Tumgik
#An idea or statement can be very much true and yet the language deeply rooted into centuries old antisemitic rhetoric founded in the idea
anika-ann · 4 years
Text
Hands Too Cold, but Heart of Gold - Pt.8 (M.M.)
The Date
Pairing: Matt Murdock x reader,  onde-sided Steve Rogers x reader
Word count: 3850
Summary: Avenger!reader AU, love triangle. You go out with Matt Murdock and to your own surprise, it doesn’t end up a disaster. Quite the opposite.
Warnings: swearing, fluff, angst
Tumblr media
Story Mastelist
────── ·❆· ──────
“I honestly don’t know why I’m freaking out about my outfit. He won’t even be able to see it! Why am I freaking out, Tasha?” you asked her on a verge of desperation, smoothening your dress for the millionth time.
As you got to the hem of the dress, all you wanted to do was to pull it over your head and change. Again. You stared at your reflection in the mirror, honestly considering it.
Natasha, standing behind you, put her hands on your shoulders to keep you in place and raised her eyebrow.
“Hey. You have every right to be nervous. How long has it been since your last date?” she asked gently, surprisingly so for a super-spy.
You bit your lip guiltily – of course, she found the root of the trouble. It had been too freaking long. The fact you were going out with Matt – an amazing human being – was not helping to sooth your nerves either.
“Almost two years.”
“Well. I think you’re entitled. But you’re gonna be fine,” she reassured you and you caught her honest gaze in the mirror. She squeezed your shoulders. “That guy? He fell hard – I hope you figured that out already. Just be yourself and you’ll be fine.”
You took a deep breath. “Thanks, Tasha. I really should go or I’ll be late. The taxi might even be here already.”
You picked up your coat, leaving the dresses you didn’t even want to count – Natasha had supplied you with too many of hers and still, you took the only dress you owned yourself – and grabbed your purse on the way.
You were insanely grateful to Natasha for her help – yet, your heart was fluttering nervously and ached a little. You wished Steve was here too, but you understood this was more of a ladies thing. You were sure he wished you the best for your date even if you hadn’t heard him say it.
You opened the door only to meet with Steve’s surprised face. His eyes measured you from head to toe and you fought the urge to hide – god knew why. That was until his gaze returned to your face and a smile appeared on his lips.
“You look beautiful, Snowflake,” he whispered, checking you out shamelessly once more. “He’s a lucky guy.”
You bit your lip, feeling the rush of heat colouring your cheeks. You lowered your gaze, examining your shoes; they had heels, you were about to kill yourself in them, why were you wearing them again…?
Steve chuckled at your reaction. You couldn’t help but feel like there was something foreign in that supposedly happy sound, something you couldn’t decode.
A hand appeared under your chin, fingers tucking a strand of your hair that fell in your face behind your ear. He kissed your forehead lovingly and you inhaled deeply, trying to calm down your rapidly beating heart. You knew he was trying to help, but it didn’t really work.
“Hey, Snowflake. Hold your head high, you look wonderful. It’s gonna be fine. If he upsets you, you not only can let him go, but you have five– no, six pissed off friends actually, I’m sure Thor would stop by for that – to punch Matt in his face. Understood?”
That finally made you relax and the tension in your shoulders eased with a huffed laughter. Steve’s eyes twinkled for a moment and you couldn’t but laugh again.
“Did you just say ‘pissed off’?” you asked incredulously and Steve shrugged it off – except a hint of a blush appeared in his cheeks too and hell, you could not miss that. You feasted your eyes on his embarrassment and only then gave Captain Language a proper hug, which was reciprocated tightly.
“I guess I’m nervous for you that much,” he murmured over your shoulder and the statement melted your heart.
“Thank you, Steve.”
He squeezed your waist once more, caressed your back and released you from his embrace, uneasy smile on his lips.
“Go. We wouldn’t want you to be late.”
You just nodded and made your way to the elevator. You sparred one more glance at Natasha, who joined Steve in the hallway, couple of dressed folded over her forearm. She grinned at you.
“Not to make you nervous, Frosty, but just because he won’t be able to see you with his eyes, it doesn’t mean he won’t appreciate your appearance! And other stuff! Considering all of his senses are heightened!” she called after you and you felt you face turning into a mask of horror.
All of his senses. Shit. What perfume did you use? How much could he— would he be able to tell you hugged-- did Steve just hug you to make Matt jealous and possibly make him think you were wanted, so he would value the fact you were going out with him more?
No, wait, you were the one who hugged Steve, which--- this was so going to be a disaster. You whined and slid into your coat, hoping it would make you invisible. And undetectable in any other way. This evening started swimmingly…
With you going down in the elevator, Natasha and Steve were left alone.
“Smooth, Rogers. Very subtle,” the spy exclaimed, patting his arm patronizingly. Steve shot her an unreadable glare.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
“About the fact Mr. Hot and Devilish wouldn’t even have to make her unhappy. It’s him making her happy that you want to punch him in the face for.”
Steve grinded his teeth, his look turning murderous. “That’s not true. I want them to get together.”
“Sure,” she agreed, shrugging. “That’s why you marked your territory like a goddamned dog.”
The rush of irritation and shame at being caught hit him stronger than excepted. Natasha knew exactly how to push his buttons and it drove him crazy.
“I didn’t-“ he protested lamely, only to realize he indeed hadn’t. “She was the one who hugged me.”
“Yeah. Keep yourself telling that. She did hug you, but what happened before that, that was on you. I’m surprised you didn’t kiss her on her mouth. I don’t understand how one can be so blind— eh, sorry-”
Steve’s hands curled into fists and he paced to his room to change into something more suitable for workout. He needed to punch something and as much as he was pissed at Natasha for mocking him, he liked her too much to hurt her – the punching bags would have to suffice. Bags, definitely plural, because he would tear some today, no doubt.
“Have a good workout, big guy!” she shouted after him almost cheerily and he slammed the door with such force that dust of plastering snowed down around the doorway.
Snowed down. Fuck. That would be more than one ruined bag today.
────── ·❆· ──────  
Entering the restaurant was one of the scariest things you had ever done. But the friendly space welcomed you, soft lights illuminating the room, white clothing on the tables, each with a candle on it, several people talking rather lowly. You gulped looking around – probably forgetting everything Natasha had taught you about subtle observation, because the hostess spotted you immediately and walked to you, assuming you were completely lost.
“Good evening. Do you have a reservation, madam? Are you meeting anyone here? Or I am going to look for a table for one?” she asked politely, professionalism never leaving her face.
You gulped. “Uhm… meeting someone actually. There should be a reservation for seven o’clock under the name Murdock?”
“Of course. Mr. Murdock is waiting for you. Follow me.”
‘Waiting for you?’ You were five minutes early! You were kinda hoping you would have time to calm your nerves-
Matt probably knew about you the second you entered the restaurant – still, it surprised you when he rose as you approached the table and pulled out your chair for you to sit down before helping you from your coat.
“Hi, Matt,” you greeted him unsurely, obediently sitting down. “Thank you.”
If he wouldn’t have stood up, you wouldn’t have recognized him – or at least it would take you a while. He wore a nice-fitting black suit with white shirt and crimson tie – not something you were used to; the only outfit you had seen him in was either his armour or the shirt he wore in the hospital, where you hadn’t really paid attention.
His face was partly hidden behind a pair of round red-toned glasses, making you feel like you were meeting a completely different person. You had already met Daredevil, you had met Matt, you supposed, and now you were meeting Mr. Murdock. Though the colour of his tie and glasses was a hint, sending a vibe of familiarity towards you.
“Your waitress will be here shortly,” the hostess announced, barely noticed.
Matt smiled at you. “Hi. Glad you could make it.”
You inhaled sharply. Was your nervousness that evident?
“Yeah. Yeah, me too. It… it was… okay, uhm, I guess you can tell I got hugged profusely. By Steve. And Nat. I was… nervous. Sorry,” you mumbled, watching the flame of the candle flicker as you exhaled. “It’s been a while since I was… out.”
