Hypos Flashcards
T, a widow, has three children, A, B and C. In 2006, T makes a $100,000 gift to A. T does not memorialize the gift in writing. In 2007, T dies intestate survived by A, B, and C. T’s net probate estate is valued at $900,000. Who inherits T’s estate:
- UPC and Tenn. Code - $300,000 per child, at common law the 100,000 would be considered an advancement.
T, a widow, has three children, A, B and C. In 2006, T makes a $100,000 gift to A. T requires A to sign a writing that provides: “This $100,000 gift is intended to be part of A’s inheritance.” In 2007, T dies intestate survived by A, B, and C. T’s net probate estate is valued at $800,000. Who inherits T’s estate:
- UPC and Tenn. Code this would be considered an advancement
T, a widow, has three children, A, B and C. In 2006, T makes a $500,000 gift to A. T requires A to sign a writing that provides: “This $500,000 gift is intended to be part of A’s inheritance.” In 2007, T dies intestate survived by A, B, and C. T’s net probate estate is valued at $800,000. Who inherits T’s estate:
- UPC and Tenn. – A only gets the $500,000 since the shares are less after hotchpot. The other siblings get 400.
P dies intestate, survived by a child, A, and a sister, X. Six months later, A is convicted of first degree murder in the death of P.
Who inherits P’s estate under TN law?
- Only X inherits
Assume at P’s death, A and P owned Blackacre as joint tenants with right of survivorship. What happens to Blackacre at P’s death under Tennessee law (majority view)?
- A still keeps his half because he’s a tenant in common. There is a minority view in N.C. They call it a severance event…they take A’s half and turn it into a life estate which then goes to P after a delay.
P dies intestate, survived by a child, A, and a sister, X. Six months later, A is convicted of first degree murder in the death of P. A has a child, C. Who inherits P’s estate under TN law?
- Tennessee treats the slayer as those he has disclaimed so C would take the child. A majority of jurisdictions aren’t going to punish the descendant.
A, a widower, dies intestate with a large estate. A is survived by one child, C. C has three children, X, Y, and Z. C, who is elderly and wealthy, would prefer that X, Y, and Z inherit A’s estate. What would you advise C to do?
- C should disclaim it. You’re now treated as if you predeceased your children. You can even disclaim a portion of it.
A, a widower, dies intestate with a large estate. A is survived by one child, C. C has three children, X, Y, and Z. C, who is poor, is concerned that if he inherits A’s estate he (C) will be ineligible for Medicaid benefits. Thus, C would prefer that X, Y, and Z inherit A’s estate. What would you advise C to do?
- In most cases this is considered fraud…this could be a crime if someone wanted to push it. Be very careful with Medicaid…not to be confused with Medicare for old people.
A dies intestate with a net probate estate of $400,000. A is survived by one child, C. C has three children, X, Y, and Z. C owes $500,000 to the IRS. C would prefer that X, Y, and Z inherit A’s estate. What would you advise C to do?
- IRS, by the supremacy clause, you cannot disclaim to avoid federal income tax. Fed Income tax and Medicaid are the only two problem areas…otherwise you can disclaim to save $
A dies intestate. A was survived by B, her husband, and C, their child. At death, A and B owned Blackacre as “tenants by the entirety.” A and B acquired Blackacre ten years before A’s death. One month after A’s death, B disclaims all his interest in A’s intestate estate and the portion of Blackacre he acquired at A’s death. Are B’s disclaimers valid?
- You can disclaim the other share of a joint tenancy if your wife passes and you don’t want her half. But what about tenants by the entirety – this causes a lot of problems at common law because that position is that you can’t disclaim any of it. But the UPC and the IRS say you can disclaim the portion that you get through survivorship or the share of whatever the other joint tenant put toward the home.
A dies intestate. His closest heirs are his two brothers, B and C. B is a citizen of and resides in Germany. C is a citizen of Germany but resides in the United States as an undocumented alien. Who inherits A’s estate?
- Neither will be disqualified.
In 1975, H and W are married. In 2006, W files for divorce. One week before the divorce is final, H dies intestate survived by W and X (H’s brother). Who inherits H’s estate?
- W inherits. It all turns on whether the decree has been signed. Divorce only effects wills, estates, and trusts…not stuff like life insurance. You’d better change your beneficiary.
Father made an inter vivos gift to Daughter of $25,000. Father died intestate survived only by Daughter and Son with a distributable estate of $75,000. If Son receives $50,000 from Father’s estate, which one of the following would be the most likely explanation?
