Know what, dingbat? Everybody you know has something in their craw that they think the rest of the world should absolutely be advised about and can't understand why everybody else isn't as excited as they are. The rest of us know them as a..h...s. You are well aware of this. I suggest looking up "coprophagia" combined with looking in the mirror. I think you'll find the two go together.

Hi Jake, You are correct about these strategies requiring regular review & maintenance... however you've been taught wrong about Universal strategies. I want to address a mistake and misconception you have (and have no doubt been taught) about using a Universal Life contract instead of a Whole Life contract for a family banking strategy. I realize up front that in doing so I may get too technical for almost everyone else reading this... but here goes; In Universal Life design, you can choose either a level face (aka "option A," the absolute death benefit stays level, regardless of cash accumulation,) or an increasing face (aka "option B," the initially determined death benefit rides on TOP of any cash accumulation values.) When you pay a premium for life insurance, your premium is determined by how much of the INSURANCE COMPANY'S CASH is at risk to them of being paid out if you die. If you use a LEVEL face design (which is best for the family banking concept,) then the amount of the insurance company's funds "at risk" (the amount needed to be paid out at death) is reduced by the amount of additional cash accumulation. EXAMPLE: Assume you buy a $1 Million face (death benefit,) using a Level Benefit design. Assume this costs $300/year based on the insured's age, health, etc. for the first year. Assume the owner intends to transfer $250,000 of his retirement savings into this new account. (We'll ignore tax efficiency strategies for this lesson, as they are important, but irrelevant to the financial principles we're talking about here.) In his first year (as stated above,) his term premium is $300 which pays for the insurance company's risks (based on his age, health, etc.) of having to pay out $1,000,000 should he die the next day. $300 cost on $1MM is (divide the cost by the payout)... $0.0003 premium cost per dollar of benefit. In his SECOND year, however, two things have changed; A) he is one year older... so let's assume his premium increased to $0.00035, B) he has an accumulation of $250,000 in his account. Because his death benefit is LEVEL at $1MM, the insurance company's cash-at-risk is only $750,000 (since his accumulated cash value is inclusive in the death benefit payout.) THEREFORE, the annual cost is; $0.00035 premium x $750,000 benefit cash at risk to the insurance company ========== $262.50 / year That's a 12.5% DROP in premium costs in the very 1st year... EVEN THOUGH the insured has grown OLDER by a year! At an average 7.2% rate of return (*VERY* realistic for Indexed strategies) the account doubles every 10 years. Therefore, in 10 years the insured will be older, and thus the premium on their remaining term coverage will be higher... perhaps 10% or even 15% higher... but only on the amount of dollars at risk to the insurance company. In those same 10 years, the original $250,000 will have grown in a compounded fashion to $500,000... thereby dropping IN HALF the cash risks to the insurance company. Let's do the math; $0.000403 premium (.00035 at a 15% increase,) x $500,000 benefit cash at risk to the insurance company ========== $201.25 / year As you can see, a Level Benefit design for a Universal Life contract drops in actual coverage premium year after year, making the policy more and more efficient (better growth for the owner.) Further... assuming you are a "whole life" guy... if you compare actual mortality costs of whole versus universal, there is no comparison... whole is dramatically more expensive, dollar-for-dollar. WHOLE Life has its place... it is excellent for people who are actually using it for reasons of life insurance DEATH BENEFITS. In contrast, for people who don't need or care about death benefits per se, UNIVERSAL Life (particularly the market indexed account growth type) is far superior. It gives much better rates of return than Whole Life, at much lower costs. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

missingtheobvious is correct. In New York, the supreme court is the court of general jurisdiction that hears cases. It is the opposite of most states and the opposite of the federal court system. I have a law degree but don't practice law and am not well versed in estate law. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. However, as far as I know, she can't come after you personally. She can only make a claim on the estate. I believe if the estate is probated already and sufficient time has passed without her making a claim on the estate, she is out of luck. See e.g. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/SCP/18 § 1802. Effect of failure to present claim If any claim is not presented on or before the day fixed in the notice published pursuant to the preceding section or if no notice is so published, within 7 months from the date of issue of letters, the fiduciary shall not be chargeable for any assets or moneys that he may have paid in good faith in satisfaction of any lawful claims or of any legacies or distributions to the legatees or distributees of the decedent before such claim was presented. Such 7 month period shall begin on the date letters were first issued to any fiduciary, including a temporary administrator or a preliminary executor, and shall not be interrupted by any subsequent issue of letters, except that the time during which there is no fiduciary in office shall not be counted as part of such period. and § 1803: Every claim against the estate of a decedent other than claims for expenses of administration and claims of the United States or the state of New York must be in writing, contain a statement of the facts upon which it is based and the amount thereof. In addition the fiduciary may require the claimant to present proof by affidavit that the amount of the claim is justly due, that all payments thereon, if any, have been credited, that the claimant knows of no offsets and no evidence of indebtedness and holds no security, except as specifically described in the affidavit.

It's VERY clean inside and out, completely empty except for nice wood blinds which are going with the house and the appliances (fridge, stove, washer, dryer, dishwasher, microwave, even the coffee maker), and freshly painted in neutrals. We have a lawn service maintain the outside since we no longer live in Durham and 2 friends check to make sure everything is OK (one lives across the street). Price is now $169,900, down from $174,900. I don't think that really changed anything for price shoppers, since we catch the $150-175 lookers with both prices. We don't want to drop so low in price that we can't afford to negotiate at all. We will most certainly have to offer some kind of closing assistance to any buyer, since there are still new houses being built in the area, although most of them are more expensive ($190+ range). So save the money for staging and lower the price is the consensus? Should we drop price now in the slow season or wait until there are more lookers in the spring so we can advertise New Lower Price? Of course, spring would also bring more competition. This is the first time we've had to sell a house. When we relocated from MD to NC, the relocation company bought our old house. We didn't have that luxury this time :( I just don't know the best way to go about getting the best price in the shortest amount of time, how to find that balance. If staging helps sell faster then I'd be willing to throw some money at the house rather than have it sit at the same price. OTOH, of course I don't want to waste any money. Since so many of the houses on the market in our area are still occupied or are new builds, they all have furniture, so maybe we are at a disadvantage by being empty. So many decisions...