2015
In 2011, Tess, age 85, executed a valid will, leaving all her property in trust for her grandchildren, Greg and Susie. Income from the trust was to be distributed to the grandchild or grandchildren then living each year. At the death of the last grandchild, any remaining assets were to go to Zoo for the care of its elephants.
In 2012, the court appointed Greg as conservator for Tess, because of Tess’s failing mental abilities.
In 2013, the court authorized Greg to make a new will for Tess. Greg made a new will for Tess leaving Tess’s entire estate to Susie and himself outright. Greg, without consulting Tess, then signed the will, in the presence of two disinterested witnesses, who also signed the will.
In 2014, Tess found a copy of the will drafted by Greg, and became furious. She immediately called her lawyer, described her assets in detail, and instructed him to draft a new will leaving her estate in trust to Susie alone and excluding Greg. Income from the trust was to be distributed to Susie each year. At Susie’s death, any remaining assets were to go to Zoo for the care of its elephants. The new will was properly executed and witnessed.
In 2015, Tess died. That same year, Zoo’s only remaining elephant died.
Zoo has petitioned the court to modify the trust to provide for the care of its animals generally.
1. Is Zoo’s petition likely to be granted? Discuss.
2. What rights, if any, do Greg, Susie, and Zoo have in Tess’s estate?
Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2013
In 2000, Ted was married to Wilma, with whom he had a child, Cindy. Wilma had a young son, Sam, from a prior marriage. Ted typed a document entitled "Will of Ted," then dated and signed it. Ted's will provided as follows: "I give $10,000 to my stepson. I give $10,000 to my friend, Dot. I leave my share of all my community property to my wife. I leave the residue consisting of my separate property to my daughter, Cindy. I hereby appoint Jane as executor of this will."
Ted showed his signature on the document to Jane and Dot, and said, "This is my signature on my will. Would you both be witnesses?" Jane signed her name. Dot was about to sign when her cell phone rang, alerting her to an emergency, and she left immediately. The next day, Ted saw Dot. He had his will with him and asked Dot to sign. She did.
In 2010, Wilma died, leaving her entire estate to Ted.
In 2011, Ted married Bertha.
In 2012, Ted wrote in his own hand, "I am married to Bertha and all references to ‘my wife’ in my will are to Bertha." He dated and signed the document.
Recently, Ted died with an estate of $600,000, consisting of his one-half community property share of $300,000 in the $600,000 home he owned with Bertha plus $300,000 in a separate property bank account.
What rights, if any, do Bertha, Sam, Dot, and Cindy have in Ted’s estate? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
2012
In 2004, Mae, a widow, executed a valid will, intentionally leaving out her daughter, Dot, and giving 50 per cent of her estate to her son, Sam, and 50 per cent to Church.
In 2008, after a serious disagreement with Sam, Mae announced that she was revoking her will, and then tore it in half in the presence of both Sam and Dot.
In 2010, after repeated requests by Sam, Mae handwrote and signed a document declaring that she was thereby reviving her will. She attached all of the torn pages of the will to the document. At the time she signed the document, she was entirely dependent on Sam for food and shelter and companionship, and had not been allowed by Sam to see or speak to anyone for months. By this time, Church had gone out of existence.
In 2011, Mae died. Her sole survivors are Dot and Sam.
What rights, if any, do Dot and Sam have in Mae’s estate? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2011
In 2004, Tess, a widow, executed a valid will leaving her estate to her children, Abel, Bernice, and Cassie per stirpes.
In 2009, Tess, Abel, and Bernice quarreled and Tess decided to draft a new will. She went to an office supply store, got a preprinted will form, and filled in the following in her own handwriting:
Because my son Abel and daughter Bernice have been unkind to me, I specifically disinherit them. I give and bequeath all my property to University.
Tess signed and dated the form. No one was present when she signed and dated the form and hence no one signed as a witness to her signature. At the time, she was addicted to prescription pain killers and was an alcoholic.
