DOCSLIB.ORG

How the Legislature Has Changed Your Documents, August 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How the Legislature Has Changed Your Documents, August 2008 HOW THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHANGED YOUR DOCUMENTS Thomas M. Featherston, Jr. Mills Cox Professor of Law Baylor University School of Law Waco, Texas 2008 Estate Planning, Guardianship & Elder Law UTCLE August 14, 2008 ©Copyright 2008, Thomas M. Featherston, Jr., All Rights Reserved. How the Legislature Has Changed Your Documents 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................4 A. Background. ......................................................4 B. The Role of the Court. ..............................................4 II. TYPES OF TESTAMENTARY GIFTS.......................................5 A. Specific Gifts......................................................5 B. General Gifts......................................................5 C. Demonstrative Gifts.................................................5 D. Residuary Gifts. ...................................................5 III. RULES OF WILL CONSTRUCTION. .......................................6 A. Surviving the Testator...............................................6 B. Predeceasing the Testator.............................................6 1. ANTI-LAPSE STATUTE ......................................6 2. 1991 AMENDMENT .........................................7 3. TESTATOR’S INTENT. ......................................7 4. STRICT CONSTRUCTION ....................................7 C. Fractional Gifts. ...................................................7 D. Class Gifts........................................................8 E. Abatement........................................................8 1. COMMON LAW ABATEMENT . ..............................8 2. STATUTORY ABATEMENT. .................................8 3. TESTATOR’S INTENT. ......................................9 4. NONPROBATE ASSETS . ....................................9 (a) Multiple Party Bank Accounts.. 9 (b) Life Insurance .........................................9 (c) Qualified Employee Benefits..............................9 (d) Revocable Trust Assets..................................9 (e) Joint Tenancies.........................................9 (f) Sec. 450(b) of the Texas Probate. 9 (g) Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. 9 5. UNRESOLVED ISSUES......................................1 0 6. ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY. 1 0 F. Apportionment....................................................1 0 G. Dissolution of Testator’s Marriage. ...................................1 1 H. Texas Redesignation Statutes. .......................................1 1 I. ERISA Death Benefits..............................................1 1 J. Debtor/Beneficiary.................................................1 2 IV. RULES AFFECTING ONLY SPECIFIC GIFTS. 1 2 A. Ademption by Extinction............................................1 2 1. TEXAS DECISIONS ........................................1 2 2. INVOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS.............................1 3 3. CHANGES IN FORM . ......................................1 3 4. TESTATOR’S INTENT. .....................................1 3 B. Accessions and Accretions...........................................1 3 C. Sec. 70a(a), Texas Probate Code . ....................................1 3 D. Exoneration......................................................1 4 E. Contents.........................................................1 4 3 How the Legislature Has Changed Your Documents F. Insurance. .......................................................1 4 V. RULES AFFECTING GENERAL AND RESIDUARY GIFTS.. 1 4 A. Satisfaction.......................................................1 4 B. Pecuniary Bequests. ...............................................1 5 C. Interest on Pecuniary Bequests. ......................................1 5 D. Sec. 378b, Texas Probate Code.......................................1 5 E. § 116.051. Determination and Distribution of Net Income. 1 6 F. Residuary Estate ..................................................1 7 G. Apportionment Within the Residuary. 1 8 1. THE ARGUMENTS.........................................1 8 2. ANALYSIS................................................1 8 3. MCKINNEY CASE .........................................1 9 VI. OTHER RELATED CONCEPTS...........................................1 9 A. Equitable Election.................................................1 9 1. COMMUNITY PROPERTY ELECTION.. 1 9 2. THE TEXAS RULE..........................................1 9 3. PROCEDURE..............................................2 0 B. Pour Over Planning ................................................2 0 C. Negative Will.....................................................2 0 D. Duties of Life Tenant...............................................2 0 E. Acceleration of Future Interests.......................................2 0 F. Disclaimers by Surviving Spouse. ....................................2 1 G. Effect of Disclaimer on Devisee’s Creditors. 2 1 H. Representation....................................................2 1 I. Community Property Inheritance......................................2 1 J. Pretermitted Children...............................................2 2 K. Cy Pres and the Rule Against Perpetuities.. 2 2 L. Division and Combination of Trusts...................................2 2 M. Non-Marital Children...............................................2 2 N. Adoption. .......................................................2 2 O. Devise to an Attorney. .............................................2 3 VII. CONCLUSIONS........................................................2 3 APPENDIX NO. 1.............................................................2 6 How the Legislature Has Changed Your Documents 4 HOW THE LEGISLATURE HAS in a way that avoids the need to resort to the CHANGED YOUR DOCUMENTS rules construction to determine the proper distribution of the estate (i.e., the testator’s I. INTRODUCTION intent is clearly expressed for all possibilities within the will’s four corners). A. Background However, over the last thirty years or A will, being a revocable disposition so, the legislature has passed a number of of property that becomes effective at the statutory provisions which either override, testator’s death, creates numerous modify or confirm many of the rules of the opportunities for ambiguity and uncertainty common