December 12, 2017

Archives for November 29, 2017

Introduction, and Lessons from Alzheimer’s Disease

Editor’s Note: CBA CLE Legal Connection welcomes Aaron Eisenach to the blog. Aaron Eisenach has specialized in long-term care planning and insurance-based solutions for 20 years. Read more below.

I am very excited to submit my first blog on CBACLELegalConnection.com! Some of you will recognize me from recent Elder Law and Estate Planning Retreats. Others may have heard me lecture at Senior Law Day or provide CLE courses on long-term care planning. Or perhaps you have read my chapters in Elder Law in Colorado and Senior Law Handbook. But in case our paths have never crossed, please allow me to further introduce myself.

I am a long-term care planning specialist representing myriad insurance companies and products that help people protect their family and finances from the greatest risk left in life: needing extended care.  I wear three hats in my professional life. First, I assist other advisors and agents that do not specialize in long-term care insurance and choose to trust me with their clients.  Second, I serve as a wholesaler of LTC planning products to agents in Colorado and many other states. And third, as an educator I am certified by the Colorado Division of Insurance to teach state-mandated continuing education courses that all resident agents must complete in order to offer LTC coverage. Whichever hat I’m wearing my goal is to help families mitigate the emotional, physical and financial consequences of an extended care event.  My steadfast belief is that everyone deserves a serious conversation about the potentially devastating emotional, physical and financial consequences needing long-term care can cause.

My passion for this niche in the insurance industry stems from witnessing my father’s and grandfather’s battles with Alzheimer’s disease and the lasting impact on family and finances. I remember occasionally visiting my grandfather, usually after Sunday morning church services, in the skilled nursing facility in which he lived for 10 years. I can still breathe the smells and hear the groans from residents in the hallways of the facility. I could hardly wait to get in the car and escape the image of the man that I only knew as a prisoner to a crippling, horrific disease.

Imagine the heartbreak when we started to realize that my father was beginning to show symptoms of the same condition. Thankfully, before signs of dementia crept in to rob him of his cognition, he took my advice and purchased long-term care insurance. Because of his familial experiences, my father realized that the coverage was not for him per se. It was for my mom, and his children and grandchildren more than it was ever for him. When dad resigned from a prestigious job, a few newspaper articles, banquets and receptions honored him while he was still mostly aware of his surroundings. When dad could no longer be left alone, my mom also quit her job and began her new vocation: full-time caregiver.

Dad’s long-term care insurance policy was structured to cover care at home, in an assisted living or skilled nursing facility, adult day care or hospice. Its benefits were unlimited: the coverage could never be exhausted regardless of how long he might have needed care.  Mom resisted turning on the benefits for many months (it seems she held sacred the “…for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health” part of the wedding vows) until she finally realized that she needed help in caring for dad. Eventually a home care agency was hired to help take care of him a few hours per day, freeing her to go to the grocery store, the doctor’s office, or see a grandchild’s piano recital. In other words, the long-term care insurance gave her some of her life back.

Eventually the combined care provided by mom and the agency wasn’t enough. After a health scare of her own, mom called me and wanted to know my feelings about placing dad in a nursing home permanently. Realizing that my dad’s chronic care needs were making my mother chronically-ill herself, I told her that she had my absolute encouragement to do so. At that point she said that she had already talked to the other children and that they also agreed. A facility was chosen that was close to the homes of three of the four children. Mom and dad’s house was sold, allowing mom to live closer to the facility so that she could be there every day possible as his loving wife and his personal care advocate, which is so vitally important regardless of the quality and reputation of the facility in which your loved one resides. As an example of her compassion, after dad had passed away in the very early morning hours she fed his roommate breakfast later that morning. All but $20 per day of dad’s 18-month stay was paid-for by his insurance policy. In fact, not a single penny of mom or dad’s retirement plans was spent on care.

These experiences and God’s hand led me to my passion for, and career in, telling others about the importance of planning ahead for the possibility of needing extended care services. For more than 20 years I have listened to clients tell me of their own stories of caregiving. The stories lead to similar conclusions: the emotional and physical strains and pressures of being a caregiver are devastating, adult children often do not contribute equally to the care needs of the parent(s) which can lead to resentment and in-fighting, the lifetime savings of the care recipient was depleted much quicker than ever imagined, relying on Medicaid should be avoided, the lack of planning leads to chaos, and more.

My next blog will focus on the premise that everyone needs a plan for care (not necessarily insurance), the components of a care plan, and common planning goals. I will also present the latest cost of care data for Colorado. Until then, if there is anything I can do for you or your clients, please visit www.AaronEisenach.com or call 303-659-0755.

 

Aaron R. Eisenach has specialized in long-term care planning and insurance-based solutions for 20 years. His passion for this topic stems from losing both his father and grandfather to Alzheimer’s Disease. As an insurance wholesaler, Mr. Eisenach represents ICB, Inc., the nation’s first general agency specializing in LTC insurance. As an educator, he provides workshops to consumers and teaches state-mandated continuing education courses to Colorado insurance agents selling LTC products. As a broker, Mr. Eisenach is the proprietor of AaronEisenach.com and partners with financial advisors and agents who trust him to work with their clients. He is the immediate past president of the Producers Advisory Council at the Colorado Division of Insurance, serves as president of the nonprofit LTC Forum of Colorado, Inc, and has appeared on 9News and KMGH Channel 7. He recently served as an expert witness in a court case and was a contributing author to the American College curriculum on long-term care insurance.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Parties Cannot Waive Statutory Time Period for Record Sealing

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Robertson v. People on Thursday, November 16, 2017.

