trust. on fi nancial needs, such as Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Medicaid (also known as Medical Assistance). The materials contain an extensive discussion of the “prudent Assets may be placed in a special needs trust (“SNT”) so that investor” rule, under which a trustee has a duty to “invest the assets will not disqualify a disabled person from receiving and manage trust assets as a prudent investor would.” The SSI or Medicaid. The defi nition of “disabled” is a functional prudent investor rule draws heavily upon the concept of test that focuses on a person’s ability to obtain and maintain “modern portfolio theory,” including an emphasis on diver- “substantial gainful activity.” sity and total return (both income, and capital appreciation) from assets. The prudent investor rule is embodied in the A fi rst party SNT (also known as a “(d)(4)(A)” trust, because Uniform Prudent Investor Act, and the Restatement (Third) it is created pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1396p(d)(4)(A)) of Trusts, section 90 (2003)). Note that under Maryland Annotated Code, Estates & Trusts Article, Section 15- (continued on page 8)

Join the Estate and Trust Law E-mail List

The Estate and Trust Law Section oﬀ ers an active e-mail list which is open to Section members. The e-mail list provides Section members the opportunity to post questions or comments concerning issues relevant to the practice of estate and trust law. Members may also use the e-mail list to communicate with other Section members on items of general interest to the membership.

To subscribe to the e-mail list, visit the Section’s website at http://www.msba.org/sec_comm/sec- tions/estate and click on the “Email Lists” tab. On the next screen, click on the “Join List” tab to the right of “Estates and Trust Law Section.” You will be asked to enter your name and email address. You will then receive an e-mail that you must reply to in order to verify your e-mail address. When you have been added to the email list, you will receive a welcome message.

Questions or comments about the e-mail list may be directed to the Estate and Trust Law Section care of David C. Dembert at [email protected].

7 Advanced Tax Institute. . . (continued from page 7) may be funded with the assets of a disabled person under age by anyone other than the disabled beneﬁ ciary, and the trust 65. The assets could include, for example, funds received does not have to reimburse the state for Medicaid payments. from a personal injury award or settlement. The trust must be Life insurance can be an appropriate means for funding a established by the disabled person’s parent, grandparent, or testamentary SNT. legal guardian, or by a court. Upon the beneﬁ ciary’s death, the trust must reimburse the state for Medicaid payments (but The trustee of an SNT could be a family member, a not the federal government for SSDI payments). professional fiduciary, a pooled trust, or a financial institution such as a bank or trust company. For example, A third party SNT may be funded with assets received from Wells Fargo Bank, MassMutual, and Merrill Lynch have a third party as a gift or a bequest. The trust may be created SNT departments.

msba annual meeting ocean city, maryland

The MSBA annual meeting in Ocean City will be held from Wednesday, June 13th through Sat- urday, June 16th. The Section Meeting will be held Friday June 15th at 8am. The section will present the following program immediately following the brief Section Meeting.

ETHICAL CONDUCT:

“Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Mark Twain

1. Recognizing and resolving conﬂ icts of interest in an Estates and Trusts Practice; 2. Tech and Ethics: Conﬁ dential Email Communications; Social Media and use of the Cloud; 3. The Unfortunate Misconduct of Mr. Coppola; Representing Clients with Disabilities---including, how to protect yourself against professional misconduct and legal liability 4. Pithy Practical Pointers helping you to “Always Do Right”

The panel of presenters will include:

Mindy Felinton, Esq., Felinton Elder Law & Estate Planning Centers; Lydia E. Lawless, Assistant Bar Counsel, Attorney Grievance Commission; Hugh “Jay” A. Mitchell, Esq., Stewart, Plant & Blumenthal, LLC; Linda D. Schwartz, Esq., Paley Rothman; Randolph S. Sergent, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, CareFirst, Inc.; Professor Angela M. Vallario, University of Baltimore School of Law; and Charles S. Winner, Esq., Fisher & Winner, LLP

For more information, visit www.msbaannualmeeting.org or call Wanda Claiborne of the MSBA at 410-685-7878. sea. you. there.

