Update 8/5/2017 - Leave it to a jerk like Setzler to publicly wring his hands after he and his cohorts set the stage for the nuclear power plant scandal involving SCANA and Santee Cooper. This article offers an apt summary:
"It was the same state Legislature that set the stage for the project in 2007 by passing a law that allowed investor-owned utilities like SCE&G to charge their customers as the large nuclear plants were being built rather than after they were completed."
Setzler was a co-sponsor (see 8th paragraph) of this ridiculous law. Just one more SC racket via legislators. No future charges for the never-to-be-completed boondoggle? We want our money BACK, and we want it back NOW, "Senator."
On 9/20, I published a few more comments on the nuclear power scandal.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Congratulations, "Senator."
For the 2017 legislative session, you succeeded in keeping mainstream media quiet regarding South Carolina's probate racket. thereby making sure that your bill never made it out of committee.
I'll reiterate something from what I previously wrote:
I'd like to know how Senator Setzler thinks it makes someone feel to have their affairs placed on hold - a kind of legalized extortion - unless they hand over thousands of dollars in attorney fees and participate in establishing a false public record that disrespects their deceased loved one.
A country that forces people into such an untenable predicament deserves no one's allegiance. The fact that it was done so secretively adds insult to injury.
"Senator," where did you learn such cowardice? Were you brought up to do dirt to people behind their backs? Or is it that somewhere along the way you realized that Americans will tolerate anything a corrupt government dishes out and you just couldn't resist exploiting the situation for your own selfish interests?
You're no public servant, "Senator." You never have been. Blinded by greed and political ambition, people like you are incapable of grasping the concept of public service. You're just another politician, more adept than most when it comes to feeding at the public trough.
People like you make a mockery of the electoral system. Anyone with normal sensibilities would be ashamed of themselves.
You must feel right at home when working with clods like Kenny Bingham and Emma Dean as you protect the financial interests of probate-dealing law firms like your own. In the absence of a free press, it's a special pleasure to protest South Carolina's attorney-instigated probate racket in front of the law firm of Williams, Stitely, and Brink.
"Senator," at least quit trying to con people into thinking the public has an interest in placing time limits on wills. Your repulsive charade fools nobody, and word is spreading about South Carolina's probate racket.
By the way, "Senator," are you a Lutheran or a Baptist? Your profile says Lutheran, but attendance-wise you seem attracted to the Baptist denomination. That must politically fortunate given the fact that among church-going South Carolinians, the Baptist denomination is far more popular than the Lutheran denomination. This survey revealed that a whoppin' 22.6% consider themselves Baptist, whereas only 1.3%. consider themselves Lutheran.
As for me, I'll keep fighting the good fight. It has to do with confronting tyranny, exposing injustice, and standing up for what's right. It's another one of those things that people like you will never understand.
Meanwhile...
Keep warming those pews, "Senator," regardless of the denomination you prefer to associate with. There's nothing like church attendance to confirm a devotion to the Golden Rule.
Update 8/30/2017 - Protested for two hours front of the Statehouse. BEST RESPONSE YET AT THAT LOCATION, PUSHING TOTAL BLOG VISITS WELL OVER 9,000. A million thanks to all who signaled support and visited this blog. A WIS-10 "news" person once again saw my sign and didn't stop to inquire. If there's anything WIS loves to censor, it's any mention of SC's probate racket.
Updates 8/1/2017 -
> Sent a link to this post to all members of the South Carolina Senate and House.
> Protested two hours in front of Williams, Stitely, and Brink's law firm beginning around 2PM. Another GREAT response - MANY thanks to all who signaled support and/or visited this blog. A WIS-TV "news" crew stopped in front of me at a traffic light, censoring coverage of the probate racket.
Update 7/31/2017 - Protested for two hours front of Williams, Stitely, and Brink's law firm in downtown Lexington, beginning around 12:30. FANTASTIC response from motorists - another BIG round of thanks to all who signaled support and/or visited this blog. Wunna the best responses yet.
