Jewish World Review Oct. 1, 1999 /21 Tishrei, 5760
one person can do
DEAR R.D.: There is little that you can do as an individual, but your employer can put enough pressure on the insurance company to make an exception. Insurance companies are reluctant to take on employees who have been on the payroll for a while. Experience has shown them that these are the people that very often have pre-existing medical problems that would be difficult to prove. Once they get on the policy, they will take advantage of it. On the other hand, the insurance company should have made it very clear to your employer that a 90-day period is not appropriate. Most companies require this probationary period because they have the type of business where employees come and go. To get one permanent employee they will have to hire six. The paperwork to provide insurance for those people would be horrendous. Hopefully, your insurance company will make an exception.
DEAR BRUCE: My dad died leaving a very specific will, which has been probated in our home state of Tennessee. You can imagine how surprised we were to find out that because he had a summer home in the Carolinas and a winter retreat in Florida, we had to probate his will in both of the other states. Since we now have the same circumstance, is there some way we can avoid having to go through the same procedure when we pass on? -- J.J., via e-mail
DEAR J.J.: This is a case where you should consider seeing a competent trust attorney. If the property is held in your own name in more than one state, the will must be probated under the rules of that state. The most common situation, similar to yours, is vacation property. This often comes as a great shock for people who own real estate in more than one state. I believe that if you contact a lawyer you will find that there are ways to put these properties inside a trust that obviates the need to probate.
DEAR BRUCE: We moved into a somewhat upscale housing area which has covenants and deed restrictions. We were well aware that these existed, but frankly, we made no effort to get into this too deeply. We have always had a boat, which we keep on a trailer with a cover over it, and it has never presented a problem. We use the boat every weekend, and since we are not on waterfront property, we require the boat to be kept on the trailer. The day after we moved in we put the trailer beside the house. Shortly thereafter, we received a very friendly but pointed visit by someone from the deed restriction committee pointing out that we were not allowed to store boats or trailers on our property. The deed restriction representative said that they would take immediate action against me as boats, trailers and motor homes are expressly prohibited. We think that this is ridiculous and we feel "hoodwinked"! How do we get this situation to change? -- M.R. Wellesley, Mass.
DEAR M.R.: I can't imagine why you feel that you have been "hoodwinked." The documents were there for your perusal, and if you were represented by council it would be the duty of your lawyer to make you fully aware of the restrictions that you "voluntarily" accepted by buying the property. In most situations, the only way that you can get that prohibition put aside is to have every property owner in the subdivision waive that requirement -- a virtual impossibility. The best thing for you to do is to find a place off-property to store your boat, or perhaps leave your boat at a marina. I recognize that this is going to entail an additional expense, but that's the whole purpose of deed restrictions to prohibit what many would call undesirable
09/30/99: Lost tickets are lost cash