CALIFORNIA WILLS Flashcards
The subject of wills consists of 4 main concepts:
- intent
- formation
- revocation
- distribution
There are 4 main issues within the concept of intent:
- capacity
- insane delusion
- fraud
- undue influence
The capapcity to make a will is the ________ capacity recognized by law.
lowest
To have capacity to make a will the testator must satisfy four elements:
- must be at least 18
- must be able to understand the extent of her
property - must know the natural objects of her bounty
• spouse or domestic partner
• issue
• parents
• those whose interests are affected by the
will. - must know the nature of her act
• Must know she is executing a will
• Does not have to know all legal technicalites
of the will (e.g., no rule of perpetuities).
If there is no capacity in forming the will, the ______________. Property, therefore, will pass by ________________.
Exception?
entire will is invalid; intestate succession
Exception: If T had a valid prior will that was purportedly revoked by the 2nd, the first instrument will be probated. If T didn’t have capacity for 2nd will, the first couldn’t have been revoked.
Bar exam tip for capacity questions: Look for ___________ and _________, but make sure to still apply the _____________.
- A T who has a conservator appointed
- A T who is diagnosed with a mental disorder
Make sure to still apply the 4 prong test. Because T was diagnosed w/ a mental disorder, this is relevant to establish that at the time of execution, T didn’t know the natural objects of her bounty because …
A will can be attacked if _____________ the T was suffering from an insane delusion.
at the time of execution
Four elements needed to establish T was suffering from an insane delusion:
- T had a false belief
- that false belief was the product of a sick mind
- there is not even a scintilla of evidence to
support the belief - delusion must have affected T’s will.
What are the consequences of finding that T was suffering from an insane delusion at the time of execution?
- Only that part of the will that was affected by the delusion is invalid.
- As to that part, it will go to the residuary devisee, or if none, or if the residue itself was infected by the delusion, by intestate succession.
What is the residuary gift?
Part of the estate not otherwise expressly disposed of in the will.
E.g.: will reads, “Blackacre to A, Whiteacre to B, and the residue to C.” C is the residuary devisee. C gets the balance of testator’s estate. C’s gift may be worth $1 or $1 billion.
Distinguish lack of capacity from delusion:
- No capacity is very severe problem because it goes to T’s entire essence (not knowing one’s spouse)
- Delusion, however, T has a problem, but it’s a narrow one and T is otherwise perfectly normal. (beleiving one’s spouse is unfaithful).
What are the 5 elements to fraud?
- Must be a representation
- of material fact
- known to be false by the wrongdoer
- for the purpose of inducing action or inaction; and
- in fact induces the action or inaction desired.
What are the 3 types of fraud tested on the bar exam?
- fraud in the execution
- fraud in the inducement
- fraud in preventing testator from revoking the will.
What is the definition for fraud in the execution?
- someone forges T’s signature to a will, or
- T is given a doc. to sign that purportedly is non-testamentary in nature, but in fact it is, and T signs it.
• E.g. T is given a document to sign,
purportedly a power of attorney, but in fact it
is a will, and T signs it.
What is the consequence of finding fraud in the execution?
- the entire will is invalid
- the property passes by intestate succession, unless there is a prior will that was validly executed
- If there was a prior will that was validly executed, the instant will, as a consequence of the fraud, could in no way have revoked the prior valid will.
Define fraud in the inducement:
The wrongdoer’s represenations affect the contents of T’s will.
E.g.: Son learns that T is going to soon execute a will leaving all of her property to a charity. The son approaches T and states, “Did you hear the FBI is investigating that charity for cheating elderly out of their savings?” The son knows that this is a lie, and is doing so b/c he wants T to leaving nothing to charity and everything to the son and this happens. Son gets everything an dcharity gets nothing.
What are the consequences of finding fraud in the inducement?
- Only that part of the will affected by the fraud is invalid.
