Wills and Trusts Law School Legends
Professor Stanley M. Johanson
I. INTESTATE SUCCESSION A.
BASIC PRINCIPLES AND TERMINOLOGY. TERMINOLOGY.
Probate (literal translation: “to prove”): Court proceeding in which:
(i)
it is judicially judicially determined that the decedent left a validly validly executed will (or that that the the decedent died without a will and his intestate heirs are determined),
(ii)
a personal representative if named in a will, an administrator if if representative (called an executor if appointed by the court from a statutory list of preferred next of kin) is appointed to administer the decedent's estate and wind up the decedent’s affairs, and
(iii)
letters testamentary (if an executor) or letters of administration administration (if an administrator) are issued by the court, showing the personal representative’s authority to represent the estate in dealing with third parties. parties. The probate estate does not include include (and wills and the intestate succession rules do not apply to) non-probate transfers —interests that pass by right of survivorship ( e.g ., ., a joint and survivor bank account) or under the terms of a contract ( e.g ., ., life insurance proceeds or employee death benefits).
Strictly speaking, you probate the decedent’s will and then you administer the decedent’s estate. However, the entire process is commonly referred to as the “probate process,” involving a “probate administration.” While it may not be technically correct, this terminology is widely used. The principal duties of a personal personal representative are to: (i)
take possession and control of the assets that comprise the estate,
(ii)
give notice to creditors and pay creditors’ claims,
(iii)
satisfy the tax authorities, and
(iv)
distribute the remaining remaining estate estate to the will will beneficiaries beneficiaries or or heirs.
A person who executes a will is called the testator. Persons who who take by by intestate succession are called heirs. Persons who take under a will are called beneficiaries (or devisees, or legatees). legatees). At common law, one devised real property and bequeathed money or personal property. This distinction is no longer made. A will can say “I devise,” “I bequeath,” bequeath,” “I give,” or “I leave”—all of these terms mean the same thing, and can be employed to make testamentary gifts of both real property and personal property.
Page 2 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
Residuary estate is the estate of a testator that remains after all debts, taxes and administration expenses have been paid, and after all specific gifts and cash legacies made by the will have been satisfied. Under most wills, the residuary residuary beneficiary is is the testator’s testator’s preferred taker. taker. ( E.g ., ., "I give all of the rest, residue and remainder of my estate to my wife Wendy.") B.
WHEN INTESTATE DISTRIBUTION RULES APPLY.
The intestate distribution rules (sometimes referred to as “the laws of descent”) apply when: (i)
decedent left no will (or (or decedent’s “will” was not validly executed);
(ii)
the will will does not make make a complete disposition of the estate (resulting (resulting in a partial intestacy), or
(iii)
an heir successfully successfully contests contests the will will on the the ground of lack of testamentary capacity capacity or undue influence, and the will is denied probate . In several states, states, the intestacy rules rules are also involved in questions involving a pretermitted child (born (born or adopted after the will was executed) or an omitted spouse (testator married after will was executed.)
C.
INTESTATE SHARE OF SURVIVING SPOUSE Uniform Probate Code (original 1969 version ), which has been enacted in a number of states, has a different rule depending on whether the decedent's descendants were of this marriage or of an earlier marriage. Under the original UPC, the the surviving spouse's spouse's intestate share is:
Survived by spouse but not by descendants or parents: ALL. Survived by descendants, all of whom are descendants of surviving spouse: $50,000 PLUS ½ OF ANY BALANCE .
THE FIRST
Survived by descendants, some of whom are not descendants descendants of surviving spouse—the second marriage situation: ONE-HALF . Survived by spouse and no descendants but by one or both parents: PLUS ½ OF ANY BALANCE .
THE FIRST $50,000
Revised Uniform Probate Code (1990 version ) substantially increased the intestate share of a surviving spouse, reflecting a policy that is more in line with the dispositions that most spouses make if they write write wills. The Revised UPC provisions also reflect that that divided families are encountered more frequently in our society.
Survived by spouse but not by descendants or parents: ALL. Not survived by descendants, but survived by a parent: THE FIRST $200,000 PLUS ¾ OF ANY BALANCE . Survived by descendants, all of whom are descendants of surviving spouse, and surviving spouse has no descendants from an earlier marriage—the one-marriage situation: ALL. Survived by descendants, all of whom are descendants of surviving spouse, but surviving spouse has one or more descendants who are not descendants of the decedent: THE FIRST $150,000 PLUS ½ OF ANY BALANCE . Survived by descendants, some of whom are not descendants of surviving spouse: FIRST $100,000 PLUS ½ OF ANY BALANCE .
THE
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 3
1. Herman and Winnie are married, and they have two children children (Al and Betty). Winnie has a child Carol) by her first marriage.
H-1
Winnie
Carol
Al
Herman
Betty
a. If Herman dies intestate intestate survived survived by Winnie and the three children, what is Winnie’s intestate share:
Under the original (1969) Uniform Probate Code?
Under the Revised (1990) Uniform Probate Code?
b. If Winnie dies intestate survived by Herman and the three children, what is Herman’s intestate share:
Under the original (1969) Uniform Probate Code?
Under the Revised (1990) Uniform Probate Code?
D.
INHERITANCE INHERITANCE BY DESCENDANTS.
The Probate Codes of a few states states use the term "issue" throughout. throughout. The terms issue and descendants are synonymous, and include lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) by blood or adoption. In making a distribution among descendants, descendants, the literal translation of per stirpes is “by the roots,” and means one share for each line line of descendants. The literal translation translation of per capita is “by the head,” and means one share for each person.
Page 4 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
2. Martha, a widow, dies intestate, intestate, survived survived by the family family members listed below. What intestate distribution? Martha Al
Ben
Carol
C-1
Donna
C-2
D-1
D-2
D-3
At common law, and in a small number of states today, the distribution rule is strict per stirpes (also called “classic per stirpes”), under which the shares for each line of descendants are always divided at the first generational level , regardless of whether there are any living takers at that level, and then one share for each family line. Thus in the above family family tree: Al: ________
Ben: _______
C-1 and C-2: ________
D's three children: ________
The distribution rule under the original UPC and in most states is “modern per stirpes,” usually described as per capita with representation ("per capita at the first level, then by representation"). Under this distribution distribution scheme, you cut the shares at the first generational level at which there are living takers, and then one share for each family line. Al: ________
Ben: _______
C-1 and C-2: ________
D's three children: ________
The distribution rule under the Revised UPC (also adopted in several non-UPC states) is per initial division of shares (with (with one capita at each generation . Under this rule, you make the initial share for each line of descendants) at the first generational level at which there are living takers. Each living descendant descendant in that nearest generation takes one share. share. Shares of deceased persons at that generational level are combined and then divided equally among the takers at the next generational generational level, and so on. As a result, persons in the same degree of kinship to (e.g ., ., grandchildren who are first cousins) always take equal shares . Under this the decedent ( distribution rule, the shares would be: Al: _________
E.
Ben: _________
C-1 and C-2: __________
D's children: __________
INTESTATE DECEDENT NOT SURVIVED BY SPOUSE OR DESCENDANTS
(1)
All to parents or to surviving parent ( majority rule ). In nearly nearly all all states, states, collateral kin (brothers and sisters) never inherit if an intestate decedent is survived by a parent.)
(2)
If not not survived survived by parents, parents, to descendants of parents. parents. When inheritance is by collateral collateral kin (e.g ., ., brothers, sisters, and the descendants of deceased brothers and sisters), the states apply the same distribution rules (either strict per stirpes, or per capita with representation, or per capita at each generation) that they apply to inheritance by descendants.
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
F.
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 5
(3)
The UPC and and most states have abolished the the distinction distinction made at common law between collateral kin of the whole blood and of of the half blood: Half-sisters (sisters who who shared one common parent with the decedent) take the same share as sisters of the whole blood.
(4)
If not survived by parents or issue of parents: ½ to maternal grandparents (or surviving grandparent), or if neither maternal grandparent is living, their descendants; ½ to paternal grandparents (etc. etc.) in same manner. If no maternal grandparents or their descendants, all to paternal grandparents or their descendants (and vice versa).
(5)
While most states impose impose no limit limit on the the degree of of kinship needed to take as an heir, the Uniform Probate Code and several non-UPC states have enacted so-called " no laughing inheritance by kin more remotely related related than grandparents grandparents or heir " statutes: There is no inheritance descendants of of grandparents. Instead, the estate escheats to the state.
children and their descendants descendants have full inheritance inheritance rights ADOPTED CHILDREN. Adopted children from the adoptive family (and vice versa), and are treated in all respects the same as natural children. General rule: Once a child has been adopted by a new family, the child has no inheritance rights consistent with the the law and policy policy of most states, from the natural parents or their kin. (This is consistent under which adoption records are sealed, and an adopted child has no right to learn the identity of her natural parents.)
., Clyde's father dies; mother E.g ., Exception: Where child is adopted by spouse of a natural parent . ( E.g remarries, and second husband husband adopts Clyde. Clyde has inheritance rights rights from natural mother mother and adoptive father— and (in nearly all states) from the deceased natural father’s kin as well.) and (in
G.
NONMARITAL CHILDREN. Constitutional litigation in 1970s and 1980s expanded the rights of nonmarital children. As a result, in most states a nonmarital child can inherit from natural natural father if [the acronym is PAP—for Pappy]:
-- Paternity suit : The man was adjudicated to to be the father in a paternity suit; or -- Acknowledged paternity: The man acknowledged in writing that he was the father; or -- Probate proceedings: After the man's death, he is proved proved to have been the father of the child child in the probate proceeding by clear and convincing evidence.
H.
LIFETIME GIFTS TO HEIR OR WILL BENEFICIARY
3. Mary gives Blackacre (worth (worth $60,000) to her son Al on Al's 35th birthday, orally telling telling her other sons (Ben and Chris) that that they will receive similar similar gifts when they reach 35. 35. Mary dies intestate two years later without having having made gifts to Bill and Chris. She left an estate valued at $300,000; what distribution? other descendant) was presumptively presumptively an Common law: A lifetime gift to a child (or other advancement (advance payment) of the child's intestate share, to be taken into account in distributing the the intestate estate at death. death. (Presumption was that a parent would want to to treat all children equally.) equally.) Thus if Al wanted wanted to share in the inheritance, inheritance, unless the the advancement presumption were rebutted it would be treated as a [$300,000+ $60,000 =] $360,000 estate to be divided three ways. Each child's share would be $120,000, with Al
Page 6 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
already having received $60,000 of his share. (In most states, the advanced property is valued at its date-of-gift value for this purpose.) UPC and majority rule : A lifetime gift to an heir is not an advancement unless
(i) declared as such in a _______________________________________ by donor; or (ii) acknowledged as such in a ____________________________________ by donee. Therefore, under the majority rule distribute Mary’s estate:
In most states, the same rules apply to lifetime gifts made to a beneficiary named in a previously executed will (called the doctrine of satisfaction of legacies ), as where a testator executes a will bequeathing $25,000 to her nephew Norman, and thereafter gives Norman $10,000 cash. UPC and majority rule: A gift to a beneficiary named in an earlier will is not treated as in satisfaction of legacy unless
(i) declared as such in a contemporaneous writing by the donor, or (ii) acknowledged as such in writing by the donee, or (iii) the will provides for reduction of legacies by any lifetime gifts. Since there is no writing, we ignore the lifetime gift. Norman takes the full $25,000 under the will.
I.
DISCLAIMER BY HEIR OR BENEFICIARY
4. Joe's will bequeaths his $1,500,000 estate "to my children in equal shares." Joe is survived by two children: Sue and Bob. Sue, a partner in a large New York law firm who has two children, wants to disclaim her interest in her father's estate. What must Sue do to make an effective disclaimer? All states recognize that no one can be compelled to be a beneficiary or heir against her will. An intestate heir, will beneficiary, beneficiary of a life insurance policy or employee benefit plan, or any other interest in property can disclaim the interest, in whole or in part. A disclaimer also can be made on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person by a guardian, or the personal representative of a deceased person. A disclaimer, once made, is irrevocable. To be a valid disclaimer: #1. Must be in writing, signed and (in most states) notarized. #2. Must be filed within _________________* after the decedent's death. * Under the Uniform Probate Code, a disclaimer must be made within a “reasonable” time. However, to be valid for tax purposes a disclaimer must be made within 9 months, and most disclaimers are made for tax purposes.
