The 2017 Gibson Opinion. Divorce? Squirreling Away Assets in Trust?

This blog post is about whether the 2017 Georgia Supreme Court opinion in Gibson now opens the door wider for one spouse more easily – while married — to squirrel away his or her assets in a trust, and then later use that trust as a shield in a divorce proceeding. It does not.

In Gibson,the husband during his marriage funded two trusts with $3.2 million of property; the husband prevailed in keeping the $3.2 million out of his divorce proceeding without the trust assets being subject to equitable division. This is $3.2 million that otherwise would likely have been marital property in the divorce, absent the trust planning. Click here for a copy of Gibson v. Gibson, 801 S.E.2d 40, 301 Ga. 622 (2017).

The key factual distinction laying the foundation for the husband to prevail in Gibson was the lower trial court’s conclusion that the husband retained no interest in the trusts, including no interest as a trustee or beneficiary.  As I touch on again below, my experience is that most spouses who unilaterally create and fund a trust during marriage do retain interests in the trust, albeit as part of the purposeful, stealth design of certain opaque, highly-technical trust provisions.

Back to the Gibson opinion. My sense in talking with other lawyers is that some have an over-optimism leading them to conclude Gibson opens the door wider now enabling one spouse to keep his or her trust out of the divorce arena. For the reasons I state below, I disagree. The backdrop to this misplaced optimism is the following portion of the Gibson opinion:

This is not an issue of first impression for our Court, which has permitted property placed in certain types of trusts to be exempt from equitable division.  . .  . Therefore, property that has been conveyed to a third party is not subject to equitable division absent a showing of fraudulent transfer. See id. If a spouse places property in a trust of which he is the sole beneficiary, that property may be subject to equitable division. See Speed v. Speed , 263 Ga. 166, 430 S.E.2d 348 (1993). But if a spouse is not the sole beneficiary of a trust, the corpus of the trust is not subject to the other spouse’s claim of distribution. See McGinn v. McGinn, 273 Ga. 292, 292, 540 S.E.2d 604 (2001).

Excerpt from the Gibson opinion (I added the bolding and underlining).

The optimists read Gibson (and the “sole beneficiary” excerpt above) to support the notion that a spouse who funds a trust – where that spouse is not a sole beneficiary of the trust –  can now exclude the trust from claims in a divorce. This is a misreading of the above Gibson reference to sole beneficiary.

This sole beneficiary reference is merely a passing remark by the Georgia Supreme Court (what lawyers call obiter dictum) in stating the Gibson case was not a case of first impression on the question of how a trust created during marriage fares later in a divorce action. This sole beneficiary element also was not a fact for consideration as to the Gibson husband’s trusts and not part of the holding in Gibson.  [I have not seen the Gibson trust documents.]

Here are my broader Gibson points for this blog post:

One. I am called upon from time to time to assist divorce lawyers with attacking a trust in a divorce proceeding. My job is to help attack the trust and keep it in the divorce proceeding. My attack at times is directed at the deficiency and shortcomings in the trust document itself, where the drafter failed to cross the “t”s and dot the “i”s. My attack also gets into the various quasi-hidden, stealth trust powers purposely built into the design and framework of the trust that do not easily – merely on the face of the trust document – alert a non-trust lawyer to the existence of continuing powers and potential benefits the spouse retained in the trust (such as powers of appointment held by a friend or other family member; powers to decant the trust to another trust; using someone other than the spouse as the purported settlor of the trust document giving the diversionary appearance the spouse did not create the trust, etc.).

One might ask “Why would a spouse hold these stealth ties to the trust?” The answer, in my experience, is that it is a rare instance where one spouse creates and funds a trust during marriage without making sure he or she still possesses indirect options either to get back the property after the divorce situation ends or ultimately later control the property for that spouse’s own benefit.  Thus, arguably most unilateral trusts are not third-party trusts.  I use the term unilateral for when one spouse puts this trust planning in place without the knowledge of the other spouse.

Two. Whether a trust is or is not a third-party trust is not merely an easy simple ‘yes’ / ‘no’ question. The status and nature of any trust depends in most cases (divorce and non-divorce cases) on the effect of the opaque, stealth technical provisions in the trust document, as part of the purposeful design of the trust. This opaque-stealth question, in my opinion, is where the heart of the fight lies when dealing with a trust in a divorce setting.

