Miami-Dade Homestead Exemptions Due March 1st

Miami-Dade County homeowners who intend to file a homestead exemption had better act quickly. Friday, March 1, 2013 is this year’s deadline to file a property tax exemption application.

Homeowners can now complete the entire application process for Florida’s Homestead Exemption and for the Homestead Assessment Difference (commonly referred to as Portability) online at the Miami-Dade County Office of the Property Appraiser website, and submit their application directly to the Property Appraiser’s Office.

Click on the link to start your Homestead Exemption Application Online Filing.

Florida  residents as of January 1 will need the following documentation:

  • A valid Florida driver’s license or ID card
  • Florida vehicle registration
  • Florida voter’s registration
  • Prior year’s IRS return or current W2 form
  • Bank statements and checking account registered at the property
  • Proof of payments for utilities at the property

For more information, click on the link for full details about Miami-Dade Homestead Exemption categories.

A Public Service Announcement from the Fort Lauderdale Law Firm of
Kahn & Resnik, P.L.

The Florida lawyers at Kahn & Resnik, P.L. are available to service your legal needs.

Our concierge approach to the practice of law reflects our philosophy of personalized and confidential attention. When you retain an attorney at Kahn & Resnik, P.L., we work efficiently and effectively to help you achieve your business and personal objectives.

We can assist you in legal matters relating to commercial litigation, divorce, disability law, real estate litigation, securities litigation, and corporate transactions.

We serve business owners, professionals and individual clients across Florida, including Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Naples, Orlando, Tampa, Daytona Beach, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, and other cities throughout the state. Contact Howard N. Kahn, Esq. at 954-321-0176 or online.

SEC Proposes Identity Theft Rules

The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday proposed a rule designed to protect investors from identity theft. Broker-dealers, mutual funds, and other SEC-regulated entities are being asked to implement identity theft safety programs that will establish and detect appropriate “red flags.”

Risk factors that a financial institution or creditor would be required to consider as a red flag for covered accounts include:

(1) the types of covered accounts it offers or maintains;
(2) the methods it provides to open its covered accounts;
(3) the methods it provides to access its covered accounts; and
(4) its previous experiences with identity theft.

Risk factors are likely to vary across account types. For example, margin accounts will differ from advisory accounts, and red flags for business accounts will be different than consumer accounts.

The SEC proposal was issued jointly with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed rules are substantially similar to rules adopted in 2007 by the FTC.

Click on the link for a full copy of the SEC/CFTC identity theft proposal.

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq., if you or someone you know has been the victim of identity theft in regard to an investment or brokerage account. Mr. Kahn is an experienced securities attorney and FINRA arbitrator. Contact him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Mutual Benefits Corp. Ponzi Scheme Back in the News

Steven Steiner, a former vice president of Mutual Benefits Corp., and his partner Henry Fecker III are waiting for a Miami jury to decide their fate. The two are charged with laundering millions of dollars through residential real estate, hiding assets from authorities, and lying to a court-appointed receiver, according to a Miami Herald article titled “Jurors deliberating in money-laundering trial linked to South Florida ‘Ponzi scheme’.”

Mutual Benefits Corp. (“MBC”) was the viatical and life settlement company that raised more $1.25 billion from over 30,000 investors worldwide from October 1994 through May 2004. A viatical or life settlement is an investment in which the investor purchases a right to receive the proceeds on a terminally ill or elderly person’s insurance policy when the insured dies.

A 2005 SEC indictment alleged that Steiner and others participated in a wide-scale fraud involving the sale of investments, falsely promising investors “safe” and “secure” investments when they knew that MBC had, among other things, improperly acquired policies, pressured doctors to rubber-stamp false life expectancy figures, and mismanaged escrowed premium funds in a “Ponzi” scheme fashion.

During a month-long February trial that just ended, Steiner denied allegations of fraud and insisted that he complied with the SEC settlement. He has been in jail since August 2011, and faces a 54-count indictment that could result in significant additional prison time.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.

Help for Homeowners Events: Miami, Feb 27-28

Miami area homeowners who are struggling with mortgage foreclosure may find some free help from the federal “Making Home Affordable” assistance program. Mortgage servicers, ​​HUD-approved housing counselors, and other local non-profit organizations will have counselors on site to explain homeowner options in regard to foreclosure avoidance.