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 7
[For irrevocable inter vivos trusts, disclaimer must be made within 9 months of the transfer; the trust is read as through the disclaimant was dead when trust was created. #3. Disclaimer can be partial ("I disclaim one-half of the interest bequeathed to me"). #4. A beneficiary or heir cannot disclaim after accepting an interest or its benefits. (Essentially an estoppel principle.) #5. Disclaimant cannot exercise dominion by attempting to direct who takes by reason of the disclaimer. ("I disclaim, and I want the interest to go to my husband Horace.") If Sue makes an effective disclaimer, how should T's estate be distributed?
J.
DEATHS IN QUICK SUCCESSION
5. Mother and Sonny, riding in a car, are hit broadside by a train. Both die instantly. Mother did not leave a will. For purposes of distributing Mother's intestate estate, is Sonny an heir.... ________ If the controlling law is the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act [USDA]? Uniform Simultaneous Death Act : When title to property depends on order of deaths and there is no sufficient evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each passes as though he or she survived (absent contrary provision). Intestacy: As though the intestate survived and the heir predeceased. Wills : Suppose, instead, that Mother left a will devising "all my property" to Sonny. Mother's estate is distributed as though the testator survived and the beneficiary predeceased. (This would invoke the lapsed gift doctrine and the anti-lapse statute, discussed infra.) Insurance proceeds, Individual Retirement Accounts [IRAs], etc.: As though insured [or IRA account owner] survived and beneficiary predeceased.
If joint tenants with right of survivorship or tenants by the entirety die simultaneously: ½ is distributed through A’s estate as though A survived B, and ½ is distributed through B’s estate as though B survived A. Reason: Simultaneous deaths prevent operation of right of survivorship. In effect, property passes as though a tenancy in common were involved. 5a. Same facts and same tragic accident except that, while Mother was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident, Sonny died at a nearby hospital 71 minutes later. Mother did not leave a will. For purposes of distributing mother's intestate estate, is Sonny an heir.... ________ If the controlling law is the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act?
Page 8 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
________ If the state has enacted the Uniform Probate Code’s 120-hour rule?
The 120-hour rule also applies to wills. A will beneficiary who fails survive the testator by 120 hours is deemed to have predeceased the testator (absent contrary provision). This would invoke that lapsed gift rule and anti-lapse statute (discussed infra).
II. EXECUTION OF WILLS A.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALIDLY EXECUTED WILL.
To have capacity to make a will, the testator (“T”) must be 18 years old. The rules governing will execution vary from state to state. The Uniform Probate Code (“UPC”) requires: #1.
Signed by the testator (or someone at T's direction and in her conscious presence— proxy signature);
#2.
Testator must sign the will (or acknowledge his earlier signature or acknowledge the will as his will) in each witness’s presence;
#3.
Two attesting witnesses, each of whom witnessed either T’s signing of the will or T's acknowledgment of his earlier signature or of the will; and
#4.
Witnesses must sign within a reasonable time after witnessing either T's signing of the will, or T’s acknowledgment of her earlier signature or of the will .
A number of states additionally require that #5.
Each witness must sign the will in the testator’s presence. notwithstanding, this is the majority rule.)
(The UPC
A few states impose one or more of the following additional requirements: --
that the testator sign " at the foot or end " of the will.
--
that the witnesses know they are witnessing a will, as distinguished from some other document (called the " will publication " requirement).
--
that witnesses sign in each other's presence.
Codicil (later amendment or supplement to a will) must be executed with the same formalities.
6. Tom types a will that leaves all of all his property to his sister Sue and his neighbor Nell in equal shares. The will, which names a friend as executor, contains no attestation clause; below the signature line for the testator the will simply provides "Witnesses" and has two signature lines. Tom takes the will across the street to his neighbor Nell and asks Nell to "witness my will." Nell signs on the first witness line, then Tom signs; Tom's signature is barely legible because of an arthritic condition. Tom then takes the will to his neighbor Oscar and asks: "Would you mind witnessing this legal document for me? It needs two signatures besides mine." Tom proffers the will with his signature showing. Oscar signs, thinking he is witnessing a power of attorney. After Tom’s death the will, which is undated, is offered for probate. Should it be admitted?
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 9
_______ Does it matter that the will is not dated? _______ Does it matter that one of the witnesses signed before Tom signed?
The exact order of signing is not critical when “execution” (will signing) ceremony is _________________________________________________________________ (But where T forgot to sign when witnesses signed, and added his signature three days later in the same witnesses' presence, will denied probate; not a contemporaneous transaction. Witnesses are attesting witnesses and must attest to T's signature when they sign.) _______ Does it matter that Tom's signature is barely legible?
_______ Does the fact that Nell is a beneficiary invalidate either the will or the bequest to Nell? Minority rule: Interested witness situation doesn't affect validity of a will, but witness-beneficiary loses legacy (subject to exceptions). However, the UPC and most states have abolished the interested witness rule . "The signing of a will by an interested person does not invalidate the will or any provision of it."
________ Does it matter that Oscar did not know that he was witnessing a will? (majority rule)
________ Does it matter that Nell and Oscar didn't sign in each other's presence? (majority rule)
________ Does it matter that Tom’s will did not contain an attestation clause?
Attestation clause, which appears below the testator's signature line and above the witnesses' signature line, recites the elements required for due execution: "On the above date testator declared to us that the foregoing instrument was her will and she asked us to serve as witnesses thereto. She then signed the will in our presence, we being present at the same time. We now sign the will as attesting witnesses in testator's presence and in the presence of each other."
Page 10 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
Value of an attestation clause: such a clause is:
An attestation clause can be important in two situations: (1)
Witness with bad memory. "Probate of a will does not turn on memory of the attesting witnesses."
(2)
Hostile witness.
Self-proving affidavit procedure now available in nearly all states recognizes that most probates are harmonious, nonlitigious affairs in which no one is challenging the validity of the will's execution. Can be executed at any time after the will is signed, but invariably is signed at the same ceremony. T and witnesses sign will, then T and witnesses execute sworn affidavit before notary public. Affidavit recites statements witnesses would testify to in open court (T was over age 18; witnesses signed in T's presence; in witnesses' opinion T was of sound mind, etc.). Unlike an attestation clause (which merely corroborates the witnesses' testimony), the affidavit serves the same function as a deposition or interrogatory. It is a total substitute for live testimony of the attesting witnesses in open court.
7. Tillie downloads a will form from the Internet, and carefully fills in the blanks by typing in the names of the beneficiaries, executor, etc. After she has completed the form, Tillie asks Norman, a notary public, to assist her in signing the will. Tillie signs; then Norman signs and affixes his notarial seal, overlooking the fact that there are two signature lines for witnesses. Tillie dies two years later. NO
Can Tillie’s will be admitted to probate in most states, given that it has only one witness?
YES
Can Tillie’s will be admitted to probate in a state that has enacted the Revised Uniform Probate Code ?
Under the Revised UPC’s dispensing power statute (also known as the harmless error statute), the probate judge can excuse full compliance with the formalities required for execution of a will if there is clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be her will. B.
WHAT CONSTITUTES “PRESENCE”? A number of states require that the witnesses must sign in testator's presence, and the UPC requires that the testator either sign the will or acknowledge his signature or the will in each witness's presence. What constitutes "presence"?
8. T is confined to a hospital with a contagious disease, his bed hidden by a heavy vinyl screen. The will is handed to T at a point when the two witnesses are standing in the doorway to the room, not in T's line of sight because of the screen. From behind the screen T says, "This looks all right; where do I sign?" After T signs the will, a nurse carries the will to the doorway where the two witnesses sign under the attestation clause; T cannot see either of them sign. Was the will validly executed? Under the line of sight ("scope of vision") test (minority rule): NO Witnesses must be in testator's line of sight. Testator does not have to see the witnesses sign, but the witnesses must be within the uninterrupted range of testator's vision when they sign, so that testator could have seen them sign if he had looked. (Swivel chair case: If testator,
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 11
staring out window when witnesses signed on a table behind her, had turned around in her swivel chair, she could see the witnesses.) Under the conscious presence test (majority rule): YES It is not necessary that testator should actually be able to see the witnesses when they sign. They are in his presence whenever he is so near to them that he is conscious of where they are and what they are doing , and he could see them with a slight physical effort on his part. ( e.g., by peeking around that vinyl screen.) BUT where (after testator and W-1 signed) the attorney took the will to an adjoining room where W-2 signed it, W-2 did not sign in testator's presence under either test.
9. Mel was in a hospital's Intensive Care Unit, having suffered a heart attack. A will was prepared for Mel and was brought to the hospital room along with two of Mel's neighbors who were to serve as witnesses to the will. The lawyer read the will aloud to Mel, who said "That's just fine; where do I sign?" Mel signed the will—but immediately thereafter suffered a massive seizure and collapsed back on the bed. Paramedics rushed in and, in the presence of the stunned neighbors, worked alongside two nurses in administering CPR to Mel—to no avail. About seven minutes later, Mel was pronounced dead. At that point, the lawyer said to the neighbors, "well, that's too bad; but as long as you're here you might as well sign the will as witnesses," which they did. Is Mel's will admissible to probate? NO
______
C.
Majority rule: Witnesses must sign in the testator's conscious presence.
Uniform Probate Code:
ATTORNEY LIABILITY TO WILL BENEFICIARIES FOR NEGLIGENCE
10. In a state that requires that the attesting witness must sign the will in the testator’s presence, Larry Lawyer prepares a will for Tina and supervises the will's execution. The will is signed by two witnesses, but one of them did not sign the will in Tina's presence. As a result, the will is denied probate, and Tina's estate passes by intestacy to Tina's heirs. Do the intended will beneficiaries have a cause of action against attorney for negligence? Minority rule:
NO
because there is no privity of contract.
Under the minority rule, an attorney's duty runs only to:
Majority rule:
because
_______
______________________________________.
Under the majority rule, attorney's duty also runs to:
Page 12 WILLS AND TRUSTS
D.
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS
11. Winkie writes a document in her own handwriting that reads: "July 24, 1998. I, Winkie Waters, declare that this is my last will. I leave all my property to the Morris Crippled Children's Home." The writing is not witnessed; is it admissible to probate? "The UPC and about half the states recognize holographic wills—handwritten and signed but unwitnessed wills. In these states, upon proof that the will was wholly in Winkie’s handwriting, it is admissible to probate as a holographic will."
But all states that allow holographic wills require that such wills be signed by the testator. Was this will signed by Winkie???
"However, many states do not recognize holographic wills. Except (in a few states) for persons serving in the armed forces or mariners at sea, all wills must be in writing and attested by two witnesses. In those states, the handwritten, unwitnessed document is not admissible to probate."
Important note: If the facts of ANY Wills question include a handwritten letter, note or memorandum signed by the testator, you must discuss majority and minority rule (as above); whether it can be given effect as a holographic will (or holographic codicil to an attested will).
E.
CONDITIONAL WILL
12. Ted writes a will that is properly signed and witnessed: "I am going on a mountain-climbing expedition to the Himalayas. If anything happens to me on the trip, I leave all of my property to my good friend, Alice Adams." Ted climbs Mt. Everest that summer, returns from the trip in July, and dies three years later without having changed his will. Does Alice take Ted's estate under the will?
Was this a conditional will , meaning that probate should be denied because the condition did not occur (i.e., nothing happened to Ted on his trip)?
Or did Ted's reference to the dangerous journey he was about to undertake merely reflect the motive or inducement for making a will ? (i.e., the dangers he faced on the trip prompted him to think of the possibility of death and the need for a will.)
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 13
III. REVOCATION OF WILLS A.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID REVOCATION.
A will can be revoked only: (1) by a subsequent testamentary instrument , executed with appropriate formalities, or (2) by physical act (burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or other act of destruction). Under the Revised UPC, the dispensing power (“harmless error”) statute applicable to the execution of wills also applies to attempted revocations. The probate court can relax the statutory requirements, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended to revoke her will. 13. Hobie's will is found among his papers after his death. At the bottom of each page of the three-page will is written, in T's handwriting, " This will is VOID. Hobie Gates." YES
Valid revocation by subsequent instrument if the state recognizes holographic wills ? It's in his handwriting and signed; doesn't have to be on a separate sheet of paper .
