February 7, 2013 – The Ten Biggest LLC Operating Agreement Mistakes, Explaining Charitable Lead Annuity Trusts, and States Wrestle with the Inheritance and Potential Hidden Impact of the Fiscal Cliff Deal on Estate Tax

There are 7 days left before Valentine’s Day!
“It is better to have loved than lost – much better.”

The Thursday Report is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you will get and it is not entirely good for you! Swap your box for a bucket of KFC chicken!





We welcome contributions for future Thursday Report topics. If you are interested in making a contribution as a guest writer, please email Janine Ruggiero at Janine@gassmanpa.com.

This report and other Thursday Reports can be found on our website at www.gassmanlaw.com.


We thank Stetson Law student Kacie Hohnadell for her assistance in formalizing our Creditor Protection Exemption Outline into a book to be published in March by Haddon Hall Publishing called Gassman and Markham on Florida and Federal Asset Protection Law.

We thank Michael Markham of the Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. law firm in Clearwater, Florida for all of his help and guidance on this book.

This book has been written for lawyers, CPAs, and professional advisors who want a concise but thorough explanation of applicable statutes and case law, as well as practical pointers.

Would you like to beta test one of our chapters?

Please choose one or more and let us know by email and we will be glad to send these to you:

1. Tenancy by the entireties
2. Wage protection
3. Homestead protection

The book will sell for $39.95 on Amazon, Kindle, Nook and iPad media. You can have an initial issuance discount of $10.00 by pre-ordering.


Over and over again we review operating agreements prepared by lawyers, clients, and sometimes even accountants that pose significant problems for clients.

The top ten mistakes that we see are as follows:

1. Failure to have a properly signed Operating Agreement.

How do you verify ownership, tenancy by the entireties status, or the tax status of a limited liability company without having an Operating Agreement?

2. Failure to match the Operating Agreement with the tax treatment of the entity.

This is particularly perilous where an LLC that has elected S Corporation status has a standardized Operating Agreement that makes S Corporation status impossible because of provisions inadvertently creating a second class of stock or partnership tax treatment, or having buy-sell arrangements that are not permitted under the S Corporation rules.

Anyone who drafts Operating Agreements for LLCs that may or will be taxed as S Corporations needs to take these somewhat complicated rules into account.

A common example of a fatal flaw would be to have the ownership interest of a selling member valued at less than adjusted book value as defined in the second class of stock Treasury Regulations for buy-sell purposes.

3. Failure to assure that the six unities of tenancy by the entireties are provided.

Oftentimes, some or all of a limited liability company will be owned by a husband and wife who want to have tenancy by the entireties creditor protection. If any of the six unities (possession, interest, title, time, survivorship, and marriage) are inconsistent in the LLC Operating Agreement, then the creditor protection can be destroyed. A savings clause is also a very good idea. The sample savings clause that we most often use can be viewed by clicking here.

4. Failure to have a legitimate member to facilitate having the LLC be a multiple member LLC under Florida Statute § 608.433.

Many clients expect to have charging order protection, meaning that a creditor holding a judgment against a member cannot levy upon the member’s ownership interest or take control over the LLC, but instead has to wait to be paid if and when there is ever a distribution made.

After the Olmstead Florida Supreme Court case, the Florida legislature enacted new language for Florida Statute § 608.433, which provides for charging order protection in a multiple member LLC where the LLC has one or more members that are not debtors of the same obligation.

If creditors have judgments against all of the members and no member has a realistic chance of ever receiving a distribution, will any of the other owners be considered to have a membership interest?

And when a new member buys in, the new member should typically purchase his or her membership interest from the LLC itself, and not from any member who might have an insolvency issue. This helps to avoid an argument that the transfer of a membership interest to a new member is a fraudulent transfer that should be set aside.

We have written extensively on charging order protection for past entities, and our attached article that was published in Estate Planning Magazine can be accessed by clicking here.

5. Thinking that charging order protection is the answer to all potential problems.

While we have seen that a great many creditors will settle claims for nickels on the dollar when their only recourse to assets is a charging order, some creditors will put the charging order in place and ask the court of equity to allow monitoring and to limit loans, compensation, or other activities of the entity. This can work a significant hardship upon clients.

