Rules from cases

Question 1

Disposition of property is a right. Part of the Bundle of sticks.

Answer 1

Hodel v. Irving

Question 2

A will can only devise property owned by the testator at the time of death.

Answer 2

Shaw Family Archive v. CMG Worldwide

Question 3

For conditional gifts, some constraints on marriage are OK. Courts will look at age, population, etc.

Answer 3

Shapira v. Union National Bank

Question 4

For survival purposes at common law, only need to show by preponderance of the evidence that they survived by a millisecond.

Answer 4

Janus v. Tarasewicz:

Question 5

Posthumously conceived children are considered issue provided (1) the decedent intended his genetics to be used in such a way, and (2) they are conceieved in a reasonable amount of time.

Answer 5

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security

Question 6

When a governing instrument is silent, children born posthumously with consent of their parent are treated with same rights as a natural child.

Answer 6

In Re Martin B

Question 7

One of the Bars to succession is homicide.

Answer 7

In re Estate of Mahoney

Question 8

Disclaimer is a bar to succession, but it can?t be used as a work around to avoid taxes/creditors if you ultimately benefit from it.

Answer 8

Drye v. US

Question 9

The federal government looks to state intestacy law to see if federal death benefits can be inherited by posthumously conceived children

Answer 9

Astrue v. Capato

Question 10

adoption is considered a rebirth into a completely different relationship, and once a child is adopted, the rights of both the natural parents and relatives are terminated

Answer 10

Hall v. Vallandingham

Question 11

You cannot adopt your spouse and have them be treated as your issue for inheritance of a remote ancestor.

Answer 11

Minary v. citizens fidelity bank

Question 12

Testamentary capacity cannot be destroyed by testimony regarding a testator?s few isolated acts, idiosyncrasies, or mental irregularities unless they bear directly upon the testamentary act.

Answer 12

In re Wright’s Estate

Question 13

Alzhiemers does not equate to lack of capacity as long as they were of a clear mind when beneficiaries were chosen and the will was signed.

Answer 13

Wilson v. Lane

Question 14

If a will is a product of an insane delusion, it will not be probated.

Answer 14

In re Strittmater?s estate

Question 15

An objector can challenge capacity either through the Cunningham test or insane delusion test.

Answer 15

Breeden v. Stone

Question 16

Undue influence is shown when such control was exercised over the testator that they substituted their will over the free will and agency of the testator.

Answer 16

Lipper v. Weslow

Question 17

If a testator is prevented from executing a will to an intended beneficiary by the fraud, duress, or undue influence of a present beneficiary, it will go into a constructive trust for the intended beneficiary.

Answer 17

Latham v. Father Divine:

Question 18

If a party who would have challenged a will, but was prevented from doing so by the fraudulent act of another may bring a claim for intentional interference with an expectancy.

Answer 18

Schilling v. Herrera:

Question 19

Common law required strict compliance with Will?s act (two cases)

Answer 19

In re Groffman/ Steven v. Cardorph

Question 20

A signature is whatever the testator intended to be their signature.

Answer 20

Taylor v. Holt

Question 21

Swapped wills can sometimes, but not all the times, be corrected using the misdespriction doctrine.

Answer 21

Pavlinkos Estate

Question 22

The harmless error doctrine finds the clear intent of the testator if possible and uses it.

Answer 22

In re Estate of Hall:

Question 23

Courts struggle with holographic wills, some are informal and some are difficult to establish if testamentary intent exists (two cases)

Answer 23

Kimmels Estate/ In re Estate of Kuralt

Question 24

Revocations by a writing requires a new document that acts as a new will (not simply writing void on top of the original will)

Answer 24

Thompson v. Royall: