Monday, June 1, 2020

Murder, She Wrote? Would “Tiger King” Nemesis be Texas Toast Under Texas Estate Laws?

Originally published by Michael Cohen.

The recent Netflix series “Tiger King” focused on the feud between an Oklahoma private zookeeper (of big cats such as tigers and lions) known as “Joe Exotic” (herein “Exotic”) who also called himself the “Tiger King” and big cat animal rights preservationist, Carol Baskin (“Baskin”). Their bitter rivalry eventually culminated with the imprisonment of Exotic for hiring a hitman to murder Baskin.

However, the series also shows that Baskin was no angel. Exotic claimed that Baskin was involved in the mysterious 1997 disappearance of her then-husband, Don Lewis (“Lewis”) who was survived by children of a prior marriage. The marital relationship between Lewis and Baskin was rocky prior to his mysterious disappearance. The attorney for Lewis claimed that Lewis had previously even tried to get a restraining order against Baskin for her threats to murder him for the second time. They also disagreed about the direction of their big cat business as Lewis was more concerned about profits while Baskin wanted an animal sanctuary. Lewis had an estate estimated around $5-10 Million. Lewis has been reported missing since August 19, 1997 (last seen on August 18) and his abandoned van was discovered at an airport a few days later.

No criminal charges were ever filed against Baskin (although the case has been re-opened due to the popularity of the show). The sheriff’s department reported she was uncooperative.

Other suspicious circumstances about Baskin were the allegations of Anne McQueen, the executive assistant of Lewis. She contends that Lewis gave her an envelope (which she put in her desk at the business office) with his power of attorney and Will (which named McQueen as his agent and executor) and a petition for an injunction against Baskin. He advised her to go to the police if something happened to him. McQueen further stated that Baskin broke into her office and took the Will and power of attorney after Lewis disappeared.

Baskin then used a new Will and power of attorney (which indicated that it was prepared by Baskin) that stated Baskin was the executor and agent. The power of attorney included a shocking statement “this durable power of attorney shall not be affected by any disability or disappearance”. I know of no attorney who has ever seen the words “or disappearance” in a power of attorney. She then used the power of attorney to transfer most of the assets of Lewis to herself and she (not the children of Lewis) was the beneficiary of the majority his estate under the Will she presented to the court.

If the proper jurisdiction was Texas, what laws would be applicable to Baskin under laws here?

  1. Is a Power of Attorney valid if someone is missing? Until the one who signed (the “principal”) the power of attorney is determined dead (see no. 6 below), the agent under the power of attorney should presumptively have the authority to act in a fiduciary manner and in good faith. The existence of strained relationships between parties does not lessen the agent’s duty of full and complete disclosure. So, Baskin could act- but she was truly acting in good faith?  Was it merely coincidental that he disappeared after he signed the power of attorney that she prepared (which indicated that it was good during his disappearance)?
  2. Is self-dealing allowed under a Power of Attorney? Normally the agent is a fiduciary under the power of attorney and has the burden to show fairness. Self-dealing is not permitted unless the document specifically permits the same (and most do not). It is unlikely that the power of attorney of Lewis had such a provision, but it is possible given the language Baskin prepared with the unusual provision that the power of attorney was good even if he disappeared. As a fiduciary, the primary duty should be to the principal – not the agent. She transferred assets of Lewis to herself.
  3. Could Baskin be removed as Executor? An Independent Executor guilty of gross misconduct or gross mismanagement (not ordinary negligence) can be removed. If the executor uses the advantage of their position to gain a benefit at the expense of those to whom the executor owes a fiduciary duty (the children of Lewis), then there can be a breach of fiduciary duty for self-dealing. Was Baskin guilty of gross misconduct?
  4. Can Baskin benefit if found guilty or is suspected of causing the death of Lewis? Equity does not allow anyone to benefit from their bad acts. Under Texas laws, a murder conviction is not required. The law in Texas is that a civil court needs to only find by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused caused the death of the decedent. Anyone remember O.J. Simpson?
  5. What grounds could the Will of Lewis be challenged? Baskin indicated that perhaps the reason for Lewis’ disappearance was that he had some dementia. This raises the question if he had sufficient mental capacity to sign the Will. Another possibility for contesting is the issue of undue influence. The power of attorney clearly indicated it was prepared by Baskin. If she prepared the Will where she was the beneficiary and she was there when the Will was signed, undue influence could be alleged. Finally, she apparently threatened to kill him on more than one occasion. Was the Will signed under duress?
  6. When is there a presumption of death in Texas? Any person missing for seven successive years is legally presumed dead under Texas law.  Baskin waited for the 5 year limit under Florida law prior to probating the Will of Lewis.
  7. Do you have to wait seven years to probate a Will of a missing person? No. Texas law allows an interested person to probate a Will even if there is no direct proof that the person died. The court may order an interested person to conduct a search for the missing person. Search costs can be paid out of the estate property.

