PROPOSED LAND SWAP – CRYSTAL BAY LAKE ACCESS AND INCLINE FLUME / BULL WHEEL

  • July 28, 2014

By Andrew N. Wolf, Attorney, Incline Law Group

The owners of the Ponderosa Ranch and the former Stack Estate on the Crystal Bay waterfront have proposed a land exchange with Washoe County. The Ponderosa Ranch contains a portion of the Incline Flume Trail and remnants of the Bull Wheel that was reputedly part of the Great Tramway of Incline used to hoist logs from what is now Incline Village up to the fluming system that sent logs to Virginia City.  The Incline Flume Trail — running from the Third Creek area of the Mount Rose Highway, through the Diamond Peak Ski Resort and all the way to Tunnel Creek Road — still contains remnants of the box flume that was constructed circa 1870s.

The county owns a number of public alleyways that project from County roads to the Lakeshore. One of the public alleyways extending from the County road to the lakeshore in Crystal Bay, eight feet wide by 200 feet long, lies between 44 and 61 Somers Loop, properties that are owned or controlled by the same group which controls the Ponderosa Ranch on the East side of Incline Village.  Several years ago, an attempt was made to abandon this particular alleyway to the adjoining parcels and the request was denied by Washoe County. The current owner has proposed a land exchange in which the alleyway would be traded for a parcel to be split off the Ponderosa Ranch property containing a portion of the Incline Flume Trail and the historic Bull Wheel.

To be clear, the alleyway that is proposed to be traded is not the public stairway that is located between parcels located at 22 and 90 Somers Drive.

There have been strong sentiments expressed on both sides of the issue.  On one side, opponents of the exchange note that public lake access is a limited and valuable commodity that cannot be replaced.  They point out that if public agencies want ownership of the privately held portions of the Incline Flume Trail or Bull Wheel, they have powers of eminent domain which can be used to acquire those lands for fair value.  On the other side, supporters of the land exchange would like the recreational resource of the Flume Trail and the historic resource of the Bull Wheel to be placed in public hands, so that the trail can be kept open, and properly marked and maintained. Over the years, the owners of the Ponderosa Ranch land have blocked access and/or posted no trespassing signs upon the portion of the Flume Trail that crosses private property.  Supporters of the exchange also note that the Crystal Bay alleyway to be swapped is extremely steep and may not be capable of any formal use, development or improvement.  Washoe County currently keeps it closed for safety reasons.

Washoe County has taken the initial step of exploring the concept of an exchange by authorizing appraisals of the affected lands and other investigative studies which are apparently being funded by proponents of the exchange.

Opponents of the exchange also argue that a decision to abandon a scarce Crystal Bay public lake access should not be mixed together with an analysis of whether the Incline Flume and Bull Wheel area should be acquired for public use, such as via eminent domain. They argue the questions are completely separate.

This is an important local issue.  Interested and concerned citizens can follow and attend public meetings and write their elected officials. The Washoe County staff report of May 13, 2014, and various public comments concerning the proposed land exchange can be found here:
http://www.washoecounty.us/large_files/agendas/051314/28.pdf

MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES TO OPEN SOON IN NEVADA

  • July 28, 2014

By Jeremy L. Krenek, Attorney, Incline Law Group

The legalization of marijuana has become a hot topic over the past decade as campaigns to legalize have gained serious support. States like Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Currently, 22 states, including Nevada and California have legalized marijuana for medical purposes if prescribed by a licensed physician. While Nevada passed its first medical marijuana law in 2000, it just recently passed a law (2013) allowing for medical marijuana dispensaries to open causing great debate.

Opponents of legalization are concerned with increased crime rates, increased substance abuse among both adults and adolescents, and a potential increase of dangerous drivers on the road (DUIs). Even though there are numerous states that have legalized medical use of marijuana, it is still too early to tell whether these concerns will actually come to fruition.

On the other hand, proponents are concerned because, while marijuana may be legal at a state level in some circumstances, it is still a federal crime. Since federal law preempts conflicting state law, those who have a medical marijuana card issued by a state can still be arrested and charged with a federal offense. This example has been on display for the entire nation to witness over the last couple of years in California where the federal government has made it a priority to crack down on an over billion dollar a year pot industry.

While both sides of the debate may have legitimate concerns, Nevada residents should take comfort in the fact that Nevada is familiar with regulating a product that not everyone wants to see legalized. Nevada has a regimented process for approving gambling licenses across the state. Many of the same guidelines will likely be utilized when it comes to marijuana dispensaries. Strict guidelines regulate those who can open a dispensary as well as oversee their management. The application process for opening a dispensary has numerous guidelines and checks that must be followed carefully in order to have an application considered. Counties also have the ability to impose further restrictions and guidelines including regulations as to where dispensaries can be located within each county.

Those with the goal of opening a dispensary have many legal hoops to jump through. Only time will tell the effect legalization of marijuana will have on our nation. Until then, hopefully the rules and regulations that are in place will help circumvent any negative effects the new legislation will have across our nation.

