Conscious Living, Engaged Elderhood and Spirituality

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Okay, it’s Thanksgiving week, which means many of us will be spending time with family and others on whom we depend for love and support.  It is a perfect time to talk about end-of-life issues and other big questions so important to our living of life. There is also that detail that we’re getting close to the end of the year, which means it’s  list-making time . . . .  As a self employed person, I make every effort to start this in November! So, in this post I’ll combine that conscious living topic with a list.  On the top of  the list for my purposes here is a quote from a favorite poet of mine, e.e. cummings, who observed

unbeing dead isn’t being alive.

Aging and community, makes me think about the topic of aging as a spiritual practice.  Lewis Richmond is an author who has written about that very topic, and he has a great youtube video about this you can watch here. Conscious aging is really about what we do with our lengthening days, what is the purpose of our longevity and how will we spend it?  These are big questions that I’ve blogged about before and will again in the future.  What I like about Richmond’s message is its simplicity.  He defines the spiritual practice of aging as

paying close attention to the things that really matter.

Conscious aging and engaged elderhood can help us get to a place where we want to be at the end of our lives, a place where we are not burdened with regrets in our backward look at our life, our “life review.”  That reminds me of that 1991 Albert Brooks film “Defending Your Life.”  Will we wait till the end, after it’s all over and too late to make changes, or can we live and age consciously and make adjustments as we go along.  The answer is of course as unique as each of us, each of our lives.  Fortunately, if we are inclined to think about making these changes in our lives, there are many models and lots of support.

So, on that topic of living consciously and without regret, here’s an interesting list from an AARP article from 2012.   The author, Bonnie Ware, worked for many years in palliative care (though it sounds more like hospice to me) and so spent time with many folks during the final weeks and months of their lives.  The theme of this article resonated with me as I had recently explained to a couple clients the therapeutic benefits of estate planning and considering one’s own mortality in the story of Alfred Nobel and how he came to fund the renowned prizes named for him.  Hint: he got to read his own erroneously published obituary, and so he could dramatically change the course of his legacy.  Yes, I wrote a blog post about it and you can read it here.    So back to the list. I think this  list can be used as a great jumping off point for the search for meaning in our lives.

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

Ware lists this as the most common regret of all.  I think we tend to idealize this and forget that this one requires real courage to live in and to enact during our lives.  We often don’t think about how difficult it is until we sense that we are not on that path to ourselves, which is a path uniquely our own and which can’t be defined by others or external standards or measurements.

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

The author worked with older people and  noted that “this came from every male patient that I nursed.”

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

This is essentially the courage to become who we already are.  Sounds like I have tenses mixed up – but I don’t!  On that topic of expressing feelings, I think of Dr. Ira Byock’s four things: I love you, please forgive me, I forgive you, and thank you.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

This regret is also about the choices people have made, conscious or unconscious, about how their time was spent.  I liked Ware’s observation under this point: “that is all that remains in the final weeks: love and relationships.”  I think this is an important point that we can be reminded of if we choose to embrace our mortality and the uncertainties of life.  Perhaps it is really all that we had all along, all we had that mattered and when we strip away all the things that we accumulate in our identities, the love is what remains.

5. I wish I had let myself be happier.

Might sound odd, but Ware notes that many folks didn’t realize until nearly the end that happiness is a choice.  This seems to be such a huge secret for so many people.

In closing, I found a nice list of books for older adults, those in the “second half” of their lives here.    I also liked the tab under “mystery” which is offered as a means to develop a heightened sense of wonder in the face of a mainstream reductionist approach to living.  Wonder and uncertainty, the beauty of the present unfolding is far preferable for many of us than the tidy certainties we tell ourselves to explain away nearly every beautiful wonder of this world. I think Ware’s article confirms this in many important ways.  May each of us have a meaningful Thanksgiving!

©Barbara Cashman 2013     www.DenverElderLaw.org

New Case Law Shows Teeth in Uniform Power of Attorney Act for Breach of Agent’s Duties

 

Irish Arches

In an opinion published 11/7/13, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on substantial questions relating to the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOA) as it relates to an agent’s duties and the types of activities which a power of attorney (POA) authorizes.  In People v. Stell, 2013CA0492,   the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions a case involving a criminal indictment of an agent who was acting under a POA.  This decision has wide and beneficial implications for principals who have executed  POAs and whose agent are acting in their own self-interests,  are converting their principal’s assets for the agent’s use or otherwise stealing from them.  Here’s a sketch of the factual background of the case. Thanks to Vicki H. for sharing this case with me!