Plea Agreement—Menacing—Consumption of Marijuana—Possession of Drug Paraphernalia—Consumption of Alcohol—Deferred Judgment—Petition to Seal—Statutory Waiting Period.

In 2014, Robertson was charged in three separate cases with (1) misdemeanor menacing; (2) consumption of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia; and (3) consumption and possession of alcohol by a person under 21. Robertson entered into a global plea agreement whereby he pleaded guilty to the menacing charge and received a deferred judgment lasting one year, the drug and alcohol cases were dismissed, and Robertson was permitted to seal the records of all three cases. After Robertson completed the deferred judgment, his guilty plea was withdrawn and the case was dismissed. He petitioned the court to seal the records in all three cases, which the court granted.

On appeal, the prosecution contended that the district court erred by granting Robertson’s petitions to seal the records in the drug and alcohol cases because C.R.S. § 24-72-702(1)(a)(III)(A) prohibits such sealing until at least 10 years have passed. Where a statute prohibits a court from sealing criminal records until 10 years have passed since the disposition of the criminal proceedings, as in this case, the parties may not waive this requirement and authorize the court to seal the records earlier. Therefore, the district court lacked authority to seal the criminal records in the drug and alcohol cases. The records in the menacing case, however, were eligible for sealing because that case was completely dismissed after Robertson completed the deferred judgment. However, the existing record in the menacing case was not sufficient to support the order.

The orders in the drug and alcohol cases were vacated. The order in the menacing case was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Possessed Eminent Domain Power by Statute

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Sos v. Roaring Fork Transportation Authority on Thursday, November 16, 2017.

Eminent Domain—Inverse Condemnation Claim—Compensable Damages—Restoration Damages—Diminution in Value.

Sos owns property on which he owns and operates a tire business. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) built a bus station on the property north of and adjacent to his property. Before RFTA began construction, an earthen embankment rested on the property line between Sos’s and RFTA’s properties. Sos regularly sold tires and other items on the embankment and, with the previous owner’s permission, on the northern property. As part of its construction, RFTA removed the embankment and built a wall on its property, and then restored the embankment, which the wall relies on for lateral support. Sos then wanted to remove the embankment to facilitate his business. He brought an inverse condemnation claim against RFTA because the bus station wall relies on his property for lateral support. RFTA moved for summary judgment and Sos moved for partial summary judgment, regarding whether a compensable taking or damages had occurred. The district court denied RFTA’s motion and granted Sos’s motion, determining that the force the bus station wall permanently imposed on the embankment constituted compensable damage under article II, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution, and that the proper measure of damages was restoration damages rather than diminution in value.

On appeal, RFTA argued that the district court erred in determining that RFTA possessed the power of eminent domain because the General Assembly had not granted RFTA this power expressly or by clear implication, and because it does not possess the power of eminent domain, Sos cannot establish an inverse condemnation claim. Pursuant to the plain language of C.R.S. § 43-4-604, RFTA has the power of eminent domain by clear implication.

RFTA next asserted that the district court erred in concluding that RFTA’s bus station wall caused compensable damage because the wall’s construction did not substantially diminish the value of Sos’s property or substantially change Sos’s use of his property. The district court found, with record support, that RFTA authorized the building of the bus station wall and that RFTA incorporated the embankment’s support into the bus station wall’s design and construction. The court, therefore, properly determined that the imposition of force on Sos’s embankment was the natural consequence of RFTA’s intentional construction of the bus station wall. Further, the record, including RFTA’s own expert opinions, supported the district court’s finding that the bus station wall imposed a new force on Sos’s embankment to such a degree that an engineered remedy was now required before the embankment could be excavated. The district court properly determined that RFTA damaged Sos’s property.

RFTA next contended that the district court erred in ruling that restoration costs rather than diminution of value was the proper measure of damages. The record shows that the diminution in value of Sos’s property after RFTA built the bus station was de minimis. But RFTA’s construction substantially limited Sos’s use and enjoyment of the embankment area. Therefore, the district court properly determined Sos’s damages under the measure of restoration costs.

RFTA further argued that the district court erred in allowing evidence of Sos’s business and personal uses for his property because such interests are non-compensable in condemnation cases. RFTA contended that Sos presented no admissible evidence regarding restoration costs or supporting the damages award. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court’s damages award is supported by competent record evidence.

RFTA also argued that the district court erred in rejecting its proposed instructions regarding diminution of value being the proper measure of damages. The district court’s decision was supported by competent evidence and did not cause the commissioners to be inaccurately instructed on the law.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/28/2017

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Mayfield v. Ruiz

United States v. Cisneros-Guerrero

United States v. Baker

United States v. Booker

United States v. Roibal-Bradley

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.