Wills Flashcards
(fast pertaining to undue influence) Question asked, “Is the will invalid in whole or in part? Explain.
The first issue is whether the will is a product of undue influence. A will (or a gift in a will) is invalid if it is obtained through the exercise of undue influence. To establish undue influence, the contestants, who bear the burden of proof, must establish that:
1) influence was exerted on the testator;
2) the effect of the influence was to overpower the mind and free will of the testator, and
3) the effect of the influence was a will that would not have been executed but for the influence.
A presumption of undue influence arises when:
1) the will gives a substantial benefit to a party who stood in a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the testator;
2) the testator was in a dependent situation in which the party was in a dominant role,
3) the testator reposed trust and confidence in the party, and
4) the party was instrumental in preparing or procuring the will.
Once these elements are shown, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the will to prove by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that it was not induced by her undue influence.
THEN DISCUSS facts relating to whether the presumption applies & then discuss if the court finds no presumption, what the contestants must prove for undue influence.
THEN DISCUSS whether the will is wholly or partially invalid. The part of a will that is affected by undue influence is stricken and the remainder of the will is allowed to stand if doing so does not defeat the testator’s intent or destroy the testamentary scheme.
A presumption of undue influence arises when:
A presumption of undue influence arises when:
1) the will gives a substantial benefit to a party who stood in a fiduciary or confidential relationship with the testator;
2) the testator was in a dependent situation in which the party was in a dominant role,
3) the testator reposed trust and confidence in the party, and
4) the party was instrumental in preparing or procuring the will.
Once these elements are shown, the burden then shifts to the proponent of the will to prove by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that it was not induced by her undue influence.
Undue Influence in a will: How to begin analysis
The first issue is whether the will is a product of undue influence. A will (or a gift in a will) is invalid if it is obtained through the exercise of undue influence. To establish undue influence, the contestants, who bear the burden of proof, must establish that:
1) influence was exerted on the testator;
2) the effect of the influence was to overpower the mind and free will of the testator, and
3) the effect of the influence was a will that would not have been executed but for the influence.
Whether the will is wholly or partially invalid: The part of a will that is affected by undue influence is stricken and the remainder of the will is allowed to stand if doing so does not defeat the testator’s intent or destroy the testamentary scheme.
What effect does undue influence have on a will or a gift in a will?
If the will is wholly invalid and proves to be the product of undue influence, Testator’s estate should be distributed in equal shares to…..XYZ. At issue is the distribution of a testator’s estate when his will is denied probate. [define and discuss]
The part of a will that is affected by undue influence is stricken and the remainder of the will is allowed to stand if doing so does not defeat the testator’s intent or destroy the testamentary scheme.
At issue is the distribution of a testator’s estate when his will is denied probate:
FIRST DEFINE: Intestate succession is the statutory method of distributing assets that are not disposed of by will. If a decedent’s will is denied probate (for example due to a successful will contest) his entire estate passes by intestacy. If there is no surviving spouse, the entire estate passes to the decedent’s children and descendants of deceased children. In Illinois, the descendants take per stirpes, meaning that the property is divided into shares at the first generational level (regardless of whether there are any living takers) with the shares of each deceased child who left descendants passing to his descendants.
Define Intestate
Intestate succession is the statutory method of distributing assets that are not disposed of by will. If a decedent’s will is denied probate (for example due to a successful will contest) his entire estate passes by intestacy. If there is no surviving spouse, the entire estate passes to the decedent’s children and descendants of deceased children. In Illinois, the descendants take per stirpes, meaning that the property is divided into shares at the first generational level (regardless of whether there are any living takers) with the shares of each deceased child who left descendants passing to his descendants.
What if part of the will is invalid…
The part of a will that is affected by undue influence is stricken and the remainder of the will is allowed to stand if doing so does not defeat the testator’s intent or destroy the testamentary scheme.
Testates estate should be distributed to {will member}
At issue is the distribution of a lapsed residuary gift.
At CL, if a testator’s residuary estate (the portion of the estate that has not otherwise been particularly devised or bequeathed) is bequeathed to two or more beneficiaries and one of the beneficiaries’ shares lapses (fails) that share does not pass to the remaining beneficiaries, but instead falls out of the will and passes by intestacy. HOWEVER, Illinois has replaced this rule under statute, under which the lapsed share passes to the other residuary beneficiaries in proportion to their interests in the residue. [discuss who gets the lapsed share as it will pass to the remaining beneficiaries under the will…]
If only part of a will is affected by undue influence, what result?
