The internet should give us all pause for thought, particularly in the context of estate planning. In preparing a will, we focus on home, bank accounts and a lifetime of accumulated tangible treasures that we wish to pass on to loved ones. And we select trusted friends or family members to take responsibility for the task of seeing these things make it into the right hands.
Social networking accounts, and the data they store, are rarely contemplated in this context. For those of us less tech-savvy than the rest, the question may well be, does it matter? The answer must be a resounding YES, as the information that has the potential to be lost can be irreplaceable. Many people use their Facebook or Google account as a personal databank, or store all of their pictures, music, videos and other digital content in “the cloud”. While there is some variation amongst social networking providers as to what happens to the account on the death of the account holder, one thing seems to be certain: access by next of kin to information stored in the account will be limited at best. Some sites will delete data stored in an account after a period of inactivity, while others allow an account holder to nominate a person to “inherit” the content in certain proscribed circumstances. Others, still, like Facebook, “memorialize” an account, which means the profile remains in existence forever, access being restricted to friends only. In part, the lack of consistency in approach with regards to the death of account holders is the result of privacy and probate laws not keeping pace with the reality of the internet, as well as a failure to properly define “digital assets”. As well, establishing policies to deal with the death of account holders is neither sexy nor fun. Read More «»
In an effort to achieve a fair division of matrimonial assets, the Court is increasingly demonstrating its willingness to scrutinise the beneficial interests of divorcing spouses under family trusts.
A high divorce rate seems to have become the norm rather than the exception in the western world. This reality, and the Court’s determination to achieve fairness on the dissolution of marriage, has generated a measure of uncertainty with respect to the treatment of trusts. In a discretionary trust context, a beneficiary has only a right to be considered in the exercise of the trustees’ discretion and this has shielded beneficiaries on divorce, who had no fixed entitlement to any portion of the trust fund. However, the Court, in divorce matters, is concerned about achieving a fair division of marital assets and increasingly has taken the view that a divorcing spouse’s interests under a trust should be subjected to closer scrutiny. Read More »
Litigation surrounding Wills is steadily on the increase. In particular, issues of disputed testamentary capacity are becoming more frequent and as such, attorneys must be extremely cautious when taking Will instructions from individuals. What does this mean? Disputes involving lack of testamentary capacity refer to those that have to do with the determination of the mental state of the testator. When an attorney drafts a Will, he or she has the duty to be aware of the client’s competency, to ascertain whether the client is being subjected to undue influence and to make a reasonable assessment of the mental capacity of the client. An attorney should not draft a Will for a client unless the attorney believes that the client has testamentary capacity and a full comprehension of the nature and extent of the estate that he or she is distributing. Read More »
Attorneys at MJM Limited are demonstrating their civic duty with several having been chosen to serve on Bermuda Government Boards in the recent appointments under the newly elected One Bermuda Alliance.
The Boards on which the attorneys now serve represent a broad sector of the community and governmental function. The relevant appointments are as follows:
MJM is proud of its continued commitment to civic duty and encourages its attorneys to serve the community whenever possible.
In my earlier post Bermuda Calling: Telecommunications Reform & Investment Opportunity, I described how telecommunications in Bermuda is undergoing root and branch reform with a view to not only making the industry more competitive but more attractive to investors.
The overhaul in telecommunications, following extensive consultation with stakeholders, is embodied in two key pieces of legislation, the Regulatory Authority Act 2011 and the Electronic Communications Act 2011, both of which have become the twin foundation of Bermudian Regulatory Reform in the Telecommunications sector.
Now, an update: On the 18th March 2013, Digicel issued an initial complaint to the Regulatory Authority stating that North Rock is providing bundling services and should not be doing so until Integrated Communication Operating Licenses (ICOLs) are issued. The complaint was a result of the examination of North Rock’s advertising material and flyers and their marketing campaign entitled “Blazing Bundles”. Read More »