11/6 - At the Intersection of Family Law & Estate Planning (Indianapolis)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  November 6, 2013 
12:59 AM  EST

Speakers:
  - James Reed, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP - Chair & Moderator
  - Amanda Krenson, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
  - Margaret Christensen, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP

This seminar will walk through assorted marriage dissolution scenarios from the time that the petition is filed until the Decree is issued, and examine each from an estate planning perspective, a matrimonial law perspective, and an ethics perspective.
Topics to be addressed will include:
  - What estate planning changes should a client consider if he or she believes a divorce is imminent?
  - Can I represent one party to a divorce if I previously represented the couple in creating their joint estate plan?
  - Does a standard Trial Rule 65(E) divorce restraining order on transferring assets prevent my client from revising his or her estate plan?
  - What new estate planning documents are appropriate to implement once a divorce has been filed?

Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Time (local time):
Registration: 12:30 - 1:00 pm
Program: 1:00 - 3:15 pm

Credit hours: 2.0 CLE / 1.0 Ethics

Cost:
$89 Attendee
($79 Early Bird rate for attendees is available through October 10)

$79 Government Employees & Paralegals

Go to www.TheIndianaLawyer.com/events to register online.

RSVP by October 30

Location: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
10 W. Market St., 2700 Market Tower, Indianapolis 46204

Provider: Indiana Lawyer
Presented in Partnership with Bingham Greenebaum Doll

Contact information:
Karen Aruta
(317) 472-5201
karuta@ibj.com
www.TheIndianaLawyer.com/events

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT