-47-
decedent’s son-in-law the subject of whether decedent risked
incurring personal liability on account of her actions. Feldman
also conceded during his testimony that decedent did not drive a
car or face any other specific type of liability, except, he
stated, possibly from her caretaker. While Feldman stated that
decedent, like any other individual, always faced the risk that
she could be sued on account of her actions, we are unpersuaded
by this statement of mere general applicability that limiting
decedent’s personal liability was an actual purpose for forming
the LRFLP. Instead, we hear that statement as nothing more than
a theoretical justification for the formation of a limited
partnership. Such is especially so given that, like decedent,
the general partners of the LRFLP are elderly individuals who
face similar risks of liability. Whereas a limited partnership’s
assets are typically not protected from the liability of its
general partners, it seems that the formation of the LRFLP with
two individual general partners effectively increased the
possibility that a creditor could foreclose on decedent’s
transferred assets.22 Although decedent’s daughter testified that
22 Feldman also did not know or investigate whether decedent
was already protected against personal liability or whether, in
the case of the caretaker, the employment relationship between
decedent and her caretaker precluded the latter from suing the
former on account of actions that arose in the course of that
relationship. Feldman acknowledged that decedent had a “renter’s
insurance” policy but stated that he did not know the specific
terms of that policy.
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011