Conflict of Laws Flashcards
(6 cards)
Which state’s laws govern the disposition of Zach’s bank account, Zach’s house, and Zach’s farm? Rule
The law of the state where the real property is located governs the disposition of real property. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND)OFCONFLICTOF LAWS § 223(1). This approach reflects the situs state’s interest in the regularity of titles and the interests of third parties who rely on local land records. See Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (1998) (dictum); EUGENE F. SCOLES ET AL., CONFLICTOF LAWS (4th ed. 2004). Therefore, the law of State A controls the disposition of the house and the law of State B controls the disposition of the farm. Each state’s statutes must be consulted to determine the validity of Zach’s will and, if the will is invalid, the rules governing intestate succession.
Which state’s laws govern the disposition of Zach’s bank account, Zach’s house, and Zach’s farm? Application
The law of the state in which the decedent was domiciled at his death governs the disposition of personal property. Because Zach was a domiciliary of State A, State A law governs the disposition of his bank account even though the account was maintained at a bank in State B.
[NOTE: Comments to the Second Restatement suggest that when the situs state (State B) has a statute recognizing the validity of a will properly executed in the state where the testator was domiciled, it may determine the validity of a landowner’s will under the law in his state of domicile (State A). Most states have such will-validation statutes, but the facts provide that State B has no such law and instead expressly requires nonresidents to comply with its will-execution requirements. The question is designed, in part, to test the examinee’s ability to read and apply a specific statute. Zach’s will is invalid under State A law in any event. See Point Two.]
Is Zach’s will valid in (a) State A and (b) State B?
Zach’s will is invalid under the law of State A because Zach did not sign it at the end. The will also is invalid under the law of State B because it was not signed by two witnesses. Therefore, Zach died intestate under the laws of both states.
Although State A permits holographic (i.e., handwritten and unwitnessed) wills, State A law expressly requires the testator to have “signed” the holograph at the end. Zach’s will is shown in its entirety in the facts; Zach did not sign it at the end. Therefore, the will is invalid under the laws of State A and Zach’s bank account and his house in State A pass in accordance with State A’s laws of intestate succession. See Point One.
State B validates signed holographic wills only if they have been signed by two witnesses, and Zach’s will was not. Therefore Zach’s farm passes in accordance with State B’s laws of intestate succession.
Therefore, in both State A and State B, University, the beneficiary under the invalid will, takes nothing.
If Zach’s will is invalid, which of Zach’s children are entitled to a share of his assets in State A and State B? Alex
Alex is entitled to share in the house, the farm, and the bank account under the applicable laws of each state, as Alex is a biological child of Zach and was born in wedlock.
The intestacy laws of both State A and State B provide that the property of an intestate decedent passes to his surviving children. There is no possible argument, under either state’s law, that a marital child like Alex would be excluded from the class of surviving children who take.
If Zach’s will is invalid, which of Zach’s children are entitled to a share of his assets in State A and State B? Brian
Brian takes a share of the house and the bank account under State A law if “children” includes adopted children; Brian takes a share of the farm under State B law because adopted children are treated the same as biological children.
Under State A law, an intestate’s property passes to his “surviving children,” excluding nonmarital children. The statute is silent on the status of adopted children.
At common law, only blood relations could inherit from an intestate decedent. See WILLIAM M. MCGOVERN,JR.&SHELDON F.KURTZ, WILLS,TRUSTSAND ESTATES 100(3d ed. 2001). Although all states today grant adopted children inheritance rights in at least some circumstances, there is typically an explicit statutory command that achieves this result. See, e.g., UNIF. PROBATE CODE § 2-114. State A has no statutory provision expressly altering the common law. In the absence of such a statute, a court might conclude that had the legislature intended to give adopted children the same rights as biological children, it would have said so; alternatively, it might conclude, based on general nondiscrimination goals, that the legislature must have intended to give adopted children the same rights as biological children. See THOMAS E. ATKINSON,WILLS 87 (2d ed. 1953). There are cases going both ways on this issue. Id.
In State B, Brian clearly inherits because the statute says so.
[NOTE: The examinee’s conclusion on this point is less important than his or her demonstrated ability to recognize the statutory ambiguity and formulate arguments in support of a position.]
If Zach’s will is invalid, which of Zach’s children are entitled to a share of his assets in State A and State B? Carrie
Because State A’s law disallowing inheritance by all nonmarital children does not meet constitutional standards, Carrie is entitled to take as a child of Zach.
Under the common law, a nonmarital child could not inherit from either parent. Today, all states grant nonmarital children the right to inherit from their mothers and to inherit from their fathers when at least one statutorily defined method of establishing paternity has been satisfied. See MCGOVERN &KURTZ, supra, at93–94. The Supreme Court has held that a statute disallowing inheritance by a nonmarital child from her father when the father’s paternity has been adjudicated during his lifetime is unconstitutional. Because Zach’s paternity of Carrie was adjudicated during his lifetime, Carrie would be entitled to a share of Zach’s estate despite the language of the State A statute. Carrie also takes under the laws of State B because she is Zach’s biological child.