YES
Valid revocation by subsequent instrument if the state has enacted the Uniform Probate Code’s dispensing power statute ? We have clear and convincing evidence that Hobie intended to revoke his will.
________ Valid revocation by subsequent testamentary instrument if the state does not recognize holographic wills (and has not enacted the UPC’s dispensing power statute)?
________ Valid revocation by physical act?
________ Suppose Hobie had crossed out his signature with an physical act?
X.
Revocation by
14. The executed copy of Adam's will is in his safety deposit box; a xerographic copy showing all of the signatures is in Adam's desk at home. Adam destroys the xerox copy with the intent to revoke his will. Valid revocation by physical act?
________ Physical act must be:
Page 14 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
15. Ted calls his attorney on the phone and tells him, "Revoke my will. I'll come down to your office next Monday and write a new one, but for now I don't want that old will." The attorney gets Ted's will out of the file, puts a large X across each page, and then tears the will into twelve pieces. He tells Ted, "I have destroyed your will. Be sure to come in on Monday. We sure wouldn't like to have you die intestate. Heh, heh." Ted is struck by lightning and is killed on Sunday. Was Ted's will validly revoked? ________ Revocation by physical act by another person (proxy revocation), must be: (1) ______________________________ and (2) ______________________________
15a.
But how can Ted's will in #15 be probated if it was destroyed??? ______________________________________________________________________ (1) Proof of due execution (testimony of attesting witnesses) as in any case. (2) Cause of will's nonproduction must be established. presumptions as to revocation set out below.)
(Must overcome
(3) Contents must be substantially proved by copy of will or by testimony of witnesses who have read the will or heard it read.
B.
PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING REVOCATION.
(1) Where a will, last seen in testator's possession or under his control, is not found after death, presumption is that the testator revoked the will by physical act. (2) Where a will, last seen in testator's possession or control, is found mutilated after testator's death, presumption is that the testator did the mutilating ( i.e., revocation by physical act). (i)
Neither presumption arises if the will was last seen in the possession of someone adversely affected by its contents. [Recent case: Shortly after T's death, desk where will was located was "tidied up" by one adversely affected by the will.]
(ii)
Evidence is admissible to rebut the presumption of revocation where will cannot be found or is found in damaged condition. [ E.g., will destroyed in fire that killed testator.]
Where a will is executed in duplicate (two signed and witnessed copies), both copies must be accounted for, or the reason for not producing both copies must be explained. 16. Tim executes "my last will." Two years later, Tim executes another "my last will." The second will does not contain language of revocation, and does not even mention the earlier will. To the extent possible, you read the two instruments together. The second "last will" is treated as a codicil to the first will, and revokes it only to the extent of inconsistent provisions. But if the second will is wholly inconsistent with the earlier will (the first will gives "all my property to Al" and the second gives "all my property to Betty," the first will is revoked by implication .
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 15
Revocation of codicil to a will does not revoke the will, and ( majority rule ) the part of the will that was modified or revoked by the codicil is restored and takes effect as though the codicil had never been written.
C.
DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION
16. Teresa executes a will (Will #1) that bequeaths her estate in trust: income to daughter Sally for life, remainder to Sally's children. Teresa later types out a will (Will #2) that purports to revoke Will #1 and leaves her estate outright to Sally. However, Will #2 is signed by only one witness. Saying "this will is no good now," Teresa destroys Will #1. Teresa dies; she is survived by Sally and by her son Jack, whom she intended to disinherit. What do we do, given that the second "will" is not a will (not validly executed)? DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION should be applied by the court. "DRR" permits a revocation to be disregarded when the act of revocation was premised upon, conditioned upon, dependent upon, a mistake of law or fact as to the validity of another disposition (here, Teresa's mistaken belief that she had validly executed Will #2). Effect would be to disregard the revocation of Will #1 (the will that was revoked based on a mistake of law) and permit its probate. Rationale: It is better to disregard the revocation and let Teresa's estate pass into a trust for Sally and her children than to have half of her estate pass by intestate distribution to Jack, whom Teresa intended to disinherit.
DRR is sometimes called the second best solution doctrine. [The best solution—giving effect to Teresa's intent by probating Will #2—isn’t possible because it was not properly witnessed.] The doctrine should be applied only if by disregarding the revocation we come closer to what the testator tried but failed to do than would an intestate distribution. If Will #1 said "outright to Sally" and the improperly witnessed Will #2 said "outright to Hobie Gates" and the other facts were the same, DRR would not be applied. T's revocation of Will #1 (in effect, "I do not want Sally to take") would be independent of her intent to make a new will in favor of Hobie. To disregard the revocation of Will #1 would defeat T's intent . On these facts, the conventional rules would be applied and an intestate distribution would be made. But if we disregard the revocation of Will #1 because the court decides to apply DRR, how can we probate that will when Teresa has destroyed it??? _______________________________ .
D.
CHANGES ON FACE OF WILL AFTER IT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND WITNESSED
18. Elsie's typewritten will makes a number of legacies, including: "10. I give the sum of $5,000 to my nephew, Hobie Gates." "11. I give the sum of $2,000 to my niece, Susan Slade. Elsie decides to make some revisions in her will without the assistance of an attorney. Using a marking pencil, she deletes clause 10 and strikes the $2,000 in clause 11. Using a ball point pen, Elsie writes in $5,000 above the crossed out $2,000, and initials and dates the margin alongside these changes. Elsie dies three years later. What is the effect of these changes on the face of the will?
Page 16 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
________ Was the legacy to Hobie Gates validly revoked? (Majority rule) "A few states (Illinois, New York, Texas) do not recognize partial revocation by physical act. However, in most states and under the Uniform Probate Code, partial revocations by physical act are valid."
________ Does Susan get the $5,000 legacy? (Overwhelming majority rule) Words added to a will after it has been signed and witnessed are:
But under the Revised Uniform Probate Code (that “harmless error” or “dispensing power” statute once again), the answer is YES . Susan takes the $5,000 because we have clear and convincing evidence that Elsie intended to modify the will by making the alteration.
________ When Elsie crossed out the "$2,000" before writing in "$5,000," she revoked the $2,000 legacy by physical act. Is Susan nonetheless entitled to the $2,000?
________ Suppose that Elsie, after crossing out the $2,000, writes in "$500" above it. Does Susan get the crossed-out $2,000 under dependent relative revocation? [What was Elsie telling us when she crossed out "$2,000" and wrote in "$500"?]
________ Suppose Elsie crossed out "$2,000" and wrote in "$5,000" immediately before the will was signed and witnessed. Are the changes valid?
IV. WILL BENEFICIARY DIES DURING TESTATOR'S LIFETIME A.
LAPSED GIFTS AND ANTI-LAPSE STATUTES
19. Tom executes a will that provides: "I devise Blackacre to my son Sam, and I leave my residuary estate to my sister Mary." Sam dies two years later, survived by his wife Wendy and his son Junior. Sam leaves a will that devises "all my property" to Wendy. Tom died two months ago, survived by Sam’s wife Wendy, Sam Jr., and Tom’s sister Mary. Who takes Blackacre?
a.
When a will beneficiary predeceases the testator, the gift _____________________
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 17
b. Unless the gift is saved by the state's anti-lapse statute . These statutes vary in the scope of cases to which they apply. Some anti-lapse statutes (e.g ., Illinois) are very narrow in their operation, and apply only when deceased beneficiary was a child or other descendant of the testator . The UPC anti-lapse statute applies when the predeceasing beneficiary was a grandparent or descendant of a grandparent of the testator . Several statutes are much even broader, and apply when the predeceasing beneficiary was a relative of the testator (e.g ., Massachusetts), or a relative of the spouse or former spouse of the testator (e.g ., California). The predeceasing beneficiary must have been within the scope of the statute, AND must have left descendants who survived the testator.
c.
Therefore, Blackacre, devised to son Sam, passes to:
d. But what of the fact that Sam left a will devising "all my property" to Wendy??? (Doesn't the anti-lapse statute save the gift for the deceased beneficiary's estate?)
e.
What if Sam was not survived by descendants, meaning that the anti-lapse statute doesn't apply; who would take Blackacre?
If a bequest or devise lapses and the anti-lapse statute does not apply, the lapsed gift:
f.
Suppose the will gave Blackacre "to my son Sam if he survives me." ________ Would the anti-lapse statute apply in favor of Junior (majority rule)?
B.
120-HOUR RULE
20. In a state that has enacted the UPC’s 120-hour rule, Tim's will provides: "I give all of my Microsoft common stock to my sister Sarah, and my residuary estate to my mother Macree." Tim and Sarah are fatally injured an automobile accident. Tim is pronounced dead at the scene of the accident; Sarah dies two days later. Sarah is survived by her daughter Donna and her mother; Sarah leaves a will that devises "all my property" to the Red Cross. Who takes the Microsoft stock under Tim's will? ________ Does the 120-hour rule apply to wills?
Page 18 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
A will beneficiary who fails to survive the testator by 120 hours is treated as if he predeceased the testator (absent contrary will provision).
Therefore, the Microsoft stock passes:
20a. Same facts as in #20, except that Tim's will provides: "I bequeath all of my Microsoft stock to my sister Sarah if she survives me." Who takes the AT&T stock? ________ Does the 120-hour rule apply (majority rule)?
If a will contains language dealing explicitly with simultaneous deaths, deaths in a common disaster , or requires that the devisee survive the testator in order to take, 120-hour rule DOES NOT APPLY .
C.
LAPSE IN RESIDUARY ESTATE – SURVIVING RESIDUARY BENEFICIARIES RULE
21. "I bequeath my residuary estate in equal shares to my good friend Hobie Gates, my neighbor Bill Baker, and my son Charlie. I intentionally make no provision for my son Stephen, as I have not seen him for fifteen years." Hobie predeceases T, leaving a child (Hobie Jr.) who survives T. T, a widower, is also survived by Baker, Charles and Stephen. Who takes the residuary estate? ________ Does the anti-lapse statute apply in favor of Hobie Jr.?
Who takes Hobie's one-third share of the residuary estate, then?
If the residuary estate is devised to two or more persons and the gift to one of them fails for any reason, the other residuary devisees take the entire residuary estate, in proportion to their interests in the residue (absent contrary will provision). 21a. What if, in #21, it was T's son Charlie who predeceased T, leaving a child (Junior) who survived T? Hobie Gates and Bill Baker survived T. Who takes Charlie's share of the residuary estate? The anti-lapse statute ______________________________ the "surviving residuary beneficiaries" rule.
D.
CLASS GIFTS
22. Ted's will devises Blackacre "to the children of my good friend, Joe Barnes," and devises his residuary estate to his wife Rose. At the time the will is executed, Joe has two children: Andy and Bill. After the will is executed but before Ted's death, another child (Carol) is born
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 19
to Joe, and Andy dies survived by a son, Andy Jr. Then Ted dies and his will is admitted to probate. Eighteen months later Joe has another child, Donny. Who owns Blackacre?
Andy? Class gift rule of construction : In a gift by will to a class of persons ("children," "brothers and sisters," etc.) if a member of the class predeceases the testator , the CLASS MEMBERS WHO SURVIVE THE TESTATOR TAKE (absent a contrary will provision). Basis: testator was "group-minded" in making the gift to the class and wanted this group and only this group to share the property. [You read the will, and determine the takers of the class gift, as of testator's death.] Compare gifts to individuals: Suppose Ted's will devised Blackacre "in equal shares to Andy, Bill and Carol, the children of my good friend Joe Barnes." Andy predeceases Ted. The one-third share bequeathed to Andy lapses, and falls into the residuary estate as undisposed-of property. The residuary beneficiaries would own a share of Blackacre along with Bill and Carol. Subject to: possible application of the anti-lapse statute. E.g., if the disposition were "to the children of my son, Joe Barnes," since the beneficiary who predeceased the testator was within the degree of relationship covered by the anti-lapse statute, and since he left a child who survived the testator, Andy Jr. would take under the anti-lapse statute. The class gift rule gives way to the anti-lapse statute when the predeceasing class member is within the degree of relationship called for by the anti-lapse statute.
Why is Donny excluded from sharing in the gift, when he's a child of Joe Barnes??? Rule of convenience ["class closing" rule]: Rule of construction used to define the takers of a class gift. The class is closed, meaning that later-born class members do not share in the gift, when some class member is entitled to a distribution . This is done in order to determine the minimum share of each class member, so a distribution can be made without the necessity of rebate. It's called the Rule of Convenience because any other result would be inconvenient.
