Trusts and Estates: Lecture Notes - Spring 1994, Lecture notes of Law

These lecture notes from a 1994 trusts and estates course provide a comprehensive overview of key concepts in estate planning, including surviving spouse rights, will execution, anti-lapse statutes, trust creation and types, charitable trusts, the rule against perpetuities, and more. The notes delve into relevant case law, highlighting important legal principles and their application in real-world scenarios. This resource is valuable for students of estate planning, trusts, and wills.

Typology: Lecture notes

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 10/09/2024

marron-daphne
marron-daphne 🇺🇸

2 documents

1 / 32

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Trusts and Estates
Professor Venable
spring, 1994
I. Introduction
II. Intestacy
A. Intestate Successors: Spouse and Descendants
1. Introduction
a. Uniform Probate Code
§ 2-210 Intestate Estate (p. 27-28)
If there is no will, then property passes through the
rules of intestacy. A testator may by will expressly
exclude or limit a decedent from receiving property
through intestacy.
§ 2-102 Share of Spouse (p. 29)
Surviving spouse receives:
- total estate if no surviving parent or child (who is
not also a decedent of the surviving spouse)
- the first $200,000 + 75% of remaining estate if a
parent survives
- the first $150,000 + 50% of remaining estate if the
couple had children together and the surviving
spouse has his/her own children who survive
- the first $100,000 + 50% of remaining estate if the
couple had no children and the decedent had
his/her own children who survive
§ 2-102A Community Property Spousal Share (p. 31)
Separate property is distributed as in § 2-102.
"The one-half of community property belonging to
the decedent passes to the [surviving spouse] as the
intestate share."
§ 2-103 Share of Heirs Other than Surviving Spouse (p. 31)
Establishes the order in which estate passes if there
is no surviving spouse:
- descendants by representation
- parents
- parents' descendants (decedent's siblings)
- grandparents; grandparents' descendants
- other relatives
§ 2-105 No Taker
If no taker, then estate passes to the state
§ 2-106 Representation
per capita v. per stirpes
per capita -- treats generations equally
per stirpes -- "by branch"
(modern trend is toward per capital)
1
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20

Partial preview of the text

Download Trusts and Estates: Lecture Notes - Spring 1994 and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Trusts and Estates

Professor Venable spring, 1994 I. Introduction II. Intestacy A. Intestate Successors: Spouse and Descendants

  1. Introduction a. Uniform Probate Code § 2-210 Intestate Estate (p. 27-28) If there is no will, then property passes through the rules of intestacy. A testator may by will expressly exclude or limit a decedent from receiving property through intestacy. § 2-102 Share of Spouse (p. 29) _Surviving spouse receives:
  • total estate if no surviving parent or child (who is not also a decedent of the surviving spouse)
  • the first $200,000 + 75% of remaining estate if a parent survives
  • the first $150,000 + 50% of remaining estate if the couple had children together and the surviving spouse has his/her own children who survive
  • the first $100,000 + 50% of remaining estate if the couple had no children and the decedent had his/her own children who survive_ § 2-102A Community Property Spousal Share (p. 31) Separate property is distributed as in § 2-102. "The one-half of community property belonging to the decedent passes to the [surviving spouse] as the intestate share." § 2-103 Share of Heirs Other than Surviving Spouse (p. 31) _Establishes the order in which estate passes if there is no surviving spouse:
  • descendants by representation
  • parents
  • parents' descendants (decedent's siblings)
  • grandparents; grandparents' descendants
  • other relatives_ § 2-105 No Taker If no taker, then estate passes to the state § 2-106 Representation per capita v. per stirpes per capita -- treats generations equally per stirpes -- "by branch" (modern trend is toward per capital)
  1. Spouse: Simultaneous death and the rationale for survivorship
    • Janus v. Tarasewicz (p. 78) Husband and wife died together --> which family takes the life insurance? Reform --> dispose of the property as if both spouses had survived. Therefore, each party's family collects its portion of the estate (life insurance) UPC § 2-104: the 120 rule to deal with common accident situation General note: The UPC states three themes: (1) the decline of formalism in favor of intent-serving policies (2) the recognition that will substitutes and other inter-vivos transfers have so proliferated that they now constitute a major, if not the major, form of wealth transmission (3) the advent of the multiple-marriage society, resulting in a significant fraction of the population being married more than once and having step-children and children by previous marriages and in the acceptance of a partnership of marital-sharing theory of marriage
  2. Descendants a. Taking by representation: Per Stirpes Distribution Decedent = X | | | X X | /
    gc1 gc2 gc in per capita, each grandchild gets one third in per stirpes, gc1 gets one half and gc2 & gc3 get one fourth

