chapter 6 interpretation of wills l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 214 Views
  • Uploaded on

Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills. Admission of Extrinsic Evidence. Mahoney v. Granger. If will language not ambiguous, why exclude extrinsic evidence Use of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguous phrase “heirs at law” Is their a difference between latent and patent ambiguities?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills' - ostinmannual


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
admission of extrinsic evidence

Admission of Extrinsic Evidence

Mahoney v. Granger

If will language not ambiguous, why exclude extrinsic evidence

Use of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguous phrase “heirs at law”

Is their a difference between latent and patent ambiguities?

Do you agree with the “plain meaning” rule?

Could the will in light of the facts of who was decedent’s heir be viewed as ambiguous sufficient to admit extrinsic evidence?

Pg. 412, problem 2

fleming v morrison
Fleming v. Morrison

Is evidence admissible that a will is a sham?

Should the lawyer have prepared the will?

no residue of a residue rule
No Residue of a Residue Rule
  • T bequeaths property to A and B
    • A predeceases T. Where does A’s share go.
    • Lapse statute
    • No residue of a residue rule-The common law
    • Residue of Residue Rule
erickson v erickson
Erickson v. Erickson
  • What are the facts of this case?
classification of legacies
Classification of Legacies
  • General ($10,000 to A)
  • Specific (Car to B)
  • Demonstrative ($10,000 to A from account at Y Bank)
  • Residuary
void and lapsed bequests
Void and Lapsed Bequests
  • Void Bequests
  • Lapsed general and specific bequests
  • Lapsed residuary bequests
    • No residue of a residue
    • Residue of a residue rule
anti lapse statutes
Anti-lapse Statutes
  • Reasons for:
  • Effect of:
  • Protected Person
  • Substituted person(s)
problems
Problems
  • T wills property to A for life, then to B. A and B survive T. However, B dies before A leaving issue who survive A. Is the gift to B saved by the lapse statute?
  • Suppose B had died before T with issue who survive T. Same result?
  • Suppose B had died before T with no issue who survive T. Same result?
problems in the book
Problems in the Book
  • Page 444, Problem 1
  • Page 444, Problem 2
jackson v schultz
Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her hers and her heirs and assigns forever

jackson v schultz15
Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her heirs and assigns forever

jackson v schultz16
Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her heirs and OR assigns forever

problem
Problem
  • Problem, page 449, #2
    • Who takes if “no residue of residue rule applies.”
    • Who takes if “residue of residue rule” applies
    • Who would T likely have wanted to take?
    • How might statutes be revised to get to T’s intent?
application to class gifts
Application to Class Gifts
  • What is a class gift
  • Should statute apply to class gift?
  • How does it apply?
dawson v yucus
Dawson v. Yucus

What are the facts this case?

Why might the classification of a gift as a class gift be relevant if a class member dies before the testator?

What did the court hold? Do you agree?

in re moss

To my wife for life and upon her death to my niece Elizabeth and the Emily 5.

What do you think about Romer’s reasoning on page 457?

Is this a sensible decision?

In re Moss

ademption
Ademption
  • Application to specific bequests
  • Identity Theory (1969 UPC)
    • Wasserman v. Cohen
  • Intent Theory (1990 UPC)
avoidance of ademption
Avoidance of Ademption
  • Classification of bequest as non-specific
  • Construe will at time of death
  • Exceptions (conservator sales)
problems23
Problems
  • Page 466, Problem 1
satisfaction of legacies
Satisfaction of Legacies
  • Analogous to advancement
  • Applicable to general bequests
exoneration of liens
Common law rule

Statutory rule

Which makes more sense?

Exoneration of liens
increases
Increases
  • Stock splits
  • Dividends paid in stock
  • Dividends paid in cash
abatement who pays the freight charges
Abatement—Who Pays the Freight Charges
  • Undisposed of property
  • Residuary
  • General
  • Specific
  • Demonstratives
iowa abatement statute 633 438
Iowa Abatement Statute 633.438
  • Undisposed of property
  • Residue except to spouse
  • Generals except to spouse
  • Specifics except to spouse
  • Property passing to spouse