law that had added a measure of because many years can pass before the certainty to the administration of estates and testator dies and the will is probated. During the drafting of wills. During this same time the intervening period of time, the size, nature, period, another phenomena has occurred. The extent and value of the testator’s estate can will has been replaced by the revocable trust, change considerably; intended beneficiaries of as the key dispositive document, in increasing the estate can die or become incapacitated; numbers of estate plans. This outline will other persons of interest may be born or attempt to identify these changes and discuss adopted. how they affect the estate practice. A will which does not anticipate these For example, in some states, statutes changes in property and beneficiaries through have been passed that direct that a revocable the clear expression of the testator’s intent in trust, being a will substitute, should be view of all of the possibilities that could occur interpreted and construed as a will. after the date of execution will likely need Revocable trusts in Texas are still governed either interpretation or construction following generally by the law of trusts. Other will probate. Although frequently used substitutes, like life insurance and retirement interchangeably, the two concepts will be benefits, are also being widely used. distinguished in this article. Interpretation However, the law of wills remains the focal will be described as the process of point due, in large part, to the absence of determining the actual intent of a testator from established rules of construction in these other the four corners of the will and any other areas, and throughout the outline, the admissible extrinsic evidence; it is factual in differences in results when using a will nature. Will construction will be used to substitute rather than a will will be noted. describe the legal process of ascertaining the One conclusion that will be reached is that testator’s "deemed intent" when the rules of there are relatively few generally accepted interpretation do not reveal the testator’s rules of construction for the will substitutes. actual intent. Historically, a court resolved the controversy by applying an established, or B. The Role of the Court creating a new, rule of construction where the testator failed to express his or her intent in The Texas Supreme Court has the will itself. described the role of a court in the interpretation and construction of a will. The Accordingly, the rules of will focus should be on the testator’s intent, intent construction are important not only to the to be ascertained from the language found probate lawyer representing the personal within the four corners of the will. The focus representative or beneficiaries of the estate but should not be on what the testator intended to also to the estate planner whose understanding write, but the meaning of the words actually of the rules can help the planner prepare a well used. Accordingly, courts are not to redraft drafted will that does not need construction in wills to vary or add provisions “under the the future. In other words, a well drafted will, guise of construction of the language of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Selected Aspects of Family Wealth Transfer
    4. SELECTED ASPECTS OF FAMILY WEALTH TRANSFER A. Tax Implications of Family Wealth Transfer B. Testamentary Gifts C. Intervivos Gifts D. Gifts to Minors E. Charitable Planning F. The Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust G. ERISA and Qualified Plan Benefits 439 440 4A. Tax Implications of Family Wealth Transfer 441 442 September 2013 ESTATE PLANNING UPDATE By: Sanford J. Schlesinger, Esq. and Martin R. Goodman, Esq. Schlesinger Gannon & Lazetera LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012 ..................................................2 A. Federal Transfer Tax Provisions ............................................................................. 2 B. Federal Income Tax Provisions .............................................................................. 2 II. THE TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2010 ...............................................................................3 A. Federal Transfer Tax Provisions ............................................................................. 3 1. Federal Estate Tax Provisions ..................................................................... 3 2. Federal Gift Tax Provisions ........................................................................ 6 3. Federal Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Provisions .............................. 6 4. Federal Portability Provisions ..................................................................... 7 (a) General ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • G L O S S a R Y
    G L O S S A R Y A Administrator: A court appointed person or corporation in charge of managing the estate of a person who dies without leaving a will. Administrators have the same duties as Executors. In Minnesota, the administrator or executor is called the Personal Representative. Affiant: A person who makes an oath or affirmation and acknowledges the same in writing. In Minnesota this is usually done before a notary public. Affidavit: A voluntary written statement of facts confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the affiant. Affidavit of Collection of Personal Property: A sworn, notarized statement, used to collect assets of a small estate without going through the probate process. (aka Affidavit of a Small Estate). Agent: A person authorized by another to act for him. AKA: Also Known As (also lower case: aka). Amendment: A change or modification. See Codicil. Ancestor (an Ascendant): A deceased relative such as a parent or grandparent from whom one is descended. Ancillary Administration: A secondary administration in a state where the decedent owned property and which is not the state where the decedent was domiciled. Annuity: The right to receive fixed sums of money at regular intervals. Appoint: To designate and empower particular person(s) with authority to perform specified duties. Appraisal: An evaluation by disinterested and qualified persons as to the value of assets. Assets: All property of a person, corporation or estate of a decedent; real or personal, tangible or intangible. Attorney-in-fact: A person with the power granted under a power of attorney. B Beneficiary: An entity who benefits from the act of another.
