Deck 49: Trusts and Decedents Estates

Question 1

Edwin Fuller, a bachelor, prepared his will in his office. The will, which contained no residuary clause, provided that one-third of his estate would go to his nephew, Tom Fuller, one-third to the city of Emanon to be used for park improvements, and one-third to his brother, Kurt. He signed the will in his office and then went to the office of his nephew, Tom Fuller, who, at Edwin's request, signed the will as a witness. As no other persons were available in Tom's office, Edwin then went to the bank, where Frank Cash, the cashier, at Edwin's request, also signed as a witness. In each instance, Edwin stated that he had signed the document but did not state that it was his will. Edwin returned to his office and placed the will in his safe. Subsequently, Edwin died, survived by Kurt, his only heir-at-law. How should the estate be distributed?

Answer 1

Case summary:
Mr. EF, who is a bachelor, executed his will at his office without any residuary clause giving one third of his property to his nephew Mr. TF, one third to the city of EM for park improvements, and one third to his brother Mr. K. Then, he went to his nephew TF's office and get it signed and then to the bank to the cashier Mr. FC to sign the document as the witnesses in the absence of any other suitable witness. Everytime EF signed the document but did not mention that it is a will. Then he kept the will at his safe box and when subsequently EF died, he was survived only one legal heir his brother Mr. K.
The formal requirements of making a valid will are-
• The creator of the will should be in a proper mental capacity and competent enough to create a will for the distribution and disposition of his property;
• The will should in written form;
• It should be properly signed by the testator;
• The will should also be attested and witnessed by witnesses;
• If the will is a product of duress, fraud, undue influence etc. then it is not legally considered.Solution:
In the above mentioned case, the estate of Mr. EF should be distributed as per the manner he has described in the document of the will. This is because no matter whether EF described the document as his will or not but the fact that the document carried distribution of his assets properly and without any residuary clause shows that he was in the mental capacity to initiate a will. Also, the will was signed by the testator and also by the witnesses which makes the will a valid document and thereby to conclude it could be said that the estate of Mr. EF should be distributed as per the manner he has described in the document of the will.

Question 2

Arnold executed a one-page will, in which he devised his farm to Burton. Later, as the result of a quarrel with Burton, Arnold wrote the words, "I hereby cancel and revoke this will /s/ Arnold," in the margin of the will but did not destroy the will. Arnold then executed a deed to the farm, naming Connie as grantee, and placed the deed and will in his safe. Shortly afterwards, Arnold married Donna, with whom he had one child, Ernest. Thereafter, Arnold died, and the deed and will were found in his safe. Burton, Connie, and Ernest claim the farm, and Donna claims dower. Discuss the validity of each claim.

Answer 2

Case summary:
Mr. AR executed a will and assigned the farm to Mr. B but after a quarrel with him he wrote at the will that he is revoking the assigning of farm to B and assigned it to Mr. C as grantee in the corner of the will and kept it in a safe box. Later, AR married Ms. D and had a son Mr. ER. When AR died, the deed and will was found in the safe box and over this, B, C, and ER claimed for the farm and also D claimed for dower.
Revocation of a will stands for the cancellation of the execution of the will by the testator (creator) or the will gets revoked due to certain circumstances or by operation of law.
The following are the ways through which a will could be revoked-
• Destruction of alteration of a will cancels and revokes it.
• When there is a presence of a subsequent will then the prior wills gets revoked being inconsistent.
• A will gets revoked when there is an addition or revision of certain aspects of the will also called as codicil.
• In marriage cases generally the will executed before the marriage gets revokes.
• When there is birth of a child then this revokes the will as far as that child is concerned.• The surviving spouse of the testator under law can elect to revoke the will.
Solution:
In the above mentioned case, Mr. B and Mr. C carry no right towards the will and with the acquiring of AR's farm. This is because a will gets revoked when there is addition or alteration made to it. Secondly, in marriage cases generally the will executed before the marriage gets revoked; and the surviving spouse (D) of the testator under law can elect to revoke the will; and also when there is birth of a child then this revokes the will as far as that child is concerned. Thus, on the basis of above mentioned points and reasoning it could be concluded that Mr. B and Mr. C carry no right towards the will and with the acquiring of AR's farm. And, finally after satisfying the D's dower's claim, the remaining estate of AR would go to his son Mr. ER.

