Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/75067895/Notes-Lapse
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 12:16:26
Document Index: 419921173

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§5', '§92', '§2', '§2', '§2603', '§45', '§45']

Notes Lapse | Will And Testament | Property
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadNotes LapseUploaded by Ashley WatlingtonWill And TestamentPropertyWills And TrustsGovernmentVirtue0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentNotes: pg. 358-379 I.Lapse: If a devisee does not survive the testator, the devise lapses (it fails); It is a requirement that all gifts given by will are subject to a devisee surviving the Testator Majority of States: have antilapse statutes, discussed later in outline Default Rules: apply when the will does not indicate what happens when a devisee predeceases the testator and the antilapse statute is not applicable 1. Specific or General Devise: If a specific or general devise lapses, the devise falls into the residue. 2. Residuary Devise: if the residuary devise lapses, the heirs of the testator take by intestacy. Note: That if there are more than one share of residuary estate devised and lapses, then the owners of the other residuary shares do not rcv the remainder of the residuary estate bc of the no-residue- of- a- residue rule. However: rule has been turned over in most states by statute or judicial decision. This no residue of a residue rule has also been rejected by UPC §2-604b (1990) and Restatement 3d of Property: Wills and Donative Transfers §5.5 3. Class Gift: if the devise is to a class of persons, and one member of the class predeceases the testator, the surviving members of the class divide the gift. 4. Void Devise: when the devisee is already dead at the time the will is executed, or made to some ineligible taker (ex. dog or cat) then the devise is void.
Pg. 359: Estate of Russell, 444 P.2d 353, 1968 Facts: Thelma Russell, Testator, died testate and had a valid holographic will which devised everything she owned to H.Quinn (her friend) & Roxy Russell (Her dog, she had two dogs named Roxy Russell one was intended to replace the other one and was alive at the time of execution), Georgia Russell ( her niece and heir at Law). P’s Arg: (Niece) argues that her aunt could not have devised a portion of her estate to the dog and that the dog’s share should be devised to her since she is the only living heir of the testator. In addition, P alleges that the court erred in allowing extrinsic evidence to determine the Testator’s intent. Rule: A disposition in equal shares cannot be equated to with a disposition of the whole to one of them who may use whatever portion thereof as might be necessary on behalf of the other. “A dog cannot be the beneficiary under a will the attempted gift to Roxy Russell is void. “ • That portion of any residuary estate that is the subject of a lapsed gift to one of the residuary beneficiaries remains undisposed of by the will passes to heirs at law. §92, 220 • The rule is equally applicable with respect to a void gift to one of the residuary beneficiaries. Reasoning: No words of the will give the entire residuum to Quinn, much less indicate that the provision for the dog is merely precatory in nature. • Extrinsic evidence was admitted and considered accurately to determine that Roxy Russell was a dog. However, the “extrinsic evidence brought forth to
What happens to B’s share? Under: 1. New Mexico. Five states have enacted modified versions that preserve
. Antilapse statute: C would take B’s share. of survivorship states an intent that the antilapse statute will not apply. However.” B predeceases T. they merely substitute other beneficiaries (usually descendants) for the dead beneficiary if certain requirements are met. If a testator. Case 4 Ex. II. Quinn and Georgia Nan Russell Hembree. and North Dakota. ½ to C. problem of increase • 1990 UPC : adds a devise to a stepchild Default Rules: BC the antilapse statutes are designed to implement presumed intent. 2008 UPC §2-603(b)(3): has rcvd negative feedback from several states. they state default rules that yield to a contrary expression of the testator’s actual intent. majority of cases have held that an express req. 1. • Some statutes: Apply only to descendants of the Testator • Some statutes: Are Broader and apply to Kindred of the Testator. Antilapse statutes: they do not prevent lapse. Common Law Rule: gives the predeceased devisee’s gift to the devisee’s descendants unless the testator provides otherwise. and occasionally to Kindred of the Testator as well • Few States: statute applies to ALL devisees. regardless of relation to Testator • 1969 UPC. the descendants are substituted for the predeceased devisee. Hawaii. §2-605: applies only to a devise of a grandparent or a lineal descendant of a grandparent. stated in the will what would happen if someone predeceased them then this would apply. antilapse statute will still apply. It has been adopted in seven states. leaving a child C. 2. Common Law: Being a residuary devise. one half to A. 362 Conclusion: The residue of testatrix estate should be distributed in equal shares to Chester H. T devises her entire estate “one half to my son A and one half to my daughter B. Montana. Michigan. ½ to A Presumed Intent: Scope of the Antilapse Rule: applies to lapse devisee ONLY if the devisee bears the particular relationship to the testator specified in the statute. No residue of residue: All would go to A 3. Typical Rule: If a devisee is of a specified relationship to the testator and is survived by descendants who survive the testator. Alaska. “If he survives me” or” To my surviving children” in the absence of additional evidence are not indications of intent contrary for UPC §2603(b)3. Because the assumption is that the Testator would only want to imply this rule if this specific relationship exist.”=bottom pg. Words of Survivorship. One half to C=A would take ¾ and C would take ¼ 2.express the intent of the testator should have been excluded by the trial court. Colorado. would pass through intestacy.
