Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Trusts and Estate Question  (Read 849 times)

BME_Law

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Trusts and Estate Question
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:11:16 PM »
Here are some practice questions for my T+E exam on which I would appreciate some feedback.

1.  Otherwise intestate, O makes a properly witnessed and valid will, the material provisions of which  are "all to Ben" and "I disclaim the right to make more wills."  Two years later, O validly makes a holographic "will" which reads in its entirety "my Mercedes SL to Carol."  (This second will thus has no clause specifically revoking prior wills and codicils.)  O dies.  Who takes the SL?

A.  Carol, because the second "will" overrides the first.
B.  Carol, because in the absence of specific direction, the revocation of all prior wills and codicils is implied.
C.  Ben, because a holographic "will" cannot override an attested will.
D.  Ben, because O has validly disclaimed O's power to make further wills.

My answer/guess: A.  Even though O has disclaimed the right to make more wills, the subsequent "will" or codicil will squeeze out the provisions of the previous will.  Therefore, Ben would take everything but the Mercedes.

2.  O opened a joint bank account of the usual sort with Ben.  O alone deposited $100,000 in the account.  Ben appeared at the bank and attempted to withdraw $80,000 (more than half) from the account.  Can Ben withdraw the $80,000?

A.  Yes, because a common joint bank account is not the same as joint tenancy property.
B.  Yes, because O has made a completed gift to Ben of $100,000.
C.  No, because the "joint" nature of the account only applies at death.
D.  No, Ben can only withdraw $50,000 or half of the balance of the account.

My answer/guess: A.

botbot

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
Re: Trusts and Estate Question
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2008, 06:38:09 PM »
Here are some practice questions for my T+E exam on which I would appreciate some feedback.

1.  Otherwise intestate, O makes a properly witnessed and valid will, the material provisions of which  are "all to Ben" and "I disclaim the right to make more wills."  Two years later, O validly makes a holographic "will" which reads in its entirety "my Mercedes SL to Carol."  (This second will thus has no clause specifically revoking prior wills and codicils.)  O dies.  Who takes the SL?

A.  Carol, because the second "will" overrides the first.
B.  Carol, because in the absence of specific direction, the revocation of all prior wills and codicils is implied.
C.  Ben, because a holographic "will" cannot override an attested will.
D.  Ben, because O has validly disclaimed O's power to make further wills.

My answer/guess: A.  Even though O has disclaimed the right to make more wills, the subsequent "will" or codicil will squeeze out the provisions of the previous will.  Therefore, Ben would take everything but the Mercedes.

2.  O opened a joint bank account of the usual sort with Ben.  O alone deposited $100,000 in the account.  Ben appeared at the bank and attempted to withdraw $80,000 (more than half) from the account.  Can Ben withdraw the $80,000?

A.  Yes, because a common joint bank account is not the same as joint tenancy property.
B.  Yes, because O has made a completed gift to Ben of $100,000.
C.  No, because the "joint" nature of the account only applies at death.
D.  No, Ben can only withdraw $50,000 or half of the balance of the account.

My answer/guess: A.

1

Yeah, second "will" = codicil.  Would be interesting if the second will disclaimed all previous wills.



2 depends on the jurisdiction. 

If your casebook holds the position that joint bank account contributions are gifts at the creation/withdraw rather than gifts at death, I would go with B.  If your casebook hasn't addressed it, I would go with A. 

I like B the more I think about it.

jgsmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Trusts and Estate Question
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2008, 08:55:00 PM »
The answer is A, because the first will was a general testementary gift, the second will devised a specific property, this specific grant overides the general. The first guy would still get everything else. Also, I don't think you can disclaim your right to revoke in a will. It has to be done in a contract with some consideration.