“Don’t worry about it,” he said, his tone surprisingly soothing. It worked for you, okay. “It’s been a while for me too.”
That made you snap your head up.
“Really?” you blurted out. “I mean… you just seem like a guy who…”
He tilted his head, his eyebrow rising in challenge. “…yes?”
“Oh god, no I didn’t mean like…” You whined silently. Now it sounded as if you were saying he was a manwhore.
“I’m waiting for you to finish that sentence. Are you suggesting something?” he teased you and it ignited the flame of banter-queen that had revealed herself while on the mission with the Devil.
“I’m suggesting that you seem like a guy who can’t complain about the lack of attention from women – possibly men. I don’t know where your train of thought headed…”
He grinned, impressed and possibly satisfied with himself; he had every right. You found the uneasy sensation in your stomach resolve as you stepped into a more familiar territory of teasing. And with him grinning, damn, he was a handsome little shit.
“Thanks. I do have a rich nightlife, but…”
“Right. I can understand that there are different kinds of nightlife.”
“Exactly. Sneaking from bed every night doesn’t work well. And loading every potential partner with why I do it… it’s not that easy.”
“I’m sorry,” you whispered and Matt just shook his head.
“It’s my choice. I’m glad you’re here and we have this part out of our way.”
You bit your lip as he gave you yet another smile, this time softer. “I’m glad too. But are you suggesting there’s more?”
He chuckled dryly. “Well. Of course there is, but we can work with that later. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has some things that are important, yet not the best thing to discuss on the first date.”
The flutter of your heart caused by the mention of heavy baggage on your side turned into an excited one as you were reminded this was your first date – with a great man, who was as badass and cocky as he seemed understanding, sweet and gallant.
“Yeah. You think wine would help?”
“Absolutely.”
────── ·❆· ──────  
The wine did help. You two made it through why you hadn’t been on a date for a while, which featured your struggle with the disease and you ‘dying’ and joining the Avengers. To balance the heaviness, you mentioned few stunts your friends in the Tower had pulled so far.
Matt told you about his best friend finding about his nightlife, but also about the work they did in their little firm with big ambitions, throwing in stories from college.  
You laughed, your cheeks hurt and your belly too, your body was pleasantly buzzing and you hadn’t even noticed the restaurant was almost empty until Matt took off his glasses, toying with the earpiece of them.
“I like it better this way,” you noted deliberately and his fingers froze. “Uh-uh, no, leave them off, please. I really do like it better, if that’s okay with you.”
He sort-of looked at you shyly and you were welcomed by the warm of his brown irises, twinkling in the soft light of the candle.
“You sure?” he pried hesitantly and you nodded, hoping he could perceive that.
He resembled a lost but hopeful puppy and it was such a surreal look on his face – through the night, you had had an opportunity to know him a bit more, but this was… new. No matter what you had been discussing, there always had been confidence in him – more or less. You didn’t think he would be self-continuous about his eyes of all things, but it made sense. Your heart swelled.
“Yeah, Matt. I really am.”
Time flied and before you knew it, the waitress politely pointed out they were about to close the restaurant.
“Oh,” you let out intelligently, honestly taken aback. This time wary of being subtle, you checked the space – it was empty. Everyone was out. Oh.
“Of course. Bring me the check, please,” Matt asked, apparently unfazed. You could only wonder if he had been aware of their situation; given his abilities, he probably had. Huh. Guess he didn’t want to leave either – the thought warmed you heart.
He paid for you both, helping you with your coat again. Once you were outside, pleasantly cool air brushing your cheeks, he turned to you sheepishly.
“May I walk you home? Or do you prefer a cab?”
Your heels were killing you already; yet, the choice was clear, because you didn’t want the night to end.
“Walk?”
Your reward was his wide smile and silent request for your elbow. Damn the heels, this was worth it.
“Lead the way?” he asked as he folded his cane, his hand sliding under your arm.
You would be hesitant about the direction, but the Avengers tower was too much of a highlight to miss it. Still, you couldn’t help but tease him.
“Do you trust a woman with directions?”
He chuckled. “Well, I am blind, so I’m trusting anyone who can actually see where we’re going. Perhaps not any woman. I think we established a while ago that I trust you.”
Your heart skipped a beat at that, making Matt’s smile grow. Well, that wasn’t embarrassing at all, that he could read literally every reaction your body had. Not awkward at all.
“Thanks.”
You weren’t stupid enough to walk to the Tower. For all you knew, Tony had his eyes on everything within a half-mile radius at least and you didn’t want him to spy on you two. That man had no sense of privacy whatsoever.
“Well, I guess this is me,” you murmured, stopping in your tracks. Matt frowned and you cleared your throat. “Uhm… eyes and ears everywhere. I don’t want to…”
A flash of understanding appeared on his face and he laughed silently as he turned his whole body to you. He was close. Very close.
“That makes sense. Too bad it means we have to say goodbye now.”
“Technically, we don’t have to. Say it, that is,” you added at his confused expression. One corner of his lips rose higher, his free hand finding yours and running up your arm.
“Very true, Gerda.”
Your breath hitched as he used your nickname for the first time that night. His hands weren’t helping you to control your breathing either.
“We can always go with a goodnight.”
“Is a goodnight kiss too bold?” he whispered, leaning in just slightly, giving you a room to escape if you wanted to. You didn’t think you wanted to escape.
“Very bold…” His face fell, silent ‘oh’ escaping him. “But I’m okay with bold.”
“Mean woman,” he murmured, erasing the distance and meeting your lips.  
Your heart positively stopped the moment it happened and it felt like eternity before it kicked back in.
His lips were warm against yours, gentle and hesitant at first. Your own hand deliberately shot up to his face as you realized a response would be appropriate, but dammit it had been a while and his mouth on yours felt so fucking good. Your fingers found his nape, pulling him just a little closer as heat coiled in your abdomen, welcoming the butterflies fluttering their wings in your stomach. You felt the grip on your elbow tightening and Matt took your lower lip between his, fondling with more boldness indeed.
You sighed in appreciation, your heart hammering in your ribcage that suddenly felt too small, even for your breathing. You retreated just slightly, needing some air, but aching at the thought of creating a distance between you and him. He inhaled deeply too, his hand on your jaw, his thumb caressing your cheek.
“Goodnight?” he tried out silently and you couldn’t help but chuckle, enjoying the tickle of his breath as he did the same.
“Fight me, but that didn’t feel like a goodnight kiss.” You shortly met his lips again, unable to resist – but aiming for only a peck that wouldn’t leave your fingertips tingling like the previous kiss. “Goodnight?”
“Goodnight indeed.”
He kissed the corner of your mouth before letting go of you and you pretended you didn’t feel cold all of sudden. At least his warm eyes were still watching your chin.
“Stay safe,” you whispered and Matt gave you one more gorgeous smile.
“I’ll try. Take care.”
You nodded and forced your body to spin on your heels to go, because if you wouldn’t do it now, you might as well end up going home with him or taking him to the Tower, which something you weren’t really ready for.
You started walking, snuggling into your coat, crossing your arms on your chest to keep yourself warmer. You spared one more glance at Matt, who was still standing where you had left him, raising his hand in tiny wave as you looked over your shoulder. Your cheeks burned as you got caught; then again, he hadn’t move from his position, watching you as well, so you had no reason to be truly embarrassed.
Or you thought so, until you realized the air actually was unusually chilly for September and to make it perfect, a snowflake fell on your nose. You looked around, realizing it started snowing.
Snowing. This wasn’t normal. Which meant… did you just…?
“Holy shit,” you muttered under your breath, unsure whether you should be horrified or not as you turned your palm up, catching few more snowflakes. You… you somehow did this. It was as terrifying as awesome.
In the end, you just giggled at what you had caused.
Let it snow.