Three.  When the trust at issue in a divorce is a third party trust (as in Gibson), that trust under the Gibson opinion will still be subject to a fraudulent transfer analysis in the divorce proceeding, as is the case with virtually any other third-party transfer of property prior to divorce.

The procedural rub is that the law requires, as generally in any fraudulent transfer attack, that the opposing party (the non-trust spouse in a divorce) bears the burden of proof for the fraudulent transfer attack.

Four. But, by contrast, I read Gibson as not changing the existing law or theories in divorce proceedings for trusts that are not third-party trusts. Those trusts are still subject to attack, but without the non-trust spouse bearing the burden of proof under a fraudulent transfer attack.  Here the burden is on the spouse who created the trust — during the marriage – to prove the trust is not marital property.

RE-POST: “In 48 Hours, I Had to Practice What I Preach”

My July 2008 blog still ranks as the most popular of all my blog posts (in terms of responses from readers and the blog click data, etc.). My 2008 blog post was in response to my personal situation at that time where a preliminary medical diagnosis – fortunately – was wrong.  But, at the urgent time I thought I could possibly die in a couple days.  I also had two children under age 10 at that time. Thus, my title of the July 2008 blog was: “In 48 Hours, I Had to Practice What I Preach”.

I am re-posting below my earlier 2008 blog, in its entirety.  The post includes ten related take-away “lesson” references. Also, as an important aside, as we and our parents, etc., all get older, the Thomas Mann excerpt in the post below from his novel The Magic Mountain remains one of the most comforting and satisfying responses to life and aging that I have found.

Here is my July 2008 post:

“Many of us in the service industry are like the proverbial cobbler (yes, including lawyers): we provide shoes with the best fit and finish for our clients, but we leave ourselves and our families poorly shod, or worse yet, barefoot.

This is an unusually personal newsletter about a recent 48-hour period in my life; it began with the complete blindside of a Friday night hospital ER diagnosis (tentatively very chilling) and a much more optimistic Monday morning follow-up.  During this long 48-hour period, my wife and I were suspended within vast uncertainty.

At that time, we believed the 48 hour-period could potentially have been my last chance to get my affairs in order. The situation caught us completely off-guard, with many loose ends in my own personal “I’ll-get-to-it-later” family matters.

I now am back in full swing and the 48-hour period is behind me; my sense of urgency no longer exists. This 48-hour period, however, strongly impressed upon me the need to stop procrastinating and get my own family affairs in order.

Although we lawyers like to believe we are the unshakeable rock of Gibraltar for our clients, I was in near-panic during this 48-hour period as I organized various topics and notes of final instructions for my life. This, quite frankly, was due to a level of worry and concern over my unfinished family business that I hope never to experience again, especially when facing my own mortality.

I share the following relevant aspects of my recent experience so as to motivate you, if you are by chance a procrastinator, to avoid a similar 48-hour surprise, or in the worst case, a situation with zero lead time.

Your Current Estate Planning Documents are Your Final Versions

As a trust and estate lawyer, I experienced briefly during the 48 hours an imagined level of after-death embarrassment; embarrassment that my wife might end up with problematic documents.  Even though I insist on updated estate planning documents for my clients, my personal estate planning documents were much more out-of-date than they should be.

Lesson No. 1 — The 48-hour period made me experience first-hand the reality of a completely unexpected event, that can effectively freeze the status of whatever estate planning documents we have in place — or fail to have in place.

No Guardian Designation for My Children

During the 48-hour period, my wife and I also discovered we did not have the updated guardian provisions that we desired for our children. This omission could potentially have been much worse than that kitchen faucet I kept promising to replace but never got around to.

Insurance Records

The permanent and term life insurance I have on my life for my family’s benefit includes certain options to allow additional payments beyond my normal premium amount without additional insurability underwriting (thus, a related increase in death benefits at my original preferred premium rate), a conversion option to a universal policy, a disability waiver if I am disabled, and the ability to extend the coverage beyond the guaranteed term.

Lesson No. 2 — I have all these excellent insurance policy options, but had failed to inform my wife about them and about the circumstances where she and my children could benefit from triggering the various options.

During the 48-hour period, I made sure my wife had the name and phone number of our insurance advisor, and made her promise that she would rely on our advisor‘s advice for assistance with our insurance situation, if needed.