Although Baskin may have never been charged with a crime, there seems to be many ways which her actions could be legally challenged if this was a Texas tale.

If interested in learning more, consider attending our next free “Estate Planning Essentials” virtual workshop by calling us at (214) 720-0102 or sign up by clicking here. Our goal is to make it easy for you to attend from the comfort of wherever you reside.

The post MURDER, SHE WROTE? WOULD “TIGER KING” NEMESIS BE TEXAS TOAST UNDER TEXAS ESTATE LAWS? appeared first on Dallas Elder Lawyer.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2zTT5V9
via Abogado Aly Website

Federal Court Examines Jurisdictional Reach Over Outer Continental Shelfs

Originally published by Chris Halgren.

Sam V. Laborde Marine, L.L.C., Civil Action No. H-19-4041, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1585, (S.D. Tex. 2020)

Following removal from State Court, the Plaintiff challenged the federal trial court’s jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s personal injury claim. Ultimately, the district court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), which grants federal courts jurisdiction over certain disputes arising out of conduct on the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”), codified at 43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.

At the time of his injury, the Plaintiff was working as an inspector on a platform located on the OCS. However, the injury occurred while the Plaintiff was walking down the stairs of a nearby vessel where Plaintiff was being housed during his employment. The Plaintiff claimed that the OCSLA did not apply to his claim because it arose on the vessel, rather than the platform located on the OCS. The Plaintiff claimed that for the OCSLA to apply, his injury must have occurred while he was on a “proper situs.” In other words, the injury had to have occurred on the platform and the fact that it occurred on the vessel precluded federal court jurisdiction.

The district court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument, concluding that the Fifth Circuit has “explicitly rejected the argument that OCSLA jurisdiction includes a situs requirement.” The court noted that there is a perceived conflict between the Fifth Circuit’s 2013 opinion in Barker v. Hercules, which appears to refer to a situs requirement, and the Fifth Circuit’s 2014 opinion in In re Deepwater Horizon, which appears to reject the inclusion of a situs requirement. Rather, In re Deepwater Horizon applied a “but for” test, looking only at whether the facts underlying the action would not have occurred but for an operation on the OCS. The district court harmonized the two Fifth Circuit opinions by concluding that Barker’s “situs” element applied only when determining whether OCSLA’s choice-of-law rules would apply. When the question is focused on jurisdiction, then Deepwater Horizon’s broader “but for” test would apply.

The district court applied the “but for” test and concluded that the Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred but for his employment as an inspector on a platform located on the OCS. Accordingly, the district court concluded that it was vested with jurisdiction.

Author information

Chris Halgren

Chris Halgren

Oil and Gas Attorney at McGinnis Lochridge (click for profile)

Chris represents clients in a wide variety of litigation matters. Chris strives to identify an aggressive, yet practical approach to accomplish his clients’ needs, taking into account the particular legal and business issues presented. With horizontal drilling transforming the energy landscape across Texas, Chris developed an emphasis on oil and gas related matters. He has represented operators, non-operators, and landowners in a variety of disputes ranging from seismic misappropriation, leasing issues, royalty disputes, title litigation, lease termination, midstream accounting, and other related contractual disputes. Chris has been selected to the Texas Super Lawyers Rising Stars list, a Thomson Reuters service, (2014-2019).

| Facebook | LinkedIn |

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3cpnsjw
via Abogado Aly Website

UBS YES Strategy Investors Say They Were Promised Low Risks But Suffered Huge Losses

Originally published by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP.

Investors Claim UBS YES Strategy Was Mismarketed To Them: SEC Looking Into the Allegations

If you are an investor whose UBS broker recommended that you employ the UBS YES (Yield Enhancement Strategy) and you’ve since suffered significant losses, you may have grounds for an investment fraud claim. 