To grandparents and their issue, if none to great-grandparents and their issue, if none to great-great-grandparents and their issue and so on b. Degree of relationship system Passes to closest kin, counting degrees of kinship (see p. 109) C. Bars to Succession

  1. Misconduct a. Killing the decedent - In re Estate of Mahoney (p. 114) Decedent was killed by his wife. He died intestate. Can she collect? Yes- we don't treat criminals differently for same crime (to deny intestate share would be to heap on additional criminal sanction) Reform --> But see UPC § 2-803(b)(c): killers cannot collect from their victims' estates III. Wills A. Mental Capacity, Undue Influence and Fraud
  2. Mental Capacity a. Why require mental capacity? (from Dukeminier) i. A will should be given only if it represents the testator's true desires ii. A mentally incompetent man or woman is not defined as a "person" iii. To protect decedent's family iv. To protect the legitimacy of legal institutions v. Assures sane people that the disposition she desires will be carried out even though she becomes insane and makes another will vi. Protects society at-large from irrational acts vii. Protects senile or incompetent testator from "exploitation" by others b. Test for mental capacity i. "The decedent only has to have the ability to know (1) the nature and extent of his property, (2) the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty, (3) the disposition that he is making, and (4) how these elements relate so as to form an orderly plan for the disposition of his property.... [T]he testator must have mind and memory relevant to the four matters mentioned. He must understand the significance of his act." ii. This minimal requirement for mental capacity indicates a preference for allowing testators to dispose of property as desired c. Insane Delusion
  • In re Honigman (p. 134) Insane delusions are temporary Mental capacity is a permanent condition; lacking capacity

Note: This case raises the issues of evidentiary standards and when it is appropriate to go to a jury

  1. Undue Influence
    • Lipper v. Weslow (p. 144)
    • Lipper test for undue influence: "whether such control was exercised over the mind of the testatrix as to overcome her free agency and free will and to substitute the will of another so as to cause the testatrix to do what she would not otherwise have done but for such control"
  • another test: (1) confidential relationship (2) person with whom testator has confidential relationship receives bulk of the property (3) receipt is from testator of weakened intellect
  • 3rd test (1) susceptible person (2) opportunity (3) disposition to influence (4) unnatural provisions in the will This case raises a conflict in policy --> Person (child) who cares for elderly parent will probably get the most in the will. Is the bequest the result of undue influence or an expression of gratitude/ reward? a. Note: there can never be "undue influence" in a spousal relationship; courts will never find it... b. Examples of confidential relationships i. attorney-client ii. conservator-ward iii. doctor/nurse-patient iv. pastor-parishioner

d. Statutory Wills i. form will -- subject to same rules of attestation

  1. Holographic Wills a. Defined: "a holographic will is a will written by the testator's hand and signed by the testator; attesting witnesses are not required." Should be dated and show testamentary intent
    • In re Estate of Johnson (p. 219) Filling in portions of a form will does not meet definition of a holographic will --> Court refused to probate this will Bad decision Modern trend -- look to printed word to help interpret handwritten sections Reform --> UPC § 2-502(b) was specifically added to address this holding! Comment (at Supp. p. 107): "a holograph may be valid even though immaterial parts such as date or introductory wording are printed, typed, or stamped."
  2. Keep in mind the purposes of will formalities: a. uncoerced intent b. evidentiary c. prevent fraud and undue influence d. channeling intent into wills e. ceremonial function Think about these purposes. If there is a defect, weigh it against these purposes of formalities. C. Revocation of Wills
  3. Revocation by Writing or Physical Act a. Two ways to revoke under UPC § 2- i. Execute subsequent will ii. Perform revocatory act (i.e. physically destroying 1st will)
  • Thompson v. Royall (p. 231) Whether handwritten statements revoked will and/or codicil. Yes, she intended to revoke her will. But, her acts were insufficient. No revocation unless act plus intent. b. Revocation by inconsistency i. Most common way to revoke ii. Hypotheticals: (A) Will 1 --> gold watch to A Will 2 --> gold watch to B Will 1 revokes Will 2 (B) Will 1 $30,000 to A Will 2 $20,000 to B Will 2 does not revoke Will 1 If there is only $30,000 in estate, makes this a more difficult question. (C) Will 1 $10,000 to M Will 2 $20,000 to M Most Courts read this situation as a cumulative gift, so unless there is intrinsic evidence, M will take $30, (D)Will 2 revokes Will 1. Then testator obliterates Will 2. Is Will 1 revived? Yes, because Will 2 does not officially come into existence until testator's death. iii. Official Comment to § 2-507 (p. 114) "If the 2nd will does make a complete disposition of the testator's estate, a presumption arises that the 2nd will was intended to replace the previous will. If the 2nd will does not make a complete disposition of the testator's estate, a presumption arises that the 2nd will was intended to supplement rather than replace the previous will." iv. Courts will look to facts and circumstances in unclear cases
  1. Dependent Relative Revocation and Revival
  • Estate of Alburn (p. 238) Stands for the doctrine of dependent relative revocation -- If someone mistakenly destroys a will in hopes of reviving a first will, there are three approaches: (a) Will 1 is revived, since will 2 doesn't operate until death (b) No revival (c) Revocation of will 2 revives will 1 if testator intended as such This case had an odd result. Usually, the first will is revived.
  1. Revocation by Operation of Law: Change in Family Circumstances a. UPC § 2-508 (old version -- at p. 245)

