Objection Handling for Cancelling a Policy

[VolAgent]

Not the same thing, but I seem to recall the state of New York going after people who moved out of the state and attempted to collect income taxes even though the ex-New Yorkers no longer had residence there.

That is different. By being a New York resident, they had submitted themselves to its jurisdiction. They fled before paying all debts and taxes and NY had every right to go after them.

 

[Newby]

Actually, California thinks otherwise.

CA Codes (hsc:7100-7117)

They have the power to go after family. However, despite what FD thinks, that power stops at the state line. In fact, it is clear about in the law. They only have the power to go after relatives living within California.

No that's just the standard order of kinship. That doesn't obligate you in any way. It says that if you don't step up and take charge within 7 days, the ability moves to the next in line.

You are only financially obligated IF you start making arrangements AND signing things. Otherwise there is NOTHING they can make you do.

 

[VolAgent]

No that's just the standard order of kinship. That doesn't obligate you in any way. It says that if you don't step up and take charge within 7 days, the ability moves to the next in line.

You are only financially obligated IF you start making arrangements AND signing things. Otherwise there is NOTHING they can make you do.

The way the code reads, it is not a right to arrange the interment, but a duty. Section 7104 basically says they can find anyone in the state upon which the duty devolves and require them to pay.

Also, Section 7100(a) makes the person liable for the costs.

..vests in, and the duty of disposition and the liability for the reasonable cost of disposition of the remains devolves upon, the following in the order named:...

 

[Newby]

The way the code reads, it is not a right to arrange the interment, but a duty. Section 7104 basically says they can find anyone in the state upon which the duty devolves and require them to pay.

Also, Section 7100(a) makes the person liable for the costs.

I'll take your word on it. I'm no lawyer. But I find it hard to accept (even in Californee) that someone can owe money for a dead-beat relative that they didn't accept the responsibility for.

I'm pretty sure a good attorney could fight that and win if needed. Might make a good class action lawsuit.

 

[VolAgent]

I'll take your word on it. I'm no lawyer. But I find it hard to accept (even in Californee) that someone can owe money for a dead-beat relative that they didn't accept the responsibility for.

I'm pretty sure a good attorney could fight that and win if needed. Might make a good class action lawsuit.

I agree with your sentiment, but that is not how it reads. I feel the same way about attempts by some states to make children pay for their parents' long-term care needs. Is is one thing to take away your assets to pay for your needs, but don't come after mine.