8 Commission Rates of Trustees in Judicial Sales

By Walter S.Childs, Attorney Linowes and Blocher LLP

The Maryland State Bar Association Estates and Trusts Section Council recently conducted a survey of the Commission rates of trustees in judicial sales across the state. Those results are compiled here, organized by Circuit and County.

Court Auditors follow the rates established in the Deed of Trust, or Court Order. If there are none, the following limits apply:

If No Rates are Fixed in a Deed of Trust or Circuit County Mortgage Where Published

Wicomico, Worcester, First Judicial Circuit Court Rules, First 10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on balance Dorchester, & then Administrative Order 2011-13 Somerset

Talbot, Caroline, Second Judicial Circuit Court, For- Second Cecil, Kent, & 10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on balance mer BR Rule Queen Anne's

Harford & Balti- 10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on $50,000 & 1% on Old BR Rule 3 schedule for the Third more balance Third Circuit

Allegany, 10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on next $50,000, 1% Fourth Washington, & Local Rule BR-1, "Judicial Sales" on balance Garrett

10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on next $50,000, 3% Amended Administrative Court Fifth Carroll on next $47,000, 2% on balance Order - 01/11/08

Administrative Order - Judge Howard 5% of Sales Price Leasure - Circuit Court for Howard County - 2010

(continued on page 10)

9 Commission Rates. . . (continued from page 9)

10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on next $50,000, 3% Alex Gordon's book "Gordon on Anne Arundel on next $47,000. Over $100,000 at Court's Foreclosures" discretion

Frederick & 4% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on next $50,000, 1% Sixth Local Practice Montgomery on balance

Charles, Calvert, 10% on ﬁ rst $3,000, 5% on next $50,000, 1% Seventh St. Mary's, and 7th Judicial Circuit Rule BR 7 on balance Prince George's

$165 for ﬁ rst $3,000, 3% of next $22,000, 2% Eighth Baltimore City of next $25,000, balance determined by peti- Supreme Bench Rules tion of trustee and court order

The Section Council expresses its appreciation to those auditors and others who responded to its inquiry on Trustee commission rates which enabled us to compile the data provided above.

2012 - 2013 Section Council Committees

Listed below are some of the Section Council Committees for which Section members may wish to vol- unteer their time. Please contact the individuals listed below or the Section Chair if you have suggestions or are interested in helping out.

Committee Contact

Chair Deborah A. Cohn Legislation Mary Beth Beattie Website/Technology David C. Dembert Publications Anne W. Coventry Mary Alice Smolarek Probate Rules/Reform Allan J. Gibber Educational Programs Frank S. Baldino Section Meetings Charles Bagley, IV Orphans’ Court liaison Jay M. Eisenberg Registers of Wills liaison Jonathan D. Eisner Estate and Gift Tax Study Group Liaison Danielle Cruttenden Brian R. Della Rocca Elder Law Section Liaison Jonathan G. Lasley