Outright gift by will: the class closes at T's death.* * Subject to gestation principle. Common law presumption: 280 days from conception to birth
V. CHANGES IN FAMILY AFTER WILL IS EXECUTED A.
TESTATOR MARRIES AFTER WILL IS EXECUTED
23. John executes a will that devises Blackacre (valued at $100,000) to his son Sam and his residuary estate to his sister Sue. A year later, John marries Marsha; John dies ten months later, leaving a $600,000 estate (which includes the value of Blackacre). John is survived by Marsha, Sam, and his sister Sue. Who takes John's estate? Under the omitted spouse statute found in many states, marriage following execution of will: Omitted spouse takes _______________________________
Page 20 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
UNLESS:
(i)
It appears that omission was intentional ; or
(ii)
provision was made for the spouse by transfers outside the will and it is shown that the transfers were intended in lieu of testamentary gifts by testator's declarations, by amount of the transfer, or otherwise. [ E.g., John named Marsha as beneficiary of a $100,000 life insurance policy; or as beneficiary of a revocable trust.]
23a. Consider the same facts, except that the above events took place in a jurisdiction that has enacted the Revised Uniform Probate Code . Under the Revised UPC, the new spouse is entitled to receive an amount equal to an intestate share—but only as to that portion of the estate not devised to testator's children from an earlier marriage ; i.e., children who were born before the marriage (or their descendants) and who are not the surviving spouse’s children. Thus: $600,000 -100,000 $500,000
John’s estate value of Blackacre bequeathed to son Sam amount subject to Marsha’s share as omitted spouse
Reviewing the Revised UPC’s intestate distribution rules (see p. 2), Marsha would be entitled to: $100,000 +200,000 $300,000
first $100,000—John was survived by descendants not Marsha’s descendants plus ½ of balance Marsha’s share as omitted spouse
The remaining estate (property worth $200,000) would pass under the will’s residuary clause to sister Sue. B.
TESTATOR IS DIVORCED AFTER WILL IS EXECUTED
24. Hank is married to Wendy, who has a child (Wookie) by her first marriage. Hank writes a will that devises Blueacre to Wendy, and the rest of his estate to his sister Sue. The will names Wendy as executor "if she is able; otherwise my brother Sam is to serve as executor." Two years later Hank and Wendy divorce; then Hank dies without having changed his will. Who takes Blueacre? ____________________________________ Who serves as executor? _________________________________ A final decree of divorce or annulment revokes all gifts and fiduciary appointments in favor of former spouse. The will is read and the estate is distributed (and fiduciaries are named) as though former spouse predeceased the testator . ________ But doesn't the anti-lapse statute apply in favor of Wendy’s child Wookie, then?
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 21
But if the couple divorces and then remarries, so that W is H's wife at death, she takes under the will. The statute operates to revoke gifts and appointments only if they are divorced at testator's death.
C.
TESTATOR HAS CHILD AFTER WILL IS EXECUTED -- "PRETERMITTED CHILD"
25. When he made his will, Tank and his wife had one child: Alvin. After Tank made the will he and his wife adopted a child: Billy. Tank died survived by his wife, Alvin and Billy. His will left two-thirds of his $260,000 estate to his wife and the other one-third to a sister. What rights if any do the children have in this estate and why? Alvin (alive when the will was executed):
Unless [says UPC] omission of the child was not intentional but was by accident or mistake. [ E.g ., T mistakenly thought Alvin was killed in Viet Nam. Statute applies only to mistake as to child of testator. If he mistakenly thought his brother was killed in Viet Nam, UPC statute does not apply.]
Billy? Pretermitted child (born or adopted after the will was executed) takes:
Unless it appears from the will (no extrinsic evidence) that omission was intentional .
25a. Same facts, except that two years after adopting Billy, Tank executes a codicil to his will that names Second Bank rather than First Bank as executor.
Under the doctrine of republication by codicil , the will “speaks” (is “republished”—is deemed to have been executed) on the date of the last codicil thereto. Billy is treated as having been born before the will was executed, and has no rights as a pretermitted child.
VI. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPES OF TESTAMENTARY GIFTS Specific devise or bequest: "I devise Blackacre to my son John." Demonstrative legacy:
A general amount from a specific source. "I bequeath $25,000, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of my Shell Oil stock, to Sally."
General legacy:
"I bequeath the sum of $10,000 to my nephew Ned."
Residuary gift:
"I give all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate to Betty."
Intestate property:
If a partial intestacy because the will, poorly drafted, does not contain a residuary clause.
Page 22 WILLS AND TRUSTS
A.
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
ABATEMENT OF LEGACIES TO PAY DEBTS AND EXPENSES
What happens when there are so many claims against the estate that there are not enough assets to cover all of the gifts made by the will? ("Abatement" problem.) Absent contrary provision, debts and expenses are first paid out of: (1) intestate property, if a partial intestacy for some reason; (2) then out of residuary assets, (3) then out of general legacies, and finally (4) out of specific bequests. Within each category, gifts abate pro rata; no distinction is made between real and personal property. (Nearly all states have abolished the common law rule under which personal property was sold off before any real property was touched.) Under the UPC and in most states, demonstrative legacies are treated the same as specific bequests (and thus last to be abated) to the extent of the value of the specified property, and as a general legacy to the extent of any excess. If (e.g.,) the will made a bequest of “$25,000, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of my Shell Oil stock, to Sally," but the Shell stock was only worth $16,000 at testator’s death, for abatement purposes it would be treated as a specific bequest as to $16,000, and as a general legacy as to $9,000.
B.
PRO RATA APPORTIONMENT RULE GOVERNS DEATH TAXES
26. Counting life insurance, Ted has a $2,000,000 estate (net of expenses and debts). Ted's will bequeaths Blackacre (worth $400,000) to his son Al, $200,000 to his church, and his residuary estate ($1,200,000 after debts and expenses) in trust: Income to Ted's daughter Betty for life, remainder to Betty's children. Ted was the insured under a $200,000 life insurance policy; the proceeds are paid in a lump sum to Ted's sister Carol. Allowing for a $200,000 charitable deduction, Ted's taxable estate was $1,800,000, and estate taxes payable by reason of Ted's death total $108,000. Ted's executor wants to know: Against whom should the $108,000 in death taxes be charged? Advise him.
Majority rule: Absent contrary will provision, death taxes are apportioned (on a pro rata basis) among all persons interested in the estate (beneficiaries of both probate and non probate transfers). Exception: Beneficiary of an interest that qualifies for an estate tax charitable or marital deduction gets benefit of that deduction (does not have to contribute pro rata).
Numerator: Denominator:
value of each testamentary & nontestamentary gift total value of taxable estate
Al [specific devise of Blackacre]: Church [$200,000 cash legacy]:
$400,000 x $108,000 = $24,000 $1,800,000
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
C.
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 23
Residuary trust:
$1,200,000 $1,800,000
x $108,000 = $72,000
Carol [$200,000 life ins. proceeds]:
$200,000_ x $108,000 = $12,000 $1,800,000
SPECIFICALLY DEVISED PROPERTY NOT IN ESTATE AT DEATH -- ADEMPTION
27. Terry executes a will that devises Blackacre to his brother Bob, and his residuary estate to his wife. Two years later, Terry sells Blackacre for cash, and uses the sale proceeds to buy Whiteacre. Terry died last month without having changed his will. What does Bob take under Terry's will? ________ Where the will makes a specific gift of property, and the property is not owned by the testator at death (for whatever reason):
28. Henny's will contains this provision: "I bequeath the sum of $25,000, to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of my Shell Oil stock, to Sally." [Demonstrative legacy.] One year before her death, Henny sells all of her Shell Oil stock and uses the sale proceeds to buy Exxon stock. ________ Does ademption apply to demonstrative (or general) legacies?
On Henny's death, what does Sally get?
(But if Henny owned any Shell Oil stock at her death, executor would be under duty to sell it to raise the $5,000.)
D.
STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADEMPTION DOCTRINE
29. Same facts as in #27 (specific devise of Blackacre), except that Terry sold Blackacre for $10,000 cash and a $90,000 note secured by a mortgage on Blackacre. At Terry’s death, the balance on the note is $65,000. What does Bob take under Terry's will?
These UPC provisions, which have been enacted in a number of non-UPC states, reverse the common law rules, which applied ademption to any case where specifically devised property was not in the estate at death. (At common law, testator’s probable intent was immaterial.) #1.
Specific devisee takes any remaining specifically devised property and:
Page 24 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
--
Any unpaid balance of purchase price (together with any security interest) by reason of sale of the property .
--
Any amount of condemnation award for taking of the property, to the extent unpaid at testator's death.
--
Any amount of fire or casualty insurance proceeds for damaged or destroyed property unpaid at death. Caveat : These rules DO NOT APPLY if the sale proceeds, condemnation award or insurance claim were fully paid before testator's death. (Rationale: Testator had time to change his will.)
--
#2.
E.
Property acquired as a replacement property for specifically devised property. [“I devise my residence on Smith Street to my sister Sue”; T sells that house and buys a residence on Oak Street.]
Will executed before T declared incapacitated: If specifically devised property is sold by guardian or conservator , or if condemnation award or insurance proceeds are paid to the guardian or conservator because of fire or casualty, the specific devisee has a right to a general legacy equal to the net sale price, condemnation award, or insurance proceeds. (Otherwise, guardian or conservator could change the will by deciding what assets to sell. Also, T didn't have capacity to change his will to adjust for the loss or destruction of the property.)
BEQUESTS OF STOCK AND OTHER SECURITIES
30. Tony executes a will that contains the following clauses: "5th. I give my 100 shares of IBM stock to Albert Avins." "6th. I give 100 shares of Kodak stock to Ben Baker." One year before his death, Tony sells his IBM stock and uses the sale proceeds to buy AT&T stock. Also before his death, Tony sells his Kodak stock and invests the proceeds in 200 shares of Polaroid stock.
a.
What does Avins get (" my 100 shares of IBM stock")?
b. What does Baker get ("100 shares of Kodak stock")?
For ademption purposes,
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 25
31. Suppose, instead, that Tony does not sell his Kodak stock? After Tony executes the will but before his death, Kodak splits two-for-one, and certificates for 200 shares of Kodak stock are found in Tony's safe deposit box after his death. [Majority rule: A specific bequest of stock includes any stock produced by a stock split, stock dividend, and stock resulting from a merger, reorganization, or other action initiated by the entity after the will was executed, but does not include stock acquired by the exercise of a stock option.] Held: Baker takes all 200 shares of Kodak stock, because the gift of stock was a specific bequest! But how can that be, when the gift was called a general legacy in #30?? Something is going on here—but let us recognize where it is. In #30, the courts have seized on the absence of a possessive pronoun "my," calling it a general bequest to avoid ademption. But the issue here is different (stock split). A gift of stock can be specific for one purpose (stock split) and general for another purpose (ademption). F.
SPECIFIC GIFT OF ENCUMBERED PROPERTY – IS THE LIEN EXONERATED?
32. Teddy's will devises Whiteacre to Joan, and devises his residuary estate to Betty. On Teddy's death, Whiteacre is subject to a mortgage securing a $10,000 note on which Teddy was personally liable. Joan demands that Teddy's executor pay the $10,000 debt out of the residuary estate so that she will take title free of the mortgage lien. Is she entitled? Common law:
YES because liens on specifically devised property are "exonerated” from the residuary estate.
UPC and majority rule: ________* because exoneration of liens doctrine: (*unless the will directs exoneration)
Under the majority rule, Joan takes:
VII. REFERENCE TO FACTS AND EVENTS OUTSIDE THE WILL A.
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE DOCTRINE
33. On July 1, 1998, Thor executes a will that provides: "I devise Blackacre to the person named in a memo dated May 4, 1998, that I have written and placed in my safe deposit box. I give my residuary estate to my brother Ben." After Thor's death there is found, in his safe deposit box, a typed memo dated May 4, 1998, signed by Thor but not witnessed: "Pursuant to my will, I want Blackacre to go to my nephew Norman." ________ Does Norman take Blackacre under the memo, when the memo was not witnessed, and was not part of the will that was signed by Thor and the attesting witnesses?
Page 26 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
An extrinsic document, not present when the will was executed (and thus not part of the duly executed will), can be INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into the will . . . IF : #1.
