Sterk Sp03 Trusts and Estates Outline

Sterk Sp03 Trusts - Trusts and Estates Professor Sterk Spring 2003 CHAPTER 1 Introduction I The Living and the Dead Whose Money Is It Trust a

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
© Tal Dickstein, 2003 Trusts and Estates Professor Sterk Spring 2003 CHAPTER 1: Introduction I. The Living and the Dead: Whose Money Is It? Trust : - a device for separating beneficial from legal ownership. Estate - all assets in a person’s name at his death. “The Myth of Testamentary Freedom”? Shapira v. Union National Bank p.1/2 b “To son if he marries a Jewish girl” unconstitutional or void as an unnecessary partial restraint on marriage ? b Restriction on inheritance, not directly on marriage, is not contrary to public policy. b When private individuals act w/o gov’t function, 14 th amen. not implicated, thus not unconstitutional. b Distinguish : inheritance contingency on divorce is void as against public policy Fineman v. Bank o More concerned w/ incentive to divorce than incentive to marry , b/c of “broken family” w/ divorce. b Hypo : Promise to pay $50K to divorce W is enforceable b/c court not involved, unlike when enforcing a will. Effect of Insanity on Slayer Rule Ford v. Ford p.17/3 b Will the fact that murderer was insane permit murderer to inherit despite the common law “slayer rule” ? YES b Common law slayer rule : A murderer, or his heirs or representatives through him, may not profit by taking any portion of the estate of the one murdered. o BTW : Court presumes T would not want his murderer to share in his estate. b Insanity negates felonious responsibility required to disqualify a beneficiary under slayer rule. b Purpose of slayer statute is to effectuate T’s presumed intent, not deterrence b/c criminal prosecution deters. b ITC : both deterrence and intent argument are negated by lack of felonious intent – involuntary act cannot be deterred and T may not want to disqualify insane murderer b Problem : then why do we have involuntary manslaughter for drunk drivers if they cannot be deterred? UPC § 2-803 Effect of Homicide on Intestate Succession, Wills, Trusts Joint Assets, . . . p.25/4 (b) Forfeiture of Statutory Benefits. An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent forfeits all benefits . . . with respect to the decedent’s estate, including intestate share . . . . If decedent died intestate, the decedent’s intestate estate passes as if the killer disclaimed his intestate share . B Ford v. Ford would come out the same way under UPC b/c of felonious intent requirement. (c) Revocation of Benefits Under Governing Instrument. Felonious and intentional killing of decedent (1) revokes any revocable (i) disposition or appointment of property made [in a will] to the killer (ii) nomination [of the killer to] serve as executor, trustee, or agent. (2) Severs any joint tenancy between the killer and decedent w/ right of survivorship into tenancy in common. (e) Effect of Revocation.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7441 taught by Professor Cunningham during the Spring '06 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 52

Sterk Sp03 Trusts - Trusts and Estates Professor Sterk Spring 2003 CHAPTER 1 Introduction I The Living and the Dead Whose Money Is It Trust a

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online