B-225
ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 52
WILLS AND TRUSTS
52-1A. Publication of a will
(Chapter 52—Page 1023)
No. The Supreme Court of Arkansas noted that the Arkansas statute requiring that wills be published
52-2A. Testamentary trusts
(Chapter 52—Page 1030)
The trial court—which struck the racial provision—held that the gift would go to the first educational
52-3A. Estate administration
(Chapter 52—Pages 1018 & 1026)
B-226 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 52
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 take control of the
52-4A. Validity of wills
(Chapter 52—Pages 1021–1023)
The appellate court held that summary judgment was not proper since the claims of the daughters
raised a factual question of undue influence. The court discussed the problem of proving that undue
52-5A. Constructive trust
(Chapter 52—Pages 1031–1032)
The Maine state trial court imposed a constructive trust on the property for the benefit of Paula and or-
dered that it be conveyed to her. Steven appealed. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed. The Su-
52-6A. Resulting trusts
(Chapter 52—Page 1032)
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
52-7A. Revocation of a will
(Chapter 52—Pages 1023–1025)
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 de-
52-8A. Adopted children
(Chapter 52—Page 1028)
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 the statute to be un-
constitutional. Janet argued that “(1) [in adopting the statute] the [state] Legislature could presume
that the intent of collateral relatives was that their property would pass only within the bloodline; and
(2) the adoption of plaintiff represented a contract between her and her adoptive father that did not
B-228 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 52
52-9A. Revocation of a will
(Chapter 52—Pages 1023–1025)
The court rejected Barrera’s claim that the will had been revoked. Barrera appealed. The state supreme
52–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. A basic policy of the courts is that the wishes of a deceased will be carried out, regardless of
whether they are arbitrary or unfair. In the words of one court, “the courts guard jealously the rights of
all rational people, including the aged, the infirm, the forgetful and the queer, to make wills sufficient 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 Heber intended that Evelyn’s
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 in–
clude Evelyn’s children in this case) should inherit under a will, it would interfere dramatically with the