10 REALITY BYTES 13.0 By Robert C. Young, Esq. Stewart, Plant & Blumenthal, LLC Due to the nature of the newsletter, the active links have tails," Anonymous appears to have launched digital been removed. You can fi nd an interactive online version denial of service attacks on computers at the Justice of this column at: Department and major entertainment companies as protest over the shutdown of Megaupload. Friday, February 17, 2012 Piracy, Privacy, and Money, Money, Money! - Part I • The scope of action taken by the Justice Department is signifi cant. The Times reported: Piracy As part of the crackdown, more than 20 search warrants were executed in the United States and in eight other coun- "Well, yes mate. See, I’m dishonest. And a dishonest man tries. About $50 million in assets were also seized, as well you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It’s the as a number of servers and 18 domain names that formed honest ones you need to watch out for, because you never Megaupload’s network of fi le-sharing sites. know when they’re going to do something incredibly… stupid." Captain Jack Sparrow http://captainjacksblog. com/quotes/. Concurrent with the Megaupload take-down, Congressional consideration of legislation to stop Internet piracy came under In January, the Justice Department took down attack from major Internet players. Two bills were before Megaupload, one of the largest fi le sharing services Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, on the Internet, for alleged piracy of copyrighted in the House, and the Protect Intellectual Property material. The colorful cast of characters involved Act, or PIPA, in the Senate. The day before the in Megaupload will guarantee a forthcoming movie Megaupload take-down, major Internet sites such to rival Social Network. You can read more details, Wikipedia and Google launched campaigns in op- including endorsements of Megaupload by celebri- position to the legislation, arguing that it would result ties, its purported rapper CEO and founder Kim in serious impairment on the freedom to share Dotcom and his $6 million worth of automobiles information on the Internet. Wikipedia actually in these linked reports from http://www.marketplace.org/ "went dark" for a day, taking down access to its site, one of topics/tech/megauploads-mega-takedown and http://www. the most widely used on the Internet, and posting instead a nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges- message to users who accessed the site asking them to oppose megaupload-site-with-piracy.html. legislation and to contact their representatives in Congress to pass the message along. Here is what I fi nd interesting about this story: The SOPA/PIPA protest is notable for several reasons. It • There seems to be little dispute that Megaupload marks an historic moment when Internet giants like Google was traffi cking illegally in copyrighted material. and Wikipedia set aside commercial and competitive differences and acted in concert to express a political view. • Megaupload was wildly popular, being ranked in More importantly, they did so in a way that demonstrated the top 20 of Internet sites. again the considerable power that the Internet has to reach • The Justice Department had to reach across the people, communicate ideas and organize political action. waters to take down Megaupload, which is based outside the United States, and to arrest some of These Internet companies are expressing valid issues about the indicted principals. Kim Dotcom (a.k.a. Kim the provisions of SOPA/PIPA, particularly whether the Schmitz) was living in New Zealand. measures to prevent piracy go too far and would impede legitimate exchanges of information. That does not mean, • The Justice Department’s action prompted a retalia- however, the proposed legislation is wholly wrong or that tory protest from Anonymous http://topics.nytimes. Internet companies, most of whom have commercial inter- com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/ ests to protect as well as the freedom of information sharing, anonymous_internet_group/index.html?inline=nyt- are completely right. New York Times columnist David org, a loosely organized group of Internet hackers. In what the Times called "digital Molotov cock- (continued on page 12)