Why not place some or all of the LLC membership interests into an asset protection trust a few years after the LLC has been established? If a judge were to set aside the asset protection trust, then charging order protection should still apply, so the asset protection trust is a “belt” and the charging order status is “suspenders.” The now low cost of trusteeship services in asset protection jurisdictions, coupled with the estate tax purpose of establishing a creditor protection trust that can be a complete gift for tax purposes, (while possibly permitting the Grantor to benefit from the trust under certain circumstances), can clearly present a home run scenario under proper circumstances.

Having assets set aside in an irrevocable creditor protection trust can also be helpful to make sure that those assets stay separate in the event of a subsequent marriage. Also, why not go to Las Vegas to visit your trustee!

Asset protection trusts are certainly not suited for the majority of clients, but those who are well suited should have the option to better protect their assets in this manner.

Our Thursday Report of September 6, 2012, discusses the Nevada Hybrid Trust and can be viewed by clicking here.

6. Failure to have the LLC Operating Agreement be an executory contract under the bankruptcy rules in case the client ends up in bankruptcy.

The case law is clear that the bankruptcy courts can allow a trustee in bankruptcy to seize a membership interest in an LLC unless the LLC Operating Agreement is an executory contract that provides contractual obligations with a material business purpose that will apply to any member, creditor, or trustee that would take over the member’s interest. It is therefore important to have legitimate and normal obligations requiring members to do things such as making additional capital contributions when capital calls are made, attending meetings, and taking an active interest in the LLC to the extent consistent with the general business objectives and responsibilities associated therewith.

7. Failure to update the Operating Agreement when changes take place with respect to ownership, tax treatment, buy-sell arrangements, or otherwise.

Modern technology allows a client or a non-lawyer to go to the Secretary of State website to establish an LLC and to receive Operating Agreement forms. This is often problematic because the client may not know which state works best for his or her particular situation, may incorrectly fill out the forms, or even use the wrong forms. Further, many clients neglect to update these Operating Agreement forms, which could cause the Operating Agreement to improperly reflect the true intentions of the parties. Individuals, families, and companies who use these technologies without sound business tactics, estate planning, and creditor protection advice will often run into serious problems in the future.

8. Faulty discount planning.

Historically, a great many clients have used limited liability companies to facilitate obtaining discounts upon death for federal estate tax purposes, as well as for gifting purposes. Many complicated rules apply in this area, but, in many cases, clients and advisors are unaware of these opportunities and the rules that relate thereto.

Also, a reverse discount issue now applies whereby many clients who had LLCs structured to obtain discounts will now want to reverse the discounting mechanisms to obtain a full stepped-up basis for income tax purposes on death if the estate tax is less of a concern than the income tax.

It will be a mistake for many clients to not at least consider this option if they do not project to have taxable estates for estate tax purposes.

9. Vague Provisions.

As lawyers, we are often asked to review agreements between parties to determine legal rights and obligations. When non-lawyers draft agreements, they often use language that is not clear or does not mean the same thing as intended. We often tell clients that if “we cannot understand what you meant or you cannot understand what you meant, how is a judge and jury to understand what you meant?” An Operating Agreement between multiple members becomes the constitution and foundation of their relationship. Oftentimes, it is forgotten that multiple individuals or entities engaged in business need to address the “what if contingencies” to avoid disputes and uncertainty in the future.

10. Failure to draft around a possible monetization event upon withdrawal of an LLC member.

One commentator has indicated that under the Florida Law, a Trustee in bankruptcy of a bankrupt limited liability company member could force that member=s interest to be redeemed, unless the LLC=s Articles of Organization or Operating Agreement explicitly prohibit such action.

The relevant portion of the applicable statue, § 608.4237, reads as follows:

A person ceases to be a member of a limited liability company upon the occurrence of any of the following:

(a) Makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors;
(b) Files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy;
(c) Is adjudged a bankrupt or insolvent, or has entered against the member an order for relief, in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding;
(d) Files a petition or answer seeking for herself or himself any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under any statute, law, or regulation;
(e) Files an answer or other pleading admitting or failing to contest the material allegations of a petition filed against the member in any proceeding of this nature; or
(f) Seeks, consents to, or acquiesces in the appointment of a trustee, receiver, or liquidator of the member or of all or any substantial part of the member’s properties;

Further, Subsection (2) of § 608.427 reads as follows:

(2) Upon withdrawal, a withdrawing member is entitled to receive any distribution to which the withdrawing member is entitled under the articles of organization or operating agreement, and, if not otherwise provided in the articles of organization and operating agreement, the withdrawing member is entitled to receive, within a reasonable time after withdrawal, the fair value of the withdrawing member’s interest in the limited liability company as of the date of resignation based upon the withdrawing member’s right to share in distributions from the limited liability company.