Update 7/28/2017 - Tweeted links to "Ambassador" Nikki Haley and Governor McMaster.
Update 7/27/2017 - Such a pleasure to send Senator Nikki and his sidekick, Alisa Painter, a link to this post.
Updates 8/1/2017 -
> Sent a link to this post to all members of the South Carolina Senate and House.
> Protested two hours in front of Williams, Stitely, and Brink's law firm beginning around 2PM. Another GREAT response - MANY thanks to all who signaled support and/or visited this blog. A WIS-TV "news" crew stopped in front of me at a traffic light, censoring coverage of the probate racket.
Update 8/8/2017 - Sent a link to this post to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Update 8/11/2017 - Sent a link to this post to the House Judiciary Committee.
Showing posts with label Emma Dean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emma Dean. Show all posts
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Senator Setzler can run, but he can't hide
You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Last year, I sent an email to the senator asking what he had done to simplify probate requirements, and I encouraged him to support Kenny Bingham's bill. After two weeks without a reply, I published a blog post, sent the senator a link to it, published the link on Twitter and Facebook, and made two appearances in front of the senator's law firm directing people to this blog. Almost immediately thereafter, I received the reply from Senator Setzler stating that he was "inclined to support Representative Bingham's bill."
Nice try at making it appear that you would like to help your constituents, Senator, but it was late in the 2016 legislative session, odds were overwhelmingly strong that Bingham's bill would never make it out of committee, and "Ethics" Chairman Bingham had announced his intention to retire. Bingham's bill was, as I noted in an update, too little too late, and of course Senator Setzler ignored those pesky questions I asked him in my blog post.
By the time Senator Setzler got around to replying to my email, the legislative gang's attitude toward victims of South Carolina's probate/trust racket had been underscored by the repulsive charade put on by "Ethics" Chairman Bingham and attorney Emma Dean of the House Judiciary Committee. Only the profoundest of clods would pull such a stunt.
The main interest in Bingham's bill seemed to be in making sure the bill was kept as quiet as possible.
This year, I decided to see just how sincere probate-attorney Setzler actually is about simplifying the probate code, and on 1/30/17 - over three weeks ago - I sent him an e-mail suggesting that he introduce a bill similar to Kenny Bingham's for the current legislative session. And wouldn't ya know it, just like last year, I have yet to find any replies from the senator.
Point is, nobody should have to prompt Senator Setzler to initiate efforts to clean up South Carolina's probate/trust racket. The senator - a career politician for 40 years - probably had a hand in initiating those attorney-serving complexities to the probate code, but regardless of his role at the time, Senator Setzler has had over 30 years to take action on behalf of the bereaved. I wonder if the senator ever saw fit to inform his constituents that the probate code had been turned into a money-making scheme for attorneys. It was a hoot the way the attorney I spoke with in Senator Setzler's law firm intimated that the 1986 revision to the probate code was done on behalf of the taxpaying public. Silence is indeed golden for the probate/trust racket.
Attorney-legislators must be dancing in the aisles now that the governorship has gone to one of their own. The state's new governor - Henry McMaster - is another career politician and former Attorney General who's already been embroiled in a scandal and who somehow forgot to mention the state's probate/trust racket in the much ballyhooed video he made upon taking office.
I understand this entire situation quite well, Senator Setzler. There you are a well-entrenched, career politician, and here I am, just a lowly constituent.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
3/14/2017 update: Interest in South Carolina's probate racket is increasing, and Senator Setzler's kind would never be elected if "news" organizations like WIS-10 did their job and informed the public about pertinent issues. Not a word from the "senator" re my 1/30/2017 e-mail.
3/10/2017 update: Twitter is blocking numerous tweets re Senator Setzler and the probate racket from appearing on my profile page, which tends to reduce the number of re-tweets. Please spread the word about Senator Setzler and the probate racket.
