DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Technology Law Updates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Technology Law Updates Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates Cosponsored by the Technology Law Section Friday, October 14, 2016 8:50 a.m.–5 p.m. 6.75 General CLE credits LAW AND POLICY AT THE BLEEDING EDGE: 2016 TECHNOLOGY LAW UPDATES SECTION PLANNERS Dave Bourgeanu, Kolisch Hartwell PC, Portland Jesse London, Attorney at Law, Eugene Robert Swider, Swider Haver LLP, Portland Laura Zager, Attorney at Law, Portland OREGON STATE BAR TECHNOLOGY LAW SECTION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Scott Schneider, Chair Leigh Francis Gill, Chair-Elect Joseph Durkee, Past Chair Travis J. Benn, Treasurer Marinus Damm, Secretary Dave Bourgeau Chad M. Colton Aaron J. Cronan Andrea Hicks Jasinek Tricia Juettemeyer Jesse Lev London Robert A. Swider Ellen D. Taussig Conaty Marc Visnick Alexander James Wall Laura A. Zager The materials and forms in this manual are published by the Oregon State Bar exclusively for the use of attorneys. Neither the Oregon State Bar nor the contributors make either express or implied warranties in regard to the use of the materials and/or forms. Each attorney must depend on his or her own knowledge of the law and expertise in the use or modification of these materials. Copyright © 2016 OREGON STATE BAR 16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road P.O. Box 231935 Tigard, OR 97281-1935 Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Schedule . v Faculty . vii 1. War and PEAC: Negotiating with the Tech Industry over Fiduciary Access to Digital Property. 1–i — Victoria Blachly, Samuels Yoelin Kantor, Portland, Oregon 2. Technology and Agriculture: Emerging Trends and Legal Issues—Presentation Slides . 2–i — Mary Anne Nash, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem, Oregon — Jennifer Dresler, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem, Oregon 3. Drone Law: Updates and Guidance—Presentation Slides . 3–i — Craig Russillo, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, Oregon 4. Oregon Energy and Climate Policy—Presentation Slides. 4–i — Kristin Eberhard, Sightline Institute, Portland, Oregon 5. Stingray Technology and Associated Legal Issues—Presentation Slides . 5–i — Professor Carrie Leonetti, University of Oregon School of Law, Portland, Oregon 6. Connecting to Our Future: The Digital Livable City. 6–i — Mary Beth Henry, Portland, Oregon — David Olson, Cableworks, Portland, Oregon 7. Self-Driving Vehicle Technology, Policy, and Liability—Presentation Slides . 7–i — Richard Lazar, Techolicy, Portland, Oregon — Josh Schoonmaker, Director of Business Development, Tozny, Portland, Oregon Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates iii Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates iv SCHEDULE 8:00 Registration 8:50 Opening Remarks 9:00 Drone Law: Updates and Guidance F New FAA rules for commercial use of small drones F Privacy concerns F Liability and insurance considerations Craig Russillo, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, Portland 10:00 Technology and Agriculture: Emerging Trends and Legal Issues F How drones and biotechnology are expanding agricultural frontiers F Advising clients in a changing federal and state regulatory landscape Jennifer Dresler, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem Mary Anne Nash, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem 11:00 Break 11:15 War and PEAC: Negotiating with the Tech Industry over Fiduciary Access to Digital Property F What happens to digital legacies after death? F How to be proactive under the Revised Uniform Financial Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) F Strategies for effective digital asset management Victoria Blachly, Samuels Yoelin Kantor, Portland 12:15 Break 12:30 Lunch Presentation: Oregon Energy and Climate Policy F Carbon pricing globally and in Oregon F Oregon’s transportation package and climate issues F Washington’s policies and programs Kristin Eberhard, Sightline Institute, Portland 1:30 Stingray Technology and Associated Legal Issues F Fourth Amendment and probable cause F Constitutional significance of inadvertently intercepted data F Stingray technology secrecy and constitutional implications Professor Carrie Leonetti, University of Oregon School of Law, Portland 2:30 Break 2:45 Connecting to Our Future: The Digital Livable City F Avoiding the “digital divide” F Creating livable cities and combatting climate change F Legal, administrative, and political challenges in technological planning David Olson, Adjunct Professor, Telecommunications Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates v Schedule (Continued) 3:45 Self-Driving Vehicles—Technology, Policy, and Liability Issues F The speed of autonomous vehicle evolution F How autonomous vehicles impact our lives F Autonomous vehicle public