Randy Budge and T.J. Budge gave presentations at the 33rd Annual Water Law and Resource Issues Seminar of the Idaho Water Users Association. Randy presented on November 4 on the “Idaho Ground Water Appropriators/Surface Water Settlement.” T. J. presented on November 3 on the “Idaho Ground Water District Law.”
On June 8, 1992 the Idaho Supreme Court filed their decision in the case Osick v. Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho, 122 Idaho 457, 835 P. 2d 1268 (1992). Mr Osick was an employee of the Ada County Highway District from 1959 until he was injured in 1986. He filed a workers’ compensation claim and negotiated a lump-sum settlement of $24,667.50 plus $500 per month in compensation for his injury. Since Mr. Osick was a public employee he qualified for disability benefits under the Public Employee Retirement System which is known as PERSI. He was awarded disability benefits from PERSI in the amount of $903.60 per month. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 59-1320 (1b), PERSI was able to offset Mr. Osick’s disability benefits in the amount that he received each month from his workers’ compensation claim. Mr. Osick petitioned the PERSI Board for a hearing, contending that in light of the case Deonier v. Public Employee Retirement Board 114 Idaho 721, 760 P. 2d 1137 (1988), that there should be no offset to his PERSI disability benefits by his workers’ compensation benefits. The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed and held that Idaho code Section 59-1320 (1), which was later recodified at Idaho Section 59-1353 (1) was not in disagreement with Idaho Code Section 72-318. The Idaho Supreme Court noted that the PERSI Statute was coordinated so that if the employee were to receive any annual workers’ compensation benefits under the same disability that the PERSI disability benefits would be offset by the workers’ compensation benefits.
The importance of this decision to public employees is that workers’ compensation benefits often provide little or no benefit to them because they just offset the PERSI disability benefits until that public employee goes on to his or her PERSI retirement benefits. I have been able to negotiate around this offset in the past. If you are a public employee and are injured as a result of an Idaho workers’ compensation claim, please contact me so that we can explore legally creative ways to get around this offset to your PERSI disability benefits.
By Matthew P. Stucki
A couple of concepts that are often confusing for many clients deal with: 1) the difference between separate property and community property, and 2) how separate property of an individual is distributed upon his or her death if he or she does not have a Last Will and Testament.
Under Idaho Law, property that is owned by the wife prior to marriage and property that is acquired after marriage by way of gift, bequest, devise or descent, shall remain the sole and separate property of the wife. (vice versa for the husband). See Idaho Code § 32-903. However, to maintain the separate nature of the property, it is important that the wife does not mix her separate property with her husbands. For example, if a woman has $20,000 of separate property in an account before marriage and after marriage combines her account with her husband’s account, with both her and her husband thereafter using the account as a common account, then the property that the woman initial had is likely to have lost its classification as separate property of the wife.
As an employment law attorney, my clients often ask questions related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Most recently, I seem to be getting many questions about whether breaks are required to be given to employees. The purpose of this blog is to provide a short summary of what the law requires with regards to providing breaks to employees.
Currently, federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks to be given to employees. Like most other benefits provided by employers, there is no specific requirement that they be given. Many employers offer these type of breaks to their employees though as a benefit and as a way of enticing their employees to remain employed with the employer. Imagine a prospective employee evaluating two different job opportunities and seeing that one job does not offer any type of breaks including a lunch break during the work day. Under this circumstance it is fairly easy to see which job it is likely the employee would take. Employers know that in order to entice prospective employees and to keep current employees happy, these types of benefits must be provided.
I’ve spent nearly two decades representing landlords in all aspects of the landlord and tenant relationship. Over time I became a landlord myself. I often have landlord clients that want to know what their rights are when the tenant fails to meet their obligations under the lease agreement. The purpose of this post is to provide a summary of those rights.
It is important to understand that a Landlord may terminate a lease after complying with all of the procedural requirements of I.C. § 6-303. Whenever the right of reentry is given to a tenant in a lease, reentry may be made at any time after the right has accrued, upon three (3) days’ notice. I.C. § 55-210.
In my practice as an estate planning attorney, I often have clients who want to talk about what they think they know about estate planning. It usually starts with a statement/question like the following: “It’s true isn’t it that . . .” The client then will make the statement that they have heard from a family friend or read on the internet. Most often, the statement/question made by my clients is just plain wrong. Here are the Top 5 Estate Planning Myths that I have heard as an estate planning attorney.
1. Only the Wealthy Need Estate Planning.
One of the reasons truck accidents happen is because of truck driver fatigue. Truck driving entails long, monotonous drives, weekly completion of working hours, and the ever present pressure to get loads to docks. It is little wonder that most drivers experience chronic fatigue, increasing their chances of getting involved in crashes. Previous safety regulations imposed by the federal government on trucking companies often do not help, the pressure to perform is just too great, which is why such devastating accidents continue to happen.
Recently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), implemented a new set of federal regulations that should not only reduce fatigue, but also improve safety for motorists
I meet with clients almost every day to discuss their estate planning. When I do this I discuss the differences between estate planning and intestacy. Most of my clients are surprised to hear a default estate plan exists for everyone. It is only when a person actually creates a written estate plan that they eliminate the default estate plan of intestacy. Here are the main differences between Estate Planning and the laws of Intestacy.
APPOINTMENTS
Nearly everyone with a hand in employment law is familiar that a change to the Fair Labor Standards Act will take place the end of this year which will have an impact on who qualifies to earn overtime pay. This change is known as the “Final Rule”. The Final Rule focuses primarily on updating the salary and compensation levels needed for workers to be exempt from overtime pay.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
The relationship between landlord and tenant is unique in the legal field and, as a result, is somewhat complicated. Both parties have certain statutory obligations to each other, defined by state law, and the written lease agreement which aims to reduce the complexity and confusion in residential landlord-tenant arrangements. Among these is the landlord’s obligation to protect his tenant from certain situations and/or to at least reduce the potential problems that may arise as the tenant continues to occupy the rental unit.
To provide a safe rental unit that satisfies all of the implied warranties of habitability, landlords should provide every tenant with basic security features to protect tenants and their personal property. This includes, at the very least, a front door with a functional lock, key locks for any other outgoing doors on the unit, security for all windows and appropriate lighting fixtures inside and outside of the unit. Landlords are also required to equip each unit with a working smoke detector (at a minimum, one for each floor in the unit).
Idaho Law Blog