3/9/2017 update: Picketed across the street from Lexington County Probate Court for about 2 hrs starting around 12:30. FANTASTIC RESPONSE - THANKS A MILLION to everyone who signaled support. If you were one of quite a few that took a photo, it would be GREAT if you posted it on the Internet.
2/27/2017 update: Probate-attorney Setzler sure has gotten quiet about simplifying probate. How come, Tricky Nikki? The attorney I spoke with in your law firm certainly wasn't bashful about coming up with an exorbitant, open-ended fee ($1,500 up front plus $275 an hour) for services that never should have been required in the first place regarding my mother's will.
2/25/2017 update: Bicycling home yesterday, Sen. Setzler's law firm was on the way. Jus' COULDN'T RESIST standing in front of the joint for 15 mins protesting the probate racket.
2/24/2017 update: Another round of protesting in front of the State House as Senator Setzler clams up. MANY THANKS to all who signaled support and visited this blog. Today it was an ABC WOLO, "news" crew that drove by but declined to investigate. Never mind that their studio is directly across the street from the State House Special interests have taken control of mainstream media.
2/23/2017 update: Still no reply from Senator Setzler, and today I stood in front of the SC State House - where the senator is probably holed up - with a sign directing folks to this blog. Many thanks to all who signaled support, and it was a hoot watching an NBC WIS-10 "news" crew nonchalantly drive by, apparently knowing better than to investigate and submit a story.
2/21/2017 update: My pleasure to e-mail a link to this post to Senator Setzler and (via Twitter) to Governor McMaster.
Last year, I sent an email to the senator asking what he had done to simplify probate requirements, and I encouraged him to support Kenny Bingham's bill. After two weeks without a reply, I published a blog post, sent the senator a link to it, published the link on Twitter and Facebook, and made two appearances in front of the senator's law firm directing people to this blog. Almost immediately thereafter, I received the reply from Senator Setzler stating that he was "inclined to support Representative Bingham's bill."
Nice try at making it appear that you would like to help your constituents, Senator, but it was late in the 2016 legislative session, odds were overwhelmingly strong that Bingham's bill would never make it out of committee, and "Ethics" Chairman Bingham had announced his intention to retire. Bingham's bill was, as I noted in an update, too little too late, and of course Senator Setzler ignored those pesky questions I asked him in my blog post.
By the time Senator Setzler got around to replying to my email, the legislative gang's attitude toward victims of South Carolina's probate/trust racket had been underscored by the repulsive charade put on by "Ethics" Chairman Bingham and attorney Emma Dean of the House Judiciary Committee. Only the profoundest of clods would pull such a stunt.
The main interest in Bingham's bill seemed to be in making sure the bill was kept as quiet as possible.
This year, I decided to see just how sincere probate-attorney Setzler actually is about simplifying the probate code, and on 1/30/17 - over three weeks ago - I sent him an e-mail suggesting that he introduce a bill similar to Kenny Bingham's for the current legislative session. And wouldn't ya know it, just like last year, I have yet to find any replies from the senator.
Point is, nobody should have to prompt Senator Setzler to initiate efforts to clean up South Carolina's probate/trust racket. The senator - a career politician for 40 years - probably had a hand in initiating those attorney-serving complexities to the probate code, but regardless of his role at the time, Senator Setzler has had over 30 years to take action on behalf of the bereaved. I wonder if the senator ever saw fit to inform his constituents that the probate code had been turned into a money-making scheme for attorneys. It was a hoot the way the attorney I spoke with in Senator Setzler's law firm intimated that the 1986 revision to the probate code was done on behalf of the taxpaying public. Silence is indeed golden for the probate/trust racket.
Attorney-legislators must be dancing in the aisles now that the governorship has gone to one of their own. The state's new governor - Henry McMaster - is another career politician and former Attorney General who's already been embroiled in a scandal and who somehow forgot to mention the state's probate/trust racket in the much ballyhooed video he made upon taking office.