Writing must be in existence when the will was executed.
#2.
Will must show an intent to incorporate the writing.
#3.
Will must describe the writing sufficiently to permit its identification . ("So there can be no mistake as to the identity of the document referred to.")
33a. Same facts, except that the memo was dated May 4, 1999.
________ Incorporation by reference on these facts?
34. With Tom's will in his safe deposit box was the following typewritten, unwitnessed memo written after Tom signed his will: "In my will I referred to a list that I would prepare at a later date leaving certain items of personal property, and this is it: I leave my golf clubs to my friend, Hobie Gates, my fishing tackle to my son Sam, $2,000 to my daughter Donna, and my IBM stock to my brother Ivan. /s/ Tom Testator." If the state has enacted the controlling UPC provision, valid disposition . . .
________ as to golf clubs?
________ as to the fishing tackle?
________ as to $2,000?
________ as to the IBM stock?
Under the UPC and several non-UPC states, statutory exception to incorporation by reference rule: Will may refer to written statement or list that disposes of TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY (other than money, intangibles, property used in trade or business) not specifically disposed of by the will. The written list must be signed by testator , must describe the property with reasonable certainty. Can be written before or after the will is executed ; can be altered at any time . Statute provides a simple and inexpensive procedure for making gifts of personal items of sentimental value, without having to amend the will every time the client changes his mind, or wants to add to the list. B.
ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE DOCTRINE
35. Tina dies leaving a will that provides: "I give the automobile that I own at my death to my nephew Norman. I give the furniture and furnishings in my living room to my sister Sue." A year before her death, Tina had traded her 1999 Honda Civic in on a brand new Mercedes Benz. Six months before her death, Tina moved a $25,000 Picasso print from his den and mounted it on her living room wall. What is the effect of these acts on the provisions of Tina's will? ________ Does Norman take the Mercedes? ________ Does Sue take the Picasso?
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 27
Key words: Acts of independent significance Also known as doctrine of nontestamentary acts *________ Same result for gift of "contents of my sea chest"? * Except for title documents: deeds, stock certificates, bank passbooks
VIII. OTHER WILLS DOCTRINES A.
MISTAKES OR AMBIGUITIES IN THE WILL
36. Tom tells his lawyer to draw his will and give his nephew Ed "300 shares of Acme stock." In typing the will, the typist makes a mistake and types the figure as "200," which Tom does not notice when he signs the will. At Tom's death he owns 300 shares of Acme stock. Ed offers the testimony of Tom's lawyer that the typist made a mistake. What does Ed get and why? ________ shares: Absent suspicious circumstances, it is conclusively presumed that: 37. "I give $10,000 to my nephew, John Paul Jones." Problem: T has a nephew James Peter Jones, and another named Harold Paul Jones, but no nephew named John Paul Jones. Who takes the $10,000? This is called a _____________________________________ because there is a ________________________________________.
________ Is extrinsic evidence admissible?
What if the extrinsic evidence does not cure the ambiguity?
38. Rod's will includes this gift: "I give the sum of Twenty-five Dollars ($25,000) to my niece Nora." This is called a ______________________________________________________.
________ Is extrinsic evidence admissible? ________ Does the admissible evidence include "facts and circumstances"
Page 28 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
evidence? (evidence about the testator, his family, the claimants under the will and their relationship to the testator, testator's habits and thoughts, etc.)
________ [majority rule:] Does the admissible evidence include testator's declarations of intent to a third party ? ( E.g ., he told a friend he had bequeathed $25,000 to his niece Nora.) [But modern trend is to admit all types of extrinsic evidence to cure patent as well as latent ambiguities.] ________ Does the admissible evidence include anything testator said to his attorney?
B.
CONTRACTS RELATING TO WILLS
Under the UPC and in most states by statute, a contract to make a will or not to revoke a will, can be established only by: (1) provisions in the will stating the material provisions of the contract, or (2) express reference in the will to a contract and extrinsic evidence proving the contract's terms, or (3) a writing signed by decedent evidencing the contract. Execution of a joint will or reciprocal wills does not raise a presumption that a contract exists. These statutes have eliminated troublesome litigation over joint wills (the wills of two persons on one piece of paper -- "We and each of us dispose of our property as follows. . ."), as to whether the will (wills?) was executed pursuant to a contract that the surviving party will not revoke the joint disposition. The cases sometimes found the existence of a contract merely from the execution of a joint will using plural possessive pronouns (we, us, our) that made a disposition of the combined estates. C.
EFFECT OF WORDS OF DISINHERITANCE IN A WILL
39. Tammy's will devises Redacre to her son Sam and her residuary estate to her husband Harold. The will provides: "I intentionally make no provision for my daughter Nancy, as she married out of the faith and has been a great disappointment to me." Two years later, Tammy divorces Harold, and two years after that Tammy dies without having changed her will. She is survived by Sam and Nancy as her nearest kin. Nancy had no children. Who takes the residuary estate? Harold?
Who takes the residuary estate, then? ___________ to Nancy.
(majority rule) ___________ to Sam and
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 29
Most states apply the common law rule, which says: When a will does not make a complete disposition of the estate ( partial intestacy), words of disinheritance in the will are ineffective. Rationale: When property passes by intestate succession, it passes pursuant to the intestacy statute, not the decedent's will. "However, under the Uniform Probate Code's negative bequest rule, a will can provide how property shall NOT be disposed of, meaning that words of disinheritance are given effect; estate is distributed as though disinherited person predeceased the testator. Under the UPC, Sam would inherit the entire residuary estate.
D.
NONPROBATE ASSETS are interests in property that are not subject to disposition by will or inheritance, and do not pass through a person's probate estate for purposes of administration. Major types (also called nontestamentary assets):
#1.
Property passing by right of survivorship (joint bank account, etc.).
#2.
Property passing by contract : life insurance, employee retirement benefits paid to beneficiary other than insured's executor or estate.
#3.
Property held in trust , including a revocable trust, where trust terms govern distribution of assets.
#4.
Property over which the decedent held a power of appointment .
40. T has a $50,000 Aetna life insurance policy that names Bill Bates as beneficiary. T dies leaving a will that provides: "I direct that the proceeds of my Aetna life insurance policy be paid to my sister Ann Painter." Who takes the $50,000 policy proceeds?
IX. ELECTIVE SHARE STATUTE 41. Winkie dies leaving a will that provides: "I give my husband Hobie Gates the sum of $23, which is one dollar for each miserable year I spent with him. I give all the rest of my property to my faithful chauffeur Claude, in appreciation of his many services." Winkie is survived by Hobie, Claude and the couple’s daughter Dorkie. What are Hobie's rights? Hobie should file for an elective share of Winkie’s estate. All non-community property states except Georgia have elective share statutes designed to protect spouses against disinheritance, by ensuring that the surviving spouse can take a specified minimum share of the decedent’s estate. (None of the community property states has an elective share statute.)
1. Amount of elective share. In many states, the elective share amount is one-third of the decedent's net estate if the decedent was survived by descendants, one-half if the decedent was not survived by descendants. Under the original (1969) Uniform Probate Code, the amount of the elective share is one-third of the net estate, regardless of whether the decedent was survived by descendants.
Page 30 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
The Revised 1990 UPC takes an accrual approach (c.f . pension plan vesting rules), under which the amount of the elective share is tied to the length of marriage. The surviving spouse is entitled to an elective share percentage of 3% per year for the first 10 years of marriage, and 4% for the next 5 years – until after 15 years of marriage the elective share is fully phased in at ½ of the estate. 2. Spouse must file notice of election . The right to an elective share is not automatic. The spouse must file a notice of election within a specified period (usually within 6 months after the will is admitted to probate). 3. Who may make the election . Election can be made on behalf of a legally incapacitated spouse by a guardian or conservator, with court approval , upon a showing that an election is necessary to provide adequate support for the spouse during his probable life expectancy. But if the spouse dies before election is made, an election cannot be made by the deceased spouse's personal representative. [Rationale: Purpose of elective share is to protect the surviving spouse against disinheritance, not to provide benefits to the spouse's heirs.] 4. In making up the elective share all beneficiaries of the estate contribute pro rata, and their interests in the estate are reduced pro rata. However, property left outright to the spouse by will is first applied. (Purpose: To avoid disruption of decedent's testamentary plan as far as possible.) If, for example, Rick's will devises Blackacre to his wife Lucy and the rest of his estate to his daughter, and Lucy files for an elective share, the value of Blackacre is first applied in making up the elective share entitlement. 42. Two years before his death, Hank established a revocable trust naming Acme Bank as trustee: Income to Hank for life, and on Hank's death remainder to his son Steve (by a former marriage). Hank died two months ago, leaving a will that bequeathed his estate to his wife Wendy and Steve in equal shares. While that sounds fair enough, nearly all of Hank's property had been placed in the trust. Hank left a net probate estate (after expenses) of $36,000; the value of the assets in the revocable trust at Hank's death is $900,000. Wendy files for an elective share. Does Wendy's elective share right apply to the assets in the revocable trust? Minority rule: NO. Elective share statute giving one-third or one-half of the decedent's "estate" means the probate estate. The elective share does not apply to non-probate transfers such as revocable trusts, etc., because these are not part of the transferor's "estate." UPC and majority rule: YES . The policy underlying the elective share should not be defeated by lifetime and nonprobate transfers in which the donor retains rights, powers, or economic benefits. In most states, the elective share applies to the AUGMENTED ESTATE , which includes the net probate estate and also lifetime transfers in which the grantor retained the power to revoke , or to invade, consume or dispose of principal . In addition to revocable trusts , this includes Totten Trust ("A, Trustee for B") bank accounts, joint and survivor bank accounts, etc.
X. WILL CONTESTS Only interested parties can bring a will contest: Persons with an economic interest adversely affected by the will's probate. (Heirs, legatees under earlier will whose interest would be defeated
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 31
by this will.) Thus a close personal friend, not named as legatee in an earlier will, has no standing to contest the decedent's will. A.
LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
The test: Did the testator have sufficient capacity to: 1.
Understand the nature of the act he was doing ? (He was writing a will.)
2.
Know the nature and approximate value of his property?
3.
Know the natural objects of his bounty?
4.
Understand the disposition he was making?
Evidence of capacity or lack of it must relate to circumstances at the time the will was executed, or shortly before or shortly thereafter. The more distant in time from the will's execution a particular fact may be, the less significance it has on the question in issue: Did the testator, at the time the will was executed, have capacity? [Recent case: Six months before signing his will, T had been in a mental hospital suffering from paranoia and manic depression: Evidence was too remote to be relevant to condition at the time the will was signed.] Mere old age, poor health, frailty, failing memory, or vacillating judgment are not inconsistent with testamentary capacity if the testamentary prerequisites [above] were possessed by testator. 43. T was 93 years old when he signed his will. Six months earlier, T had been adjudicated incapacitated, and a guardian [or conservator] was appointed to manage his property. The trial judge granted the heirs' motion for a directed verdict on the ground that T did not have testamentary capacity. ________ Was this decision proper? #1: Adjudication of incapacity involves ______________________________ (capacity to contract, to manage one's affairs). #2. Jury could find that the will was executed during a ______________________. B.
UNDUE INFLUENCE: Where one with testamentary capacity is subjected to and controlled by a dominant influence or power. Burden of proof is on contestants, who must show: 1.
Existence and exertion of the influence.
2.
Effect is to overpower the mind and will of the testator.
3.
Product is a will (or a gift therein) that would not have been made but for the influence. (Undue influence may be shown as to the entire will, or as to one gift in the will.)
"Influence is not undue unless the free agency of the testator was destroyed and a will produced that expresses the will, not of the testator, but of the one exerting the influence." ["mental duress"] While evidence of undue influence is usually circumstantial, these alone are not enough: 1.
Mere opportunity to exert influence. Fact that one child (who received major share of
Page 32 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
the estate) lived with mother, wrote checks for her, balanced the checkbook, helped on income tax, held a power of attorney . . . is not evidence that the opportunity was taken advantage of. 2.
Mere susceptibility to influence due to illness, age. Fact that Mother was very old, had broken her hip, had memory lapses, took Valium . . . this is not evidence of undue influence.
3.
Mere fact of unnatural disposition – Fact that will gave daughter ⅔of estate and her two sons one-sixth each—that is not evidence that the will was the product of undue influence.