Minnesota. Texas and California have done likewise by nonuniform legislation. testator must unequivocally express that intent or simply provide for an alternate bequest. Both the 1969 and the 2008 antilapse statute are in the handout!2-603 will not be on the final exam.Stat. so as to prevent escheat. Jackson v. Arizona. 890 A.” Reasoning: Antilapse statutes “establish a strong rule of construction. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Ct.” “Should be defeated only when the trier of fact determines that the testator wanted to disinherit the line of descent headed by the deceased devisee. Gen. 2006 Facts: John Swanson devised ½ of his residuary estate to his stepdaughter. • Pg. Issue: Whether the court concluded that the antilapse statute does not apply? Whether an intent contrary to §45a-441 is so manifested? Rule: Antilapse statutes “will apply unless testator’s intention to exclude its operation is shown with reasonable certainty. Avoid intestacy” “ Our antilapse statute was enacted to prevent operation of the rule of lapse and unintended disinheritance.” Brennan died 17 days before Swanson. in addition to contrary intent: “It is necessary that the testator in app language . FYI words and meaning: • “To A and Her Heirs and assigns forever” Words of Purchase: “To A” indicating to whom the property is devised Words of Limitation: “and her heirs and assigns forever. make an alternative provision in his will providing that in the event such relative predeceases or fails to survive the testator such devise shall be given to another specifically named or identifiable devisee or devisees. therefore. Tietjen. Rule from Ohio: added another req. §45a-441 . here fee simple. Procedural History: Lower court held that the survivorship language indicated contrary intent and precluded the application of the antilapse statute. • To A or Her Heirs” The above mentioned phrase has been concluded that there are actually no words of limitation and just and indication that A’s Heirs would take the gift of estate if A predeceased the Testator. The court applied the applicable antilapse statute. Ex.”Hazel Brenan. 367.” Holding: survivorship language does not express an intent contrary to the presumption of the anti-lapse statute. if she survives me. Utah and Iowa.” Indicating what interest in the property devised. Schultz. designed to carry out presumed intention. Florida.2d 166. which followed the UPC 2-603(b)(3) rule that survivorship language does not express contrary intent to devise to the heir of devisee upon predecesant death.the majority rule. Ruotolo v.2d 284 (1959)
.” Burden of Proof: is on those who seek to deny statutory protection rather than on those who assert it. 151 A. Conn.” • The courts have applied“and” as “or” to provide for a substitute gift to A’s heirs to avoid lapse.” “residuary language expresses an intention to ….
” 1. “to my nieces and nephews. a class gift is treated differently from a gift to individuals. 1968 Facts: Under the restatement.” • Pg. Willis. Hofing v. when you have both the name as individuals and name of class this will be individuals but this is a rebuttable presumption and can be refuted by extrinsic evidence.” 2.E. ex. Dawson v.