    [Show full text]
  • Caregiving and the Case for Testamentary Freedom
    Caregiving and the Case for Testamentary Freedom Joshua C. Tate* Almost all U.S. states allow individuals to disinherit their descendants for any reason or no reason, but most of the world’s legal systems currently do not. This Article contends that broad freedom of testation under state law is defensible because it allows elderly people to reward family members who are caregivers. The Article explores the common-law origins of freedom of testation, which developed in the shadow of the medieval rule of primogeniture, a doctrine of no contemporary relevance. The growing problem of eldercare, however, offers a justification for the twenty-first century. Increases in life expectancy have led to a sharp rise in the number of older individuals who require long-term care, and some children and grandchildren are bearing more of the caregiving burden * Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University. I would like to thank Gregory Alexander, Mark Ascher, Stuart Banner, Joseph Biancalana, Ira Bloom, Ralph Brashier, Alexandra Braun, Meta Brown, Hamilton Bryson, Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, Regis Campfield, Ronald Chester, Barry Cushman, Alyssa DiRusso, John Eason, Robert Ellickson, Mary Louise Fellows, Mark Fenster, Thomas Gallanis, Susan Gary, Joshua Getzler, Edward Halbach, Hendrik Hartog, Jill Hasday, Lisa Hasday, Richard Helmholz, Adam Hirsch, Clare Huntington, Daniel Klerman, Nina Kohn, Andrew Kull, John Langbein, Henry Lischer, John Lowe, Maurizio Lupoi, Grayson McCouch, William McGovern, Mavis Maclean, Ray Madoff, Paula Monopoli, Melissa
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary.3D 5/6/2008 13:55 Page 581
    21764_24_glossary.3d 5/6/2008 13:55 page 581 Glossary 401(k) plan A company-sponsored retirement plan of a dead person whose executor (person chosen to in which an employee agrees either to take a salary hand it out) has died. Also called administrator de reduction or to forgo a bonus to provide money for bonis non or administrator d.b.n. retirement. administrator pendente lite Temporary administra- A tor appointed before the adjudication of testacy or intestacy to preserve the assets of an estate. abates 1. Destroy or completely end. 2. Greatly lessen or reduce. administrator with the will annexed (Latin) “With the will attached.” An administrator who is adeemed Take away. appointed by a court to supervise handing out the ademption 1. Disposing of something left in a will property of a dead person whose will does not before death, with the effect that the person it was name executors (persons to hand out property) or left to does not get it. 2. The gift, before death, of whose named executors cannot or will not serve. something left in a will to a person who was left it. Also known as administrator w.w.a., administrator cum testamento annexo, and administrator c.t.a. administrator A person appointed by the court to supervise the estate (property) of a dead person. If administratrix Female appointed to administer the the supervising person is named in the dead estate of an intestate decedent. ’ person s will, the proper name is executor. advance directives A document such as a durable administering an estate Settling and distributing the power of attorney, health-care proxy, or living will estate of a deceased person.