Unfortunately, UBS and its registered representatives may have been making unsuitable recommendations of this complex investment strategy to customers, as well as misrepresenting the risks involved. 
Continue Reading ›
The post UBS YES Strategy Investors Say They Were Promised Low Risks But Suffered Huge Losses appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2XILbpi
via Abogado Aly Website

Fifth Circuit Holds that Offering Single Stock Investments in a 401(k) Plan is Not Per-Se Imprudent

Originally published by Haynes and Boone Benefits Group.

Following a spinoff, a 401(k) plan continued to offer the employer stock fund of the predecessor parent company as an investment alternative, but closed it to new investments. After the share price fell by approximately 50%, the participants brought a lawsuit against the plan fiduciaries claiming, among other things, that the fiduciary breached its duty to diversify under ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(C) by retaining the stock fund as an investment alternative. The District Court dismissed the case and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal.

The Fifth Circuit held that although the stock of the former parent was not statutorily exempt from ERISA’s diversification because it was no longer a “qualifying employer security”, there was no obligation for the plan fiduciaries to force plan participants to divest from the funds. The court explained that ERISA contains no per se prohibition on individual account plans offering single-stock funds. Rather, fiduciaries of a defined contribution plan need only provide investment options that enable participants to create diversified portfolios and provide participants with the statutorily mandated warning against holding more than 20% of a portfolio in the security of one entity. Because the participants had the opportunity to divest from the stock fund and were provided with the warning on the risks of not diversifying, there was no fiduciary breach.

Schweitzer v. The Investment Comm. of the Phillips 66 Savings Plan, No. 18-20379 (5th Cir. May 22, 2020) is available here.

The post Fifth Circuit Holds that Offering Single Stock Investments in a 401(k) Plan is Not Per-Se Imprudent appeared first on Haynes and Boone Blogs.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3ciLU5T
via Abogado Aly Website

No Burford abstention today

Originally published by David Coale.

The Fifth Court rejected Burford abstention in Stratta v. Roe, observing: Burford ‘does not require abstention whenever there exists [complex state administrative processes], or even in all cases where there is a potential for conflict with state regulatory law or policy.’ Nor would a federal judgment here interfere with the coherence of state policy. [Groundwater Conservation Districts] are designed to be decentralized and fragmentary in order to offer local control over groundwater resources. There are roughly 100 GCDs in Texas, but nearly two-thirds of them oversee territory coextensive with a single county.” No. 18-50994-CV (May 29, 2020) (citation omitted).

The post No Burford abstention today appeared first on 600 Camp.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2XQDkpR
via Abogado Aly Website

Can I Sue Someone for Exposing Me to the Coronavirus?

Originally published by James Amaro.

As Texas & Other States Reopen, Many Have Questions About COVID-19 Lawsuits & When They Can Sue for Coronavirus Exposure

The coronavirus has taken tens of thousands of lives while upending the lives of millions more. For those navigating the world following the COVID-19 outbreak, the landscape of our daily lives has been dramatically transformed, altering everything from how we work and shop to how we exercise, socialize, travel, and more.

Now that Texas and several other states have reopened for business, many are concerned about their risk of coronavirus exposure and what their rights are if they are exposed to COVID-19 at work or in any public setting.

Shedding more light on the legal issues surrounding coronavirus exposure, here’s a look at the COVID-19 lawsuits filed to date and when you may have grounds to file a coronavirus lawsuit.

How Many COVID-19 Lawsuits Have Been Filed So Far?

As of May 1, 2020, more than 770 coronavirus lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts across the U.S. Many of these claims are related to exposure issues and how various parties allegedly contributed to the spread of COVID-19.

What Allegations Have Been Raised in Coronavirus Lawsuits?

The lawsuits alleging negligence in exposing people to COVID-19 include an array of different claims, including (but not limited to) failures to:

  • Provide sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE)
  • Abide by social distancing protocols
  • Cancel or suspend large gatherings
  • Send symptomatic or sick employees home
  • Implement testing plans and/or contract tracing
  • Take other reasonable actions to prevent the spread of the virus

Some cases, like a lawsuit filed against Smithfield Foods, even allege that employers were providing incentives (bonuses) to employees who showed up to work sick.