policy, legal, and liability issues Richard Lazar, Techolicy, Portland Josh Schoonmaker, Director of Business Development, Tozny, Portland 5:00 Adjourn Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates vi FACULTY Victoria Blachly, Samuels Yoelin Kantor, Portland. Ms. Blachly is a fiduciary litigator who represents individual trustees, corporate trustees, beneficiaries, and personal representatives in cases including trust and estate litigation, will contests, trust disputes, undue influence, capacity, claims of fiduciary breach, financial elder abuse, petitioning for court instructions, and contested guardianship and conservatorship. She is engaged in state and national lobbying for updating laws for fiduciaries, and she serves as a commissioner to the Governor’s Commission on Senior Services. Ms. Blachly writes for and lectures at national and state legal seminars pertaining to trusts and estates, and she is a frequent law blogger for Samuels Yoelin Kantor’s wealthlawblog.com. Jennifer Dresler, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem. Ms. Dresler serves as Director of State Public Policy for the Oregon Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm and ranch membership organization, where her extensive science background informs public policy work at the capitol and with state agencies. She also coordinates grassroots and campaign efforts for the Oregon Farm Bureau. Previously, Ms. Dresler worked for Oregon State Senator Ted Ferrioli in both his legislative and campaign operations and as a policy analyst for the Oregon Senate Republican Office, and before that she was a Knauss Legislative Fellow in the office of U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R–MS) in Washington, D.C., focusing on policy research related to science, economic development, and transportation infrastructure. She holds a Masters in Environmental Science from Oregon State University. Kristin Eberhard, Sightline Institute, Portland. Ms. Eberhard researches, writes about, and speaks about climate change policy and democracy reform. Before joining Sightline, Ms. Eberhard worked at the Natural Resources Defense Council, where she led its California climate work in San Francisco and the moved to its Southern California office to help the largest municipally owned utility in the country get off coal and onto energy efficiency and renewables. She also taught courses on climate change and energy law at Stanford Law School and UCLA School of Law. She holds a Masters of Environmental Management from the Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment. Richard Lazar, Techolicy, Portland. Professor Carrie Leonetti, University of Oregon School of Law, Portland. Professor Leonetti is an Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence and the Faculty Leader of the Criminal Justice Initiative at the University of Oregon School of Law in Portland. She teaches classes in constitutional law, criminal procedure, trial practice, mental health, and forensic science. She is also the faculty supervisor for Criminal Practice Externships at U of O. Her scholarship focuses on constitutional criminal procedure, high-tech surveillance, prosecutorial discretion, the effectiveness of defense counsel, and comparative criminal procedure. Professor Leonetti previously was an Assistant Federal Defender in the Eastern District of California, an Assistant Public Defender in the Appellate Division of the Office of the Maryland Public Defender, and a member of the ABA Criminal-Justice Standards DNA Task Force. Mary Anne Nash, Oregon Farm Bureau, Salem. Ms. Nash is the Public Policy Counsel and Director of Regulatory Affairs at the Oregon Farm Bureau. In addition to representing the Oregon Farm Bureau on legal issues, she works with state and federal agencies on water quality, water supply, removal-fill, Endangered Species Act, NEPA, land use, acquisition, and other natural resources issues. Prior to her current position, Ms. Nash was in private practice in Portland, representing agricultural producers on a wide variety of federal and state issues. Ms. Nash is chair-elect of the Oregon State Bar Agricultural Law Section. Law and Policy at the Bleeding Edge: 2016 Technology Law Updates vii FACULTY (Continued) David Olson, Adjunct Professor, Telecommunications Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland. Professor Olson served for nearly 30 years as Cable Director for the City of Portland, where he oversaw Portland’s cable, telecommunications, and utility franchise programs and served as staff director for the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission. He stepped down as Portland’s Cable Director in 2012 to concentrate on teaching and consulting projects. He serves as Adjunct Professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, where he teaches Telecommunications Law. He also teaches online at DeVry University and maintains an active consulting practice (Cableworks) in his field of telecommunications law and regulation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Dakota Vs. Minnesota Trust Law Desk Reference Guide
