T&E Final Outline PDF

CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW........................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 5 TESTAMENTA...

CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW........................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 5 TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM................................................................................................................................. 5 STATE LAW....................................................................................................................................................... 5 PROBLEM 1........................................................................................................................................................... 6 Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)........................................................................................ 6 PROBLEM 2........................................................................................................................................................... 7 SOURCES OF LAW, PROBATE COURTS, & PROBATE ADMINISTRATION........................................................... 7 STATE PROBATE COURTS................................................................................................................................ 7 PROBATE.......................................................................................................................................................... 8 PROBATE & NONPROBATE PROPERTY......................................................................................................... 10 PRELIMINARY TOPICS ON DEATH & DYING..................................................................................................... 11 DETERMINATION OF DEATH.......................................................................................................................... 11 INCAPACITY & PLANNING FOR DEATH.......................................................................................................... 11 DIGITAL ASSETS............................................................................................................................................. 12 DISPOSTIONS OF FINAL REMAINS................................................................................................................ 13 Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)............................................................................. 13 THE SLAYER RULE......................................................................................................................................... 14 DISCLAIMERS................................................................................................................................................. 14 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY................................................................................................................. 16 MINOR CHILDREN THAT SURVIVE YOU......................................................................................................... 16 TAXES – SIDE NOTES..................................................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 2 – INTESTACY..................................................................................................... 17 INTRODUCTION – INTESTATE ESTATES........................................................................................................... 17 DETERMINING HEIRS & SHARES OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE....................................................................... 18 PROBLEM 1......................................................................................................................................................... 20 PROBLEM 2......................................................................................................................................................... 20 PROBLEM 3......................................................................................................................................................... 21 MODES OF DISTRIBUTION: REPRESENTATION................................................................................................ 21 ENGLISH PER STIRPES.................................................................................................................................. 22 MODERN PER STIRPES.................................................................................................................................. 22 PER CAPITA AT EACH GENERATION............................................................................................................. 23 Estate of Mebust (Montana, 1992).................................................................................................................... 24 PROBLEM 4......................................................................................................................................................... 24 PROBLEM 5......................................................................................................................................................... 25 HALF-BLOOD...................................................................................................................................................... 25 ADOPTION.......................................................................................................................................................... 26 PROBLEM 7......................................................................................................................................................... 27 ADVANCEMENTS................................................................................................................................................ 27 CHAPTER 3 – WILLS............................................................................................................. 28 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 28 PROTECTIVE DOCTRINE: INTERNAL FACTORS................................................................................................ 28 TESTAMENTARY INTENT................................................................................................................................ 28 Estate of Hand (Oh. Ct. App. 2016)................................................................................................................... 29 PROBLEM 1......................................................................................................................................................... 29 TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY............................................................................................................................ 29 Estate of Nalaschi (Pa. Super. 2014)............................................................................................................... 30 LUCID INTERVALS.......................................................................................................................................... 31 PROBLEM 3......................................................................................................................................................... 32 INSANE DELUSION......................................................................................................................................... 32 Estate of Zielinski (NY. App. Div. 1995)............................................................................................................ 32 PROBLEM 4......................................................................................................................................................... 33 PROTECTIVE DOCTRINE: EXTERNAL FACTORS............................................................................................... 33 UNDUE INFLUENCE........................................................................................................................................ 34 In re Estate of Kurrle (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).................................................................................................... 36 DURESS.......................................................................................................................................................... 37 In re Estate of Rosasco (NY Sur. Ct. 2011)...................................................................................................... 38 FRAUD............................................................................................................................................................ 38 PROBLEM 5......................................................................................................................................................... 39  FORGERY........................................................................................................................................................ 39 CHAPTER 4 – WILLS............................................................................................................. 40 FORMALITIES: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 40 ATTESTED WILLS........................................................................................................................................... 40 In re Groffman (England, 1969)........................................................................................................................ 