Buying A House- put it in your name?

[DonStracci]

Okay, this question is a bit premature as we've not yet spoken with a lawyer, but I'll ask it:

Any opinions on putting a house in your own (and your spouses) name, verses having it solely in your spouses name? It has been suggested to us that a physician should never have their name on the title of the house, in case of malpractice lawsuits- protecting the property? Perhaps putting it in a trust would protect it? Perhaps this is faulty advice- just soliciting opinions.

We will be speaking with a lawyer about this sometime soon.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[colbgw02]

I suppose if you had no legal separation between your business and personal finances then doing that would make sense. However, most private practice physicians I know are set up as some sort of limited-liability partnership or corporation, which would protect your home and the like. I even know folks who do this just for moonlighting.

 

[docB]

You can set up some type of LLC which will probably afford you some protection but this must be done with a lawyer. If you are an employee (ie. getting W2 wages) this is much more difficult. In that event there are some trust options but they again must be set up by a lawyer. I know that in NV the irrevocable trust is used for asset protection but it's never been really tested in the courts here so lawyers differ in their opinions about how successful it would be.

Most lawyers will tell you that the instances of losing your house or any private assets to med mal are rare. That's true but it's little consolation when we risk total financial and personal ruin with every patient we see. There's a chest pain in room 5. Will this be the one that costs me everything?

 

[Law2Doc]

Okay, this question is a bit premature as we've not yet spoken with a lawyer, but I'll ask it:

Any opinions on putting a house in your own (and your spouses) name, verses having it solely in your spouses name? It has been suggested to us that a physician should never have their name on the title of the house, in case of malpractice lawsuits- protecting the property? Perhaps putting it in a trust would protect it? Perhaps this is faulty advice- just soliciting opinions.

We will be speaking with a lawyer about this sometime soon.

While there is something to be said for the strategy of having property not in your name if you are in a career path subject to malpractice suit, I have to say that you are far more likely to lose your house in a divorce than in a medmal suit, because you can buy insurance against the latter. There are a variety of complex and expensive strategies people use, sometimes involving limited partnerships or trusts to hold title to the property -- if you are concerned, you should talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction of practice BEFORE you practice. You can't set this stuff up after you need it -- it all has to be in place prior to practice risks to hold up.

 

[Brunette1981]

What you need is an umbrella insurance policy (a neglected area of insurance) not to do something funky with your home that may not even stand up to scrutiny. You can get $1 million in coverage for around $150-300 per year with each additional million in coverage for around $100 extra. You want to have at least $5 million in coverage.

Anyone with any assets should have an umbrella policy for excess liability - it saves you from losing your home and all your assets if you get hit with a big medmal settlement or get into a car accident with a victim awarded a massive settlement etc. And it's pretty affordable too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/business/businessspecial3/18insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[docB]

What you need is an umbrella insurance policy (a neglected area of insurance) not to do something funky with your home that may not even stand up to scrutiny. You can get $1 million in coverage for around $150-300 per year with each additional million in coverage for around $100 extra. You want to have at least $5 million in coverage.

Anyone with any assets should have an umbrella policy for excess liability - it saves you from losing your home and all your assets if you get hit with a big medmal settlement or get into a car accident with a victim awarded a massive settlement etc. And it's pretty affordable too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/business/businessspecial3/18insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Umbrella policies are great BUT they are hard to get any more (I have one because I started it 10 years ago) and I know that mine won't protect me from med mal liability. I signed about a dozen things stating that none of my regular insurance policies would cover med mal because it's too high risk. As far as I know the only insurance that will cover you for med mal losses is med mal insurance.

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Or you could move to Texas or Florida. No state income tax, and it's a homestead state. Pretty robust blanket protection against your primary residence being seized no matter how expensive the place is. (except by the bank that owns the mortgage)

 

[doc4life95]

Or you could move to Texas or Florida. No state income tax, and it's a homestead state. Pretty robust blanket protection against your primary residence being seized no matter how expensive the place is. (except by the bank that owns the mortgage)

I would also recommend Nevada

 

[docB]

Or you could move to Texas or Florida. No state income tax, and it's a homestead state. Pretty robust blanket protection against your primary residence being seized no matter how expensive the place is. (except by the bank that owns the mortgage)

I would also recommend Nevada

I'm pretty sure Nevada's homestead protection ends at $250,000. So anything over that and they can force you to liquidate to pay them. I don't know if that's equity or sale price.

 

[Danbo1957]

Living and working in Texas has its advantages. An overview of the Texas Homested Law:

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/126857.html

Protecting one's assets from med-mal judgements is a full-time duty...

 

[dacrocytic]

What you need is an umbrella insurance policy (a neglected area of insurance) not to do something funky with your home that may not even stand up to scrutiny. You can get $1 million in coverage for around $150-300 per year with each additional million in coverage for around $100 extra. You want to have at least $5 million in coverage.

Anyone with any assets should have an umbrella policy for excess liability - it saves you from losing your home and all your assets if you get hit with a big medmal settlement or get into a car accident with a victim awarded a massive settlement etc. And it's pretty affordable too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/business/businessspecial3/18insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

may i ask how are an umbrella policy and excess liability different / are they difffernt?

 

[GeraldMonroe]

Living and working in Texas has its advantages. An overview of the Texas Homested Law:

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/126857.html

Protecting one's assets from med-mal judgements is a full-time duty...

"here is no limitation of value on urban or rural homesteads, only of size. Rural homesteads are limited to 200 acres for a family and 100 acres for a single adult, which may be held in one or more parcels, with improvements thereon, and an urban homestead is limited to one acre, which may be in one or more lots, with improvements thereon.(4) However, a Senate Joint Resolution was passed by the 76th Legislature to amend the Texas Constitution that will, if approved by Texas voters on November 2, 1999, increase the maximum urban homestead exemption to ten acres."

Good lord. It looks like you could protect any amount of money through this law. If you wanted to shield 10 mil from being swiped by lawyers, you could buy a mansion and rest easy knowing it's protected. 10 acres would let you fit a billion dollar office building (though it would be kind of hard to justify as your "home". Also, real billionaires keep their money offshore in trusts, where nobody can legally touch it)

 

[docB]

"here is no limitation of value on urban or rural homesteads, only of size. Rural homesteads are limited to 200 acres for a family and 100 acres for a single adult, which may be held in one or more parcels, with improvements thereon, and an urban homestead is limited to one acre, which may be in one or more lots, with improvements thereon.(4) However, a Senate Joint Resolution was passed by the 76th Legislature to amend the Texas Constitution that will, if approved by Texas voters on November 2, 1999, increase the maximum urban homestead exemption to ten acres."

Good lord. It looks like you could protect any amount of money through this law. If you wanted to shield 10 mil from being swiped by lawyers, you could buy a mansion and rest easy knowing it's protected. 10 acres would let you fit a billion dollar office building (though it would be kind of hard to justify as your "home". Also, real billionaires keep their money offshore in trusts, where nobody can legally touch it)

Florida's law is similar. That's why OJ has had a house there and the Goldmans couldn't get it.