dj chapter 6 wills

8/14/2019 dj chapter 6 wills

1/33

Chapter 6Interpretation of Wills


2/33

Admission of Extrinsic

EvidenceMahoney v. Granger

If will language not ambiguous, why exclude extrinsic evidence

Use of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguous phrase heirs atlaw

Is their a difference between latent and patent ambiguities?Do you agree with the plain meaning rule?

Could the will in light of the facts of who was decedents heir beviewed as ambiguous sufficient to admit extrinsic evidence?

Pg. 412, problem 2


3/33

Fleming v. Morrison

Is evidence admissible that a will is asham?

Should the lawyer have prepared the will?


4/33

No Residue of a Residue

Rule

n T bequeaths property to A and Bn A predeceases T. Where does As

share go.n Lapse statute

n No residue of a residue rule-The

common lawn Residue of Residue Rule


5/33

Estate of Russell


6/33

Erickson v. Erickson

n What are the facts of this case?

n


7/33

Should lawyer be liable

in malpractice fordrafting an ambiguous

document?


8/33

Classification of Legacies

n General ($10,000 to A)

n Specific (Car to B)

n Demonstrative ($10,000 to A fromaccount at Y Bank)

n Residuary


9/33

Void and Lapsed Bequests

n Void Bequests

n Lapsed general and specific

bequestsn Lapsed residuary bequests

n No residue of a residue

n Residue of a residue rule


10/33

Anti-lapse Statutes

n Reasons for:

n Effect of:

n Protected Person

n Substituted person(s)


11/33

Iowa Anti-lapse Statute

633.273(1)If a devisee dies before the testator,leaving issue who survive the testator,the devisee's issue who survive the

testator shall inherit the propertydevised to the devisee per stirpes,unless from the terms of the will, the

intent is clear and explicit to thecontrary


12/33


633.273(1)If a deviseedies before the testator,leaving issue who survive the testator,the devisee's issue who survive the




13/33


633.273(1)If a devisee dies before the testator,leaving issuewho survive the testator,the devisee's issue who survive the




14/33


633.273(1)If a devisee dies before the testator,leaving issuewho survive the testator,the devisee's issue who survive the

testator shall inherit the propertydevised to the devisee per stirpes,unless from the terms of the will, theintent is clear and explicit to thecontrary


15/33

Problems

n T wills property to A for life, then to B. Aand B survive T. However, B dies before

A leaving issue who survive A. Is thegift to B saved by the lapse statute?

n Suppose B had died before T with issuewho survive T. Same result?

n Suppose B had died before T with noissue who survive T. Same result?

n

n


16/33

Allen v. Talley


17/33

Problems in the Book

n Page 444, Problem 1



18/33

Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her hers and herheirs and assigns forever


19/33

Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her heirs andassigns forever


20/33

Jackson v. Schultz

To my wife Bessie, to her heirs and ORassignsforever


21/33

Problem

n Problem, page 449, #2n Who takes if no residue of residue

rule applies.n Who takes if residue of residue rule

appliesn Who would T likely have wanted to

take?n How might statutes be revised to get

to Ts intent?


22/33

Application to Class Gifts

n What is a class gift

n Should statute apply to class gift?

n How does it apply?


23/33

Dawson v. Yucus

What are the facts this case?

Why might the classification of a gift as a classgift be relevant if a class member dies before thetestator?

What did the court hold? Do you agree?

I A ti l St t t


24/33


633.273

Applied to Class GiftA person who would have been adevisee under a class gift, if the personhad survived the testator, is treated as a

devisee for purposes of this section,provided the person's death occurredafter the execution of the will, unlessfrom the terms of the will, the intent is

clear and explicit to the contrary.


25/33

In re Moss

To my wife for life and upon her death to my

niece Elizabeth and the Emily 5.

What do you think about Romers reasoning onpage 457?

Is this a sensible decision?


26/33

Ademption

nApplication to specificbequests

nIdentity Theory (1969UPC)nWasserman v. Cohen

nIntent Theory (1990 UPC)


27/33

Avoidance of Ademption

nClassification of bequestas non-specific

nConstrue will at time ofdeath

nExceptions (conservatorsales)


28/33

Problems



29/33

Satisfaction of Legacies

nAnalogous to

advancementnApplicable to general

bequests


30/33

Exoneration of liens

Common law ruleStatutory ruleWhich makes more sense?


31/33


32/33

AbatementWho Pays the

Freight Charges

n Undisposed of property

n Residuary

n Generaln Specific

n Demonstratives


33/33

Iowa Abatement

Statute 633.438

n Undisposed of property

n Residue except to spouse

n Generals except to spouse

n Specifics except to spouse

n Property passing to spouse

dj chapter 6 wills

Documents

Transcript of dj chapter 6 wills