41 PROBLEM 1......................................................................................................................................................... 42 PROBLEM 2......................................................................................................................................................... 42 WITNESS COMPETENCY & “PURGING” STATUTES....................................................................................... 42 ATTESTATION CLAUSES & SELF-PROVING AFFIDAVITS............................................................................... 43 SAFEGUARDING THE WILL............................................................................................................................. 43 ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................................................... 44 PROBLEM 5......................................................................................................................................................... 44 HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS.................................................................................................................................... 44 In re Will of Morris (VA Cir. Ct. 2005)............................................................................................................ 45 ELECTRONIC & DO-IT-YOURSELF WILLS...................................................................................................... 46 HARMLESS ERROR......................................................................................................................................... 46 Estate of Stoker (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)............................................................................................................... 46 WILL AMENDMENT & REVOCATION.................................................................................................................. 47 CODICILS........................................................................................................................................................ 48 PROBLEM 8......................................................................................................................................................... 49 REVOCATION BY SUBSEQUENT WRITING..................................................................................................... 49 REVOCATION BY PHYSICAL ACT................................................................................................................... 49 PROBLEM 9......................................................................................................................................................... 50 LOST WILLS.................................................................................................................................................... 50 In re Estate of Conley (ND 2008)..................................................................................................................... 50 PARTIAL REVOCATION BY PHYSICAL ACT.................................................................................................... 51 REVOCATION BY OPERATION OF LAW.......................................................................................................... 51 DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION (DOCTRINE OF INEFFECTIVE REVOCATION).................................. 52 REVIVAL OF REVOKED WILLS.......................................................................................................................... 53 PROBLEM 11....................................................................................................................................................... 53 CHAPTER 5 – WILLS............................................................................................................. 54 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 54 COMPONENTS OF WILLS................................................................................................................................... 54 INTEGRATION: STAPLE RULE........................................................................................................................ 54 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE................................................................................................................. 54 Gifford v. Gifford (Ark. 1991).......................................................................................................................... 55 PROBLEM 2......................................................................................................................................................... 56 LISTS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY................................................................................................. 57 PROBLEM 3......................................................................................................................................................... 57 DISPOSITIVE PROVISIONS................................................................................................................................ 57 CLASSIFICATIONS OF DEVISES..................................................................................................................... 57 Aldrich v. Basile (Fla. 2014)............................................................................................................................. 58 POWERS OF APPOINTMENT: GENERAL & SPECIFIC..................................................................................... 59 DEFINITIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 59 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS......................................................................................................................... 61 APPOINTMENT OF THE EXECUTOR............................................................................................................... 61 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE POWERS....................................................................................................... 62 BOND.............................................................................................................................................................. 62 OTHER PROVISIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 63 IN TERROREM OR NO CONTEST CLAUSES................................................................................................... 63 In re Estate of Shumway (Ariz. 2000)............................................................................................................... 64 PROBLEM 5......................................................................................................................................................... 64 MINOR CHILDREN.......................................................................................................................................... 64 In re R.M.S. (Colo. 2006).................................................................................................................................... 65 PROBLEM 6......................................................................................................................................................... 66 “JUST DEBTS”................................................................................................................................................ 66 In re Estate of Vincent (Tenn. 2003)................................................................................................................ 67 PROBLEM 7......................................................................................................................................................... 68 TAX APPORTIONMENT................................................................................................................................... 68 NEGATIVE WILLS: THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE INTESTATE HEIRS.................................................................... 69 2 CHAPTER 6 – WILL INTERPRETATION................................................................................. 70 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 70 FAILURE TO SURVIVE: LAPSE.......................................................................................................................... 70 PROBLEM 1......................................................................................................................................................... 71 SIMULTANEOUS DEATH.................................................................................................................................... 71 PROBLEM 4......................................................................................................................................................... 72 ANTILAPSE........................................................................................................................................................ 73 Lorenzo v. Medina (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010).................................................................................................... 74 CLASS GIFTS..................................................................................................................................................... 