- As to that part, the court has 3 options:
- give the property to the residuary devisees,
if any; or - If there is no residue, to the heirs at law by
intestate succession; or - constructive trust (to avoid unjust
enrichment or fraud).*This avoids giving the wrongdoer the reward. So in charity/son hypo, son would get the $, which he used fraud to get. Not fair. Instead son becomes a constructive trustee and holds the money in trust for the intended beneficiary as determined by the court.
- give the property to the residuary devisees,
Distinguish fraud in the execution from fraud in the inducement:
In fraud in the execution, T does not intend the document to be his will. In fraud in the inducement, T intends the document to be his will, however, the contents are affected by misrepresentation.
Define fraud in preventing T from revoking:
This is a variation of fraud in the inducement.
E.g.: T’s will leaves everything to son, but T later changes her mind and wants to tleave everything to charity. Due to son’s fraud (lie about FBI investigating charity), T does not revoke the will. Because of the fraud, there is no revocation.
What is the consequence of fraud in preventing T from revoking?
- the court will not probate the will and thus the property will go to the heirs.
- Simultaneously, the court will also decree that the heir is a ocnstructive trustee who has one duty: to transfer the property to the intended beneficiary as determined by the court.
(Son = constructive trustee, and charity = intended beneficiary).
Define undue influence:
T’s free agency is subjugated.
3 ways to establish:
- prima facie case
- case law presumption
- statutory presumption
What are the 3 ways to establish undue influence?
3 ways to establish:
- prima facie case
- case law presumption
- statutory presumption
What are the 4 elements needed to establish the prima facie case for undue influence?
- Susceptibility: T has a weakness such that he is able to have his free will subjugated. Can be anything (psychological, financial, physical).
- Opportunity: the wrongdoer had access to the T. (Friend or business associate always has access–never an issue in dispute on the exam, just list it).
- Active participation: it is the wrongful act that gets the gift. Active participation can be the wrongdoer’s use of force, threat of force, blackmail, or dragging the 90 yr. old T to the W’s attorney.
- An unnatural result: the wrongdoer is taking a devise and this person ordinarily woudl not be expected to take a devise. Typically, it is one who has no relationship to the T.
• E.g. T’s EE blackmails T so that the EE gets everything and T’s family gets nothing.
On the bar exam, when faced with an undue influence case, discuss ___________.
All three tests. Will definitely be able to discuss first 2 and likely all 3.
3 ways to establish:
- prima facie case
- case law presumption
- statutory presumption
What are the 3 elements to establish a case law presumption case of undue influence.
- A confidential relationship exists between T and wrongdoer. CA recognizes all of the common law confidential relationships:
• atty/ client
• doctor/ patient
• guardian/ ward
• clergy person/ penitent
• trustee/ beneficiary
• Anytime one person reposes trust in another.
Conflidential rel’p can exist between 2 close
friends. - Active participation: it is the wrongful act that gets the gift. (act of force/ blackmail, e.g.)
- An unnatural result: the wrongdoer is taking a devise and this person ordinarily woudl not be expected to take a devise
What are the consequences of finding undue influence? (by prima facie case or by case law presumption):
- Only that part of the will affected by undue influence is invalid.
- The part affected goes to:
• the residuary devisees if any, or if none:
• to the heirs at law by intestate succession; or
• Simulataneously via constructive trust remedy
to intended beneficiary
• Court will choose the remedy that gets the
best result and avoids unjust enrichment.
Distinguish undue influence from fraud in the inducement:
In fraud you have a lie.
In undue influece, the wrongdoer is being perfectly honest: “Leave me all your property or I will kill your family.” There is honesty here, albeit a wrong.
What is the statutory presumption of undue influence?