Apparently, the legislature intended that a bankrupt or insolvent LLC member would be bought out of the LLC. However, the amendment to Florida’s LLC charging order statute (Florida Statute § 608.433(4)), which strengthens charging order protection for Florida LLCs, would indicate to the contrary. Fortunately, the concept of ipso facto would probably cause the bankruptcy code to invalidate the effect of the Florida Statutes for bankrupt debtors. However, until the legislature modifies the statute, there is still a problem for insolvent debtors. To prevent this issue, an LLC’s Articles of Organization and/or Operating Agreement must contain language that overrides the undesired result contemplated by the Florida Statutes. If an LLC is established by an accountant or friend with office store form Operating Agreements, LLC members may find themselves in an inescapable trap!

We certainly have our year cut out for us in 2013 as we reconsider how to best plan for clients who do not expect to have taxable estates, and have continued issues with respect to creditor protection, family protection, and other problems and objectives. Let’s get the word out of the importance of proper Operating Agreement drafting, implementation, and maintenance for corporate clients.


By Alan S. Gassman, Esquire and Christopher J. Denicolo, Esquire

The $5,250,000 exemption amount has focused new attention on estate tax planning for large families, who can benefit significantly from using discount entities and charitable lead annuity trusts to fund desired tax deductible contributions.

A letter that we wrote to a client is as follows:

I am enclosing some numbers that were run a couple of years ago on a 20 year charitable lead annuity trust by a well known tax professor.

As the numbers show, the client of another law firm made what was reported as a $10,000,000 gift to a trust that paid $554,151.71 to charities every year for 20 years.

If the annual payment had been higher, then the trust could have done this for 10 or 12 years.

At the end of the charitable payout term, the remaining assets are held in trust for the client’s children.

By the IRS actuarial tables, this was considered to be a 100% charitable gift, and not a gift that had to be reported for gift tax purposes.

The neat thing is that this client put approximately $15,151,515.15 worth of assets into a limited partnership and transferred the 99% limited partner interest to the trust so that this would be considered a $10,000,000 gift due to valuation discounts that are applicable to a limited partner interest in a partnership. A formula clause was used in the charitable lead annuity trust document so that the annual payments to charity are based upon a set percentage of the initial contribution.

Because of this, if the IRS had audited this trust and found a higher value for the initial contribution, they would not receive any gift tax monies. Instead, the payments to the charities would be increased, so there was no incentive for an IRS auditor to question the value of the initial contribution.

If the cash flow from the assets held under the limited partnership was sufficient to make the 20 years of payments, then the entire 99% of $10,000,000 in assets would pass to the client’s children estate and gift tax free at the end of the 20th year.

If the assets placed into the limited partnership had been buildings that received sufficient net income to make the charitable payments, then this would be a tremendous home run for the family.

Alternatively, the family might have put in a $10,000,000 building and $5,000,000 of cash, with the cash being used to make a large portion of each payment so that the arrangement works out.

In the end, the same amount goes to charity as the family was otherwise giving, but the children and grandchildren have a significant benefit.

For income tax purposes, the charitable lead annuity trust was pretty much considered to be a continuing asset of the grantors, and the income of the charitable lead annuity trust would be reported on the grantors’ income tax return as if they had kept the property. However, the grantors would receive a charitable deduction for the entire $10,000,000 at the time that the assets are contributed to the trust, and would not be able to receive any further income tax charitable deductions as amounts are paid to charity.

The grantors would be subject to the percentage limitations regarding income tax charitable deductions, which only allow individuals to deduct charitable contributions to the extent of the following percentages of their adjusted gross income:

  • 50% of their adjusted gross income if the charity is a public charity or a private operating foundation that actively conducts charitable activities, and the property contributed to the trust is cash or unappreciated “capital gain” property;
  •  30% of their adjusted gross income if the charity is a private foundation that does not actively conduct charitable activities, or if the property contributed to the trust is appreciated “capital gain” property and the charity is one of the “50% charities” described above; or
  • 20% of their adjusted gross income if the property contributed to the trust is appreciated “capital gain” property and the charity is a private foundation that does not actively conduct charitable activities.