Internet Access Information

The simplicity of this next point belies its importance.  My wife and I both handle a great deal of our affairs by internet. I really had to scurry around during the 48 hours to provide my wife with all of my known internet accounts: all access passwords, and other relevant information about automatic bill-pay schedules, etc.

Lesson No. 3 — My wife’s potential ability to step in and seamlessly handle all of my online business matters (banking, internet bill-pay, renewals, etc.) would have been seriously hampered, if not impossible, without the knowledge of what family business I handle over the internet, the corresponding URLs and, most importantly, the passwords.  I now keep this data in a safe place for my wife’s access, if ever necessary.

As an aside, to my wife’s credit she handles the bulk of our family bill-paying, banking, insurance, and so forth.  She is much less the procrastinator than I (but come to think of it, I don’t know where she goes online, nor what her passwords are).

Lesson No. 4 — Find out about your family’s internet business access.

Social Security Benefit Information

From a bundle of non-specific files, I dug up a copy of my latest annual Social Security earnings statement in order to remind my wife that she and my children would be entitled to survivor benefits.

Lesson No. 5 — The Social Security Administration can provide you with an annual statement of your earnings history and the projected benefits your survivors will receive.

Read the earnings statement carefully and make sure the annual earnings information is correct, as federal law applies a 3-year statute of limitations for making corrections.

Misc. Loose Ends

This seems humorous now that I am out of harm’s way, but during the 48 hours I also noted various important items for my wife’s attention, such as making sure the air filters in our furnaces are replaced every two months; making sure the homeowners and property tax payments are made on time for our small cabin in rural NC;  and making sure our annual LLC registrations are current (that I had been handling by internet).

Lesson No. 6 — Jot down this small-but-still-important stuff.

Names of Our Team Members

In the past my wife and I alone handled virtually all of our family legal and business affairs. Over the years, however, I have become smarter on this point and put into practice the benefit of having a quality team of advisors who are available to assist my family in my absence (such as for tax return preparation, investments, insurance, etc.).

Lesson No. 7 — I made sure my wife had the names and contact information for all the members of our  team.

Last But Not Least: the Name of a Good Lawyer

This next point, due to my ability over the years to be my own family’s lawyer for most matters, was a very important discussion with my wife during the 48-hour period.

Lesson No. 8 — The variation in lawyers’ judgment and expertise is as wide-ranging as is human nature; lawyers are not fungible.  I wanted to make sure my wife would have a successor lawyer in whom she has complete confidence and can feel comfortable asking questions or seeking assistance.  Because my situation is now back to normal, I can keep this name filed-away in with my personal records (to which my wife now has access).

No More Ill-Fitting Shoes

I now have made great progress in mending my cobbler ways and providing my family with the best shoes possible (figuratively speaking), sooner rather than later.  I never want to experience this 48-hour scramble again in such ill-fitted shoes.

Finally, a Comforting Consolation

Until this 48-hour incident I had not been in a hospital since my teenage years for wisdom teeth removal; I had virtually no first-hand experience with illness and hospitals.

Lesson No. 9 — Even though the 48-hour period was difficult due to my lack of preparedness for the above matters, I found my mind and spirit both adapted well – much better than I expected — to this emergency medical experience.

This adaptation is a surprising consolation and, I believe fortunately, is the way our minds self-protect us in these moments of unexpected urgency. This positive note reminds me of the following passage from Thomas Mann’s novel The Magic Mountain, that goes to the heart of this consolation:

The pity the well person felt for the sick – a pity that almost amounted to awe, because the well person could not imagine how he himself could possibly bear such suffering – was very greatly exaggerated. The sick person had no real right to it. It was, in fact, the result of an error in thinking, a sort of hallucination; in that the well man attributed to the sick his own emotional equipment, and imagined that the sick man was, as it were, a well man who had to bear the agonies of his state. Illness so adjusted its man that it and he could come to terms; there were sensory appeasements, short circuits, a merciful narcosis; nature came to the rescue with measures of spiritual and moral adaptation and relief, which the sound person  .   .   .  failed to take into account.

Excerpt  from  Thomas  Mann, The Magic Mountain 466-67 (H. T. Lowe-Porter, trans., The Modern Library Edition 1992)(1927).

