TODI: A New Device to Avoid Probate in Illinois

It has been a year since Illinois introduced the Illinois Residential Real Property Transfer on Death Instrument Act (755 ILCS 27/1 et seq). The Act authorizes certain owners to transfer their residential real estate located in Illinois outside of probate by using a pre-recorded document called a Transfer on Death Instrument (“TODI”). What can a… Continue reading →

It has been a year since Illinois introduced the Illinois Residential Real Property Transfer on Death Instrument Act (755 ILCS 27/1 et seq). The Act authorizes certain owners to transfer their residential real estate located in Illinois outside of probate by using a pre-recorded document called a Transfer on Death Instrument (“TODI”).

What can a TODI be used for?

A TODI can be used to transfer real property with one to four residential dwelling units, or a single tract of agricultural land consisting of 40 acres or less with a single family residence. The purpose of a TODI is to transfer real property upon the death of the owner without the need to go through the probate process.

What are the requirements for a TODI?

There are three basic requirements for properly executing an TODI: 1) it must conform to the recording requirements of a typical deed, and be executed, witnessed and acknowledged as required under the Act; 2) it must state that the beneficiary is to receive the property at the owner’s death; and 3) it must be recorded in the county where the property is located prior to the owner’s death.

Can a TODI be made irrevocable?

No. Even if the document states that the instrument is irrevocable, the Act states that any TODI can be revoked at any time prior to the owner’s death.

Who can be the beneficiary of a TODI?

Any legal entity that is capable of owning residential real estate can be the beneficiary of a TODI. This includes individuals, joint owners, trusts, corporations, limited liability companies and other entities. In addition, successor beneficiaries can be named in a TODI in the event that the first named beneficiary predeceases the grantor.

How does the grantor revoke a TODI?

A grantor of a TODI must have the same capacity to revoke the TODI as would be required to revoke a will. An agent of the grantor can only revoke a TODI if the power to do so is expressly authorized by a durable power of attorney, or a similar document. To revoke the TODI, the grantor may do one of two things: 1) record a new TODI that expressly revokes the prior TODI or revokes it by inconsistency; or 2) recording an instrument of revocation expressly revokes the TODI, either in whole or in part.

If you have more questions regarding the use of TODI, or any other estate planning topics, please contact us.

Too Little Too Late

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Lorice Enterprises, LLC of Albany, NY for violating health and safety standards while removing asbestos containing roofing material. The asbestos remediation company faces a total of $83,300 in fines. In a January 22, 2013 press release, Kimberly Castillon, OSHA’s area director in Albany… Continue reading →

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Lorice Enterprises, LLC of Albany, NY for violating health and safety standards while removing asbestos containing roofing material. The asbestos remediation company faces a total of $83,300 in fines.

In a January 22, 2013 press release, Kimberly Castillon, OSHA’s area director in Albany stated “Lorice Enterprises did not conduct an initial exposure assessment to determine exposure for the workers removing asbestos-containing roofing material. Additionally, the employer did not utilize wet methods to ensure that asbestos did not become air borne and failed to ensure head and eye protection for these workers.” OSHA found Lorice Enterprises committed a willful violation, meaning a violation committed with intentional disregard for the law’s requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.

“One of the best means of preventing serious workplace hazards is to establish an effective safety and health management system through which management and employees work together to actively identify, analyze and eliminate work-related hazards” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. Notwithstanding, OSHA’s recent action in New York, tragically for the men and women we represent, it is a case of too little and too late.

People always ask, “If asbestos has been banned for so long, how can anyone still be getting sick from it?” The truth is asbestos use has never been fully banned in the United States. The importation and use of asbestos has been banned in 52 other nations however, including the entire European Union. Some studies suggest that the annual world production of asbestos is still close to 2 million tons annually.

The EPA attempted to universally ban the use of asbestos in 1989. Court challenges led to the overturning of the EPA’s action, leaving only some of the uses banned, while clearing the way for the continued use of asbestos in some products. Asbestos cannot be used in the production of paper products, flooring felts for linoleum sheeting, wallboard patching products such as spackle and joint compounds or in gas fireplaces. Products in which asbestos can still be used include automotive brake pads, gaskets and automatic transmission parts as well as some construction materials.

Most U.S. companies have now found other materials to use in the place of asbestos in their products voluntarily for fear of future litigation. Asbestos products can still be sold in the U.S. but rarely are, and are largely limited to auto and aircraft brakes and gaskets and these products are primarily imported into the U.S. Because the Courts and Congress have failed to ban the use of asbestos entirely, the potential health hazard from asbestos containing products remains a reality.

The bottom line: Many workers and their family members were exposed to asbestos in their workplace and home without their knowledge. Asbestos was used in many everyday industrial and household products. If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with lung cancer or Mesothelioma, please contact us immediately as we may be able to assist in obtaining compensation from those responsible. We can also represent those with asbestos exposure who have been diagnosed with colon cancer, throat cancer, and stomach cancer. Please bear in mind that family members of workers heavily exposed to asbestos face an increased risk of developing asbestos-related disease.

In addition, if you were previously screened for asbestos by another law firm and did or did not recover compensation for asbestos related disease, you may be entitled to compensation. If you have not had a check-up in the last year, please call your doctor because early detection is key to successful treatment of asbestos related disease. If you have suffered from one or more pleural effusions (fluid on your lung) in the last year or two or have been told you have a mass in or on your lungs, we would urge you to see a lung specialist as soon as possible.

Missouri Supreme Court Overturns Cap on Pain and Suffering Damages

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the previous cap of $350,000 on non-economic damages including those for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases violates the right to a trial by jury. The Court explained that this cap interferes with the “jury’s constitutionally protected purpose” to determine… Continue reading →

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the previous cap of $350,000 on non-economic damages including those for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases violates the right to a trial by jury. The Court explained that this cap interferes with the “jury’s constitutionally protected purpose” to determine the amount of damages experienced by an injured person. In this case, a young boy, Naython Watts, was born with catastrophic brain injuries after his mother allegedly did not receive appropriate care from the doctors and hospital involved, which the jury determined to be medical negligence. The jury awarded the five year old boy and his mother as his representative $1.45 million in non-economic damages or pain and suffering. This award was then reduced to $350,000 due to a law passed in 2005 which capped pain and suffering damages for any medical malpractice law suit, regardless of the injury. Chief Justice Teitelman explained that the statute which imposes the cap on medical malpractice damages violates the Missouri Constitution’s right to a trial by jury.

What is encouraging about this decision is the Missouri Court’s support of the Constitution, which created a court system with a trial by a jury of our fellow citizens in order to protect the most vulnerable people in our society: not corporations or large hospitals, but victims facing daunting challenges like Naython Watts and his parents who will care for him for the rest of his life.

For more information or questions contact our firm at 1-800-782-8492. We proudly serve Madison County, St. Clair County, St. Louis, and injured individuals nationwide.