The final days of the estate plan case in the United States are drawing to a close.
The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday to throw out the landmark estate planning cases of the 1970s, and it has opened the door for thousands of estates in America to go through the process of estate planning.
The court ruled that states do not have to implement estate planning, but that it is an important part of a family planning plan and that the court must take up the issue once it is decided.
The ruling could have major ramifications for US policies of estate plan reform in the US, and in particular for states that have not implemented their own plan for inheritance planning.
“We are very hopeful that the Supreme Court will allow states to continue to enact plans for family planning and to take care of the needs of the people that are most at risk of not having the means to get married,” says Elizabeth Harkness, a lawyer who represented the estate of a man who died from AIDS in 2010.
Harknesses said her clients had appealed the court’s ruling, but had not received an answer.
Her clients had sued the state of Mississippi, which was then trying to pass a family plan.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to uphold the state’s plan, and that decision was overturned by the federal court in 2014.
Halkness says the Supreme Judicial Court of Mississippi’s decision will also affect the Florida plan, which is being challenged by the state.
The Florida plan is based on a single, non-transferable trust.
It provides for a family to inherit the estate through the estate.
But in 2015, Florida’s plan was ruled unconstitutional because it did not include a single transferable trust and was based on an estate plan that was not properly governed by the law.
The federal court decided to hear the Florida case, and a decision on the Florida estate plan could be made soon.
Halks has not heard anything on the estate plans in the Supreme Courts of the other nine states.
However, a hearing is set for the Florida Supreme Court on Friday, and Halknesses said the justices are likely to rule on the case soon.
The estate plan cases were filed in the 1970 and 1980s by prominent estate planners such as Norman Mailer and David Rittenberg, and their work inspired the American Institute of Architects (AIA).
The cases argued that states should be able to set up a family estate plan, but states should have to set out a plan that included a family’s assets and be accountable to the community.
In addition, the cases argued, the courts should be required to give states a chance to provide adequate protection for the vulnerable in their plan.
However the cases were unsuccessful, the AIA said it would appeal the Supreme court’s decisions and had already launched an appeal against the estateplan cases.
“It’s been very frustrating, but I am very hopeful.
We have seen that the AIGA, the architects and the AHA, the architecture community has responded very strongly to the challenge,” said Harkess.
“There are a lot of very strong voices in this community, including AIA, and the architects who have stepped forward to support the Supreme judicial case.
The AIA is going to be watching closely to see what happens in this case.”
The court’s opinion on Friday came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative justice.
Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion that the case was about the “rights of people who do not share the same property and who do so for a limited period of time.”
Kennedy said the court had never before held that a state could impose a family property plan that is “fundamentally different from a plan for the elderly”.
The Supreme court also said that the states that had already enacted family planning plans in their states could continue to do so.
“The Supreme Court has held that the estate law system, in which states may devise a plan to allocate property to beneficiaries and to set their rights, is not a separate and distinct system from that of a plan governing individuals who have died, and does not confer any right to the estate that does not belong to those beneficiaries,” Kennedy wrote.
“Instead, it is a system for providing property, as a right to beneficiaries, for the benefit of all those beneficiaries, and to enforce those rights.”