I understand this entire situation quite well, Senator Setzler. There you are a well-entrenched, career politician, and here I am, just a lowly constituent.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
3/14/2017 update: Interest in South Carolina's probate racket is increasing, and Senator Setzler's kind would never be elected if "news" organizations like WIS-10 did their job and informed the public about pertinent issues. Not a word from the "senator" re my 1/30/2017 e-mail.
3/10/2017 update: Twitter is blocking numerous tweets re Senator Setzler and the probate racket from appearing on my profile page, which tends to reduce the number of re-tweets. Please spread the word about Senator Setzler and the probate racket.
3/9/2017 update: Picketed across the street from Lexington County Probate Court for about 2 hrs starting around 12:30. FANTASTIC RESPONSE - THANKS A MILLION to everyone who signaled support. If you were one of quite a few that took a photo, it would be GREAT if you posted it on the Internet.
2/27/2017 update: Probate-attorney Setzler sure has gotten quiet about simplifying probate. How come, Tricky Nikki? The attorney I spoke with in your law firm certainly wasn't bashful about coming up with an exorbitant, open-ended fee ($1,500 up front plus $275 an hour) for services that never should have been required in the first place regarding my mother's will.
2/25/2017 update: Bicycling home yesterday, Sen. Setzler's law firm was on the way. Jus' COULDN'T RESIST standing in front of the joint for 15 mins protesting the probate racket.
2/24/2017 update: Another round of protesting in front of the State House as Senator Setzler clams up. MANY THANKS to all who signaled support and visited this blog. Today it was an ABC WOLO, "news" crew that drove by but declined to investigate. Never mind that their studio is directly across the street from the State House Special interests have taken control of mainstream media.
2/23/2017 update: Still no reply from Senator Setzler, and today I stood in front of the SC State House - where the senator is probably holed up - with a sign directing folks to this blog. Many thanks to all who signaled support, and it was a hoot watching an NBC WIS-10 "news" crew nonchalantly drive by, apparently knowing better than to investigate and submit a story.
2/21/2017 update: My pleasure to e-mail a link to this post to Senator Setzler and (via Twitter) to Governor McMaster.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Bill to help victims of 10 yr limit on wills inexcusably delayed
Update 1/20/2017 - Rep. Bingham has retired, and I've heard nothing further about the bill he introduced.
Update 5/13/2016 - I inquired, and attorney Emma Dean says the bill remains in the Judiciary Committee - it's now been there over a month - and I "will be notified IF (emphasis mine) it receives a hearing." If the bill doesn't pass during the current legislative session, it will have to be reintroduced next session. Looks like a case of "too little, too late."
It's not as though the bill makes any earthshaking changes. All it does is give probate courts discretion in deciding whether to apply South Carolina's 10 year limit on probating wills.
The bill was introduced in the House April 12, 2016, and continues to "reside" in the Judiciary Committee. I understand the procedure, and that it takes time for a committee to examine a bill. But this bill is as simple and straightforward as it gets, the current legislative session ends in early June, and any delay is inexcusable. If those involved had the best interests of South Carolinians at heart, the bill would have been passed posthaste.
Point is, there was never a need to have time limits on wills. Many other states don't have such limits, neither should South Carolina. Time limits on wills serve the interests of nobody other than probate attorneys, many of whom have wormed their way into the South Carolina legislature and have turned the probate process into nothing more than a money-making racket.
I'll reiterate what I previously wrote:
It is becoming obvious that we now live in an oligarchy run by special interests. In South Carolina, we are confronted not only by the probate/trust racket, but also by a gang of "legislators" who won't repair the roads, waste tax dollars on roundabouts, and have turned a deaf ear to widespread public outrage over homeowners associations (HOAs).
One thing's for sure:
Only a gang of subhuman monsters would line their own pockets by leveraging tax dollars to torment people struggling through the process of bereavement.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
Update 5/13/2016 - I inquired, and attorney Emma Dean says the bill remains in the Judiciary Committee - it's now been there over a month - and I "will be notified IF (emphasis mine) it receives a hearing." If the bill doesn't pass during the current legislative session, it will have to be reintroduced next session. Looks like a case of "too little, too late."