11 Reality Bytes. . . (continued from page 11)

Pogue has a good commentary on the protest of SOPA/PIPA These tips and more were taken from Cyber Threats to Mobile (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/put-down-the- Phones (http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/TIP10-105- pitchforks-on-sopa/) 01.pdf) published by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team. In that commentary Pogue points out that the opposition to Check out the links above for more information. Thanks to SOPA/PIPA falls into two different groups that are not really Pat Yevics and her staff at the MSBA. Go to this link: http:// in agreement with each other. The fi rst group would agree the www.msba.org/publications/barbrief/12feb_tech.html and piracy of protected intellectual property should be stopped, fi nd all of the MSBA 2012 Tech Tips. There are posts on but takes issue with the steps that SOPA/PIPA would take to protecting your computer from tracking cookies and Google's stop such piracy. The concerns of this group could be ad- new privacy policy. dressed by re-writing the provisions of the legislation. The second group really believes that piracy is good, a kind of an Tuesday, May 1, 2012 Internet variant of Gordon Geko’s famous "Greed is good" Piracy, Privacy and Money, Money, Money - Part II statement from the movie Wall Street. This second group wants to be able to have free Internet access to copyrighted PRIVACY material, whatever its nature. The second group wants no legislation or enforcement efforts at all. In this respect, the I have written here before about privacy and likely will people protesting the take-down of Megaupload, including again. It has been an important area of American consti- Anonymous, also may represent those who want free infor- tutional law since the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Since mation without cost, even if it is protected by copyright or that day when Alexander Graham Bell summoned Watson other intellectual property rights. with words spoken over his telephonic invention, we have becoming increasing concerned with protecting various forms With these two developments occurring side-by-side, it is of telephonic and electronic communication. also most interesting to note that the existing laws that were used to take down Megaupload appear to have rather far- In January, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled reaching enforcement powers already. If you believe that in United States v. Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ the artists and businesses who create music, fi lm, literature, United_States_v._Antoine_Jones) that the government needs photograph and other forms of intellectual property should to obtain a search warrant to track the public movements of have their rights protected and that fair compensation should a person by attaching a GPS device to the person's vehicle. be paid for use of such material, then it would seem impor- Antoine Jones was a suspected drug dealer who lived in tant to improve the existing laws that protect such rights in DC. Authorities had a warrant for Jones in the District of a way that does not threaten the free speech and the free Columbia and attached a GPS device to his car to follow his exchange of ideas. movements. Information on Jones' movements in Maryland was collected, however, and authorities had failed to get a Wednesday, February 29, 2012 warrant in Maryland. The Court split 5-4 on how the 4th Smartphone Security Amendment applied in this situation. Here is a link to a further discussion of the case at Marketplace Tech Report Even if you are not worried that one of Rupert Murdoch's (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/supreme-court- publications is trying to hack into your cellphone, you may be rules-closely-watched-gps-case). interested in information on how to security your smartphone and the personal information that you keep on it. Here is The Jones decision may become landmark of constitutional some good advice on the subject from the good folks at the law. It certainly will be important in understanding the cur- Maryland State Bar Association: rent interface between technology and privacy. We have seen societal situations that raise signifi cant questions in this area. TIPS FOR SECURING YOUR SMARTPHONE In recent political movements from the "Arab Spring" to the 1. Make certain that all your mobile devices have passcodes. "Occupy" movement, electronic means of communication 2. Disable interfaces that are not currently in use, such as such as Twitter and Facebook have been used to organize Bluetooth, infrared, or Wi-Fi. protest. In response, Arab governments fi rst tried to shut down 3. Set Bluetooth-enabled devices to non-discoverable. these communications. More recently, and more ominously, 4. Delete all information stored in a device prior to discarding it. 5. Do not “root” or “jailbreak” the device. (continued on page 13)

12 Reality Bytes. . . (continued from page 12) governments have been monitoring these communications in services to reach or interact with others online destinations, order to ﬁ nd dissidents and suppress protest. these policies are very important to our online privacy. These policies, however, are not really intended to protect our pri- The Jones case may begin to tell us where constitution protec- vacy as much as they are to govern what information Google tions attach in a world where we are revealing more and more or Facebook or other service providers can access and use about ourselves through electronic communications. Consider, for their own business purposes. however, that we now reveal a great deal of information about ourselves willingly on Facebook and Twitter and other social Remember that Google, Facebook and other online services networking services. If Antonie Jones had been checking in are businesses looking to make a proﬁ t. on Facebook or FourSquare, would government monitoring of his postings and travels been protected? These social networks want you to post personal information on their services. Such sharing is fundamental to the business One important question continues to be what expectation model on which such services are built. The information of privacy we have when we use such social networking that you share encourages your friends to join to see your services. When people sign-up for these services, they posts and to share their own information. This cycle brings must agree to contractual agreements that provide the terms more and more people onto the network. Participants keep under which the service is provided. These terms of service the treadmill of information spinning round and round by agreement set out important legal rights to material posted providing the product for the social network. In one way or and privacy policies. another, good Internet businesses use our information and usage history to make money. Of note recently is that both Google and (yet again) Face- book have changed their privacy policies. These changes Not only are the users the product, but they are also a potential have received wide publicity. As we provide more and more customer. Let's take a look at a simple scenario. You go to personal information on such services, including using such (continued on page 14)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT

The following is the report of the nominating committee for the Estate and Trust Law Section of the Maryland State Bar Association for positions to be ﬁ lled for the 2012-13 ﬁ scal year.

