Use of Military Rank on Legal Documents

[Bonny]

I'm working on an ownership spreadsheet for a very small mineral and gas lease we will be entering into. A couple of DH's extended cousins were military generals. They are both deceased and the document will go into their estate name.

Should the document be in the name of General XYZ or just the person's name?

[Deleted]

I am not a lawyer or an etiquette expert, but I would think the person's full given name is sufficient.  You just want the lease to pass legal muster, not be printed in the social column of the NYT.

[Bonny]

Dec 15, 2013 19:05:39 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

I am not a lawyer or an etiquette expert, but I would think the person's full given name is sufficient.  You just want the lease to pass legal muster, not be printed in the social column of the NYT.

That's my thought too but DH thinks it's part of their legal name. I'm not finding any info on-line.

I'll ask the guy who is managing their Trusts tomorrow. I'm not sure if he's a lawyer but I'm sure he's run into it before. I just wanted to wrap this up before sending it to the prospective lessee.

[shanendoah]

Generals can't retire. They keep their titles for life. I think putting General in there would be the same as using Dr. or MD for a medical doctor.
In other words, it would be appropriate in a legal document but not necessary.
If their service is a big deal to their families, I would use their full military title.

[Phoenix84]

Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but in general practice, I assume titles should only be used in the relevent context.  Since it appears this lease has nothing to do with their career, I'd just leave off their military rank. 

[Bonny]

Dec 16, 2013 12:55:33 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Well, I'm not a lawyer either, but in general practice, I assume titles should only be used in the relevent context.  Since it appears this lease has nothing to do with their career, I'd just leave off their military rank. 

This appears to be the correct answer.

The Trustee for their Trusts does not use the title. Only their given names + Trust.

[The Captain]

Dec 16, 2013 11:25:17 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Generals can't retire. They keep their titles for life. I think putting General in there would be the same as using Dr. or MD for a medical doctor.
In other words, it would be appropriate in a legal document but not necessary.
If their service is a big deal to their families, I would use their full military title.

I think my BIL's relative would be very shocked to hear this.

Why can't they retire?

[shanendoah]

Generals, even supposedly retired Generals, are never actually retired. It's one of those titles for life. They can always be called back for active duty if needed. In general, we don't even let Generals resign their commission unless it's to become President (since our supreme commander, according to the Constitution, must be a civilian).

But it's one of those things. Other officers can retire, and Generals can say they are retired, but they are actually officially active duty.

[Phoenix84]

Dec 16, 2013 21:23:39 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Generals, even supposedly retired Generals, are never actually retired. It's one of those titles for life. They can always be called back for active duty if needed. In general, we don't even let Generals resign their commission unless it's to become President (since our supreme commander, according to the Constitution, must be a civilian).

But it's one of those things. Other officers can retire, and Generals can say they are retired, but they are actually officially active duty.

From what I understand, this is largely true.  After WWII broke out, they called several retired generals back in.  Though I imagine age catches up with generals like it does with everyone else sooner or later.  So the possibility of a general in advanced age to contribute meaningfully likely decreases over time. 

However, I don't think this is really relevent to the question about whether or not military ranks are used in non military legal documents.  I still don't believe they are.

[shanendoah]

Dec 17, 2013 12:25:32 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Dec 16, 2013 21:23:39 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Generals, even supposedly retired Generals, are never actually retired. It's one of those titles for life. They can always be called back for active duty if needed. In general, we don't even let Generals resign their commission unless it's to become President (since our supreme commander, according to the Constitution, must be a civilian).

But it's one of those things. Other officers can retire, and Generals can say they are retired, but they are actually officially active duty.

From what I understand, this is largely true.  After WWII broke out, they called several retired generals back in.  Though I imagine age catches up with generals like it does with everyone else sooner or later.  So the possibility of a general in advanced age to contribute meaningfully likely decreases over time. 

However, I don't think this is really relevent to the question about whether or not military ranks are used in non military legal documents.  I still don't believe they are.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but again, it's much like being a doctor. When a person is an MD, no one thinks twice about having Dr. in front of, or MD after, their name on all legal documents, whether or not they have anything to do with their being a doctor. It's the same with being a General, or any officer who has not resigned their commission. If we did a trust for my grandfather, you can bet it would be Lt Col..., because he was career and that was a big deal to him. I can't imagine it not being a big deal to someone who made General.

Again, I am not saying you would have to use General in the document, just that it would not be legally inappropriate to do so. And I would probably take my lead from the person's immediate family.

[Bonny]

Actually, I've never seen a doctor sign his purchasing agreement or mortgage papers with MD after it on purpose. I'm sure some do and I did have one accidently sign one of his documents that way.

Anyway the Trust company's protocol is to refer to the various generals but the legal documents (trusts)are prepared just using their given names.  The company has been in business since 1911.

And yes, the families are very proud of them; one is one of the most famous WWII generals. Several of the grandchildren have basically made careers of telling the family story and helping other service people.

[Sum Dum Gai]

All formerly active duty service members are subject to recall to active duty by the SecDef. Even us lowly enlisted guys after we separate.

Generals can and do retire, and when they do they are no longer active duty and they get their pension. Military rank is never part of your name legally. Etiquette wise it's polite to address correspondence with military rank. Sort of a thank you for your sacrifice/service kind of thing, but it doesn't change your legal name.

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2013 13:13:27 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

All formerly active duty service members are subject to recall to active duty by the SecDef. Even us lowly enlisted guys after we separate.

Generals can and do retire, and when they do they are no longer active duty and they get their pension. Military rank is never part of your name legally. Etiquette wise it's polite to address correspondence with military rank. Sort of a thank you for your sacrifice/service kind of thing, but it doesn't change your legal name.

I think we should includes body count as part of their title, too.  

Private Dark Honor, 14 kills, etc.

[Sum Dum Gai]

That's Staff Sergeant Dark Honor to you maggot.