The principal (referred to as “victim” in the opinion) executed a POA in 2009 in Virginia.  Both Virginia and Colorado have adopted the UPOA so, even though the statutory cites vary, the law is substantially the same.  In the POA, the Principal named as agent his son, the defendant Stell.  While acting as agent under the POA, Stell wasted no time liquidating all of principal’s bank accounts, CDs, a 401K account, a piece of real property and the timber sold from that land – to the tune of $453,928.81.  The following year, Stell proposed that the principal place other assets into a trust so they would be protected from creditors.  The trust document that principal signed at his agent Stell’s direction did not name the principal as beneficiary of such trust and so, principal was permanently deprived of the use and benefit of that property.  In October 2010, principal terminated the POA and asked the Denver District Attorney’s office to investigate.  As a result of such investigation a nine-count indictment was drawn, eight counts for theft and one count of conspiracy.  The appeal of the trial court’s ruling is based on the dismissal of counts 1, 2, 4 and part of 3 – relating to the authority of the agent Stell to transfer principal’s property as agent under the POA.  In its dismissal of those counts, the trial court ruled that because the agent Stell had authority under the POA to do anything with the principal’s property that principal could do with it, that Stell couldn’t commit theft against his principal.  The Court of Appeals soundly rejected this line of thinking.

The POA is a document that confers broad powers, but it is no license to steal.  In this criminal case, the Court of Appeals examined carefully the fiduciary duty owed by an agent to his principal under the UPOA.  Citing a Virginia Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeals stated that “powers of attorney are strictly construed.”  (Opin. at para. 17) Going further, the court ruled that the expansive language in a POA should be interpreted narrowly and should be construed in light of the surrounding circumstances.  It soundly rejected the argument that, because a POA typically gives a broad grant of authority, it could somehow give an agent the authority to misbehave, commit theft and otherwise breach fiduciary duties owed as a consequence of the nature of the principal-agent relationship.

The fact that a POA contains a broad grant of agent authority does not mean that an agent is nonetheless duty-bound (as in an agent’s fiduciary duty, as described in the UPOA) to exercise authority in acting as agent in the utmost good faith, loyalty, and other duties owed.  The Court of Appeals rejected that trial court’s reasoning that a broad grant of authority to the agent implied that an agent’s actions that were in violation of the fiduciary duties owed were somehow still “authorized” because agent was acting under a POA.  In paragraph 21 of the decision, the Court of Appeals identified the factual questions appropriate for a jury’s determination of whether an agent under a POA was acting within or outside of his or her scope of authority as determined by agent’s fiduciary duties.  They included the following questions of whether agent acted: (1) in accordance with principal’s reasonable expectations and consistently with the principal’s interests and intent; (2) in good faith; (3) loyally for the principal’s benefit; and (4) with the care, competence and diligence ordinarily exercised by agents in similar circumstances.  In reversing and remanding the counts of the indictment dismissed by the trial court, the Court of Appeals gives an indication that the days of the POA as a “license to steal” for noncriminal law purposes are over.  This is an important development for Colorado – for both the new mandatory reporting of financial exploitation law(read my post about that law here ) as well as the ability of exploited elders and other at-risk persons to recover funds  improperly taken from them by an agent under  a POA.  It gives more protection for principals who have been taken advantage of by their agents to establish that the agent’s conduct was improper and to strengthen the ability to recover such funds that were improperly used or converted for the agent’s exclusive benefit.

©Barbara Cashman 2013     www.DenverElderLaw.org

Digital Assets in the Estate and Elder Law Context – Evolving Law in a State of Uncertainty: Part II

In this post, I look particularly at a couple topics that touch on issues that relate to both the agent/conservator (while a person is still living) context (what we elder law types refer to as disabled or incapacitated) as well as the post-mortem (decedent’s estate) context.

Fall Colors at DBG

After reading last week’s post, one of my readers expressed to  me that he thought it was perhaps a bit too much of the big picture and didn’t see how the post hung together.  So, with that helpful observation in mind, I write today’s post with the intent for a slightly more concrete approach. . . .

Today I will focus on two major aspects of digital assets and our thinking about them.  First, I will look at the historical distinction between tangible versus intangible property and how digital assets extend this historical distinction in a new context.  Second, I will briefly examine the intersection of laws that apply to and are involved in our online activities, specifically I’ll take a look at which law applies and in what context-  the federal law and state law sources for internet regulation.

