Riggs vs. Palmer

Pro Argument (Brian) (1) Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will. (516.2.6.) (Do statutes exist that determine the modifications that can be done to a will?) (2) A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. (517.4.4.) (Does a will exist and is this will going along with its duties as a will if it were not revoked by statute?) (3) The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. (517.4.5-6.) (4) The length to which an individual can dispose or make use of his property after death and the way by which their limits are to be reached are matters that legislature has taken entire control of and will regulate with appropriate action according to what is written in statute. (516.2.9.) (5) Since there are no relevant laws present to the current case of Riggs v Palmer, neither in America nor in the legal systems of other countries, justice for this case cannot be determined based off of a previously determined case. (517.3.) (6) Assuming that the testator would have altered his will had he known his grandson"s murderous intent cannot affect whether he is entitled to the provisions. (518.2.1.) (7) Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. (518.) (8) There are no imposed or implied conditions for the legatee made by the testator in regards to claiming the property. (519.2.3.) (9) There exists a counterargument: Legatee is guilty of crime where he now appears to be sooner eligible to receive the benefits of the will and should therefore be stripped of his rights to the property and should no longer have ownership of the estate. (519.2.4.) (10) To allow the counterargument to succeed is to place the estate into the hands of those who were not mentioned to be the rightful owners of the estate, as is written on the will, and would thus go against the terms written in the will. (519.2.5.) (11) There is no law that warrants this judicial action, the court rewriting the terms written in the will, and presumptions would not be enough to sustain this act. (519.2.6-7.) (12) Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the property should not be avoided because of his criminal act. Summary: There already exists a certain set of conditions to which a will can be modified, legally, by legislature, in order to accommodate for any changes in the testator"s preference. These conditions are added on to the statutes and do not allow for any other reason to exist where the will can be modified. Having an intention or a reason for the will to be modified AFTER the death of the testator, this being the time period where the provisions written in the will should be given to the appropriated parties, cannot affect what the receivers have already been entitled to. No law exists where the courts can rewrite a will which is essentially what the opposing party would be requesting to do since they are trying to eliminate the legatee"s rights to the property as is written on the will. Since the rulings for wills can be found within the statutes that clearly dictate the instances where a will can be changed and since there does not exist an instance that pertains to this case in particular, the legatee"s succession to the property cannot be avoided.