The Impact of Foreclosure During Divorce

By: Steven D. Fichtman

As the economy worsens and housing markets continue to decline, many people have made the decision to allow their homes to go into foreclosure and to "walk away" from their mortgages. Some even continue to live in the home without payment as their foreclosure case moves forward.

In a divorce case, an issue can arise when only one spouse wishes to "walk away" or stop paying the mortgage. The other spouse may not agree for a number of reasons, including not wanting to risk a foreclosure on his or her credit, not wanting to risk losing the marital home and wanting to preserve marital assets.

Under Florida law, the parties have a joint obligation to maintain the asset, despite the wishes of one party to “walk away”. Therefore, a Judge can force the parties to continue to make the monthly mortgage payments and make both parties responsible for the mortgage. A Judge can also force each party to pay their share (or the full amount) of the mortgage each month until the divorce is final and it is decided what would happen with the marital home.

While the facts of every case are different, the important thing to know is that the parties have an obligation to remain current and responsible on marital expenses and responsibilities, including the martial home.

We Now Offer Florida Probate Services!

At The Law Office of Keith Taylor, we are constantly growing and expanding to meet the needs of our clients and our community. To help offer even more inclusive legal services, we now proudly provide Florida probate services!

Probate is the legal process that involves administering and distributing a person’s estate after their death either under their Last Will and Testament, or through the State of Florida’s statutes if there is no Will.

This process might include interpreting the wishes set out in a Last Will and Testament, paying debts to creditors, or distributing assets to beneficiaries or legal heirs.

It can be a complicated, frustrating, and time-consuming process, especially when the person trying to handle all this has recently lost their loved one. Often, to avoid the frustration of dealing with these issues alone, individuals look to an experienced and dedicated probate attorney to handle these issues for them.

Our attorneys work closely with the personal representative of the estate, step-by-step, to ensure that the estate is distributed and administered efficiently and effectively.

If you have recently lost a loved one and are trying to deal with the complicated probate process on your own, call our office and let our dedicated team of professionals help you. If you would like more information on the services we offer, you can visit our website, contact our office, or email Attorney Czaya at Adam@KeithTaylorLaw.com.

If I don't have a Will, will the State get all my property?

By: Adam A. Czaya

Another question frequently posed by clients is what happens to their property if they don’t have a will at the time of their death. Many think that the property automatically goes to the state, while others believe the property will pass completely to their spouse. The short answer is that it depends on your family structure. 

A person who dies without a will dies intestate. This means that your property will pass according to the state’s intestate statutes (§§ 732.101-732.111). While it is not common for property to pass to the state, or escheat as it is called, this can sometimes happen.

In Florida, an individual’s estate can escheat to the state when a person dies leaving an estate without being survived by any person entitled to a part of it (F.S. § 732.107(1)). However, before your estate escheats to the State of Florida, there are a long list of individuals who may inherit the estate according to Chapter 732 of Florida’s intestate statutes, which can be found on the Florida legislature’s website, including children, parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, among others.

If the estate does escheat to the State of Florida, the state will then sell the property and give the proceeds to Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, who will then deposit the proceeds of the sale in the State School Fund. Even after the funds are deposited with the CFO, heirs of the intestate estate have ten years to reopen the administration and prove they are entitled to the proceeds.

Of course, if you wish to avoid this sometimes complex distribution scheme that the State of Florida has written for you, you can always write your own Last Will and Testament, which will distribute your estate according to your own wishes.

If you wish to create your will or simply to get more information about your estate planning options, please feel free to contact our office and set up a free consultation.

Do I need a Living Will?

If you’re not sure how to answer that question, you should head over to our website to check out our latest edition of The People’s Law School. You might be familiar with the series of web-seminar videos, The People’s Law School, which The Law Office of Keith R. Taylor offers to help you understand and handle your own legal issues without an attorney. For this latest edition, we asked our Facebook friends what they wanted to know, and we were excited about all the feedback. Based on those votes, we are proud to offer this installment as the first of a multi-part series on Basic Estate Planning.

In the short video, Attorney Keith Taylor explains the Living Will. He helps you understand what it is, what it should look like, and whether or not you should have one. You can see this edition and all previous editions of The People’s Law School on our web-site by visiting www.KeithTaylorLaw.com/People’sLawSchool.htm.

There are plenty of forms out there to make your own Living Will (we have one on our website –It’s free!), but if you would feel more comfortable using a lawyer to prepare this important document, or if you are looking to update your entire estate plan, including your Last Will and Testament, and would like the help of a team of experienced attorneys, contact our office to schedule your consultation. We are happy to help.

If you would like to give us your feedback on what People’s Law School topics would be most useful for you, visit our Facebook page, www.facebook.com/keithtaylorlaw and let us know, or send us an email.

Law in the News: McDonald's Hot Coffee Case

The Law in the News is an ongoing series where the lawyers of The Law Office of Keith R. Taylor offer their perspective on the legal cases and topics that are making headlines.

We are quickly approaching 20 years since a woman by the name of Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee that spawned a flood of bad press for the legal profession and the justice system. The $2.9 million verdict has made this case the poster child for a legal system gone wrong. Unfortunately those who have so successfully engrained this case in the minds of millions of Americans have a bad habit of leaving out some important details – details that might cause you to reconsider your opinion of the verdict.

While descriptions of the facts of this case often sounds something like, “a lady took the lid off her coffee, stuck it in her lap, it spilled, she got millions,” that tends to leave out some important parts that you may or may not know. What is often not shared is that McDonald’s knew that their coffee was dangerously hot (McDonald’s required franchises to serve it between 180 and 190°). They had been sued for very similar claims to this one before. They kept the coffee too hot because they thought it looked better (because of all the appetizing steam it created). We also don’t hear much about the very severe injuries that Ms. Liebeck had as a result of the spill. She sustained third degree burns to her legs and pelvis after seconds of exposure to the accidental spill (liquid at that temperature causes third degree burns in 2-7 seconds). Her injuries caused her to have skin grafts and spend eight days in the hospital undergoing emergency treatment. During her hospital stay she lost an extreme amount of weight, reducing her to only 83 pounds. After her skin grafts and discharge from emergency care she still had to undergo another two years of medical treatment for her injuries.

Another detail that is often left out is that Ms. Liebeck tried to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000.00, less than one percent of the jury verdict, to cover the costs of her medical treatments. McDonald’s offered her $800.00. When she tried to settle with the company two more times before trial, they refused. We also don’t hear about the parties actually reaching a confidential settlement after the fact (which means Ms. Liebeck did not get $2.9 million out of this, or even a quarter of that amount). Another thing to remember is that the bulk of the jury verdict in this case was punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish someone for something they did wrong with the idea that it will deter future wrongdoing. The idea behind the high punitive damages in this case was that an amount less than $2.7 million (the approximate amount of the jury verdict that was punitive in nature) would not punish McDonald’s because that amount would be covered by about one or two day’s worth of McDonalds’ profits from coffee sales alone.

From a line in a Toby Keith song to a film, “Hot Coffee,” which was featured at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, it seems we are all still fascinated with this little cup of coffee. Hopefully, with a different perspective on the case, we can make a more balanced judgment about the outcome of the case and the reasonableness of the verdict, and recognize how the actions of those in the legal profession can often be misrepresented by the media and the public.