────── ·❆· ──────  
Natasha was standing in her room, staring out of the window as snowflakes slowly descended. None of them stuck, melting as soon as they collided with the surface, but there was no denying it really was snowing. And given the fact that the temperature needed to drop significantly for this to happen, there was no doubt whose doing was that – deliberate or not.
Your emotions were running high.
“Hey, Steve. What are you still doing awake?” she heard your astonished voice from the hallway and she bit her lip. This was definitely your excited voice; the date went well. The snow was a good sign.
“Couldn’t sleep.”
Natasha’s heart ached for her friend, simultaneously wondering if you could hear the subtle hint of pain in his voice. She suddenly felt guilty for helping you to get ready for the date – but it felt like the right thing to do.
“So you went to a gym? It’s after midnight. You’re making us all look like couch potatoes.”
Natasha could easily imagine that the soldier ‘casually’ shrugged.  
“Felt like working out,” he explained easily. No shit. How many punching bags did he destroy this time?
“Is everything okay? I know it’s not the first time. Something troubling you? Talk to me, Steve,” you pleaded softly.
Natasha sighed. That would be your placing your hand on his forearm in comforting gesture, your eyes screaming ‘you can trust me’. You always did that, because it was the thing you two did and you two were so utterly hopeless it hurt.
“It’s nothing, Snowflake. Nothing you need to worry about. You look happy. I take it the date went well?”
His voice was strained and the spy had no doubt you could tell. Yet, you answered him, tiny chuckle bubbling in your throat. “Yeah. It did.”
“One more reason for you not to worry about me,” Steve offered kindly and Natasha just gritted her teeth. Rogers was such an ass. Noble, maybe, but bozhe, such an ass. “I’m happy for you, Snowflake.”
“Thank you. But we’re talking about you, soon. I need you to be happy too, Steve. You’re too important to me and too good not to be.”
Natasha agreed wholeheartedly, glancing at the flash drive on her nightstand. She had downloaded the conversation she had with Steve, him confessing his feelings for you, but now, it seemed worthless.
While she wished for you to be happy, she was hoping you could do that with the supersoldier who was head over heels for you. She had been sure you felt the same, but now she had doubts. You could easily fall in love with Daredevil, he was charming enough, and she had no right to interfere with your love-life.
“Okay. I promise I’ll tell you later.”
Natasha scoffed. Yeah, sure. On your deathbed, maybe.
“ ‘kay. Love you, Steve. Goodnight.”
“Goodnight, Snowflake.”
Natasha heard your footsteps trailing off and slowly went to open her door for a slit.
“Don’t say a word,” Steve warned her icily, a heart-breaking crack in his voice.
“I was gonna offer you a drink, an ‘I’m sorry’ and a hug.”
She heard him inhale and exhale shakily and she stepped out to find him resting his forehead against the nearest wall. His eyes were squeezed shut and she would swear it wasn’t sweat what gleamed on his cheeks. She pressed her lips together, hesitantly bringing her palm to his arm. His Adam’s apple bobbed.
“I’m really sorry, Steve,” she whispered tentatively, surprised when he bounced off the wall, looking her straight in the eye. His own were indeed glassy, but he wasn’t crying.
“You don’t have to be. She deserves the win, I’m happy for her.”
He said it with such conviction that if she hadn’t known him well enough, she wouldn’t notice how fragile the façade he had hastily built up was.
“Good. But you should know you don’t have to be, macho man. It’s okay to be angry, not just with yourself, but also with her and especially with him. You can be sad and you can be hurt. I know I’m not exactly the most open person when it comes to emotions, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel. And you can feel too.”
Steve escaped her gaze, but she could see his tiny nod. She took it as a victory and encouraged, she took his huge arm.
“Come on, Cap, let’s find out where Thor stocked the good booze.”
────── ·❆· ──────
Tags:  @mermaidxatxheart​, @murdermornings​, @elisaa-shelby​ @ask-hellbent-tweek
────── ·❆· ──────
Thank you for reading! If you read for Matt x reader, this is it for ya, sorry ;) You can always check out Steve x reader ending or my other Matt Murdock fics :-*
109 notes · View notes
salixj · 7 years
Link
• By SHOSHANNA KEATS-JASKOLL   Originally published in In Jerusalem Sept 15, 2017
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo has an unusual background for a rabbi. Perhaps that is why his thinking is so different from that of other rabbis, and why he can say the things he says. Or perhaps other rabbis feel similarly, but do not have the confidence or fearlessness that is so evident when Cardozo speaks.
Whatever the reason, his belief in the justice of Judaism, the morality with which we are charged, and the capacity we have to resolve the seemingly unresolvable gives hope that the Judaism and ethics we hold so dear can in fact work together to produce the society that many of us want to see.
Cardozo grew up in Holland. His father was a secular Jew of Portuguese-Jewish origin; his mother was a Christian who had always felt at home in the Jewish community, which had taken her in when she was orphaned.
Cardozo’s parents married a few weeks before the Germans occupied Holland. His mother hid her husband and his family in Amsterdam, saving the lives of 11 family members.
Born in 1946, he was raised in a secular but culturally Jewish home, where Friday-night meals were a sacred ritual. His father was an admirer of the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who was shunned by his 17th-century Jewish community for his writings and attacks on basic tenets of Judaism.
Ironically, it was Cardozo’s study of the vilified philosopher that brought him to Judaism. He became curious to know more about those Jews whom Spinoza was continuously attacking. Reading everything he could, in the multiple languages he knew, he grew fascinated with Judaism, and by 16 he had converted. His parents were supportive, with his mother even making the kitchen kosher so that he could eat at home. Eventually she, too, converted.
Cardozo went on to study in England’s Gateshead Yeshiva, Europe’s largest yeshiva, and despite feeling a bit out of place, stayed for eight years out of love of learning. He attained rabbinical ordination and then studied in the Mir Yeshiva, becoming very much a part of the haredi world.
He taught Jewish philosophy at a yeshiva for the newly religious, but a major ideological difference of opinion brought that to an end. For Cardozo would teach his students the words of anyone from whom they could learn. This did not sit well with the leadership, and he left.
Cardozo started his own school to teach rabbis and teachers things they had never heard in university or yeshiva. A think tank that is still active emerged from this effort.
No longer haredi, he writes prolifically – his office in his Bayit Vegan home is a study overflowing with books, magazines, papers, pamphlets and articles – and he lectures around the world.
When asked what motivates him, he says, “Jewish tradition and Halacha have become stagnant and unable to respond to the current reality, especially the Jewish state, which has created a completely new situation, for which Halacha was not prepared.
“Halacha became very defensive, and for the thousands of years that we were in exile, this was good. It held off the non-Jewish world and protected Judaism and the Jewish people. But it no longer works in the State of Israel. We need a completely different type of Halacha but one deeply rooted in Jewish tradition.”
A different type of Halacha sounds like a very un-Orthodox way of thinking. Not so, says Cardozo.
“Take the army, for example. We never had a Jewish army in a sovereign state! The codes of law do not address this. We had to create the halachot ourselves from the sources in Torah and Talmud. That is what [first head of the IDF’s Military Rabbinate] Rabbi [Shlomo] Goren did when he wrote a code of law for the army. We must continue in this vein. How do we run a Jewish and democratic modern state, where the majority is not halachically committed?
“For example, on issues of conversion, I believe that we must use the most lenient rulings found in Jewish law, especially for the 400,000 people from the former Soviet Union. We should hold a type of mass conversion for those who want to become Jewish and are prepared to keep a minimal amount of Jewish ritual. We should encourage them to keep what they can, and encourage them to learn more.
“I would even suggest another way – that we create non-Jewish Jewish communities. There are people who feel that if they become Jews, they will need to keep all of Halacha, but feel that it is too much for them. Why not make a community of these people, where they keep what they want and live as Jews without being fully Jewish?”
Cardozo acknowledges that this approach is very controversial, but his argument is that the children within these families would be brought up surrounded by Judaism and could then choose to become fully Jewish as adults.