California law statutorily presumes that a provision of an instrument (will, trust, deed) making a donative transfer to the following persons is the product of undue influence:
- the person who drafted the instrument
- a person in a fiduciary relationship with the transferor who transcribed the instruement or casue it to be transcribed. (R)
- A care custodian of a dependant adult but only if the instrument was executed during the period in which the care custodian provided services to the transferor, or within 90 days before or after that period. (R)
- a person who is a spouse, domestic partner, or blood relative related within the 3rd degree of any person described in 1-3
- A person who is a cohabitant or EE of any person described in 1-3.
- A partner, shareholder, or employer of a law firm in which the drafter has an ownership interest.
Statutory presumption is conclusive w/ respect to 1, 4, 5, 6.
Statutory presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence for 2 or 3.
The statutory presumption for undue influence does not apply to:
- a donative transfer to a person who is a the spouse, domestic partner, or a cohabitant of the transferor, or to a person related by blood, within the 4th degree to the transferor. (So, e.g., if caregiver is spouse, doesn’t apply).
- An instrument that is drafted or transcribed by a person who is the spouse, domestic partner, or cohabitant of the transferor, or by a person related by blood, within the 4th degree to transferor. (E.g. drafter is transferor’s adult child).
- An instrument reviewed by an independent attorney, who counsels the transferor about the nature and consequences of the intended disposition and executes a certificate stating that the attorney concludes that the disposition is not the product of undue influence.
- transfer that does not exceed $5,000 if the estate is over $100,000 (small gift/ big estate).
Consequences of finding undue influence under the statutory presumption:
- the transferee is deemed to have predeceased the transferor without spouse, domestic partner, or issue. Thus, the gift lapses or fails, meaning that the transferee does not take.
- As to that lapsed gift, it passes to the residuary devisee if any, or if no residue, or if the lapsed gift is itself the residue, to the heirs at law by intestate succession.
What is a “care custodian” under the statutory presumption for undue influence?
person who provides health or social services to a dependent adult. Does not include a person who provided services without compensation if the person had a personal rel’p with the dependent adult at least 90 days before providing those services.
E.g.: adminsitration of medicine, wound care, cooking, assistance with hygiene, shopping, or companionship.
What is a “dependant adult” under the statutory presumption for undue influence?
a person who at the time of executing the instrument was 18 or older and:
1. was unable to provide for his personal needs,
OR
2. due to a deficit in mental function, had difficulty managing his or her own financial affairs or resisting undue influence.
What are the degrees of relationship from a transferor?
First degree: children, parents
Second degree: grandparents, grandchildren, siblings
Third degree: great-grandparents, great-grandchildren, aunts & uncles, nephews & nieces
Fourth degree: grand nephews and nieces, first cousins, great aunts and uncles
If T’s lawyer drafts the will and the devisee is the lawyer or the lawyer’s family, how should you analyze?
Invalidate the gift on all 3 theories of undue influence:
prima facie case
case law presumption
statutory presumption
Discuss all 3!
What are the 6 issues in mistake?
- mistake in content
- mistake in execution
- mistake in inducement
- mistake in description (ambiguity)
- mistake in the validity of a subsequent
testamentary instrument (dependent relative
revocation) - mistake involving living children (pretermission)
What is the definintion of mistake in content?
When the wrong beneficiary is named or the wrong gift is made.
What type of relief is given for mistake in content?
Depends on the type of mistake: ommission or addition:
Mistake in omission: No remedy
• E.g. T’s will states, “blackacre to John,” but T
wanted Blackacre to go to John and Mary
• Name is not added because courts do not
rewrite wills. Possible relief under DRR.
Mistake in addition: Court may excise mistake.
• E.g. T wants to execute a will that says,”
Blackacre to John” but the will actually reads
“Blackacre to John and Mary.” Accidental
addition.
• The court is not rewriting the will, just excising
a party of it.
What is mistake in execution?
T signs the wrong document. Occurs in 2 situations:
- T mistakenly signs his will believing it is a non-testamentary instrument.