It's not as though the bill makes any earthshaking changes. All it does is give probate courts discretion in deciding whether to apply South Carolina's 10 year limit on probating wills.
The bill was introduced in the House April 12, 2016, and continues to "reside" in the Judiciary Committee. I understand the procedure, and that it takes time for a committee to examine a bill. But this bill is as simple and straightforward as it gets, the current legislative session ends in early June, and any delay is inexcusable. If those involved had the best interests of South Carolinians at heart, the bill would have been passed posthaste.
Point is, there was never a need to have time limits on wills. Many other states don't have such limits, neither should South Carolina. Time limits on wills serve the interests of nobody other than probate attorneys, many of whom have wormed their way into the South Carolina legislature and have turned the probate process into nothing more than a money-making racket.
I'll reiterate what I previously wrote:
It is becoming obvious that we now live in an oligarchy run by special interests. In South Carolina, we are confronted not only by the probate/trust racket, but also by a gang of "legislators" who won't repair the roads, waste tax dollars on roundabouts, and have turned a deaf ear to widespread public outrage over homeowners associations (HOAs).
One thing's for sure:
Only a gang of subhuman monsters would line their own pockets by leveraging tax dollars to torment people struggling through the process of bereavement.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
THANK YOU, Ethics Chairman Kenny Bingham, for your bill regarding South Carolina's time limit on wills.
Update 6/3/2016 - I've decided to re-publish a previous post regarding events leading up to the publication of this post.
I e-mailed Kenneth A. "Kenny" Bingham (House Representative for my district, and chairman of the Ethics Committee), asking if any efforts were underway to eliminate placing time limits on wills, and I mentioned that many states had no limits. He e-mailed back immediately, asking for specifics regarding my situation. Here's a copy of my reply:
Dear Mr. Bingham,
Many thanks for your interest and your efforts.
I'm an only child, sole heir, age 70, and have lived in South Carolina most of my life. My mother died in 2002 at age 86, a year after my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The property deed is in all three of our names (we each purchased a third), and each of us had wills leaving our share to each other and naming each other as executors. We all three lived at the residence since purchasing it in the late 70s, and all financial accounts were joint with right of survivorship.
When my mother died, I was devastated, but I was honored to accept full-time-care-giving-duties for my dad. I was totally unfamiliar with the probate process - all relatives are in distant states out west - and I could discern no immediate reason to have my mother's will probated. To the best of my knowledge, the matter involved no time limits and could be resolved by little more than taking death certificates to the Register of Deeds. In 2010, my dad died at home at age 92.
Several years after my dad died, I contacted Lexington County Probate Court and was told that my mother's will was no longer valid and I would have to hire a lawyer. I was told that I could not represent myself in the matter - something I now know is technically incorrect, but intestate requirements (Determination of Heirs) are indeed beyond the expertise of most folks. Attorney fees to resolve my situation are in the $2,000 range, and as you may imagine, I have been in quite a quandary regarding how to proceed.
I think my situation demonstrates that each case is unique. This is no doubt why other states - including Florida, Virginia, and Oregon - have no time limits, and why Pennsylvania has a limit of 21 years. Everyone I've spoken with is unaware of South Carolina's current 10-year limit and is shocked and dismayed to learn of it. I don't think South Carolina had any such limits prior to 1986.
Any assistance you can offer will be deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Parris Boyd
Chairman Bingham referred me to Emma Dean, an attorney who works with the House Judiciary Committee, and the two of them prepared a bill aimed at helping me, and people in situations similar to mine. Chairman Binghams's bill has now been submitted to the Judiciary Committee.
Saying that I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bingham and attorney Dean is certainly an understatement. I hope the South Carolina legislature will pass Chairman Bingham's bill without delay.
