Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we post every other day.
The posts on Monday 5/11/2026, here and here, told us about changes to PA estate planning/probate law that might affect you (some already effective, others not until later this month). Review your existing documents to see if any revisions are necessary (or execute new ones) after considering the revised law. (image from depositphotos.com) So let’s look at the changes.
The first change deals with intestate succession – where there is no Will. This deals with what happens to any part of an estate to which a surviving spouse is not entitled (and if there is no surviving spouse, it means the entire estate). The order of succession remains the same for the first 5 levels – see the post for who takes at those levels (and what happens if there is nobody at a particular level). The change here comes in at the 6th level and instead of the (remainder of the) estate going to the Commonwealth, instead it goes to an endowed community fund. That is a defined term in the statute (meaning there are criteria to be met to be considered an endowed community fund – see the post for more on that) The revised legislation also provides for which endowed community funds are in line in what order – that too is in the post. And then if there is no eligible endowed community fund, the (remainder of the) estate goes to the Commonwealth.
The next change relates to payments to family and funeral directors. It increases the amount (see the post) a bank or similar institution shall pay to the named persons (see the post for the list) when they present a funeral bill or affidavit by a licensed funeral director.
The legislation also increases the amount (see the post) of unclaimed or abandoned property held by the State Treasurer to be distributed after the person dies under the conditions in that portion of the statute (which did not change other than as to the amount – see the post).
The legislation also provides for which parts are effective on what dates. As of now, the first change (related to intestate succession) is effective. The increase in amounts related to payments to funeral directors and family and unclaimed property are effective May 24, 2026.
TAKEAWAY: If you don’t want the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to determine who gets what after you die, then make sure you have a Will in place – and ensure that the Will disposes of all property, taking into account all possible voids that might happen with intended beneficiaries.
The posts on Wednesday 5/13/2026, here and here, explained that luxurious high-rise is facing its 2nd lawsuit in months, but developers are fighting back. This is not limited to FL but certainly there is a lot of this type of incident and suits in FL …
Developers of downtown Miami’s Aston Martin Residences (remember our posts Thursday 4/23/2026 here and here about those vehicle-themed condos?) are facing their second lawsuit (linked in the post) in four months. This suit was filed by the 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Condominium Association and claims that residents have observed concrete balconies crumbling and the building’s seawall corroding. The current repair estimate is in the millions of dollars.
The condo association took over management of the property in March 2025. It lays blame on Riverwalk East Development, LLC, the developer. The suit alleges that residents moved in to find shattered glass on balconies, unsealed concrete, and chunks of concrete falling to the ground. And what is the result of the crumbling concrete on the balconies? See the post.
The suit was filed in March 2026, supported by engineering and plumbing inspection results, and accuses Riverwalk of overseeing defective work. Some things the engineers’ reports include are noted in the post. The association’s attorney explained why what happened could not have been just a (lack of) maintenance issue – yep, see the post.
As noted at the outset, this is the second suit against the development. A suit was filed in January 2026 against Aston Martin Residences, accusing developer German Coto and his businesses of fraud for allegedly failing to deliver on promised amenities, including a private marina, helipad, and concierge services.
Riverwalk is not taking it sitting down; its spokesperson released a statement defending the company. In part it attempts to shift blame to the association. See the post for the statement.
TAKEAWAY: Having the name of a luxury car brand – even one that consistently manufactures great vehicles – affixed to a high-priced condominium does not guaranty that the building has been properly or safely built. Owners must beware and possibly be ready for litigation if necessary. Ensure that you work with a community association lawyer.
The posts on Friday 5/15/2026, here and here, we reported that an alleged denial of $1700 accommodation results in $100K ADA settlement. Yep, those dollars are almost the same, right? Ugh.
A manufacturer will pay $100,000 to resolve an EEOC lawsuit (linked in the post) alleging that it demoted an employee with hearing loss in response to her request for reasonable accommodation. The august 2024 complaint noted that the employee’s requested accommodation (detailed in the psot) would have Smiths Detection, Inc. just $1,700. But Smiths did not approve of the request. Instead, it took the other action listed in the post. The EEOC claimed that Smith’s actions unlawfully deprived the employee of equal employment opportunities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While Smiths agreed to settle, it did not admit liability.
Remember that the starting point for accommodation is that it must be reasonable. And it cannot work an undue hardship for the employer (which is harder to prove now thanks to the Supreme Court). Reassignment may be a reasonable accommodation in some circumstances – the EEOC has given some examples (one of which is in the post). But reassignment is generally the accommodation of last resort and granted only when no other effective accommodations exist. There are also other things to keep in mind when reassigning someone as an accommodation – see the post for a discussion of those items.
So did Smiths’ actions in relation to the employee’s requested accommodation meet its burden under the ADA? See the post for the EEOC’s view and its statement.
The settlement was not limited to monetary relief. Smiths also agreed to take steps including reviewing and revising its ADA policies and more as noted in the post.
So could (or did) Smiths argue that the $1700 requested accommodation would be an undue hardship for it? Well, the EEOC claimed that Smiths had annual revenue of $2 billion, so you answer that question. Of course Smiths is not the only employer to have faced legal penalties (far) exceeding the relatively minor cost of a proposed disability accommodation.
In 2018, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $700,000 jury verdict in favor of a Dollar General cashier whom the company prohibited from keeping orange juice at her work station to accommodate her diabetes. The post contains a link to more details on that. The store did not explore a reasonable accommodation for the plaintiff there but just denied her request.
The US Department of Labor has as part of its source materials a list of “myths about the ADA” (linked in the post) and notes that providing reasonable accommodation is not necessarily expensive for employers. A Job Accommodation Network survey of employers conducted between 2019 and 2024 supports DOL’s materials – see the post for JAN’s findings (which might surprise you).
TAKEAWAY: Employers have an obligation to reasonably accommodate a worker unless they can show undue hardship. Facts matter; those facts are not just limited to the dollar cost of accommodation. Work with an employment lawyer.