Tumblr media
It is easy to see that this idea is inspired from his own experience of having been brought up in a culturally Jewish home and making his own decision to convert to Judaism. He believes that many would choose to become fully Jewish as well. “Judaism is irresistible,” he says.
Other authorities seeking to find solutions advocate converting minors, for whom the halachic process is less complex.
Cardozo says, “I respectfully disagree. Where will the minors learn their Judaism from, if we convert them when their parents are not Jewish? I believe that we should be as lenient as possible, and rely on Hacham Ben-Zion Uziel, the former chief rabbi of Israel, who says we should try to convert anyone of Jewish descent who wants to be Jewish. It is not the ideal approach; but for the sake of unity in Israel, we should take that road.”
And this seems to be the crux of the issue in many areas. The way Halacha is currently practiced is disconnected from the reality on the ground. For example, agunot. Tzvia Gordinsky has been waiting 17 years for her husband, in jail for denying her a get, to change his mind. The rabbinate declares it has done all it can.
What should be done for women whose husbands deny them a halachic divorce?
“We do what Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, Bar-Ilan University’s former president and a talmudic scholar, suggested. There are always ways to undo a Jewish marriage retroactively, where we declare the marriage nonexistent. Halacha says that a Jewish marriage is only a Jewish marriage as long as the rabbis agree to that marriage. The moment that they no longer agree with it, we have the halachic option to declare the marriage not valid from the start.”
Many refuse to take this approach.
“There is a statement in the Talmud that says a woman would rather be married to an awful person than not be married. Rabbi Rackman says, certainly it was true then, when it was said. Then, women were dependent on men and had no status; being married, even to a horrible man, afforded her protection and security more than she would have on her own.
“But now women can certainly stand on their own and not fear starvation or homelessness. In fact, there are many legal assumptions that the Sages did away with, saying that they were no longer applicable. (One example is that a woman would not dare to deny to her husband’s face that she was divorced from him if it were not true. Later authorities stated that this is no longer accepted, since reality proved otherwise.)
His newest book challenges the rabbinic establishment on a number of issues.
Tumblr media
“For a woman who no longer wants to be with her husband, because he is abusive or cruel, we can use the approach that had she known how he would treat her, she never would have agreed to the marriage. We can retroactively annul her marriage, and she will have no need for a divorce. The rabbinate is able to do this in emergency cases. But it does not. Consequently, and for other reasons, I have to agree that the Chief Rabbinate needs to be dissolved.”
What do we do once we have eliminated the Chief Rabbinate?
“We do away with a centralized rabbinate and create local ones in various cities. We will need to create a framework that works on a local model, which is far preferable. We must have a system where when a rabbi officiates a conversion or a get, it is automatically accepted by everyone.”
How do we create this reality?
“People who want to see change need to push for it, women and men. Change will happen the moment the damage is so bad that people realize that we cannot continue like this. We can make change.
“There are things in the Torah that are not Jewish ideas. For example, animal sacrifices. The Torah took them from the non-Jewish world. Rambam [Maimonides] says that God didn’t want to take these rituals away all at once, since humans cannot handle sudden change from what they are used to. Slavery is another example. It was allowed because society could not yet economically survive without it. The Torah permitted it, but insisted that slaves be treated in a more dignified way and have basic rights. The idea was that we would outgrow it. So, too, with women’s status. There were certain things in the Torah that at the time were necessary but no longer [are necessary] today.
“The Sages saw this clearly and said we have an obligation to reinterpret the Torah according to the current reality. If the Torah were given today, it would not be the same text that was given to Moshe Rabbenu.
“I believe that there is a need to make changes in Halacha. For example, the prohibition for women to testify in court. Even if we consider that this prohibition (that women may not testify in certain types of court cases) is rooted in the Torah, and not all scholars agree on this, this law is dependent on a historical situation that no longer applies. Our reality is very different than it used to be in the days of the Torah and long afterwards. Such matters we often see in the history and development of Halacha, and this is completely in accord with the spirit of the Torah.”
Can’t this be said about anything? Can we not then say, for example, that the laws of not eating meat and milk together no longer apply?
“No,” says Cardozo, “we shouldn’t do that, because there is no need for it. We are talking about concerns of bein adam l’havero [behavior between people], as opposed to bein adam la’Makom [between people and God]. These are two different circumstances. I wouldn’t like to change the laws of kashrut. It would undermine the very structure of the Jewish tradition, and there is no need, because it isn’t hurting anyone to have to separate meat and dairy, and it has tremendous meaning. It is in cases where people get hurt, such as in the case of a woman ‘chained’ in marriage, that a shift needs to occur.
Tumblr media
“There are many different arguments that go back to the Talmud which the Sages abolished because they couldn’t be applied, such as the death penalty, which Rabbi Akiva did away with, or a city full of idol worship, which, according to the letter of the law, must be wiped out.
“There are many instances where Halacha shows tremendous flexibility motivated by human concern, and that is the beauty of Halacha, which I think many rabbis no longer catch. For example, much effort was made to remove the stigma of mamzerut from a child born from an illicit relationship. Arguments sometimes look far-fetched, but they are not, once one starts to understand the spirit of the Torah.
“But now, yeshiva boys are learning ‘for learning’s sake’ – they don’t realize they should be learning to figure out how to solve problems, especially bein adam l’havero.”
When did we begin to stagnate? When did we stop using the key to open doors and start locking ourselves in?
“It happened the first time when Maimonides codified Jewish law in his Mishne Torah. It is a tremendous work of incredible genius, but by codifying Jewish law, he did a tremendous amount of damage. Codification is disastrous. You cannot codify real life. The same is true about the Shulhan Aruch. Not because the people who wrote it didn’t have the best intentions; they wrote the Shulhan Aruch and Mishne Torah to create uniformity in exile. But it doesn’t reflect what Halacha is about anymore. In writing everything down in exact detail, not only does it eliminate other options, but it removes the entire thought process.
“I think the younger generation is starting to see that things need to change. But the Holocaust created a traumatic condition, most especially for Orthodox Jews – namely, what are we going to do with this God who left us behind and allowed six million people to be murdered? The result is that we don’t know what to do with Him. So instead, we talk Halacha and become very exacting with every detail. It’s an escape from what we are meant to deal with, which is: How do we deal with God after something like the Holocaust happened and, despite all of this, we need to relate to Him?
“People are more afraid of Halacha than they are in awe of God. Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, “We have too many textbooks and too few text people.” People are alive, and law can never take over life. It can give direction, but it isn’t living.
“Halacha was a living organism, until it was put in a box. We lost the spirit and are left with the letters. Halacha isn’t the problem; it’s the people who apply it. Halacha is a very healthy construct. It is sublime. There is nothing like it.
“Now we are told what to believe and how to believe, and that is completely un-Jewish.”
Rabbi Cardozo’s newest book, Jewish Law as Rebellion: A Plea for Religious Authenticity and Halachic Courage, challenges the rabbinic establishment on many of these issues and will be available later this month.
20 notes · View notes
melissawalker01 · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/187611970390
0 notes
asafeatherwould · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
aretia · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
michaeljames1221 · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse��s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
advertphoto · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
coming-from-hell · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
mayarosa47 · 5 years
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah
0 notes
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
Text
Probate Lawyer Morgan Utah
The law of inheritance in the United States is complex. It’s not as simple as it appears. In Morgan Utah, you should have the help of an experienced estate and probate lawyer.