I recently spoke with a colleague who has been practicing for over forty years.  He has a tax law background and I am lucky to consider him part of my “brain trust.”  I liked his comments to me about digital assets, that they are basically just intangible property of different stripes and that this management issue for the decedent estate context can be managed in a way similar to the historical use of a “literary executor” that many writers have employed over the course of history.  I plan to revisit this prospect of “digital executor” in future posts.  Okay, I promised I was going to get more literal in this post, so here goes.

Black’s Law Dictionary (my embossed office copy was published in 1979) gives three useful definitions:

It defines “intangible asset” as: Such values as accrue to a going business as goodwill, trademarks, copyrights, franchises or the like.  A nonphysical, noncurrent asset which exists only in connection with something else, as the goodwill of a business.  For “intangible property” is the following: As used chiefly in the law of taxation, this term means such property as has no intrinsic and marketable value, but is merely the representative or evidence of value, such as certificates of stock, bonds, promissory notes, and franchises.  And so if you’re still scratching your head over this legal term for je ne sais quoi, Black’s offers this final shot under “intangibles:”  property that is a “right” rather than a physical object.  . . This sounds pretty well on point so far, doesn’t it?  So, let’s take a look at the second topic – the fuss about how to regulate the internet.

The Supremacy clause, conflict of laws, etc.  One astute commentator (Jim Lamm, who edits the very astute blog digital passing) has discussed the issue of federal preemption in the digital asset context. Federal preemption derives from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land.  Remember that under our federal system each state has its own constitution which is free to provide and protect rights more vigorously than the US Constitution, but below which no state constitution can fall, at the  …. There are two basic types of federal preemption, express and implied.  Express is explicit, when the federal law says “this is the law or federal regulatory regime that applies to a particular are of law.  I am thinking back to a case I was familiar with from federal court.  A good example of this is the Federal Insecticide and Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which confers exclusive regulatory control of labeling of pesticides on the Environmental Protection Agency.  The states have no authority to regulate labeling under this type of federal preemption.

As you might imagine, even  express preemption gets an occasional workout in the U.S. Supreme Court.  So what about this issue in the context of digital assets?  There is arguably no  federal law that states it (the federal government) is the supreme regulatory scheme for the internet, even if there are in place a number of laws, including criminal statutes, regulating use of the internet.  Here is where we look at implied preemption, and the flavor of this type applicable to the digital assets and internet context is “occupation of the field” preemption, basically where the federal law takes up so much of the “regulatory room” if you will, that there is really nothing substantive left for the states to regulate.  It is a far stretch to consider the federal statutes concerning the use of the internet use as concerning a federal interest (as opposed to state interest) that is entrenched in a federal regulatory and enforcement scheme that is all-embracing in such a way as to leave no room for the individual  states to regulate in any meaningful way.

I will forge ahead with this discussion as it develops and as the Uniform Law Commissioners hone their model act.  This will potentially apply to our probate code in Colorado in several contexts  – for agents and other fiduciaries, for guardians and conservators, trustees, as well as personal representatives.  So, once again, we are left with more questions than answers.  This is one of the primary reasons I love practicing estate and elder law – it is constantly evolving.  So, if I might cast my net out on that far shore as I close this post, let me quote a favorite poet – Rainer Maria Rilke – who had a very insightful comment about the importance of questions in a human life:

..I would like to beg you dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

       Letters to a Young Poet , by Rainer Maria Rilke, 1903.

 ©Barbara Cashman 2013     www.DenverElderLaw.org

 

 

Digital Assets in the Estate and Elder Law Context – Evolving Law in a State of Uncertainty part I

October clouds in Deer Creek Canyon

 

In this first post, I will explore some of the unsettled and unsettling legal aspects of digital assets.  I am going big picture here.  Digital assets are a new kind of property, coming into existence as such by virtue of the technological and communication advancements that are part of our networked online world.  Like any other property, digital assets – an emerging “digital divide” if you will, have both the power to unite people and to distance us from each other.  Flash mobs, crowd sourcing, playbor and lots of other connections are all new ways of collective communication and concerted action which can be used to usher in positive changes, more democratic participation in previously closed institutions, and many other efforts.  Here’s a good recent example in an 11/5/13 post on the CBA/CLE Legal Connection blogpost about “crowdfunding” securities under the federal Crowdfund Act.   The new federal statute allows crowdfunding, a previously prohibited type of sales of unregistered securities over the internet.  Here’s a link to the new proposed regulations – the SEC wants to hear from you about them!

