Rights as beneficary in CA

[PayrollHRGuy]

You are making at least one error. Properly written legal documents are, in the US, written in proper English.

 

[Zigner]

the following may seem like a subtle difference to you and others, but in actually it is HUGE. your example of "you are entitled to" is way different than saying "the document says you are entitled to".

I'm gonna disagree on this one. If my aunt wants me to tell what she'll get based on the document, and I say "you are entitled to the cat", or I say "the document says you are entitled to the cat", there is no difference. Even if I said "Auntie, the document says right here..." and then proceeded to read her a sentence that refers to the cat, that might be UPL because it requires that I interpret the document in order to read what I believe to be the pertinent section. What if the one line I read her about the cat is somehow invalidated by another portion of the document? Then I've mislead my poor aunt.

again, i am only referring to a correct english interpretation of the sentences, as written on paper. if it is in lawyerese, it may not actually be written in proper english. in this case, that could ultimately be challenged and defeated - since in america we speak english.

Are you saying that a document says "I leave $1,000 to me friend, Bob Smith", then that bequest would be invalidated because it's not "proper english"?
Heck, a will written in Mandarin would be just as valid, assuming it met all the other requirements. If you believe that I am wrong, please give a citation that supports your contention that a will must be written in English. I'd be fascinated to find out where English has been declared the official language of America.

also, if one wants to be extra specially careful, they can always preface an explanation with "i am not a lawyer, and this is my opinion".

Kind of like saying "I'm not a race car driver, but this is me speeding."

 

[Zigner]

You are making at least one error. Properly written legal documents are, in the US, written in proper English.

See my note about that above.

 

[TrustUser]

it is you my friend who is making the error.

i said if a document was written in lawyerese, it may not be written in proper english.

your statement is a tautology, for if they were not written in proper english, they would not be properly written legal documents - since at least 1 qualification of a properly written legal document in the usa is a document written with proper english.

you are now talking to someone who is an expert on logic, and who knows his english.

 

[TrustUser]

I'm gonna disagree on this one. If my aunt wants me to tell what she'll get based on the document, and I say "you are entitled to the cat", or I say "the document says you are entitled to the cat", there is no difference. Even if I said "Auntie, the document says right here..." and then proceeded to read her a sentence that refers to the cat, that might be UPL because it requires that I interpret the document in order to read what I believe to be the pertinent section. What if the one line I read her about the cat is somehow invalidated by another portion of the document? Then I've mislead my poor aunt.


Are you saying that a document says "I leave $1,000 to me friend, Bob Smith", then that bequest would be invalidated because it's not "proper english"?
Heck, a will written in Mandarin would be just as valid, assuming it met all the other requirements. If you believe that I am wrong, please give a citation that supports your contention that a will must be written in English. I'd be fascinated to find out where English has been declared the official language of America.

Kind of like saying "I'm not a race car driver, but this is me speeding."

if you do not know that english is the national language of the usa, you had better go back to school. if you are a lawyer, you must know that all laws are written in english, for the above reason.

with the poor example that you gave, the request would of course be honored, because no one would be confused as to the intention of the bequest. that is not necessarily true with ultra wordy statements, whether they are written in lawyerese, or just very poor english.

and again, interpretation of sentences is something that can be done. the meaning of these sentences IS THIS.

 

[Zigner]

if you do not know that english is the national language of the usa, you had better go back to school. if you are a lawyer, you must know that all laws are written in english, for the above reason.

I AGAIN ask you to back up your assertion. Please post a cite.

and again, interpretation of sentences is something that can be done. the meaning of these sentences IS THIS.

As a blanket statement, you are wrong.

 

[justalayman]

if you do not know that english is the national language of the usa, you had better go back to school. if you are a lawyer, you must know that all laws are written in english, for the above reason.

with the poor example that you gave, the request would of course be honored, because no one would be confused as to the intention of the bequest. that is not necessarily true with ultra wordy statements, whether they are written in lawyerese, or just very poor english.

and again, interpretation of sentences is something that can be done. the meaning of these sentences IS THIS.

please provide proof that English is the national language and by national language I presume you mean the official language.

We have no official language. We have a common language.

Also provide support that all legal documents in the USA must be in English.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

See my note about that above.

I should have stuck a "Most" in there. But I didn't say that those without proper English had no standing.

 

[Shadowbunny]

it is you my friend who is making the error.

i said if a document was written in lawyerese, it may not be written in proper english.

your statement is a tautology, for if they were not written in proper english, they would not be properly written legal documents - since at least 1 qualification of a properly written legal document in the usa is a document written with proper english.

you are now talking to someone who is an expert on logic, and who knows his english.

It appears that your grasp of logic is as faulty as your grasp of the English language.

 

[Taxing Matters]

the following may seem like a subtle difference to you and others, but in actually it is HUGE. your example of "you are entitled to" is way different than saying "the document says you are entitled to".

It is a difference, but IMO not as huge as you make it. The implication of the latter statement is often the former, in which case the result is the same: you are telling them what their rights and obligations under the trust are.

again, i am only referring to a correct english interpretation of the sentences, as written on paper.

As I said before, if all you do is help the person define a word he does not understand or help him simply understand the English (e.g. translate it for him into his native language, etc) that’s not a problem. So I agree with the premise as you phrased it here. But once you start summarizing it, explaining what you think it means, what the person is entitled to get or what obligations he has, you start to stray over the line into legal advice.

if it is in lawyerese, it may not actually be written in proper english. in this case, that could ultimately be challenged and defeated - since in america we speak english.