E.g. T signs his will thinking it is a power of atty - Reciprocal wills (husband leaves everything to wife, wife leaves everything to husband). Wife mistakenly signs husband’s will and he signs hers.
What is the consequence of T mistakenly signing his will believing it to be a power of atty doc? What if wife signs husband’s will in reciprocal wills situation?
- The will is not probated because testator did not intend the document to be a will.
- the court may reform this will esp. if husband/wife/ domestic partners. Substitue the correct name–it is equitable.
What is the definition of mistake in the inducement?
A particular gift is made or not made on the basis of T’s erroneous beliefs.
E.g T would like to leave John $1000, but does not because T erroneously thinks John is dead. John is really alive.
No relief is given.
Exception: releif will be given if both the mistake and what T would have doen but for the mistake appear on the face of the will.
E.g.: T’s will reads “I leave John nothing because John is dead, but were John not dead, I would leave John $1000.”
What is the relief for mistake in the inducement?
E.g T would like to leave John $1000, but does not because T erroneously thinks John is dead. John is really alive.
No relief is given.
Exception: releif will be given if both the mistake and what T would have doen but for the mistake appear on the face of the will.
E.g.: T’s will reads “I leave John nothing because John is dead, but were John not dead, I would leave John $1000.”
What is the definition of mistake in the description?
(ambiguity)
No one or nothing fits the description, or 2 or more persons or things fit the description.
E.g.:
• Two persons fit the description: “I leave my property to my cousin John.” T has 2 cousins named John.
•Two things fit the description: “I leave my beach-house to X.” T has 2 beach houses one on the west coast.
What are the consequences of a mistake in description?
- Distinguish between latent & patent ambiguities.
- Modernly in CA, by statute:
• introduce parol evidence for any type of
ambiguity–latent or patent– to determine
what T’s intent was.
• So now introduce parol evidence to ascertain
which cousin John Testator meant.
Latent Ambiguity:
On the face of the will there is no
problem. Everything seems fine on the face of the will. You introduce parol evidence to establish the ambiguity, then you introduce the evidence a second time to determine T’s intent.
meant).
Patent Ambiguity:
The ambiguity is apparent on the face of the will. E.g. T’s will reads “I have 2 cousins by the name of John; I leave $1000 to my cousin John.” Some older cases stated that no remedy was given in the case of p.a. not true anymore.
Distinguish patent & latent ambiguity:
Latent Ambiguity:
on the face of the will there is no
problem. Everything seems fine on the face of the will. You introduce parol evidence to establish the ambiguity, then you introduce the evidence a second time to determine T’s intent.
meant).
Patent Ambiguity:
The ambiguity is apparent on the face of the wil. E.g. T’s will reads “I have 2 cousins by the name of John; I leave $1000 to my cousin John.” Some older cases stated that no remedy was given in the case of p.a. not true anymore.
What is mistake in the validity of a subsequent testamentary instrument (DRR)?
Allows a court to disregard a revocation caused by mistake.
T executes Will #1 then executes will #2 and subsequently revokes will #1 thinking that will #2 effectuates his intent. But T is wrong! Will #2 either is invalid as a will, or, if it is valid as a will, fails to effectuate T’s intent. DRR allows the court to ignore the revocation of will #1 on the grounds that T revoked will #1 because T mistakenly thought will #2 effectuated his intent. .
T/F: A will can be revoked by physical act.
True. A physical act includes burning, tearing, destroying, or cancelling (crossing out or lining out w/ a pen or pencil).
E.g. T executes a will and subsequently, with the intent to revoke it, rips it up. T has revoked his will by physical act.
Important basis for DRR.
T/F A will can be revoked by a subsequently executed will.
True.
E.g. T executes Will #1. Thereafter, T executes Will #2, which expressly revokes Will #1. Will #2 has revoked Will #1.
Important basis for DRR.
What is the rationale for DRR?