. 201 N. Yucas. If a member of the class predeceased the Testator. then the class divides the predeceased share amongst other members of the class. What is a class? The test is often whether the testator is “group minded. “Group Minded” is determined if Testator used a class label in describing beneficiaries. but are described by their individual names may be deemed a class gift if the court decides. Class Gifts Under Common law lapse rule. after the admission of extrinsic evidence that the testator would want them to divide rather than one beneficiaries share to lapse. Ex.The courts have reached the opposite result on virtually identical facts.2d 852 III. Another way to Determine Class Gifts: “A gift to beneficiaries who form a natural class.2d 305. 376. 239 N.E.
Documents Similar To Notes LapseSkip carouselUPSHOT Wills Final Outline WordEstates and Trust OutlineOrgan Donation Act of 1991Succession Cases A828-839 CCWillWill of Joseph BeallLast Will and Testament of The (current) Lamb of GodSuccession Outline 2011Wills Quick EeConflicts Dig Jan 9Cases in Succession03. Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. L-74695Alaban vs. CA Case DigestSpecPro Probate Guardianship CasesMcIntire v. McIntire, 162 U.S. 383 (1896)2005-2012 Civil Law Bar QuestionsCynthia Alaban v. CALEGMED10 Parish Priest of Victoria vs. RigorPCIB vs EscolinCiv UP 2010 Pre_Week118-123Succession (B2) - Full Text Cases4Objections to Probateremedial law part IX-special proceedings.txt1462000846601608.docSpecpro CasesSuccession Cases Week 1854Documents About Will And TestamentSkip carouselLast Will and TestamentEstate Administration WorksheetPhilip Seymour Hoffman's willPetition for Formal Appointment of Special Administrator for Prince estateTrust Administration WorksheetSmall Estate AffidavitSimple WillWill for Grandparent with a Grandchildren's TrustLitchfield Hills Probate District lettersWill for Remarried People with Adult ChildrenWill for Single People with No ChildrenPrince Probate Petition REDACTEDWellford v. Snyder, 137 U.S. 521 (1890)Fitchie v. Brown, 211 U.S. 321 (1908)Ruth Wilson Hurley v. Donald T. Hartley, District Director of Internal Revenue, 379 F.2d 205, 10th Cir. (1967)The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction
Volume 12, No. 345, December 6, 1828 by VariousWill for Remarried People with Minor ChildrenWill for Married People with No ChildrenWill for Parents of Adult ChildrenPour-Over WillWill for Parents of Minor ChildrenKeith v. Johnson, 271 U.S. 1 (1926)Rogers v. Law, 66 U.S. 253 (1862)Robertson v. Pickrell, 109 U.S. 608 (1883)Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U.S. 586 (1887)RoBards v. Lamb, 127 U.S. 58 (1888)Bundy v. Cocke, 128 U.S. 185 (1888)Blount v. Walker, 134 U.S. 607 (1890)Riggles v. Erney, 154 U.S. 244 (1894)Towson v. Moore, 173 U.S. 17 (1899)Documents About PropertySkip carouselAffidavit of OwnershipPower of AttorneyA Guide to Understanding a Residential AppraisalConsulting ContractContract for DeedMass. SJC Ruling In Papadopoulos v. Target CorporationConsulting AgreementSales tax (1.1 MB)Prenuptial AgreementMortgage DeedAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Facility Access Agreement ExecutedMechanic's LienEquipment LeaseImportance of Branding for Property Developers in Malaysia Domestic Partnership AgreementBrochure for Auction of Scott Rothstein Luxury VehiclesTexas Governor Greg Abbott's Letter to BLM Director KornzProcuring Cause Arbitration WorksheetReal Estate Development AgreementMortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. Nancy Groves2016 Investment and Vacation Home Buyers Survey 04-06-2016Aequitas Capital Stipulated Receivership OrderThe Nonjudicial Foreclosure Act for Non Homestead PropertiesTenants in Common AgreementNAR Strategic PlanLong Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897)Lemonis v. A. Stein - opinion.pdfThe Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl MarxRE HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court With Original Documents