A. Father’s gift to Daughter was a satisfaction.
B. Father’s gift to Daughter was an advancement.
C. Daughter executed a valid disclaimer of her entire intestate share.
D. Daughter murdered Father.
Answer: B.
John and Beth were married for many years. During the course of their marriage, a son, Clay, was born. Clay was the only child John ever had. Although he had no rational basis for his suspicions, John believed that Clay was conceived as the result of a relationship between Beth and another man. Although Beth denied this, John persisted in his belief. Several DNA tests showed that Clay was John’s son. Beth died when Clay was four. When Clay was six, John executed a will that read as follows:
– My wife has betrayed me. She gave birth to a child by another man. The child is not mine, although I have provided a home for him. I therefore disinherit Clay. I leave everything to my aunt, Matilda.
/s/ John
John died without changing his belief or the will. Should the will be admitted to probate?
A. No, if John was suffering from an insane delusion.
B. Yes, if the will was validly executed.
C. No, because John had been unduly influenced in his beliefs.
D. Yes, because John has an absolute right to disinherit his son.
Answer: (A) No, if John was suffering from an insane delusion.
There wasn’t evidence that supported mental capacity. This rarely happens.
H, age 90, is a widower with no descendants. His closest relative is a brother, B. B is living overseas and has had no contact with H for several years. In 2007, H receives word from Y, a friend, that B has died; as it turns out, Y was mistaken. In 2008, H executes a will leaving all his property to X, a friend. H tells the attorney that he (H) “is leaving nothing to B because B is dead.” H dies in 2009, survived by X and B (who had been very ill but recovered). Who inherits H’s property?
- X - This is a will that is based on a mistake. Mistakes of testators cannot be corrected. Why? Think about it. What happens if we start fixing wills? People start saying, “you know what Dad meant for me to have that. Fix it.”
H, age 90, is a widower with one child, C. C lives next door to H, and H sees C everyday. In 2007, H receives word from Y, a friend, that C has died. It turns out, however, that C is not dead. H sees and talks to C everyday, but H nevertheless continues to believe that C is dead. In 2008, H executes a will leaving all his property to X, a friend. H tells the attorney that he (H) “is leaving nothing to C because C is dead.” H dies in 2009, survived by X and C. Who inherits H’s property?
- C, Insane Delusion
T records a will on DVD. Two witnesses (A and B) were present at all times on the DVD. According to the DVD will, T left all of his real property to X, a friend. At T’s death, the DVD is located, but no written will is found. T is survived by A, B, X, and F (T’s niece and closest heir). Who inherits T’s property?
- The U.S. opinion is that this does not qualify as a writing. The writing requirement is one they’re not going to show a lot of leeway in.
- In 2006, T executes a will with A (T’s son) and B (a friend) as witnesses. The will leaves all of T’s property to A. In 2007, T dies, survived by A, B, and C (T’s daughter). Who inherits T’s property under TN law:
A ½ C ½
- In 2005, T executes a will with A (a friend) and B (a friend) as witnesses. The 2005 will leaves all of T’s property to X (a friend). In 2006, T executes a new will with X and C (a friend) as witnesses. The 2006 will leaves $10,000 to B and the remainder of T’s property to X. In 2007, T dies, survived by A, B, C, X, and D (T’s son and sole heir). Who inherits T’s property under TN law
D
Frank wants his family to clearly understand why his estate plan leaves some of them out. He makes a video of himself using a webcam that will explain it all. He dies two years later. After his death, the video was found on his computer but no will was found. In the video, Frank appears to be reading from a set of note cards. He announces that he is of sound mind and intends for the video to serve as a recording of his testamentary intent. He then says: “To my oldest daughter, Fran, I give nothing, because she has had the bad sense to hang out with people who take advantage of her. To my next daughter, Claire, I give the sum of $2 million, but she must use it to do good in the world, as I know she will. To my son, Victor, I leave enough money to fly home for my funeral. Finally, to my wife, who I doubt has ever been faithful to me, I leave one year’s allowance of $250,000, which should give her enough time to find another sucker. If I have anything left over, I give it to the American Red Cross.” The Red Cross wants to know whether it can collect the legacy under Tennessee law.
A) The Red Cross can collect because the video qualifies as a holographic will.
B) The Red Cross can collect because the video qualifies as a nuncupative will.
C) The Red Cross can collect because Tennessee has adopted a harmless error statute.
D) The Red Cross is unlikely to be able to collect.