- T simply made a mistake in the revocation of Will #1 and
- notwithstanding the mistake, we know what T’s intent is because T stated his testamentary plan, not once but twice (the 2 wills are very similar). As between intestacy or Will #1, T would want will #1 probated.
What is the rule/ requirements for DRR?
- If T revokes her will, or a portion thereof,
- in the mistaken beleif that a substantially identical will or codicil effectuates her intent,
- then, by operation of law,
- the revocation of the first will be deemed conditional, dependent, and relative to the second effectuating T’s intent
- If the 2nd does not effectuate T’s intent, the first (by pure legal fiction) was never revoked.
What are the 2 situations where DRR will show up on the bar exam?
- Will #1 is revoked by physical act (extremely common).
2. Will #1 is revoked by subsequent instrument.
Remember, for DRR, Will #1 and Will #2 must be ______________.
substantially the same
If will #1 is revoked by physical act by being destroyed, Will #1 can still be probated (even though its been destroyed) under CA’s lost will provisions:
- a lost will or accidentally destroyed will can be probated if at least one witness testifies as to the terms of the will.
- the witness does not necessarily have to be one of the attesting witnesses. e.g. can be the lawyer who drafted the will.
What is the definition of mistake of living children?
Type of pretermission problem regarding children. Pretermission is an acciental omission.
What is the rule for mistake of living children?
A pretermitted child takes an intestate share of the estate (which includes the assets in T’s inter-vivos trust).
• A child is pretermitted if born or adopted after all testatmentary instruments are executed and not provided for in any testamentary instrument.
What does the term testamentary instrument include?
will, codicil, revocable inter-vivos trust established by T during T’s lifetime.
What is the corollary to the rule for mistake of living children?
Exception to the corollary?
A child born or adopted before all testamentary instruments are executed and not provded for in any instrument is not pretermitted. Child takes nothing.
Exception: A child born or adopted before all testamentary instruments are executed and not provided for in any of the instruments is treated as if pretermitted if the only reason the child was not provided for in the testamentary instrument is because T erroneously thought the child to be dead or nonexistent. Mistake.
E.g.: T fathers a child and doesn’t know the child exists.
What are the 5 issues regarding the components of the will?
- integration
- incorporation by reference
- facts of independent significance
- writing disposing of limited tangible personal property
- pour-over wills
What is integration? (definition)
Term that refers to the question of which papers make up the will.
- If you have a will written on only one piece of paper, there is no issue of integration.
- But if testator executes a 10 page will, the question arises: what papers make up the will.
What are the 2 elements required for papers to be integrated?
- intent: T must have intended for the papers in question to be part of the will; and
- presence: the paper must have been actually or physically present at the time of execution.
Testator goes to lawyer to execute his typed
10-page will. Upon reading it testator states to lawyer that page five does not manifest his intent. Lawyer tells testator to execute the will as it is, and promises tomorrow to have the secretary type a new page five which will be inserted and which
will be inserted and which will manifest the T’s intent. This happens. The next day the secretary types new page five and inserts it in the will. Testator dies. What result?
Only pages 1-4 and 6-10 are probated.
Old page 5 is not probated because it was not integrated: T did not intend old page 5 to be a part of his will.
New page 5 is not probated because it was not integrated: was not physically present when T executed his will.
What are 2 ways to infer integration?
- Establish a physical connection among all the pages. If the papers are stapled together, it is ninferred that T intended the papers to be part of the will and were phsyically present at the time of execution.
- Establish a logical connection: Does the last word on page 1 make sense in relation to the first word on page 2? If so, integration is inferred.
What is incorporation by reference?
The theory of incorporation by reference is that a non-integrated writing is given testamentary effect adn becomes part of the will. Now admitted into probate.
E.g.: T’s will states, “I leave my property to the grantee named on the ABC deed.”
•From the 4 corners of the will, we don’t know who the grantee of the deed is. We can only use parol evidence if incorporation by reference elements are met. Otherwise, using parol evidence violates the CA probate code (statute of wills).