In 2010, Cassie adopted David as her son. Soon thereafter, Cassie died, survived by David.
In 2011, Tess died, leaving an estate worth $1,000,000.
Tess’s 2009 will has been offered for probate.
(1) What arguments can Abel and Bernice reasonably make in objecting to the validity of Tess’s 2009 will? Discuss.
(2) Does David have any claim to a share of Tess’s estate? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
2010
Hank and Wendy married, had two children, Aaron and Beth, and subsequently had their marriage dissolved.
One year after dissolution of the marriage, Hank placed all his assets in a valid revocable trust and appointed Trustee. Under the trust, Trustee was to pay all income from the trust to Hank during Hank’s life. Upon Hank’s death, the trust was to terminate and Trustee was to distribute the remaining assets as follows: one-half to Hank’s mother, Mom, if she was then living, and the remainder to Aaron and Beth, in equal shares.
Trustee invested all assets of the trust in commercial real estate, which yielded very high income, but suffered rapidly decreasing market value.
Hank, who had never remarried, died three years after establishing the trust. At the time of his death, the trust was valued at $300,000. Subsequently, it was proved by DNA testing that Hank had another child, Carl, who had been conceived during Hank’s marriage to Wendy, but was born following dissolution of the marriage. Wendy, Carl’s mother, had never told Hank about Carl.
Wendy, Mom, Aaron, Beth, and Carl all claim that he or she is entitled to a portion of the trust assets.
2. How should the trust assets be distributed? Discuss. Answer this question according to California law.
2008
In 2001, Wilma, an elderly widow with full mental capacity, put $1,000,000 into a trust (Trust). The Trust instrument named Wilma’s church (Church) as the beneficiary. Although the Trust instrument did not name a trustee, its terms recited that the trustee has broad powers of administration for the benefit of the beneficiary.
In 2002, Wilma’s sister, Sis, began paying a great deal of attention to Wilma, preventing any other friends or relatives from visiting Wilma. In 2003, Wilma reluctantly executed a properly witnessed will leaving her entire estate to Sis. Following the execution of the will, Wilma and Sis began to develop a genuine fondness for each other, engaging in social events frequently and becoming close friends. In 2005 Wilma wrote a note to herself: “Am glad Sis will benefit from my estate.”
In 2007, Wilma named Sis as trustee of the Trust, which was when Sis found out for the first time about the $1,000,000 in the Trust. Without telling Wilma, Sis wrote across the Trust instrument, “This Trust is revoked,” signing her name as trustee.
Shortly thereafter, Wilma died, survived by her daughter, Dora, who had not spoken to Wilma for twenty years, and by Sis. Church claims that the Trust is valid and remains in effect. Sis and Dora each claim that each is entitled to Wilma’s entire estate.
2. What arguments should Sis and Dora make in support of their respective claims, and what is the likely result? Discuss.
Answer question number 2 according to California law.
2007
In 2001 Tom, a resident of California, executed a valid typewritten and witnessed will. At that time, Tom was married to Wynn. Tom also had two nephews, Norm, and Matt, who were the children of his deceased sister, Sue.
Tom’s will made the following dispositions:
Article 1: I leave $10,000 to my friend Frank.
Article 2: I leave my shares in Beta Corp stock to my friend Frank.
Article 3: I leave $80,000 to my sister Sue’s issue.
Article 4: I leave the residue of my estate to my wife.
The $10,000 figure in Article 1 was crossed out and $12,000 was handwritten in Tom’s hand above the $10,000 figure. Next to the $12,000 Tom had handwritten, “Okay. 2/15/02.”
In 2003 Tom and Wynn had a child, Cole.
In 2004, Matt died in a car accident. Matt was survived by his children, Lynn and Kim.
Tom died in 2005. Tom was survived by Wynn, Cole, Norm, Frank, and his grandnieces, Lynn and Kim. At the time of his death, Tom owned, as separate property, $500,000 in cash. He also had 100 shares of Beta Corp stock, titled in Tom’s name, which he had purchased with his earnings while married to Wynn. The Beta stock was valued at $1.00 per share at the time of Tom’s death.