To the extent that the grantors do not use the entire charitable deduction in the year of contribution, then they can carry forward the unused portion of the charitable deduction for up to five years to offset future income.

For example, based on the above example, the grantors would be entitled to a $10,000,000 income tax charitable deduction upon contribution of the assets to the trust because the present value of the charitable annuity is $10,000,000. If the grantors had an adjusted gross income of $1,000,000 in the year of the contribution, and the charitable beneficiary of the trust is a public charity, then they are only able to apply $500,000 of the charitable deduction to their income in that year, and they can carry forward $9,500,000 of charitable deductions for up to five years. The grantors’ unused portion of the charitable deduction would be lost if they do not have at least $20,000,000 of adjusted gross income in this five-year period. Therefore, this type of charitable lead trust is suitable if the grantors have or expect to have high levels of adjusted gross income.

An alternative method of reporting would be for the trust to be responsible for tax on the income of the trust assets, and for the trust to be allowed to take annual charitable deductions for any amounts of such income paid to a qualifying charity. The trust would not be subject to the percentage limitations described above, but would not be able to carryover any unused charitable deductions.

Therefore, in the above example, the trust would be entitled to take an annual charitable deduction of $554,151.71 when the annuity payments are made to the charity each year. The grantors would not be entitled to any income tax charitable deduction, and would not be responsible for any of the income tax associated with the trust’s income.

I am enclosing a summary of the income tax rules relating to charitable lead trusts.


We were recently asked to share some comments on the Fiscal Cliff Deal’s impact on state inheritance and estate tax with Bloomberg/BNA. Congress’ failure to bring back the “pick-up” tax credits may result in more and more states creating new inheritance and estate tax regimes, which may have a whole host of other consequences from depletion of individual wealth to exoduses of the affluent. Below is our write-up on the topic:

Up through 2001, federal estate tax imposed and collected by the United States government offset state estate taxes by up to 16% of the taxable value of an estate through an automatic dollar-for-dollar credit against state estate taxes. All fifty states and the District of Columbia had “pick-up” tax credits and most imposed estate tax explicitly based upon the amount of the federal estate tax credit. This allowed states to collect additional tax revenue without increasing the tax burden on their citizens.

The pick-up credit was set up on a sliding scale. For example, in 2001, a $2,000,000 estate paying estate tax at 55% would owe approximately $728,750 in estate taxes after use of the then-current $675,000 exemption. About $57,040, or 7.83% of total estate taxes, would have gone directly to the state government. For an estate valued at $3,000,000 pre-exemption, 10.13% of total estate taxes would have gone to the state government. For $15,000,000, 16% of total estate taxes would have gone to the state government. Based on this sliding scale, the states received approximately $7.5 billion from total estate taxes in 2001.

Starting in 2001, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) phased out the federal estate tax credit by reducing the credit 25% each year until its complete elimination in 2005. At the same time, EGTRRA replaced the credit starting in 2005 with a much less valuable deduction for the amount paid in state inheritance taxes. Also at the same time, the number of taxable returns dropped precipitously due to the increase of the estate tax exemption. Below is a chart illustrating this effect. Note that due to the nine-month estate tax return filing period, many of the returns filed in a year were actually for a person who died in the prior year. This results in a lag period and the credit being applied in the following year.

Click here for Tax Exemption Chart

About thirty state’s estate taxes, including Florida’s, were tied directly to the federal dollar-for-dollar credit. When the 2005 elimination occurred, twenty-five states, including Florida, took no alternative action, thereby letting their state estate tax laws become dormant and ceasing collection of estate taxes. Based on these changes, states only collected $3.9 billion in estate taxes in 2010 (with many states collecting nothing), about $3.6 billion less than in 2001. Note that the $3.9 billion collected in 2010 was additional taxes imposed on taxpayers. In other words, they were state estate taxes paid in addition to federal estate taxes, taxes that did not exist prior to the phasing out of the dollar-for-dollar credit.

