AARP SUIT TARGETS FEDERAL RULE CHANGE ON REVERSE MORTGAGES

AARP filed a suit challenging a federal decision on reverse mortgages that is causing some widows and widowers to lose their homes. According to a New York Times article, the suit claims a rule change by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development imposes tougher requirements on surviving spouses and heirs than on strangers, Under the change in the rule, homes with reverse mortgages that are worth less than the loan balance can be sold to strangers for less than the mortgage balance, while surviving spouses not named on the reverse mortgage must pay the full loan amount.

Is the new health care law unconstitutional?

This week, the Justice Department appealed judge Roger Vinson’s January ruling that declared the new health-care law unconstitutional. The case will now move to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Vinson voided the law in January but stayed his ruling last week, conditioned upon the Obama administration’s appealing it within seven days. He also required the government to seek expedited appellate review.

Two other federal appeals courts, in Richmond, Va., and Cincinnati, are preparing to consider the constitutionality of the law late this spring. To date, three lower courts have found the law constitutional, while two have ruled the other way.

First Amendment

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects a fringe religious group that protested the funeral of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq. The court, in an 8-to-1 vote, ruled that the soldier's father could not sue Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, for celebrating his son's death with a funeral picket that included signs saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "consider the protest did not disrupt the funeral at all.God Hates You," along with more vulgar messages. It is important to consider that the protest did not disrupt the funeral.

Estate Planning

Go to http://www.dbrill.com/ and request a newsletter for assistance with estate planning.

Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

 The Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act ("Act") was to be effective November 3, 2010, after Georgia voters’ ratified a Constitutional amendment designed to give effect to the Act.  However, the Constitutional amendment failed to include an effective date, thus the amendment did not take effect until January 1, 2011.  Now, the Act is exposed to possible constitutional challenges, including questions as to whether it did or can take effect as intended.

Therefore, State Representative Wendall Willard, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,  introduced House Bill 30, which states that its intention is to “remove any such uncertainty by substantially reenacting the substantive provisions of HB 173 [the Restrictive Covenant Act].”   The Bill also states that its enactment should not be taken as evidence that the previous statute was invalid.  If passed, House Bill 30 would go into effect immediately when the Governor signs it, but would not retroactively apply to any contract signed before it takes effect.
When or if this new bill may pass is not known at this time.

Unemployment Benefits

 A federal bill was signed in December extending  unemployment benefits.

Eligibility requires  being out of a job; state unemployment rates and the duration of an individual’s unemployment.

To collect benefits for the maximum period of 99 weeks, the average state’s unemployment rate must be above 8.5% for three months. *

The new law restores the 99-week maximum for states which do meet the rate requirement but  does not provide further benefits to individuals who previously reached the limit of their unemployment benefits

*Georgia residents, see http://www.dol.state.ga.us/