In the United States, the surviving spouse receives greater protection in inheritance schemes than any other family member. In fact, in almost all states including Utah the surviving spouse is the only family member who consistently receives significant protection from intentional disinheritance by the decedent. In part the spouse’s favored position is historical. Americans long viewed the spousal relationship as the most important in life—a view the United States Supreme Court emphasized during the nineteenth century. Of course, the importance of marriage sometimes had little to do with romantic or spiritual union. Rather, marriage was often a practical imperative for women given the socially and legally enforced dependence of women on men and restrictive views of both gender roles and family life. Yet the spouse’s preferred position in probate law is not merely a relic.
youtube
The law’s insistence on formality was more effective than one might expect, because the will was also, in many ways, a popular as well as a formal document. The general idea, the ways of expressing the idea, even the language itself, seem deeply rooted in custom. In the early seventeenth century, among the first settlers in what is now the United States, and at a time when there were no lawyers to speak of practicing, colonial records show that people knew about wills, that executing a will was the custom, and that people roughly understood how a will should be framed.
These wills often used standard clauses, and also vaguely poetic singsong phrases, clearly based on folk memories. Most legal documents have very little poetry about them. As literature, they are pretty close to absolute zero: consider the typical insurance policy or the impenetrable jungle of jargon in the Internal Revenue Code. And a lawyers opinion letter, as a rule, tends to be written in leaden, cautious prose.
The typical will, too, has always been full of jargon. Yet its customary language was not just legal blather. And for all their technicality, wills were never as dry and pedantic as, say, the typical insurance policy. The will, after all, was an instrument of giving, of love, often, too, it was an instrument written in the shadow of death. Traditional wills were full of traditional, half-mystical phrases.
Witnesses
Under Utah law, a will must have at least two witnesses for it to be valid. The two witnesses had to see the testator sign the will. The witnesses were also supposed to be in each other’s presence when the testator signed or acknowledged the will.
Many courts were quite sticky and insisted on strict, literal compliance with these rules. The modern trend is to relax some of these requirements, and courts today might well reach different results in some of these cases. There has been a definite movement away from “formalism.”
In this age of computers, satellites, and trips into space, there does seem something a bit archaic about the will. It is, after all, a written document, requiring an actual signature (and, for the most part, the signature of witnesses). There has been talk about videotaped wills; but no state recognizes any such thing. A videotape may be “admissible as evidence” of the “proper execution of a will,” the intentions of the testator, the “mental state or capacity of a testator,” the “authenticity of a will,” and other “matters” a court finds “relevant to the probate of a will.” But the will itself cannot be videotaped.
Revoking a Will
A will is “ambulatory,” as the phrase goes. It is a formal, legal document; but does not become effective or enforceable as long as the testator is alive. It becomes effective only on the death of the testator. During his lifetime, the testator is free to do whatever he pleases with the will – he can retain it the way it is, he can change it, he can destroy it. No questions asked. It’s his will and he can do whatever he wants with it. Legally speaking there are two main ways to revoke a will. The most common way is to make another will with a clause that specifically states that the testator is revoking all of his previous wills. If you want to revoke a will and make a new one, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer.
youtube
The second method of revoking a will is even simpler. You can revoke a will by killing it physically. Just shred it but make sure there are no copies of the will. The destruction, however, has to be deliberate: if the house burns down and the will burns with it, it has not been revoked, and if you can prove what was in the will, you can still have it probated. A lost or destroyed will can, then, have a kind of life after death. Still, on the whole, the law places great emphasis, almost mystical emphasis, on the will itself, and its signatures. And on the original will. This is the important document—not a photocopy or the like. The will has a kind of magic. You can get rid of it only with another magic document, or by actually putting it physically to death.
Destroying a will, then, was something like killing a vampire: the stake had to go through the vampire’s heart; nothing less would do. Generally speaking, the law has stood firm on one crucial point. The law will not take into account the mere fact that a will is old, out-dated, and doesn’t seem to fit the testator’s present situation or conform to his later wishes. The message is plain: if your situation changes, then change your will. Otherwise, the old will stands.
Contesting a Will
If you want to contest a will, speak to an experienced Morgan Utah probate lawyer. There are some valid grounds on which you can contest a will in Morgan Utah.
The main reason that will contests are rare is quite simple: most wills seem fair and just. A widow dies, survived by three children, and she leaves her money to the three, in equal shares. Her money goes to those whom the law calls the “natural objects of her bounty.” Nobody has any reason to object; and nobody does.
For wills that can be contested, there are some huge hurdles. One is social. Even if daddy’s will was unfair, bringing a lawsuit might cause bitterness and alienate the rest of the family. No doubt thousands of families do disintegrate because of anger and disappointment that pivots on inheritance. But probably most families survive. Cost is another hurdle. A will contest can be expensive; and the risks are high. A third hurdle is the law itself. It puts many obstacles in the path of those who might want to contest.
youtube
Fraud is another basis for contesting a will. But this too is a rare claim, and rarely successful. The books and the cases talk about “fraud in the inducement,” and “fraud in the execution.” Fraud in the inducement means “willfully false statements of fact,” which are “intended to deceive testator, which do deceive him, which induce him to make a will, and without which he would not have made such a will.” Lies about the will itself—the document—which induce the testator to “execute an instrument of whose nature or contents he is ignorant,” constitute fraud in the execution. The cases on “fraud” often involve old, feeble people. Some of them seem really to be cases of undue influence, or lack of competency. Disappointed relatives attack the will, claiming that somebody (a housekeeper, a relative, a neighbor, a trophy wife, a girlfriend, or a gay lover) took advantage of Grandma or Grandpa and inveigled him or her into leaving money to the undue influencer. Many of the cases are about “unnatural” wills (wills that disinherit close relatives); undue influence is “presumed,” too, if the alleged Svengali stood in a “confidential relationship” to the deceased. So, if a person suddenly cuts off his relatives and leaves almost everything to his doctor, lawyer, priest, guardian, or the like, the will may be in trouble. The influence, of course, has to be “undue.” If an old man executes a will leaving all his money to his housekeeper, who is in the room hectoring and badgering him, that situation will seem exceedingly suspicious to a court. But if it’s his wife in the room hectoring and badgering, and he leaves her everything, this is much less likely to be considered “undue” influence. It is influence of course, but not “undue.”
There are exceptions, to be sure. This general statement, about wives and their influence, does not hold quite so true for second wives, especially if the will disinherits the children from a former marriage. Sometimes it is the widow who complains of undue influence. Stepchildren do not hesitate to sue a stepmother; but there have even been instances where children accused their own mother of undue influence. Much more common are cases where the battle is between brothers and sisters. An “unnatural” will may be dangerous, but so is a lopsided will, leaving more money to one child than to another.
The layman often imagines that the world of the law consists of clear, binding, and unambiguous rules. In fact, the legal system is riddled with loopholes and leeways of all sorts, some explicit, some implicit. Undue influence is only one of many devices that give courts (and juries) a little bit of wiggle room. The good news is flexibility; the bad news is that the doctrines are applied sporadically, and somewhat irrationally. Whether a court actually finds undue influence depends on the facts of each case—plus social norms and the courts own prejudices and opinions. The cases thus are very dependent on time and place.
The law of wills is surely still too rigid. There are too many formalities. The whole process of “probating an estate” is still too bureaucratic and complex. Most countries seem to manage to transfer enormous sums from generation to generation without the fuss and formality of American law. But American law is moving in the direction of greater simplicity and flexibility. The spread of the holographic will is one example. One important development has been the (partial) dethronement of the last will and testament. This document is no longer the centerpiece of succession. It has powerful rivals. People have alternatives—will substitutes. These have become more and more popular, for rich and poor alike. The Totten trust is flourishing. This is within the reach of anybody with a bank account. Estate planners are vigorously, and successfully, peddling “living trusts,” which bypass the probate court.
There are, in short, alternative ways of disposing of one’s earthly goods. Of course, the will remains important. And it remains, in most regards, still rather rigid and formal; but less than it was. The change may be in part because of a general decline in “formalism.” But it also reflects the rise of will substitutes, which are much less formal. Also, wills no longer seem to be vital documents of title, especially title to land. Land is less important in the economy than it was; and in any event, we have other, better ways to guarantee title and clear up ownership. In the future then, wills may become even less formal. The courts may go further in excusing mistakes. And we might get to see electronic wills, on-line wills, or video wills. The definition of “family” has also changed. Millions of couples live together without getting married. Some of these couples mate for years, or for life. Some produce or adopt children. Some of these couples are gay. Of course, one could always provide for a partner by will. But today, in some places, the law will do this for you, even without a will. The “family” is thus both broader and narrower than it once was: narrower in that it excludes more distant relatives, broader in that it tends to include (unmarried) partners.