The part of a will that is affected by undue influence is stricken and the remainder of the will is allowed to stand if doing so does not defeat the testator’s intent or destroy the testamentary scheme.
Will bequeaths his home at 123 College Street to nephew Neil and all of his personal property to his niece Nancy. Testator then decides to sell his house at 123 College street. He entered into a contract with a buyer who agreed to buy the house for 200k with the closing date of Jan. 15. Before closing, Testator dies survived by Nancy and Neil. On Jan. 15, executor transferred the deed to Testator’s house to Buyer and she paid 200k. Who should receive the 200k?
Neil should receive the 200k from the buyer. At issue is whether a specific devisee is entitled to the proceeds left unpaid at the testator’s death from the sale of specifically bequeathed property during the testator’s lifetime.
Generally, if specifically bequeathed property is not owned by the testator at death, the gift adeems (meaning it fails). The doctrine of equitable conversion provides that when a seller enters into a specifically enforceable contract for the sale of real property, in equity, the seller no longer owns the real property (the land), but instead owns personal property (the right to the sale proceeds). Thus, if a testator enters into a contract for the sale of specifically bequeathed property and the contract is still executory (meaning that it has not been fully performed) at his death, ademption applies because the testator didn’t own the real property at his death. The purchaser would take the property and the sale proceeds would pass to the beneficiaries of the testator’s PERSONAL property rather than the specific devisee.
HOWEVER IN ILLINOIS, A STATUTE OVERTURNS THE APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE CONVERSION IN THIS SITUATION. INSTEAD, THE SPECIFIC DEVISEE TAKES THE TESTATOR’S RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT, I.E., THE RIGHTS TO THE SALE PROCEEDS.
The Testator specifically bequeathed his house to Neil and thereafter entered into a contract for its sale to Buyer. Because closing had not yet taken place at the time of Testator’s death, the contract remained executory. Under the Illinois statute, Neil takes testator’s right under the contract, thus taking the $200k from Buyer.
The issue is whether an attesting witness can take a gift under a will.
The issue is whether an attesting witness can take a gift under a will.
In Illinois, a will must be witnessed by at least two witnesses. The fact that the will makes a gift to an attesting witness never results in the denial of the will to probate. However, the bequest to the attesting witness is void unless:
1) The will was also witnessed by two disinterested witnesses (therefore, the interested witnesses is supernumerary); or
2) The beneficiary would have been entitled to a share of the estate if the will were not probated, in which case the beneficiary takes the lesser of the bequest in the will or the share of the estate he would have taken if the will were not established (meaning if there was an earlier will).
If there is no alternate distribution of Testator’s [stamp collection], the party who was bequeathed all of Testator’s personal property “except for his stamp collection” the gift lapses and passes as a part of the residue. Testator’s will however, doesn’t dispose of the residue and thus there is a partial intestacy. In Illinois, the the decedent leaves no surviving spouse, the entire intestate estate passes to the decedent’s descendants per stirpes.
What if the will does not devise a residuary estate?
If there is no alternate distribution of Testator’s [stamp collection], (i.e., a party was bequeathed all of Testator’s personal property “except for his [stamp collection]” and that gift is found void– the gift lapses and passes as a part of the residue. Testator’s will however, doesn’t dispose of the residue and thus there is a partial intestacy. In Illinois, the the decedent leaves no surviving spouse, the entire intestate estate passes to the decedent’s descendants per stirpes.
The issue is whether crossing out a beneficiary’s name in a will effectively revokes the gift to that beneficiary:
A will can be revoked by physical act by burning, canceling, tearing, or obliterating it with the intent to revoke it. Most states permit partial revocations by a physical act of the testator as by crossing out one clause in the will. However, in Illinois, a will cannot be partially revoked by physical act. The deletion is disregarded. The only way that a will can be partially revoked in Illinois is by executing a codicil to the will. An attempted partial revocation is ineffective in Illinois so the individual beneficiary named in the will will receive the gift under the will.