EGTRRA’s impact was severe on states that did not enact state estate taxes, or states that couldn’t due to restrictions such as the state constitution in Florida. As an example, Florida collected $708 million in estate taxes in 2001 and only $3 million in 2010, likely due to audits of tax returns from 2005 or before. States that amended their estate tax statutes or created new statutes did not see as much of an impact, although their taxpayers certainly did. For instance, New Jersey’s estate tax collections increased from $478 million in 2001 to $582 million in 2010. New York’s estate tax collections increased from $759 million in 2001 to $866 million in 2010. While the states that did enact or amend estate tax statutes may enjoy the continuing revenue, they must also consider the potential negative impact such taxes have had on their citizen’s wallets and the state’s populations—estate taxes could be driving citizens out while also discouraging people from moving to the state.

So now the states have been waiting to see what was going to happen. They’ve been hoping that the exemption would come back down and that there would be a credit, but that is not what Congress did. Now there is no credit. There is a $5,250,000 federal estate tax exemption with a deduction, so the states are really going to have to look seriously at imposing inheritance taxes to take this into consideration. This is particularly true for states that already built estate tax collections into their multi-year budget or counted on the dollar-for-dollar credit eventually returning.


To view a chart of this month, last month’s, and the preceding month’s Applicable Federal Rates, because for a sale you can use the lowest of the 3 please click here.


Don’t miss this incredibly useful live seminar with Jonathan Blattmachr, Samuel A. Donaldson, and many others – if you have never attended an All Children’s Seminar, you have never seen the best there is!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013: 15th Annual All Children’s Hospital Estate, Tax, Legal and Financial Planning Seminar in St. Petersburg, Florida.
All Children’s Hospital Foundation is hosting the Estate, Tax, Legal and Financial Planning Seminar at the All Children’s Hospital Education Conference Center in St. Petersburg. Programs and presenters include Samuel A. Donaldson presenting A Federal Tax Update, Jonathan Blattmachr on Myths & Realities of Charitable Trusts and Some Really Cool Generation Skipping Tax Ideas, Tami Foley Conetta on Investments in Trusts: Charting a Prudent Course, and Alan S. Gassman on the topic of Avoiding Disaster in the Sunshine State – Tricks, Traps, and Nuances That Make Florida Planning Interesting and Unique.


MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2013, 5:00-5:30 p.m.:
Please join Alan S. Gassman, Esq. for a 30 minute webinar entitled The Physician’s Guide to the 2013 Tax Laws. This free webinar will cover income tax, estate tax, the new 3.8% Medicare tax, and planning for these taxes. Planning considerations will include practice entity planning, pension planning, rental arrangements, and special mention of creditor protection and capital gains tax planning.

TUESDAY, February 19, 2013, 5:00 – 5:30 pm
Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A. is pleased to welcome Lester Perling, Esq. for a free webinar entitled Florida Health Law Traps – 4 Hypotheticals and Discussion of Important Medical Structuring and Regulatory Issues.

WEDNESDAY, February 20, 2013, 12:30 – 2:00 pm
Alan Gassman, Esq. Kenneth Crotty, Esq. and Christopher Denicolo, Esq. will be presenting a webinar for Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting entitled 10 Things To Do in 2013. To register for the webinar, please visit www.bna.com or if you would like a copy of the materials, please email Janine@gassmanpa.com.

THURSDAY, February 28, 2013, 4:00 – 4:50 pm
Please join us for The 444 Show, sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association and moderated by Alan S. Gassman. This month we are pleased to have attorney David Brittain of Trenam Kemker as our guest speaker. His topic is What Real Estate Attorneys Don’t Tell Other Attorneys – What You Need to Know to Stay Out of Trouble. This webinar qualifies for 1 hour of continuing education credit. To register for the webinar, please visit www.clearwaterbar.org or email Janine@gassmanpa.com.

MONDAY, March 4, 2013, 12:30 – 1:00 pm
Colleen Flynn, Esq. of the Johnson Pope Law Firm will speak on Lunch Talk this month on the topic of Hiring Procedures: What To Do and What Not to Do When You Hire a New Law Office Employee. Lunch Talk is a free webinar series moderated by Alan S. Gassman, Esq. and sponsored by the Clearwater Bar Association. To register for the webinar, please visit www.clearwaterbar.org or email Janine@gassmanpa.com.

