Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Expands Commercial Litigation Practice with the Addition of Jordan T. Leavitt

PHOENIX, Ariz.  – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C. continues to implement its growth strategy to be better positioned for the future by adding JordanT. Leavitt as an associate to its commercial litigation department.

“Jennings Strouss is growing and it is an exciting time for the firm,” states John C. Norling, Managing Attorney of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. “We are being strategic in our hiring to enhance existing services and expand areas most in demand by our clients. Jordan is a talented young lawyer who comes to us with experience in multiple areas of litigation. His skills are a great asset to the firm and its clients.”

Leavitt’s experience includes commercial, employment, and probate litigation. Prior to joining the firm, he practiced at a law firm in Twin Falls, Idaho. Leavitt also worked as a judicial clerk to the Hon. Nancy Porter in Elko, Nevada and the Hon. Molly J. Huskey at the Idaho Court of Appeals. While earning a J.D. at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Leavitt served on the executive Board of Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. He earned a B.S. in psychology at Brigham Young University.

“Jennings, Strouss & Salmon has a sterling reputation,” states Leavitt. “I am honored to be practicing with the firm’s exceptional litigation team, and look forward to serving its clients.”

Celebrating 75 years of advising businesses and individuals on a wide-range of legal matters, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon is excited to be growing its transactional and litigation departments to enrich the services offered to clients across multiple practice areas. Over recent months, the firm has welcomed nine new attorneys with experience in multiple areas, including tax, commercial litigation, labor and employment, medical malpractice, legal ethics, bankruptcy, real estate, and energy. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon continues to build its presence throughout North America through its Arizona and Washington, D.C. offices.

Law Day 2017 Celebrates the 14th Amendment

By Norma Izzo, Member, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.

Today we celebrate Law Day. The American Bar Association first proposed the idea for a nationally recognized Law Day 60 years ago. On May 1, 1958, President Eisenhower established Law Day to celebrate the role of law in the United States. It is an opportunity to reflect on the ways in which the creation of law has developed our country and the freedoms we enjoy. This year’s topic is the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is simply written, but in its plain language, there is a significant amount of constitutional heft, and it has become the workhorse of Constitutional law since its passage in 1868. 

On its face, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States, and reinforces the requirement of “due process” of law and promises “equal protection.” However, one of the most fascinating and wide-ranging impacts of the law is based on a single word:  “State.”  The 14th Amendment commands that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” without due process. The 14th Amendment also requires that no State “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” By operation of the 14th amendment, the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights (the 1st through 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) have, over time, become applicable to actions by the States.

Although then-President Andrew Johnson called the 14th Amendment “purely ministerial,” it became a vehicle of incredible, wide-ranging change. Women’s right to vote was found to be rooted in the 14th Amendment. The right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures by local and State police was recognized through the application of the 14th Amendment. A defendant’s right to a public defender in State and local prosecutions was granted by the application of the 6th Amendment upon the State, again, by operation of the 14th Amendment. The right to privacy, the right to marry someone of the race or sex that you choose, the right to a school hearing before getting expelled, among others, all are based in the application of the 14th Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, which compelled the desegregation of schools and determined that “separate but equal” was by no means equal, was grounded in the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, although not as commonly discussed in non-legal circles as other amendments, significantly impacts each of us every day.

Norma Izzo is Chair of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon’s Family Law and Domestic Relations practice. She serves as the current President of the Maricopa County Bar Association.

Deborah A. Swanstrom and Andrea I. Sarmentero Garzon Featured in District Energy Magazine

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon attorneys, Deborah A. Swanstrom and Andrea I. Sarmentero Garzon, are featured in the Second Quarter 2017 issue of District Energy magazine.

Read the full article: FERC to reform interconnection procedures for large generators.

Twenty Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Attorneys Recognized in 2017 Edition of Southwest Super Lawyers®

PHOENIX, Ariz. (April 14, 2017) – Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., a leading Phoenix-based law firm, announced that twenty attorneys have been listed in Southwest Super Lawyers^® magazine for 2017, including six 2017 Southwest Rising Stars.  

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers for inclusion on the Super Lawyers list. The Jennings Strouss attorneys listed in 2017 Southwest Super Lawyers are:

• Gerald W. Alston – Business Litigation
• Thomas C. Arendt – Real Estate
• Timothy W. Barton – Real Estate
• Richard K. Delo – Personal Injury Medical Malpractice: Defense
• John J. Egbert – Employment  & Labor
• Lee E. Esch – Real Estate
• Jay A. Fradkin – Personal Injury Medical Malpractice: Defense
• Eric D. Gere – Business Litigation
• Richard Lieberman – Mergers & Acquisitions
• Bruce B. May – Real Estate
• Michael R. Palumbo – Business Litigation
• J. Scott Rhodes – Professional Liability: Defense
• Jack N. Rudel – Tax
• Bradley J. Stevens – Bankruptcy: Business

In addition, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected for inclusion on the Rising Stars list. The Jennings Strouss attorneys listed as 2017 Southwest Rising Stars are:

• Fay W. Bidlack – Bankruptcy: Business
• Shanna N. Bowman – Family Law
• Kerry A. Hodges – Business Litigation
• Norma C. Izzo – Family Law
• Anne E. McClellan – Civil Litigation: Defense
• Christopher J. Rogers – Securities & Corporate Finance 

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.

About Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., has been providing legal counsel for 75 years through its offices in Phoenix and Peoria, Arizona; and Washington, D.C. The firm's primary areas of practice include advertising and media law; agribusiness; automobile dealership law, bankruptcy, reorganization and creditors’ rights; construction; corporate and securities; employee benefits and pensions; energy; family law and domestic relations; health care; intellectual property; labor and employment; legal ethics; litigation; professional liability defense; real estate; surety and fidelity; tax; and trust and estates. For additional information please visit www.jsslaw.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter.

The firm’s affiliate, B3 Strategies, assists clients with lobbying and public policy strategy at the local, state, and federal levels. For more information please visit www.b3strategies.com.  

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon Receives Top Ten Rankings in 10 Legal Categories

Questions Concerning An Irrevocable Trust? Where to Look for Answers and How to Make Changes

by Garrett J. Olexa, Member, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C.

One of the many advantages of a revocable trust is that changes to a revocable trust can be easily made by amending or restating the trust instrument. When dealing with irrevocable trusts, however, the ability to effect change is often a source of many questions. Is there an ability to change beneficiaries? Who has the power to interpret language in the trust? Can the Trustee be changed without court involvement? Can the terms of the trust be modified or can an irrevocable trust be terminated? While the answers to such questions depend on a variety of factors, a starting point for addressing them can typically be found in the Arizona statutes and the trust document itself.  

Power of Appointment 

A power of appointment is created when the trust settlor grants another person the authority to appoint the ultimate recipient of the trust property.  In order to provide flexibility for future changes in facts and circumstances, the trust settlor often provides a surviving spouse, a child or other lifetime income beneficiary a power of appointment for the ultimate distribution of trust property.  The power of appointment can be either general or limited.  A general power of appointment allows the power holder to designate anyone as the ultimate recipient of trust property.  A limited power of appointment allows the power holder to only designate certain individuals or classes of individuals as ultimate recipient of such property. 

    

Non-Judicial Settlement Agreements

When it comes to interpreting language in an irrevocable trust, appointing a trustee, or providing directives to a trustee, an alternative to filing a court proceeding may exist through a non-judicial settlement agreement. Trustees, heirs, spouses, and beneficiaries may be able to enter into a binding non-judicial settlement agreement, so long as 1) the terms do not violate a material purpose of the trust, and 2) the modified terms and conditions could otherwise be properly approved by the court.[1]  Specifically, matters that may be resolved by non-judicial settlement agreement include: (a) interpretation or construction of the terms of the trust, (b) approval of the Trustee’s report or accounting, (c) direction to the Trustee to refrain from performing a particular act or the grant to the Trustee of any necessary or desirable power, (d) the resignation or appointment of a Trustee and the determination of a Trustee’s compensation, the transfer of a trust’s principal place of administration, or (f) the liability of the Trustee for an action relating to the trust.   

Judicial Modification or Termination

When modification or termination of an irrevocable trust is sought, a possible mechanism for bringing about a change is for the trustee or beneficiary to seek a court order granting such relief.[2]  Arizona law allows for modifications of otherwise irremovable trusts under a variety of situations.  For example, the court will reform a trust to conform to the creator’s intent if there is clear and convincing evidence that there was a mistake of fact or law in creating the trust or how it was expressed[3]. The court may also modify the terms of a trust in a manner that is not contrary to the settlor's probable intention if it is needed to achieve the settlor's tax objectives[4] or a court may terminate a trust if the court determines that value of the trust is insufficient to justify the cost of administering it[5].

The Arizona legislature has also given the courts power to modify the dispositive terms of a trust or terminate the trust if, because of circumstances not anticipated by the settlor, a modification or termination will further the purposes of the trust[6]. Additionally, a non-charitable irrevocable trust may be terminated on consent of all of the beneficiaries if the court concludes that continuance of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose of the trust.[7] In fact, an Arizona court may approve a trust modification even if all beneficiaries do not consent, so long as the court is satisfied that if all of the beneficiaries had consented, the trust could have been modified or terminated, and that the interests of a beneficiary who does not consent will be adequately protected.[8]

The foregoing are a few points of where one might turn when facing questions about the ability to bring about change in connection with an irrevocable trust; however, each situation is unique. It is advisable to meet with an estate planning attorney to assist you with analyzing your trust instrument, and discuss the modifications being contemplated, the applicable law, and the most efficient course of action before moving forward.

---

[1] A.R.S. §14-10111.

[2] A.R.S. §14-10410.

[3]  A.R.S. §14-10415.

[4] A.R.S. §14-10416.

[5]  A.R.S. §14-10414.

[6] A.R.S. §14-10412.

[7] A.R.S. §14-10411(A).

[8] A.R.S. §14-10411(C).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Garrett Olexa is a Member with the law firm of Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, PLC and works in its estate planning practice group.  He can be contacted at golexa@jsslaw.com or 623.878.2222.