Testator duly executed a will providing:
I give my 100 shares of XYZ common stock to my cousin Andy. Years later, Testator died survived by Andy. At the time of her death, Testator owned 200 shares of XYZ common stock, having acquired an additional 100 shares as the result of a dividend paid by XYZ to its shareholders in its own stock. Andy survived testator. How should the probated estate be distributed?
Andy is entitled to the original 100 shares of XYZ common stock owned by Testator and may be entitled to the additional 100 shares produced by the stock dividend; otherwise, Ed the residuary beneficiary, is entitled to the additional 100 shares. At issue is whether a specific bequest of stock includes additional shares produced by a stock dividend.
DEFINE SPECIFIC BEQUEST! A specific bequest is a gift of property that is particularly designated and is to be satisfied only by the receipt of the particular property described. Illinois follows the common law rules that a specific bequest of stock includes any additional shares produced by a stock split, but does not include shares produced by a stock dividend. However, under the UPC a specific bequest of stock also includes shares of stock produced by stock dividend.
Here, Andy is clearly entitled to the original 100 shares of stock specifically bequeathed to him. If the jurisdiction follows the UPC or has a similar statute, Andy also will be entitled to the additional 100 shares produced by the stock dividend. But if the jurisdiction follows the common law, (IL) the additional 100 shares will pass to Ed under the residuary clause.
Testator duly executed a will providing:
I give my home at 4 Cypress Garden to my cousin Ben. I give the residue of my estate to my friend Ed. Years later, Testator sold her home at 4 Cypress Garden and with the entire sales proceeds, purchased a condo as her new home. Testator died owning the condo. Ben & Ed survived testator. How should the probated estate be distributed?
The condo will likely pass as part of the residuary estate to Ed. At issue is whether a bequest of a specifically described home sold before the testator’s death includes a replacement home acquired with the sale proceeds.
Under the doctrine of ademption, when specifically bequeathed property is not in the testator’s estate at death (it was destroyed, sold, given away, or lost) the bequest is adeemed (meaning it fails). Generally, the testator’s intent is irrelevant and ademption is based solely on whether the specifically bequeathed property was part of the testator’s estate at her death or not.
HOWEVER, ILLINOIS COURTS HAVE TEMPERED THIS DOCTRINE BY REQUIRING SOME ACT BY THE TESTATOR FROM WHICH HER INTENT TO REVOKE THE GIFT MAY BE INFERRED.
Testator specifically bequeathed to Ben her home at 4 Cypress Garden. Because testator sold that home before her death and failed to change her will, under either approach the bequest adeems. Thus, the residuary beneficiary, Ed is entitled to the condo.
Testator duly executed a will providing:
I give my automobile to my friend Carrie. I give the residue of my estate to my friend Ed. Years later, Testator traded the while automobile that she owned when her will was executed for a blue automobile. Carrie and Ed survived testator. How should the probated estate be distributed?
[NOTE: not an ademption issue!]
Carrie is entitled to the blue car. At issue is whether a bequest of generically described automobile traded for another before testator’s death includes the replacement car.
A will takes effect only upon the death of the testator. Because of the ambulatory nature of a will, it operates upon circumstances and properties as they exist at the time of the testator’s death (will speaks at the time of death).
Here, testator specifically bequeathed to Carrie “my automobile.” Although at the time she executed her will, Testator owned a while one, at the time of her death when her will became operative she owned a blue one. Thus, Carrie is entitled to her automobile–meaning her blue one. NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN ADEMPTION ISSUE AS WITH THE HOME/CONDO BECAUSE THE GIFT WAS GENERICALLY RATHER THAN SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED.
Testator duly executed a will providing:
I give $10,000 to my friend Donna. I give the residue of my estate to my friend Ed. Three months after Testator died, Donna made a valid disclaimer of any rights to the 10k bequest to which she might otherwise be entitled. Donna and Ed survived testator along with Donna’s daughter. How should the probated estate be distributed?
The 10k likely fails and passes to Ed, the residuary beneficiary. At issue is whether a disclaimed bequest passes to the disclaimant’s issue.
A beneficiary may disclaim any interest that otherwise would pass to her from the decedent’s estate, with the consequence that the interest passes as though the disclaimant predeceased the decedent. The gift may be saved in favor of the disclaimant’s surviving descendants if she falls within the purview of the jurisdiction’s anti-lapse statute; otherwise, the gift fails and becomes part of the residuary estate. Illinois’s anti-lapse statute provides that the surviving descendants take by substitution only when the predeceasing beneficiary is a descendant of the testator.
