Chapter 6 Interpretation of Wills

1. Chapter 6Interpretation of Wills

2. Admission of Extrinsic Evidence Mahoney v. Granger If will language not ambiguous, why exclude extrinsic evidence Use of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguous phrase “heirs at law” 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 decedent’s heir be viewed as ambiguous sufficient to admit extrinsic evidence? Pg. 412, problem 2

3. Fleming v. Morrison Is evidence admissible that a will is a sham? Should the lawyer have prepared the will?

4. No Residue of a Residue Rule • T bequeaths property to A and B • A predeceases T. Where does A’s share go. • Lapse statute • No residue of a residue rule-The common law • Residue of Residue Rule

5. Estate of Russell

6. Erickson v. Erickson • What are the facts of this case?

7. Should lawyer be liable in malpractice for drafting an ambiguous document?

8. Classification of Legacies • General ($10,000 to A) • Specific (Car to B) • Demonstrative ($10,000 to A from account at Y Bank) • Residuary

9. Void and Lapsed Bequests • Void Bequests • Lapsed general and specific bequests • Lapsed residuary bequests • No residue of a residue • Residue of a residue rule

10. Anti-lapse Statutes • Reasons for: • Effect of: • Protected Person • Substituted person(s)

11. Problems • T wills property to A for life, then to B. A and B survive T. However, B dies before A leaving issue who survive A. Is the gift to B saved by the lapse statute? • Suppose B had died before T with issue who survive T. Same result? • Suppose B had died before T with no issue who survive T. Same result?

12. Allen v. Talley

13. Problems in the Book • Page 444, Problem 1 • Page 444, Problem 2

14. Jackson v. Schultz To my wife Bessie, to her hers and her heirs and assigns forever

15. Jackson v. Schultz To my wife Bessie, to her heirs and assigns forever

16. Jackson v. Schultz To my wife Bessie, to her heirs and OR assigns forever

17. Problem • Problem, page 449, #2 • Who takes if “no residue of residue rule applies.” • Who takes if “residue of residue rule” applies • Who would T likely have wanted to take? • How might statutes be revised to get to T’s intent?

18. Application to Class Gifts • What is a class gift • Should statute apply to class gift? • How does it apply?

19. Dawson v. Yucus What are the facts this case? Why might the classification of a gift as a class gift be relevant if a class member dies before the testator? What did the court hold? Do you agree?

20. To my wife for life and upon her death to my niece Elizabeth and the Emily 5. What do you think about Romer’s reasoning on page 457? Is this a sensible decision? In re Moss

21. Ademption • Application to specific bequests • Identity Theory (1969 UPC) • Wasserman v. Cohen • Intent Theory (1990 UPC)

22. Avoidance of Ademption • Classification of bequest as non-specific • Construe will at time of death • Exceptions (conservator sales)

23. Problems • Page 466, Problem 1

24. Satisfaction of Legacies • Analogous to advancement • Applicable to general bequests

25. Common law rule Statutory rule Which makes more sense? Exoneration of liens

26. Increases • Stock splits • Dividends paid in stock • Dividends paid in cash

27. Abatement—Who Pays the Freight Charges • Undisposed of property • Residuary • General • Specific • Demonstratives

28. Iowa Abatement Statute 633.438 • Undisposed of property • Residue except to spouse • Generals except to spouse • Specifics except to spouse • Property passing to spouse