Update 1/20/2017 - All for naught. Chairman Bingham retired last year, and I've heard nothing further about the bill he introduced.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
I e-mailed Kenneth A. "Kenny" Bingham (House Representative for my district, and chairman of the Ethics Committee), asking if any efforts were underway to eliminate placing time limits on wills, and I mentioned that many states had no limits. He e-mailed back immediately, asking for specifics regarding my situation. Here's a copy of my reply:
Dear Mr. Bingham,
Many thanks for your interest and your efforts.
I'm an only child, sole heir, age 70, and have lived in South Carolina most of my life. My mother died in 2002 at age 86, a year after my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The property deed is in all three of our names (we each purchased a third), and each of us had wills leaving our share to each other and naming each other as executors. We all three lived at the residence since purchasing it in the late 70s, and all financial accounts were joint with right of survivorship.
When my mother died, I was devastated, but I was honored to accept full-time-care-giving-duties for my dad. I was totally unfamiliar with the probate process - all relatives are in distant states out west - and I could discern no immediate reason to have my mother's will probated. To the best of my knowledge, the matter involved no time limits and could be resolved by little more than taking death certificates to the Register of Deeds. In 2010, my dad died at home at age 92.
Several years after my dad died, I contacted Lexington County Probate Court and was told that my mother's will was no longer valid and I would have to hire a lawyer. I was told that I could not represent myself in the matter - something I now know is technically incorrect, but intestate requirements (Determination of Heirs) are indeed beyond the expertise of most folks. Attorney fees to resolve my situation are in the $2,000 range, and as you may imagine, I have been in quite a quandary regarding how to proceed.
I think my situation demonstrates that each case is unique. This is no doubt why other states - including Florida, Virginia, and Oregon - have no time limits, and why Pennsylvania has a limit of 21 years. Everyone I've spoken with is unaware of South Carolina's current 10-year limit and is shocked and dismayed to learn of it. I don't think South Carolina had any such limits prior to 1986.
Any assistance you can offer will be deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Parris Boyd
Chairman Bingham referred me to Emma Dean, an attorney who works with the House Judiciary Committee, and the two of them prepared a bill aimed at helping me, and people in situations similar to mine. Chairman Binghams's bill has now been submitted to the Judiciary Committee.
Saying that I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bingham and attorney Dean is certainly an understatement. I hope the South Carolina legislature will pass Chairman Bingham's bill without delay.
Update 1/20/2017 - All for naught. Chairman Bingham retired last year, and I've heard nothing further about the bill he introduced.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring a probate attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Executors (now called Personal Representatives) shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
Monday, April 18, 2016
Legal Aid? No, Mr. "Ethics" Chairman. What I need is a government with fundamental decency.
Update 6/3/2016 - On 4/20/16, bewildered by the strange sequence of events, I removed this post. I've decided to re-publish it, along with a detailed explanation of what happened.
I first contacted Kenny Bingham on 2/25/16, and received the insulting "legal aid" e-mail from Emma Dean (copy to Kenny) on 3/15/16. I immediately replied that I didn't qualify for legal aid. On 3/29/16, I asked attorney Dean for the status of Rep. Bingham's bill, and got no reply. On 4/4/16, having heard nothing from attorney Dean, I published this blog, and on 4/5/16, I sent a blog link to attorney Dean (copy to Kenny Bingham).
I heard nothing more from attorney Dean until 4/20/16, which was two days after this post was publicized on Blogger, Facebook, and Twitter, including links to Governor Haley, and the blog had received over 200 visits. On 4/20/16 at 8:37 AM, I received an e-mail from attorney Dean informing me that Kenny Bingham's bill had been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee on 4/12/16. Bewildered, but willing to give them the benefit of a doubt, I then removed this post and published a post thanking Chairman Bingham and attorney Dean for their efforts.
There seems to be a concerted effort - from the legislature to mainstream media - to "keep it quiet" regarding anything relevant to South Carolina's probate/trust racket.