Here, Donna validly disclaimed her rights to the 10k bequest, she will be treated as if she predeceased testator. Donna’s bequest will fail because she was a fiend, not a descendant of the Testator. Therefore, Ed, and not Donna’s daughter will take the 10k.
At issue is whether Testator’s will may be invalidated on the basis of fraud:
All or part of Testator’s will may be invalidated on the basis of fraud. At issue is whether Testator was willfully deceived into executing his will.
[DISCUSS EFFECT OF FRAUD]
Where the execution of a will or the inclusion therein of a particular gift is the result of fraud, the will or the particular gift is invalid.
[DISCUSS THE ELEMENTS OF FRAUD]
A finding of fraud requires a showing that the testator has been willfully deceived as to the character or content of an instrument, as to the extrinsic facts that would induce the will or a particular disposition, or with respect to facts material to a disposition.
Fraud invalidates a will only if the testator was in fact deceived by and acted in reliance on the misrepresentation (the testator would not have made the will or gift had he known the true facts)
Fraud in the execution occurs when there is a misrepresentation as to the nature of the contents of the instrument.
Fraud in the inducement occurs when the testator intends to execute the instrument as his will and to include the particular contents of that instrument, but he is fraudulently induced into making his will, or some particular gift therein, by misrepresentations as to facts which influence his motivation.
Testator gave instruction to have a testamentary trust that would give Fiance the income interest for life and Charity the remainder. However, friend told brother that if Testator leaves his entire estate to Fiance, then Fiance would give a generous gift to brother. Testator directed Brother (atty) to draft a will leaving his entire estate to a testamentary trust that would give Fiance the income interest for life, and Charity the remainder. However, the Brother drafted the will to include in favor of Fiance a general power of appointment, which by her exercise she could deprive Charity for the remainder. …what effect?
All or part of Testator’s will may be invalidated on the basis of fraud. At issue is whether Testator was willfully deceived into executing his will.
[DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF FRAUD]
[DEFINE FRAUD]
[DISCUSS TWO TYPES OF FRAUD]
[DISCUSS FACTS]
Testator gave instruction to have a testamentary trust that would give Fiance the income interest for life and Charity the remainder. However, friend told brother that if Testator leaves his entire estate to Fiance, then Fiance would give a generous gift to brother. Testator directed Brother (atty) to draft a will leaving his entire estate to a testamentary trust that would give Fiance the income interest for life, and Charity the remainder. However, the Brother drafted the will to include in favor of Fiance a general power of appointment, which by her exercise she could deprive Charity for the remainder. Rather than informing Testator of these changes, Brother advised Tesator that the will reflected his instructions. Moreover, Fiance’s promise to Brother that he would be treated generously is she was left with everything indicates he intended to deceive Testator. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support a claim of fraud in the execution. Because only Friances general power appears to be infected by fraud, a court would invalidate that power ALONE, leaving Charity as the residuary taker rather thatn invalidate the entire will.
If Testator’s will is invalid, how should the issue of distribution of decedent’s estate be when his will is denied probate and is survived by a wife but no descendants.
Under illinois and majority of states, Surviving spouse takes entire estate
If Testator’s will is invalid, how should the issue of distribution of decedent’s estate be when his will is denied probate and he is not survived by a spouse or descendants.
In Illinois and most states, his estate will pass by intestate succession. If the decedent is not survived by a spouse or descendants, the estate passes to the decedent’s parents and descendants of parents, (meaning the decedent’s brothers and sisters and the issue of deceased brothers and sisters)
Intestate share is deceased is survived only by an uncle and a niece?
In Illinois and most states, his estate will pass by intestate succession. If the decedent is not survived by a spouse or descendants, the estate passes to the decedent’s parents and descendants of parents, (meaning the decedent’s brothers and sisters and the issue of deceased brothers and sisters). The niece is a descendant of Testator’s parents and thus takes to the exclusion of the Uncle.