Lesson No. 10 —  This is an important point.  Sufficient advance planning can help us more easily not have to contemplate or worry as much about the future. We have the future covered, so to speak. And, with the future covered, we can enjoy our lives, family, work, hobbies, much more freely in a relaxed, present state of mind.

Thank you for your indulgence.  And, finally, thank you for allowing me to share my personal experience.  I hope it might be of value to you.”

 

JOB POSTING: We Are Looking for a Paralegal/Legal Assistant

Our law firm is looking for a paralegal/legal assistant to support four attorneys in our Buckhead office.  Our offices are located in the Monarch Plaza on Peachtree Road in Atlanta, directly across from Lenox Square.

We are looking for a professional, detail-oriented individual with the following characteristics:

  • Positive attitude.
  • Organized.
  • Proficient in the use of MS Office (Word, Excel and Outlook).
  • Must be able to work independently, without continuous, ongoing supervision.
  • Must be a team player.

Law firm experience is preferred. Candidates must be available 35-40 hours per week.

The position includes a mix of paralegal and administrative tasks.  The daily responsibilities for this position include generally:

  • Dealing directly with clients and attorneys.
  • E-filing court documents (state and federal).
  • Working with our attorneys for the preparation and drafting of correspondence, revising pleadings and discovery documents.
  • Assisting the attorneys with discovery, document production, trial preparation and hearings.
  • Calendaring and litigation-docket scheduling.
  • Assisting with electronic discovery.
  • Office and law firm administrative tasks such as filing, answering telephone calls, maintaining, and organizing both physical and electronic files, and initiating and setting up cases.
  • Maintaining invoices, bank account balances, handling payments to vendors and third-parties.
  • Acting as a Notary Public (or eligible to apply and obtain a notary).
  • Entering time entries for attorneys; generating and maintaining monthly invoices.

Please email your resume to attorney Cheryl R. Treadwell at cheryl@ktlawllc.com

I Am Proud of Georgia (trust / estate law revisions)

Georgia’s newly enacted revisions to certain trust and estate law provisions bring Georgia up to speed with many other states with similar provisions.  The changes are effective July 1, 2018.  This is a good move for Georgia.  Click here for a link to the legislative bill with the numerous changes.

As an important first aside, I will blog later on how these changes add even greater benefit to my favorite trust – the inter-vivos QTIP marital trust (created during the lifetime of the spouses).  I also will provide other short blog posts from time to time with certain commentary about these law changes.

For today’s post, I include the following discussion about how long trusts can now last under Georgia law:

360-Year Trusts. The allowable duration for a trust changes from 90 years to 360 years.  This is referred to under trust law as the “rule of perpetuities”, and applies generally as a duration limitation for non-charitable trusts.  A trust can now operate for 360 years before the rule of perpetuities law mandates its termination.

However, as a practical matter, I do not think 360 years in and of itself is significant. But, now having a period longer than the previous 90-year limitation helps make sure a trust can run long enough to cover (at a minimum) the trust creator’s (settlor’s) grandchildren’s entire lives.

In other words, making sure the grandchildren get the asset protection benefit of the continuing trust for their entire lifetimes (rather than the trust having to terminate in 90 years, possibly before the deaths of the grandchildren; thus, the earlier termination removing the protective effect of the trust set-up for their benefit).

The reason I think the entire 360-year period is not significant is that the number of downstream descendants a settlor will have if his or her trust lasts 360 years will be geometrically expanded beyond anyone’s realistic ability to keep up with all the descendants. I have seen various projections indicating, on average for example, a person will have approximately 115,000 descendants in 350 years. This adds another level to the notion of “laughing heirs”.

The Delaware Tax Trap.  This point relates to the new 360-year change.  The Delaware Tax Trap is a complex part of trust tax law.  It essentially triggers potentially punitive gift and GST tax results if a trust is changed where the duration of the trust is extended longer than the trust’s initial governing rule of perpetuities.

For example, assume I created an irrevocable trust in 1980 (when the law allowed a 90-year duration which means the trust essentially must end in 2070).  Is this trust now subject to the Georgia 360-year rule?  [There are some extensions to this 90-year period that get into the notion of “lives in being”; but I do not get into that point for this blog. You also can read one of my earlier blog posts on a creative potential use of the Delaware Tax Trap.  Click here for my earlier post.]

