Execution of Wills Flashcards
Execution of Wills: Statutory Formalities
- T must be 18 or over.
- Instrument must be executed with testamentary intent
- T must sign will..
- Two attesting witnesses who witness T’s signing
Special Uniform Probate Code Provision for executing a defective will:
A court can validate a defectively executed will if the will proponent establishes by clear ad convincing evidence that the T intended the document to be his will.
Also, under UPC, a will that is SIGNED by T and a notary is VALID without the need for any witnesses.
What happens if a portion of the will follows T’s signature?
a. Clause present at time of execution
b. Clause added after execution
a. i) some states: wills must be signed at end so everything above line ok, everything below NO. ii) UPC and majority – valid
b. Will is valid but the addition is NOT.
T writes a document in her own handwriting that reads “This is my last will. I revoke all earlier wills. I leave everything to the YMCA.” T signs documents. Is it admissible to probate>
a. Half of states: Holographic is NOT allowed. Not entitled to probate unless two attesting witnesses.
b. UPC and some other states: VALID–material provisions must be in own handwriting and signed.
T in hospital bed with contagious disease when will executed. Two witnesses in doorway, standing in hall, screen by bed hides their view of T. T says from behind the screen “this is my will. It looks OK; where do i sign?” After T signs, will brought out to hall. Witnesses hear T from behind the screen request them to witness. Witnesses sign in hall. Has will be validly executed?
Minority Rule: Scope of Vision– line of sight– ONLY VALID IF witnesses could have seen T sign if they were to look.
Majority Rule: Conscious Presence Test (UPC): Look at where T is and what he is doing and if there is constant communication between T and witnesses etc.
T is a domiciliary of Pennsylvania and owns some real estate in state X. While on vacation in Florida, T executes a will that meets the requirements for a valid will in Pennsylvania but not in state X. Later T dies after having changed his domicile to New York. Is the will valid for purposes of disposition of the state X real estate?
Common Law and few remaining States: NO UPC and Majority: YES IF it meets ONE or more of the tests: 1. Place of execution (Florida)? 2. Domicile at Death (New York)? 3. Domicile at execution (Pennsylvania)?
Here the will would have been valid in Pennsylvania.
“I give to my faithful nurse Nell the sum of $30K.” Nell is one of two attesting witnesses to the will. Is the will admissible to probate?
a. Older (majority) rule: Interested witness situation does not result in denial of probate of will, but beneficiary-witness loses legacy unless:
1) There were two disinterested attesting witnesses (supernumerary rule); OR
2) Witness-beneficiary would be an heir if there no will, in which case she take lesser of (i) amount given in will, or (ii) intestate share.
**Nell Loses
UPC and modern trend: Interested witness rule abolished. “A will or any provision thereof is not invalid because the will is signed by an interested witness.”
**Nell wins
Self-proved wills: At time will is signed by T and attesting witnesses, T and witnesses sign self-proving affidavit under oath before notary public.
Affidavit recites all elements of due execution. Formalities of execution (but not mental capacity, lack of fraud, undue influence, etc.) conclusively presumed.
* No one contest for improper formalities only.
In 2010, T properly excited a will in duplicate giving all property to her children. in 2012 she wrote “VOID” on one of the copies of the 2010 will and drew many vertical lines across front of the one-page document. Will revoked?
It is has been revoked would’ve been by physical act –do test?
Revocation by physical act requires:
1) intent to revoke;
2) physical act: typical statute refers to “burned, torn, canceled, obliterated, or destroyed.”
Will in T’s possession from time of execution until death and found in mutilated condition after T’s death.
Presumption: T did mutilating with intent to revoke.
**Rebuttable
Will last seen in T’s possession and control not found after T’s death.
Reason it can’t be found is that T destroyed it with intent to revoke.
**Rebuttable
T calls her attorney, the place where the will is located, and orders her attorney to destroy T’s will. The order is never carried out. Will revoked?
NOPE
Intent + Act required
What if the attorney had destroyed the will pursuant to T’s order? Would the will have been effectively revoked?
No!
Revocation by another person MUST be: 1) at T’s direction AND 2) In T’s conscious presence.
But if the attorney had destroyed the will but the will was not revoked, how could it be probated given the fact that is has been destroyed?