What rights, if any, do Wynn, Cole, Norm, Frank, and his grandnieces Lynn and Kim have in Tom’s estate? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
2006
Tim and Anna were married for ten years. In 2000, their marriage was legally dissolved. For several months following the dissolution, Tim and Anna attempted to reconcile but ultimately failed to do so.
In 2001, after reconciliation attempts failed, Tim executed a valid will leaving “all my property to my best friend, Anna.” Later that year, Fred was born to Anna out of wedlock. Tim was Fred’s father, but Anna did not inform Tim of Fred’s existence.
In 2002, Tim and Beth married. Two days before the wedding, Beth executed a prenuptial agreement waiving all rights to Tim’s estate. Beth was not represented by counsel when she executed the prenuptial agreement.
In 2003, Sarah was born to Tim and Beth.
In 2004, Tim died. His estate consists of his share of a $400,000 house owned with Beth as community property, plus $90,000 worth of separate property.
Tim’s 2001 will has been admitted to probate. Beth, Sarah, Fred and Anna have each claimed shares of Tim’s estate.
How should the estate be distributed? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
In 2003, Tom, a patient at Happy Home, a charitable convalescent hospital that specializes in caring for the disabled elderly, asked Lilly, his personal attendant, to help him execute his typewritten will. Tom suffered from severe tremors and had difficulty signing his name .In the presence of one other attendant, Tom directed Lilly to sign his name and to date “my will.” She did so and dated the document. At Tom’s request, Lilly and the other attendant, in the presence of each other, then signed their names as witnesses.
The 2003 document stated “I give $100,000 to my niece, Nan. And, because Happy Home does such important work for the aged who are disabled, I give the residue of my estate in trust to Happy Home for the continued care of the disabled elderly. Lilly to act as Trustee.”
In 2004, Tom, believing he needed to do more for the disabled elderly, asked Lilly to type a new will and told her he would take care of executing it. She typed the will, including init the terms Tom dictated. He then asked Lilly to send two attendants into his room to act as witnesses. After the first of the attendants arrived and was present, Tom explained the purpose of the document and then signed his name at the end of the document. The first attendant then signed her name as a witness and left the room. Immediately thereafter the second attendant came into Tom’s room and quickly signed the document as a witness. Lilly was not present when Tom or the attendants signed their names. The 2004 document stated “I revoke all prior wills and I give my entire estate to Happy Home in trust for the continued care of the disabled elderly. Lilly to act as Trustee.”
In 2005, Tom died, leaving an estate worth one million dollars.
At the time of Tom’s death there were only two convalescent hospitals in the county where Tom lived, Happy Home and Sunnyside. A few days after Tom’s death, Happy Home went out of business. Sunnyside, also a charitable convalescent hospital, provides care for disabled persons of all ages.
Sunnyside has petitioned the court to substitute Sunnyside as the beneficiary of Tom’s estate.
1. What rights, if any, does Nan have in Tom’s estate? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2004
Hank, an avid skier, lived in State X with his daughter, Ann. Hank’s first wife, Ann’s mother, had died several years earlier.
In 1996, Hank married Wanda, his second wife. Thereafter, while still domiciled in State X, Hank executed a will that established a trust and left “five percent of my estate to Trustee, to be paid in approximately equal installments over the ten years following my death to the person who went skiing with me most often during the 12 months preceding my death.” The will did not name a trustee. The will left all of the rest of Hank’s estate to Wanda if she survived him. The will did not mention Ann. Wanda was one of two witnesses to the will. Under the law of State X, a will witnessed by a beneficiary is invalid.
In 1998, Hank and his family moved permanently to California. Hank then legally adopted Carl, Wanda’s minor son by a prior marriage.
In 2001, Hank completely gave up skiing because of a serious injury to his leg and took up fishing instead. He went on numerous fishing trips over the next two years with a fellow avid fisherman, Fred.
In 2003, Hank died.