    [Show full text]
  • Wills, Trusts, and Estates
    GRAY RAMSEY 511.DOC (DO NOT DELETE) 10/13/2016 9:27 AM WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES J. William Gray, Jr. * Katherine E. Ramsey ** INTRODUCTION The 2016 General Assembly of Virginia made substantial changes in the augmented estate rights of surviving spouses. It also modified and codified the rules governing powers of ap- pointment. Other legislation affecting wills, trusts, and estates included clarifications and technical corrections relating to such subjects as creditors’ claims to life insurance and annuities, court- created trusts, protection of adults from exploitation, creditor pro- tection for residential property, unclaimed assets, guardianships, and nonstock corporation procedure.1 Five decisions of the Su- preme Court of Virginia addressed fiduciary conflicts, tenancies by the entirety, lost wills, contract rights in residences, and no- contest clauses. I. LEGISLATION A. Revised Augmented Estate System Virginia’s augmented estate rules, enacted a quarter-century ago to protect surviving spouses against disinheritance, have been revised to conform more closely to the Uniform Probate Code for decedents dying after 2016.2 Current law entitles a spouse to a * Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP, Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1977, University of Virginia; B.S.I.E., B.A., 1973, Rutgers University. ** Partner, Virginia Estate & Trust Law PLC, Richmond, Virginia. J.D., 1998, Uni- versity of Virginia; M.S., 1988, Boston University; B.A., 1986, Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute and State University. 1. All 2016 legislation summarized in this article became effective July 1, 2016, ex- cept the augmented estate legislation described in Part I.A, which takes effect January 1, 2017. 2. Compare UNIF. PROBATE CODE §§ 2-201–214 (amended 2010), 8 U.L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Wills--Deceased Residuary Legatee's Share Held Not to Pass by Way Of
    St. John's Law Review Volume 38 Number 1 Volume 38, December 1963, Number Article 11 1 Wills--Deceased Residuary Legatee's Share Held Not to Pass by Way of Intestacy Where It Is Clearly Manifested That Surviving Residuary Legatees Should Share in the Residuum (In re Dammann's Estate, 12 N.Y.2d 500 (1963)) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [ VOL. 38 argument against such an extension was rejected. 52 Likewise, the presence of a compensation fund for prisoners was held not necessarily to preclude prisoner suits under the FTCA.53 The Court found the compensation scheme to be non-comprehensive.5 4 The government's contention that variations in state laws might hamper uniform administration of federal prisons, as it was feared they would with the military, was rejected. Admitting that prisoner recoveries might be prejudiced to some extent by variations in state law, the Court regarded no recovery at all as a more serious prejudice to the prisoner's rights.55 In this connection, it is interesting to consider the desirability of spreading tort liability in the governmental area.5" The impact of the principal case is, in some respects, clear.
    [Show full text]
  • Ademption by Extinction: Smiting Lord Thurlow's Ghost
    ADEMPTION BY EXTINCTION: SMITING LORD THURLOW'S GHOST John C. Paulus* INTRODUCTION Testator (T)properly executes a will giving his farm, Blackacre, to his daughter (D), and the rest of his property to his son (S). T lives with D on Blackacre. Three years later T sells Blackacre and buys Whiteacre. T and D live together on Whiteacre until T's death four years later. From numerous utterances and acts it is very evident that T wants D to have Whiteacre for her own after his death. Will Whiteacre go to D or S? In most (maybe all) of the states, the answer would be, "S." The identity rule enunciated by Lord Thurlow in 1786 is followed.' As indicated by its application to T, D, and S, the dominating philosophy can bring forth some unsatisfactory results. Lord Thurlow's opinion calls for the application of a simple test in determining whether or not a specific devise adeems: If the asset identified as the exclusive subject of the devise is not held by the testator at his death, the devise fails.' Ademption by extinction, as this problem area is uniformly called, is reduced to a matter of identifying, if possible, the devised item in the estate.' The most often quoted statement by Lord Thurlow is: "And I do * Professor of Law, Willamette University. Visiting Professor of Law, Texas Tech University 1970-71. 1. Ashburner v. Macguire, 29 Eng. Rep. 62 (Ch. 1786). This hypothetical is similar to the facts in Ashburner in that the testator sells the devised asset (Blackacre). Three years later in Stanley v.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Law Rules and Validation of Powers of Appointment
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 12 Spring 3-1-1972 Choice of Law Rules and Validation of Powers of Appointment Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons Recommended Citation Choice of Law Rules and Validation of Powers of Appointment, 29 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 143 (1972), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol29/iss1/12 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASE COMMENTS CHOICE OF LAW RULES AND VALIDATION OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT In a society of ever-increasing mobility where families are often spread over several states, the trust has become a fertile field for conflict of laws problems. Of practical importance is the problem that arises when the holder (donee) of a general testamentary power of appointment' validly exercises that power in his domicile but, in so doing, possibly violates the law of the jurisdiction governing the original trust. A recent New York case, In re Morgan Guaranty Trust Company,2 presents that problem and may be indicative of future treatment of the question. In 1935, Margaret Maher Acheson entered into a trust indenture with Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. It created a trust for the life of the settlor's son and provided that, upon his death, the trustee was to divide the trust corpus into six equal parts, one of which was to be held in trust for the life of a grandson, Edward Goodrich Acheson III [hereinafter referred to as Acheson].