Under this Delaware Tax Trap rule, the tax law provides that if I extend the duration of my existing 1980 trust beyond its then-applicable 90-year period, the result is that I am deemed for gift and GST tax purposes to have withdrawn the trust property and re-contributed the property to the extended-duration trust.  In other words, I am treated as making a gift to the extended trust. This Delaware Tax Trap is a very esoteric tax law concept as a practical matter, but is an issue that most trust tax lawyers have many times grappled with (and debated) in great detail as part of their trust planning.

Below is my key comment for this blog post about Georgia and the Delaware Tax Trap.

The legislative act for these Georgia revisions to its trust and estate laws states “All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.” Does this mean the prior 90-year limitation disappears with no continuing effect for an existing trust?

I am merely raising the above question and have not yet fully examined the scope of an answer.  Nor does a simple, quick answer jump out at me at this time.  More broadly, the question becomes: “How best do trust lawyers deal with this new extended 360-year rule of perpetuities both for existing trusts and in creating new trusts?”

This 360-year rule of perpetuities question needs to be on every trust checklist.

Your 18-Year Old is Off to College in the Fall. HIPAA Confidentiality.

This first paragraph is the essence of this post. One of my children is now 18 and an adult for HIPAA medical confidentiality and disclosure purposes. Without a HIPAA release, no educational institution, medical facility or other personnel of any type can disclose to me — even as a parent — information, including whether or not my child is a patient at any of the random medical facilities or hospitals I call. I could potentially be completely in the dark, and upended with worry if I were to run up against this HIPAA hurdle. Without the HIPAA release, my calling simply to ask any hospital if my child is a patient there will fall on deaf ears.

[There are some extremely limited exceptions to this HIPAA constraint, but as a practical matter we all should plan as though HIPAA applies to all health and medical information.]

Now, a more expanded discussion. My 18-year daughter leaves for out-of-state college in the fall. I will MISS her, but she — for which I am proud — is developing her own strong, competent, and independent wings. As part of her continuing pathway as an adult, I had my daughter recently sign core estate planning documents, including a basic Will, a financial power of attorney, and a health care directive. The health care directive was the primary impetus motivating me to get my daughter to sign these core documents.

In broader terms, I do not anticipate problems that will trigger having ro rely on these documents at my daughter’s youthful, healthy 18-year stage in life. But, I also am well aware of the vast, difficult hurdles and challenges I would face if something completely unanticipated were to occur and I did not have these documents. More specifically, the following HIPAA element was the tipping point as to my getting these documents in place for my daughter.

Let’s assume my daughter, at college 1,000 miles away, is admitted to a hospital due to illness or an accident (let’s hope these events never occur!). We don’t hear from her for a few days; her dorm roommates and other friends do not know her whereabouts; there have been no phone texts, no Instagram, etc.  Let’s also assume we eventually learn my daughter has food poisoning to the extent she had to be hospitalized. But, where is she? No one will tell us.

However, my daughter has now designated my wife and me as agents under her health care directive. We have express authority from her for otherwise HIPAA- protected medical information. We can find out where she is much more readily and effectively, if ever necessary.

If you think this HIPAA worry is merely theoretical, then let me know if you change your mind after finding yourself in one of these worrisome, seemingly interminable, stonewall confidentiality situations. You can read a very good November 2017 WSJ piece on this same subject with reference to more examples. Click here for the WSJ link.

At a minimum, I suggest parents get a health care directive (that includes the HIPAA release) for their college-bound daughter or son before college starts. The fun college parties, beginning with fall football, start soon.

I will be glad to prepare these core documents, or you also can contact me at (470) 401-0101 if you have any questions or need additional information.

 

Horribly Annoying Music; Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

In restaurants, waiting rooms, dentist offices, airports, grocery stores, phone-hold, ad nauseam, we are bombarded persistently with music and television content, not of our own choosing.  This is akin to someone forcing a book or other reading material three inches away from our face with the admonition “READ THIS”.

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and I would have likely agreed fully with one another. While reading a recent The New Yorker magazine, my wife ran across a short comment about Justice Frankfurter having recused [removed] himself from the following 1952 case.  Click here for a link to the supreme court opinion in Public Utilities Comm’n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451 (1952).

What triggered my interest was Justice Frankfurter’s spot-on reaction to this 1952 case, that I include further below. This 1952 anecdote also gives me pause (without my further comment) to ponder where Supreme Court justices (and potential justices) fall now in 2018 as to the notion that a Supreme Court justice lays aside private views in discharging his or her judicial function.