    South Dakota vs. Minnesota Trust Law Desk Reference Guide Advantage South Dakota Minnesota For over 30 years, SD has been Like many states, MN has one of the best places to locate attempted to catch up to SD by a trust. A unique and active implementing the Uniform legislative trust committee, Trust Code. However, the Trust Location (Situs) favorable Legislature and difference is still clear and governor support continues to distinct, and the state does not rank SD as a top tier trust have the stability or support jurisdiction state; as verified by that SD enjoys from the industry leaders. government. In addition to many other taxes, MN taxes its trusts. In 2018, the There is no state personal, Fielding v. Commissioner of corporate, or fiduciary income Revenue decision highlighted tax, as well as no state tax on this major difference, holding State Taxes capital gains, dividends, that a trust set up as a MN trust interest, intangibles, or any may not need to stay a resident other income. This equates to trust for tax purposes for the NO state taxes on trust income. entire length of the trust (depending on circumstances). A Dynasty Trust has unlimited possibilities because there is no Rule Against Perpetuities MN has a Rule Against The Dynasty Trust - Legacy (abolished in 1983). Dynasty Perpetuities. By statute, all Trusts avoid federal estate and non-vested interests must vest Planning for Generations income taxation on trust assets (pass) 21 years after death of an because there is no forced asset individual or 90 years after its distribution and the bonus of creation.
    [Show full text]
  • How Unclaimed Property Laws Impact Funds in Your Preneed Trust
    BY WENDY RUSSELL WIENER We all recognize the benefit of general laws dealing with unclaimed property, which facilitate reuniting people with MISMATCHEDproperty they’ve lost track of – entirely M appropriate when the property is money in a bank account. But the op- eration of those laws on preneed trust funds is not entirely appropriate LAWS and can put trustees and licensees in an HOW UNCLAIMED impossible position. PROPERTY LAWS Let’s start by looking at the only two IMPACT FUNDS ways to fund a preneed contract. The first option is for the consumer to pay IN YOUR PRENEED the funeral home, which must then de- posit some or all of the money into trust. TRUST. The other option is for the consumer to purchase a life insurance policy; the same three circumstances – fulfillment, NOW THAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN IN death benefit payable under that policy cancellation or default. SOME STATES, THEY'VE GONE ABOUT is assigned to the funeral home so that Thus, the trust funds are locked up the firm will receive some or all of the by both law and contract, and they can IT INCORRECTLY, AMENDING ONLY money upon the death of the preneed only be accessed when one of the three GENERAL UNCLAIMED PROPERTY LAWS contract beneficiary. conditions occur. WHILE IGNORING SPECIFIC PRENEED Only one of these funding mecha- Few states include, within their pre- nisms – insurance – is exempt from the need laws, direction to the funeral TRUST LAWS. BY DOING SO, STATES reach of the unclaimed property laws home or trustee on how to handle pre- HAVE LITERALLY ENACTED LAWS THAT in some states.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperfect Gifts As Declarations of Trust: Unapologetic Anomaly Sarajane Love Rutgers University-Camden
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 3 1978 Imperfect Gifts as Declarations of Trust: Unapologetic Anomaly Sarajane Love Rutgers University-Camden Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Love, Sarajane (1978) "Imperfect Gifts as eD clarations of Trust: Unapologetic Anomaly," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 67 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol67/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPERFECT GIFTS AS DECLARATIONS OF TRUST: AN UNAPOLOGETIC ANOMALY By SARAJANE LovE* One fundamental proposition is that, under a legal system recognizing the individualistic institution of private property and granting to the owner the power to determine his succes- sors in ownership, the general philosophy of the courts should favor giving effect to an intentional exercise of that power.' INTRODUCTION Ethel Yahuda was a widow who wished to give a library of Hebrew manuscripts collected by her and her late husband to the Hebrew University in Israel. She announced her gift at a public luncheon in Israel and upon her return to the United States began to catalogue and crate the collection for shipment to the university. Her intention to go forward with the gift was repeatedly expressed to friends and to the university.