Court strikes down a payable-on-death designation in a contract of deposit because it is a testamentary act not executed with the formalities required by the Statute of Wills UPC § 6-201 (1983, Dukeminier p. 285) allows them

  • Cook v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (p. 287) Husband took out life insurance policy- wife as beneficiary They got divorced Husband never changed the beneficiary The beneficiary of a life insurance policy may not be changed by will
  1. The depositor in a P.O.D. account retains sole and complete ownership and control of the account during her lifetime and so the transfer is made in the nature of a testamentary disposition. Therefore, must comply with formalities. B. Multiple-party Bank Accounts
  • Franklin v. Anna National Bank of Anna (293)
  • Blanchette v. Blanchette (p. 298) Husband and wife held stock in joint tenancy with r.o.s. They divorced. Problem: no donative intent. The joint tenancy does not have testamentary characteristics. Cannot be considered to be a will. Property interest is not the same as an heir or beneficiary's interest (Heirs and beneficiaries have mere expectations, not a property right) Note: Venable is skeptical about the Court's reasoning here. Probably not a model case... C. Joint Tenancies in Land
  1. A joint tenant cannot devise his or her share by will
  2. A creditor of a joint tenant must seize the joint tenant's interest during life a. At death the joint tenant's interest vanishes and there is nothing for the creditor to reach; it is too late V. Wills: Construction Problems A. Admission of Extrinsic Evidence: Ambiguity, Mistake and Omission
  3. Plain meaning rule: a plain meaning in a will cannot be disturbed a. There is a personal usage exception i. Example: Husband calls his wife "Mother." If he devises property to "Mother," his wife can take.
  • Estate of Russell (p. 321) Holographic will Extrinsic evidence is usually not allowed Exceptions: (a) may use extrinsic evidence to show a latent ambiguity (b) may use extrinsic evidence to explain the ambiguity Irony is that we won't let in testator's own declarations (due to formal reasons and Dead Man's Statutes)
  • Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon Hospital (p. 330) Extrinsic evidence may be allowed to construe a will ambiguity. Extrinsic evidence not allowed in to cure a drafting mistake Testators are more likely to catch mistakes than they are likely to catch ambiguities B. Death of Beneficiary Before Death of Testator: Lapse
  1. Common drafting problem: failing to provide what disposition is to be made if a named beneficiary predeceases the testator "John leaves Blackacre to Anne. Anne predeceases John." a. Solution: most states have enacted "anti-lapse" statutes to provide substitute beneficiaries for deceased devisees in certain situations. i. An anti-lapse statute says, "If Anne predeceases John, Blackacre passes to Anne's issue who survive John." b. Anti-lapse statutes apply when devisee is a grandparent, descendent of a grandparent or a stepchild of the testator. Also applies to donors of power of appointment. UPC §§ 2-601, 2-605, 2-606 (Dukeminier, p. 341-42) UPC §§ 2-702, 2-603, 2-604 (Supplement)
  • In re Estate of Ulrickson (p. 343)
  • whether anti-lapse statute applies where residuary estate is given to a brother and sister, and both brother and sister predecease testator, and brother leaves issue Testator did not anticipate brother and sister's deaths So, anti-lapse statutes are free to operate The old UPC did not let stepchildren inherit through anti-lapse statute New UPC has cured this; step-children now included
  • Jackson v. Schultz (p. 345) anti-lapse statutes do not apply to spouses
  1. Class Gifts a. Common law: anti-lapse statutes did not apply to class gifts because of the implied rights of survivorship b. UPC: anti-lapse statutes do apply to class gifts
  • In re Moss (p. 349) whether testamentary gift was to class or to 5 individuals if class gift, no lapse if not class, then lapse
  • Dawson v. Yucus (p. 352) Court said this was not a class gift, and therefore it did not lapse C. Changes in Property After Execution of Will: The Distinction between Specific and General Devises
  1. Ademption a. Defined: extinction or withdrawal of legacy by testator's act, equivalent to revocation or indicating intention to revoke
  • elective share scheme
  1. Three circumstances in which we should limit testator's intent (i.e. statute trumps intent or testator cannot circumvent statute regardless of intent/ preferences) a. Spouse's elective share (separate property states) i. pre-1990 Code: one third of the estate ii. new Code: 3% to 50% of the estate (see Supp. p. 54 for formula) b. "After-acquired" spouse (write will first --> then marry) i. old system: assumption that upon marriage, one will rewrite one's will. Marriage revoked first will and after-acquired spouse took through laws of intestacy. ii. new system (?): new evidence may be introduced to determine intent c. Pretermitted heir (omitted child) i. Allows for a child to take unless the testator expressed a clear intent to exclude the child ii. UPC § 2-302 (new and old)