44. Tommy's girlfriend Gloria nagged him, badgered him, and threatened to leave him unless he "proved his love" by writing a will in her favor, which he did. Undue influence?
45. Will drafted by Attorney's law partner devised entire estate to Attorney, whom client had never met before. Where there exists a confidential relationship between the testator and a party, and that party will benefit from the will, and that party had the opportunity to exert undue influence, there is an _________________________________________________ of undue influence, which is strengthened when there are ___________________________________________ If an inference is raised, this doesn't affect the burden of proof (contestant still has burden of proof), but will proponent now has the burden of going forward with evidence that no undue influence was exerted. If will proponent does not produce sufficient rebuttal evidence, the inference satisfies the contestant's burden of proof on the issue of undue influence. 46. Terry (who has no children) leaves a will that bequeaths $10,000 to his niece Nell and his residuary estate to his cousin Sam. The will contains a no contest (" in terrorem ") clause: "If any beneficiary contests this will or any part thereof, he shall forfeit any interest given to him by my will." Nell contests the will on grounds of incapacity and undue influence, but loses; the will is admitted to probate. Does Nell forfeit her legacy? ___________ . . . unless she had ______________________________________________. Majority rule: No-contest clauses are given full effect unless the court finds that the contest was brought in good faith and with probable cause ( i.e., it wasn't a strike suit designed to extract a settlement). Thus Nell does not forfeit the legacy IF court finds she had probable cause for filing the will contest. THE "UNLESS" IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE MAJORITY RULE!
In several states ( e.g ., Massachusetts, New York), no-contest clauses are given full effect regardless of whether the contest was filed with probable cause. Rationale: A testator
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 33
should be permitted to protect his testamentary plan, and his reputation, against post-death attack.
XI. ESTATE ADMINISTRATION -- CREDITORS' CLAIMS 47. Tom died May. His will was admitted to probate, and his wife Wilma, named as executor in the will, published proper notice to creditors (in a newspaper of general circulation) on June 10. For the last two months of his life, Tom was hospitalized at Mercy Hospital. On December 20, the Hospital filed its claim against Tom's estate for the $24,000 expenses of Tom's last sickness. Wilma as executor refuses to pay the claim. ________ [Former law:] Is Hospital entitled to collect the $24,000 from Tom's estate?
________ [Current law:] Is Hospital entitled to collect the $24,000 from Tom's estate? Traditionally, nearly all states had nonclaim statutes (special short statutes of limitation) applicable to claims against a decedent’s estate. All claims not presented within a prescribed period of time after the first publication of notice of administration [e.g., Illinois, 6 months, Uniform Probate Code, 4 months; Oklahoma, 2 months) were barred. In Tulsa Professional Collection Service v. Pope (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Oklahoma nonclaim statute (which provided for notice by publication only) was unconstitutional as applied to known creditors or creditors who were reasonably ascertainable. The Due Process clause requires personal notice to known creditors before their claims can be barred. As a result, all states with similar nonclaim statutes had to amend their statutes. The Uniform Probate Code has three provisions relating to creditors’ claims. Under UPC 3-801(b), the personal representative may (it’s optional) give personal notice to creditors, requiring them to present their claims within the later of (i) 60 days after receipt of the notice or (ii) 4 months after the first publication of notice; otherwise their claims will be barred. The personal representative who wants to expedite matters can give personal notice to any creditor, and can shorten the time required for presenting the claim. Under UPC 3-801(a), all claims not presented within 4 months after the first publication of notice of administration are barred. This the very type of statute that was ruled unconstitutional in Tulsa Professional Collection Service v. Pope —but only as applied to known or ascertainable creditors. This UPC provision recognizes that it is still constitutionally permissible to cut off the claims of unknown and unascertainable creditors with notice by publication only. UPC 3-803 sets out a one-year statute of limitations applicable in all cases, whether the decedent left a will or died intestate, and even if no permissive personal notice or notice by publication was given. All claims not presented within one year of the decedent’s death are barred. Dictum in Tulsa Professional Collection indicated that such a “self-executing” statute of limitations, which applies to all cases and is not dependent on any probate court, would be constitutionally permissible.
Page 34 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
TRUSTS TRUST is an arrangement for making gifts of property and for the management of assets, under which the trustee holds legal title to the trust assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries, who hold equitable title. Trustee has the burdens of ownership (duty to manage, safeguard, invest, etc.); beneficiaries have equitable title and the benefits of ownership.
I. REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID TRUST To have a valid trust, SETTLOR . . . DELIVERS . . . RES (trust property) . . . to TRUSTEE . . . for the benefit of the BENEFICIARIES, with INTENT TO CREATE A TRUST. Trust must be for a LAWFUL PURPOSE. As with the law of gifts, no consideration is required for creation of a trust. A.
SETTLOR must have legal capacity. (must be age 18 or over; must have capacity to convey legal title to the trustee, a higher test for capacity than for wills.)
B.
DELIVERY requirement does not apply to a self-declaration of trust ["I hereby declare myself trustee..."] or testamentary trust. But for an inter vivos trust that names third party as trustee, the mere intent to create a trust, or a gratuitous promise to create a trust, is not sufficient. As with the law of gifts there must be delivery of subject matter of the trust, with the intent to convey legal title to the trustee.
1. Sam told lawyer he wanted to create trust for his daughter, but died before signing trust instrument or delivering assets to the trustee. Valid trust? ________ because no delivery of the trust assets with intent to transfer title during Sam's lifetime.
Same answer where trust signed by Dad purported to create trust to be funded with "whatever money or property that I contribute to the trust over the next ten years." This was merely a promise to create a trust in the future, not supported by consideration. C.
RES: the corpus, the principal, the subject matter of the trust.
To have a trust, legal title to a specific interest in property must be conveyed to the trustee. The subject matter of the trust must be certain and identifiable. If there is no trust property, there is no trust. 2. When Grandpa told Uncle Hobie Gates that he was leaving Whiteacre to Hobie in his will, Hobie signed an irrevocable Declaration of Trust: "I declare myself trustee of my interest in Whiteacre; and when I receive it from Grandpa's estate, I shall pay the income therefrom to Nephew Ned for life, remainder to his issue." After Grandpa's death Uncle Hobie received Whiteacre pursuant to the will. Can Nephew Ned enforce the trust against Uncle Hobie? ________ Was valid trust created when Hobie wrote the irrevocable Declaration of Trust? Because at that time, Hobie had an:
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 35
A different result is reached when the promise to hold property (to be received in the future) in trust is supported by consideration . Under contract principles, the trust automatically attaches when the property is received. 3. Willa, who owns common stock that pays her over $100,000/year, writes, signs and notarizes a document: "I hereby create a trust for the benefit of my maid Mimi. I shall pay Mimi $3,000/month from dividends paid on stock that I own. After my death, [Bank] as trustee shall continue to pay Mimi $3,000/month until her death." No cash, stock or other property was set aside as the corpus of the trust. ________ Valid trust? D.
TRUSTEE
Must have legal capacity to deal with the property (must be over age 18; must have capacity to contract and to execute a deed). 4. Ann's will devises her residuary estate in trust: "income to my daughter Martha for life, and on her death to distribute the trust principal to her descendants." However, the will does not name anyone as trustee. ________ Valid trust? No trust fails for lack of a trustee. If the intent to create a trust is clearly manifested but no trustee is named or if the named trustee dies or resigns with no provision for a successor trustee, the court will appoint a suitable successor to carry out the trust.
5. Irreconcilable conflicts arise between First Bank (the trustee) and the beneficiaries. May First Bank resign as trustee? If so, what procedure must it follow? #1:
#2:
5a. Same facts in #5, except that First Bank does not want to resign as trustee. The beneficiaries bring an action seeking to remove First Bank as trustee, citing the irreconcilable conflicts. Should they prevail?
________ . . . unless the beneficiaries can show that conflicts prevent trustee from carrying out duties, or that trustee has breached a material term of the trust. What explains the different results in #5 and #5a?
Page 36 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
6. Albert transfers title to Blackacre to Hobie Gates as trustee for the benefit of Albert's's son Carl. Under the agreement, Carl has the power to manage and control the use of Blackacre, and Hobie as trustee has no powers or active duties over the property. [ Cf. Statute of Uses, 1536!] ________ Valid trust with respect to Blackacre? If named trustee has no powers or active duties to perform,
What is the state of title to Blackacre, then?
6a. Suppose the instrument in #6 contains a spendthrift clause with respect to Carl's interest: "No beneficiary shall have the power to transfer his interest, nor shall such interest be reachable by the beneficiary's creditors." The spendthrift clause in #6 is _______________________________ spendthrift trust,
E.
To have a
BENEFICIARIES
For a private (noncharitable) trust, the beneficiaries must be definite and ascertainable, and their interests must vest, if at all, within period of Rule Against Perpetuities. (Rule for charitable trusts exactly the opposite; see below.) 7. "I bequeath $100,000 to my friend Hobie Gates as trustee, and I direct him to pay the income therefrom to my best friends. I bequeath my residuary estate to my brother, Sam Slade." ________ Valid trust? ________ Does Hobie get to keep the money, then? Hobie holds on a resulting trust for Sam Slade, the residuary beneficiary. [A resulting trust is not a trust . It's the term the courts use to describe the situation where a trust fails for some reason. The court will order that the $100,000 be distributed directly to Sam Slade.] a.
What if the instrument provided that Hobie as trustee was "to pay the income to my family," or "to my wife's next of kin." Valid trust?
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 37
8. $200,000 left to bank as trustee, "to use the income to train spiritualistic mediums." Valid trust?
Cf. Estate of Kidd ( Ariz. 1971): Holographic will left $240,000 estate left "for reserach [sic] or some scientific proof of a sole of the human body which leaves at death. I think in time their [there?] can be a Photograph of sole leaving the human body at death." a. Testamentary capacity???? b. Valid gift?
F.
INTENT TO CREATE A TRUST: IS THE LANGUAGE PRECATORY (a non-binding suggestion), OR DOES IT IMPOSE AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION?
9. Tammy's will devises here residuary estate to her husband Harold, "but I would like him to take care of my dear friend Fred Frypan [a longtime employee] in appreciation for Fred's years of loyal and dedicated service." When Harold refuses to make any distributions to Fred, Fred brings suit against Harold to compel payment for Fred's care. Result?
Other precatory words:
10. Granny gives Sonny a check for $10,000 with the notation (on the check) "for the use and benefit of [grandson] Gary." Sonny deposits the money in his personal account and refuses to disburse funds for Gary's benefit. ________ Was a valid trust created, given that the words "trust" and "trustee" were not used?
G.
LAWFUL PURPOSE
Trust whose purpose is to further the commission of a crime , or calls for the destruction of property, is invalid as against public policy. Also, unlawful conditions are unenforceable. 11. Trust "to pay the income to my daughter Betty until such time as Betty divorces her husband Hobie Gates, at which time the trust shall terminate and all trust principal shall be distributed to Betty. If Betty does not divorce Hobie, on Betty's death the principal shall go to the National Organization for Women."
Page 38 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
________ Valid condition?
What happens to the trust property, then?
12. Dad's will bequeaths $200,000 to his son David, "provided he marries a Jewish woman within seven years after my death. If David does not meet this condition, the $200,000 shall go to the State of Israel." ________ Valid condition?
Compare testamentary trust "to pay the income to my wife for life or until she remarries. If my wife remarries, the trustee shall pay the income to my daughter Bonnie for life." Valid condition?
Compare reputed will of Heinrich Heine, German poet: Money bequeathed to wife "on the express condition that she remarry. I want at least one person to be truly bereaved by my death."
II. REVOCABLE TRUSTS 13. On October 11, 2003, Winkie transfers securities worth $500,000 to Acme Bank as trustee of a revocable, amendable inter vivos trust: Income to Winkie for life, and on Winkie's death the trustee shall distribute the trust principal to her son Steve. The trust instrument is signed by Winkie and an officer of Acme Bank, but is not witnessed. On the same day, Winkie executes a will that, after making various bequests, bequeaths her residuary estate "to Acme Bank, as trustee, to be added to and administered under the terms of the trust that I executed on October 11, 2003." This is a valid trust , and can be useful arrangement to provide for management in event of settlor's future incapacity, avoiding expenses and restrictions of a guardianship administration. As long as there are one or more trust beneficiaries besides the settlor, a trust is not void as an attempted testamentary disposition ( i.e., doesn't have to be executed with formalities of a will) even though settlor retains any one or more of the following rights and powers: •
Income for life.