It’s important to note that coronavirus exposure is just one of the claims being made in the hundreds of COVID-19 lawsuits that are already making their way through the U.S. courts. Other allegations made in coronavirus lawsuits have included (and are not limited to):

  • Failures to issue refunds for event cancellations: Cruise lines, airlines, hotels, concert ticket vendors, and others are in the hot seat for not providing refunds for travel or events that never occurred due to cancellations and lockdowns.
  • Failures to issue refunds for tuitions and subscription fees: Colleges and universities, as well as gyms and other membership-based businesses, have also come under fire for charging customers for services that were never provided due to campus or business shutdowns.
  • Discrimination, family leave, and employment termination claims: Parents who have been fired after taking time off work or asking for flexible working hours to care for children (due to school and daycare closures) have alleged wrongful termination and discrimination against employers.

Can I File a Coronavirus Lawsuit?

Whether you have grounds to file a COVID-19 lawsuit will depend on several factors, including (but not limited to):

  • Where you may have been exposed to the coronavirus: If you were exposed at work, you may be able to file a workers’ compensation claim—unless some egregious form of negligence was involved, in which case you may be able to file a coronavirus lawsuit. While exposure outside of work can also give risk to COVID-19 claims, some places, like hospitals and nursing homes, may have special protections against these liability claims.
  • The harm caused by the exposure: In order to have a valid claim, exposure to COVID-19 must have caused illness. In other words, you can’t file a lawsuit for simply being exposed to the virus. The exposure itself must have resulted in physical harm and illness.
  • The measures taken to prevent exposure: Did a business or organization follow the necessary protocols, like local ordinances and the guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to limit the spread of COVID-19? If so, it may be more challenging to hold those parties liable for coronavirus exposure.
  • What you can prove: Given how easily COVID-19 spreads—and that it can be asymptomatic for days after contracting the virus—it can be difficult to prove where exactly exposure occurred. This will likely be even more challenging with states reopening. Nevertheless, it’s not impossible. Contact-tracing and several COVID-19 cases tied to one site can be helpful in establishing where exposure likely occurred.

Coronavirus Lawsuits: The Bottom Line

When it comes to COVID-19 lawsuits, the bottom line is that we have yet to see the full scope of these cases and how they will turn out. While many are eager to see how these claims will fare, one thing seems clear already—coronavirus lawsuits will likely set some new precedents while reshaping the laws, policies, and insurance coverages related to pandemics.

The post Can I Sue Someone for Exposing Me to the Coronavirus? appeared first on Amaro Law Firm.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2zGVsuv
via Abogado Aly Website

Friday, May 29, 2020

Top 10 from Texas Bar Today: Cattle Guards, Water Boundaries, and Face Masks

Originally published by Joanna Herzik.

To highlight some of the posts that stand out from the crowd, the editors of Texas Bar Today have created a list from the week’s blog posts of the top ten based on subject matter, writing style, headline, and imagery. We hope you enjoy this installment.

10. Retiring contract termsDavid Coale @600camp of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP in Dallas

9. Questions from Tiffany’s Desk: What About Those County Roads with the Cattle Guards?Tiffany Dowell Lashmet @TiffDowell, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist in Agricultural Law with Texas A&M Agrilife Extension in College Station

8. Corporate Depositions and the Personal Knowledge TrapSarah Scott of Hanna & Plaut, L.L.P. in Austin

7. Worker Classification: The Statutory Employer Exemption and Control of the Payment of WagesJason B. Freeman of Freeman Law @FreemanLaw_PLLC in Frisco

6. The Revocable Trust in the time of COVID-19MehaffyWeber, P.C. @MehaffyWeber in Beaumont

5. Holding It Together– Lori-Ann Craig of the Harris County Law Libary @HCLawLibrary in Houston

4. Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter – Julie Jordan of Karl Bayer @karlbayer in Austin

3. Bush v. Lone Oak Club – Texas Supreme Court Once Again Dives Into the Arcane Law of Water BoundariesJohn McFarland @TXOilGasLawPro of Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody in Austin

2. ADA and Face MasksWilliam Goren of William D. Goren, J.D., LL.M., LLC

1. What is “Knowing Participation” in Breach of Fiduciary Duty?Zach Wolfe @zachwolfelaw of Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC in The Woodlands

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3eBeZej
via Abogado Aly Website