    [Show full text]
  • Southampton Student Law Review 2014 Volume 4, Issue 1
    Southampton Student Law Review 2014 volume 4, issue 1 1 Southampton Student Law Review Southampton Law School Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review Southampton Law School University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton, Southampton Law School All rights reserved. Copyright© 2014 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. © 2014 Southampton Student Law Review www.southampton.ac.uk/law/lawreview ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2014) 4(1) S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2014 Editors-in-Chief Elizabeth Herbert Ida Petretta Editorial Board Neil Brown Louise Cheung Dingjing (James) Huang Ebenezer Laryea Henry Pearce Viktor Weber Acknowledgements The Editors wish to thank our academic advisor Professor Oren Ben-Dor for his advice, commitment and support The Editors also wish to thank all members
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Autumn Edition of Trust Espeaking. Inside We Have What We Hope Are Interesting and Useful Articles. Trusts
    ISSUE 16 | AUTUMN 2013 GREG KELLY LAW LIMITED Level 6 Change House, 150 Featherston Street, Wellington | PO Box 25-243, Panama St, Wellington 6146, New Zealand Ph: 04 498-8500 | Fax: 04 499-5193 | E-mail: [email protected] | www.trustlaw.co.nz Welcome to the early Autumn edition of Trust eSpeaking. Inside we have what we hope are interesting and useful articles. If you would like to talk further about any of the material in this newsletter, or about trusts in general, then please don’t hesitate to contact us. Inside: Trusts and Avoidance of Rest Home Fees All quite tricky It was very common in the 1990s for New Zealanders to set up discretionary family trusts in the hope that by putting assets in the name of a trust, they could qualify for rest home subsidies in the event that they were required to go into rest home care. This certainly worked for a number of years. Things have changed, however, and this article looks at a recent case that challenged that proposition… CONTINUE READING Right to Decide About Funeral and Burial Still some uncertainties Arguments over where the late Mr James Takamore should be buried have led to a long-running legal dispute. Now the Supreme Court has spoken, but its decision in Takamore v Clarke leaves some questions unanswered… CONTINUE READING Law Commission’s Key Proposals for New Trusts Legislation Whilst the Law Commission is reviewing trust law, we’ve undertaken to keep you up-to-date with its recommendations; which is much easier than you having to read the 300+ pages of the Commission’s report… CONTINUE READING If you do not want to receive this newsletter, please unsubscribe.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Probate & Estate Planning Journal Winter 2016
    MICHIGAN PROBATE & ESTATE PLANNING JOURNAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Vol. 36 M Winter 2016 M No. 1 Featured Articles: From the Probate Litigation Desk: Obser- vations on Undue Influence David L.J.M. Skidmore .......................... 3 New Year’s Resolutions for Trustees and Beneficiaries: Ten Fiduciary Income Tax Planning Considerations Raj A. Malviya and Jonathan K. Beer .. 13 Two Matters Improperly Decided By the Michigan Court of Appeals: In Re Estate of Sabry Mohammad Attia and In Re Estate of James V Ward Alan A. May ......................................... 27 Conflicts of Interest in Estate Planning and Litigation (Or “How Many Hats Are Too Many?”) Robert S. Zawideh ............................... 31 Long-Awaited Probate Appeals Legisla- tion Brings Uniformity and Efficiency Liisa R. Speaker ................................... 36 Pets Put Their Trust in Us—Put Them in the Trust: Default Provisions That Protect Pets Rebecca Wrock .................................... 41 Why Would You Worry About Proposed Regulations to Section 2704? Lorraine F. New ................................... 45 STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN PROBATE AND ESTATE PLANNING SECTION Subscription Information The Michigan Probate and Estate Planning Journal is Michigan Probate and Estate Planning Journal published three times a year by the Probate and Estate M M Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan, with the Vol. 36 Winter 2016 No. 1 cooperation of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education, and is sent electronically to all members of the Section. Lawyers newly admitted to the State Bar automatically become members of the Section for two years following their date of TABLE OF CONTENTS admission. Members of the State Bar, as well as law school students, may become members of the Section by paying annual dues of $35.