D
A and B are involved in an auto accident in which A dies. Prior to death, A had validly executed a formal will in which A left all of her property to her son, X. A, who was domiciled in TN at the time of death, was survived by X and Y (A’s daughter). Six months after A’s death, a wrongful death law suit is filed on behalf of A (against B) in TN state court, which is ultimately settled for $1 million. How will the $1 million be distributed?
- Wrongful death proceeds are distributed … x gets half and y gets ½
A dies in 2012; at the time of death, A was a resident of Tennessee. A executed a will in 2010. The typewritten will was signed by A and was notarized. However, it was not signed by any witnesses other than the notary. A’s 2010 will leaves all her property to X, a friend. A was survived by X and Z (her cousin and closest relative). How will A’s estate be distributed?
- Z gets the property…typewritten will and one witness
A. In 2006, T prepares a typewritten “will” that contains an express revocation clause. T signs the will, but no witnesses sign it. Does the 2006 “will” revoke T’s prior (1998) attested will?
No, it needs to be witnessed
- In 2003, T validly executes a will. In 2005, T writes a large “X” on each page of the will. Is the will revoked?
Yes
- In 2003, T validly executes a will. In 2005, T throws the will into the fireplace with the intent to revoke it. The will, however, was not destroyed, but merely charred on the right margin. The charring did not touch any of the words of the will. Is the will revoked?
No. Must be material.
- In 2003, T validly executes a will. T dies in 2005. The will is found in T’s safe after T’s death, but T’s signature is cut off. Is the will revoked?
Yes
- In 2003, T validly executes a will. In 2005, T accidentally cuts the will in half. Upon discovering the mistake, T tapes the will back together. Has the will been revoked?
- The physical act must be concurrent with the intent.
- T validly executes a will in 2001 leaving all of his property to A. In 2006, at a time when T lacked the capacity to execute a will, T deliberately destroys the 2001 will. In 2007, T dies survived by A and B (T’s sole heir). Who inherits T’s property?
It hasn’t been revoked
T wishes to revoke her will. She directs Mark, who is in her presence, to write an X on each page of a photocopy of her will and to make certain that the X touches the words of the will. Mark follows T’s instructions. Is the will revoked?
no
T, who is confined to a hospital bed, wishes to revoke her will. The will is located in T’s safe-deposit box at First National Bank. T directs her brother, Mark, to go to FNB and destroy the will. Mark follows T’s instructions to the letter and then telephones T informing her that the will has been destroyed. Was the will revoked?
no
- In 2005, T duly executed a typewritten will (the “2005 will”). The will was signed by T and three competent witnesses. The pertinent provisions of the 2005 will provided:
– “I, T, declare this to be my last will and hereby revoke all prior wills and codicils.
– 1. I leave $5,000 to my friend, Alice.
– 2. I leave the rest of my estate to my nephew, Bob.”
T died on May 1, 2006. T was survived by Alice and Bob (T’s only heir). When T’s 2005 will was found in T’s safe, T had drawn a line through the $5,000 bequest and in its place T had handwritten “$7,000.” Three witnesses are available to verify that the handwriting on the will (in Problems 1-4) belongs to T. What, if anything, will Alice inherit under Tennessee law?
Options:
– (a) $5,000
– (b) $7,000
– (c) $0
Answer: When he put the line through the 5K, he revoked it. There are some states that don’t recognize partial revocation (IN) but most would say the 5K is revoked. What about the 7K? The only way this could stand is if it is a codicil. Majority on codicil says you have to mark everything out and read whats left so we’re looking at $0 right now. But there’s always one other thing you should think of in this situation and that is DRR. Should we undue the revocation of the 5K? 5k or nothing? Which would he have preferred? He would’ve preferred the 5K. So, based on his presumed intent, under the Doctrine of Relative Revocation, we give her 5K.
- In 2000, T dies. T’s only heir is H. T’s safe-deposit box contains the following three documents, all duly signed and witnessed according to the law:
– 1. A will executed in 1995 devising all of T’s property to A.
– 2. A will executed in 1996 devising all of T’s property to B.
– 3. A document executed in 1999 reading: “I hereby revoke my 1996 will.”
Who inherits T’s property under Tennessee law? – Options: – (a) A – (b) B – (c) H
Answer: The rule in this State is that the mere act of revocation of a subsequent inconsistent or revocatory will does not of itself revive a former will and creates no presumption for or against revival, but the question to be determined from all the facts and circumstances is the intention of the testator. Wrinkle v. Williams, 37 Tenn. App. 27, 260 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. App. 1953). If all we have here is the evidence we’re given, H gets the property.
