ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 51
WILLS AND TRUSTS
51-1A. Testamentary trusts
The trial court—which struck the racial provision—held that the gift would go to the first educa-
tional institution named. On appeal, however, the court ruled that “where a gift or estate subject
51-2A. Estate administration
An executor is a fiduciary with a duty to settle an estate as quickly and with as little loss of its
value as is reasonable in the circumstances. In this case, Hatchett did not appear to responsibly
51-3A. Validity of wills
The appellate court held that summary judgment was not proper since the claims of the daugh-
ters raised a factual question of undue influence. The court discussed the problem of proving
that undue influence has been exercised. “Undue influence is usually surrounded by all possi-
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 51
she may be able to adduce, but he or she is entitled to the benefit of all inferences which may
be legitimately derived from such established facts. Due to the surreptitious nature of undue in-
51-4A. Constructive trust
The Maine state trial court imposed a constructive trust on the property for the benefit of Paula
and ordered that it be conveyed to her. Steven appealed. The trial court’s judgment was af-
firmed. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine could find no clear error in the lower court’s find-
51-5A. Resulting trusts
The law implies a resulting trust for the conduct of the parties and the circumstances existing at
the time of the transaction from which the trust arose. The burden of establishing the elements
of a resulting trust lies with the party seeking to establish the resulting trust. When one pays the
51-6A. Revocation of a will
Yes. The court held that Myrtle had revoked her will. To effectuate a revocation of a will (1)
there must be performance of one or more of the specified acts to a degree that materially and
permanently destroys the efficacy of the document, and (2) the testator must intend for the act
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 51 B-3
to revoke the will. One of the essential elements of a validly executed will is the signature of the
testator. “The act of the testator in cutting out, erasing, or otherwise obliterating his signature on
51-7A. Adopted children
The trial court ruled in Janet’s favor, and Gail appealed. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed.
The state’s highest court concluded that the statute “is not reasonably related to a valid public
purpose, at least with respect to persons who are adopted during their minority,” and declared
51-8A. Revocation of a will
The court rejected Barrera’s claim that the will had been revoked. Barrera appealed. The state
supreme court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The state supreme court acknowledged
51-9A. Requirements of a will
Hagan’s will should not be declared void. A will must comply with statutory formalities to ensure
that the testator understood her actions at the time the will was made. If these formalities are not
followed, the will is declared invalid and the decedent’s property is distributed according to the
intestacy laws. Among the requirements, the testator must have capacity—she must be of
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 51
51–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. A basic policy of the courts is that the wishes of a deceased will be carried out, regard-
less of whether they are arbitrary or unfair. In the words of one court, “the courts guard jealous-
ly the rights of all rational people, including the aged, the infirm, the forgetful and the queer, to
2. One factor to consider here is that, while it is not normally considered “unnatural” to
leave everything to one’s wife to the exclusion of one’s children, given the extent to which
Heber’s first wife, Evelyn, had contributed to the estate, it would be difficult to assume that
3. As discussed above, it has never been required that a testator dispose of his or her
property fairly. If the law were to demand that only the natural objects of a testator’s bounty
(which would include Evelyn’s children in this case) should inherit under a will, it would interfere