Dates and Times

Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 1:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Thursday, February 28, 2013, 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
James L. Knight Center
400 SE Second Avenue | Miami, FL 33131
Complimentary Self‐Parking in the Convention Center Garage on 100 SE 2nd Street

Attendance is free. The program is designed for Miami homeowners who are:

  • Behind on mortgage payments
  • Unemployed or underemployed
  • Facing a short sale or deed‐in‐lieu of foreclosure
  • Having trouble refinancing

Attendees are encouraged to bring the following documentation to the event:

  • Request for Mortgage Assistance Form (available at MakingHomeAffordable.gov)
  • IRS Form 4506T‐EZ (available at MakingHomeAffordable.gov)
  • Monthly mortgage statement
  • Information about any other mortgages
  • Two most recent pay stubs
  • If self‐employed, the most recent quarterly or year‐to‐date Profit and Loss Statement
  • Documentation of income from all sources
  • Two most recent bank statements
  • Unemployment insurance letter, if applicable

The Making Home Affordable ® Program (MHA) ® is a federal program designed to help homeowners get mortgage relief and avoid foreclosure.

Visit www.makinghomeaffordable.gov or click on the link for more details about the free Miami Homeowner Mortgage Foreclosure seminars.

Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Defense Attorney

Choosing the best approach to protecting yourself and your family from a mortgage foreclosure involves many legal considerations. Contact Fort Lauderdale mortgage foreclosure attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss how you can defend your legal rights in a foreclosure. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.

Mortgage Foreclosure Can Mean Deficiency Judgment

Many Florida homeowners facing foreclosure do not realize that they might still owe money to the mortgage lender long after a foreclosed property has been sold.

Lenders can obtain a “deficiency judgment” against a homeowner, which is the difference between the homeowner’s outstanding mortgage balance and the value that a bank receives after a foreclosure or short sale.

News Channel 10 has an interesting video about Florida homeowners and deficiency judgments.

If you have questions about a mortgage foreclosure or deficiency judgment, contact Fort Lauderdale mortgage foreclosure attorney Marcy Resnik. You can contact her online or call her at 954-321-0176.

Social Security: Disabled Worker Benefits at Age 62

Below is an interesting Q&A about Social Security’s treatment of disabled workers once they reach age 62. It appeared in a PBS column by Larry Kotlikoff, author of  Social Security original 34 “secrets”, his additional secrets, his Social Security “mistakes” and his Social Security gotchas.

Dear Larry,

You told me recently about the nuances of disability benefits. A lot of questions on this page come from people on SSDI — Social Security Disability Insurance. Furthermore, as I was amazed to discover when responding to a question about the minimum wage reducing the welfare rolls, some 14 million Americans depend on disability payments from SS, which dwarfs the 4.3 million getting welfare checks.

Would you please share your discoveries about details of disability benefits that may escape notice?

Larry Kotlikoff: Paul, Social Security has a separate set of equally Byzantine provisions governing disabled workers as it does non-disabled workers.

I want to point out a couple of features of Social Security’s treatment of disabled workers once they reach age 62. I’m answering your question in order to assist those who have a hard enough time as it is. (Full disclosure: I’ve been helped enormously on this column by Jerry Lutz, a former technical expert on Social Security.)

Let me illustrate the options available only to the disabled by considering a disabled worker I’ll call “Joe,” about to turn 62.

First, Joe can continue to collect his disability benefit through full retirement age (66 in Joe’s case) with no reduction in the amount. In contrast, non-disabled workers who apply for their Social Security retirement benefits between age 62 and their full retirement age are forced to take permanently reduced benefits.

Once Joe reaches full retirement age, his disability benefit automatically converts to his full retirement benefit. So disabled workers are, in effect, given their full retirement benefit starting four, gradually rising to five, years before they reach full retirement age. That’s 25 percent more than the non-disabled can get. Like you Paul, I’m all for helping the disabled, and I’m glad this feature is in the law.

Second, if Joe has been married for at least one year and his wife is collecting a retirement benefit or she has applied for a retirement benefit, but suspended its collection, Joe can receive an excess spousal benefit between age 62 and 66, though it will be reduced because he’s taking it before his full retirement age of 66.

The excess spousal benefit is calculated as the difference between 50 percent of Joe’s wife’s full retirement benefit and his own full retirement benefit. Assuming this excess is positive, Joe gets 70 percent of this amount starting at the tender age of 62.

If Joe is divorced, but was married for at least 10 years, he can collect a spousal benefit from 62 to 66 even if his ex is already collecting her retirement benefit or has suspended its collection. Moreover, if she hasn’t started collecting or hasn’t suspended, he can still collect an excess spousal benefit on her earnings history if she is over age 62 and they have been divorced for at least two years. (I keep telling you the rules are Byzantine, Paul, which is why answers like these can be so hard to write — and to follow.)