Alan S. Gassman, J.D., LL.M. is a practicing lawyer and author based in Clearwater, Florida. Mr. Gassman is the founder of the firm Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., which focuses on the representation of physicians, high net worth individuals, and business owners in estate planning, taxation, and business and personal matters. He is the lead author on Bloomberg BNA’s Estate Tax Planning and 2011 and 2012, Creditor Protection for Florida Physicians, Gassman & Markham on Florida and Federal Asset Protection Law, A Practical Guide to Kickback and Self-Referral Laws for Florida Physicians, The Florida Physician Advertising Handbook and The Florida Guide to Prescription, Controlled Substance and Pain Medicine Laws, among others. Mr. Gassman is a frequent speaker for continuing education programs, publishes regularly for Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting, Estates and Trusts Magazine, Estate Planning Magazine and Leimberg Estate Planning Network (LISI). He holds a law degree and a Masters of Law degree (LL.M.) in Taxation from the University of Florida, and a business degree from Rollins College. Mr. Gassman is board certified by the Florida Bar Association in Estate Planning and Trust Law, and has the Accredited Estate Planner designation for the National Association of Estate Planners & Councils. Mr. Gassman’s email is Agassman@gassmanpa.com.

Thomas J. Ellwanger, J.D., is a lawyer practicing at the Clearwater, Florida firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A. Mr. Ellwanger received his B.A. in 1970 from Northwestern University and his J.D. with honors in 1974 from the University of Florida College of Law. His practice areas include estate planning, trust and estate administration, personal tax planning and charitable tax planning. Mr. Ellwanger is a member of the American College of Trusts and Estates Council (ACTEC). His email address is tom@gassmanpa.com.

Christopher Denicolo, J.D., LL.M. is a partner at the Clearwater, Florida law firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., where he practices in the areas of estate tax and trust planning, taxation, physician representation, and corporate and business law. He has co-authored several handbooks that have been featured in Bloomberg BNA Tax & Accounting, Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning and Asset Protection Planning Newsletters, and the Florida Bar Journal. He is also the author of the Federal Income Taxation of the Business Entity Chapter of the Florida Bar’s Florida Small Business Practice, Seventh Edition. Mr. Denicolo received his B.A. and B.S. degrees from Florida State University, his J.D. from Stetson University College of Law, and his LL.M. (Estate Planning) from the University of Miami. His email address is Christopher@gassmanpa.com.

Kenneth J. Crotty, J.D., LL.M., is a partner at the Clearwater, Florida law firm of Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A., where he practices in the areas of estate tax and trust planning, taxation, physician representation, and corporate and business law. Mr. Crotty has co-authored several handbooks that have been published in BNA Tax & Accounting, Estate Planning, Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning and Asset Protection Planning Newsletters, Estate Planning magazine, and Practical Tax Strategies. Mr. Crotty is also the author of the Limited Liability Company Chapter of the Florida Bar’s Florida Small Business Practice, Seventh Edition. He, Alan Gassman and Christopher Denicolo are the co-authors of the BNA book Estate Tax Planning in 2011 & 2012. His email address is Ken@gassmanpa.com.

Thank you to our law clerks that assisted us in preparing this report:

Kacie Hohnadell is a third-year law student at Stetson University College of Law and is considering pursuing an LL.M. in taxation upon graduation. Kacie is also the Executive Editor of Stetson Law Review and is actively involved in Stetson’s chapter of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund. In 2010, she received her B.A. from the University of Central Florida in Advertising and Public Relations with a minor in Marketing, and moved to St. Petersburg shortly after graduation to pursue her Juris Doctor. Her email address is Kacie@gassmanpa.com.

Eric Moody graduated from Stetson University College of Law in December 2012 and is currently seeking admission to the Florida Bar. He is considering pursuing an LL.M. in estate planning. Eric is also an Articles and Symposia Editor for Stetson Law Review. In 2009, Eric received a B.S. in Business Management from the University of South Florida. Eric’s email address is Eric@gassmanpa.com.

Carly Ross is a third-year law student at Stetson University College of Law. She is the Notes and Comments Editor for Stetson Law Review, and a member of Stetson’s Jessup Moot Court Team. She graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2010 with majors in History and Political Science. Carly’s email is Carly@gassmanpa.com.