Actually, no. Courts will not generally invalidate a document, be it a trust, will, contract, or otherwise simply because it uses legal jargon or archaic language. Judges are lawyers too and are comfortable interpreting and applying legal terms and language, even if those terms and language might be confusing to a non-lawyer. The exception here would be certain contracts or other documents that some consumer protection law requires be written in plain, easily understood English. Wills and trusts, however, are not subject to such a requirement in any state I’m familiar with and I'd be bit surprised if there was any state that did require it. That said, I certainly encourage all lawyers to learn to draft documents in clear, plain English as much as possible and avoid stuffy Latin legal phrases and technical jargon whenever possible. While some lawyers may think that using lots of legal phrases and archaic language makes the document look more impressive, it has the result of making the documents less valuable to the clients because they cannot use them without having to run to a lawyer for an explanation of them. It takes more time to draft short, easily understood documents than long stuffy ones, but the payoff is a much better product. The only problem (for the lawyer, anyway) is that if it is really well done, it will appear to be so simple that a client will sometimes wonder why it took the time to draft it that it did. But most writers will tell you that the most time in writing is in editing the document and that it is often harder to take stuff out than add stuff in.

also, if one wants to be extra specially careful, they can always preface an explanation with "i am not a lawyer, and this is my opinion".

While that is helpful to avoid possible fraud or misrepresentation claims, one cannot avoid a problem of unauthorized practice of law in at least some states by using that kind of disclaimer.

 

[Taxing Matters]

if you do not know that english is the national language of the usa, you had better go back to school. if you are a lawyer, you must know that all laws are written in english, for the above reason.

English is NOT the “national language” of the United States in the sense that English is required to be used by everyone by any federal law. No duch federal law exists. Indeed, in Puerto Rico (a possession of the U.S.) all government business is done in Spanish. That includes all its laws. That would not be possible if a national language law required everything to be in English. There have been efforts periodically over the years to make English the national language, but all those efforts have failed. There are a few states that have adopted English as the official language of the state, but those laws do not apply to nongovernment documents. Do not confuse the fact that government business in the U.S. has historically always been done in English as a requirement that it be done that way. And even if government business had to be done in English, that would not necessarily extend to nongovernment documents. (Furthermore, I could see a free speech issue with that kind of requirement.) A will or contract written in a foreign language, assuming they otherwise meet the requirements for those documents, are just as valid as those in English.

You have now made a distinction between writing in legal jargon and writing that is confusing or ambiguous. That's at least closer to the mark. A badly written document that is unclear or ambiguous certainly might give rise to a challenge to determine what the correct interpretation should be of that document. But simply because it contains legal jargon or archaic language does not mean that the document is not clear — to someone familiar with those terms — lawyers and judges — it maybe quite clear.

 

[HRZ]

In defense of " legalese" ..over time some legal draftsmanship acquires accepted and understood meaning within legal,circles ...and attempts to write things in " plain English " sometimes ADDS to the confusion if the scribner deviates from the well plowed path. It takes smarts and time to write clear docuements ...and few are willing to.pay for the time involved .

 

[TrustUser]

this conversation was about documents written in english. so when i said "proper english", it should have well been understood that this was in opposition to "improper english", not russian or german, etc.

this has been an english speaking country, with all of its laws and such written in english. i am not gonna spend any more time on a useless discussion. i never said or implied that a document in russian could not be legal. while i have my opinion on how i think such documents should be handled, i have no experience in them, so i would not make a comment about them.

i am using a phrase "proper english", but that probably has different meanings to different people. so let me try to clarify what i am attempting to get across. if one wants to determine how well a document is written, i say send it to an english professor, and let him grade it.

he will of course look for capitalization (LOL), punctuation, spelling, etc. but for the most part, these are extremely minor mistakes, since they do not generally alter the intention of the composer of the document. and you may be docked for being too wordy, when it would have been simpler to say something else.

but some lawyerese is extremely complicated and unclear. and can definitely lead to different interpretations. and this is where the line is drawn. no document should ever have a set of sentences (say a paragraph), in which it could potentially have 2 different meanings. nor should it take a lawyer or judge to tell us what it means. if it does, i give it a failing grade.

the trust i make for myself is very clear, concise, and can not be interpreted in any way, but one. there is nothing in it that can invalidate some other section, or any other such nonsensical outcomes.

so if my trust says that john gets the cat, then you can darn well take it to the bank that john gets the cat !!

when the trustor signs a trust, he is putting his name on that document, that this is what he is trying to convey. what better way to contest the trust, if it can be demonstrated that the trustor could not possibly have understood what that document was really saying. it had darn well better be able to be easily understood by the trustor, so that he can explain every single idea in that document.

while we are gonna remain with different opinions about some things, i think we can all agree that it is best to make a document clear, simple, and easy to read. that is my last post on the subject, because i do not think we are gonna accomplish anything further. so i dont want to beat a dead horse.

 

[Taxing Matters]

nor should it take a lawyer or judge to tell us what it means. if it does, i give it a failing grade.

You might give it a failing grade for clarity (and perhaps rightfully so in many cases), but if the language is quite clear to lawyers and judges, a judge will apply the terms with that meaning.

while we are gonna remain with different opinions about some things, i think we can all agree that it is best to make a document clear, simple, and easy to read.

On that point, I will agree. I have been a big fan of plain language drafting for many years and encourage other lawyers in legal writing seminars to make that a goal of most documents they prepare.