  2. Why are we trying to defeat intent? a. Want to protect spouses (and assumption is that spouses will support children)
  3. Rights of Surviving Spouse to Support a. Social Security i. incorporates the principle of community property b. Private Pension Plans i. must be paid as a joint and survivor annuity to the workers and his or her spouse, unless the nonworker spouse consents to some other form of payment of the retirement benefit c. Homestead i. homestead laws are designed to secure the family home to the surviving spouse and minor children, free of the claims of creditors d. Personal Property Set-Aside i. the right of the surviving spouse to have set aside to him/her certain tangible personal property of the decedent enumerated in a statute e. Family Allowance i. statute authorizing probate court to award a family maintenance and support of the surviving spouse
  4. Rights of Surviving Spouse to a Share of Decedent's Property a. The Elective Share and its Rationale i. Elective share (or "forced share") allows the surviving spouse to either take under the decedent's will or renounce the will and take a fractional share of the decedent's estate ii. Rationale: the surviving spouse contributed to the decedent's acquisition of wealth and deserves to have a portion of it
  • In re Estate of Clarkson (p. 378) Whether incompetent surviving spouse should take elective share or testamentary share In this case, the will established a trust; elective share would have had outright ownership (managed by a guardian) majority view: look to facts and circumstances minority view: look to which provides greater pecuniary value b. Property Subject to the Elective Share
  • Sullivan v. Burkin (p. 393) Should the assets of an inter vivos trust be considered in determining the "portion of the estate of the deceased" in which the surviving spouse has rights? The husband created an inter vivos trust. He was beneficiary of the income of the trust during his lifetime. Then, at his death, the income would go to George and Harold (nothing to wife and grandson) In this case, wife loses. The trust was not testamentary and husband's interest had already been transferred to the trustee However, Court formed a prospective rule --> "the estate of a decedent... shall include the value of assets held in an inter vivos trust created by the deceased spouse as to which the deceased spouse alone retained the power during his or her life to direct the disposition of those trust assets for his or her benefit"
  1. Rights of Surviving Spouse in Community Property a. Introduction i. Community property gives ownership rights to each spouse immediately upon acquisition b. Classification of Assets as Community or Separate Property i. inception of title rule: assets acquired before marriage remain separate property; the community is entitled to reimbursement for payments made after marriage with community funds ii. business acquired before marriage, in which owner-spouse works after marriage: some states treat any appreciation in value as separate property, provided the community was fairly compensated for the owner-spouse's work during marriage iii. asset acquired during marriage with both separate and community funds: most states call for proportionate shares in this situation, but there are some exceptions

b. beneficiary owns the equitable interest

  1. The Settlor a. The settlor is the creator of the trust b. Inter vivos trusts i. If the settlor is also trustee, there may be a declaration of trust ii. If the settlor is not the trustee, must have a deed of trust
  2. Trustee a. May be one or several; individual or corporation b. "A trust will not fail for want of a trustee" c. Trustee has a high duty of care i. No self-dealing ii. Duty of fairness to income beneficiary and remaindermen d. Trustee must have duties to perform (or else trust fails) e. Trustee's duties i. keep trust property separate from trustee's own property ii. life tenant who is also trustee must keep separate books and account to the remaindermen
  3. The Beneficiaries a. They have equitable title to the trust property
  4. Use of Trusts in Estate Planning a. Avoid probate b. To secure income, gift and estate tax savings c. Money management
  5. Trust Compared with a Legal Life Estate legal life estate: to A for life, remainder to A's children equitable life estate: to X in trust for A for life, remainder to A's children Disadvantages of Legal Life Estate a. Sale Legal life tenant has no power to sell a fee simple unless such a power is granted in the instrument creating the life estate b. Reinvestment of proceeds of sale If there is a sale, proceeds will be subject to federal estate tax c. Borrowing money Life tenant may not mortgage the real estate d. Leasing If rental property is involved, someone should be given the power to lease the property for a period extending beyond the life tenant's death e. Waste Remaindermen are entitled to seek an injunction or damages f. Expenses If land is involved, there are taxes and maintenance expenses g. Creditors If the life tenant gets into debt, the creditor can seize the life estate and sell it h. Miscellaneous

