Trump Administration Removes Burdens and Threats of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)

The following is from a Treasury Department Announcement issued March 2, 2025:

The Treasury Department is announcing today that, with respect to the Corporate Transparency Act ("CTA"), not only will it not enforce any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information reporting rule under the existing regulatory deadlines, but it will further not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect either. The Treasury Department will further be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only. Treasury takes this step in the interest of supporting hard-working American taxpayers and small businesses and ensuring that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest.

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent issued the following statement:

"This is a victory for common sense.  Today’s action is part of President Trump’s bold agenda to unleash American prosperity by reining in burdensome regulations, in particular for small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy."

Prior to this announcement, there was a great deal of uncertainty regarding the risk of non-compliance with the Act's reporting requirements.  There were several lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the Act.  On January 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order staying FinCEN’s regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements, precluding FinCEN from requiring BOI reporting or otherwise enforcing the CTA’s requirements. On February 5, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice—on behalf of Treasury—filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order and, in parallel, requested a stay of the order during the appeal.

On February 18, 2025, the court agreed to stay its January 7, 2025, order until the appeal is completed. Given this decision, FinCEN’s regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA were no longer stayed. Thus, subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting was finally mandatory, but FinCEN notified the courts and the public that it would be providing additional time for companies to report.

The United States Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) became effective at the start of 2024. Under the CTA, your company may have been be required to report its “beneficial owners” to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a bureau of the Treasury Department charged with protecting the US financial system from illicit use, fighting money laundering and promoting national security. Failure to report risked significant fines and penalties for both companies and for their beneficial owners.  The law also exempted large and publicly traded companies. focusing instead on smaller entities, like small limited liability companies, corporations, and partnerships. 

The CTA requires non-exempt existing companies to file a report with FinCEN before the end of the 2024 calendar year and requires companies that are newly created or registered to file a more detailed report within 90 days after the company is first organized or registered in the US. The CTA also requires companies to update these filings within 30 days of any change in previously filed information.

The CTA only applies to organizations that either(a) are formed by making a filing with a state’s Secretary of State (or other office charged with forming entities) or (b) are foreign companies that have registered to do business in the United States by making a filing with a state Secretary of State (or other office). So, the CTA does not apply to sole proprietorships, general partnerships or (depending on state) unincorporated nonprofit associations, or trusts.

The CTA contains 23 exemptions for various types of companies. Most of these exemptions are for companies which are already subject to a high amount of regulation, such as public companies, banks, insurance companies, other types of financial firms and utilities. There are also exemptions for certain types of entities where either Congress or FinCEN believed the burden of reporting would be inappropriate or unnecessary. These include tax-exempt entities, including most charities, and certain inactive entities. Importantly, The CTA also has an exemption for larger companies who meet certain employment and income thresholds and which also have operating offices in the U.S.

Crypto and Estate Planning: One Man's effort to Recover $800 million in Bitcoin

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the full size video in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED):

Crypto and Estate Planning: One Man's effort to Recover $800 million in Bitcoin

In this article we return to the saga of James Howells, the subject of a previous article on this blog, as he continues his years-long battle to get back a hard drive that contains a discarded bitcoin key currently worth somewhere around $800 million by offering to purchase a landfill in Great Britain in an effort to find the wallet before it closes down. James Howells had repeatedly requested that the Newport City Council, in South Wales, grant him access to the mountains of waste to find the hard drive that was accidentally discarded in 2013.  

When his repeated requests were denied, he offered to fully fund the excavation process and share 25% of the recovered Bitcoin with the Newport City Council.  When that offer was rejected, he filed a lawsuit to compel the Council to accept his offer.  The lawsuit seems to be in the vein of 'taxpayer" suits common in the U.S. where a taxpayer contests some official act or denial as wasteful of taxpayer dollars. That case, however, ended with a judge dismissing his claim holding that Howells had “no reasonable grounds” for bringing the claim and that there was “no realistic prospect” of success if the case were to proceed to a full trial."

Now, the city is planning to close the landfill for good.  

Whether this is a welcome or ominous development for Mr. Howells remains to be seen.  Mr. Howells has not given up, though, as he is now proposing to purchase the landfill. His plan involves either reclaiming and remediating the landfill and turning it into a park, or re-launching it as a landfill.  