• This deed is a writing, in existence when the will was executed, clearly identified in the will. Thus deed will become admitted into probate.
What are the elements to incorporation by reference?
- document or a writing
- document or writing must have been in existence when the will was executed.
- document must be clearly identified in the will
- T must ahve intended to incorporate the doc into the will
- If you establish elements 1-3, 4 will be implied by the court.
T’s will states, “I leave my property to the grantee named on the ABC deed.” The ABC deed is invalid. What result?
Under incorporation by reference, deed is a writing, in existence when the will was executed, clearly identified in the will. Thus deed will become admitted into probate.
It does not matter that the deed is invalid. The document does not have to be valid for what it puports to stand for.
Thus, you can incorporate by reference an invalid deed, an invalid contract, or even an invalid will of the testator or of a third person.
T/F: you can incoroporate by reference an invalid deed, an invalid contract, or even an invalid will of the testator or of a third person.
True. The validity of the document is not relevant.
What is the doctrine of facts of independent significance?
Who a beneficiary is, or what gift is given, may be given meaning by facts of signficance independent from T’s will.
E.g. T’s will states: I leave all property to the church I am a member of at the time of my death.
Though we normally dont’ allow parol evidence whenever we want (because of statute of wills), this situation allows for parole evidence.
Because of the independent reasons for joining a church, there is truthfulness to such a fact or act. Susceptible of independent verification.
When should you use the doctrine of facts of independent significance?
Ask yourself: Even without the will, woudl this fact have existed?
E.g.:
1. T’s will states, “I leave all my property to the peopel who are in my employ at the time of my death.”
• Fact of independent significance because even without the will, these people would exist: they would be in T’s employ because peopel have EEs for a variety of reasons, but not just to validate a devise.
- T’s will states, “I leave all my property to people I had Thanksgiving dinner with in 1999.”
•Past fact, independent of T’s will. - T’s will states: “I leave all my property to the peopel I will name on a note tomorrow.”
• Incorporation by reference will not work because the note was not in existence at the time the will was executed.
• Independent signfiicance will not work because without the will, this note would not exist.
Writing disposing of limited tangible personal property (Section 6132) states that:
a writing, whether or not it can be incorporated by reference or is a fact of independent significance, may be admitted into probate, and thus, given testamentary effect.
What are the elements needed under Section 6132?
- Writing must be:
• referred to in the will,
• dated, and
• either signed or handwriteen by the testator
• *But even if writing isn’t dated or
signed/handwritten, writing can still be
admitted if extrinsic evidence establishes
the T’s intend re disposition of the items
described in the referenced writing. - the writing must describe the items and recipients (beneficiaries) with reasonable certainty
- the writing may be executed before or after the will
- the writing directs the disposition of tangible personal property (excluding cash and property used primarily in a trade or business) valued, at the time of T’s death, at not more than $5000 per item and not more than $25,000 in the aggregate.
T’s will states, “I give my car to the person who is identified on a note I executed yesterday.” The writing signed and dated by T states: “2003 Honda CR-V: Mary Jones.” At the time of T’s death, the car is not business property an dis worth not more than $5000. On the bar exam, analyze based on all 3 theories:
- Incorporation by reference: Writing, in existence when will was executed, clearly identified in the will, and intended by testatory to be incorporated. Yes for incorporation.
- Facts of independent significance: Apart from the will, the note has no significance. While the car can be a fact of independent significance, the name of the beneficiary clearly is not. Thus, this is a variation of, “I leave all my property to the people I will name on a note tomorrow.” In short, but for the will, this note would not exist. Thus, facts of independent significance won’t work.
- Section 6132: Irrespective of incorporation and
independent significance, the writing is referred to in the will; dated, and signed by the testator; describes the property and the recipient with reasonable certainty; and is personal tangible property not used in T’s business worth not more than $5,000. Thus, section 6132 works.