75 DISCREPANCIES B/W DISPOSITIVE PROVISIONS & THE PROBATE ESTATE.................................................. 76 PROBLEM 7......................................................................................................................................................... 76 ADEMPTION BY EXTINCTION......................................................................................................................... 76 In re Estate of Sagel (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)...................................................................................................... 77 PROBLEM 9......................................................................................................................................................... 79 ADEMPTION BY SATISFACTION..................................................................................................................... 79 ABATEMENT................................................................................................................................................... 79 PROBLEM 13....................................................................................................................................................... 80 PROBLEM 14....................................................................................................................................................... 80 ACCESSION.................................................................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 7 – FAMILY PROTECTION.................................................................................... 81 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 81 CHANGES IN FAMILY STATUS.......................................................................................................................... 81 FAMILY PROTECTION........................................................................................................................................ 81 THE ELECTIVE SHARE................................................................................................................................... 83 THE 1969 UPC................................................................................................................................................ 83 THE 1990 UPC................................................................................................................................................ 85 COMMUNITY PROPERTY................................................................................................................................. 87 ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS.......................................................................................................................... 88 HOMESTEAD PROTECTIONS: EXEMPTIONS & ALLOWANCES...................................................................... 88 EXEMPTION PROPERTY................................................................................................................................. 89 FAMILY ALLOWANCE...................................................................................................................................... 89 WAIVER BY AGREEMENT................................................................................................................................ 90 Matter of Estate of Garbade (NY Supr. Ct. App. Div. 1995)............................................................................ 91 PROTECTION AGAINST ACCIDENTAL OMISSION............................................................................................. 91 OMITTED SPOUSE.......................................................................................................................................... 91 OMITTED CHILDREN...................................................................................................................................... 92 Estate of Maher v. Iglikova (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)..................................................................................... 93 CHAPTER 8 – TRUST............................................................................................................. 94 TRUST: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 94 DISTINCTION BETWEEN GIFTS & TURSTS....................................................................................................... 95 Peterson v. Peck (Ark. App. 2013)..................................................................................................................... 98 PROBLEM 1......................................................................................................................................................... 98 ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE TRUSTS...................................................................................................................... 98 DONATIVE CAPACITY & INTENT TO CREATE A TRUST.................................................................................. 99 In re Estate of Mannara (NY Surr. Ct. NY City 2004)................................................................................... 101 TRUST PROPERTY........................................................................................................................................ 102 PROBLEM 5....................................................................................................................................................... 103 DEEDS & DECLARATIONS............................................................................................................................ 103 TRUST BENEFICIARIES................................................................................................................................ 103 TRUSTEES.................................................................................................................................................... 104 In re Estate of Rauschenberg (20th Judicial Cir. Ct., Lee City, Fla. Aug. 1, 2014)...................................... 105 TRUSTEE POWERS....................................................................................................................................... 105 FIDUCIARY DUTIES....................................................................................................................................... 106 TYPES OF PRIVATE TRUSTS............................................................................................................................ 106 INTER VIVOS & TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS................................................................................................... 107 REVOCABLE & IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS....................................................................................................... 108 OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................................ 108 3  PROBLEM 7....................................................................................................................................................... 109 PROBLEM 8....................................................................................................................................................... 109 CHAPTER 9 – TRUST........................................................................................................... 110 DISTRIBUTIONS: RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARIES & CREDITORS IN PRIVATE TRUSTS.................................... 110 BENEFICIARIES............................................................................................................................................ 110 In re JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Surr. Ct. 2012)....................................................................................... 113 PROBLEM 1....................................................................................................................................................... 114 PROBLEM 2....................................................................................................................................................... 114 CREDITORS.................................................................................................................................................. 114 EFFECT OF DISCRETIONARY STANDARD.................................................................................................... 114 EFFECT OF SUPPORT STANDARD............................................................................................................... 116 SPENDTHRIFT PROVISIONS........................................................................................................................ 116 Scheffel v. Krueger (NH 2001)....................................................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER 11 – FIDUCIARY DUTIES................................................................................... 120 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 120 DUTY OF LOYALTY........................................................................................................................................... 121 In re Blumenstyk (NJ 1997)............................................................................................................................. 