Incorporation By Reference
In most states, a document that is not present when a will is executed may be incorporated into the will by reference so that it is considered part of the will. To incorporate a document by reference the T must intend to do so and
1) the document must be in existence at the time the will was executed
2) the will must refer to the document as one in existence, and
3) the language of the will must sufficiently describe the writing to permit its identification. (“my will” referring to first original will in a second will is probably not sufficient, but if the first document was the only document possible to which the second will could be referring, an argument for incorporation could be made)
If the first document is not found to be incorporated by reference into the second will then the Testator’s estate will pass according to the terms of the second, partial will and by the laws of intestacy.
What is a trustee prohibited from doing?
- Engage in self-dealing
- Borrow money
- Continue a business w/o authorization
- Trustee is liable for losses incurred by the business unless trustee has gotten court approval to continue the business.
- When there are 3 or more trustees, trustees who dissent from the decisions of the majority of trustees, will not be liable
What is the trustee allowed to do with the property?
General approach to trustee’s powers: Trustee can do almost anything with some clearly defined SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS.
TRUSTEE(S) CAN:
- Sell any real or personal property.
- Mortgage property.
- Lease property.
- Make ordinary repairs
- Contest, compromise, or settle claims. OR
- Do almost anything to manage the corpus of the trust.
What determines the powers of a trustee?
Powers can be exercised by a trustee pursuant to: The terms of the trust; terms of a statute; or by court decree
⇒ These fiduciary powers also encompass what an executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate can do.
Definition of Executor?
Executor: The person nominated in a testator’s will to act as personal representative and execute the will provisions. The executor carries out the will’s directions regarding disposition of the testator’s estate.
What is the definition of administrator of a decedent’s estate?
⇒ Definition – Administrator: A person appointed by the probate court as personal representative to administer (collect, manage, and distribute) the estate of a person who dies intestate, or the estate in a will where no executor is available or named in the will.
Rules governing trust revocation by the settlor
⇒ In Illinois, Trusts are HARD to terminate; they are IRREVOCABLE and UNAMENDABLE UNLESS the power to revoke and amend is EXPRESSLY reserved in the trust instrument.
TRUST MODIFICATION BY
TRUSTEE(S) AND/OR BENEFICIARIES:
TRUST MODIFICATION BY
TRUSTEE(S) AND/OR BENEFICIARIES:
⇒ Need all of beneficiaries’ consent &
⇒ Objectives of the trust would be defeated or substantially impaired if the trust is not modified.
⇒ The material purpose of the trust comes first, overriding any specific directions in the trust. This is called the chafflin doctrine. (see hypo 29)
What is the Chafflin doctrine?
To modify a trust by either the trustee or beneficiaries, when the material purpose of the trust comes first, overriding any specific directions in the trust. This is called the chafflin doctrine.
SELF-DEALING PROHIBITION:
- Trustee cannot buy or sell trust assets to himself/herself (an absolute rule!)
- Trustee cannot borrow trust funds. (another absolute rule)
- Trustee cannot lend money to the trust. (another absolute rule; any interest earned on such a loan must be returned to the trust, and any security given for the loan is invalid)
- Trustee cannot _______________ from serving as trustee (except for appropriate trustee fees). Also, Trustee cannot take advantage of confidential information received while trustee.
- Corporate trustee cannot buy its own stock as a trust investment.
THE TWO (2) AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES ON SELF-DEALING:
- Duty to segregate trust assets from personal assets.
Remedy for violation of this duty:
• If commingled funds are used to buy an asset and the asset goes down in value, there is a conclusive presumption that personal funds were used.
• If the asset goes up in value, there is a conclusive presumption that conclusive presumption that trust funds were used.
- Duty to earmark trust assets by titling them in trustee’s name
Remedies for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES:
- Beneficiary can sue to remove the trustee
- Beneficiary can ratify the transaction and waive the breach.
- Beneficiary can sue for any loss
- An action to recover losses to the trust is called surcharge.
NO FURTHER INQUIRY RULE: ⇒ Breach of a fiduciary duty by engaging in self-dealing is an automatic wrong and no further inquiry need be made. Note: ⇒ Good faith is NOT a defense. ⇒ Reasonableness is NOT a defense.
ALSO ACTIONS AGAINST 3P (rules) + tort and contract remedies
An action to recover losses to the trust is called?
An action to recover losses to the trust is called surcharge.
What is a surcharge?
An action to recover losses to the trust is called surcharge.
