DOCSLIB.ORG

Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill [HL]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill [HL] HOUSE OF LORDS Special Public Bill Committee Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill [HL] Ordered to be printed 16 December 2013 and published 20 December 2013 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £10.50 HL Paper 105 The Special Public Bill Committee The Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Bill [HL] was committed to a Special Public Bill Committee on 23 October 2013. The members of the Committee were appointed on 28 October 2013. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations set out in parts 2–7 of the Law Commission’s report, “Intestacy and family provision claims on death” (Law Com No. 331). Membership Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Lord Beecham Earl of Courtown Baroness Hamwee Viscount Hanworth Lord Henley Lord Jones Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman) Lord McNally Lord Plant of Highfield Lord Shaw of Northstead Publications The report and proceedings of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House of Lords. All publications of the Committee are on the internet at www.parliament.uk Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Special Public Bill Committee, Legislation Office, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3153. INHERITANCE AND TRUSTEES’ POWERS BILL [HL]: EVIDENCE 1 Minutes of Evidence TAKEN BEFORE THE SPECIAL PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2013 Members present Lord Lloyd of Berwick Viscount Hanworth (Chairman) Lord Henley Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Lord Jones Lord Beecham Lord McNally Earl of Courtown Lord Plant of Highfield Baroness Hamwee Lord Shaw of Northstead Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: LORD MCNALLY, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, PROFESSOR ELIZABETH COOKE, Law Commissioner, EDWARD NUGEE QC and SIDNEY ROSS, were examined Memorandum by Lord McNally, Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice 1. In this written evidence to the Committee, I do not propose to restate the broad contents and benefits of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill. There is already substantial material in existence which explains them and an open briefing session for Peers has already taken place. I am also aware that the Law Commissioner responsible for the work which led to the Bill, Professor Cooke, has provided very comprehensive written evidence to the Committee and I do not wish to duplicate any part of that. 2. Instead, I propose to deal with a number of issues that were raised during Second Reading Committee on 22 October. I dealt with some issues during the debate itself but it may be helpful to discuss some others further here. The first of these is Lord Henley’s remark, echoed later in the debate by Baroness Hamwee, that he foresaw potential problems concerning the Bill’s amended definition of personal chattels. 3. The Bill introduces a new exception, to the definition of personal chattels, for property which is held solely as an investment. I do not anticipate that there will be undue problems in interpreting this provision. Any personal use of the chattels in question would be enough to remove them from the exception and bring those chattels within the ordinary statutory definition which would mean they would pass to the surviving spouse or civil partner on intestacy. There may be particularly difficult cases which may be the subject of litigation on this point. That is potentially the case with all legislation and such cases will be decided on their particular facts but I do not believe that there needs to be any further clarification of this point on the face of the Bill. 4. Lord Wills expressed a number of concerns about the conduct of solicitors when dealing with the estate of a deceased individual or when appointed as an attorney under a lasting power of attorney. I have subsequently met with Lord Wills to discuss his concerns and to emphasise my belief that these are not issues that would be best dealt with in this bill. We have agreed that a better course of action is for me to pursue these issues with the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. This I am doing and my discussions with Lord Wills will continue outside the context of this Bill. 5. Lord Marks referred to the Government’s intention to delete the provision creating an additional ground of jurisdiction for family provision claims. He particularly asked whether there is any other way of widening the present jurisdictional rule. We have had extensive discussions with Scottish Government colleagues to try to find a way of meeting their concerns whilst simultaneously saving this provision in some form. Unfortunately, such a way forward was not identified and I therefore decided that the best course of action would be to delete this provision from the Bill entirely. 