Search

I. INTRODUCTION II. POWERS OF ATTORNEY A. Definitions B. Three Types of Powers of Attorney C. Three Important Issues Raised with a Power of Attorney 1. Is the Principal Competent? [...], ERISA is a federal law that generally regulates employee welfare and retirement benefit plans. One of ERISA 's central purposes is to allow plan administrators to apply uniform laws of administration nationwide. In this Article, the relationship between ERISA and state power of attorney laws is examined, especially as it relates to clients of trust and estate attorneys. Specifically, the author seeks to address whether state law can compel a plan to accept the instructions of an attorney-in-fact. The Article begins with overviews ofpowers of attorneys and ERISA preemption powers. It then addresses specific instances when ERISA completely preempts state powers of attorney laws and analyzes the potential effects of complete preemption. The Article then discusses policies that plans should adopt for accepting powers of attorney. The Article concludes that a participant's use of a power of attorney to delegate investment discretion to someone who is not an investment manager as defined by ERISA would impermissibly conflict with ERISA, and that any state power of attorney law that would compel a plan to recognize such a delegation of authority is therefore pre-empted.

I. INTRODUCTION II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF THE DEAD IN THE UNITED STATES III. THE DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO CONTROL OWN REMAINS A. Common Law B. Statutory Law 1. Personal [...], Americans have more choices than ever before with respect to the disposition of their remains after death. For some people, the choice of burial place, or the election to have their remains cremated, is the final opportunity to express and fulfill important values. American common law has long provided decedents with the broad right to direct the disposition of their own remains after death. However, an inconsistent patchwork of state statutes has complicated and frustrated this fundamental common law right. Many states require decedents to comply with strict formalities, or prohibit decedent control outright. This disconnect between common and statutory law creates problems for decedents and estate planning professionals for several reasons. First, funeral and disposition directions are often a neglected aspect of estate planning. Second, the laws that determine the enforceability of such directions are based on where the remains are located, not where the decedent resided. This Article examines these problems and provides a comprehensive appendix listing and summarizing each state 's "personal preference " and "designated agent" laws as an aid to practitioners.

I. INTRODUCTION II. MOTIVATION III. INTERPRETATION IV. AMPHIBOLY A. The Defense of Reasonable Reliance B. Legislative History of Section 105 C. Legislative History of Section 808 V. SELF-FRUSTRATION VI. CORRECTION [...], Almost twenty years after the promulgation of the Uniform Trust Code, the Uniform Directed Trust Act touched on a latent ambiguity in the UTC's specification of a trustee's "fundamental obligation. " The resolution of that ambiguity is doctrinally knotty; the UDTA cuts the knot by means of a "Legislative Note "; this Article suggests how the knot might rather be untied.