Before publishing this blog, I e-mailed Kenneth A. "Kenny" Bingham (House Representative for my district, and chairman of the Ethics Committee), asking if any efforts were underway to eliminate placing time limits on wills. I mentioned that many states had no limits, and he asked for specifics regarding my situation. Here's a copy of my reply:
Dear Mr. Bingham,
Many thanks for your interest and your efforts.
I'm an only child, sole heir, age 70, and have lived in South Carolina most of my life. My mother died in 2002 at age 86, a year after my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The property deed is in all three of our names (we each purchased a third), and each of us had wills leaving our share to each other and naming each other as executors. We all three lived at the residence since purchasing it in the late 70s, and all financial accounts were joint with right of survivorship.
When my mother died, I was devastated, but I was honored to accept full-time-care-giving-duties for my dad. I was totally unfamiliar with the probate process - all relatives are in distant states out west - and I could discern no immediate reason to have my mother's will probated. To the best of my knowledge, the matter involved no time limits and could be resolved by little more than taking death certificates to the Register of Deeds. In 2010, my dad died at home at age 92.
Several years after my dad died, I contacted Lexington County Probate Court and was told that my mother's will was no longer valid and I would have to hire a lawyer. I was told that I could not represent myself in the matter - something I now know is technically incorrect, but intestate requirements (Determination of Heirs) are indeed beyond the expertise of most folks. Attorney fees to resolve my situation are in the $2,000 range, and as you may imagine, I have been in quite a quandary regarding how to proceed.
I think my situation demonstrates that each case is unique. This is no doubt why other states - including Florida, Virginia, and Oregon - have no time limits, and why Pennsylvania has a limit of 21 years. Everyone I've spoken with is unaware of South Carolina's current 10-year limit and is shocked and dismayed to learn of it. I don't think South Carolina had any such limits prior to 1986.
Any assistance you can offer will be deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Parris Boyd
The "ethics" chairman referred me to Emma Dean, an attorney (of course), and the two of them put on an award-winning "we'll-try-to- help" performance that would have made any politician proud. Their "encouraging" e-mails went on for about two and a half weeks, suddenly culminating in an absurd and insulting e-mail from attorney Dean (copy to Kenny) suggesting that I contact legal aid services to see if I qualified. This was followed by their refusal to reply to any of my subsequent e-mails.
Perhaps the "ethics" chairman and attorney Dean were offended that anyone would dare to address the nonsensical nature of placing time limits on wills, and the outlandish fees probate attorneys are raking in to "resolve" such matters.
It is becoming obvious that we now live in an oligarchy run by special interests. In South Carolina, we are confronted not only by the probate/trust racket, but also by a gang of "legislators" who won't repair the roads, waste tax dollars on roundabouts, and have turned a deaf ear to widespread public outrage over homeowners' associations (HOAs).
One thing's for sure:
Only a gang of subhuman monsters would line their own pockets by leveraging tax dollars to torment people struggling through the process of bereavement.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring an attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Heirs shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
I first contacted Kenny Bingham on 2/25/16, and received the insulting "legal aid" e-mail from Emma Dean (copy to Kenny) on 3/15/16. I immediately replied that I didn't qualify for legal aid. On 3/29/16, I asked attorney Dean for the status of Rep. Bingham's bill, and got no reply. On 4/4/16, having heard nothing from attorney Dean, I published this blog, and on 4/5/16, I sent a blog link to attorney Dean (copy to Kenny Bingham).
I heard nothing more from attorney Dean until 4/20/16, which was two days after this post was publicized on Blogger, Facebook, and Twitter, including links to Governor Haley, and the blog had received over 200 visits. On 4/20/16 at 8:37 AM, I received an e-mail from attorney Dean informing me that Kenny Bingham's bill had been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee on 4/12/16. Bewildered, but willing to give them the benefit of a doubt, I then removed this post and published a post thanking Chairman Bingham and attorney Dean for their efforts.
There seems to be a concerted effort - from the legislature to mainstream media - to "keep it quiet" regarding anything relevant to South Carolina's probate/trust racket.
