Cunningham F06 Trusts & Estates - Outline

Cunningham F06 Trusts & Estates - Outline - Trusts &...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Introduction Section I: The Living and the Dead: Whose Money Is It I. Shapira v. Union National Bank (Marry Jew) a. The right to receive property by will is a creature of law and is not a natural right or one guaranteed by either a state or the Constitution. i. If you are bumping up against free exercise or public policy, court may be more willing to invalidate the provision (no constitutional right to inherit). II. Ford v. Ford (Crazy kills Mom) a. For the slayer’s rule to be invoked the killing must have been both felonious and intentional . The slayer’s rule is not applicable when the killer is not criminally responsible at the time he committed the homicide. b. Slayer's rule does not operate to bar a killer who, at the time of the commission of the homicide, was insane. c. Common law : a murderer, or his heirs or representatives through him, may not profit by taking any portion of the estate of one murdered. d. Dissent : The equitable principle embodied in the slayer’s rule is that a killer ought not to inherit from the victim. The fact that the state cannot criminally punish an insane defendant is irrelevant to the demands of equity that she not profit from her crime. e. Slayer Doctrine – a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another individual is prohibited from receiving any property from decedent’s estate either by will or inheritance or from receiving the proceeds of any life insurance policies. III. UPC 2-803 (“Slayer’s Rule”) (p.25) a. Requires that the court determine, by the preponderance of the evidence, whether the individual could be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the descendent, in the absence of a conviction. Does not deal with an insanity issue. b. A judgment of conviction establishing criminal accountability for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent conclusively establishes the convicted individual as the decedent’s killer for purposes of the slayer’s rule. In the absence of a conviction, the court, upon the petition of an interested person, must determine whether under the preponderance of evidence standard, the individual would be found criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent. c. Voluntary manslaughter is intentional killing and comes within the scope of the homicide doctrine (killer barred from taking). Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing and does not come within the scope of the homicide doctrine (killer would not be barred from taking). Killing in self-defense is not felonious and does not trigger a homicide doctrine. I. Hotz v. Minyard (Lawyer Dad’s Lawyer Too) d. A fiduciary relationship exists when one has a special confidence in another so that the latter, in equity and good conscience, is bound to act in good faith. 1
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 Fall '06 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 47

Cunningham F06 Trusts & Estates - Outline - Trusts &...

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