By satisfying “lost wills” statute. In most states, lost will requires formal proceeding where proponents have burden of proving the contents of the lost will. Copy and one witness or other “clear and convincing proof.”
Additional issue raised by case where attorney bungs up revocation of will or where attorney bungs up execution of will: Lucas v. hamm
attorneys can be sued for negligence.
T’s 2006 will leaves Blackacre to X, her diamond ring to Y and residue to Z. T’s 2009 codicil leaves $5,000 to Y and her diamond ring to M. Codicil does not expressly revoke earlier will. Who takes what?
Rule: Where codicil makes nor reference to will but contains slightly inconsistent provisions, to the extent possible the will and codicil are read together. but to the extent of any inconsistent provisions, the later document controls and thereby revokes by inconsistency the prior will. M: gets ring Y: $5,000 X: Blackacre Z: Residue
What about when there are two wills and the second does not in terms revoke the first?
Same rule as codicil applies. If the second will has no residuary clause, it is presumptively a codicil to the first. There is an implied revocation only to the extent of the inconsistency.
If the second will has a residuary clause: Revokes first will in its entirety.
**Revocation of a will revokes all codicils thereto. BUT revocation of a codicil to a will does NOT revoke the will.
T’s will devises entire estate “to my wife, Sheila if she survives me; if she does not survive me, in trust for my children.” The will names Sheila as executor “if she is able”; otherwise X is to serve as executor. Two years later Sheila divorces T; T dies two yard after that without having revoked or modified his will. T is survived by Sheila, by two children and by X. Who takes what? Who serves as executor?
UPC and most states: Divorce following a will revokes all provisions of ex spouse; construe as ex-spouse as dead. So X is executor.
What if T and Sheila marry each other again?
She’s back in the will (if will hasn’t been revoked by another will).
What if T and Sheila separate without a divorce?
Does not affect her rights.
Exception: separation with complete property settlement is seen as a waiver of those rights.
Will divorce revoke a provision for Sheila in T’s revocable inter vivos trust?
Yes
T’s typewritten will made a bequest of $10,000 to my friend X. Subsequent to the will’s execution, T drew a line through the figure $10,000 and wrote in above it “$15,000.” T then signed his name in the margin opposite the change.
a. Has the 10K been revoked?
b. Can the interlineation be given effect?
c. Can DDR be applied to reinstate the original 10K bequest?
a. Yes
b. NO, UNLESS: (i) T re-executes will or (ii) Republishes by codicil
c. YES. STeps:
1. disregard revocation( the cancellation of the 10K request); 2. based on mistake that the interlineation would be effective; 3. provided the court thinks T would not have revoked the 10K bequest but for the mistake.
Dependent relative revocation (DDR) allows us to disregard a revocation which is based on, induced by, premised on a mistake of law or fact if the court is satisfied that, but for the mistake, T never would have made the revocation.
What are the steps?
- Disregard a revocation.
- Because it was based on a mistake of law.
- Provided the court thinks T would not have revoked the $10 bequest BUT for the mistake.
In 2004, T executes Will 1 which devises his residuary estate “in trust to pay the income to my grandson G until he attains the age of thirty, at which time to distribute the principal to G.” In 2009, T executes a new will, Will 2, “hereby revoking all wills heretofore made by me.” Will 2 devises his residuary estate to G outright. T DOES NOT destroy will 1. In 2011, T has a change of heart. He has his housekeeper bring both wills to him, reads them both and tells the housekeeper, “you know, I think the property should be held in trust for G after all.” With this he destroys WIll2 with the intent of reviving WIll1. T dies in 2013. he is survived by G and by his daughter, S, whom he detests. Who takes what?
Answer by going through steps:
a. Has will-1 been revoked? Yes in 2009 at execution of will2
b. Has will 2 been revoked? yes by physical act
c. Revival: Did revocation of Will-2 “revive” Will-1?
UPC and MOST states: Not automatically. YES IF: still exists, t wanted it revived, will-2 must’ve been revoked by physical act.
Some States: NO even if T intended.
In states where Will -1 is not revived, what other issue is raised by these facts?
Can we apply DRR? and undo revocation of will 2–> otherwise dies intestate as S best property too and thats not good.