122 Stegemeier v. Magness (Del. 1999).................................................................................................................. 123 PROBLEM 1....................................................................................................................................................... 124 DUTY OF PRUDENCE....................................................................................................................................... 124 PROBLEM 2....................................................................................................................................................... 125 PROBLEM 3....................................................................................................................................................... 125 SUBSIDIARY DUTIES....................................................................................................................................... 125 DUTY OF IMPARTIALITY................................................................................................................................ 126 DUTY TO INFORM & REPORT....................................................................................................................... 127 REMEDIES FOR BREACH; TRUSTEE EXCULPATION; DIRECTED TRUSTS..................................................... 128 4  CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION - FOCUS OF T&E: how society regulated the transmission of property from the dead to the living - WHO: o Testators – will makers o Settlors – trust makers o Donors TESTAMENTARY FREEDOM - FREEDOM OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION: testators & settlors enjoy the nearly unrestricted power to dispose of their property as they please o Rationale: encourages ppl to work hard & save § Ppl accumulate property during their life knowing they will be able to give it to whom they life after death o Added stick to their bundle of property rights o Said to promote social welfare by: § Maximizing donor satisfaction § Promoting capital accumulation § Facilitating well-informed donative choices § Strengthening family relationships. - POWER TO TRASNFER ASSETS @ DEATH VS. POWER TO INHERIT o Power to transfer assets at death à U.S. system § American T&E grants an almost unlimited right to distribute property to anyone in any amount Exception: spouses à You CANNOT disinherit your spouse o Power to inherit à civil law countries § The power to direct who receives property is sharply limited by the rights of fam members to inherit & receive support from the decedent’s estate “birth-right” § Ex: France, Italy, & Germany § Ex: children are assured a “forced share” of their parents’ property at death - GIFT OVER PROVISION: if something doesn’t get fulfilled, you can then transfer it to the person/entity (residuary) o “if X doesn’t happen, then Y” o Y = residuary estate STATE LAW - Testamentary freedom consists of 2 components: o (1) DISPOSITIONAL CONTROL à the privilege of saying who gets your property & how much they get § In the US, very few restrictions on dispositional control 5  Testators & settlors may even make completely arbitrary dispositions § R3d §10.1 à main function of the law is to facilitate, rather than regulate Curtails testamentary freedom only to the extent that the donor attempts to make a disposition that is prohibited or restricted by an overriding rule of law o Ex: rules that protect creditors and surviving spouses, decedents may make dispositions that are “unreasonable, unjust, injudicious, or cruel.” o (2) DEAD HAND CONTROL à impose restrictive terms that will last long after their (owner’s) death § May sometimes be regulated by limiting the duration of donor-imposed restrictions Ex: Rule Against Perpetuities à prevents settlors (trust makers) from creating interests that remain contingent for too long into the future - Testamentary dispositions that violate public policy à may be rejected o Example of a condition that does violate public policy: decedents might try to condition a beneficiary’s inheritance on their marrying of a person who meets certain criteria § When applied to a beneficiary who has not been married before, cts generally uphold these restrictions as long as they are “reasonable” o Shapira v. United National Bank (Ohio C.P. 1974) à ct upheld a condition that required the dead father’s sons to marry a Jewish girl w/in 7 yrs of his death or their inheritance would go to the State of Israel § did NOT find that this condition violated public policy bc 7 yrs was sufficient § demonstrates the strength of testator’s freedom to create preconditions PROBLEM 1 Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1975) PUBLIC POLICY FACTS - Owner of the property & testatrix died & upon her death called for her executor to raze (demolish) her home, sell the land, & distribute the proceeds to her estate o The house was part of the Kingsbury Place subdivision in St. Louis, which is a city landmark due to its architectural significance. - Plaintiffs: individual neighboring property owners & certain trustees o Claim: razing the home will adversely affect their property rights& is contrary to public policy o Relief sought: injunction to prevent demolishing the house PROCEDURAL HISTORY - At trial learned that destroying the house – worth $40k as it stood – would provide a net of only $650 to Johnson’s beneficiaries - Nevertheless, the trial ct denied the injunction bc the testator could’ve torn her house down if she wanted when she was alive - Ps appealed ORDER: REVERSE RULE: When a landowner attempts to compel his successor in interest to do to the land something against public policy, a court may deem the condition void. HOLDING: demolition of the dwelling will result in an unwarranted loss to this estate, the Ps, & the public 6  -It becomes apparent that no individ, group of individs, nor the community generally benefits from the senseless destruction of the house; instead, all are harmed & only the caprice of the dead testatrix is served REASONING: - (1) destruction of the house harms the neighbors (depreciates their property values), - (2) detrimentally affects the community (house is a designated landmark), - (3) causes monetary loss in excess of $39k to the estate & - (4) is without benefit to the dead woman - It is proper for the court to step in here in the name of public policy. - Considered to be against public policy if it conflicts with the morals of the time and contravenes any established interest of society. PROBLEM 2 SOURCES OF LAW, PROBATE COURTS, & PROBATE ADMINISTRATION - T&E laws arise almost entirely under state law & vary from one jdx to the next - Uniform Probate Code (UPC) & Uniform Trust Code (UTC) à promulgated in an attempt for uniformity o UPC: sizable minority of US states have enacted significant portions o UTC: majority of US states have enacted significant portions STATE PROBATE COURTS PROBATE COURTS: state cts empowered to oversee the administration of decedent’s estates - Aka: surrogate’s ct, orphan’s ct, prerogative ct - IN FLORIDA: no separate probate courts o Probate matters are handled by FL’s circuit cts - COURTS OF LIMITED JDX o Degree of limitation varied by jdx o Generally empowered to: § (1) determine the validity of a decedent’s will Or in the absence of a will à i.e. an intestacy o Intestacy = the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having in force a valid will or other binding declaration. § (2) to appoint a personal representative (the person who is in charge of administering an estate) For estates w/ a will à personal rep = EXECUTOR For interstate estates à personal rep = ADMINISTRATOR § (3) to settle some disputes In some jdxs, probate cts have authority to hear a broad range of litigated matters In others, conflict must be resolved in another ct altogether § (4) to accept a final report from the personal rep when that process ends PROBATE JUDGES: typically elected, in a few jdxs, they are appointed by the governor 7  - Not all states require probate judges to be admitted to the bar - Some require that probate judges hold a law degree, but others do not even require this PROBATE PROBATE: traditional process for administering a decedent’s property after death - Property passes through probate by: o (1) direction of the decedent’s will (if they have one) or o (2) pursuant to the intestacy statutes (if they don’t have a will) - Make take 1 of 2 basic forms: o (1) INFORMAL PROBATE § Default process in most jdxs Esp if the value of the state is small or moderate & there are limited # of heirs or beneficiaries o (2) FORMAL PROBATE - Probate ensures that a decedent’s heirs or beneficiaries hold marketable title to property received from the decedent's estate o HEIRS: people who take through intestacy o BENEFICIARIES: people who inherit under the terms of a will - Probate seeks to protect the decedent’s creditors o Including: local, state, & fed taxing authorities - PRIMARY OR DOMICILIARY JDX: the estate must be probated in the jdx where the decedent was domiciled at death o All personal property, regardless of where it is located, will be administered through the probate ct in the primary jdx - ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION: any real property outside of the primary jdx must be administered in the jdx where it is located o Real property subject to ancillary administration will be handled according to the laws of that state, even if it conflicts w/ the law in the primary jdx INFORMAL PROBATE - (1) TESTACIES – where the decedent made a will o The executor (personal