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functions of Trust Law: a Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1998 The uncF tions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis Ugo Mattei UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Ugo Mattei, The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 434 (1998). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/529 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Faculty Publications UC Hastings College of the Law Library Mattei Ugo Author: Ugo Mattei Source: New York University Law Review Citation: 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 434 (1998). Title: The Functions of Trust Law: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis Originally published in NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW. This article is reprinted with permission from NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW and New York University School of Law. THE FUNCTIONS OF TRUST LAW: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS HENRY HANSMANN* UGO MATTEI** In this Article, ProfessorsHenry Hansmann and Ugo Mattei analyze the functions served by the law of trusts and ask, first, whether the basic tools of contract and agency law could fulfill the same functions and, second, whether trust law provides benefits that are not provided by the law of corporations.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew M. Katzenstein
    Contact Andrew M. Katzenstein Partner Los Angeles +1.310.284.4553 [email protected] Andrew M. Katzenstein is a partner in the Private Client Services Department where he assists high net worth individuals, companies and charitable organizations with all aspects of tax and estate planning. He focuses his practice on tax planning matters, which include estate, gift and generation-skipping tax planning, as well as income tax of trust planning, probate and trust administration matters, resolving disputes between fiduciaries and beneficiaries, and charitable planning. Chambers USA consistently ranks Andy among the leading tax attorneys in the country, and highly regards his estate planning expertise in advising wealthy individuals and charitable organizations on a range of matters, including tax planning, trust administration and philanthropic giving. A client is quoted as saying, "He's extraordinarily knowledgeable and creative. He's one of the smartest estate planners in the US and I learn a lot from him. He's a pleasure to work with - he gets very deeply engaged with his clients and he gets to the point very quickly in a friendly and professional way. He makes clients comfortable that they're with the best planner around. He delivers quickly and efficiently and he has outstanding technical skills - 11/10." Andy is a much sought-after speaker on estate planning and probate issues and has appeared on CBS’ 48 Hours Mystery, NPR, and served as host of KFNX’s weekly radio talk show “Principal of the Matter,” which addressed a variety
    [Show full text]
  • Proponent Testimony on House Bill 595 Patricia D. Laub, Chair of the OSBA Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law Section
    Proponent Testimony on House Bill 595 Patricia D. Laub, Chair of the OSBA Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law Section Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Chairman Butler, Vice-Chair Lanese, Ranking Member Boggs and Members of the House Civil Justice Committee. I am Patricia D. Laub, attorney with Frost Brown Todd LLC, and the chair of the Ohio State Bar Association’s Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law Section (EPTPL). I am here on behalf of the OSBA to provide proponent testimony on HB595. The bill affectionately known as the 132nd GA Omnibus Probate Bill. The bill includes five important probate law changes that the OSBA’s Council of Delegates have approved. PROPOSAL 1: TO AMEND OHIO LAW GOVERNING A CORONER'S OBLIGATIONS OF NOTIFICATION TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT AND FREE OF CONFLICT WITH THE LAW CONCERNING RIGHT OF DISPOSITION. Sections 2108.70 to 2108.90 of the Ohio Revised Code were added, effective October 12, 2006, to assign to certain persons the right of disposition (burial or cremation) of a deceased person's body. Under Section 2108.72 of the Ohio Revised Code, a person, known as the declarant, may sign a written declaration conferring such rights on another person upon the declarant's death. If there is no such declaration, or if all named persons are deceased or otherwise unable to act, then there is a detailed statutory order of priority assigning the right of disposition under Section 2108.81(B) of the Ohio Revised Code. Section 313.14 of the Ohio Revised Code governs the duties of a coroner to notify certain persons that the coroner has possession of a deceased body.