T’s will, after making several specific bequests, devised Blackacre “as designated in a memorandum, that I plan to write, and that will be found attached to this will.” After T’s death, her will and a signed but unwitnessed typewritten note were found in an envelope marked “My will”. The note read: “I give Blackacre to the Am. Cancr. society.” The note was dated two months after the date on the will. T’s sole heir was a distant cousin, Henry, of whom she was not fond of and from whom she had not heard for many years. Who takes blackacre.
Not ACS because the extrinsic document wasn’t incorporated.
but we don’t know who would take blackacre.
To incorporate an extrinsic document by reference:
(i) Writing must be in existence at time will was executed
(ii) Will must manifest an intent to incorporate the document.
(iii) Will must “describe the writing sufficiently to permit its identification.
What if the facts were the same except that the reference was to a memorandum “that I have written,” and the typewritten note was dated two months before the will was executed?
Close but still maybe not. Have to be sure that it reffers to the actual memo. the facts don’t say which memo.
What if the will made reference to “a memorandum that I plan to write that makes disputation of various items in my home that are dear to me.” The accompanying note, written two months after will was executed, lists various items of furniture and personal effects and names a beneficiary for each item.
Statutory Exception: found in UPC and many other states. Will may refer to written statement or list that disposes of tangible personal property (other than money) not specifically disposed of by the will. The written list must be signed by T and must describe the property with reasonable certainty. May be written before or after will executed; may be altered at any time.
“I devise the automobile that i own at my death to my nephew, Ned. I give the sum of $1,000 to each person who is in my employ at death.” Three months after the will is executed T trades his Volkswagen in on a new Cadillac; the effect is to increase the value of the gift to Ned from $1,000 to $9,000. Six months after that T fires two longtime employees and hires three new ones. Then T dies. What is the effect of these events on T’s will?
Not a concern. Doctrine of independent significance: Acts having independent lifetime notice may impact on will as well.
T executes will in 2005; it provides (inter alia) “I give the sum of $5000 to my sister, Paula” Paula dies in 2006; she is survived by her husband H and two children. Paula has a will which leaves all of the her estate to H. T dies in 2011. Who takes the $5000?
a. When a beneficiary named in the will dies before (or within 120 hours of ) the testator, the gift LAPSES.
b. UNLESS it is saved by the state’s ANTI-LAPSE STATUTES
c. The UPC statute applies when the predeceasing beneficiary is T’s grandparent or a lineal descendent of one of the grandparents who leaves issues who survive T.
Result here: Paula’s two kids split.
What of the fact that Paula left a will devising all her property to H?
Her issues still get it. Doesn’t allow P to choose who takes T’s money.
“I devise Blueacre to the children of my good friend, John Bates; I leave the residue of my estate to X.” At the time T executes his will, John Bates has three children: A, B, and C. Thereafter, during T’s lifetime, Bates has another child (D), and his son A dies leaving a child A jr. Then T dies; he is survived by John Bates; by Bates’ three children, B, C, and D; by Bates’ grandchild A jr. and by X. Who takes blue acre?
B, C, D (split evenly). Bates’ children at T’s death.
Class gift rule
When there is a gift by will to a group of persons generically described as a class (“children,” “nephews” and nieces,” etc) and some class member predeceases the testator and the lapse statute does not apply, the surviving class members take.
What if in the above example, the gift were to the children of my brother John Bates?
B, C, D, and A jr.
Because of Anti-Lapse Statute.
I devise all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate in equal shares to my good friend Alan Andrews, my business partner Betty Bates and my sister Carla Carter. Alan Andrews predeceases T, leaving a child (Alan jr ) who survives T. T , widower is also survived by Bates by Carter and by an only child Stephen. who takes the residuary estate?
Residual Rule
1/2 B, 1/2C - only two remaining residuals.
UPC Majority RULE: if the residuary estate is devised to two or more persons and the gift to one of them fails for any reason, the surviving residuary devises take the entire residuary estate in proportion to their interests in the residue.
What if, in previous problem, it was T’s sister Carla who predeceased T leaving a child (carla jr) who survived T? Andrews and Bates also survived T.
Anti-lapse statute–> 1/3 A 1/3B, 1/3Cjr
Specific Devise or Bequest:
I devise Blackacre [my 2006 cadillac] to my son john.
points to specific assets