vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.
What happens to a minor if the parents are missing, or incapacitated, or deceased should be planned now, and not end up a matter for the courts to decide.  You might need to sit down with a family lawyer as well as a fee based financial planner, to make sure you have addressed all the relevant details. These details would include where they would live, money, and what the money should be used for.
You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.
"No, the language in the Constitution is permissive, not mandatory. The *grant of power* to Congress is mandatory (shall), but nowhere does it say Congress ""shall/must"" etc establish a post office. The same clause also says that the government can establish post Roads, but those roads no longer exist, having been folded into other road systems. Must Congress also maintain a separate post road network? By your logic it must, but that is clearly an absurd result.   ""Maintain"" is only used for the Navy, which was always expected to exist continuously. Congress can also ""raise and support armies"", language reflecting the expectation that there would be no standing army, but neither ""maintain"" nor ""support"" are used for the post office.   Congress has the power to create the post office and post roads, bit it doesn't have to. It certainly doesn't have to maintain them. Nor is there any reason to think that establishing the post office and privatizing it is impermissible, since it follows the dictate of the clause. Even if it were unconstitutional, what is the relief? Who could sue who to have what done?"
""Don't feel like you have to jump at the first person whose name is given to you,"" Kirchick says. ""I think that people should interview two or more attorneys, accountants, trust officers, financial advisors and so on."" According to financial planning experts, the average initial cost for the legal drafting of a will, living will and durable power of attorney documentation is between $500 and $1,200, depending on the family size and location. Continue to review your plan over time. Finally, your estate plan should never be a ""one and done thing,"" according to Henn. ""Every five to seven years, the documents should be readdressed to adapt to significant life events, tax law changes or even the addition of more children,"" he says. It is also important to keep tabs on your insurance policies and investments, as they all tie into the estate plan and can fluctuate based on the economic environment. If you have to make revisions, Henn says it will cost as much as it did to create the documents in the first place."
"I suggest that you think in terms of ""financial independence"" rather than retirement. You do not need to retire in the stereotypical sense of playing golf and moving to Florida.  If you reach a point where your ""day job"" does not need to pay your bills, you open up more options for what you can do. I am not saying to wait until retirement to do something you love. I am saying that lower salary requirements open up more options."
Don't do it. Anyone can do that at any time. Why don't living people do this every day? How about an Estate? Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a ""morality"", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least. So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt. If an executor is ""not a haggler"" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank. Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death? Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid? Etc. It's not personal, it's business. The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it). When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around. The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors. Now here's where things get ugly with the house. ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best interest to pay off that debt.
It is better to have it than to not have it, but the valued added is very marginal. Also, you can't get the CFA charter without work experience in the finance field (I think 5 years) so people doing a career change cannot get the CFA charter. The most value actually comes from passing the CFA level 1. It is a big signal that you are interested (it is evidence of interest rather than just a statement of interest), because it is expected to take 300 hours of studying from someone with no financial experience to pass it (i.e. it's like taking ~3 finance courses in college).
Consider consulting a fee-only Certified Financial Planner. It will be worth the money to have your game-plan looked at by somebody who is trained and experienced in such matters, helping you avoid big mistakes and making the right decision for your personal situation. It should cost only a relatively small percentage of the overall inheritance.
I strongly doubt that being executor will make the assets of the estate vulnerable to a suit against him personally. The estate is it's own separate legal entity with its own TIN. Only creditors against the estate itself can make claims against it and after all creditors are paid, then the balance is distributed in accordance with the terms of the will. Unless he has commingled assets and treated estate assets as his own, the legal separation should be quite strong.  Whether his personal assets are at risk, remember that the opposition will likely overstate their case to try to scare him into settling. If the business was organized as an LLP or LLC, his personal assets should be pretty safe. If it was a sole proprietorship, he has occasion to worry.