6. This was on the grounds that it was not appropriate for a Bill such as this, which is being taken forward under a very specific Parliamentary procedure designed for non-contentious Bills, to contain a provision that is already subject to significant opposition. I am mindful particularly here of the comments made by Lord Henley who asked for the Government’s assurance that this special procedure for Law Commission Bills is only used for uncontroversial measures. I am happy to give such assurance and it is for this very reason that I do not believe that it is possible to pursue an additional ground of jurisdiction for family provision claims. I understand that Professor Cooke has also written to Lord Marks explaining the Law Commission’s position on this matter. 7. Lastly, I should also mention that Lord Beecham previously raised the issue of joint tenancies and how they relate to the intestacy rules. The Law Commission has written to me giving a detailed explanation of 2 INHERITANCE AND TRUSTEES’ POWER BILL [HL]: EVIDENCE this issue and this letter has been circulated to Committee members although I have attached it again to this evidence for convenience. 8. I am sure that some of these issues will be discussed further by the Special Public Bill Committee. However, I hope that in the meantime, this brief written evidence on behalf of the Government will assist the Committee. Attachment Letter from Professor Elizabeth Cooke to Lord McNally Dear Lord McNally JOINT TENANCIES AND THE INTESTACY RULES During the second reading debate on the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill Lord Beecham asked whether the Law Commission had, when making our recommendations, taken account of the potential impact of joint tenancies on the assets which are available on intestacy. We are pleased to write to you explaining the position. The Law Commission gave careful attention to this issue when considering both its provisional proposals, and making its final recommendations. The relevant paragraphs of the Consultation Paper are paras 2.34-2.35, 3.14-3.28, and 3.85-3.97, and of the Report are paras 2.45-2.50. The Commission consulted on whether the sharing of intestate estates should focus on the family home. Among other options, we asked for views on whether the law should be reformed to require a surviving spouse to account (perhaps in the context of a larger statutory legacy) for any share of the family home which passed automatically by survivorship. This recognised the impact on the children of the deceased where a surviving spouse acquires the deceased’s interest in the family home by survivorship and the rest of the estate under the intestacy rules. The option did not receive much support on consultation, and attracted considerable criticism. A number of consultees expressed concern that a scheme which required the value of the family home to be set against the statutory legacy would be complicated, difficult to apply and likely to add to costs. It was argued that it would be unfair and inappropriate for a spouse’s entitlement on intestacy to be set against property he or she already owned. It was also suggested that the reform could leave a surviving spouse with the family home but insufficient resources to keep it up. We were convinced by the weight of opposition and concluded that it was not appropriate to pursue this option for reform. It is worth re-stating that property owned under a joint tenancy can be said to demonstrate the deceased’s intention that his or her co-owner should take the whole of the property in the event of his or her death– a joint tenancy has been referred to as the poor man’s will. It is reasonable in principle, then, that such property should not be divided under the intestacy rules. Importantly, however, property which has passed by survivorship is accessible for the purposes of family provision. It is open to the court to make an order which requires the value of the family home to be shared where a child or dependant can show that he or she did not receive reasonable provision from the deceased’s estate. I hope that this is helpful. I am happy to provide any further information that might be useful. Yours sincerely Professor Elizabeth Cooke 28 October 2013 Memorandum by Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Law Commissioner BacKGround to THE BILL 1. The Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill has its origins in the draft Bill which accompanied the Law Commission’s Report Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death Law Com No 331 published in December 2011. That Report and draft Bill were the culmination of a project referred to us by the Ministry of Justice, with the support of the Better Regulation Executive of the Cabinet Office, following calls for a review of the intestacy rules in response to the Ministry of Justice’s 2005 consultation on the statutory legacy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal
    ROUNDS.FINAL.DOCX 5/28/2013 3:43 PM QUINNIPIAC PROBATE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 26 2013 NUMBER 3 OLD DOCTRINE MISUNDERSTOOD, NEW DOCTRINE MISCONCEIVED: DECONSTRUCTING THE NEWLY- MINTED RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY’S POWER OF APPOINTMENT SECTIONS CHARLES E. ROUNDS, JR.* Abstract The United States Constitution is quickening into an organism with common law attributes, while state common law as enhanced by equity, once a principles-based regime, is suffocating under the weight of layer upon layer of partial, hyper-technical codifications. Major players in the codification movement are the Uniform Law Commis- sion and The American Law Institute. The latter drafts model stat- utes, while the former drafts legislation, that, when enacted into law by the states, partially codifies or fills perceived gaps in assorted cor- ners of state common law, as that body of law has been enhanced by equity. The Institute doctrinally supports the Commission’s efforts via the serial revision of myriad law restatements. Coordinating the entire codification process is a small cadre of academics, some of whom are non-practicing lawyers. One influential cadre member in- volved in the crafting of the power of appointment sections of the new- ly-minted Restatement (Third) of Property (Wills and Other Donative Transfers), for example, has had minimal experience practicing in the areas of the law he would presume to reform.1 Those sections are the * Charles E. Rounds, Jr., a tenured professor at Suffolk University Law School, is the lead author of the last nineteen editions of LORING AND ROUNDS: A TRUSTEE’S HANDBOOK. The first edition was published by Augustus Peabody Loring in 1898.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice Material on Wills
    CAUTION The Professional Legal Training Course provides the Practice Material to users as an aid to developing entry level competence, with the understanding that neither the contributors nor the Professional Legal Training Course are providing legal or other professional advice. Practice Material users must exercise their professional judgment about the accuracy, utility and applicability of the material. In addition, the users must refer to the relevant legislation, case law, administrative guidelines, rules, and other primary sources. Forms and precedents are provided throughout the Practice Material. The users also must consider carefully their applicability to the client’s circumstances and their consistency with the client’s instructions. The Law Society of British Columbia and the Professional Legal Training Course can accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the Practice Material and expressly disclaim such responsibility. Professional Legal Training Course 2021 Practice Material Wills Recent Contributors: Allison A. Curley Denese Espeut-Post Deidre J. Herbert J. Jeffrey Locke Hugh S. McLellan Practice Material Editor: Katie McConchie September 2021 A requirement for admission to the bar of British Columbia, the Professional Legal Training Course is supported by grants from the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Foundation of British Columbia. © 2021 The Law Society of British Columbia. See lawsociety.bc.ca > Terms of use. WILLS CONTENTS WILLS AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION [§1.01] The Estate 1 [§1.02] Disposition of Property by Will 2 [§1.03] Disposition of Property on Intestacy 2 1. Consequences of Intestacy 2 2. Intestacy Under WESA 3 3. Intestacy Under the Indian Act 5 [§1.04] Further Reading 6 FORMAL VALIDITY OF WILLS AND INTERPRETING WILLS [§2.01] Formalities 7 [§2.02] Curing Formal Deficiencies in a Will 7 [§2.03] Conflict of Law 8 [§2.04] Wills by Indigenous People 8 [§2.05] Revoking a Will 8 [§2.06] Altering a Will 9 [§2.07] Republishing and Reviving a Will 10 [§2.08] Special Types of Wills 10 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Sources of Forced Heirship; Its History in Texas and Louisiana, 4 La
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 4 | Number 1 November 1941 The aE rly Sources of Forced Heirship; Its History in Texas and Louisiana Joseph Dainow Repository Citation Joseph Dainow, The Early Sources of Forced Heirship; Its History in Texas and Louisiana, 4 La. L. Rev. (1941) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol4/iss1/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Early Sources of Forced Heirship; Its History in Texas and Louisiana JOSEPH DAINOW* "There are certain provisions of the Civil Code of Louisi- ana that are something more than mere laws; they may be said to rise to the dignity of institutions. Among these are the articles of the Code providing for what is known as the doctrine of forced heirship."' The question of forced heirship is one which has received extensive and continued attention in practically all developed legal systems. Strong public policies are always involved and a great variety of conclusions have been reached. Furthermore, the policies and rules within certain countries have changed from one 2 extreme to the other. Forced heirship has always been a part of the law of Louisi- ana and as recently as 1921 it was given constitutional sanctifica- tion and protection.3 In Texas, the influences worked in the opposite direction. Forced heirship was a recognized institution of the original law, but within a comparatively short time after the entry of Texas into the Union it was abolished.4 It is proposed here to examine some relevant aspects of the early sources of this institution in the Roman, Germanic and Spanish laws.