representative of the testate estate) petitions the probate court to admit the decedent’s will § This filing must list the name & addresses of any spouse, children, heirs, & devisees (including ages of any minors) of the decedent § If the ct deems the will to be valid à it grants letters testamentary to the executor - (2) INTESTACIES – when there is no will o The probate court will appoint a personal representative (administrator) § selects the administrator based on a priority list starting w/: the decedent’s spouse or domestic partner then any adult children, parents, siblings, or other fam members § An administrator has the same duties & responsibilities as an executor, serving in a fiduciary capacity for the estate o After the ct appoints an administrator à it will issue letters of administration to the administrator 8  - LETTERS TESTAMENTARY & LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION: establish the personal rep’s authority to act on behalf of the decedent’s estate when interacting w/ beneficiaries & 3rd parties, such as banks, acct custodians, & creditors - NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: After the ct grants letters, the executor or administrator must notify all known interested parties of the appointment, typically w/in 30 days - So long as no one objects to informal probate, personal representatives perform the duties of estate administration without ct supervision o An interested party may file a petition for formal probate or a supervised proceeding § Such petitions may be filed at any point during the process of probate admin Subject to time limits on proceedings initiated more than 3 yrs after the decedent’s death § Some of the most common petitions are to contest the validity of the will or object to the personal rep’s mgmt. of the estate These disputes require a formal probate proceeding FORMAL PROBATE – if there is a will contest or dispute - In a formal proceeding, the probate ct supervises the estate administration - the probate ct must first adjudicate the conflict before allowing ANY aspect of estate admin to proceed o Even then, ct approval may be required before an executor can sell estate assets (esp. real property), borrow, lease, or mortgage estate property, pay debts & attny’s fees, or collect commissions as personal rep - The larger the estate & the greater # of interested parties, the greater the chances that a dispute will lead to formal probate - Cost of formal probate > cost of informal probate - Once all disputes have been resolved & all parties entitled to notice have been notified à the estate may be administered PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES - 4 primary duties: o (1) to collect & protect the decedent’s probate estate § Collecting & IDing a decedent’s property is usually not difficult but requires the personal rep to conduct an appropriate search & sometimes prepare an inventory o (2) to satisfy the decedent’s creditors § Creditors must file any claims against the decedent’s estate w/in a designated period of time established by the applicable nonclaim statute § To reach unknown creditors, the personal rep can publish notice of the decedent’s death in a newspaper once a week for 3 successive weeks § NONCLAIM STATUTES: start to run when the personal rep provides notice of the decedent’s death Typically require creditors to file claims w/in 4 mos of the first published notice (probated estates) o tend to be very short to further the public policy goal of settling a decedent’s affairs ASAP (UPC §3-801) place a limit on the length of time creditors have to bring claims, even if probate proceedings have NOT commenced (un-probated estates) o This period = 1 yr from the decedent’s death (UPS §3-803) o In other jdx, the period may extend to 5 yrs 9  o (3) to pay all transfer taxes imposed on the estate, and o (4) to distribute the estate in accordance w/ the decedent’s will or under applicable intestacy laws PROBATE & NONPROBATE PROPERTY TYPES OF PROPERTY - Real property à including homes or investment properties across the states - Tangible personal property à including clothing, furniture, works of art, & jewelry - Monetary property o Money in bank accts o Certificates of deposit o Cash currency o Investments à including securities, individ retirement accts (IRAs), annuities, pension plans, life insurance PROBATE - KEY FUNCTION: create a clear record of the transfer of the decedent’s title in property to their successors in interest o For real property owned solely in the decedent’s name, probate is necessary to generate a deed in the successor’s name. o For personal property owned solely by the decedent, probate may or may not be necessary to transfer title. NONPROBATE TRANSFERS - Ppl try to avoid probate bc of the perception that it is a slow & expensive process o Can avoid probate through will substitutes o Probate also results in your will becoming public - JOINT RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP à most common means for avoiding probate o For married couples – TENANTS BY ENTIRETY (if permitted by their state) o JOINT TENANCY: when ppl hold property together § When one member of the couple dies, the survivor becomes the sole owner of the joint tenancy property & the interest of the decedent vanishes à joint tenancy w/ right of survivorship § Sometimes called a “poor person’s will” à costs much less than a will & provides a simple way of conveying the primary residence, which for poorer decedents, is likely to be the most valuable asset in the estate - PAYABLE ON DEATH (POD) o Alternative to joint tenancy w/ a right to survivorship o Ex: when individs hold bank accts titled in their own name but w/ a POD provision designating the person who will succeed to the acct when the individ dies - TRANSFERS-ON-DEATH (TOD) o Ppl who may take title to real property under TOD deed that will affect a transfer of the proper to the beneficiary named on the deed when the OG owner dies - LIFE INSURANCE 10  o Generally, ppl will designate beneficiaries who will receive proceeds of their retirement & pension plans & life insurance policies rather than having the proceeds payable to an individ’s estate o The individ’s estate = default recipient if there is no designated beneficiary - Most wealth in the U.S. passes at death outside of probate PRELIMINARY TOPICS ON DEATH & DYING - 6 topics concerning death itself & the legal aspects of dying o (1) determination of death à refers to the definitional Q of how to determine whether a person is legally dead o (2) incapacity & planning for death à considerations that concern important end-of-life decisions & the delegation of control to third parties o (3) emerging issue of the inheritability of so-called digital assets à i.e. emails & social media accts o (4) law governing the disposition of final remains o (5) the slayer rule à precludes a decedent’s killer form inheriting from the decedent’s estate under certain circumstances o (6) disclaimer à an heir or beneficiary’s voluntary decision not to accept inherited property DETERMINATION OF DEATH - GENERAL RULE: a person is declared dead as a matter of law upon sustaining irreversible cessations of all circulatory & respiratory functions o Thus, when the lungs stop breathing air & the heart stops pumping blood & those critical life functions cannot be restored à a person is no longer alive - In circumstances where the person is unlikely to recover (ex: in a coma for extended period of time), a doctor may declare death based on neurological criteria à the person has sustained irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem - The law also provides for the presumptive declaration of death following a prolonged absence (typically 5 yrs) or exposure to a catastrophic event o Rarely invoked INCAPACITY & PLANNING FOR DEATH - GENERAL RULE: individs have a right to make decisions ab their own medical care, including the right to decline treatment necessary for survival o In most circumstances, individs exercise that right by communicating directly w/ their medical provider § However, incapacitation can affect a person’s ability to make their own medical decisions or communicate such decisions to his doctor § Cruzan v. Missouri (1990) à SCOTUS affirmed the MO Sup. Ct. holding that even in cases of extreme incapacity, clear & convincing evidence of a patient’s intent to remove life support is required to exercise the right to decline medical treatment 11  o planning for incapacitation usually includes execution of an advance medical directive § 2 types of advance treatment directives: (1) instruction o statements indicating the sorts of life-sustaining treatments that would be acceptable & unacceptable in various compromised conditions (2) proxy directives o designate a specific individ as their preferred treatment decisionmaker in the event of incapacity - 3 primary ways of managing property on behalf of incapacitated persons: o (1) Conservatorships § Require ct supervision o (2) Durable powers of attorney § Do not require ct supervision absent a litigated conflict o (3) Trusts § Do not require ct supervision absent a litigated conflict CONSERVATORSHIPS - Default mechanism for managing property of an incapacitated person - once there is a judicial adjudication of incapacitation, a conservatorship authorizes the ct-appointed conservator to manage the disabled person’s property under the ct’s supervision o kind of like a guardian ad litem - Under UPC, conservator of an incapacitated person can make a will on their behalf if said conservator notifies the appropriate court and all interested partied that he will be doing so. DURABLE POWERS OF ATTORNEY - Does not require ct supervision absent a litigated conflict - Provides for the appt of an agent to transact legally on a person’s behalf during any period of incapacity o Unlike a traditional POA, a durable POA survives the principal’s incapacitation & can be drawn as narrowly or as broadly as the principal desires § A traditional power of attny: terminates automatically upon the principal’s incapacity - DEFAULT: the power generally confers the agent w/ authority to buy, sell, exchange, & deal in property on the principal’s behalf o An agent may make donative transfers on the P’s behalf ONLY IF the POA expressly grants the agent the authority TRUST - Does not require ct supervision absent a litigated conflict - A person may transfer prop into a trust to be managed by 3rd party trustees during any period of incapacitation o The trust can also establish procedures for determining whether the settlor has become incapacitated (ex: by majority vote of a committee consisting of the settlor’s fam & PCP) DIGITAL ASSETS - Traditionally, Internet search and social media platforms such as Google and Facebook have rejected requests from surviving family members to access a decedent’s electronic accounts. 