Mr. Howell's predicament underscores the risks and challenges of cryptocurrency investing beyond just the risk of investment.  Digital currencies have digital or virtual 'keys" that must be protected.  For more information, please consider the following:

LegalVault® Offers Solution to Estate Planning Challenges of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies 

The Strange Case of Crypto Exchange QuadrigaCX: Death and a Missing $200 million 

 

Second Marriage? FUND YOUR TRUST! A Pour Over Will is Subject to Spousal Claims

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the full size video in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED):

A Pour-Over Will is Subject to Spousal Claims

A recent case provides an object lesson for those in a second marriage who either have a trust separate from their spouse, or have retained their original trust upon remarriage.  The case is also instructive regarding trust funding in general. 

Only a properly and completely funded trust protects your estate planning choices. A pour-over will does not magically repose assets in your trust upon death; it must be probated in order to be effective, at least in most states.  Probate means risk, cost, and expense. A pour-over will is subject to the same limitations, requirements, risks, costs, expenses, advantages and disadvantages and rewards as any will created where there is not trust.  One of these risks is spousal claims.

The Montana Supreme Court held that a widow could claim a spousal elective share of the deceased husband's estate, notwithstanding that her deceased husband’s will directed everything to his trust, and, by implication, even if the trust provides a substantial share to the surviving spouse. In Silverwood v. Tokowitz (Mont. No. S-23-0114, January 12, 2024).

Carol Tokowitz was married to her husband, Neal Tokowitz, for 30 years before he died. Mr. Tokowitz left behind surviving children from a previous marriage. He had a pour-over will that funded a revocable living trust. His will did not name his wife or anyone else as a beneficiary, but, as is customary, directed assets only to the trust.

Mr. Tokowitz's executor, Mr. Silverwood, filed a petition to probate the will, suggesting that some assets or property were not owned or controlled by the trust.  Mrs. Tokowitz asserted her rights to the elective share of her late husband’s estate under the Wyoming spousal elective share statute.

An elective share is a term used to describes a proportion of an estate which the surviving spouse of the deceased may claim in place of what s/he was left in the decedent's will. It may also be called a widow's share or statutory share, or described as an election against the will, or a forced share.  In Ohio it is governed by Ohio Revised Code 2106.01 (last accessed 2/10/2025), and is often described as a surviving spouse "taking" against the will.  In Missouri, it is governed by Section 474.160 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (last accessed 2/10/2025).

The Wyoming spousal elective share statute provides that a married person domiciled in the state must provide a spouse at least an elective share subject to distribution in the will. If, as in this case, the surviving spouse is not a parent of the decedent’s surviving children, the elective share is a quarter or twenty-five (25%)of the estate.

The probate court granted Mrs. Tokowitz her spousal share.  Mr. Silverwood and a trustee, Randy Green, (hereafter referred to simply as "Mr. Tokowitz's family")  argued that she was not entitled to take a spousal elective share and that taking an elective share should prevent her from receiving anything from the trust. In essence, Mr. Tokowitz's family was arguing that granting her an elective share, on top of a percentage of the assets in the trust estate permitted Mrs. Tokowitz to receive more that Mr. Tokowitz intended her to receive.  Indeed, given an elective share of the probate estate, it is likely that Mrs. Tokowitz's total inheritance exceeded that which she would have received if all assets had been reposed in the trust at death.  A hypothetical illustration follows:

The probate court declined to make any ruling regarding disposition of the trust estate.  Mr. Tokowitz's family appealed. 

Mr. Tokowitz's family first argued that although Mr. Tokowitz was a Wyoming resident, he was not domiciled in Wyoming full-time.  A domicile is a legal residence where a person intends to stay. A person can have many residences but only one domicile. The Supreme Court rejected the argument.  The petition to probate the will (filed by Mr. Tokowitz's family) will stated that he was a resident of Park County, Wyoming, but the pour-over will stated that he was domiciled there. According to the court, since the will presented evidence that the decedent’s domicile was in Wyoming, Mrs. Tokowitz met her burden of establishing a Wyoming domicile. The burden then shifted to Mr. Tokowitz's family to disprove the statement in the will, and they failed to show that Mr. Tokowitz was domiciled elsewhere. According to the Supreme Court, it was sufficient that the probate court implied that Mr. Tokowitz was domiciled in Wyoming when the will was created and executed, and applied Wyoming law to determine Mrs. Tokowitz's elective share.  In other words, the probate court did not make an explicit "finding" regarding Mr. Tokowitz's domicile.    