If the value of an item of tangible personal property described in the writing exceeds $5000, that item __________ and that item passes _______________. Such an item ___________ towards the $25,000 limit.
is not subject to section 6132;
to the residuary clause of the will (and if none, to intestate);
is not counted
If any person designated to receive property in the writing dies before the T, the property passes ____________ and, in the absence of directions, ______________.
as directed in the writing
the disposition lapses.
The testator may make subsequent handwriteen or signed changes to any writing (no witnesses are required for this). If there is an inconsistent disposition of tangible personal propety as between writings, __________.
The last writing controls.
In what situation is a pour-over will created?
Part or all of T’s estate is devised to the trustee of an inter-vivos trust, to be administered pursuant to the terms of that trust.
*Problem here is that we dont’ know from the 4 corners who the trustee is, who the beneficiaries are, what are the term sof the trust.
What are the 3 ways to validate a pour-over provision?
- Incorporation by Reference
- Independent Significance
- Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act (UTATA).
On Jan.1, T executes a document creating the ABC trust, an inter-vivos trust. On Jan. 2, T executes his will. In the will, T devises part or all of his estate, “to the trustee of the ABC trust, to be administered pursuant to the terms of that trust.” T dies. Can the provision be validated?
Incorporation by reference
1. There is a trust instrument in writing
2. in existence when the will was executed
3. clearly identified in the will
4. T intended to incorporate the trust into the will
Thus, the trust instrument will be admitted into probate and the pour-over provision will be validated.
Independent Signficance
1. Even without the will, we would have this
inter-vivos trust.
Thus, the trust instrument is a fact of significance independent from the will and the pour-over provision can be validated.
Uniform Testamentary Additions To Trusts Act
1. So long as you ahve a valid trust, which was in existence before the will was executed, or at the time of execution, the pour-over provision will be valid by statute.
• Modification of the trust after execution of the
will doesn’t matter for the statute. Still in
existence at the time of execution.
On Jan. 1, T creates the inter-vivos trust. On Jan. 2 T executes the will, devising part or all of her estate to “the trustee of the ABC trust, to be administered pursuant to the terms fo the trust.” On Jan. 3, T modifies the trust. T dies. Validate?
- Incorporation doesn’t work because the trust was modified was not in existence at the time the will was executed.
- Independent Signficance works: The trust as modified is still a fact of significance indpendent from the will.
- UTATA works. A pour-over provision under the act is valid even if the trust is subsequently modified.
It is highly unlikely that California Probate Code section 6132 (dealing with a writing that disposes of limited amounts of personal property; see above) would ever apply to validate a pour-over situation on the bar exam. The reason is that for
section 6132 to apply, we would need the highly unusual fact pattern of a trust instrument which has a corpus of not more than $25,000 of non-business, non-cash personal property with individual items not exceeding $5,000. In the highly unlikely event that you get a pour-over situation with such facts, then you also would validate the pour-over provision by discussing
section 6132 (in addition to incorporation by reference, independent significance and UTATTA). But, again, this is an unlikely factual scenario on the bar exam.
What are the 3 issues in formalities of execution for attested or formal wills (witnessed wills)?
- Elements for an attested will
- Interested witness problem
- Conditional wills
What are the elements for an Attested Will? (the traditional formalities)
- Will must be in writing
- will must be signed by one of the following:
• T (nicknames are ok, X if T is illiterate)
• 3rd person, in T’s presence and at T’s
direction. (arises if T is incapacitated)
• By a conservator pursuant to a court order - The signing by T, 3rd person, or the conservator must be done in the presence of 2 witnesses, both present at the same time.
• If T previously signed alone or with only 1
present, T doesn’t have to sign again but can
acknowledge the will or signature. (This is
my will). - Witnesses must sign the will during the T’s
lifetime. - Witnesses understand that the instrument they
sign is T’s will.