Question 3

The validly executed will of John Dane contained the following provision: "I give and devise to my daughter, Mary, Redacre for and during her natural life and, at her death, the remainder to go to Wilmore College." The will also provided that the residue of his estate should go to Wilmore College. Thereafter, Dane sold Redacre and then added a validly executed codicil to his will, "Due to the fact that I have sold Redacre which I previously gave to my daughter, Mary, I now give and devise Blackacre to Mary in place and instead of Redacre."
Another clause of the codicil provided: "I give to my son, Henry, my one-half interest in the oil business, which I own in common with William Steele." Subsequently, Dane acquired all of the interest in the oil business from his partner, Steele, and, at the time of his death, Dane owned the entire oil business. The will and codicil have been admitted to probate.
a. What interest, if any, does Mary acquire in Blackacre?
b. What interest, if any, does Henry acquire in the oil business?

Answer 3

Case summary:
Mr. JD executed a valid will in which he gave Red property to his daughter Ms. M during her natural life and after her death this property should go to WL College alongwith the residue of his estate to this college. Later, JD validly undertake codicil to his will in which he stated that as he has sold RED so now he gives BLA Property to his daughter M at the place of Red. Another clause under codicil was added stating that he gives one half interest in his oil business to his son Mr. H which JD owns alongwith Mr. WS. Later, JD acquired the complete oil business from his partner WS and after his death the entire business came to JD. Later, the will and the codicil were given for probate.
The formal requirements of making a valid will are-
• The creator of the will should be in a proper mental capacity and competent enough to create a will for the distribution and disposition of his property;
• The will should in written form;
• It should be properly signed by the testator;
• The will should also be attested and witnessed by witnesses;
• If the will is a product of duress, fraud, undue influence etc. then it is not legally considered.Conclusion:
(a) In the above mentioned case, Ms. M carry complete interest and right over BLA Property because as per the validly executed codicil by her father Mr. JD she is entitled to become the owner of BLA property.
(b) Similarly, as per the validly executed codicil, Mr. H who is the son of JD is entitled to gain one half interest and right in his father's oil business. Thus, it does not matter whether JD owns the oil business completely or in partnership with WS because as per the codicil, H is entitled to receive only one-half of the oil business interest that his father's possess.

Question 4

Leonard Wolfe was killed in an automobile accident while driving his Toyota Camry. The car was rendered a total loss, and Wolfe's insurance carrier paid his estate $18,550 for damage to the vehicle. Under the terms of Wolfe's will, any car owned at his death was to be given to his brother, David. Wolfe's daughter, Carol, however, brought an action, claiming that the gift of the car to David was adeemed by its total destruction and that she, as the residuary legatee under the will, was entitled to the insurance proceeds. Who is entitled to the insurance proceeds?

Question 5

Grace Peterson, a never-married and childless woman, then age seventy-four, asked Chester Gustafson, a Minneapolis attorney, to draw a will for her. Gustafson, who had also probated Peterson's sister's estate, drew this first will and six subsequent wills and codicils free of charge because he claimed that she had no money to pay for his services. Over the five-year period during which Gustafson redrew Peterson's will, an increasing amount of property was devised to Gustafson's children, until, finally, the seventh will so devised Peterson's entire estate. Peterson, however, hardly knew the children except from several chance encounters ten years before. She died without ever having changed the seventh will, and Gustafson, who was named as executor, now seeks to have the will admitted to probate. Discuss whether the seventh will should be probated.