The Tokowitz's family's next argument concerned the amount Mrs. Tokowitz would receive under the trust. They asserted that the probate court should not have given her the elective share because it did not know whether she would receive more or less than a quarter of the estate under the trust. The Supreme Court dismissed the argument holding that the trust’s terms are not relevant to the probate estate. The spousal elective share statute solely pertains to the will. Mr. Tokowitz’s will only left his property to his trust and did not name his wife, which effectively entitles her to the spousal elective share statute.

Finally, Mr. Tokowitz's family claimed that the property was not subject to probate because the will poured all assets and property into the trust. Property that passes by way of a pour-over will, however, is part of the probated estate and subject to the spousal elective share. Assets that transfer through a pour-over will are not exempt from the probate estate, or its rules and regulations simply because they estate assets ultimately repose to a trust.

The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not err when it declined to rule on Mrs. Tokowitz’s interests in the trust, holding that once the assets pass to the trust, they become non-probate assets. The Supreme Court could find no  case law or statutory authority supporting a ruling on non-probate assets in the probate case.

The Supreme Court of Montana held that the district court correctly allowed Mrs. Tokowitz to take a spousal elective share, and that the lower court rightly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on claims arising from the trust.

This case became very complicated by the circumstances and the law.  One assumes the value of the assets warranted appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. All of the complexity, cost, and expense would have been unnecessary if the property and/or assets were funded to the trust prior to Mr. Tokowitz's death. 

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles- In or Out of a Revocable Living Trust?

You can play the video in the embedded viewer by clicking on it, or

you can play the video fill size in its own window by clicking below (RECOMMENDED): 

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Should Normally Be In Your Revocable Living Trust

In the video above, I discuss a recent MSN.com article entitled "Five Items to Leave Out of Your Revocable Living Trust."  (the article link is already broken, but there is an image in the video, and you can also view the article online here (last accessed 1/18/2025); you will have to scroll down past the first few articles). 

The author writes as follows:

         "Vehicles. Whether it’s a ’63 Corvette, Harley chopper or prop plane, all that’s required to pass it on is a simple written instruction to transfer the title to a beneficiary. In a trust, you’re exposed to lawsuits over accidents that involved the vehicle." 

Generally, I disagree. Vehemently.

In the video, I discuss the following:

1. Articles, publications, seminars, and presentations should never be construed as legal advice

2.  The author suggests that only a simple written instruction is necessary to transfer a title to a beneficiary, which statement is misleading or incorrect.

3.  Beneficiary and Transfer on Death Designations may sometimes work to avoid probate, but they have limitations and risks, and do not constitute a 'plan' to avoid probate (see links below).  

4. The liability issue raised by the author makes no sense for most revocable living trusts settled in most states.

5. The author assumes that the only purpose of a revocable living trust is to avoid probate, which is untrue, and assets outside of a trust do not serve and may impair lifetime planning benefits of a trust:

• Consistent and competent lifetime management of assets is a lifetime planning objective best accomplished with a trust.

• Guardianship avoidance is a lifetime planning objective best accomplished with a trust.

• Protection of assets from a court-appointed guardian is a lifetime planning objective that can only be accomplished with a trust.

• Aging in Place Planning is a lifetime planning objective that can only be accomplished with a trust.

I acknowledge in the video that there are always exceptions, and that the author may not have actually been considering revocable living trusts when drafting the article, but generally I disagrees with the headline and conclusion of the author regarding planes, trains, and automobiles. 

Consider additionally the following: 

• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs);
• Aging in Place Planning Heightens Necessity of Trust Funding;
• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs)- Part II: Ohio Transfer of Death Designation Affidavit (TODDA) for Real Estate- Lapse of Insurance Coverage;
• Beware Direct Transfer Designations (TODs and PODs)- Part III- Transfer on Death Deed for Real Estate Results in Loss of Insurance Coverage and Impairment of Asset Value.   