- On March 1, 2005, T duly executed a typewritten will leaving all of her property to A. On May 1, 2006, T duly executed a typewritten will leaving all of her property to B. The 2006 will contains an express revocation clause. T dies in 2007, survived by A, B, and C (T’s only heir). The following items are found in T’s safe-deposit box:
– 1. The 2005 will which was intact.
– 2. The 2006 will which was torn into four pieces.
Who inherits T’s estate under the UPC? Options: (a) A (b) B (c) C
Answer: Should we apply revival here due to the torn subsequent will? UPC 2-509 Revival of Revoked Will – according to the UPC, there’s a very slight presumption against revival…this will be opened up to extrinsic evidence. But if this is all we have, then C (T’s only heir) is the best answer. This is incredibly ambiguous.
- On March 1, 2005, T duly executed a typewritten will leaving all of her property to A. On May 1, 2006, T duly executed a typewritten will leaving all of her property to B. The 2006 will contains an express revocation clause. T dies in 2007, survived by A, B, and C (T’s only heir). The following items are found in T’s safe-deposit box:
– 1. The 2005 will which was intact.
– 2. The 2006 will which was torn into four pieces.
Who inherits T’s estate under Tennessee law? – Options: – (a) A – (b) B – (c) C
Answer: No presumption either way. This means it’s going to be the same answer. C will take.
In 2006, H and W legally divorce. W dies in 2007, survived by H, S, and B. W did not revoke or modify her 2005 will. Who inherits W’s estate under Tennessee law?
Answer: Tenn. Stat § 32-1-202. Dissolution. The answer is 50K to S and then the rest goes to the brother.
- T duly executes a will in 2003 (the “2003 will”), which leaves 90% of her estate to X and 10% to Y. T duly executes a new will in 2005 (the “2005 will”), which leaves 100% of her estate to X. The 2005 will contains an express revocation clause. In 2006, T, in a room full of friends, tears up the 2005 will with the intent to revoke it, telling her friends that she prefers the 2003 will. T dies in 2007, survived by X, Y, and S (T’s sole heir). Upon her death, the 2003 will is found intact and the 2005 will is found torn into four pieces.
How would the estate be distributed under TN law?
- How about TN where we don’t have a statute? Wrinkle v. Williams
The rule in this State is that the mere act of revocation of a subsequent inconsistent, or revocatory will does not of itself revive a former will and creates no presumption for or against revival, but the question to be determined from all the facts and circumstances is the intention of the testator. Wrinkle v. Williams, 37 Tenn. App. 27, 260 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. App. 1953).
Wrinkle v. Williams, 37 Tenn. App. 27, 36-37, 260 S.W.2d 304, 309 (1953) (“Hence it must be concluded beyond any doubt, as stated in proponent’s reason No. 2, that she had no intention of dying intestate. Therefore, from the established facts that she revoked the third will without fraud or undue influence of John Wrinkle and in accord with her wishes, that she had no intention of reviving the first will of 1935, and that she had no intention of dying intestate, all of which is conclusively established beyond any reasonable doubt, we think it must be held that she destroyed the third will with the intention of reviving the second will.”).
- W executes a will in 2005 that leaves all her property to F, her father. In 2010, W marries H. In 2011, W gives birth to her first child, C. In 2013, W dies. W never revoked or modified her 2005 will. What result under Tennessee law?
50/50 divided between spouse and child
- T duly executes a five-page will on June 1. Page four of the will contained a single clause; that clause left T’s residue to A. On August 1, T removes the staple from the will, substitutes a new page four (leaving T’s residue to B), and re-staples the will back together. Two days before death, T duly executed an attested codicil that provides in full:
– “I hereby revoke paragraph 3 of my will and replace it with the following sentence: I name D as my Executor. I hereby reaffirm all other provisions of my will.”
T dies on October 1, survived by A, B, D, and C (T’s sole heir). The codicil and the will (as modified) is found in T’s home, along with the old page four, which has been torn in half. Who inherits T’s residue?
Answer: The codicil incorporated the will by reference when it was made…this is the argument you would use for B because the original will wasn’t executed properly which is what is needed by the republication doctrine. Both would probably work. Then answer is B.
T duly executes a will on May 1. Clause 5 of the will provides: “My diamond watch should be given to the person whose name I told to my executor on April 30.” Clause 6 provides: “I leave my residue to X.” Who inherits the watch?
Answer: It’s in existence, but it’s not in writing. We can’t incorporate this. X gets the diamond watch.