The issue in this 1952 Supreme Court case dealt with some Washington DC public transportation passengers who asserted their constitutional rights were violated by having to listen to streetcar, bus, and railway piped-in music, announcements and advertisements. This content consisted generally of 90% music, 5% announcements, and 5% commercial advertising. The Supreme Court did not side with these constitutional objections.

And, Justice Frankfurter had such a strong reaction (and opposition) to this forced audio content, that he recused himself from the case with the following comment (which is in the published Supreme Court opinion) [I added the underlining below]:

Justice Frankfurter:

The judicial process demands that a judge move within the framework of relevant legal rules and the covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them. He must think dispassionately and submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case. There is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man within it. It does. The fact is that, on the whole, judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved through training, professional habits, self-discipline and that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are entrusted. But it is also true that reason cannot control the subconscious influence of feelings of which it is unaware. When there is ground for believing that such unconscious feelings may operate in the ultimate judgment, or may not unfairly lead others to believe they are operating, judges recuse themselves. They do not sit in judgment. They do this for a variety of reasons. The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested, as well as be so in fact.

 

This case for me presents such a situation. My feelings are so strongly engaged as a victim of the practice in controversy that I had better not participate in judicial judgment upon it. I am explicit as to the reason for my nonparticipation in this case because I have for some time been of the view that it is desirable to state why one takes himself out of a case.

 

2018 Father’s Day; WWII; 1942; Courage

I assume it is universal that every son who is now a father contemplates what he both learned and did not learn from his own father, and what he (the son) will pass on to his children. This post is for my two daughters (I have no son).

My late father, while in 1942 a law partner with the then-Atlanta law firm Sutherland, Tuttle & Brennan, was drafted to serve in WWII. Shortly after his induction into Ft. Bragg (N.C.) boot camp, my father received the officer’s commission he had sought prior to his induction; but, he decidedly and purposely turned down the commission.

0432B7C4-373D-476C-AB02-AE49949EA877

The image above is the 1942 letter from my father’s then-law partner Bill Sutherland to the Army Signal Corps passing along my father’s non-acceptance of the commission   

My father later told me and my brothers that while at Ft. Bragg he concluded it was inequitable that he could avoid the hardship of WWII simply because he was a lawyer and entitled to the safehaven of a stateside lawyer-officer position.

He remained in the U.S. Army 78th infantry division and rose among the non-commissioned ranks to a captain in his field artillery battalion. His 78th infantry division was among the first allied divisions to cross east into Germany over the Rhine River. He received a Bronze Star and Purple Heart. My father in 1946 returned to Atlanta and practiced law for the remainder of his career.

My father rarely spoke of his war days; however, relevant to my post today, he did mention a 1945 Germany battlefield incident in which the commanding officer began to “run scared” and who informed his group of soldiers (including my father who was a Lieutenant at the time) that they needed to surrender. My father had the officer restrained and commanded the soldiers to a successful standoff. No surrender.

In a journal he maintained for several years after his return from WWII, my father in 1950 wrote:

“Aggressiveness! Somehow I feel that the great problem [in life] centers around aggressiveness. To start with we were animals and had to fight for survival. And we may still have to fight – – that is I don’t mind so much as if it is a fight for life or death. But not this petty pushing, this daily gnawing uneasiness lest someone pass us on the road [etc.]  .   .   . In the Army I should have known better than ever to push or fret about little things like a wait in line for chow, but I should have been ready – – as I was – – to take [I delete this name purposely for this blog post] place with the infantry when the chips were down.   .   .   .”

 

I use the above example for this Father’s Day post as an illustration of what, I conclude, was the most important characteristic my father sought to pass along to me and my brothers. That is, courage. And, not just simple courage such as if scared in the dark, etc.

But more specifically, the courage to accept where the chips ultimately fall, as to work, family, money, health, what others may think about you, etc. This also is not merely stoic, passive courage.

Rather, it means responding as honestly, directly, aggressively, and as fully as may be warranted in a situation. But, without fretting or over-worrying about the resulting outcome. Accept with courage that the chips will fall where they fall, with each of us possessing the strength and capacity to handle and deal with whatever that outcome produces. Good or bad.

Happy Father’s Day to each of you.