Morgan Utah Probate Lawyer Free Consultation
When you need legal help with a probate, will, or trust in Morgan Utah, please call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Can We File a Divorce Online?
Payable On Death Beneficiary For Accounts
Foreign Divorces In Utah
Who Starts The Divorce In Utah?
Corporate Lawyer Bluffdale Utah
How Important Is Estate Planning?
from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/probate-lawyer-morgan-utah/
0 notes
anika-ann · 4 years
Text
Hands Too Cold, but Heart of Gold - Pt.8 (S.R.)
The Date Night
Pairing: Steve Rogers x reader, one-sided Matt Murdock x reader 
Word count: 1850
Summary: Avenger!reader AU, love triangle. You got yourself a date, went there and... it turned out rather interesting. Probably not the way Steve and Natasha think.
Warnings: swearing, fluff, angst
Tumblr media
Story Mastelist
────── ·❆· ──────
“I honestly don’t know why I’m freaking out about my outfit. He won’t even be able to see it! Why am I freaking out, Tasha?” you asked her on a verge of desperation, smoothening your dress for the millionth time.
As you got to the hem of the dress, all you wanted to do was to pull it over your head and change. Again. You stared at your reflection in the mirror, honestly considering it.
Natasha, standing behind you, put her hands on your shoulders to keep you in place and raised her eyebrow.
“Hey. You have every right to be nervous. How long has it been since your last date?” she asked gently, surprisingly so for a super-spy.
You bit your lip guiltily – of course, she found the root of the trouble. It had been too freaking long. The fact you were going out with Matt – an amazing human being – was not helping to sooth your nerves either.
“Almost two years.”
“Well. I think you’re entitled. But you’re gonna be fine,” she reassured you and you caught her honest gaze in the mirror. She squeezed your shoulders. “That guy? He fell hard – I hope you figured that out already. Just be yourself and you’ll be fine.”
You took a deep breath. “Thanks, Tasha. I really should go or I’ll be late. The taxi might even be here already.”
You picked up your coat, leaving the dresses you didn’t even want to count – Natasha had supplied you with too many of hers and still, you took the only dress you owned yourself – and grabbed your purse on the way.
You were insanely grateful to Natasha for her help – yet, your heart was fluttering nervously and ached a little. You wished Steve was here too, but you understood this was more of a ladies thing. You were sure he wished you the best for your date even if you hadn’t heard him say it.
You opened the door only to meet with Steve’s surprised face. His eyes measured you from head to toe and you fought the urge to hide – god knew why. That was until his gaze returned to your face and a smile appeared on his lips.
“You look beautiful, Snowflake,” he whispered, checking you out shamelessly once more. “He’s a lucky guy.”
You bit your lip, feeling the rush of heat colouring your cheeks. You lowered your gaze, examining your shoes; they had heels, you were about to kill yourself in them, why were you wearing them again…?
Steve chuckled at your reaction. You couldn’t help but feel like there was something foreign in that supposedly happy sound, something you couldn’t decode.
A hand appeared under your chin, fingers tucking a strand of your hair that fell in your face behind your ear. He kissed your forehead lovingly and you inhaled deeply, trying to calm down your rapidly beating heart. You knew he was trying to help, but it didn’t really work.
“Hey, Snowflake. Hold your head high, you look wonderful. It’s gonna be fine. If he upsets you, you not only can let him go, but you have five– no, six pissed off friends actually, I’m sure Thor would stop by for that – to punch Matt in his face. Understood?”
That finally made you relax and the tension in your shoulders eased with a huffed laughter. Steve’s eyes twinkled for a moment and you couldn’t but laugh again.
“Did you just say ‘pissed off’?” you asked incredulously and Steve shrugged it off – except a hint of a blush appeared in his cheeks too and hell, you could not miss that. You feasted your eyes on his embarrassment and only then gave Captain Language a proper hug, which was reciprocated tightly.
“I guess I’m nervous for you that much,” he murmured over your shoulder and the statement melted your heart.
“Thank you, Steve.”
He squeezed your waist once more, caressed your back and released you from his embrace, uneasy smile on his lips.
“Go. We wouldn’t want you to be late.”
You just nodded and made your way to the elevator. You sparred one more glance at Natasha, who joined Steve in the hallway, couple of dressed folded over her forearm. She grinned at you.
“Not to make you nervous, Frosty, but just because he won’t be able to see you with his eyes, it doesn’t mean he won’t appreciate your appearance! And other stuff! Considering all of his senses are heightened!” she called after you and you felt you face turning into a mask of horror.
All of his senses. Shit. What perfume did you use? How much could he— would he be able to tell you hugged-- did Steve just hug you to make Matt jealous and possibly make him think you were wanted, so he would value the fact you were going out with him more?
No, wait, you were the one who hugged Steve, which--- this was so going to be a disaster. You whined and slid into your coat, hoping it would make you invisible. And undetectable in any other way. This evening started swimmingly…
With you going down in the elevator, Natasha and Steve were left alone.
“Smooth, Rogers. Very subtle,” the spy exclaimed, patting his arm patronizingly. Steve shot her an unreadable glare.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
“About the fact Mr. Hot and Devilish wouldn’t even have to make her unhappy. It’s him making her happy that you want to punch him in the face for.”
Steve grinded his teeth, his look turning murderous. “That’s not true. I want them to get together.”
“Sure,” she agreed, shrugging. “That’s why you marked your territory like a goddamned dog.”
The rush of irritation and shame at being caught hit him stronger than excepted. Natasha knew exactly how to push his buttons and it drove him crazy.
“I didn’t-“ he protested lamely, only to realize he indeed hadn’t. “She was the one who hugged me.”
“Yeah. Keep yourself telling that. She did hug you, but what happened before that, that was on you. I’m surprised you didn’t kiss her on her mouth. I don’t understand how one can be so blind— eh, sorry-”
Steve’s hands curled into fists and he paced to his room to change into something more suitable for workout. He needed to punch something and as much as he was pissed at Natasha for mocking him, he liked her too much to hurt her – the punching bags would have to suffice. Bags, definitely plural, because he would tear some today, no doubt.
“Have a good workout, big guy!” she shouted after him almost cheerily and he slammed the door with such force that dust of plastering snowed down around the doorway.
Snowed down. Fuck. That would be more than one ruined bag today.
────── ·❆· ──────  
Natasha was standing in her room, staring out of the window as snowflakes slowly descended. None of them stuck, melting as soon as they collided with the surface, but there was no denying it really was snowing. And given the fact that the temperature needed to drop significantly for this to happen, there was no doubt whose doing was that – deliberate or not.
Apparently, your emotions were running high.
“Hey, Steve. What are you still doing awake?” she heard your astonished voice from the hallway and she bit her lip. This was definitely your excited voice; the date went well. The snow was a good sign.
“Couldn’t sleep.”
Natasha’s heart ached for her friend, simultaneously wondering if you could hear the subtle hint of pain in his voice. She suddenly felt guilty for helping you to get ready for the date – but it felt like the right thing to do.
“So you went to a gym? It’s after midnight. You’re making us all look like couch potatoes.”
Natasha could easily imagine that the soldier ‘casually’ shrugged.  
“Felt like working out,” he explained easily. No shit. How many punching bags did he destroy this time?
“Is everything okay? I know it’s not the first time. Something troubling you? Talk to me, Steve,” you pleaded softly.
Natasha sighed. That would be your placing your hand on his forearm in comforting gesture, your eyes screaming ‘you can trust me’. You always did that, because it was the thing you two did and you two were so utterly hopeless it hurt.