    [Show full text]
  • A Handbook for Trustees (2020 Edition)
    A Handbook For Trustees (2020 Edition) Administering a Special Needs Trust TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS ................4 Pre-paid Burial/Funeral Arrangements .............. 11 Grantor .....................................................4 Tuition, Books, Tutoring ................................ 11 Trustee .....................................................4 Travel and Entertainment ............................. 11 Beneficiary .................................................4 Household Furnishings and Furniture ................ 11 Disability ...................................................4 Television, Computers and Electronics .............. 11 Incapacity ..................................................4 Durable Medical Equipment ........................... 12 Revocable Trust ...........................................5 Care Management ...................................... 12 Irrevocable Trust ..........................................5 Therapy, Medications, Alternative Treatments ..... 12 Social Security Disability Insurance ....................5 Taxes ...................................................... 12 Supplemental Security Income .........................5 Legal, Guardianship and Trustee Fees ............... 12 Medicare ...................................................5 Medicaid ....................................................5 LOANS, CREDIT, DEBIT AND GIFT CARDS .................. 12 THE MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION .........................5 TRUST ADMINISTRATION AND ACCOUNTING .............
    [Show full text]
  • December 16Th, 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee HB 464, Trust Law Written Testimony from Caressa Hughes, Assistant Vice Preside
    December 16th, 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee HB 464, Trust Law Written Testimony from Caressa Hughes, Assistant Vice President of Government and Industry Relations, SCI Shared Resources Chairman Eklund, Ranking Minority Member Thomas, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on House Bill 464, Trust Laws, particularly as it relates to updating cemetery endowment care trust statute. Service Corporation International (SCI) Shared Resources is North America’s leading provider of funeral, crematory and cemetery services. Our nearly 25,000 associates serve more than 450,000 families who turn to us each year to care for their loved ones. In Ohio, we have forty- five funeral homes, crematories and cemeteries. The bill’s endowment care trust provisions address a much-needed update to Ohio’s cemetery endowment care trust statute. The provisions added to the bill essentially align components of the cemetery trust statute with Ohio’s existing unitrust statute for investment purposes and allows more funds and safeguards for the maintenance of private, regulated cemeteries. Twenty other states similarly have already updated their statutes. The bill does not affect family cemeteries, nonprofit cemeteries, cemeteries operated by churches. It only addresses regulated cemeteries. Attached below is the LSC analysis of the provisions and a fact sheet on endowment care trusts and the provisions of the bill. Through the government affairs counsel of The Success Group, we worked with all the interested parties including The Ohio State Bar Association, Department of Commerce, Ohio Township Association, Ohio Cemetery Association, and Ohio Funeral Directors Association. All are either supportive or neutral.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking for the Dead: Voice in Last Wills and Testaments Karen J
    St. John's Law Review Volume 85 Article 12 Issue 2 Volume 85, Spring 2011, Number 2 April 2014 Speaking for the Dead: Voice in Last Wills and Testaments Karen J. Sneddon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Sneddon, Karen J. (2014) "Speaking for the Dead: Voice in Last Wills and Testaments," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 85: Iss. 2, Article 12. Available at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol85/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE SPEAKING FOR THE DEAD: VOICE IN LAST WILLS AND TESTAMENTS KARENJ. SNEDDONt INTRODUCTION ................................. ..... 684 I. FUNCTION OF WILLS ........................... .......685 II. VOICE ..................................... ...... 689 A. Term Defined. ...................... ....... 689 B. Applicability of Voice to Wills ............ ..... 696 C. Pitfalls.......................... ........ 708 D. Benefits ............................ ..... 720 III. VOICE IN WILLS ........................... ..... 728 A. Voice in Non-Attorney Drafted Wills ...... ...... 728 1. Nuncupative Wills ................. ...... 729 2. Ethical Wills...... ................. 729 3. Holographic Wills .................. ..... 732 4. Commercial Fill-in-the-Blank Forms and
    [Show full text]