Deck 51: Decedents Estates and Trusts

Question 1

Field executed a will. On her death, the will was found in her safe deposit box, but the part of it containing the fifth bequest had been torn from the will. This torn fragment was also found in the box. There was no evidence that anyone other than Field had ever opened the box. A proceeding was brought to determine whether the will was entitled to be probated. Had the will been revoked Was the will still valid with a portion torn from it [Flora v Hughes, 228 SW2d 27 (Ky)]

Answer 1

Refer to the case Flora v Hughes to answer question as below:
Facts to this case
• A testatrix made a will which was placed in her security deposit box, which only she had access to.
• After her death, it was found that there was a portion was ripped from the will.
Case Issue
The issue is whether the will is still valid.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Testate - is someone (a male, Testatrix is the female) who have made a will (orders of how to distribute his assets when he dies).
Probate - is administering a disease's estate by terms of the will.
Analysis and Conclusion
The court upheld the unripped portion of the will. They argued that:
• A torn will is revoked only when the testatrix had torn it up with the intent to revoke it.
• There was no proof that testatrix wanted to revoke the entire will as she acted in accordance to it. On the other hand, there was only proof the testatrix wanted to amend it.
• The amendment was the part which was torn out.
Thus, the entire will is not revoked but only amended. The torn out part will not be upheld, the rest of the will is upheld.

Question 2

Miller wrote a will that was 11 pages long and enclosed it in an envelope, which she sealed. She then wrote on the envelope "My last will testament" and signed her name below this statement. This was the only place where she signed her name on any of the papers. Was this signature sufficient to allow this writing to be admitted to probate as her will [Miller's Executor v Shannon, 299 SW2d 103 (Ky)]

Answer 2

Refer to the case Miller's Executor v Shannon to answer question as below:
Facts to this case
• Testatrix made a will, which she placed in a sealed envelope and signed the envelope (not the will document).
Case Issue
The issue is whether the will is valid. Note that, signatures on wills are typically placed on the end of the document.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Testate - is someone (a male, Testatrix is the female) who have made a will (orders of how to distribute his assets when he dies).
Analysis and Conclusion
The court held that the will was invalid. They argued that:
• There's no contention that the testatrix may intend that this be her final will.
• But, the state law holds that in order to be valid the signature must be on the last end page. Not doing so will make the will invalid (regardless of intention).
• The envelope is not considered the end page of the will.
Since, the signature was not signed appropriately the will can't be upheld.

Question 3

Lingenfelter's will was offered for probate and was opposed. Ms. Lingenfelter (the testatrix) was sick, highly nervous, and extremely jealous, and she committed suicide a week after executing the will. She had, however, seemed to understand the will when she discussed it with an attorney. The will disinherited her husband because she feared he was not faithful to her despite the fact that he was seriously ill when she wrote the will. He died the day after she executed the will, and she grieved his death terribly for one week before committing suicide. Did she have the capacity to make a will Should it be admitted to probate [In re Lingenfelter ' s Estate , 241 P.2d 990 (Cal.)]

Answer 3

Case summary:
Ms. LF will was offered to probate and was opposed because she was sick, highly nervous and extremely jealous person as also she committed suicide after one week of executing this will. In her will she has disinherited her husband fearing that he is dishonest to her although he was sick when she executed this will and the day after the execution of the will, her husband died. She grieved over his death and committed suicide after a week of his death.
Conclusion:
As per the events and situations mentioned in the case, it could be said that it does not seems that Ms. LF was capable of executing a will as she was sick and nervous. She was also a fearful and jealous person who was in a doubt over the loyalty of her husband towards her. Also she committed suicide after her husband died a week before. Thus on this basis her will should not be probated and should be kept on hold by the court till some other dimension comes to this case and over her will.

Question 4

Copenhaver wrote a will in ink, which was found with her other papers in her bedroom at her death. Pencil lines had been drawn through every provision of the will and the signature. There was no evidence as to the circumstances under which this had been done. Was the will revoked Why or why not [Franklin v Maclean, 66 SE2d 504 (Va)]

Question 5

George Baxter executed a will that left the bulk of his estate to the Church of Christ in New Boston, Texas. Two members of the church served as the witnesses for the will. Is the will valid [In re Estate of Gordon, 519 SW2d 902 (Tex)]

Question 6

Jeanette Wall worked for D. J. Sharron for many years. Sharron executed a will leaving his entire estate to Jeanette. He reexecuted the same will sometime thereafter with the same provisions. Sharron's children contested the will, offering evidence that Sharron was a very sick man, physically as well as mentally, and that Wall was active in Sharron's business as well as his personal life. They offered no evidence that Wall had any involvement in the procurement of the original or the reexecuted will. Who is entitled to the estate Why [Wall v Hodges, 465 So 2d 359 (Ala App)]