SUMMER LOVE – A TALE OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT

  • July 25, 2014

By Stacey F. Herhusky, Attorney at Law, Incline Law Group

During the summer, many couples decide to tie the knot. It is a happy time for new love. Men are planning their bachelor parties. Women are busy being fitted for wedding dresses. Family law attorneys are preparing Premarital Agreements. But perhaps nobody is as happy at this time of year as the ex-husbands who anxiously await termination of their spousal support obligations when their ex-wives remarry. In California, as well as most states, the obligation to continue paying spousal support to your former spouse terminates upon remarriage.

In a recent California case, we learn that it is not always that simple. In Marriage of Left (August 2012), a former lawyer used her knowledge of the law to find a way to keep her alimony payments coming even after her re“marriage”. Andrea and Andrew Left married in 2001. Shortly thereafter, Andrea got pregnant and decided to stop working. Prior to this, she had worked as a program attorney at ABC Entertainment and Touchstone Television, earning a substantial income and honing her legal skills. Her new husband, Andrew, was a very successful stock trader and founder of Citron Research. He earned an extraordinarily high income which enabled her to retire from law and stay home with their children. Sadly, they divorced in 2008. Since Andrea was a stay at home mom and Andrew was a earning a very high income, he agreed to pay Andrea $32,547 per month in spousal support and $14,590 per month in child support (yes, those figures were per month).

Within six months, Andrea decided to remarry. They set a date, informed the children’s school they were getting married, registered at Bloomingdale’s and mailed wedding invitations to their guests. The celebration with her physician boyfriend took place in Palm Springs. Andrea wore a wedding dress and signed a Ketubah (which is a Jewish marriage contract). The only thing they did not do was obtain a marriage license.

Mr. Left stopped paying support based on her remarriage and Andrea took him back to court for back support, ultimately garnishing his Etrade account for $255,000. The Court, upon learning that there was no marriage license, refused to recognize the marriage and ordered Mr. Left to continue paying support. The court cited California laws which hold that in order to have a valid marriage, a marriage license must be issued.  Until that happens, the former Mrs. Left was not remarried and she has proven that you can, in fact, have your wedding cake and eat it too.

 

IS YOUR INHERITED IRA PROTECTED FROM CREDITORS?

  • July 20, 2014

By John C. Rogers, Attorney, Incline Law Group

This question is important to those who receive an IRA as a beneficiary, but more important to those who plan to pass an IRA to children or other beneficiaries. The latter have the opportunity to plan so that the inherited IRA includes protection from creditors.

In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an inherited IRA does not qualify for the “retirement funds” exemption under the bankruptcy code Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. ___ (2014).

In that case, IRA beneficiaries filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and claimed about $300,000 in an inherited individual IRA as exempt “retirement funds.” (See 11 U. S. C. Sec. 522(b)(3)(C).)

The court decided that funds in an inherited IRA were not “retirement funds” intended to be protected by the exemption.

The court pointed to three legal characteristics of inherited IRAs that clearly distinguished them from protected “retirement funds.” (1) Inherited IRAs can never be increased by contributions from the inheriting holder. (2) Holders of an inherited IRA must withdraw funds from the account no matter how far they are away from retirement. And finally, (3) the holder may withdraw the entire balance of the account at any time, for any purpose, without penalty.

The policies that allow original IRA holders to exempt “retirement funds” from the reach or creditors help assure that IRA funds will be available to fund necessities during retirement years. Because of the distinguishing characteristics described above, an inherited IRA operates in opposition to those policies.

If you are the holder of an IRA and you anticipate naming children or others as beneficiaries, and if you want to provide creditor protection for those beneficiaries, there are a number of mechanisms that may achieve this goal.

If you already hold an inherited IRA, you may want to consult with an attorney regarding the pros and cons of liquidating that IRA and investing in other protected assets.

FANNIE MAE CHANGES MORTGAGE ELIGIBILITY RULES AFTER SHORT SALE AND DEED IN LIEU

  • July 15, 2014

By Cassell von Bayer, Attorney, Incline Law Group

One of often cited selling points for homeowners to undertake a short sale rather than a foreclosure sale is the ability to purchase a new home with financing in a shorter period of time. While all lenders have different eligibility requirements, most lenders current guidelines fall within a 2 to 5 year waiting period after a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure. While FHA guidelines may allow a borrower to obtain a new mortgage within one year of a short sale, those guidelines provide for several restrictions and FHA loans require significant and very costly mortgage insurance premiums.

Fannie Mae continues to be one of the largest mortgage holders and has up until now provided borrowers with mortgage eligibility two years after a short sale. Aside from FHA and VA loans, Fannie Mae has maintained the shortest wait periods after a derogatory credit event such as short sale or foreclosure. As of August 16, 2014 that will change. For all loan applications taken on or after August 16, 2014, Fannie Mae will impose a four year waiting period after a short sale and seven year waiting period after a foreclosure sale. Equally as important, for loan applications taken before August 16, 2014, the lender must document that the short sale or deed in lieu was completed two or more years from the disbursement date of the new loan. Similarly, where your credit report shows a “charge off”, meaning a lender, such as a second mortgage holder after a short sale, has reported the account charged off for accounting purposes, borrower’s may be subject to a four year waiting period. The new rules were issued on June 17, 2014, and as noted go into effect August 16, 2014. For the specifics please see: https://www.fanniemae.com/content/release_notes/du-do-release-notes-08162014.pdf

It is difficult to imagine that these new restrictions will aid the housing recovery or the reconstitution of the American Dream.