    [Show full text]
  • Text and Time: a Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 86 Issue 3 2009 Text and Time: A Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence Adam J. Hirsch Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Adam J. Hirsch, Text and Time: A Theory of Testamentary Obsolescence, 86 WASH. U. L. REV. 609 (2009). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol86/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEXT AND TIME: A THEORY OF TESTAMENTARY OBSOLESCENCE ADAM J. HIRSCH∗ Events may occur after a will is executed that ordinarily give rise to changes of intent regarding the estate plan—yet the testator may take no action to revoke or amend the original will. Should such a will be given literal effect? When, if ever, should lawmakers intervene to update a will on the testator's behalf? This is the problem of testamentary obsolescence. It reflects a fundamental, structural problem in law that can also crop up with regard to constitutions, statutes, and other performative texts, any one of which may become timeworn. This Article develops a theoretical framework for determining when lawmakers should—and should not—step in to revise wills that testators have left unaltered and endeavors to locate this framework in the context of other forms of textual obsolescence.
    [Show full text]
  • Yoga for Estate Planners: Drafting Flexible Documents That Can Bend and Stretch
    The Blum Firm, P.C. Attorneys at Law Marvin E. Blum*• 420 Throckmorton Street Gary V. Post * Suite 650 John R. Hunter•" Fort Worth, Texas 76102-3723 Daniel H. McCarthy• (817) 334-0066 Catherine R. Moon*• Fax (817) 334-0078 Lorri H. Kendrick*P www.theblumfirm.com Amanda L. Holliday [email protected] Laurel Stephenson* Troy C. Vinson Laura L. Bower YOGA FOR ESTATE PLANNERS: DRAFTING FLEXIBLE DOCUMENTS THAT CAN BEND AND STRETCH (by Marvin E. Blum) Advanced Drafting: Estate Planning and Probate Course October 26-27, 2006 Dallas, Texas ©2006, The Blum Firm, P.C. Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization *Estate Planning & Probate Law "Tax Law •Certified Public Accountant POf Counsel YOGA FOR ESTATE PLANNERS: DRAFTING FLEXIBLE DOCUMENTS THAT CAN BEND AND STRETCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # I. THE NEED FOR DEVELOPING FLEXIBLE ESTATE PLANS IN A TIME OF CHANGES AND UNCERTAINTY ............................1 II. POTENTIAL TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY IN EXISTING DOCUMENTS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ...............................3 III. EMPOWERING BENEFICIARIES TO ADAPT AN ESTATE PLAN THROUGH POWERS OF APPOINTMENT ...................11 IV. DISCLAIMERS........................................................19 V. TRUST TERMINATORS................................................26 VI. GST EXEMPTION PLANNING ..........................................28 EXHIBIT A: DEFINED TERMS EXHIBIT B: FORM DISCLAIMER FOR USE IN DISCLAIMING PROPERTY BEQUEATHED TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE UNDER A WILL EXHIBIT C: FORM DISCLAIMER FOR USE IN DISCLAIMING PROPERTY BEQUEATHED UNDER A WILL TO A DISCLAIMANT WHO IS NOT THE SURVIVING SPOUSE THIS OUTLINE MAY ANSWER GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE WITH REGARD TO THE NEW CIRCULAR 230 RULES, BUT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THIS OUTLINE IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intestate Claims of Heirs Excluded by Will: Should "Negative Wills" Be Enforced?
    The Intestate Claims of Heirs Excluded by Will: Should "Negative Wills" Be Enforced? When a testator's will fails to provide for the disposition of his entire estate, the portion of the estate that is not disposed of usu- ally passes to the testator's heirs under the intestacy laws.' These laws reflect a presumption about what the testator would have wanted had he considered the matter.2 In some cases, however, the testator may have expressed a contrary intent. For example, a will may expressly disinherit an heir and leave the estate to someone else; or it may leave a small sum "and no more" to an heir, while giving the bulk of the estate to someone else; or a "will" may con- tain no devise at all, but express a desire that an heir receive no part of the estate.3 If the will does not fully dispose of the testa- tor's property and some or all of his estate must pass by intestacy, an issue arises as to whether the intestacy statute requires the ex- cluded heir to receive an intestate share, contrary to the testator's intent. This comment discusses the circumstances in which a will that expressly disinherits an heir or limits the heir's gift to the devise in the will (a "negative will") may foreclose the award of an intestate share to that heir where some or all of the testator's estate passes by intestacy. Since the mid-nineteenth century, English courts have enforced negative wills where (1) the testator clearly intended to exclude an heir or to limit an heir's share in the estate to the devise in the will, and (2) at least one other heir remains eligible to take the property that passes by intestacy.4 Under this approach, the exclusion of the heir (or limitation of the heir's gift) in the will See, e.g., UNIF.
    [Show full text]