I urge you to attend an "Aging in Place Planning" presentation by signing up for an upcoming live webinar.  You can find these periodically on my blog or on the events page of the firm's Facebook page.  You don't need to wait, however, for a scheduled event; there is a recorded version available here: https://bit.ly/Aging-in-Place-Workshop.  You might also consider inviting your children and trusted advisors to attend.

 

No Lift Policies? Will Your Institutional Care Provider Pick You Up When You Fall?

 

You can press play to watch the video in the article frame, or 

click here

to watch the video in a separate larger and more easily seen frame (much encouraged). 

In this video, Attorney Donohew discusses a Washington Post investigative report about "fall assist" 911 calls from assisted living and other institutional care providers, and the prevalence of "No-lift" policies. 

The Washington Post article is entitled "Senior homes refuse to pick up fallen residents, dial 911. ‘Why are they calling us?,"  which came to Attorney Donohew's attention as a result of an article published by Rebecca C. Morgan, entitled,  "What Services are Provided by ALFs?" 

'

According to  the Washington Post, 

"[l]ift-assist 911 calls from assisted living and other senior homes have spiked by 30 percent nationwide in recent years to nearly 42,000 calls a year...That’s nearly three times faster than the increase in overall 911 call volume during the same 2019-2022 period, the data shows." 

The article notes this practice is particularly prevalent in Illinois, and why the increasing number of calls is causing controversy. 

Pennsylvania's Controversial and Pernicious Filial Responsibility Law- Repeal, Rescue, or Worse?

 

You can press play to watch the video in the article frame, or you can

click here

 to watch the video in a separate window, full frame (recommended). 

This video is based in large part on a recent article authored by Professor Katherine C. Pearson, Filial Friday: Modification of Pennsylvania's Filial Support Law Passes House Unanimously (last accessed 10/31.2024).  Professor Pearson is also the author of of the seminal law review article on the subject of filial responsibility, Filial Support Laws in the Modern Era: Domestic and International Comparison of Enforcement Practices for Laws Requiring Adult Children to Support Indigent Parents (last accessed 10/31/2024).  Therein, Professor Pearson wrote:

Indeed, as set forth in Section V of this article, case reports and news reports from Pennsylvania demonstrate a potentially significant trend, where third-party creditors are using filial support laws to compel payment or cooperation by adult children to cover their parents’ costs in nursing homes or similar care settings. While the Pennsylvania trend is echoed in at least one other state, South Dakota, Section VI of this article demonstrates that a lack of national consensus in application of filial support laws can create inconsistent results among U.S. states, which may increase the potential for results that seem surprising or unfair. 

The following are links to articles on this blog regarding filial responsibility laws: 

• Filial Responsibility Rule Means Son, Not Father, Must Pay Legal Bill for Negotiating Medicaid Penalty Reduction
• No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? Caregiver Exemption Does Not Apply When Medicaid Recipient Is Receiving Home Care
• Filial Support Laws Chaos: Pennsylvania and New Jersey Laws Clash
• Three Surprises to Watch Out for When Paying for Long Term Care
• Maryland Repeals Filial Responsibility Law
• Filial Responsibility Laws Complicate Estate and Financial Planning
• Filial Responsibility In the News
• Filial Responsibility Laws Lead to Chaos
• Man Can't Challenge Discharge of Brother's Debt for Mom's Care under Filial Responsibility Law
• Use of Filial Responsibility to Collect a Nursing Home Debt Survives Federal Challenges

• Elderly Couple May Be Responsible for Adult Son's Unpaid Medical Bills
• California Heir Liable to Reimburse State for Mother's Medicaid Benefits
• Conveyance to Son Was Fraudulent, But His Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law
• Filial Responsibility- Complicating Estate, Retirement and Asset Protection Planning
• Pennsylvania's Filial Support Law Survives Federal Challenge (The Eades Case)
• Conveyance to Son Is Fraudulent, But Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law
• Adult Children Could Be Responsible for Parents' Nursing Home Bills
• Son Liable for Mother's Nursing Home Bill Under Filial Responsibility Law (The Pittas Case)
• The Legal Responsibility of Adult Children to Care for Indigent Parents (NCPA Policy Suggestion link broken)