"It's never too early to start estate planning, and if you already have a family, getting your personal affairs in order is a must. The sooner you start planning, the more prepared you will be for life's unexpected twists and turns. The following tips, aimed at those under 40, can help you approach and simplify the estate planning process: Start now, regardless of net worth. [Estate planning](http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013/09/19/estate-planning-tips-for-people-under-40) is a crucial process for everyone, regardless of wealth level, says Marc Henn, a certified financial planner and president of Harvest Financial Advisors. ""Many people will say, 'Well, I don't have a lot of assets, therefore I don't need an estate plan,'"" he says. ""Maybe you only have debt, but it still applies. If you want the people around you to appropriately deal with your finances, a plan is still just as important."" This is especially true if you are responsible for financially dependent individuals, such as young children. ""The less you have, the more important every bit you've got is to you and the people you care about,"" says Lawrence Lehmann, a partner at Lehmann, Norman and Marcus L.C. in New Orleans. ""If you don't have much money, you really can't afford to make a mistake."" Have the ""what if?"" conversation with friends and family. Before jumping into the estate planning process, it's important to establish exactly what you want, and need, to happen after you die and relay those wishes to those around you. ""We find that the best transitions and financial transfers happen when all family members are involved in the [decision making](http://corlisslawgroup.com),"" says John Sweeney, executive vice president of retirement and investing strategies at Fidelity Investments. ""This way, after a loved one is gone, no one is squabbling over a couch or going, 'Why did person A get more than person B?'
If there are no dependents, there is no need for life insurance.  You mention getting insurance when it is not needed, to protect you against some future risk. If you have a policy and a disease crops up that would normally make you un-insurable, you can keep your insurance for the rest of the term. The cost for this would be very high. You would have to have a term that would last decades to cover you until some future child is out of college. If you never have somebody that depends on you for income, there never is a need for life insurance.
"It appears as others have said that companies are not required to state this on as any sort of Asset. I remembered a friend of mine is a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property Rights so asked him and confirmed that there's no document companies are required to file which states all patent holdings as assets. There are two ways he suggested for finding out. Once you find a company you're interested in can search patents by company using one of the two following: US Patent Office website's advanced search: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm aanm/company for example entering into the textarea, ""aanm/google"" without the quotation marks will find patents by Google. The other is a Google Patent Search: http://www.google.com/patents/"
"Nope, anything is that has the required information is fine.  At a minimum you need to have the routing number, account number, amount, ""pay to"" line and a signature. The only laws are that it can't be written on anything illegal, like human skin, and it has to be portable, not carved on the side of a building ( for example) https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-20434,00.html http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/people-actually-cash-big-novelty-checks-even-possible/ That said, the MICR line and standard sizes will make things eaiser for they bank, but are hardly required.  You could write your check on notebook paper so long as it had the right information, and the bank would have to ""cash it"". Keep in mind that a check is an order to the bank to give your money to a person and nothing more. You could  write it out in sentence form. ""Give Bill $2 from account 12344221 routing number 123121133111 signed _________"" and it would be valid. In practice though, it would be a fight. Mostly the bank would try to urge you to use a standard check, or could hold the funds because it looks odd, till they received the ok from ""the other bank"". But.... If you rant to fight that fight...."
"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of ""Insurance"" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of ""insurance"", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program.
"You need a license/registration to be a ""conventional"" financial planner.  But as long as your work is limited to budgets, and cash flow analysis, it may be more like accounting. In your shoes, I would consult the local CPA association about what you need (if anything) to do what you're doing."
It's impossible to be definite without knowing the details of your plans, so you should make sure you consult the providers. However there are some general principles: However all that is the general case, and yours might be different. So look up the rules of each plan.
Regulation is needed to guarantee a free market, because the natural desire of any business is to manipulate the market to its benefit, which generally means a monopoly.  In the case of non-compete agreements, a law (regulation) is required to force companies not to require non-compete agreements.
"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two).
No. Disclaimer - As a US educated fellow, I needed to search a bit. I found an article 7 Common SMSF Pension Errors. It implied that there are minimum payments required each year as with our US retirement accounts. These minimums are unrelated to the assets within the account, just based on the total value. The way I read that, there would be a point where you'd have to sell a property or partial interest to be sure you have the cash to distribute each year. I also learned that unlike US rules, which permit a distribution of stock as part of a required minimum distribution, in Australia, the distribution must be in cash (or a deposited check, of course.)
