How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
CLEARLAKE, Calif. – A man wanted on numerous charges in Clearlake and listed as the city's “most wanted” suspect has been arrested in Butte County.
Vincent Anthony Saenz, 28, of Clearlake was arrested in Butte County on Thursday night. Butte County Jail records confirmed he was being held there on Friday.
Clearlake Police Chief Craig Clausen said Saenz was picked up in Butte County on separate charges from those he's facing locally, which include infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, possession of a controlled substance, vehicle theft, resisting an officer and being under the influence of a controlled substance.
Clause said he anticipates Saenz will soon be transported back to Lake County to face the local charges.
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News reports
CLEARLAKE OAKS, Calif. – The community is being asked to help provide information on two dogs that attacked a man and his small dog earlier this week in Clearlake Oaks.
Animal control officials are trying to confirm if the dogs have had rabies vaccinations in an effort to protect the health of the victims.
Family members said the elderly man and his Pomeranian dog were attacked by two pit bulls at around 7:15 a.m. Monday.
The man and his dog were walking near the intersection of Island Drive and Highway 20 in Clearlake Oaks when, without warning, two pit bulls charged them, biting him and knocking him to the ground.
The little dog was mauled, receiving injuries including a broken jaw, broken leg, punctured lung and multiple bite wounds over her body. She is being treated at Wasson Memorial Veterinary Clinic in Lakeport, where the bill currently is about $4,000.
The pit bulls were both black in color, each weighing about 40 pounds, according to the available description.
A white male subject retrieved the dogs, allegedly gave the victim a false name and contact information, and left in a Mitsubishi Montero SUV – which may have been green in color – with the license plate 5BGV640.
The male was described as having a medium build, was estimated to be about 5 feet, 10 inches tall, and in his late 30s or early 40s.
If you have any information on the dogs or their owner, please notify Lake County Animal Care and Control at 707-263-0278. To offer assistance with the veterinarian bill, contact Jim Young at 707-350-4867 or Leah Young at 707-245-3049.
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – This past week marked the annual deadline for teacher layoff notices to go out across the state and the county.
California Education Code requires school boards issue preliminary pink slips by March 15, and then make the final decision on layoffs by May 15, according to the California Department of Education.
The California Teachers Association said preliminary pink slip data showed that 19,500 layoff notices were issued across 206 school districts on Thursday.
In Lake County, 25 of the notices were handed out to teachers this week, according to a Lake County Office of Education tally.
That total includes seven layoffs in the Lake County Office of Education’s schools; Konocti Unified School District, seven; Kelseyville Unified School District, six; Middletown Unified School District, four; and Lakeport Unified School District, one.
No layoff notices were issued in the Lucerne Elementary School District and the Upper Lake Union Elementary School District, the Lake County Office of Education reported.
“The numbers don’t look as severe as in the past because there’s no more room to cut,” said Lake County Superintendent of Schools Superintendent Wally Holbrook.
He said any further cuts to the county’s teacher numbers would significantly affect class size.
“We can’t cram 100 students in a classroom,” Holbrook said.
Middletown Unified Superintendent Dr. Korby Olson said of his district’s four notices, two are due to projected project enrollment, one is due to a teacher returning from leave and one is related to a possible program cut.
“So we really only did one that was due to a budget cut,” he said, adding that they may be able to restore that position once they know more about next year’s enrollment, particularly kindergarten student numbers.
He said Middletown Unified ended the 2010-11 school year with a strong fund balance, with cuts not as serious as projected. However, with state revenue numbers not as high as anticipated, more cuts could be ahead. Olson said the district has enough reserves to get by for now.
Middletown, like other county districts, has faced declining enrollment issues in recent years, which Olson attributes to the drop in jobs.
“We were really doing well based on the building of new homes and the growth in real estate,” he said, but when the market collapsed the district felt it as well.
Olson said he doesn’t believe Middletown Unified was hit harder than other county districts, but that it felt the impact at a different time.