•
Power to revoke, alter, amend or terminate the trust.
•
Power to control trustee in the administration of the trust.
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
•
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 39
Power to cause life insurance proceeds or employee benefits to be paid to the trust.
Settlor can name herself as trustee, to serve as long as she has capacity to serve.
The testamentary gift to the trust, called a pourover will gift, provides a mechanism for adding testamentary assets to a trust created by the testator during lifetime. By statute, such a pourover gift is valid: (i) even if trust is subject to revocation and amendment and is later amended, and (ii) even if trust is unfunded life insurance trust (eliminates concern about "res" in an unfunded life insurance trust). Majority rule: To be a valid recipient of a pourover gift from a will, trust must be in existence before or executed concurrently with will . UNIFORM TRANSFERS TO MINORS ACT provides a convenient method for making gifts to minor children that:
(i)
avoid the need for appointing a guardian to manage the property, and
(ii)
qualify for the $11,000 per-donee annual exclusion under the federal gift tax.
14. John Jones buys securities and takes title in the name of "First Bank, as custodian for Sam Jones, under the [name of state] Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. I hereby direct the bank to postpone distribution of the securities to Sam until he attains age 35." The UTMA custodianship will terminate at age ______ because the terms of a UTMA Custodianship are:
III. CHARITABLE TRUSTS, HONORARY TRUSTS Four distinctive rules apply to charitable trusts: #1. Not subject to Rule Against Perpetuities; can be perpetual. ( E.g., a trust "to pay the income to the American Red Cross forever.") #2. Must be for a charitable purpose. Must confer a substantial amount of social benefit: education, religion, education, health, relief of poverty, research, governmental purpose. #3. Must be in favor of a reasonably large number of unidentifiable members of the public at large, and cannot benefit identifiable individuals. (A trust to pay the income to "my poor relatives" is not a charitable trust.) #4. When the stated charitable purpose can no longer be accomplished, may be reformed in judicial proceeding under the doctrine of cy pre s (Old French for "as near as possible"). 15. Residuary estate bequeathed to testamentary trustee, "to distribute the income to organizations, as selected by the trustee, actively engaged in research for the prevention of
Page 40 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
polio." [Note: Trust doesn't have ascertainable beneficiaries. Who can enforce the trust, then?]
Twenty years later the cure for polio is found, and all research on the disease is comes to an end. The trustee petitions the court: What should be done with the trust income and principal? The testator's heirs intervene: Since the purposes of the trust can no longer be accomplished, the trust should be terminated and the corpus distributed to them. At issue is whether the court should apply: General charitable intent that can still be given effect: To devote the entire estate to medical research, for the prevention and cure of disease. Specific direction that no longer can be accomplished.
If cy pres is applied, the court will probably instruct the trustee to pay the income to:
16. Turner's will bequeaths his residuary estate "to the Springfield Lighthouse for the Blind." During Turner's lifetime the Springfield Lighthouse disbands. ________ Can cy pres doctrine be applied to outright gifts to charity as well as to charitable trusts? General charitable purpose:
Specific direction: 17. Related doctrine (as to reasoning; applies to private as well as charitable trusts): judicial modification of trust administrative terms because of changed circumstances . (Most cases involve restriction on sale of trust assets.) Leading case: Estate of Joseph Pulitzer . Will created trust for family. The trust provided that Pulitzer's stock in the New York World newspaper was not to be sold so long as the trust was in existence. Many years later the World suffered losses to the point that trustees had to use income from other assets to cover them. Court authorized deviation under primary intent-specific direction reasoning. Primary purpose of the trust was to provide for Pulitzer's family; in connection therewith he gave specific direction that stock should never be sold. But to continue to adhere to specific direction would frustrate the primary purpose of the trust . 18. Trevor's will creates a trust which provides that his house should never be sold and that his widow Wanda shall be allowed to occupy the house rent-free for life; upon Wanda's death the house is to pass to Trevor's son Donald. Some years later the house becomes the center of a manufacturing district and is no longer suitable as a residence. The trustee petitions for authority to remove restriction on sale so that house can be sold and proceeds used to buy a house for Wanda in a more suitable neighborhood. ________ Should a court authorize modification of the trust to remove the restriction on sale?
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 41
Primary purpose of gift:
Specific direction:
19. Client wants to bequeath $25,000 to his sister Sarah as trustee of a 30-year trust, to use the income [to care for his beloved cat, Figaro] [to pay for a weekly polish-and-wax job on his beloved Porsche, which is to be parked as a headstone over his grave at the cemetery]. Client's residuary estate will be devised to his brother Bob. Can Client create an enforceable trust for either purpose? __________ To have a trust, the trustee must owe enforceable duties to someone. This it is not a charitable trust, and it has no individual beneficiaries who can enforce the trust. Cats, nor cars cannot file lawsuits. This type of gift (in which an animal or an object is the beneficiary) is sometimes called an honorary trust gift. The trustee is on her honor in deciding whether to perform the trust. The gift is valid only in the sense that it will be upheld if Sarah chooses to perform. If she doesn't, the gift fails and there is a resulting trust—here, in favor of the residuary beneficiary. Additional problem with such gifts: ____________________________________ unless the trust is limited to 21 years' duration. Because animals cannot be used as measuring lives, trust might last longer than LIB + 21 years.
IV. RESULTING AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS The term resulting trust is used by the courts in two situations: (1) Where a trust fails for some reason. E.g., "to pay the income to my best friends." (2) ______________________________________________________________
20. A pays the purchase price for land, and causes the title to be taken in B's name. A and B are not related. Thereafter, A brings suit seeking to impress a resulting trust in his favor, contending that he did not intend to make a gift of beneficial ownership to B, but had some other reason for taking title in B’s name. Presumption:
Evidence is admissible to show: (1) _________________ or (2) ____________________________.
Page 42 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
20a. Same facts, except that A is B's father (or sister). Presumption:
Evidence is admissible to show:
Constructive trust IS NOT A TRUST . It is the name given to a flexible equitable remedy designed to disgorge unjust enrichment. Two elements: (1) wrongful conduct , and (2) unjust enrichment . 21. Tanya had a will that devised all her property to Ann and Bill. Now in her last illness, Tanya asked a friend to have a lawyer prepare a new will that devised her entire estate to Donna. Several days later, the friend and the lawyer returned with the new will, which revoked Tanya's present will. The lawyer began to explain the will's terms to her. Ann and Bill were present; as soon as they learn what was happening, they create a disturbance and physically prevented Tanya from signing the new will. Highly agitated, Tanya lapsed into a coma, and died three days later. She was survived by Ann, Bill, and Donna. Who takes what? Step 1: Apply the law. Is the new will admissible to probate? No; it was not signed and witnessed .
Was the old will validly revoked? No; new will with its revocation clause was not executed. Law result: Admit the old will to probate. Ann and Bill take Tanya's entire estate under the will.
Step 2: Apply equity. (1) _________________________________________
plus (2) ______________________________________________________ equals:
22. Fred, a widower, has two children (Sam and Donna) and Sam has two children. After a heated family argument, Sam bludgeons Fred to death with an axe. Fred left no will. Who takes Fred's estate? Donna takes ½, of course. As to the other ½:
Many states have enacted a " slayer" statute [meaning no constructive trust analysis is needed ]: Killer forfeits interest in victim's estate if he:
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 43
Under these statutes, the victim's estate is distributed as though:
22a. Consider the same facts, except that a sizeable number of states have not enacted slayer statutes. In these jurisdictions: _________________________________________________________ because we have ____________________________ that would lead to ___________________________.
23. Billy, named as beneficiary on a life insurance policy, was tried and acquitted on charges of murdering the insured. Nonetheless, in a civil action brought under the state’s "slayer" statute, the trial court found as fact that Billy had murdered the insured. ________ Should the decision be affirmed on appeal?
24. Another constructive trust case: In a divorce settlement, Harry agrees to keep a $100,000 life insurance policy in force that names the couple's child Carl as beneficiary. Harry remarries, and names his second wife Wendy as beneficiary on the policy. Wendy holds on a constructive trust for Carl even though Wendy herself was innocent of wrongdoing. She would be unjustly enriched by Harry's wrongful conduct. 25. Sam promised his sister Marie that he would provide a home for her and her daughter Angie, if Marie would keep house and serve as hostess in his home. In the presence of witnesses, Sam handed his brother Hobie Gates a deed naming Hobie as grantee (with no mention of a trust) saying: "Hold this property in trust until Marie's death, then convey to Angie. This is in consideration of services rendered by Marie as agreed." Sam died; Hobie denies the existence of a trust, and claims the home as his own. Marie contacts you regarding legal action to establish a trust in the property. Discuss issues presented and probable result of legal action. a.
________ Valid express trust? Statute of Frauds: A trust of land must be evidenced by a writing that satisfies Statute of Frauds; oral trust of land is unenforceable. However, constructive trust may be imposed if: (1) Fraud in the inducement . If Hobie orally promised to serve as trustee but had no intention to perform his promise. (2) Grantee-trustee was in confidential relationship with grantor-settlor. (Business associates; father-child; etc.) If Marie can prove Hobie's promise by clear and convincing evidence, constructive trust imposed: equity's concern that one would take advantage of a confidential relationship outweighs the concern of the Statute of Frauds that trusts of land be in writing.
Page 44 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
b. Suppose that Marie is unable to establish Hobie's promise by clear and convincing evidence, and no constructive trust is imposed. Would Marie have any action against Sam's estate?
26. Frank's will devised Greenacre to Jones; the will makes no mention of any trust. Frank's secretary now alleges that Frank orally told Jones that Jones was to hold the land as trustee for the secretary's benefit, and that Jones agreed to serve as trustee. Can the secretary enforce the promise? YES. Her testimony is admissible to show existence of the promise. If she is able to establish Jones' promise by clear and convincing evidence, the promise is enforceable via constructive trust. Equity's concern that one should not be allowed to be unjustly enriched in violation of his promise outweighs concern that will beneficiaries should be identified by language in the will. A constructive trust is imposed to prevent unjust enrichment.
27. Same will, except Frank never told Jones about any trust. With Frank's will is an envelope, marked "Personal," addressed to Jones. Inside is a typewritten note, signed by Frank, instructing Jones to hold the land in trust for Frank's secretary. Can the secretary enforce this as an express trust? NO
because the will makes no mention of a trust. (And the typewritten note, not witnessed, is not a valid codicil to the will.)
________ Can the secretary enforce this as a constructive trust?
28. Tim's will devises land "to my good friend Sam Smith, as trustee, for purposes I have already communicated to him," and devises his residuary estate to Hobie Gates. Smith is willing to identify Tim's trust purpose and intended beneficiaries, as orally communicated to him by Tim, and is willing to serve as trustee. Hobie objects, saying no valid trust was created. What result? No trust arises. To impose a trust would violate requirement of Wills law that beneficiaries be named in the will, not by oral testimony. Smith holds on a resulting trust for Hobie Gates, the residuary beneficiary.
V. CREDITORS' CLAIMS AND SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS 29. Hobie Gates transfers securities worth $1 million to a bank as trustee: To pay the trust income to Hobie and his son Aaron in equal shares. On death of the survivor of Hobie and Aaron, the trust principal is to be distributed to Aaron's children. The trust contains a spendthrift clause that prohibits voluntary or involuntary transfers of a beneficiary's interest: "No interest of any beneficiary herein shall be assignable by such beneficiary nor shall it be subject to the claims of the beneficiary's creditors by garnishment, attachment or other process."
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 45
Aaron borrows $100,000 for a business venture, and signs a note that Hobie signs as guarantor. In performance of the obligation, Aaron assigns Creditor $10,000 yearly for eight years out of trust income. Three years later, Aaron instructs the trustee to make no more payments to Creditor. a.
Creditor sues Aaron and seeks to enforce the assignment, or to reach Aaron's interest in the trust by garnishment or execution. Result?
Spendthrift clauses are valid , except as to: #1. Contracts for necessaries (medical, food, rent) #2. Child support obligations #3. Any interest retained by the Settlor #3A. Revocable trust #4. Federal tax liens
b.
Does Aaron have an action against the trustee for paying $30,000 to Creditor under what was clearly an invalid assignment? ________ Beneficiary who participates in breach of trust:
c.