The following are links to articles describing legal mechanisms by which nursing homes attempt to create filial responsibility even in the absence of filial responsibility statutes: 

• Promissory Note Executed by Nursing Home Resident’s Daughter Is Not Illegal Third-Party Guarantee
• Filial Responsibility- Resident’s Son Not Liable for Breach of Contract Because He Did Not Cause His Mother to Be Ineligible for Medicaid;
• Judge Can Not Impose an ‘Unusual’ Condition on a Reversal of a Default Judgment in a Nursing Home Breach of Contract Lawsuit;
• Tortious Interference With Contractual Relationship Claim Most Recent Possible Remedy Nursing Homes can Employ Against Children of Nursing Home Residents;
• Conservator Owes Duty to Nursing Home to Timely Apply for Medicaid;
• Agent Under Power of Attorney Liable for Damages to Nursing Home for Breach of Contract;
• Conveyance to Son Was Fraudulent, But His Siblings May Also Be Liable Under Filial Support Law;
• Nursing Home May Sue Resident's Daughter for Breach of Contract.

Additional Resources: 

• Losing Loved Ones and Your Livelihood: Re-Evaluating Filial Responsibility Laws
• Filial Support Laws: “A Sleeping Giant”
• Filial Responsibility: Can the Legal Duty to Support Our Parents Be Effectively Enforced?
• A Rational Role for Filial Responsibility Laws in Modern Society?

Finally, in the video I refer to a CMS policy paper that advocates enforcement or adoption of filial responsibility. I cannot find the link to that paper, but am searching for same.  The paper was, in my opinion, the culmination of an effort that included a 1983 administrative interpretation of Medicaid regulations which permitted state Medicaid administrators to "require adult family members to support adult relatives without violating the Medicaid statute." See,  Medicaid Manual Transmittal No. 2, HCFA Pub. 45-3, no. 3812 [New Developments 1983 Transfer Binder], 3 Medicare & Medicaid Guide (CCH) 5f 32,457 (Feb. 1983).  I will supplement when I locate the paper. 

Estate Tax Planning for 2026 Tax Changes: Modest Estates At Risk?

You can watch the video in the article frame by pressing the play button,

or you can open the video in a separate window for a better viewing experience

The estate tax is a tax on the value of a person’s assets and property at the time of their death. Upon your death, if the total value of your estate is above a certain threshold amount, known as the federal estate tax exemption, the IRS requires your estate to pay the tax before any assets can be passed to your beneficiaries. Under current law, every year this exemption rises with inflation, but in any given year, politicians can change the amount of your coupon.  Worse, the exemption amounts currently in place sunset or expire beginning in 2026.  

In 2024, the federal estate tax exemption is $13.61 million for individuals ($27.22 million for married couples). Simply put, if you die in 2024, and your assets are worth $13.61 million or less, your estate won't owe any federal estate tax. If, however, your estate is worth more than $13.61 million, every dollar more than that will be taxed at a whopping 40% tax rate.

The current $13.61 million estate tax exemption is set to expire on Jan. 1, 2026, and return to its previous level of $5 million, which when adjusted for inflation is expected to be around $7 million.  Of course, we can't know whether Congress will step-in before to change the law, and we can't know if that change will be helpful or harmful to your current estate plan.  

Additionally, there are some inherent variables in your estate plan, in addition to the tax variables.  We don't know (1) when you will die, (2)  how much money you’ll have when you die, (3)  what the estate tax exemption will be when you die, and as importantly (4) how long,  legally or medically, you will be able to plan for yourself or change your estate plan. That’s why it’s so important to work with an attorney who will develop a long-lasting relationship with you and have processes in place to ensure that you are updated when the law changes and put strategies in place to protect your family, regardless of the amount of the estate tax exemption or the value of your assets.