“It’s nothing, Snowflake. Nothing you need to worry about. You look happy. I take it the date went well?”
His voice was strained and the spy had no doubt you could tell. Yet, you answered him, voice wavering as if you weren’t sure how much you should share. “Yeah. It did.”
“One more reason for you not to worry about me,” Steve offered kindly and Natasha just gritted her teeth. Rogers was such an ass. Noble, maybe, but bozhe, such an ass. “I’m happy for you, Snowflake.”
“Thank you. But we’re talking about you, soon. I need you to be happy too, Steve. You’re too important to me and too good not to be.”
Natasha agreed wholeheartedly, glancing at the flash drive on her nightstand. She had downloaded the conversation she had with Steve, him confessing his feelings for you, but now, it seemed worthless.
While she wished for you to be happy, she was hoping you could do that with the supersoldier who was head over heels for you. She had been sure you felt the same, but now she had doubts. You could easily fall in love with Daredevil, he was charming enough, and she had no right to interfere with your love-life.
“Okay. I promise I’ll tell you later.”
Natasha scoffed. Yeah, sure. On your deathbed, maybe.
“ ‘kay. Love you, Steve. Goodnight.”
“Goodnight, Snowflake.”
Natasha heard your footsteps trailing off and slowly went to open her door for a slit.
“Don’t say a word,” Steve warned her icily, heart-breaking crack in his voice.
“I was gonna offer you a drink, an ‘I’m sorry’ and a hug.”
She heard him inhale and exhale shakily and she stepped out to find him resting his forehead against the nearest wall. His eyes were squeezed shut and she would swear it wasn’t sweat what gleamed on his cheeks. She pressed her lips together, hesitantly bringing her palm to his arm. His Adam’s apple bobbed.
“I’m really sorry, Steve,” she whispered tentatively, surprised when he bounced off the wall, looking her straight in the eye. His own were indeed glassy, but he wasn’t crying.
“You don’t have to be. She deserves the win, I’m happy for her.”
He said it with such conviction that if she hadn’t known him well enough, she wouldn’t notice how fragile the façade he had hastily built up was.
“Good. But you should know you don’t have to be, macho man. It’s okay to be angry, not just with yourself, but also with her and especially with him. You can be sad and you can be hurt. I know I’m not exactly the most open person when it comes to emotions, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel. And you can feel too.”
Steve escaped her gaze, but she could see his tiny nod. She took it as a victory and encouraged, she took his huge arm.
“Come on, Cap, let’s find out where Thor stocked the good booze.”
────── ·❆· ──────  
Part 9
────── ·❆· ──────  
Tags:  @mermaidxatxheart​, @murdermornings​, @elisaa-shelby​ @ask-hellbent-tweek
────── ·❆· ──────  
(The chapter is very similar to the other version, only leaves details on the date night with Matt. Buckle up for the next parts y’all. Roller -coaster of emotions coming in 3, 2, 1…)
Thank you for reading :))
63 notes · View notes
Text
Obesity: A Cause or a Consequence of Physical Inactivity?
Physical inactivity makes you fat, right? Most people on the street would probably agree with this supposition; popular science contends that lack of exercise means lower caloric expenditure, which translates to weight gain unless we reduce caloric intake. If we then inquire about why obese individuals tend to exercise less (on average) than leaner folks, many respondents would attribute the difference to laziness, lack of willpower, and less discipline among the former.
These answers all align with a deeply ingrained conventional wisdom regarding exercise and obesity; they rest upon the assumption that Physical Activity Levels (PALs) exist in a unidirectional relationship with the development of obesity: physical inactivity as cause of obesity, not an effect/consequence.
But is this actually true?
A Chicken-and-Egg Situation
Some studies clearly associate obesity with physical inactivity. Many people thus assume that physical inactivity causes weight gain and obesity, a seemingly logical conclusion.
A critical caveat, however, is that these studies don’t establish a cause-effect relationship; they only correlate two variables. In other words, physical inactivity might be an effect of obesity, not a cause, or perhaps it is both cause and effect. It could also be that confounding variables skew the relationship, creating a false appearance of causality. Since there are so many factors to consider, it’s important to be cautious when we interpret results of any such studies.
That said, physical activity and body-fat regulation are connected. Indeed, there is solid evidence to show that physical inactivity can contribute to weight gain, though it alone is insufficient to induce obesity. Combined with other factors such as a highly processed diet and disordered sleep, it can certainly contribute to a body mass index that exceeds 30, the AMA-established definition of obesity.
The weight of the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggests that exercise alone doesn’t produce a lot of weight loss (though people respond variably). This isn’t necessarily surprising, given that many exercisers compensate for their exertions by eating more and/or being more sedentary outside the exercise period.
However, exercise is still highly beneficial, metabolically. Regular exercise can help improve leptin and insulin sensitivity, increase lean muscle mass, improve appetite regulation, and elevate resting energy expenditure, among other effects. It is therefore unsurprising that several studies have found exercise helpful in the prevention of obesity.
A Case of Reverse Causality?
As explained above, evidence indicates that physical inactivity can factor into weight gain. However, it can proceed in the other direction as well; physical inactivity can actually derive from the accumulation of excess body fat.  
This may seem counterintuitive to many people. Common public perception holds that some people exercise more than others simply because they possess more willpower and self-discipline, and that it is unrelated to their physiology.
This simplistic belief has caused many overweight and inactive people much suffering, since they may assign their inactivity to some imagined laziness or weak-mindedness. This self-labeling can then feed into poor self-confidence and depression, particularly if they hear other (often leaner) people criticizing their perceived lassitude.
Let’s be clear: willpower and self-discipline are fundamental to long-term adherence to an active lifestyle. However, a truth that eludes many folks is that these qualities aren’t fixed traits determined by genetic lottery; they can be learned and strengthened.  
Furthermore, the human ability and desire to be active, as well as the enjoyment we derive from it, are governed by biological as well as psychological factors. I have learned that a key reason many obese people find exercise overly difficult and strenuous is that they are often chronically inflamed, with compromised immunity and metabolism.
Chronic Fatigue, Physical Inactivity, Suboptimal Physical Performance: Is Inflammation the Culprit?
Obesity is partly characterized by elevated levels of circulating inflammatory cytokines, a state of chronic, low-grade, systemic inflammation. Obesity is recognized as one cause of this inflammatory state, given that fat tissue releases many inflammatory mediators.
However, this internal fire can also be a cause of obesity. Inflammation and disruption of microbial balance—resulting from factors such as antibiotic use, a highly processed diet, and translocation of bacterial endotoxins from the gut into the bloodstream—may themselves cause insulin and leptin resistance, impaired appetite regulation, cravings for unhealthy foods, overeating, and fat accumulation. It’s a vicious cycle in which a perturbation of gut flora and immune homeostasis leads to excessive caloric intake and fat gain, which then further exacerbate the inflammatory process.
When the body is systemically inflamed, it doesn’t prioritize reproduction or peak physical fitness; rather, it allocates resources to damage control. It doesn’t “want” to run, lift heavy things, or perform other musculoskeletally demanding activities; it prefers rest, so it has a chance to recuperate. Chronic, low-grade inflammation is tightly linked with chronic fatigue and many other conditions that impair our physical performance and exercise tolerance.
Unfortunately, with obesity, the inflammatory cascade never stops. Fat tissue keeps pumping out TNF-alpha and other cytokines, and lipopolysaccharide continues to leak from the gut into the bloodstream, unless we undertake dietary changes and rebalance the microbiome. Until we address the inflammation, physical activity will continue to be low-priority—and gym time may continue to feel like purgatory.
Another caveat: although many lines of evidence implicate the inflammatory processes described above, other yet-unidentified factors and mechanisms may be involved. Regardless, many obese people—and non-obese people with chronic inflammation—have great difficulty getting active.