Nominations for ofﬁ cer positions for a one-year term:

Chair: Deborah A. Cohn Chair-Elect: Mary Beth Beattie Secretary: Eileen D. Day O’Brien

The Nominating Committee would speciﬁ cally like to thank outgoing member, Natalie Sherman, for her service on the Section.

Nominations for council member positions for a two-year term:

Frank S. Baldino Danielle M. Cruttenden David C. Dembert Brian R. Della Rocca Jonathan D. Eisner Jonathan G. Lasley Charles Bagley, IV

Other nominations for ofﬁ cers and members may be made by written nomination signed by no fewer than 15 members of the Section. Any such nomination(s) must be submitted to the current Secretary, Mary Beth Beattie, no later than June 5, 2012, ten (10) days before the Section’s annual meeting, which will be in Ocean City, Maryland on June 15, 2012, at 8 a.m.

13 Reality Bytes. . . (continued from page 13)

Google and search for information on the book, "The Devil Deep Thoat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what and the White City". You ﬁ nd links to various booksellers’ you know, and I'll conﬁ rm. I'll keep you in the right direction sites and go to them. Google now knows that you may be if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money. interested in books, even the type of book, and can place All the President's Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/ paid advertising for booksellers on your search pages. Or tt0074119/) you go to Amazon and buy the book. Amazon knows that you purchased this book and will recommend similar books Social networking, Internet businesses and technology are to you in the future when you visit Amazon. big business today.

In one sense this is good for you. You may get "better" Facebook has $4 Billion in cash and has fi led papers to go search results or better service, because the search engine public with speculation that its initial public offering price or the vendor knows something more about our prefer- may put the value of the company at $100 Billion. Facebook ences. This is certainly a critical element that makes such recently made an offer to acquire Instagram, photo sharing services "smarter" and, thus, faster in getting us to the things social networking site, for a reported $1 Billion. we are trying to fi nd. What you may not realize, however, is that your activities are leaving behind a kind of electronic "I'm excited to share the news that we've agreed to acquire footprints or fi ngerprints, showing where you have been on Instagram and that their talented team will be joining Face- the Internet and what you have been viewing. book." Mark Zuckerberg

Technologically, much of this deals with little pieces of Apple, once counted out as an interesting piece of technologi- code called "cookies" that you leave behind in your travels cal history, has seen its market capitalization eclipse the once in cyberspace. These markers allow sites to recognize you mighty Microsoft and oil behemoth Exxon. It is the biggest next time you visit and improve your use of sites, but they company on the planet. The list of market capitalization are digital signposts as to where you have been and what you includes Microsoft (now No. 4), followed by IBM (No. 5). have seen or done. Google is at No. 11, just ahead of Warren Buffet's Berkshire- Hathaway. Remember when we thought IBM was relic of Do we want this kind of information available? If we do, to the past? There may be hope still for Yahoo! whom -- Google? Facebook? Amazon? The government? What limits are there? Privacy policies and terms of service are de- Money makes the world go round signed to protect this information from general dissemination. The world go round, the world go round Money makes the world go round There is a confl ict of interest, however, because most com- It makes the world go round. mercial sites want to use such information to target you for ad- Money, Money, Money - Cabaret vertising or products when you use the sites. Such sites do not want to give up the use of such information entirely, because This surely could be the sign of another technology bubble in the it would mean cut off a signifi cant source of their revenue and stock market, but it also is a sign of how important technology profi t -- advertising or sales. Once the site has the information, has become to our economy as well as the world economy. however, when should it be made available beyond the reach of the terms of service to which you agreed? Let's refl ect a bit more. In a prior column, I wrote about a new the new music service Spotify. Spotify did not start These are important societal questions deeply embedded in in the U.S. It started in Europe and became very popular the technology that we use today. It will not be easy to draw there before coming to America. Spotify had to negotiate lines here, especially because of the money involved. fi rst with the Neolithic music industry in this country, which seems unable to grasp the potential and power of digital Tuesday, May 1, 2012 distribution of music and unable to fi gure out how to fashion Piracy, Privacy and Money, Money, Money - Part III a new business model to capture that potential and power. The U.S. music industry (and its global counterparts) seem Money, Money, Money to want the money, but only if they can collect it in the old Deep Thoat: Follow the money. fashion way -- one record, cassette tape, compact disk, song Bob Woodward : What do you mean? Where? (??) at a time. The music (and fi lm) industry seems to be Deep Thoat : Oh, I can't tell you that. Bob Woodward : But you could tell me that. (continued on page 15)

14 Reality Bytes. . . (continued from page 14) spending more time and money fi xated on digital piracy. It immediate imagine may be of a mom & pop store gone wild. has failed again and again to realize that times have changed. The old 5 and 10 cent stores of another era on steroids. Well, To paraphrase Satchel Paige, looking backward is likely to Walmart also sells things online. Walmart noticed an interest fact reveal that someone is catching up with you. about its in-store shoppers. Many of them pay in cash. Many Walmart shoppers are a true part of the 99%, part of a cash-based Most technological successes did not start out as the product economy, which the Walmart spokesperson described as: of trickle-down capitalism. Whether you were named Hewlett or Packard, Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak, Zuckerberg, or unbanked or underbanked, “meaning they either don't have Gates, or Paige or Brin, their fi rst was an idea, then there access to a bank or they have limited banking services or was a lot of scrambling and tinkering and writing code, some they don't have credit." fortuitous opportunities seen and taken, and, fi nally, in the modern era, a form of trickle-down capitalism: venture capi- Walmart also fi gured that many of these customers would tal fi rms. NPR recently did an interesting series of reports like the convenience of shopping online but for one small, on the rise of Silicon Valley, including a timeline (http:// but important problem: you cannot stuff cash into your com- www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404846/the-birth-of-silicon- puter to pay for your purchases. So, Walmart is now letting valley) and a profi le of the early venture capitalists (http:// people order online, then come into a Walmart store and pay www.npr.org/2012/04/05/149992521/americas-magnet-for- in cash and have the items purchased online shipped to them. innovation-and-investments). This, of course, also gets the customer into the store and may result in them wandering around and spending more money. Venture capitalists started out driving around Silicon Valley (Presumably, as the customer has to go to the store to pay, almost literally trying to give money away (in return for a Walmart has enough stuff available online that the customer piece of the action). Now, the investment side of the technol- cannot simply buy in-store or that the customer may purchase ogy business is more like a tech version of American Idol, online more readily than they would want to wander around with bright innovators auditioning their start-ups to see if the store looking for.) they can get funding from the venture capitalists. Let's go a bit further. Let's examine the concept of "free." If So what are the venture capitalists looking for? What, for you have an iPhone or Android smartphone, an iPod Touch, that matter, is Mark Zuckerberg looking for when Facebook or an iPad or other tablet computer, you probably have apps acquires Instagram for $1 Billion? Look in the mirror. (short of applications), those tiny little titles which take you Money is chasing money, specifi cally the money that we to all kinds of stuff. iTunes tells me that I have 155 apps on ("we" being the great huddled masses, the 99%) have. We my iPhone, iPod Touch and one that I purchased for an iPad are where the real money is, and all of this consumer-based that my partner loaned to me. Some of these cost money, like or social networking technology, in one way or another, is the Brian Eno music apps, Bloom and Trope, or the Notetaker looking for us as users so that it can get to our dollars. And HD app that I purchased for my partner's iPad. in order to get to our dollars, these businesses need to know a lot about us; they need to create profi les of our likes, dislikes, Many apps are "free," which encourages you to grab a big interests, questions, searches. From this information, these handful of them each time you go to the app store. It seems businesses can create a picture of us, so that, either directly like there is an app for nearly everything, so why not try or indirectly, someone can sell us something. these free apps and see how they work. After all, they are "free." Not exactly. There are easy illustrations that I have used before. Face- book posts ads on our pages that result from knowing what Most free apps do one or both of the following: (1) try to we "like" and, thus, are targeted to sell us something we sell you upgraded versions that cost money or other related are predisposed to like or want. Facebook is being paid apps and/or (2) mine your activities for data on you and your to broker this kind of advertising. Amazon recommends usage of the app. This still may seem like a sweet deal, be- products to us based on our shopping history, knowing that cause you can ignore the ads and who really cares if you just we are predisposed toward these items based on what we played "exhalent" in Words with Friends for a ton of points bought in the past. (a word which the spell checking in Google Blogger does not recognize, but Words with Friends accepts, much to the Here is a more interesting example reported by Marketplace delight of my wife, who played it in a game with me.) Tech in late April (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/ shopping-online-cash). When we think of Walmart, the most (continued on page 16)