    [Show full text]
  • 527 SUBSTANTIVE CONSOLIDATION—A POST-MODERN TREND The
    SUBSTANTIVE CONSOLIDATION—A POST-MODERN TREND TIMOTHY E. GRAULICH ∗ INTRODUCTION The ability of creditors in bankruptcy to seek the "substantive consolidation" of the assets and liabilities of affiliated entities has been recognized for more than sixty years, 1 even though the doctrine has never been codified in any bankruptcy statute 2 (except in the limited case of spouses). 3 Essentially, for purposes of distribution in bankruptcy, substantive consolidation treats multiple entities as if they were one. 4 As a consequence, claimants can no longer recover on their claims from their original obligors; rather, claimants recover their ratable share of a common "hotchpot" 5 consisting of the combined assets of the consolidated entities. ∗ Timothy E. Graulich is Counsel in the Corporate Department of Davis Polk & Wardwell. Davis Polk & Wardwell is counsel for the official committee of unsecured creditors in In re Owens Corning , Case No. 00- 3837 (JKF) (Bankr. D. Del.), which the committee (being conflicted on the issue) took no position with respect to substantive consolidation in that case. The views expressed herein are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Davis Polk & Wardwell, or those parties or persons represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell. The author thanks Professor G. Ray Warner and Professor Richard Lieb for their advice, support and guidance in writing this article, Marshall S. Huebner for his thoughtful comments and suggestions, and his former colleagues at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP for their scholarship and guidance with respect to the subject matter of this article. 1 In 1941, the Supreme Court (perhaps inadvertently) announced the birth of the doctrine when it held that the assets of an individual debtor could be "consolidated" with the assets of a corporation to which the individual had fraudulently transferred substantially all his assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Intestate Succession
    INTESTATE SUCCESSION: WHAT EVERY JUDGE AND CLERK NEEDS TO KNOW DR. GERRY W. BEYER Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law Texas Tech University School of Law 3311 18th Street Lubbock, TX 79409-0004 (806) 834-4270 [email protected] http://www.ProfessorBeyer.com http://www.BeyerBlog.com TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES July 2020 Virtual © 2020 Gerry W. Beyer Revised June 22, 2020 DR. GERRY W. BEYER Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law Texas Tech University School of Law Lubbock, TX 79409-0004 (806) 834-4270 [email protected] – www.ProfessorBeyer.com EDUCATION B.A., Summa Cum Laude, Eastern Michigan University (1976) J.D., Summa Cum Laude, Ohio State University (1979) LL.M., University of Illinois (1983) J.S.D., University of Illinois (1990) SELECTED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Bar memberships: United States Supreme Court, Texas, Ohio (inactive status), Illinois (inactive status) Member: American Law Institute; American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (Academic Fellow); American Bar Foundation; Texas Bar Foundation; American Bar Association; Texas State Bar Association Editor-in-Chief, REPTL Reporter, State Bar of Texas (2013-present) Keeping Current Probate Editor, Probate and Property magazine (1992-present) CAREER HISTORY Private Practice, Columbus, Ohio (1980) Instructor of Law, University of Illinois (1980-81) Professor, St. Mary’s University School of Law (1981-2005) Governor Preston E. Smith Regent’s Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law (2005 – present) Visiting Professor, Boston College
    [Show full text]
  • Estate Planning and the Law of Wills and Inheritance for South Carolina Farmers
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 12 Issue 4 Article 1 1960 Estate Planning and the Law of Wills and Inheritance for South Carolina Farmers David H. Means University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David H. Means, Estate Planning and the Law of Wills and Inheritance for South Carolina Farmers, 12 S.C.L.R. 491. (1960). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Means: Estate Planning and the Law of Wills and Inheritance for South Ca ESTATE PLANNING AND THE LAW OF WILLS AND INHERITANCE FOR SOUTH CAROLINA FARMERS* DAVID H. MEANSt TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 494 II. THE NATURE OF PROPERTY AND WAYS IN WHICH IT MAY BE OWNED 498 A. Real and Personal Property 498 B. Present and Future Interests 499 C. Duration of Interests 499 D. Individual Ownership and Cotenancies 500 E. Trusts 502 F. Powers of Appointment 502 III. HOMESTEAD 503 A. Head of a Family 503 B. Interests in Land in Which Homestead May Be Claimed - 505 C. Claims Subordinate to Homestead 506 D. Claims Paramountto Homestead 506 E. Homestead When Head of Family is Dead 508 F. How Homestead is Claimed 510 G. Waiver of Homestead 512 H. Exemption in Things Other Than Land 512 IV. MARITAL INTEREST 513 A. Dower 513 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Annotated Will 2017
