Gregg Greenstein was featured on two segments of the very popular Emmy Award nominated Dr. Phil national TV talk show on CBS (KCNC Channel 4 in Denver). Mr. Greenstein is the second attorney to represent the wife, Amy, in the proceedings. The bitterly contested divorce case was documented, taped in Colorado and in California, and dissected on the Dr. Phil television show entitled, "Anatomy of a Divorce." The "Anatomy of a Divorce" segments aired from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on the Dr. Phil Show on consecutive Wednesdays on May 19 and 26, 2004. Denver segments were taped locally. Dr. Phil's show is taped at the Paramount Studios, Hollywood, California.

Learn More about Gregg's Family Law Practice

Visit the Dr. Phil Show Website:    Anatomy of a Divorce

By K. Gabriel Heiser

John DeStefano and his wife learned the hard way that adding their daughter's named to their bank accounts was not a good thing. Their $77,362 in savings was wiped out when their Pennsylvania bank used the funds to cover loans taken out by their daughter, Cindy, and her then husband. John and his wife had not co-signed any of the loans nor had they any interest in the daughter's corporation. All they had done was to add Cindy's name to their accounts so she could pay their bills in case they became incompetent. However, once her name was on the accounts, even if she had not contributed one penny to those accounts, she had full legal access to withdraw all the money. Thus, the bank was within its rights to go against the parents' bank accounts to repay the loans it had made to their daughter.

Could this happen in Colorado? Absolutely. The Colorado statute dealing with joint bank deposits specifically provides that "the bank has the right of setoff against such deposit, to the extent thereof, to collect a debt owed to the bank by any joint depositor, which right shall not be affected by death." (CRS § 11-105-105)

But what if the daughter had not borrowed money from the bank but was in a car accident? Could the judgment creditor attach the joint bank account, even if all the money had been contributed by the parents? While the answer varies from state to state, in Colorado an account belongs to the parties "in proportion to the net contribution of each to the sums on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent." In other words, the judgment creditor would most likely attempt to attach the entire amount of funds in the joint bank account, forcing the parents to hire a lawyer, at their own expense, to argue that all of the money is owned by the parents, no gift was made to the daughter upon creation of the account, and under the statute the creditor may not attach the funds in the bank account. Thus, the parents get to keep their money, but at considerable expense and trouble.

Now consider an additional problem of joint accounts: Sam has two children, Bobby and Sean. Bobby lives locally, while Sean has moved to Ireland to study poetry. For convenience sake, Sam adds Bobby's name to all his bank accounts, once again to permit Bobby to write checks, pay bills, etc., should Sam get to the point where he can no longer do these tasks. Although Sam's will leaves everything to his two children in equal shares, upon Sam's death it is Bobby-as the surviving joint owner of the bank accounts-who winds up with all of Sam's cash, leaving poor Sean out in the cold.

Continue

In 2004, Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. marks its 30th anniversary in the practice of law. We would specially like to congratulate and thank our founders, Oliver E. Frascona and Gary S. Joiner for having led and inspired us through the years. In addition, we would like to take this opportunity to once again thank our clients and friends for their support and we look forward to continuing to serve them for many years to come. Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. is proud to be a leading Colorado law firm handling all aspects of business law, real estate law, civil litigation, estate planning and family law.

This publication is intended to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher and distributor are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional service, and assume no liability in connection with its use. Copyright © 2004.

This is an advertisement.

• Gregg Greenstein's Guest Appearance on The Dr. Phil Television Show: Anatomy of a Divorce
• Joint Property? Watch Out! Avoid Problems with Durable Power of Attorney
• Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein Celebrates 30th Anniversary
• Builder Warranties For New Homes - What You're Getting, and What You Are Not
• Legal Ramifications of a Letter of Intent
• Meet The Attorneys

By Karen J. Radakovich

Question: I am considering buying my first new home. I have heard there is a "statutory builder's warranty" which I will receive at closing from my builder/seller. What is this warranty, and what does it do for me?

Answer: Contrary to popular belief, there is no such animal as a "statutory builder's warranty." There are, however, common law warranties (meaning that they stem from Colorado case law rather than state statute) which protect buyers of new homes. These common law warranties are:

• The warranty that the home has been built according to local building codes and laws;
• The warranty that the home is fit for its "particular purpose" (which is a residence); and
• The warranty that the home has been built in a workmanlike manner.

These warranties only apply to the sale of a new home from the person or entity who constructed it (even if that person or entity isn't regularly engaged in the construction business), to a new owner occupant. The term "new home" also applies when a builder has temporarily moved into the home, pending sale to a buyer, or when the builder has repurchased it from the original buyer because of alleged defects. It also includes a first purchaser who the builder knew was simply planning to re-sell it, without living there. (This, of course, also prevents the builder from "selling" it to a shell entity in order to avoid the warranties.) But it is unavailable to a buyer if any other intervening buyers have used the home as a residence - the implied warranties are not transferrable to the second buyer of the property, even if it is re-sold quickly.

Continue

By Jonathan A. Goodman

I am working on a transaction on behalf of the seller. The buyer would like to agree to a letter of intent. What are the legal ramifications of such a letter?

While letters of intent can be a constructive step towards reaching a contract, they have pitfalls, especially for sellers and landlords.

Parties frequently use letters of intent as a first step towards negotiating a more comprehensive contract or lease. Most letters of intent purport to flesh out many of the basic terms of the "deal." Both sides use the letter to memorialize their agreement on some issues, while leaving the remaining issues (and the details of their agreed upon issues) to future negotiations and drafting. Before both sides invest time, expense, and lost opportunities pursuing a comprehensive contract, they wish to memorialize their points of agreement.

In general, there are two types of letters of intent: ones in which the parties agree that the letter has no binding effect whatsoever (the "Courtship Letter"), and ones in which the parties agree the letter will bind them for some finite period, unless a more formal and complete agreement is reached by the deadline (the "Trial Engagement Letter").

Continue

K. Gabriel Heiser

Mr. Heiser received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law in 1983. His practice emphasizes Estate Planning, Wills and Trusts, and Elder Law.