Question 7

In 1984, Alexander Tolin executed a will under which the residue of his estate was to be devised to his friend Adair Creaig. The will was prepared by Steven Fine, Tolin's attorney, and executed in Fine's office. Fine retained the original will, and gave a blue-backed photocopy to Tolin. In 1989, Tolin executed a codicil to the will that changed the residuary beneficiary from Creaig to Broward Art Guild, Inc. Fine prepared the codicil, and retained the original, giving Tolin a blue-backed photocopy of the original executed codicil.
Tolin died in 1990. Six months before his death, he told his neighbor Ed Weinstein, who was a retired attorney, that he made a mistake and wished to revoke the codicil and reinstate Creaig as the residuary beneficiary. Weinstein told Tolin he could do this by tearing up the original codicil. Tolin handed Weinstein a bluebacked document that Tolin said was the original codicil. Weinstein looked at the document; it appeared to him to be the original, and gave it back to Tolin. Tolin then tore up and destroyed the document with the intent and for the purpose of revocation. Some time after Tolin's death, Weinstein spoke with Fine and found out for the first time that Fine had the original will and codicil. Creaig filed a petition to determine if there had been a revocation of the codicil. From a judgment that Tolin's destruction of a copy of the codicil was not an effective revocation of the codicil, Creaig appealed. Who is correct about the revocation and why [In re Estate of Tolin, 622 So2d 988 (Fla)]

Question 8

Valerie and Flora are the beneficiaries of a trust left to them by their mother upon her death. Their mother named Art Casanelli, a family friend, as the trustee. Flora has seen Art driving a new car and has learned that he just purchased a new and rather large home. She is concerned about the trust funds and Art's unfettered access to them. How can she determine whether Art is using trust funds What happens if she finds that he is

Question 9

Can a murderer inherit property from his victim Why or why not

Question 10

James Horne's will provides that his estate is to be distributed to his heirs per capita. Upon his death, two of his three children are surviving and his deceased child left two children (James's grandchildren). His will provides that all his property is to be distributed per capita to these children and grandchildren. How will the property be distributed How would it be distributed if he had provided for a per stirpes distribution

Question 11

Justin Whitman is the adult son of Jeffrey Whitman, an attorney who has served as the trustee for a trust of which Justin is the beneficiary. The trust was established for Justin by his grandfather, Jeffrey's father. Justin asked his father/trustee for an accounting of the principal and income of the trust. Jeffrey asked for the accounting in 2007 and received nothing by 2008 and filed suit for the accounting. Is Jeffrey entitled to receive the accounting What could a court do in order to obtain the accounting [ Whitman v. Whitman , 2012 WL 367055 (Ohio App. 2012)]

Question 12

Joseph McKinley Bryan was an elderly, wealthy, and eccentric man. Before his death, he had made provisions for a testamentary trust for his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Under the terms of the trust, each grandchild who survived him was to receive $500,000, and each greatgrandchild who survived him was to receive $100,000. By the time of Bryan's death on April 26, 1995, there had been at least five versions of the trust's provisions. His will was originally dated June 29, 1990, but the trust agreement was originally made in 1985, with two changes in 1988, one in 1990, and another in 1992. In May 1995, NationsBank Corp., the trustee, notified Bryan's grandchildren by letter that they would be receiving only $100,000. Because the grandchildren had understood that they were to receive $500,000, they asked to see the trust agreements. The trustee refused, contending that there was no duty to share the agreement with the trust beneficiaries. Was the trustee right [Taylor v NationsBank Corp., 481 SE2d 358 (NC App)]

Question 13

Gerald "Pat" Arrington was diagnosed with a brain tumor. At the time of the diagnosis, he was married to Brenda Arrington, but they were separated pending their divorce. Brenda and Pat had no children, but Pat had five children from a previous marriage. Patricia Daley had lived with Pat since she was born. Pat referred to her as his only "stable" child. After Patricia married David Daley, the two stayed with Pat at his ranch and helped him with the cattle and working the land.
Pat executed a new will one year before his death and following the brain tumor diagnosis that left everything to Patricia because Pat felt Brenda would just sell his ranch and he did not want it to be sold. After Pat died, Patricia, as executrix of the estate, had the will admitted to probate. Brenda challenged the admission of the will to probate because she said that he gave his property to someone who was not legally his child and that showed he lacked capacity. The will was witnessed by two employees of a bank and both testified that Pat seemed to be his usual self and that he had done business at the bank for 20 years. What should the court do with the will and the challenge to it and why [In re Estate of Arrington , 365 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App. 2012)]

Question 14

Iona wrote her will. The following year, she wrote another will that expressly revoked the earlier will. Later, while cleaning house, she came across the second will. She mistakenly thought that it was the first will and tore it up because the first will had been revoked. Iona died shortly thereafter. The beneficiaries named in the second will claimed that the second will should be probated. The beneficiaries named in the first will claimed that the second will had been revoked when it was torn up. Had the second will been revoked

Question 15

Logsdon, who had three children, disliked one of them without any reason. In his will, he left only a small amount to the child he disliked and gave the bulk of his estate to the remaining two. On his death, the disliked child claimed that the will was void and had been obtained by undue influence. Do you agree [Logsdon v Logsdon, 104 NE2d 622 (Ill)]