By the way, unlike a non-disabled worker, Joe isn’t automatically required to apply for his excess spousal benefit. Social Security calls such applications “deeming.” There is, however, no deeming for the disabled. This is important because, as I’ll explain in a moment, it might be better for Joe not to apply for his excess spousal benefit. Danger lurks.

When Joe reaches 66, he can tell Social Security he doesn’t want to take his own retirement benefit. In SS lingo, he will ask to “withdraw” his own benefit. If he doesn’t do so, his disability benefit will automatically be converted to a retirement benefit.

But if he “withdraws” his retirement benefit, Joe’s reduced excess spousal benefit will flip to a reduced full spousal benefit: 50 percent of his spouse’s full retirement benefit, no matter if she’s his wife or his ex. And if he hasn’t taken an excess spousal benefit by age 66, he’ll can still request his full spousal benefit.

Now for that danger-lurks moment. If Joe took his excess spousal benefit starting at 62, the 70 percent reduction factor would be applied to his full spousal benefit. That would mean getting 70 percent of 50 percent of his wife’s or ex-wife’s full retirement benefit.

If the excess spousal benefit is small, taking it would be a mistake for Joe because it will mean not much money before 66 and less money, potentially a lot less money, after 66. In other words, this second option makes sense of his the full retirement benefit of his wife or ex is more than double his own full retirement benefit. Since Joe is disabled, she may well have earned much higher benefits. But you can’t assume anything.

So Joe needs to be careful should well-meaning folks at SS try help him, say at age 62, to get the maximum at that age. They might also be helping him forgo higher benefits after age 66.

The advantage to Joe of withdrawing his retirement benefit, of course, is that he can then wait until 70 to collect his own retirement benefit, which will reach its maximum amount at that point, a full 32 percent higher that had he started taking it at age 66. His full spousal benefit, reduced or not depending on whether he took his excess spousal benefit prior to 66, can help facilitate the wait.

Non-disabled workers who take Social Security retirement benefits early are generally deemed to be applying for their excess spousal benefits and then are stuck with those reduced excess spousal benefits for the rest of their lives. They don’t have the ability to withdraw their retirement benefit at full retirement age and flip to their full spousal benefit.

Remember the larger purpose here: for Joe to wait until age 70 to start his retirement benefit and benefit from the Delayed Retirement Credit. At age 70, Joe will get the larger of his own retirement benefit or his full spousal benefit hit, again hit by the reduction factor that prevailed if and when he took his excess spousal benefit.

The big if here is that I’m assuming Joe has a pretty high maximum age of life – something like 85. Note that I say “maximum age of life” rather than “life expectancy.” Since Joe may make it to his maximum age of life, he should be planning to live that long. He can’t count on dying on time — at his life expectancy, that is. As Paul and I both regularly emphasize, the greatest danger is outliving your resources. That’s why waiting until 70, as I spelled out in a popular recent column, is, with some exceptions, — and with SS there are always exceptions — so important, if you can manage to wait.

Fort Lauderdale Disability Lawyer for Professionals

If you are a business or medical professional who has suffered an unexpected disability through illness or injury, contact Fort Lauderdale disability lawyer Howard Kahn if your disability benefits are at risk. We can help you understand and protect your legal rights to disability benefits. Contact us online or by phone at 954-321-0176.

Employer Disability Plans May Cut Benefits

Corporate disability benefit policies sometimes sound good on paper, but do not always translate into expected financial payments when an employee becomes disabled.

Consider the case of Kathleen Schiano, who was employed by Wells Fargo & Company as a lead teller. One of her employee benefits was enrollment in a long-term disability plan, which appeared to promise the payment of a percentage of her monthly earnings until age 65 in the event of a disability.

Unfortunately, Ms. Schiano became unable to work as a result of many disabling health conditions, including chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia. Instead of receiving the disability benefits she expected, she was informed by the insurance company that she did not meet the definition of “disabled.” As a result, any long-term benefits were denied.

What happened was that during the course of her employment, the terms of the insurance policy were changed slightly but significantly. Originally, the policy’s definition of disability referred to a condition where the employee could not perform the duties of their regular occupation. This was subsequently changed to a much broader term, where the employee was unable to meet the substantial duties of any occupation.

Even the Social Security Administration, which did grant benefits, noted the extensive nature of her disabilities that made it impossible for her to work.

If you are a business professional who has suffered an unexpected disability through illness or injury, contact Fort Lauderdale disability lawyer Howard Kahn if your disability benefits are at risk. We can help you understand and protect your legal rights to disability benefits. Contact us online or by phone at 954-321-0176.