INDIRECT SELF-DEALING:
INDIRECT SELF-DEALING: ⇒ Self-dealing rules also apply to loans or sales to a relative of the trustee or to a business of which the trustee is an officer, employee, partner, or principal shareholder (see hypo 35)
ACTIONS AGAINST A THIRD PARTY WHEN
TRUSTEE ENGAGES IN SELF-DEALING:
⇒ If trustee engages in a prohibited transaction, such as self-dealing, and sells trust property to a third party, the beneficiary cannot sue the purchaser of property from the trustee if that purchaser was a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value without notice (see hypo 34)
⇒ To keep the purchaser from being a BFP and thus making the purchaser liable to the beneficiary, the purchaser not only has to know that she was dealing with a trustee, but that the trustee was engaged in self-dealing
NO FURTHER INQUIRY RULE:
⇒ Breach of a fiduciary duty by engaging in self-dealing is an automatic wrong and no further inquiry need be made.
Note:
⇒ Good faith is NOT a defense.
⇒ Reasonableness is NOT a defense.
EXCULPATORY CLAUSES:
⇒ These are clauses that attempt to relieve a trustee of liability for a breach of a fiduciary duty.
⇒ They CANNOT be used to shield trustee(s) from all liability b/c it is against public policy & thus VOID.
Nor can exculpatory clauses be used to shield a trustee from liability for:
- Bad faith,
- Intentional breach of trust,
- Recklessness, or
- An abuse of a confidential relationship.
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF TRUSTEE IN CONTRACT:
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF TRUSTEE IN CONTRACT:
Unless the contract explicitly shields the trustee from liability, the trustee is personally liable to third parties on contracts the trustee entered into related to the trust property.
Even if there is personal liability, the trustee will be reimbursed on the contract by the trust if two (2) things are satisfied:
- The contract was within the powers of the trust, AND
- Trustee was acting in the course of proper administration of the trust.
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF TRUSTEE IN TORT:
Trustee is personally liable for all torts by trustee or trustee’s employees.
• An absolute rule, no exceptions.
• To deal with this liability, trustee should buy liability insurance and charge the cost to the trust.
Trustee can get reimbursement from the trust for any tort claims if two requirements are satisfied:
- Trustee must have been acting within trustee’s powers, only taking on risks that are a normal incident Trustee conduct, AND
- Trustee was not personally at fault
What are trustee investment powers?
⇒ Trustee must manage the property of the trust on behalf of the beneficiary, and this means the investment of the corpus of the trust.
⇒ The Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA) gives broad latitude to trustees to choose investments.
⇒ Trustee can pursue what UPIA calls the modern portfolio theory of investment, where the trustee creates a custom-tailored investment strategy for this particular trust.
Two (2) key factors to remember:
- Trustee must consider the role each investment plays within the overall trust portfolio.
- Trustee must consider the expected total return from income and capital gain.
• Trustee does not have to justify the prudence of each investment looked at by itself; can balance off risky speculative investments against safe, conservative investments.
Specific things to remember:
- Prudence is not measured by hindsight; look at the decision to invest when made, not later; trustee does not have to have a crystal ball.
- Trustee can exercise adjustment power and allocate capital gains to income.
a. Trustee can switch capital gains into the income category if necessary to protect the income beneficiary, and vice versa.
b. End goal is fairness to all beneficiaries.
• The key to the UPIA is flexibility to shape the investment strategy for trustee maximum total return, along with the flexibility to adjust income between the income and remainder beneficiaries to be fair to each of them.
Federal Tax Exclusion
$14,000 annual amount that can be excluded from gift tax computation for each gift made to a different recipient in a calendar year, and thereby not be treated as a gift for taxation purposes.
Decedent
Person who has died with property to be distributed.
Heirs/Next of Kin/Intestate Beneficiaries:
The people entitled to another’s property by intestate succession.
Intestacy
When a decedent dies without a valid will and their estate property is distributed pursuant to a state statute.
Probate
Probate:
The process of proving a will, or having it declared valid and effective following the death of the testator.
Probate Court
Probate Court:
The specialty court that hears and adjusts matters concerning wills and intestate distribution, including administration of estates and other aspects of the testamentary process.
Residuary
Residuary:
Whatever remains in the probate estate after the payment of specifically designated gifts of items or cash.