In addition, the state you live in can also have an estate tax, separate and apart from the federal government’s estate tax. Fortunately, both states in which most of my clients reside, Ohio and Missouri, have neither an estate nor inheritance tax. Illinois, a state in which I am admitted to practice, but in which I no longer practice, is one of seventeen states that have an estate or inheritance tax. In Illinois, any amount of your estate over $4 million will be taxed at a graduated rate that goes as high as 16% based upon the 2024 tax rates. Eleven states, and the District of Columbia, have an estate tax, while five states have an inheritance tax, where they tax people who live in their state when they receive an inheritance. Currently, Maryland is the only state in the nation that has both an estate tax and an inheritance tax.

By using various estate planning strategies, you can reduce — or even eliminate all together — your estate tax liability. Some of the strategies are simple, but the more money you have, the more complex they’ll need to become, for example by using irrevocable trusts. Regardless of the method you employ, without question, these strategies can save your family from a massive tax bill, and are therefore well worth it the time and expense necessary to design, draft, and implement them.  I discussed many of these strategies in my previous article, Looking Ahead to 2026- Estate Tax Exemption Sunset and Current Planning Opportunities.

If you’d like to learn more, or need to get a plan in place to save your family from a major tax burden, give us a call. 

Funding Your Trust

You can watch the video in this article by pressing play.

If you would rather watch the video in a separate window, click here.

Funding a trust is the most important first task in implementing the trust. It begins immediately upon executing or signing the trust, and consists of transferring all of your assets and property to the trust. A trust only governs the property or assets it owns or controls. In the video, Attorney Donohew introduces and explains how to use a Trust Funding Checklist to ensure that a trust is fully and properly funded.

Once your Trust is funded, you will need to keep and maintain the trust by, among other things, keeping the trust funded with newly acquired assets. If you purchase a new house or additional real estate, for example, the new property will need to be put in your trust. If you take title directly in the name of the trust, you won't have the administrative burden of preparing a new deed. Similarly, If you open a new bank or investment account, opening it directly in the name of the Trust will make it easier. In other words, keep your trust in mind as you make other legal and financial decisions.

You should also review your estate plan, and the documents that comprise the plan periodically. You should also review your plan after any major change in your life, or in the lives of your beneficiaries and fiduciaries, and any time your circumstances, goals or needs change dramatically. Regardless, the law and practice change periodically, so even if everything in your life seems to be stable and consistent, periodic review ensures that your plan is taking advantage of developments, and is not harmed or thwarted by changes in the law or practice.

The following are important articles regarding trust funding and links to funding forms:

ARTICLES

• A Signed and Recorded Deed is Necessary to Prepare A Deed Funding Your Trust
• Aging in Place Planning Heightens Necessity of Trust Funding
• Tenant's Estate Sues Landlord for Buyout Payment- Contracts and Agreements Are Assets

FUNDING FORMS*

Single Person

• Bank, Credit Union, Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes 
• Investment Accounts (Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds)
• Stock Certificates
• Savings Bonds (call counsel)
• Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation
• Life Insurance Change of Ownership
• Non-Qualified Annuity Beneficiary Designation
• Non-Qualified Annuity  Change of Ownership
• Retirement Plan, IRA, SEP, Keough, TSA. Qualified Annuity Beneficiary Designation
• Homeowner's, Property & Casualty Insurance Policy ANI
• Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy ANI
• Motor Vehicle Title (Ohio)
• Motor Vehicle Transfer on Death (Missouri)

COUPLES

• Bank, Credit Union, Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes
• Investment Accounts (Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds)
• Stock Certificates
• Savings Bonds (call counsel)
• Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation
• Life Insurance Change of Ownership
• Non-Qualified Annuity Beneficiary Designation
• Non-Qualified Annuity  Change of Ownership
• Retirement Plan, IRA, SEP, Keough, TSA. Qualified Annuity Beneficiary Designation
• Homeowner's, Property & Casualty Insurance Policy ANI
• Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy ANI
• Motor Vehicle Title (Ohio)
• Motor Vehicle Transfer on Death (Missouri)

The forms provided on this page are general and simple forms.  These use of any or all of these forms may not be applicable to your situation and circumstance.  Accordingly, these forms should be used only after consultation with counsel. 

Nothing contained herein should be construed as constituting legal advice which can only be given by a licensed attorney familiar with you goals, needs, and circumstances.