Holbrook said Lake County’s educators have to plan for the worst in the face of more potential cuts, and that teachers often have to wait while those details are worked out.
“If we don’t get a clear picture of what the budget is going to be, we have to continue to act as if the cuts are going to take place,” which he said leads to the preliminary layoff notices, the numbers of which usually are higher than the final tally.
The California Teachers Association reported that the 10 California school districts issuing the most layoff notices are: Los Angeles Unified, about 9,500; San Diego Unified, more than 1,608; San Juan Unified, 458; Capistrano Unified, 392; Sacramento City Unified, 389; Moreno Valley Unified, 332; Long Beach Unified, 309; San Bernardino City School District, 251; San Francisco Unified, 210; Sweetwater High School District, 209.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson said every pink slip being issued Thursday “is an unwelcome and undeserved blow to the morale of the teacher who receives it. They should also remind all of us of the urgency of finding the will and the resources to end the financial emergency facing our public schools."
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Dennis Fordham
Assumptions people make about who will receive an inheritance share from their estate can sometimes fall far off the mark.
Peculiar results may occur when an intended beneficiary survives just long enough to inherit but not so long as to enjoy their inheritance.
This situation arises when a beneficiary dies during, or soon after, settling of a deceased benefactor's
estate.
Let us consider what sometimes happens to the inheritance left to a beneficiary who dies shortly after the benefactor and what can be done to avoid unwanted consequences.
One unwanted result in estate planning that may occasionally occur in the settling of a deceased benefactor's estate is that the estate of a beneficiary may be forced into a probate; even if the beneficiary's own estate without the inheritance would not otherwise have been probated.
Any share that is left to a beneficiary who dies becomes part of that beneficiary's own estate. If such inheritance pushes the total appraised value of the deceased beneficiary's own estate over the present $150,000 threshold for probate then a probate will be necessary.
One way to avoid triggering an unintended probate of a beneficiary's own estate is to name the beneficiary's own living trust as the beneficiary, instead of naming the beneficiary personally.
By transferring the inheritance to the beneficiary's own living trust the inheritance never becomes part of the deceased beneficiary's estate and avoids probate.
Once received by the trustee of the beneficiary's own trust the inheritance would be controlled and distributed by the trustee under the trust's own terms.
That is, after all legitimate debts and expenses related to the benefactor's deceased beneficiary, what remains passes to the beneficiaries of that trust.
This also can sometimes lead to another peculiarity. The fact that the inheritance is passed through and is distributed to other living beneficiaries may mean that persons whom you never wanted to benefit (or not to benefit so much) now inherit.
For example, what if the beneficiary is not married, has no children, and is the child of divorced parents, the beneficiary might leave his estate to his other surviving parent.
Here, the child's estate acts merely as a conduit to transfer a share of one deceased parent's estate over to that deceased parent's ex spouse who otherwise would not be entitled to any inheritance.
One solution to this problem is for the benefactor to hold his estate in further trust for the lifetime benefit of his intended beneficiaries, who receive distributions over their lifetimes. That way, when a beneficiary dies prior to receiving the entire inheritance the remaining assets held in the trust are redirected to another beneficiary of the benefactor's (settlor's) own choice.
Holding the estate in further trust solves both the unintended probate and unintended beneficiary problems discussed above.
Holding an estate in further trust also can solve a third unintended consequence of a direct distribution, one that is usually more relevant.
That is creditor claims by the beneficiary's own creditors against the inheritance. Assets held in a purely discretionary trust can be protected against most types of creditor claims.
The trustee uses the assets to purchase goods and services for the beneficiary's sake all without subjecting the assets to creditor judgments.
Whether to hold one's estate in further trust requires a case by case facts and circumstances analysis.
The probable benefits associated with holding the estate in further trust must outweigh the associated costs to make this a worthwhile solution.
Dennis A. Fordham, attorney (LL.M. tax studies), is a State Bar Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Probate and Trust Law. His office is at 55 First St., Lakeport, California. Dennis can be reached by e-mail at