Creditor sues Hobie as guarantor and seeks to reach the trust principal or Hobie's right to ½ of the trust income. What result as to Hobie's trust income interest? As to any interest retained by the settlor :
What result as to trust principal? As to interests irrevocably transferred to third parties:
Exception: Fraudulent conveyance A transfer made with the intent to defeat, delay, or defraud creditors. If trust was revocable, Hobie's creditors could reach the entire trust property, including the principal. If settlor retains the power to revoke the trust, he is the "owner" of the trust for creditors' rights purposes. In #29, the trust was silent as to revocability, but in nearly all state an inter vivos trust is irrevocable and cannot be amended unless the settlor expressly reserves the power to revoke or amend the trust.
Page 46 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
30. Trust provides: "Income to my daughter Dolly for life, remainder to her children. In addition, if the trustee determines that the income is insufficient for Dolly's support, the trustee may in its sole discretion, not subject to challenge by any person, distribute to Dolly so much of the principal as is needed for her support." Dolly, laid off by her employer, sues trustee to compel a principal distribution, contending that the income is insufficient for her support needs. ________ Does Dolly have a cause of action? Dolly can compel a distribution of the amount she shows is needed for her support. Purpose of the trust was not to give the trustee discretion; it was to provide for Dolly's support. It would be an abuse of discretion to not make a distribution if needed for support. Conversely, any distribution of principal far in excess of Dolly's actual support needs (taking into account other resources available to Dolly for her support) is a breach of trust, and the remaindermen have an action against the trustee.
VI. SELF-DEALING BY FIDUCIARY 31. Trust names friend Hobie Gates as trustee. Hobie borrows $100,000 from the trust, giving the trust a 6-month note at 9% interest (the then-prevailing bank rate for loans.) Hobie uses the borrowed funds to buy a rental property for $100,000, and six months later sells the property to Hazel for $200,000. He repays the $100,000 (plus interest) to the trust. What are trust beneficiaries' rights . . . Against Hobie Gates?
a. Trustee cannot buy or sell trust assets to himself . b. Trustee cannot borrow trust funds . c. Trustee cannot loan funds to the trust , and any interest earned on such a loan must be returned to the trust. Any security interest received in connection with such a loan is invalid. —but the ability to waive the self-dealing rules Self-dealing rules can be waived by the settlor is rarely tested. d. Trustee cannot profit from serving as trustee (except for being compensated), as by taking advantage of confidential information received in his capacity as trustee, or by receiving a commission for the sale of trust property. e.
Corporate trustee cannot buy its own stock as a trust investment . (But it can retain its own stock if a part of the estate received by it as trustee—provided that retention of the stock is prudent .
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 47
f. Duty to segregate trust assets from personal assets, and duty to earmark trust assets by taking title in the trustee’s name. Trustee cannot commingle trust funds with her own. If commingled funds used to purchase asset and the asset goes down in value, conclusive presumption that (to the extent available) personal funds were used. If the asset goes up in value, conclusive presumption that (to the extent available) trusts funds were used. Statute of Limitations does not begin to run on action against a fiduciary (trustee, executor, guardian) unless and until he (1) repudiates the trust [buzz words used by the courts] by denying existence of trust as to the particular assets in issue; (2) dies or resigns; or (3) gives accounting that makes full disclosure of the facts on which action would be based (e.g., an accounting that shows, not just that the trust loaned funds to someone, but that the trustee was the borrower). Whenever a trustee breaches any fiduciary duty (commits a "breach of trust"), whether self-dealing, speculative investment, exercises a power not given to the trustee) in addition to bringing action to remove trustee, beneficiary has option: (i) He can ratify the transaction and waive the breach. ( E.g., if speculative mining stock goes up in value, "Thanks for doing such a good job of investing.") (ii) He can sue for resulting loss. Name of the action is surcharge. Moreover, if (as in #31) the case involves self-dealing , under the no further inquiry rule breach of a fiduciary duty is an automatic wrong; good faith reasonableness, is no defense. Only issue in a self-dealing case: measure of damages. If (as in #31) trustee borrows trust funds and invests the proceeds, if value of purchased property goes up in value, beneficiary can "trace" and claim the property for the trust via the imposition of a constructive trust . 31a. Do the beneficiaries have any action against Hazel, who purchased the rental property from Hobie, when she knew that Hobie was a trustee? (The rental property is now worth $300,000)?
31b. Do the beneficiaries have a remedy if Hazel was Hobie's sister ? ____________ Self-dealing rules also apply to loans or sales to a relative, and to a business entity of which the trustee is an officer, partner, employee or principal shareholder (sometimes called "indirect self-dealing").
VII. TRUST ADMINISTRATION PROBLEMS B.
INVESTMENTS
32. Trust (current value $800,000) provides for income to Wife for life, remainder to Children. The trust does not authorize distributions of principal to Wife. Current investments include 6% corporate bonds ($200,000) yielding $12,000 in annual income, and common stocks listed on New York Stock Exchange ($600,000) producing cash dividends at an average of
Page 48 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
2% ($12,000 per year). Trustee sells some common stock and invests the $200,000 sale proceeds to buy stock in an IPO ("initial public offering") for Bodacious Inc., a three-yearold Internet start-up company that has lost money every year, has never paid dividends, and is not likely to do so for at least five years. Six months later, the Bodacious stock has declined in value to $80,000. Should the trustee be held liable for the $120,000 loss? Former (pre-1990) law in most states: probably YES . (i) investing in a company with no investment history or track record too speculative. (ii) investing 25% of trust in asset that produces no income violated duty of fairness trustee owed to the income beneficiary vis a vis the remaindmen. Current law: Nearly all states have enacted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act ["UPIA"], which is based on the modern portfolio theory of investing. Trustee must establish a custom-tailored investment strategy for each trust, taking into account such factors as: -- general economic conditions, -- the possible effect of inflation or deflation, -- the expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies, -- the role that each investment plays within the overall trust portfolio, -- the expected TOTAL RETURN from income and capital gain, -- needs for liquidity, -- an asset's special relationship or value to the purposes of the trust or a beneficiary, and -- any differing interests of the income beneficiaries and the remaindermen. ________ But doesn't the investment's sharp decline in value create a res ipsa case that the investment was imprudent, leading to trustee liability?
But what of the fact that the trustee knew that the IPO stock was unlikely to pay dividends; and that for a $800,000 (oops! now $680,000) trust portfolio, the ordinary income (bond interest and cash dividends) to be distributed to Wife will only be about $20,000? #1: Under UPIA, investment returns are measured by:
#2: Under the Uniform Principal & Income Act, trustee can exercise:
Starting point: Trustee distributes "income" items (interest income, rental income, dividends on common stocks, etc.) to the income beneficiary; and adds capital gains (part of proceeds of sale of a principal asset) to the corpus of the trust. However, …. Factors to be considered in exercising adjustment power (i.e., power to adjust total return between income and principal, and allocate capital gain to principal):
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 49
-- purpose and expected duration of the trust, -- intent of the settlor as to respective interests of the beneficiaries , -- the net amount of ordinary income and capital gain available for allocation , -- circumstances of the beneficiaries, -- the need for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation and appreciation of capital, -- any increase or decrease in value of the trust assets, -- whether the trust gives the trustee a power to distribute principal , -- effect of economic conditions and effects of inflation and deflation, and -- anticipated tax consequences of an adjustment. ________ Can a settlor authorize trustee to make speculative investments that are not within the "prudent investor" standard? All provisions of a particular state’s Trust Code are "default" rules. They apply absent contrary provision by the settlor. A settlor can "write her own rules," and modify the otherwise applicable statutory provisions. ________ In a state that has enacted the Uniform Trustee Powers Act, can a trustee give a 99-year lease without court approval? ________ .... Can trustee enter partnership to drill for oil without court approval? Uniform Trustee Powers Act (paraphrased):
Model answer : "The [name of state] Trust Code, which applies to all trusts in [state] except to the extent the trustee's powers are expanded or limited by the settlor, gives broad fiduciary powers. Specifically, the Trust Code expressly authorizes a trustee to [do whatever the question involves] ." Exception: There are two situations where the answer is "NO, the trustee DOESN'T have the power to do this." (There is a third case—where the settlor limits the trustee's powers—but that one isn't tested upon.)
1. ___________________________________________________ 2. ___________________________________________________ 33. Tom's will created a trust that named Larry, Curly and Moe as co-trustees. Some years later, Larry and Curly want to sell Greenacre (a trust asset) and invest the sale proceeds in other assets. Moe objects, and takes the position that since the trustees are not unanimous, Greenacre cannot be sold. The trust instrument is silent on the question. Under the Trust Codes of most states, is Moe correct?
________ (majority rule): If there are two or more trustees ____________________
Page 50 WILLS AND TRUSTS
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
(Absent contrary provision)
In a few states (e.g ., Connecticut), actions of co-trustees must be ________________.
VIII. EARLY TERMINATION OF TRUSTS Beneficiaries can terminate a trust prior to the time fixed for its termination if: (i)
ALL beneficiaries, all of whom are sui juris (over age 18, all have capacity), consent; and
(ii)
there is no further trust purpose of the settlor to be served.
There is no requirement that the trustee must consent to an early termination. Why is it that trusts can hardly ever be terminated early under the above rule?
Spendthrift clause makes the trust indestructible (beneficiaries cannot terminate without settlor's consent ). Idea is that there is a further trust purpose of the settlor to be served: To provide beneficiary with income interest that could not be assigned by him or reached by his creditors. To terminate the trust would defeat a material trust purpose of the settlor.
Settlor can terminate a trust (including a spendthrift trust) even though it is irrevocable if all beneficiaries consent. Point: If all parties who are interested in the trust say let's quit, no point in continuing. However, that means ALL beneficiaries: They must be sui juris (i.e., can't be any minor beneficiaries). 34. Mom died 15 years ago, leaving a will that created a trust: "Income to my daughter Mary until she attains the age of 35, at which time the trustee shall distribute the trust principal to her." Mary, who just turned 26, petitions to terminate the trust, pointing out that she is a CPA and has a MBA from the Harvard Business School, has been successful in several business ventures, and doesn't need a trust to manage the assets. ________ Should the court order termination of the trust? What was the primary purpose of the trust?
IX. POWERS OF APPOINTMENT 35. Tom died in 1990, leaving a will that bequeathed property in trust: "to pay the income to my daughter Dana for life, and on her death to distribute the trust principal to such persons,
LAW SCHOOL LEGENDS
WILLS AND TRUSTS Page 51
including Dana's estate, as she appoints by her last will. If Dana does not exercise this power of appointment, on Dana's death the trustee shall distribute the trust principal to Dana's children." [Purpose of a power of appointment: permits the income beneficiary to designate the remaindermen.] Tom was the donor of the power of appointment as his will created the power. Dana is the donee of a ______________________________________ testamentary power of appointment, because she is not limited in the class of beneficiaries to whom she can appoint; she can appoint the property to herself, her creditors, OR her estate. Dana's children are takers in default of appointment , as they will take the property on Dana's death if the power of appointment is not exercised.
35a. Dana died three weeks ago, leaving a will that bequeaths her residuary estate "one-half to my husband Harry and one-half to my son Steve." _______
[Majority rule] Did the residuary clause in Dana's will operate to exercise the testamentary power of appointment, even though her will made no reference to the power of appointment?
Who takes the trust property on Dana's death, then?
36. Mom's will creates a trust: "Income to my daughter Beulah for life, and on her death principal to such of Beulah's descendants as she shall appoint by her last will. In default of appointment, to Beulah's children in equal shares."
Beulah has been given a life estate and a ________________________ testamentary power of appointment because she is limited in the class of persons to whom she can appoint. She cannot appoint to herself, her estate, or her creditors.
36a. Beulah dies ten years later. Her will devises "all my property, including any property over which I may have a power of appointment, to my daughter Diane."
________ Did Beulah's will exercise the special testamentary power in favor of Diane?
36b. Same facts, except that the trust provided: “... and on Beulah’s death principal to such of Beulah’s descendants as she appoints by a will that specifically refers to this power of appointment . In default of appointment, to Beulah’s descendants.” Beulah dies ten years later. Her will devises "all my property, including any property over which I may have a power of appointment, to my daughter Diane."
________ Did Beulah's will exercise the special testamentary power in favor of Diane?