Question 6

Rodney Sharp was a fifty-six-year-old dairy farmer whose education did not go beyond the eighth grade. Upon the death of his wife of thirty-two years, Sharp developed a very close relationship with Jean Kosmalski, a schoolteacher sixteen years his junior. Sharp eventually proposed to Kosmalski, but when she refused, he continued to make gifts to her in hopes of changing her mind. He also gave her access to his bank account, from which she withdrew substantial amounts of money; made a will naming her as sole beneficiary; and executed a deed naming her as a joint owner of his farm. Then, in September 2012, Sharp transferred his remaining joint interest in the farm to Kosmalski. In February 2014, Kosmalski ordered Sharp to move out of his home and to vacate the farm. She then took possession of both, leaving Sharp with assets of $300. Discuss whether a constructive trust should be imposed on the property transferred to Kosmalski.

Question 7

By his last will and testament, Henry Nussbaum made a residual bequest and devise of his estate to his niece, Jane Blair, as trustee, in trust for the education of his grandchildren. If the trust could not be fulfilled, the residue was to revert to the plaintiff, Dorothy Witmer. After Nussbaum died in 2002, the plaintiff contended that the trustee had breached her fiduciary duty by failing to invest the trust corpus. A considerable portion of the trust funds were held in a checking account from 2005 to 2014. The trustee claimed that the will failed to specify when and what investments were to be made and, hence, such matters were left to her good-faith discretion. She also explained the large checking account balances by the fact that she thought she would need access to the funds to pay for college in the near future. Decision?

Question 8

John Hobelsberger lived alone on his farm near Kranzburg, South Dakota. A grandniece, Phyllis Raml, and her husband, Ralph, lived on and operated a farm about two miles away. Hobelsberger and the Ramls had a friendly and cordial relationship. The Ramls visited him rather frequently and largely cared for him during his later years. Hobelsberger was hospitalized on October 23, and his condition was diagnosed as intermittent cerebral insufficiency. During his hospitalization, he requested that the Ramls send an attorney to see him about the preparation of a will. Thomas Green, an attorney, interviewed the testator on or about November 10 and prepared a will in compliance with his instructions.
Hobelsberger was transferred to a nursing home on November 19. On November 22, Green and a secretary went to the nursing home and witnessed his signing of the will. Hobelsberger was then eighty years old. He subscribed the will with a mark because he was having trouble with his hands. Hobelsberger died on July 19 of the following year, survived by twenty-seven nieces and nephews and seven grandnieces and grandnephews. The will, after providing for the payment of debts and funeral expenses, left Hobelsberger's entire estate to Phyllis Raml. Nine of the nieces and nephews contested the will, claiming lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence by the Ramls, and improper execution. Should the court admit the will to probate? Explain.

Question 9

Mamie Henry, a widow, died leaving no children, but she was survived by several nieces and nephews. At first no will was found, and Joe Barksdale, a nephew, was appointed administrator of Mrs. Henry's estate. Later, Rita Pendergrass produced a copy of a will allegedly made by Mrs. Henry. The will left all of Mrs. Henry's property to Mrs. Pendergrass and appointed her as executrix. When Mrs. Pendergrass sought to have the will admitted to probate, Joe Barksdale and Olen Barksdale filed a contest on the grounds that the purported will was never duly executed, or, if executed, was destroyed by Mrs. Henry prior to her death. Should the will be probated? Explain.

Question 10

George Washington Croom died testate. In his will Croom left various bequests of real and personal property to his children and a grandchild. In Item Eight of his will Croom stated "I leave nothing whatsoever to my daughter Kathryn Elizabeth Turner, and my son Ernest Edward Croom." At his death, Croom also left three optional share certificates in Carolina Savings Loan Association issued to George W. Croom or Kimberly Joyce Croom, the deceased's minor daughter. Each of these certificates had attached to it an "Agreement Concerning Stock in Carolina Savings and Loan Association" which purported to create a joint account with a right of survivorship. Two of these agreements were signed by George Croom only and the third agreement was not signed at all. None of these certificates were specifically devised by Croom's will and the will contained no residuary clause. Who is entitled to share in these assets?