"I would look at the wording of the question.  ""Expect"" does not necessarily mean that they plan to work until they die, or that they want to work until they die. ""Expect"" here likely means that they think they will have to work until they die - in particular, think that they will not be able to save up enough to retire.  Thinking that you will have to work until you die doesn't mean you shouldn't save money - that's just giving up if you don't, right?  Instead you save up money and hopefully you're one of the luckier ones."
You're not considering the level of abstraction. There are plenty of axioms taken by philosophers in various arguments throughout history that don't conflict with free will.   You're right about the accuracy of axioms being important though. If you can disprove an axiom you can disprove the theory, that's why the fewer axioms taken, and the simpler those axioms are, the stronger the resultant argument becomes.  We can make certain simple assumptions about human nature, such as that all else being equal, people will chose to take actions that aligns with their wants/needs over ones that do not.
"Yes, this is common and in some cases may be required.  They may use it for marketing at some level, but they also use it for risk management in deciding, for example, how much margin to offer and whether to approve access to ""riskier"" products like stock options."
"Law is a mass of special cases, informed by but not driven by some general principles. Tax law likewise. Don't try to make it make sense; you will only confuse yourself.  Not all ""necessities"" are deductable, only those which someone has explicitly passed a law to make deductable."
Make sure you have sufficient insurance. Luckily, my wife and I had insurance on our mortgage, and term life insurance on both of us. Statistically speaking, insurance is a poor investment. However, when my wife was killed 263 days after our wedding, I was very happy to have it. Note that it took almost five months to pay out, though this was partly due to a Canada Post strike earlier this year; as such, you'll need sufficient emergency funds. I was able to continue working (just about), but still needed approximately $30,000. $10,000 within 24 hours, another $10,000 within 7 days, and the remainder sometime later, to cover funeral expenses. You may also want to consider a will. Neither of us had one as we both had made the decision that we were fine with the other partner receiving the entire estate. If you are not happy with this, or if your situation is more complex, you'll need a will.
As far as I know, you can have anybody be a beneficiary on life insurance while you are unmarried.  Once you are married, you may or may not have to have your spouse sign off (I'm not sure if it's a state or federal law).  People typically will have family, but it could just as easily be a waiter who gave you great service at a restaurant. I would suggest you look into creating a will.  Within that will, you can: This way, it should not matter as much who the guardian is, but rather who is in control of the trust.  I would imagine as long as your children are minors, the state would put them under your ex's custody (if they aren't already). Does that make sense?
Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed.
Will you die before you have paid in what they agreed to pay out. In many cases it's also a gamble that you will miss a payment or two and cancel the policy before you die. If the risk of your death worth the insurance. Usually while young the answer is yes. Do you leave your Family short one earner? Will they make it without the insurance? But as you get older, as life insurance becomes more of a sure thing it also becomes less needed. Your kids move out, there not dependent on you any more. You have retirement accounts setup so your partner need not worry should something happen. What risk exactly are your trying to avoid at this point. You will die. You have planned for that eventuality, it's not a risk anymore, it's a fact. Heath Insurance Is another beast all together. Historically you insured against some catastrophic event, that you couldn't really plan for. Say a heart attack. Surgery and treatment would run in the tens of thousands, so it would ruin you if you didn't have insurance to cover that. That was the risk that you were avoiding. A big, expensive event, causing financial ruin. However, over time it has shifted into something else. The general concept is still there, insure to avoid a risk. But the ""risk"" has been widened to include all manor of things that are not actually risks. For example a flu. You would go to your doctor, pay your co-pay, and your insurance would pay the rest of the visit. Then you would go to the drug store and get the drugs, pay your co-pay and the insurance pays the rest. But what risk, in this instance are you insuring against? That you can't cover the cost of a doctors visit? That you can't cover the cost of the medication? In this example, a common one, historically the ""mother of the house"" would go you have a flu, have some chicken noodle soup and go to bed. That would be the end of it. Cost of care is a day's lost wages (or maybe a weeks) and a few cans of soup.