In probate proceedings, Wanda claims Hank’s entire estate under the will; Ann and Carl each claim he or she is entitled to an intestate share of the estate; and Fred claims that the court should apply the doctrine of cy pres to make him the beneficiary of the trust.
1. Under California law, how should the court rule on:
. Wanda’s claim? Discuss.
. Ann’s claim? Discuss.
. Carl’s claim? Discuss.
2003
Olga, a widow, owned Blackacre, a lakeside lot and cottage. On her seventieth birthday she had a pleasant reunion with her niece, Nan, and decided to give Blackacre to Nan. Olga had a valid will leaving “to my three children in equal shares all the property I own at my death.” She did not want her children to know of the gift to Nan while she was alive, nor did she want to change her will. Olga asked Bruce, a friend, for help in the matter.
Bruce furnished Olga with a deed form that by its terms would effect a present conveyance. Olga completed the form, naming herself as grantor and Nan as grantee, designating Blackacre as the property conveyed, and including an accurate description of Blackacre. Olga signed the deed and Bruce, a notary, acknowledged her signature. Olga then handed the deed to Bruce, and told him, “Hold this deed and record it if Nan survives me.” Nan knew nothing of this transaction.
As time passed Olga saw little of Nan and lost interest in her. One day she called Bruce on the telephone and told him to destroy the deed. However, Bruce did not destroy the deed. A week later Olga died.
Nan learned of the transaction when Bruce sent her the deed, which he had by then recorded. Nan was delighted with the gift and is planning to move to Blackacre.
Olga never changed her will and it was in effect on the day of her death.
Who owns Blackacre? Discuss.
In 1998, Tom executed a valid will. The dispositive provisions of the will provided:
“1. $100,000 to my friend, Al.
1 My residence on Elm St. to my sister Beth.
2 My OmegaCorp stock to my brother Carl.
3 The residue of my estate to State University (SU).” In 1999, Tom had a falling out with Al and executed a valid codicil that expressly revoked paragraph 1 of the will but made no other changes.
In 2000, Tom reconciled with Al and told several people, “Al doesn’t need to worry; I’ve provided for him.”
In 2001, Beth died intestate, survived only by one child, Norm, and two grandchildren, Deb and Eve, who were children of a predeceased child of Beth. Also in 2001, Tom sold his OmegaCorp stock and reinvested the proceeds by purchasing AlphaCorp stock.
Tom died in 2002. The will and codicil were found in his safe deposit box. The will was unmarred, but the codicil had the words “Null and Void” written across the text of the codicil in Tom’s handwriting, followed by Tom’s signature.
Tom was survived by Al, Carl, Norm, Deb, and Eve. At the time of Tom’s death, his estate consisted of $100,000 in cash, the residence on Elm St., and the AlphaCorp stock.
What rights, if any, do Al, Carl, Norm, Deb, Eve, and SU have in Tom’s estate? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
2001
Ted, a widower, had a child, Deb. He had three brothers, Abe, Bob, and Carl.
In 1998, Abe died, survived by a child, Ann. Ted then received a letter from a woman with whom he had once had a relationship. The letter stated that Sam, a child she had borne in 1997, was Ted’s son. Ted, until then unaware of Sam’s existence, wrote back in 1998 stating he doubted he was Sam’s father.
In 1999, Ted executed a will. With the exception of the signature of a witness at the bottom, the will was entirely in Ted’s own handwriting and signed by Ted. The will provided that half of Ted’s estate was to be held in trust by Trustee, Inc. for ten years with the income to be paid annually “to my brothers,” with the principal at the end of ten years to go “to my child, Deb.” The other half of the estate was to go to Deb outright. One month after Ted signed the will, Ted’s second brother, Bob, died, survived by a child, Beth.
In 2000, Ted died. After Ted’s death, DNA testing confirmed Ted was Sam’s father.
What interests, if any, do Deb, Sam, Ann, Beth, and Carl have in Ted’s estate and/or the trust? Discuss. Answer according to California law.