Question 11

State whether or not a trust is created in each of the following situations:
a. A declares herself trustee of "the bulk of my securities" in trust for B.?
b. A, the owner of Blackacre, purports to convey to B in trust for C "a small part" of Blackacre.?
c. A deposits $100,000 in a savings bank. He declares himself trustee of the deposit in trust to pay B $50,000 out of the deposit, reserving the power to withdraw from the deposit any amounts not in excess of $50,000.?

Question 12

Upon George Welch's death, he was survived by his third wife, Dorothy Welch, and his daughter by his first marriage, Patricia Fisher. At the time George and Dorothy were married, George was in very poor health and he relied on Dorothy to care for him. George was suicidal and an alcoholic and suffered from severe depression. During the eight months George and Dorothy were married, George became isolated from his family and his health deteriorated. Prior to his death, George transferred the bulk of his assets to Dorothy. Dorothy assisted in the transfer of George's assets and often completed checks and other papers for George's signature. Although George and Dorothy had executed a prenuptial agreement, during the month preceding his death George made a new will that named Dorothy as his sole beneficiary. Patricia had been the sole beneficiary of his prior will. Through the transfers of assets and the new will, Dorothy received $570,000.
a. What are the arguments that Patricia is entitled to the $570,000?
b. What are the arguments that Dorothy is entitled to the $570,000?
c. Who should prevail? Why?

Question 13

Testator gives property to Tim in trust for Barney's benefit, providing that Barney cannot anticipate the income by assignment or pledge. Barney borrows money from Linda, assigning his future income under the trust for a stated period. Can Linda obtain any judicial relief to prevent Barney from collecting this income?

Question 14

Collins was trustee for Indolent under the will of Indolent's father. Indolent, a middle-age doctor, gave little concern to the management of the trust fund, contenting himself with receiving the income paid him by the trustee. Among the assets of the trust were one thousand shares of ABC Corporation and one thousand shares of XYZ Corporation. About two years before the termination of the trust, Collins, at a fair price and after full explanation to Indolent, purchased from the trust the ABC stock. At the same time but without saying anything to Indolent, he purchased the XYZ stock at a price in excess of its then market value. At the termination of the trust, both stocks had advanced in market value well beyond the prices paid by Collins, and Indolent demanded that Collins either account for this advance in the value of both stocks or replace the stocks. What are Indolent's rights?

Question 15

Joe Brown gave to his wife, Mary Brown, $350,000 with which to buy real property. They orally agreed that title to the real property should be taken in the name of Mary Brown but that she should hold the property in trust for Joe Brown. There were two witnesses to the oral agreement, both of whom are still living. Mary purchased the property on September 2, and a deed to it with Mary Brown as the grantee was delivered.
Mary died ten years later without a will. The real property is now worth $800,000. Joe Brown is claiming the property as the beneficiary of a trust. Mary's children are claiming that the property belongs to Mary's estate and have pleaded the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds as defenses to the claim of Joe. There is no evidence to prove whether Mary would or would not have conveyed the property to Joe during her lifetime if she had been requested to do so. What are Joe's ownership rights to this particular real property?

Question 16

On March 10, John Carver executed his will, which was witnessed by William Hobson and Sam Witt. By his will, Carver devised his farm, Stonecrest, to his nephew, Roy White. The residue of his estate was given to his sister, Florence Carver. A codicil to his will executed April 15 of that year provided that $25,000 be given to Carver's niece, Mary Jordan, and $25,000 to Wanda White, Roy White's wife. The codicil was witnessed by Roy White and Harold Brown. John Carver died September 1 of that year, and the will and codicil were admitted to probate. How should Carver's estate be distributed?