What do I do about my parents house?

My father past away in 1993, his name is still on the house. My mothers name is on it also. My mother is now 82, wants me to put my name on the house. Is this a good idea, or should I do something else, like just state it on a Will????

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DSilva:
My father past away in 1993, his name is still on the house. My mothers name is on it also. My mother is now 82, wants me to put my name on the house. Is this a good idea, or should I do something else, like just state it on a Will????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Put your name on the house and it'll be alot easier when your mom passes. The house should be Ms. xxx or your name.

I didn't think that was a good idea for a mother to put her children's name on a home, because if the children were ever sued, or divorced, the value of the home would be partly considered as their assets. That's my thinking, anyway, from what I've heard from estate lawyers.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DSilva:
My father past away in 1993, his name is still on the house. My mothers name is on it also. My mother is now 82, wants me to put my name on the house. Is this a good idea, or should I do something else, like just state it on a Will????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hire an estate or trust attorney to set up a trust to hold the property.

ELNbluemax2 in her response raised a concern about the property being subject to the claims of your creditors if you are sued. This is a valid concern. However, some estate planning professionals would advise mom to quitclaim the home to you, but not have you record the transfer deed with the county recorder's office. If you are sued, you would merely tear the deed up and no one would know you ever owned the home.

Benefit #1 - No need for a will or trust.

Benefit #2 - If your mom need to go into a nursing home for long-term care, the government will put a lien her home and have a right of recovery when she dies. Depending on how much the government spends, you may not receive a penny. Transferring the home to you now, even though you don't record the deed until a later date, could prevent you from having to settle government liens when your mom dies.

READ CAREFULLY - While I am a CPA and estate planning professional, I am not advocating this approach. In my opinion, it's unethical for anyone to undertake such action.

Barry S. Phillips, CPA www.barryphillips.com

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TaxGuy4U:
ELNbluemax2 in her response raised a concern about the property being subject to the claims of your creditors if you are sued. This is a valid concern. However, some estate planning professionals would advise mom to quitclaim the home to you, but not have you record the transfer deed with the county recorder's office. If you are sued, you would merely tear the deed up and no one would know you ever owned the home.

Benefit #1 - No need for a will or trust.

Benefit #2 - If your mom need to go into a nursing home for long-term care, the government will put a lien her home and have a right of recovery when she dies. Depending on how much the government spends, you may not receive a penny. Transferring the home to you now, even though you don't record the deed until a later date, could prevent you from having to settle government liens when your mom dies.

READ CAREFULLY - While I am a CPA and estate planning professional, I am not advocating this approach. In my opinion, it's unethical for anyone to undertake such action.

Barry S. Phillips, CPA www.barryphillips.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

Well, let's see. Barry says he's a "professional CPA" and has a disclaimer of not advocating an illegal activity. As we will read, Barry shows himself to be anything but a "professional". While he doesn't "advise" having a "shredding party" if you're sued, he's certainly "suggesting" one, which is an illegal activity - - i.e., Spoliation of Evidence.

You know Barry, I'll make you a deal, pal.

I promise I won't do someone's tax returns, in exchange for your promise to stop attempting to give stupid, illegal, suggestions to someone who just might do what you are suggesting - - and not realize the legal consequences of doing as you suggest.

Would you also "suggest" to a tax client to do something that might get that client in trouble with the IRS? Additionally, if it is within your mind-set to condone, or even suggest, an illegal activity, I can only wonder what illegalities you may "suggest" to your tax clients. Perhaps, it would be a wise decision for anyone who may read this post to NOT click on your URL link; unless, of course, that potential client who might click on your URL doesn't mind being involved with an IRS Audit, and allegations of tax fraud. Your post is not a testament to your legal, moral, or ethical attributes as a professional; rather, it's a showing of your potential kind and brand of nonprofessionalism that you apparently espouse. Don't "suggest" legal fraud, and we won't "suggest" tax fraud.

So, I would "suggest" that unless you're going to discuss your ideas on these Boards that are within the realm of "legalities" and NOT "illegalities", we will thank you to never post on these Boards again. Your words are EXTREMELY dangerous to the unwary, not appreciated, and quite frankly, no one needs your "brand" of suggestions to potentially make a bad situation, like a lawsuit, worse.

Yes, this is scathing, but you deserved it.

IAAL


------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."


[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited August 03, 2000).]

To: I Am Always Liable

I take exception to your tone, arrogance, and caustic remarks - You must be an attorney. Your personal attacks and speculative conjectures that I encourage clients to commit tax fraud call into question YOUR professionalism and maturity.

Get a little help with your anger management.

Barry S. Phillips, CPA

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TaxGuy4U:
To: I Am Always Liable

I take exception to your tone, arrogance, and caustic remarks - You must be an attorney. Your personal attacks and speculative conjectures that I encourage clients to commit tax fraud call into question YOUR professionalism and maturity.

Get a little help with your anger management.

Barry S. Phillips, CPA<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

You have the temerity to call into question MY professionalism? There was no "conjecture" about what you said - - it was plain as day what you suggested. Wasn't it YOU, sir, that "suggested" - by YOUR writing - that a person should tear up an unrecorded quitclaim deed in the event of a lawsuit concerning real property?

Let's remind everyone of what YOU suggested:

"If you are sued, you would merely tear the deed up and no one would know you ever owned the home."

Also, I just enjoyed the hell out of your "negative pregnant" remark when you said in your latest missive:

"Your personal attacks and unfounded, speculative conjectures that I encourage clients to commit tax fraud . . ." Which means that you don't suggest "tax fraud", but you DO suggest "legal fraud." I really enjoyed, with this, how you seemed to justify yourself, and to dodge the legal ramifications of what you've "suggested" to the original writer.

Since you don't understand the problem, I'll lay it out for you. You were "suggesting" to the writer that he/she should LIE under oath if ever questioned about ownership of real property, and to tear up and destroy a quitclaim (that hadn't been recorded).

That, my dear Mr. TAXGUY NOT 4 U, is "Spoliation of Evidence" and committing a FRAUD upon the court. Such an action by a litigant, if discovered, could lose a case for a litigant, and subject that person to charges of PERJURY, along with criminal charges for fraud, money damages, and loss of the lawsuit action altogether.

My comparison to your tax preparation prowess was an example, to hit close to YOUR home (since you hit close to mine) that, if you can "suggest" lying, cheating, and fraud to someone from a legal standpoint, perhaps you are doing the same in the Tax Preparation arena.

I make no apologies for my statements to you, and shame on YOU sir, for having suggested such an action to the writer in the first place.

I do not take my profession lightly because it is serious business. Peoples futures, and lives, hang in the balance for the most part - - and to even suggest fraud and destruction of documents is so manifestly stupid that it cannot be justified - - not even by you.

You can think of me whatever you want, and yes, when someone suggests committing a fraud upon the court, I get VERY ANGRY and protective of my profession.

We have no room for you on these Boards. Please do us the honor by staying off. You may wind up doing more damage than you could ever do good.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."


[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited August 09, 2000).]

I'M WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSE, BARRY !! AND, I WANT IT BY TOMORROW, OR I'M POSTING YOUR "WORDS OF WISDOM" WITH THE CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE STATE CPA ASSOCIATION.
WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS AN APOLOGY AND A COMPLETE RETRACTION. DO IT, BARRY.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."