Exercise Shouldn’t Feel Like Torture
I was a strength coach and personal trainer at a commercial gym for several years. During this period I spent quite a bit of time observing how people exercise, as well as their body language and the feelings they expressed when they were lifting weights, running, or otherwise engaging their muscles. I noticed that high levels of adiposity seemed to make exercise much harder for some people.
For some, a session on the treadmill looks like pure torture. Of course, this might be due partly to the discomfort of carrying excess weight; however, I think the aforementioned processes of inflammation and hormonal disturbance are the real culprits.
Keep in mind that chronic, systemic inflammation doesn’t only affect obese people. Actually, this condition is rampant in our society today, and is at the root of many chronic diseases and health conditions. Even lean people, if inflamed, may be exercise-intolerant. Personally, my urge to exercise, as well as my physical performance, seem to vary with the levels of inflammation in my body.
A New Understanding of an Old Problem
Many studies have investigated the relationship between PALs and obesity; again, though, many fail to prove that one variable precedes the other. However, some researchers have been able to connect the two in a causal way.
One example is a study out of the University of California, Los Angeles that was published in the journal Physiology & Behavior. In the study, 32 female rats were allowed ad libitum access to unrefined rodent chow or a purified low-fat diet. After six months, the rats on the purified low-fat diet, which was rich in sugar and highly processed, had gained significantly more weight than the rats on the diet of unrefined rodent chow.
The researchers tested the rats’ performance by requiring them to press a lever to receive a food or water reward; they found that the rats on the junk-food diet demonstrated impaired performance, taking substantially longer breaks than the lean rats before returning to the task. During a 30-minute session, the overweight rats took breaks nearly twice as long as those taken by the lean animals.
Lead researcher Aaron Blaisdell, in a press statement, framed the study results as follows:
““Overweight people often get stigmatized as lazy and lacking discipline,” Blaisdell said. “We interpret our results as suggesting that the idea commonly portrayed in the media that people become fat because they are lazy is wrong. Our data suggest that diet-induced obesity is a cause, rather than an effect, of laziness. Either the highly processed diet causes fatigue or the diet causes obesity, which causes fatigue.”
Blaisdell believes the findings are very likely to apply to humans, whose physiological systems are similar to rats’.”
Key Points
Obesity can be both a cause and a consequence of physical inactivity. Physical inactivity can contribute to weight gain; combined with other factors, it can create obesity, as it down-regulates the sensitivity of metabolic and satiety-related hormones, sacrifices lean tissue, and reduces energy expenditure, among other effects. Physical inactivity can also be an effect of obesity, if accompanying inflammation and metabolic disruption lead to chronic fatigue, muscle weakness, impaired physical performance, and poor exercise tolerance.
It’s a vicious cycle: physical inactivity contributing to fat accumulation, leading to (possibly) excess body weight and secretion of inflammatory cytokines, both of which may drive further reduction in physical activity levels.
The next time you encounter an obese person who seems to find exercise difficult and unpleasant, avoid judging them. They may be fighting a decidedly uphill battle, with their biochemistry stacked against them.
Reference
1    J. Alcock, C. C. Maley, and C. A. Aktipis, ‘Is Eating Behavior Manipulated by the Gastrointestinal Microbiota? Evolutionary Pressures and Potential Mechanisms’, Bioessays, 36 (2014), 940-9.
2    A. P. Blaisdell, Y. L. Lau, E. Telminova, H. C. Lim, B. Fan, C. D. Fast, D. Garlick, and D. C. Pendergrass, ‘Food Quality and Motivation: A Refined Low-Fat Diet Induces Obesity and Impairs Performance on a Progressive Ratio Schedule of Instrumental Lever Pressing in Rats’, Physiol Behav, 128 (2014), 220-5.
3    P. D. Cani, J. Amar, M. A. Iglesias, M. Poggi, C. Knauf, D. Bastelica, A. M. Neyrinck, F. Fava, K. M. Tuohy, C. Chabo, A. Waget, E. Delmee, B. Cousin, T. Sulpice, B. Chamontin, J. Ferrieres, J. F. Tanti, G. R. Gibson, L. Casteilla, N. M. Delzenne, M. C. Alessi, and R. Burcelin, ‘Metabolic Endotoxemia Initiates Obesity and Insulin Resistance’, Diabetes, 56 (2007), 1761-72.
4    P. De Feo, ‘Is High-Intensity Exercise Better Than Moderate-Intensity Exercise for Weight Loss?’, Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 23 (2013), 1037-42.
5    L. DiPietro, ‘Physical Activity in the Prevention of Obesity: Current Evidence and Research Issues’, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31 (1999), S542-6.
6    L. Dwyer-Lindgren, G. Freedman, R. E. Engell, T. D. Fleming, S. S. Lim, C. J. Murray, and A. H. Mokdad, ‘Prevalence of Physical Activity and Obesity in Us Counties, 2001-2011: A Road Map for Action’, Popul Health Metr, 11 (2013), 7.
7    J. O. Hill, and H. R. Wyatt, ‘Role of Physical Activity in Preventing and Treating Obesity’, J Appl Physiol (1985), 99 (2005), 765-70.
8    N. A. King, K. Horner, A. P. Hills, N. M. Byrne, R. E. Wood, E. Bryant, P. Caudwell, G. Finlayson, C. Gibbons, M. Hopkins, C. Martins, and J. E. Blundell, ‘Exercise, Appetite and Weight Management: Understanding the Compensatory Responses in Eating Behaviour and How They Contribute to Variability in Exercise-Induced Weight Loss’, Br J Sports Med, 46 (2012), 315-22.
9    S. E. Lakhan, and A. Kirchgessner, ‘Gut Inflammation in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’, Nutr Metab (Lond), 7 (2010), 79.
10    K. Louati, and F. Berenbaum, ‘Fatigue in Chronic Inflammation – a Link to Pain Pathways’, Arthritis Res Ther, 17 (2015), 254.
11    M. Maggio, S. Basaria, G. P. Ceda, A. Ble, S. M. Ling, S. Bandinelli, G. Valenti, and L. Ferrucci, ‘The Relationship between Testosterone and Molecular Markers of Inflammation in Older Men’, J Endocrinol Invest, 28 (2005), 116-9.
12    W. C. Miller, D. M. Koceja, and E. J. Hamilton, ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Past 25 Years of Weight Loss Research Using Diet, Exercise or Diet Plus Exercise Intervention’, Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 21 (1997), 941-7.
13    I. A. Myles, ‘Fast Food Fever: Reviewing the Impacts of the Western Diet on Immunity’, Nutr J, 13 (2014), 61.
14    S. E. Shoelson, L. Herrero, and A. Naaz, ‘Obesity, Inflammation, and Insulin Resistance’, Gastroenterology, 132 (2007), 2169-80.
15    I. Spreadbury, ‘Comparison with Ancestral Diets Suggests Dense Acellular Carbohydrates Promote an Inflammatory Microbiota, and May Be the Primary Dietary Cause of Leptin Resistance and Obesity’, Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 5 (2012), 175-89.
16    K. S. Steinbeck, ‘The Importance of Physical Activity in the Prevention of Overweight and Obesity in Childhood: A Review and an Opinion’, Obes Rev, 2 (2001), 117-30.
17    A. Thorogood, S. Mottillo, A. Shimony, K. B. Filion, L. Joseph, J. Genest, L. Pilote, P. Poirier, E. L. Schiffrin, and M. J. Eisenberg, ‘Isolated Aerobic Exercise and Weight Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials’, Am J Med, 124 (2011), 747-55.
18    Stuart Wolpert, ‘Does a Junk Food Diet Make You Lazy? Ucla Psychology Study Offers Answer’2014) <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/does-a-junk-food-diet-make-you-lazy-ucla-psychology-study-offers-answer>.
The post Obesity: A Cause or a Consequence of Physical Inactivity? appeared first on Paleo Magazine.
from Best Paleo Cookbook Reviews https://paleomagonline.com/obesity-a-cause-or-a-consequence-of-physical-inactivity/
0 notes