    THE ANNOTATED WILL 2017 chairs Susannah Roth, TEP O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers Mary-Alice Thompson, C.S., TEP Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP January 12, 2017 *CLE17-0010401-A-PUB* DISCLAIMER: This work appears as part of The Law Society of Upper Canada’s initiatives in Continuing Professional Development (CPD). It provides information and various opinions to help legal professionals maintain and enhance their competence. It does not, however, represent or embody any official position of, or statement by, the Society, except where specifically indicated; nor does it attempt to set forth definitive practice standards or to provide legal advice. Precedents and other material contained herein should be used prudently, as nothing in the work relieves readers of their responsibility to assess the material in light of their own professional experience. No warranty is made with regards to this work. The Society can accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions, and expressly disclaims any such responsibility. © 2017 All Rights Reserved This compilation of collective works is copyrighted by The Law Society of Upper Canada. The individual documents remain the property of the original authors or their assignees. The Law Society of Upper Canada 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON M5H 2N6 Phone: 416-947-3315 or 1-800-668-7380 Ext. 3315 Fax: 416-947-3991 E-mail: [email protected] www.lsuc.on.ca Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication The Annotated Will 2017 ISBN 978-1-77094-402-2 (Hardcopy) ISBN 978-1-77094-403-9 (PDF) THE ANNOTATED WILL 2017 Chairs: Susannah Roth, TEP O’Sullivan Estate Lawyers Mary-Alice Thompson, C.S., TEP Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham LLP Presenters: Darren Lund Fasken Martineau LLP Jane Martin Dickson Appell LLP January 12, 2017 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Succession Laws REPORT AUGUST 2013
    Succession Laws REPORT AUGUST 2013 Victorian Law Level 3 Telephone Email Reform Commission 333 Queen Street +61 3 8608 7800 [email protected] GPO Box 4637 Melbourne Freecall www.lawreform.vic.gov.au Melbourne Victoria 3000 1300 666 555 Victoria 3001 Australia (within Victoria) Australia Fax DX 144, Melbourne +61 3 8608 7888 Victorian Law Reform Commission Succession Laws: Report ii Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................ix Terms of reference ..................................................................................................................... x Glossary .....................................................................................................................................xii Executive summary .................................................................................................................xiv Recommendations ................................................................................................................. xxiii 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................2 Terms of reference ..............................................................................................................2 The National Uniform Succession Laws project ...............................................................3 The Commission’s process ...................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Article Ii Intestacy, Wills, and Donative Transfers Part 1 Intestate Succession
    ARTICLE II INTESTACY, WILLS, AND DONATIVE TRANSFERS PART 1 INTESTATE SUCCESSION GENERAL COMMENT Part I of Article II contains the basic pattern of intestate succession historically called descent and distribution. It is no longer meaningful to have different patterns for real and personal property, and under the proposed statute all property not disposed of by a decedent's will passes to the decedent's heirs in the same manner. A principal purpose of this Article and Article III of the Code is to provide suitable rules and procedures for the person of modest means who relies on the estate plan provided by law. While the prescribed patterns may strike some as rules of law which may in some cases defeat intent of a decedent, this is true of every statute of this type. In assessing the changes it must therefore be borne in mind that the decedent may always choose a different rule by executing a will. The principal features of the statute are: 1. So-called negative wills are authorized, under which the decedent who dies intestate, in whole or in part, can by will disinherit a particular heir. 2. A surviving spouse receives the whole of the intestate estate, if the decedent left no surviving descendants and no parents or if the decedent's surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse has no descendants who are not descendants of the decedent. The surviving spouse receives the first $200,000 plus three-fourths of the balance if the decedent left no surviving descendants but a surviving parent.