15 Reality Bytes. . . (continued from page 15)

Stop playing Words with Friends for a minute and think a effectively than an old fashion sales ad in the newspaper. bit more. Like many newer apps, Words with Friends is As the Marketplace report states: designed as social interaction with others and pretty much So instead of the newspaper bringing the product to the requires that you connect through social networking sites consumer, you bring the product to your friend. “We like Facebook so that you can connect with your friends already know that ties between people in social net- who also have the app. I admit that I took the easy way works can be power channel for marketing a product of connecting through Facebook, which allows me the joy or brand,” says Alessandro Acquisti, co-director of of regularly being beaten by my youngest daughter. There Carnegie Mellon University's Center for Behavioral may be a way to connect using Facebook or other social Decision Research. “This new application takes things networks, but is not likely to be as easy to use. This tie-in one step further, effectively enlisting your friends as fosters more users for Words with Friends and for Facebook. their own marketing agents.”

The dark side is in the details when you decide to connect So you are really selling yourself and your friends in return to Facebook. In a brief notice before you connect, you are for those "free" gift cards. Are you at the crossroads about told that in making the connection, you are allowing the app to sell your soul? Maybe not, but before you agree to the and Facebook to access your personal information and usage "access my personal information" deal the next time, thing records. You want to play the game with your friends, so a bit more about what that means and what your are sharing. you click and move on thinking that one day you will have Perhaps all of that personal information results in a small to go review those privacy setting in Facebook. window to your soul.

There is a saying that is used a lot in the online The best things in life are free world: if you’re not paying anything, you’re not But you can give it to the birds and bees the customer, you’re the product. (http://www. I need mon-ey marketplace.org/topics/tech/send-5-gift-card-your- (That's what I want) friend-free-what%E2%80%99s-catch) That's what I want, hey! (That's what I want) Where is all this going? Go over to Marketplace Tech Re- I need money, that's what I want port and listen to/look at the above linked report. It tells the That's what I want story of a new app called "Wrapp," which enables you to source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/ send "free" gift cards to your friends. What a deal! "Free" soundtracks/m/madmoneylyrics/moneythatswhatiwan- right? Not really. Wrapp requires that you allow access to tlyrics.html your data on Facebook. The social networking connection here is essential. Merchants are not giving away free gift You can ﬁ nd a interactive online version of this column at: cards; they are buying customers much more cheaply and http://technobytesmd.blogspot.com/

SEARCHING THE MSBA ESTATE AND TRUST LAW EMAIL LIST ARCHIVES

For those persons wishing to review past messages on the MSBA Estate and Trust Law Email List, they are archived and can be accessed as follows:

1. Enter the following address in your Internet browser: www.msba.org/?lyris 2. Login using the email address used on the Email List. 3. You will then see listservs of those lists you are subscribed to. 4. Choose the list you wish to view. 5. You will then see a list of recent messages. 6. To search past messages choose “search” from the navigation menu on the left. 7. By using the advanced search options you can search the archives for particular words in the entire message, header, or body, and you can exclude words from the search.