12  - Congress passed the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in 1986, and it extends 4th Amendment-style protections from the physical world into cyberspace. o § 2702 – imposes civil liability on firms that share the contents of a customer’s electronic communications—in other words, the actual text of a message—with third parties. o However, § 2702 also carves out an exception when a user has given her “lawful consent” to disclosure. - Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) o Allows ppl to express their consent to disclose the contents of their electronic accounts through an “online tool.” o Users can make their desires known in several ways: “a will, trust, or other record.” o Hostile to non-inheritability clauses, stating that a user’s use of an online tool or express directive in a will, trust, or record “overrides a contrary provision in a terms-of-service agreement.” QUESTIONS: - (1) suppose you die w/o using an “online tool” or making a will or trust, under RUFASAA what happens to your digital assets? o A: under RUFADAA you can only transmit digital assets by engaging in some voluntary act: using an online tool or making a will, trust, or “record” § If you do NOT do one of these things, you do not consent to allowing someone else to access your electronic accts after you die - (2) would #1 change if you wrote an email to ur cousin that you wanted them to have access to ur email acct when you die? o A: RUFADAA allows users to consent to disclosure through a “record,” which the statute defines as info that is “stored in an electronic medium.” Thus, the email would suffice even thon it falls far short of the formalities required to make a valid will DISPOSTIONS OF FINAL REMAINS - No property right in the dead body BUT there is a right of possession o CL: a written instruction concerning the disposal of one’s final remains was NOT legally enforceable bc you had no property interest in your own body after death § Merely a right of possession that vested in the next of kin for purposes of disposition o TODAY: the law is more likely to enforce a decedent’s preferences concerning the disposition of final remains § Generally à can decide how you want your body to be disposed of Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) Will ≠ testator’s intent FACTS - Decedent: Hilliard Cohen o executed a will requesting “a traditional Jewish burial in our family plot in Mount Hebron Cemetery, Flushing, Queens, N.Y.” - Defendant: Margaret (wife) & Hillard 13  o testified that Hilliard later changed his mind and requested cremation or burial with her in Florida. o Margaret is not Jewish, so she cannot be buried in the Cohen family plot, which is in a Jewish- exclusive part of the cemetery. o Margaret insisted on interment in Florida as Hilliard had expressed orally to her (and to his daughter). - Plaintiff: Hilliard’s siblings o objected to the FL burial o remedy sought: enforce the language of the will. PROCEDURAL HISTORY - Trial ct: took evidence of Hillard’s subsequent change of intention to be buried w/ his wife rather than in his fam’s plot bc determined that “traditional Jewish burial” is ambiguous under the facts ORDER: AFFIRMED RULE: written testamentary burial instructions are rebuttable by extrinsic evidence of contrary or changed intent even if not in writing - A testamentary disposition is NOT conclusive of the decedent’s intent if it can be shown by clear & convincing evidence that he intended another disposition for their body REASONING - A direction for the disposition of one’s body should not be conclusive when contrary & convincing oral or written evidence of a change in intent is present - In all of the decedent’s verbal expressions on this matter, they expressed a desire for a burial in a place where his wife of 40 yrs could also rest upon her death. This could not occur if he were buried in the family’s Jewish plot in NY THE SLAYER RULE - SLAYER STATUTES: seek to prevent killers from inheriting from their victims o Rationale: no one should profit from a wrongful act § Thus, a killer should not benefit from slaying the decedent even if the killer’s action was NOT motivated by financial gain from the estate o Slayer à “felonious and intentional killing.” - GENERALLY: a slayer must forfeit all benefits they might derive from the victim under a will, trust, intestacy, or nonprobate instrument o The slayer also loses any right of survivorship in joint tenancies held w/ the victim & cannot serve in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the victim o UPC § 2-803 DISCLAIMERS RENUNCIATION/DISCLAIMER: an heir or beneficiary refusing to inherit by executing a renunciation or disclaimer - DISCLAIMERS: allows a person to refuse a devise or inheritance o Why disclaim? o (1) avoid taxes o (2) avoid creditors - DISCLAIMANT: a person who disclaims 14  o A disclaimant is treated as having predeceased the decedent for purposes of distributing the decedent’s estate - UPC § 2-1106(b)(3). - A disclaimer may be of the entire property or only a part o Individs can disclaim more than assets à they can also disclaim: § (1) Rights of survivorship § (2) Powers of appt, and § (3) Fiduciary duties § Once an individ makes a valid disclaimer, the disclaimer becomes irrevocable - Disclaimer is irrevocable once valid. – UPC §2-1113 - Disclaimers are NOT always effective o Examples: disclaimers by an insolvent heir or beneficiary might be considered a fraudulent transfer o some jdxs prohibit disclaimers that are used to ensure that the heir or beneficiary qualifies for Medicaid or other forms of public assistance o Many states, & the Internal Revenue Code for gift tax purposes, require disclaimers to be made w/in 9 months of the decedent’s death § UPC does NOT impose a time limit on disclaimers But it does provide that an heir or beneficiary forfeits the right to disclaim by accepting property from a decedent’s estate or trust o Under the fed gift tax, a disclaimer is “qualified” and, therefore, not treated as a taxable gift from the disclaimant to the next eligible taker IF, among other criteria, the disclaimer is made: § (1) w/in 9 mos of the transfer or § (2) the disclaimant’s 21st bday DISCLAIMANTS - By disclaiming you waive ALL RIGHTS - May NOT select alternative takers for the disclaimed property o The property passes to the next eligible taker under the decedent’s will or by priority established in the intestacy statutes o Generally, a disclaimant knows who the next eligible takers are & that knowledge is often a key factor in deciding whether to disclaim RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE: a valid disclaimer “relates back” to immediately before the decedent’s death, meaning that the disclaimant never gained possession of the disclaimed property - Legal fiction - Important doctrine bc if the disclaimant were treated as possession the property before giving it away, the disclaimant may have to pay a gift tax on the gift or the prop could be seized by the disclaimant’s creditors RELEVANT STATUTES - UPC §2-1105 – POWER TO DISCLAIM - UPC §2-1113 – WHEN DISCLAIMER BARRED OR LIMITED 15 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY - Malpractice o In most states, estate planning attorneys owe a duty of professional care to the client AND the client’s intended beneficiaries. - Ethical Rules on Client Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest o Problems often arise in the context of joint representations, such as married couples, but joint clients are not always on the same page. MINOR CHILDREN THAT SURVIVE YOU - Types of cases: o MARRIED & INTACT FAM: when one parent dies & you have minor children, under normal circumstances the child/children stay w/ the surviving parent & they can raise the child however they see fit. § Nothing in your will can change how they raise your children § But can include in the will something like “It is my hope that you will…” (ex. Put your child in soccer) o UNMARRIED + SURVIVING PARENT: child goes to parent under normal circumstances unless someone comes in & says that the parent is not competent to parent o NO SURVIVING PARENT: one hopes that there will be some kind of doc where the deceased specifies that if they die & their child is a minor, the minor will be looked after by a specific person § Put in a preference for who will become the guardian of the child § If you include preferences for how this guardian will raise your child, not legally binding - Someone CANNOT be forced to take someone’s child TAXES – SIDE NOTES - There is NO inheritance tax - An estate tax ONLY kicks in if you REALLY have a lot o The ordinary person does not pay an estate tax - Stepped-up basis o When you inherit an appreciated asset (i.e. stock or a house), you get it at the fair-market value at the date of the deceased’s death § So, if there is a gain on the asset at the time of death from the time the deceased acquired the asset, you DO NOT pay taxes on that gain o Unlike a gift à there is no income tax BUT there is a carry-over basis § So, if you decide to sell the asset that appreciated from when the deceased got the asset & when you were gifted it, you will have to pay a tax on the gain 16  CHAPTER 2 – INTESTACY STATUTORY DISTRIBUTION INTRODUCTION – INTESTATE ESTATES TERMS - INTESTATE: dying w/o a valid will o Widely believed that most Americans dies intestate § Why? Don’t want to think ab your own death Die unexpectedly Expensive Takes time Ignorance à don’t know that it wouldn’t go to their kids - INTESTACY STATUTES: include o (1) STATUTES OF DESCENT: govern the disposition of real property o (2) STATUTES OF DISTRIBUTION: govern the disposition of personal property o Very across states, will focus on UPC § UPC §2-101 – INTESTATE ESTATE o KEY POINT: intestacy rules operate by default § establish an optional statutory estate plan that applies ONLY in the absence of an expressed preference by the decedent (through a valid, enforceable will) o FL has NOT adopted UPC’s intestacy statutes - INTESTATE ESTATES: the decedent’s probate property passes to heirs determined by statutory rules that, in effect, comprise a default estate plan - INHERITANCE OF INTESTATE PROPERTY: requires: o (1) the determination of intestate heirs, and o (2) the computation of shares among intestate heirs - TYPES OF INTESTACIES: o (1) COMPLETELY INTESTATE – never made a will § or may have made a will but later revoked it entirely w/o making a new one § They may have tried to write their own will but failed to execute it properly § In these situations (& others), the decedent’s property is distributed entirely by intestacy o (2) PARTIAL INTESTACY – will contains 1 or more unenforceable provisions or cannot be administered or the will only disposes of some of the decedent’s property § to the extent the provisions of a will are enforceable & can be administered, the decedent’s intent is given effect as stated in the will Any remaining probate property that does NOT pass under the will, passes to the decedent’s heirs by intestacy DISADVANTAGES OF INTESTACY - Distributed to heirs in a specific order o Typically: surviving spouse à descendants à parents à descendants of parents (siblings) à grandparents à descendants of grandparents (aunts/uncles) à (in some states) stepchildren & descendants of stepchildren - Priority presumes that most individs prefer that property pass to surviving family members 17  o Excludes friends, cohabitants, fav charities, or anyone else o \ intestacy is unsuitable for nontraditional families - Guardianship issues à who will be the guardian of minor children of intestate parents? o Upon the death of a parent w/ a minor child, a ct must appoint a responsible adult, known as a “guardian of the person” to care for the surviving child left w/o a legal guardian § During life, the parent may nominate a guardian of the person by will But failure to nominate forces the ct to select from a statutory hierarchy of possible guardians to care for the child w/o direction from the decedent parent o If an unmarried single parent dies intestate, all or most of the estate passes to the decedent’s children, but a ct proceeding may be necessary to appoint a “guardian of the estate” or conservator of the child’s property DETERMINING HEIRS & SHARES OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE - CORE FUNCTION OF INTESTACY STATUTES: determine who inherits from the decedent (i.e. the heirs) & how much (i.e. their respective shares) - POLICY RATIONALE: implement the probable testamentary preferences of a typical decedent DETERMINING WHO INHERITS FROM AN INTESTATE ESTATE: - STEP 1: determine the decedent’s heirs (aka heirs-at-law) o Are the surviving members of the decedent’s family who are statutorily entitled to inherit a portion of the probate estate NOT disposed of by will o “No living person has heirs” – A living person has heirs apparent à those who might take by intestacy § Heirs have only a mere expectancy This expectancy is easily, swiftly, & often unexpectedly destroyed An heir apparent may: o Fail to survive the decedent o A decedent may have a valid will & have given nothing to their heir apparent o A decedent may have made a negative will disinheriting a particular heir apparent or a group of heirs apparent o Under the UPC, the range of possible heirs includes: § A surviving spouse In all jdxs, a spouse takes priority in both order & amount, as an intestate heir A former spouse inherits no part of the decedent’s intestate estate o A legal marriage can only end an individ’s status as “spouse” in one of 3 ways: § (1) Annulment § (2) Divorce For purposes of intestate succession, a spouse remains a spouse during a divorce proceeding until the ct enters a final decree of divorce § (3) Death § Descendants à children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. § Ancestors à parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. 18  § Collateral relatives à siblings, aunts/uncles, and cousins Descendants of the decedent’s ancestor First line collaterals: descendants of the decedent’s parents o said to be in the first parentelic line Second line collaterals: descendants of the decedent’s grandparents o said to be in the second parentelic line § Stepchildren from a deceased spouse TABLE OF CONSANGUINITY Ancestors 3 Great- Grandparents 2 Collateral Heirs 4 Great Uncles Grandparents & Aunts 1 3 5 Uncles First Cousins Parents & Aunts Once-Removed 2 4 6 Brothers First Decedent Second Cousins & Sisters Cousins 1 3 5 7 Nephews First Cousins Second Cousins Children & Nieces Once-Removed Once-Removed 2 4 6 8 Grand Nephews First Cousins Second Cousins Grand Children & Nieces Twice-Removed Twice-Removed 3 5 7 9 Great-Grand Great-Grand First Cousins Second Cousins Nephews & Children Thrice-Removed Thrice-Removed Nieces Descendants First Second Third Parentelic Line Parentelic Line Parentelic Line IINTESTATE SHARE OF A SURVIVING SPOUSE - UPC §2-102 – SHARE OF SPOUSE o The intestate share of a decedent’s surviving spouse is: § (1) the entire intestate estate if: (A) no descendant or parent of the decedent survives the decedent; or (B) all of the decedent’s surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse & there is no other descendant of the surviving spouse who survives the decedent 19  § (2) the first $300k, + ¾ of any balance of the intestate estate, if no descendant of the decedent survives the decedent, but the parent of the decedent survives the decedent Share if the decedent has no children/living children & one (or more) of their parents are alive The remaining ¼ goes to your parent § (3) the first $225k, + ½ of any balance of the intestate estate, if all of the decedent’s surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse and the surviving spouse has 1 or more surviving descendants who are not descendants of the decedent Share if all the decedent’s children who are alive are also the surviving spouses’ children AND the surviving spouse had other living children not with the decedent (stepchildren) Remaining ½ goes directly to your descendants Rationale: supposedly surviving spouse might not favor your own kids bc she has other kids not w/ you which might in some sense “rob your kids” à want to have your kids protected At this point you’re forgetting parents à Surviving parents only come along if you have no descendants § (4) the first $150k + ½ of any balance of the intestate estate, if one or more of the decedent’s surviving descendants are not descendants of the surviving spouse Remaining ½ goes to your kids - Under the UPC, the spouse is the most favored heir o If the decedent is survived by only a surviving spouse & no parent, the surviving spouse inherits the entire intestate estate § Same result even if the decedent is survived by a parent, if there is a surviving spouse & all the decedent’s surviving descendants are also descendants of the surviving spouse Rationale: law presumes the surviving spouse will use the inheritance to care for the decedent’s descendants or pass along those inherited assets to the joint descendants upon the surviving spouse’s death o Surviving spouse received considerably less in blended fams where the decedent is survived by descendants & either spouse has descendants from outside the marriage § Rationale: surviving spouse may have conflicting loyalties, so the intestate share is reduced to preserve adequate inheritance for the decedent’s own descendants PROBLEM 1 PROBLEM 2 UPC § 2-103 – SHARE OF HEIRS OTHER THAN SURVIVING SPOUSE - Intestate estate passes according to the following priority o Descendants – §(a)(1)) o Parents – §(a)(2) o First line collaterals (first parentelic line) – §(a)(3) o Grandparents – §(a)(4)-(5) o Second line collaterals (second parentelic line) – §(a)(4)-(5) o Certain stepchildren – §(b) § ONLY the descendants of a deceased spouse inherit 20  § If a divorced spouse survives, neither the divorced spouse nor the divorced spouse’s descendants inherit - This section addressed situations when the surviving spouse does NOT inherit the entire estate - The UPC determines heirship for blood relatives at second line collaterals to avoid the difficulties associated w/ what are called laughing heirs o Individs related to a decedent so remotely that they may never have even known of or met the decedent & \ are likely to laugh at the prospect of wind-fall inheritance o The UPC takes the position that intestate inheritance by laughing heirs is presumptively inconsistent w/ the decedent’s probable intent UPC §2-105 – NO TAKER - If there is no taker under UPC §§ 2-102 or 2-103, this section provides that the intestate estate passes to the state PROBLEM 3 MODES OF DISTRIBUTION: REPRESENTATION - To inherit by intestacy, an heir must survive the decedent o UPC §2-104 à an heir must survive by at least 120 hours to inherit - REPRESENTATION Example: A = widow, B = daughter, C & D = grandchildren, daughter’s children o B died before A o B’s failure to survive A prevents B (or B’s estate) from taking an intestate share of A’s estate o The shares B would have inherited passes to the next generation of descendants à C & D § C & D \ “represent” their parent in the distribution of the intestate estate § C & D would each take ½ of A’s estate - REPRESENTATION: refers to the rule-based methods for dividing property into shares among descendants & collaterals when a more closely related fam member predeceases the decedent - 3 widely used systems of representation: o (1) ENGLISH OR “STRICT” PER STIRPES o (2) MODERN PER STIRPES § Aka Per Capita w/ Representation o (3) PER CAPITA AT EACH GENERATION § UPC’s method o Each method reflects a distinct preference of distribution from one generation to the next § Each method may produce dramatically diff results - Representation systems are important o Ex: Assume someone has a will from an English Per Stirpes state & they move to a state that uses Modern Per Stirpes à when they domicile in a diff state, their will, will be probated based on the domiciled state’s method 21  2.3 Modes of Distribution: Representation o So here, the person’s will, will be probated in Modern Per Stirpes A has died intestate; she was predeceased by her spouse (who is not indicated diagram), two children (B and C), and two of her three grandchildren (E and F) survived by one grandchild (D) and three great-grandchildren (G, H, and I). these circumstances, what are the possibilities for distributing A’s estate to her su ENGLISH PER STIRPES descendants? - FLORIDA USES 2.3.1 English Per Stirpes o Not the common method An English/strict per stirpes approach emphasizes equality of distribution amo - EACH CHILD OF THE DECEDENT RECEIVES THE SAME decedent’sSHARE children, dead or alive. Thus, the estate is divided into as many sh there are living children and predeceased children survived by living issue. The s o Emphasizes equality of distribution among the decedent’s children, regardless of dead or alive each predeceased child passes to that child’s own line of descent. Under Engl § The shares of predeceased children passesstirpes, to that child’s it does own not matter thatline someof descendants predeceased children produced more desce than others. The stock of each o Does NOT matter that some predeceased children produced more descendants than otherschild of the decedent receives the same allocati - Oldest system of representation An English per stirpes distribution can be described as follows: Div decedent’s estate into an equal number of shares such that one share is set aside f child of the decedent who is then living and one share for each child who is no EXAMPLE: living but has descendants who are living. Distribute the shares by representat - (1) A’s estate would be divided by 2 à ½ for each child (regardless of their living status) o So ½ for B & ½ for C o Bc the children are dead, their shares then get distributed A among their descendant line - (2) grandchildren line: o D gets ½ (their parent (B) was A’s child & got ½) B C § B’s ½ share passed by representation to grandchild D o The grandchild D is deemed to step up to the parental D E F generation to represent & \ take B’s share ½ - (3) great-grandchildren line: o C’s ½ share of A’s estate gets divided by their number of kids (2) à G H I so E gets ¼ and F gets ¼ / /1 8 ¼ 1 8 o Bc both E & F are dead, their shares get passed on to their children § (4) great-great grandchildren line: E had 2 kids so their ¼ share gets divided In this by example, 2 àtheGinitial getsdivision 1/8 & of A’s H intestate gets 1/8 estate occurs at the first gen below the decedent, the generation of A’s children, because, even though B and o E’s share passes by representation to his deceased A, both weredescendants survived by living G &A’s issue. H property is divided into two po F only has 1 kid so they get their entire share of ¼ one-half for the descendants of child B and one-half for the descendants of child o F’s share passes by representation to his descendant - The shares kept getting passed down bc each decedent still had living descendants à “survived by living issue” MODERN PER STIRPES - UPC 1969 method - KEY DIFFERENCE: (from English Per Stirpes) the division into shares occurs in the first generation below the decedent in which there is at least one living relative o Step 1: Set aside one such share for each member of that generation who is then living & one share for each member of that generation who is not then living but has descendants who are living 22  decedent in which there is at least one living relative. Set aside one such sh each member of that generation who is then living and one share for each m of that generation who is not then living but has descendants who are living. Dis the shares by representation. o Step 2: distribute the shares by representation A EXAMPLE: - (1) A’s estate would be divided by 3 o Skip the children generation bc they’re all dead o But the grandchildren generation has 1 living member so B C that is where we will divide A’s estate § The grandchildren gen has 3 descendants, so we divided it by 3 D E F § Even tho 2 of the 3 grandchildren are dead / 1 3 o D, E, & F each get 1/3 - (2) D gets an entire 1/3 to themselves G 2.3 Modes of Distribution: Representation H I - (3) E’s 1/3 splits in 2 for each of their two descendants / / 1 6 1 / 6 1 3 In this example, the initial division occurs at the generation of A’s grandchild — o G gets 1/6 & H gets 1/6 E, and F — because both of A’s children predeceased. Accordingly, a modern per stir - (4) F’s 1/3 passes by representation to their descendantdistribution ignores A’s children because there is no member of that generation w o I gets 1/3 survived A. The division into shares occurs at the grandchild level, where there is surviving grandchild and two deceased grandchildren who have left descendants w - NOTE: Accordingly, a modern per stirpes distributionare ignores A’sthechildren alive. Thus, because estate is divided there into three is Grandchild shares. no member D receives one-th of that generation who survived A. of A’s intestate estate; E’s one-third is divided into equal shares for E’s descendant and H, who receive a one-sixth share; F’s one-third passes by representation to descendant, I. PER CAPITA AT EACH GENERATION 2.3.3 Per Capita at Each Generation (UPC 1990) Per capita at each generation, which means ‘‘by head at each generation,’’ emphas - UPC 1990 method horizontal equality by giving the same share to each member of the same generati - Emphasizes horizontal equality by giving the same share Thattopurpose each ismember often described by the of the sameaphorism ‘‘equally near, equally dear.’’ generation o “equally near, equally dear” A distribution pursuant to the UPC per capita at each generation can - SIMILARITY: (w/ Modern Per Stirpes) divide the decedent’s described asestate intoAsanwith follows: equal modern # of per shares in‘‘per stirpes (aka thecapita with repres tation’’), divide the decedent’s estate into an equal number of shares in the first g first gen below the decedent in which there is at least one living eration relative below the decedent in which there is at least one living relative. Distribute o Distribute one share to each member of that gen who share is alive to each member of that generation who is alive. Then, combine the remain shares of predeceased members into a bucket. Pass the bucket down to the next g - DIFFERENCE: combine the remaining shares of predeceased members into a bucket & ass the bucket eration with a living relative and repeat in the same manner until the entire estat down to the next gen w/ a living relative & repeat in the same exhausted. manner until the entire estate is exhausted EXAMPLE: - A’s estate is divided by 3 at the grandchild level à bc that’s the A gen where there is at least 1 living relative o D, E & F each get 1/3 o But since E & F are dead, combine their share B C and take it to the next gen à 2/3 gets brought down o 2/3 then gets split among the 3 greatgrandchildren, G, H, & I equally à each get 2/9 D E F - DIVIDE AT EACH GENERATION /3 1 o Heirs at each generation are treated equally G H I 2/9 /9 2 /9 2 23  Estate of Mebust (Montana, 1992) DIFFERENCES AMONG REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS X Parents X X X X X Pete Hans Berger Einar Lillian GN1 XX GN2 X N1 GN3 N2 GN4 N3 1/ 11 N4 1/ GN5 11 N5 1 /11