One common service we offer are simple wills.  The questionnaire attached is what we suggest a client fill out and then either we can discuss the matter further or I can draft the will from the questionnaire.  When it says what the client had it mind, I then bring the client in to execute it.  An execution sounds ominous but is simply having the client, with an intent to sign a will, do so before witnesses.  We often can supply the witnesses.  When a person does a will, it is a convenient time to address the issues raised in an Advance Directive.  This latter document does not need an attorney but is attached for client’s convenience.  I also do Powers of Attorney which are generally durable meaning they continue the ability to act on behalf of the person giving the power even if he or she becomes incompetent.  While very handy for helping an elderly parent or relative, the person giving the power must be aware that as between the person to whom the power was given and the rest of the world, the person with the power has fully capacity to bind the giver of the power.  Although it is true that the person to whom the power is given is to act according to the wishes of the person who gave the power, as a practical matter, there may be no recourse if the person with the power goes a drift.  Ask the family of the old man who gave the power to his favorite waitress who went about selling and pocketing all the old man’s assets.  The family did not know anything about the giving of the power until the old man was dead and the waitress long gone.

Be sure to check our seminars.  The wills and probate one is very popular and in two hours I can really cover a lot of ground, personalize it to the people who are there, and we generally have a good time.  See you there. Will Questionnaire Advance Directive pdf.cwk

Dom Rel Quest-Part 1 Dom RQ-Part 2 Uniform Support Affidavit Attached are forms to get you started to file or respond to a divorce. You should also go onto the state of Oregon’s website for free forms and the child support calculator. Maybe one of the most irksome parts of getting a divorce is having to get and stay organized at such a low emotional point. But it is crucial because the overwhelming number of divorce decisions are fact driven. Getting the forms and taking your time to calmly hunt up the information is one of the most constructive things you can do for yourself.

In Morehouse v. Haynes, ___ Or App ____ (2010), the Oregon Court of Appeals discussed the difference between negligence and recklessness in motor vehicle collisions.

This was an important distinction for plaintiff as Oregon does not allow noneconomic damages (commonly known as Pain and Suffering) for those plaintiffs who did not have their own car insurance at the time of the injury or up to 180 days before and the collision was caused by negligence.  See ORS 31.715(1) (prohibiting noneconomic damages) and ORS 806.010 (requiring insurance)

However if the collision is caused by the defendant’s (think Bad Driver’s) recklessness, it does not matter whether plaintiff was insured.  That exclusion is also in ORS 31.715.  Oregon defines recklessness in ORS 161.085(9) as:

“a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists.  The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”

Plaintiff alleged here that defendant, rounding a corner 20 miles an hour faster than the speed limit and one defendant routinely drove on (and therefore knew the sharpness and the dangerousness) was driving recklessly. The Court found “defendant’s driving, as a matter of law, was not reckless as that term is defined in ORS 161.085(9).  Defendant did not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he would cause a motor vehicle accident by driving into a curve above the speed limit and adjusting his radio.”

There were prior cases finding these facts very facts were only negligent behavior, not reckless.  “Heedless driving” under Bland v. Williams, 225 Or 193, 357 P2d 258 (1960) was negligence, and “racing or showing off…is consistent with the current analysis of recklessness.”

The Court cited State v. Schlender, 199 Or App 253, 259, 110 P3d 653, rev den, 339 Or 230 (2005), as its examples of recklessness:  in Schlender “the defendant drove recklessly where he was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life when he drove his car into a restaurant wall even though there were lights on in the restaurant that indicated that a person might be inside”  In State v. Testa, 155 Or App 52, 58, 964 P2d 274 (1998), “defendant drove recklessly when he was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk when he drove at 25 to 30 miles per hour through a parking lot parallel to a two-lane road, looked at a passenger in a car driving on the two-lane road, and then swerved onto the road toward that car, forcing the driver into the oncoming lane of traffic.”

Therefore Plaintiff in Morehouse was out of luck as the court found the defendant was negligent.  By not carrying car insurance, plaintiffs in Oregon risk not being able to collect anything more than economic damages.