Miami Beach Condo Leads to Russian Lawmaker’s Resignation

Vladimir Pekhtin, a prominent member of the United Russia party, resigned from the Russian Parliament unexpectedly after anti-Kremlin blogger Alexei Navalnyi disclosed news of the lawmaker’s Miami Beach property holdings.

Miami Beach Condo at 1500 Ocean DriveAccording to a Wall Street Journal story titled “Russia Lawmaker Exits Amid Condo Storm,” Mr. Pekhtin’s son Aleksey purchased a waterfront Miami condo in 2007 for $540,900. Father and son also bought a Miami Beach condo at 1500 Ocean Drive for $1.275 million in April 2012.

Owning foreign real estate is not illegal for a member of Russia’s parliament, but it must be disclosed in required financial statements. Mr. Pekhtin, who had served as the Ethics Committee Chair for the lower house, failed to make any public disclosure.

Foreign property ownership of Russian leaders is coming under scrutiny as a red flag for potential corruption, as well as luxury lifestyles hidden from the public.

South Florida Condominium and Real Estate Attorney

Contact South Florida condominium attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss your need for legal services with a condominium purchase, sale, or business dispute. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.

Florida is Top State for Mortgage Foreclosure Activity

The Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach metropolitan area ranked #2 in the nation in foreclosure activity in January, with one in 228 homes receiving some type of foreclosure filing during the month, according to a recent Miami Herald article titled “Florida leads nation in foreclosure activity.” The Ocala, Florida area held the unfortunate distinction of being ranked #1.

California dropped out of its first place position as the state with the largest number of foreclosures for the first time since January 2007, according to survey sponsor RealtyTrac.

Several factors contribute to Florida’s unwelcome number of January foreclosures, including:

  • Florida requires that all foreclosures are subject to court review, as opposed to less time-consuming administrative proceedings. Courts in Miami, according to the article, are becoming more aggressive in pushing larger numbers of foreclosures through the court system in order to work through the backlog.
  • Lenders are processing foreclosures more quickly in the wake of the recent regulatory settlement with five major banks and mortgage lenders. (See our earlier blog post titled, “Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement for Florida Homeowners.”)

Florida foreclosure filings tracked include default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions.

Fort Lauderdale Foreclosure Defense Attorney

Choosing the best approach to protecting yourself and your family from a mortgage foreclosure involves many legal considerations. Contact Fort Lauderdale mortgage foreclosure attorney Marcy Resnik to discuss how you can defend your legal rights in a foreclosure. You can contact Ms. Resnik online or call her at 954-321-0176.

ING Firms Fined $1.2 Million by FINRA for Account Violations

Failure to retain or review millions of emails for periods ranging from two months to more than six years resulted in $1.2 million of FINRA fines for the following five indirect subsidiaries of ING Groep N.V.:

  • Directed Services, LLC
  • ING America Equities, Inc.
  • ING Financial Advisers, LLC
  • ING Financial Partners, Inc.
  • ING Investment Advisors, LLC

Brad Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “As a result of broad systemic failures, these firms failed to capture and retain emails from hundreds of representatives and other associated persons, and failed to take adequate steps to ensure that their principals were fulfilling their responsibilities to review emails. Email retention and review continues to be an important regulatory responsibility and an issue of concern for FINRA.”

FINRA found that the firms failed to properly configure hundreds of employee email accounts to ensure that the emails sent to and from those accounts were retained and reviewed at various times between 2004 and 2012. In addition, four of the firms failed to set up systems to retain certain types of emails, such as emails using alternative email addresses, emails sent to distribution lists, emails received as blind carbon copies, encrypted emails and “cloud” email (emails sent through third-party systems). As a result of these failures, emails sent to and from hundreds of employees and associated persons were not retained; and because the emails were not retained, they were not subject to supervisory review.

In addition, four of the firms failed to review millions of emails that the firms’ email review software had flagged for supervisory review. At various times between January 2005 and May 2011, nearly six million emails flagged for review went unreviewed by supervisory principals because the email review software was not properly configured.

In concluding the settlement, the firms neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings. FINRA found that the firms violated the recordkeeping provisions of the federal securities laws and FINRA rules, and supervisory requirements under FINRA rules.

FINRA also ordered the firms to conduct a comprehensive review of their systems for the capture, retention and review of email, and to subsequently certify that they have established procedures reasonably designed to address and correct the violations.

Fort Lauderdale Securities Litigation and Arbitration Attorney

Contact Fort Lauderdale securities litigation and arbitration attorney Howard N. Kahn, Esq. if you or someone you know has a securities or broker dispute. He is an experienced securities litigation and arbitration attorney, and is available to assist individual investors, brokers, and brokerage firms involved in securities matters. You can reach him at 954-321-0176 or online.