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky's Doctrine of Advancements: a Time for Reform
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications 1987 Kentucky's Doctrine of Advancements: A Time for Reform Carolyn S. Bratt University of Kentucky College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Carolyn S. Bratt, Kentucky's Doctrine of Advancements: A Time for Reform, 75 Ky. L.J. 341 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kentucky's Doctrine of Advancements: A Time for Reform Notes/Citation Information Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 75, No. 2 (1986-1987), pp. 341-394 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/182 Kentucky's Doctrine of Advancements: A Time for Reform* BY CAROLYN S. BRATT** INTRODUCTION The act of giving a gift is accomplished so easily that the legal consequences often escape the donor. Even when a donor stops to contemplate the legal significance of her or his act, a parental donor probably is unaware that a gift to a child may affect the child's inheritance rights in the parent's estate. Ken- tucky is among the minority of states which continue to presume that a parental gift is intended as an advancement to the child donee.' Moreover, Kentucky is one of only two states which make the presumption irrebutable.
    [Show full text]
  • Intestate Succession
    INTESTATE SUCCESSION: WHAT EVERY TEXAS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL NEEDS TO KNOW DR. GERRY W. BEYER Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law Texas Tech University School of Law 3311 18th Street Lubbock, TX 79409-0004 (806) 834-4270 [email protected] http://www.ProfessorBeyer.com http://www.BeyerBlog.com SPRING 2019 PROBATE ACADEMY TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Lubbock, Texas May 8, 2019 © 2019 Gerry W. Beyer Revised April 20, 2019 DR. GERRY W. BEYER Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law Texas Tech University School of Law Lubbock, TX 79409-0004 (806) 834-4270 [email protected] – www.ProfessorBeyer.com EDUCATION B.A., Summa Cum Laude, Eastern Michigan University (1976) J.D., Summa Cum Laude, Ohio State University (1979) LL.M., University of Illinois (1983) J.S.D., University of Illinois (1990) SELECTED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Bar memberships: United States Supreme Court, Texas, Ohio (inactive status), Illinois (inactive status) Member: American Law Institute; American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (Academic Fellow); American Bar Foundation; Texas Bar Foundation; American Bar Association; Texas State Bar Association Editor-in-Chief, REPTL Reporter, State Bar of Texas (2013-present) Keeping Current Probate Editor, Probate and Property magazine (1992-present) CAREER HISTORY Private Practice, Columbus, Ohio (1980) Instructor of Law, University of Illinois (1980-81) Professor, St. Mary’s University School of Law (1981-2005) Governor Preston E. Smith Regent’s Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law
    [Show full text]
  • LAW and LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library
    MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) ONE HUNDRED AND NINTH LEGISLATURE Legislative Document No. I STATE OF MAINE IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE AN ACT to Establish the Maine Probate Code. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine, as follows: Sec.!. IS-A MRSA is enacted to read: TITLE IS-A MAINE PROBATE CODE ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEFINITIONS AND JURISDICTION PART 1 SHORT TITLE, CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL PROVISIONS § I-IOI. Short title This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Maine Probate Code. § 1-102. Purposes; rule of construction (a) This Code shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies. (b) The underlying purposes and policies of this Code are: (I) to simplify and clarify the law concerning the affairs of decedents, missing persons, protected persons, minors and incapacitated persons; 2 LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT No. (2) to discover and make effective the intent of a decedent in the dis­ tribution of his property; (3) to promote a speedy and efficient system for liquidating the estate of the decedent and making distribution to his successors; (4) to facilitate use and enforcement of certain trusts; (5) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions. § 1-103. Supplementary general principles of law applicable Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Code, the principles of law and equity supplement its provisions.
    [Show full text]