Trespassers may damage property Gov't may exercise eminent domain Third party may be injured on the premises Therefore, trust is preferable to a life estate √ trustee has power of sale √ best to have a trust from the beginning to protect proceeds from sale √ trust also takes care of powers to mortgage, lease, taxes, insurance √ trusts may be out of reach of creditors (via spendthrift clause) B. Creation of a Trust

  1. Intent to Create a Trust a. Look to grantor's intent
    • Jimenez v. Lee (p. 448) Example of case where trustee did not carry out responsibilities Remanded for an accounting predicated on trustee's duty to account and trustee's burden to prove that expenditures were made for trust purposes
  2. Necessity of Trust Property a. Trust property (trust res) is any interest in property that can be transferred i. Examples: contingent remainders, leasehold interests, royalties, life insurance policies ii. Issue is whether it will be considered property by a court
  • Farkas v. Williams (p. 495) Farkas attempted to set up a pension plan for Williams. Farkas bought stock. He was trustee and income beneficiary during his lifetime. He reserved the power to revoke. At death --> to Williams. Farkas had an equitable life estate Williams had a contingent, equitable remainder Valid inter vivos trusts... not testamentary Rule: A trust in property with self as sole beneficiary and sole trustee fails In Farkas , ∆ had a future interest, so trust was valid
  • State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Reiser (p. 504) Dunnebier set up revocable trust In his will, he included a pour-over residuary clause At death, he owed a debt to the bank Holding: Creditors may have access to assets owned by settlor over which settlor had control at time of his death. However, assets that "pour-over" into the trust at death are not subject to creditors' reach
  1. Testamentary "pour-over" into an inter vivos trust a. Model "pour-over" i. O sets up a revocable inter vivos trust ii. X is named as trustee iii. O transfers to X, as trustee, his stocks and bonds iv. O executes a will devising the residue of his estate to X, as trustee, to hold under the terms of the inter vivos trust b. "Merging" function c. Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act i. "when probate assets are poured over into an inter vivos trust, they become part of the inter vivos trust" ii. Advantages
  • avoidance of judicial accounting
  • greater flexibility in choice of law
  • Tierce v. Macedonia United Methodist Church (p. 511) Problem here was that trust was never actually in existence. Therefore, pour-over must fail.
  • Clymer v. Mayo (p. 520) Issue: What is the effect of divorce on pour over structure? Here, husband and wife were each other's beneficiaries. Decedent's parents challenged the trust because they didn't want ex-husband to take. If decedent died intestate, they would take instead. Holding 1: Although there was a valid inter vivos trust created, it terminated because its purpose (to qualify for the marital deduction) became impossible upon divorce
  1. Use of revocable trusts in estate planning a. Consequences during life of settlor i. Property management by fiduciary
  • Relieves the settlor from burden of management and continues during settlor's incapacity and can provide for disposition of the trust assets at the settlor's death
  • May make transactions inconvenient because title of the property is not in a private individual ii. Dealing with incompetancy
  • Trust is convenient way to deal with incompetancy/ incapacity iii. Clarification of title
  • Helps prevent ambiguities of ownership that may arise at divorce or death iv. Income and gift taxes
  • No federal tax advantages in creating a revocable trust c. Consequences at death of settlor: avoidance of probate i. Costs
  • Revocable trust avoids probate
  • Lawyer's fees may be higher to set up the trust ii. Delays
  • Revocable trusts remove problem of delay iii. Creditors
  • Probate holds an advantage over revocable trust Probate has a short statute of limitations (four months) whereas revocable trust has normal statute of limitations applicable to the particular claim iv. Publicity
  • Wills are public
  • Trusts are private v. Ancillary probate
  • Ancillary probate is required if settlor owns real property located outside the domicile state. To avoid, land in another state can be transferred to revocable inter vivos trust so that title to the land changes during owner's life.