978-0134004006 Chapter 52 Case

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 2
subject Words 1117
subject Authors Henry R. Cheeseman

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
1
Chapter 52
Wills, Trusts, and Estates
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
52.1 Ademption
Yes, the bequests to Anderson and Baker were specific bequests that were adeemed when the stock was
sold. Therefore, Anderson and Baker are not entitled to the money in the bank accounts. Ademption is the
doctrine by which a specific bequest becomes inoperative because of the disappearance of its subject
matter from a testatrix’s estate during her lifetime. A specific bequest is one comprised of specific articles
of the testatrix’s estate distinguished from all others of the same kind. Because ademption applies only to
52.2 Will
The first will, executed on or about June 10, 1959, should be admitted into probate. In Texas, every will
must be in writing, signed by the testator, and if not wholly in the handwriting of the testator, attested by
two or more witnesses. In this case, it is uncontroverted that the handwritten document is not signed by
the deceased and that the typewritten document, although signed, was not executed before at least two
Texas)
52.3 Will
Lois wins. Generally, the intentional destruction or cancellation by the testator of a copy of his duplicate
will creates a presumption that he intended to revoke the entire will and all copies thereof. In this case, the
Court of Louisiana)
52.4 Intestacy
Miss Campbell’s daughter and son from her prior marriage share in one-half of the estate. Mr. Campbell’s
three sisters and brother share in the other half. Pursuant to the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act, where
swim. The court held, however, that the defendants did not sustain their burden of proof because although
page-pf2
2
52.5 Murder
No, Loretta cannot recover under the will or take her elective share under the intestate statute. Generally,
most states provide that a person who murders another person cannot inherit the victim’s property.
Moreover, the murderer cannot participate in the proceeds of life insurance policies on the victim’s life.
conclusive evidence that she was involved in the murder and that the killing of her husband was not done
in self-defense. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court barring Loretta’s inheritance was affirmed.
In Re Estate of Danforth, 705 S.W.2d 609, 1986 Mo. App. Lexis 3757 (Court of Appeals of Missouri)
VII. Answer to Ethics Case
52.6 Ethics Case
conditional or defeasible fee was granted to the survivor, and that the estates were united for final
testamentary disposition. There was a comprehensive plan for disposition of all property of the testators
with both estates being controlled through the joint will. Additionally, the court concluded that the parties
jointly planned the disposition of their combined estates with the intention that the survivor would carry

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.