270.781.6500

law

04.08.2015

Annulment versus divorce matters at tax time

In our last post, we discussed how divorce affects an estate plan. A thorough review of all estate documents is critical post-divorce to ensure you’ve covered every conceivable scenario and changed every document necessary. Allowing an attorney to do that review for you is always in your best interest, as attorneys have a keen eye for details and wording that may escape even a close reader who does not have legal training. Taking this matter one step backwards, though, we’re examining annulment versus divorce in this post. While both lead to the same conclusion – you’re no longer married – these two scenarios have very different consequences when it comes time to pay taxes. Both parties may file as married at tax time if they were still legally married at the end of the calendar year. Options include filing a joint tax return, as many married couples do, or checking the married but filing separately box. Read More

03.31.2015

Bob Young explores law firm branding in latest ABA column

Attorney Bob Young of ELPO is serving as chair of the Law Practice Division of the American Bar Association. He writes a regular column for the section’s magazine, Law Practice. The March/April column has a review of the book Personal Branding in One Hour for Lawyers by Katy… Read More

03.26.2015

Six Things to Do When You Have a Child

Having a child can be exciting (and stressful).  Probably the last thing you might think to do when having a child is to update an estate plan, but it’s absolutely necessary.  Here are 6 things to consider when you have a child. Read More

03.19.2015

Tips from a Kentucky estate lawyer: how to pass on memorabilia and collections in your estate

Many people collect all kinds of things, and these collections come to hold tremendous sentimental and in some cases monetary value. As people age, they begin to think about who they would like to have certain items or entire collections, and sometimes, bold relatives or friends suggest they'd like to receive something special to remember you by. Gifts and promises of gifts are also made to honor a special relationship. These type of collections can cause significant arguments after you are deceased. The best way to avoid such disputes is to clearly specify in writing exactly who is to receive what items. Verbally telling a relative or friend what you would like for them to have upon their death, and giving away significant items while you're still living, causes confusion and prompts some to get greedy. It's the last thing anybody wants after they're gone.   Read More

03.05.2015

FDA orders drug makers to change labels on Low Testosterone drugs

Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is requiring the manufacturers of low testosterone drugs to change the labels of their products and to conduct further studies about the drugs. The FDA says some studies have indicated there is an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and even death while taking supplemental testosterone, while other studies have not. This has led the FDA to say that more research is needed by the manufacturers of the drugs as well as to require more warning labels on Low Testosterone drugs to better prepare doctors and patients for discussions about taking "Low T" drugs. The FDA specifically called out clinics offering to treat the "signs of aging" in men which are often believed to be linked to gradually decreasing testosterone in the body. While decreasing testosterone may seem to be the culprit of fatigue or other similar problems, there's not been enough research of the side effects of taking Low T drugs simply to fight the signs of aging. The FDA says the drugs should only be used in men who are suffering from low testosterone as a result of "disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism." Health care providers should make patients aware of the risk of possible cardiovascular events and even death due to taking testosterone, the FDA says. Read More

03.03.2015

Federal Court refuses to remand Kentucky Uninsured Motorist insurance case

In Helton v. Lelion, a couple sued a driver who was operating a vehicle in which a tire became loose and hit their vehicle. The couple initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Wolfe County Circuit Court against the driver who lost her tire. The allegedly negligent motorist with the loose tire apparently did not carry liability insurance when the accident occurred. Because of this, the injured driver also demanded the full policy limits of her uninsured motorist coverage from her own auto insurer, as well as attorneys’ fees and interest. The defendants removed the uninsured motorist case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), a federal court may exercise such jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. In response, the couple filed a motion to remand the case back to a Kentucky state court. Although the plaintiffs agreed that the parties were diverse, they claimed that federal jurisdiction was improper because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory minimum. The injured driver also signed a stipulation that the entirety of the damages she sought were less than $75,000. Read More

02.20.2015

ELPO sponsors Institute for School Principals

ELPO sponsors Institute for School Principals Read More

02.18.2015

Travis Armstrong continues in leadership role in Association of Legal Administrators

Travis Armstrong continues in leadership role in Association of Legal Administrators Read More

02.12.2015

Kentucky Court Finds Virginia Law Applies in Tractor-Trailer Wreck Dispute

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has found that Virginia law applied in an uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage dispute arising out of a Kentucky tractor-trailer crash. In an unpublished opinion, a Virginia truck driver sued the insurance carrier for another motorist who struck his big rig head-on. The tractor-trailer wreck occurred on Interstate 65 in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 2009. At the time of the collision, the other motorist was allegedly intoxicated and traveling in the wrong direction on the freeway. Following the accident, the truck driver settled with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer for the full policy limits of $25,000. After that, the semi-truck driver’s motor vehicle insurer waived its subrogation rights against the other driver.  The trucker then sought $25,000 in UIM benefits from his own auto insurer. The truck driver’s UIM insurer denied his claim because the at-fault driver was not an underinsured motorist according to the definition included in his insurance policy. In addition, the company claimed that Virginia law allowed it to offset the $25,000 payment the truck driver received from the other driver’s insurer against his potential UIM benefits. Because of this, the trucker’s insurer claimed that he was not entitled to receive additional payment as a result of his UIM coverage. Read More

02.09.2015

Shelby County Car Accident Case brings $1 million verdict for plaintiff

In Barnes v. Saulsberry, a man sued a taxi cab driver and the owner of the taxi cab following an accident on the side of the highway. The man was standing on the shoulder of a Tennessee highway waiting for emergency personnel to arrive following a traffic collision. While the man was outside his vehicle, a taxi cab struck a parked automobile. The parked vehicle collided with the man’s car, which then hit the man. As a result, the man allegedly sustained permanent and disabling harm. About one year after the automobile accident, the injured man filed a negligence lawsuit against the taxi cab driver and its owner in Shelby County, Tennessee. According to the man, the defendants caused him to suffer numerous broken bones, ongoing pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and more. Following a jury trial, the man received a damages award of $1 million. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial, the defendants filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville. Read More