1. I don’t need one; I don’t have anything.

Strangely, there have been occasions when I’ve agreed with this, but rarely. Everyone has property of some kind, and with no Will, your property will be distributed according to the laws of the State of Ohio. If you have children, all bets are off on this reason. It is then a matter of ensuring your children will be cared for when you’re gone. I’m not suggesting your children will end up wards of the state, but if you want any say in who will care for them, you should have a Will.

2. It’s too expensive, or it can be complicated.

Some simple estate planning techniques cost very little, saving thousands of dollars. I’ve talked to people who feel this way but have given some tips that can cost little. I also gave folks information on things they can do without cost but will save money later. And yes, it can be complicated, but for most people, it’s not. Not everyone needs to do extensive estate planning or have a trust. Most importantly, it buys peace of mind.

3. I don’t want to think about death and dying.

It is a matter of facing your mortality, to be sure. But the reality is, we’re all going to die. That sounds harsh, I guess, but it’s true. We just don’t know when. 

A final thought on Wills. The purpose is to make your final wishes known. You do this for peace of mind and for those you leave behind.

I just found this out while reading my Ohio State Bar news daily. James Edgar Robinson was a Justice on the Supreme Court of Ohio and the great-grandfather of former First Lady Barbara Bush. 

He was a Union County prosecuting attorney for two terms from 1900 to 1906. Robinson then went into private practice, but in January 1916, the governor of Ohio appointed him to the 3rd District Court of Appeals, which opened when a judge resigned. Unfortunately, the appointment didn’t go well. Ten months later, he lost his election bid for a full term.

His fortunes turned when he was elected to the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1918, taking his seat on the bench on January 1, 1919. Re-elected twice, Robinson died in office in 1932. Robinson was also a sixth cousin of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, once removed. 

 Before beginning, understand that the free market and capitalism are not the same but are closely related. Capitalism refers to creating wealth and owning capital, production, and distribution. The free market system involves the exchange of wealth or goods and services. I don’t see how one exists without the other.

The top 10% of income earners contribute significantly to federal income tax revenue, paying either 71% or 76%. Yet, debate continues on whether this distribution is fair or whether reforms are needed to address wealth inequality.

The free market encourages competition, innovation, and efficient resource allocation. It also allows businesses to respond quickly to consumer demands. Compare this to communist regimes, past and present.

People have the individual freedom to choose what to produce, buy, and sell. This gives us entrepreneurship and personal initiative. Again, compare this to past and present communist regimes.

The kicker is a free market generates wealth by promoting economic growth, job creation, and investment opportunities. This means that while creating jobs, there is a financial risk, which equality advocates want to ignore.

So, we arbitrarily take from those who can best afford it and give it to those most in need. This is Marxist Theory 101: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This has failed time and again throughout history.

The free market system dates back to William Bradford. The communal system failed by making those unwilling to work to be non-productive and take from those who produced. The colony was dying, so Bradford experimented with giving people private property rights to produce and earn. The colony flourished under the new system.

What is there to debate?

The Case of the Dangerous Dachshund

A jury felt an “attack” by a 4-pound Dachshund was worth $130,000.00, but justice prevailed…

Plaintiff: Plaintiff enters the Penny Pinchers grocery store in West Point, Mississippi, on August 16, 2006. She says hello. She walks down the aisle. Suddenly, the bark of a savage dog rings out! Plaintiff flees, terrified, with the clicking of the pursuing animal’s claws echoing in her ears. When Plaintiff turns to see how close her pursuer is, she collides with a freezer at the back of the store. Frantically, she tries to claw her way onto the freezer, desperately trying to survive!

Defendant: The dog is a four-pound Dachshund puppy.

Plaintiff: Plaintiff explains that she is terrified of all dogs and was not initially aware of the size of her pursuer. She laughs. She continues to shop. She can pick up five pounds of catfish and four pounds of sugar before the terrible pain in her hip begins. She sobs. If only the store had not created a dangerous condition by failing to properly restrain the dog and/or warn customers of its presence. How different things would be now!

Defendant: Um, hold on a minute. It turns out Plaintiff has had hip problems for decades, beginning long before this or any Dachshund allegedly chased her into a freezer. Also, the dog is a four-pound Dachshund puppy, ergo, not a “dangerous condition.”

The Jury: Justice is elusive in the case before us. Each party has made several points that we partly understand. So that we may depart, let us assign some fault to each, say, 30 percent to the Plaintiff and 70 percent to the Defendant. Thus, we award $130,000 to the woman who fled in terror from a Dachshund.

The Trial Judge: I agree that the evidence supports such a result.

The Mississippi Court of Appeals: It is now time to get serious. A business owner has a duty to warn of dangerous conditions that are not apparent. “[I]mplicit in that duty is that a dangerous condition must exist.” Dogs are not dangerous per se, and no evidence showed that this one had exhibited dangerous propensities during the four months she had been alive. “We must also consider that Sophie was a four-pound puppy at the time of the incident,” and that invitees must themselves use “that degree of care and prudence which a person of ordinary intelligence” would use under the circumstances. The Plaintiff’s decision to run headlong into a large object while fleeing from a four-pound dog must be viewed in this light.

The Result: Reversed.

A Perry Mason reference will appear here in the future. I loved watching Perry Mason and learned a trick I used in court successfully many times back in the days before we had to provide documents of everything in the world. It would work today in the right circumstances. It just assists in getting to the truth. Someday, I’ll reveal it.

As nutty as it sounds, I carried the opening theme music to show on a recorder and played it as I walked down the hall to the courtroom for a trial.

My mom got me started on the show when I was a kid. I always loved the opening “smirk” at the beginning of the show he had when, while reviewing the case before trial, the answer came to him.

Practicing law back in the day was more fun when we only sometimes knew the witnesses that would be called or the documents to be used as exhibits. So we had to play it by ear, so to speak, and think on our feet.