Before publishing this blog, I e-mailed Kenneth A. "Kenny" Bingham (House Representative for my district, and chairman of the Ethics Committee), asking if any efforts were underway to eliminate placing time limits on wills. I mentioned that many states had no limits, and he asked for specifics regarding my situation. Here's a copy of my reply:
Dear Mr. Bingham,
Many thanks for your interest and your efforts.
I'm an only child, sole heir, age 70, and have lived in South Carolina most of my life. My mother died in 2002 at age 86, a year after my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. The property deed is in all three of our names (we each purchased a third), and each of us had wills leaving our share to each other and naming each other as executors. We all three lived at the residence since purchasing it in the late 70s, and all financial accounts were joint with right of survivorship.
When my mother died, I was devastated, but I was honored to accept full-time-care-giving-duties for my dad. I was totally unfamiliar with the probate process - all relatives are in distant states out west - and I could discern no immediate reason to have my mother's will probated. To the best of my knowledge, the matter involved no time limits and could be resolved by little more than taking death certificates to the Register of Deeds. In 2010, my dad died at home at age 92.
Several years after my dad died, I contacted Lexington County Probate Court and was told that my mother's will was no longer valid and I would have to hire a lawyer. I was told that I could not represent myself in the matter - something I now know is technically incorrect, but intestate requirements (Determination of Heirs) are indeed beyond the expertise of most folks. Attorney fees to resolve my situation are in the $2,000 range, and as you may imagine, I have been in quite a quandary regarding how to proceed.
I think my situation demonstrates that each case is unique. This is no doubt why other states - including Florida, Virginia, and Oregon - have no time limits, and why Pennsylvania has a limit of 21 years. Everyone I've spoken with is unaware of South Carolina's current 10-year limit and is shocked and dismayed to learn of it. I don't think South Carolina had any such limits prior to 1986.
Any assistance you can offer will be deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Parris Boyd
The "ethics" chairman referred me to Emma Dean, an attorney (of course), and the two of them put on an award-winning "we'll-try-to- help" performance that would have made any politician proud. Their "encouraging" e-mails went on for about two and a half weeks, suddenly culminating in an absurd and insulting e-mail from attorney Dean (copy to Kenny) suggesting that I contact legal aid services to see if I qualified. This was followed by their refusal to reply to any of my subsequent e-mails.
Perhaps the "ethics" chairman and attorney Dean were offended that anyone would dare to address the nonsensical nature of placing time limits on wills, and the outlandish fees probate attorneys are raking in to "resolve" such matters.
It is becoming obvious that we now live in an oligarchy run by special interests. In South Carolina, we are confronted not only by the probate/trust racket, but also by a gang of "legislators" who won't repair the roads, waste tax dollars on roundabouts, and have turned a deaf ear to widespread public outrage over homeowners' associations (HOAs).
One thing's for sure:
Only a gang of subhuman monsters would line their own pockets by leveraging tax dollars to torment people struggling through the process of bereavement.
What YOU can do:
> Spread the word about the probate/trust racket. Most folks don't find out about the attorney-generated horrors of probate until they are struggling through the bereavement process, and shock value is a key part of the effort to browbeat people into hiring an attorney.
> If you need help with non-probate matters, avoid using attorneys who advertise that they specialize in probate. Many attorneys refuse to get involved in the probate racket, and one of them told me with a wink, "It's a 'highly specialized' area of law."
> Refuse to be bullied by the attorney-generated horrors of probate into paying attorneys to set up trusts. Probate is financed with tax dollars, and should be an inexpensive, viable alternative to setting up trusts. Heirs shouldn't need a law degree to probate an inheritance.
> Cut costs by downloading your own estate documents - especially wills - from the Internet. Paying probate attorneys outlandish fees to "draw up a will" is risky business, because attorney-legislators have a vested interest in nullifying wills.
> Last - and what certainly shouldn't be least (but probably is) - send "your representatives" an e-mail expressing your sentiments about the probate/trust racket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)