So back to the people and property connection.  I think that a basic question, as Howard Rheingold writes in his excellent 2012 book “Netsmart” is a question of the degree to which each of us embraces change and participation on an individual level so as to become part of something bigger.  Rheingold’s taxonomy of online collective work includes: (1) networking, (2) coordination, (3) cooperation, and (4) collaboration.  (Netsmart at 153-54.)   Some of this work involves hanging out, messing around, geeking out, networking, collaborating, participating – these are just some of the activities that the digital commons can provide participants.  I think conceptualizing digital assets requires a whole new way of thinking about property in this regard.  This virtual message board, marketplace, library, playground or laboratory – however you characterize it – typically defines the “property” by how it is used.  This is a break from tradition, and while this may not be a time for nostalgia really, but there is a looming sense of challenge for many of us when it can become difficult to disengage.   Unless you can bring yourself to shut off your Smartphone while you are with a loved one, on vacation or the like, and otherwise resist the urge to be plugged in 24/7, it can become a huge challenge  even if you don’t “have to.”  Theories regarding the implication s of networked technologies and its implications for human interaction, our sometimes compromised ability to engage in reflective, contemplative and deep thought, and so to an extent, even human consciousness abound.  Last summer I posted on GriefLink’s blog about  the simple power of listening and simple human presence (a/k/a the heart’s ancient technology).   But wait, this post isn’t about the internet as social experiment, it is about digital assets . . . .  there is a distinction, right?

Before I abandon this foray, let me go down one last philosophical path.  What if we consider the networked society and a means to advance the evolution of humans and our civilization (and yes, I am deliberately choosing to ignore that immense sleazy side of the internet)?   Here I will openly borrow from the final post in a series I wrote for the CBA’s SOLOinCOLO  blog:   Interesting to note in this context is “The Evolution of Cooperation: Competition is Not the Only Force that Shaped Life on Earth,” from the July 2012 issue of Scientific American,  and the article by Martin Nowak, “Why We Help.”  Nowak’s article describes a public goods game (inspired by the “tragedy of the commons” of the late 1960s)  that found that people were more altruistic when: (1) they are convinced (educated) that sacrifices for the common good are needed; (2) they are allowed to make contributions publicly (to enhance reputation); and (3)  they feel they are being watched.  Sorry – but this last one sounds positively theological to me, so I have to mention Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who also had some very forward-looking ideas about the evolution of humanity and consciousness.

Nowak’s final observation is that “the altruistic spirit always seems to rebuild itself; our moral compasses realign.”  I liked this last comment about evolutionary simulations because it looks to be consistent with Teilhard de Chardin’s observations on the drawing together of noospheric effects and offers much promise for realizing the potential of social networks within the Internet.  I love this connection between Nowak, the mathematical biologist at Harvard; Teilhard, the late Jesuit paleontologist/theologian; and … social media.   That’s a glimpse of the “special world” that is all around us today – at least from my point of view.

The power of connection, of collective action made possible by the internet is indeed a force to be reckoned with, and we need also to account for the ways in which people and relationships are subjected to harm.  This is where the networked age is like a death, the demise of the old “information society” – and we cannot ever go back, or return to who we were before it.  This new place, however, is one of wonder.  It reminds me of a favorite poem by Hafiz, the medieval Persian poet, this excerpt is from “Deepening the Wonder” and is from Daniel Ladinsky’s 1996 book “The Subject Tonight is Love,” a translation of many poems written by Hafiz:

Death is a favor to us,

but our scales have lost their balance.

The impermanence of the body

should give us great clarity,

Deepening the wonder in our senses and eyes

Of this mysterious existence we share

and are surely just traveling through.

                …..

excerpted from The Subject Tonight is Love at 55.

At this point, I will conclude with the theme for the next few posts on this topic, what is digital property, how do we use it (or how is it used by others, sometimes in ways that we do not intend) and how do we manage and protect it?  What do I consider digital property?  The only way to answer this is in the big picture context that is really the only effective way to encompass, intellectually, what is a constantly developing universe: it is any online account you may own or any file that is stored in the cloud.  To be continued . . . .

©Barbara Cashman 2013     www.DenverElderLaw.org