Publications — Page 20 of 47 — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

When Should Estate Planning Documents Be Reviewed?

Published on: February 16, 2020 | by David G. Hardin

As estate planning attorneys, we are frequently asked by clients how often they should review their estate planning documents. Should it be every three years … every five years … every ten years? Rather than consider the response in terms of time, we prefer to advise clients to think in terms of need or life stage. On occasion, reviewing estate planning documents after a specified period of time has passed will be prudent, but more often other factors will weigh more heavily. This article will provide guidance to individuals who might wonder whether their estate planning documents are due for review.

The first consideration should be whether there is a need to change a document. For example, after a move to a new state, the estate planning documents should be reviewed by an attorney licensed to practice in that state. Further, if the executor named in a will has died, moved out of state, or is no longer the appropriate person to serve, then the will should be updated to substitute another executor for the one who will no longer serve. Similarly, if a guardian for a minor child is no longer appropriate because he or she has relocated to another state, or because the guardian’s personal circumstances have changed, it may be necessary to revise the will to name a new guardian. A change in the tax laws may also suggest a need for revision of a will or trust.

New life stages may also provide reasons to update estate planning documents. For example, when children are minors, it is oftentimes appropriate to establish a trust to hold a child’s inheritance until a child reaches a specific age in order to safeguard the funds and minimize potential waste. As a child grows up, the need for a trust may be eliminated, or the terms of a trust might warrant a change to give a child different benefits or more control. Similarly, when a child becomes an adult, it may be appropriate to name the child to a position of responsibility, as perhaps appointing the child as an executor.

The SECURE Act: Significant Changes to Retirement Account Rules

Published on: February 16, 2020 | by Anne Marie Robbins

On December 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law the SECURE (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) Act (the “Act”), which significantly affects the law regarding taxable retirement accounts such as traditional IRAs and 401(k) plans.[1]

Benefits of the Act. The following are among the pertinent beneficial provisions of the Act effective for calendar year 2020 and beyond:

The age at which a plan participant[2] must take annual required minimum distributions (RMDs) has been raised to age 72 from 70 ½, in recognition of longer life expectancies. Note that the new rule applies only to persons who are over age 70 ½ in 2020 and following.

New Jersey Employers Beware – Classify Employees as Independent Contractors At Your Own Peril

Published on: February 11, 2020 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

NEW JERSEY AND YOU, PERFECT TOGETHER? NOT SO MUCH.

Slew of Bills Out of Trenton Impose Increasing Burdens on Those Doing Business in the State

PART 1

New Jersey Employers Dealing With New Legislation on Severance, Leave Rights, and Fair Workweek Scheduling

Published on: February 11, 2020 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

NEW JERSEY AND YOU, PERFECT TOGETHER? NOT SO MUCH.

Slew of Bills Out of Trenton Impose Increasing Burdens on Those Doing Business in the State

PART 2

Five Healthcare Industry Changes to Watch in 2020

Published on: February 11, 2020 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Stephen Timoni was recently interviewed by Karen Appold of Managed Healthcare Executive regarding significant changes on the horizon which are expected to affect both health insurers and providers alike. Many are the result of a shift toward value-based care, a move toward decreased care in hospital settings, technological advances, and other forces.

Along these lines, Timoni says that consolidation has been motivated by the evolving and challenging commercial and government reimbursement models which include lower fee-for-service payment rates, value-based payment components, and incentives to move care from inpatient to outpatient settings. “Basic economic theory suggests that consolidation of hospitals and physicians enables these combined providers to charge higher prices to private payers as the result of a lack of competition,” Timoni says. “Likewise, combined insurers are able to charge higher premiums to their subscribers.”

You can read the full article online here.

Restrictive Covenants In The Employment Setting In New Jersey Where We Now Are? Where May We Be Going?

Published on: February 7, 2020 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

I. Where We Are

A. What Are Restrictive Covenants in the Employment Setting in New Jersey?

Generally speaking, restrictive covenants in an employment setting take one of three forms: a covenant not to compete, a non-solicitation covenant, and/or a non-disclosure covenant.

Amendments to New Jersey’s WARN Act Expands Coverage To Include More Employers

Published on: January 21, 2020 | by John H. Schmidt, Jr.

Employers doing business in New Jersey have been subject to both the federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) for more than ten years. Under the prior laws, if an employer were to close a facility employing more than 50 fulltime employees, it was required to provide those employees with at least 60 days’ advanced notice of the closure or face a penalty that required the employer to pay severance compensation to each of the terminated employees. Amendments to the New Jersey legislation signed into law by Governor Murphy in January 2020 not only require employers to provide more notice to employees, but will also impose new economic burdens upon the employers.

These amendments to New Jersey’s WARN Act require employers who plan to close one or more establishment(s) within the state that will result in the layoff or termination of 50 or more employees (fulltime and/or part-time employees) from that establishment(s), are required to provide the affected employees with at least 90 days advanced notice of the layoff or termination of employment. Additionally, employers will be obligated to pay severance compensation to each of the affected employees in an amount equal to one week of severance compensation for each year of service. The severance compensation must be paid on or before the last day of employment. If an employer fails to pay the appropriate severance compensation, the employer will fact a penalty obligating it to pay an additional four weeks of compensation to each employee not correctly paid.

Amendments to the Act also define severance compensation as compensation due for back pay associated with the termination in an apparent attempt to characterize the severance compensation as wages for the purposes of bankruptcy.

“Crown Act” Amends New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

Published on: December 31, 2019 | by John H. Schmidt, Jr.

New Jersey has one of the most progressive laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, as well as in places of public accommodation. That law’s protections against race discrimination have been further expanded under recent legislation signed into law by Governor Murphy. The new act is commonly known as the “Crown Act.”

Under the new law, it is now illegal to discriminate against anyone because of their race, inclusive of traits historically associated with race “including but not limited to, hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles.” The new law further defines protective hairstyles to include “such hairstyles as braids, locks and twists.” In short, you cannot refuse to continue to employ any current employees or refuse to employ prospective employees if they are sporting hairstyles that are characteristically associated with a particular race of people.

“Have We Become Too Sensitive at Work?” One Woman Today Podcast

Published on: December 16, 2019 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Lindabury’s Employment Law Group partner, Kathleen Connelly joins Jeanie Coomber for her podcast series One Woman Today discussing “Workplace Sensitivity Training, Harassment and Bullying”. In their conversation, Kathleen shares her wisdom on what constitutes “bad behavior” and how education of employees and thorough and fair investigations is paramount for employers.

You may listen to the archived podcast here.

Healthcare Real Estate: The Pros and Cons of Buying Versus Leasing

Published on: November 7, 2019 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

“Owning real estate can be a great recruiting tool, and can lure physicians into a larger practice,” says Stephen Timoni in a recent interview with Healthcare Finance News’ Jeff Lagasse.

“They become a partner in the practice, but they also offer them a buy-in into the building,” he said. “That’s very interesting for a young physician because, down the road, what physician groups may be doing is they’ll sell their building for a gain to a real estate investment trust or hospital system, and then they’ll lease the building back from the hospital. So they cash in on their equity.”

Another option for physician groups is to retain the real estate and lease it back to the health system for additional income — providing better overall economics, largely in the form of tax benefits.