Blackwell V. Blackwell Case Study Summary

In 1993, Mr. Heggstad died without a trust. He had assets like his home that were intended to be in the trust, but were not included. He had essentially forgotten to sign and record the deed that transferred his home to the trust. In the case, the justice system found that having a schedule of assets attached to the trust was enough proof that the decedent wished for the assets to be placed in the trust.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

While grantor trusts are commonly created as part of an estate plan, estate planners may inadvertently be creating income tax issues that trustees and tax preparers must deal with during the administration. When the grantor of a grantor trust dies, or the grantor trust status terminates during the life of the grantor, for the most part the tax consequences are well established. What is unclear is what happens if the grantor trust had an outstanding liability to the grantor at the death of the grantor. This paper addresses the issue and how it may be treated. Part I of this paper will briefly address the history of

This decision can be clearly identified within Ansbacher Trustees Ltd, where it was stated that it would “be a highly unsatisfactory situation if such beneficiaries were held not to have standing to sue the trustees for breach of trust”. These powers are of obvious importance to objects, who may need to draw upon these remedies, in instances where settlements have been created, for example, to avoid tax, such as what can be seen in the Vandervell case, or in The Exeter Settlement where it was mentioned “the power to add and delete beneficiaries from the class of potential objects of a discretionary trust originated from the need to obtain “maximum flexibility” in, for example tax planning strategies”. These types of trusts are thus set up to provide more secrecy for the settlor; however they are vulnerable to being

Frontiero v. Richardson case occurred in 1973, putting it in the middle of the second wave of feminism. This was a time of women’s marches and advocates for equal rights. Opposed to the first wave of feminism the second wave was more inclusive to women of color. Most likely because it was happening at the same time as the Civil rights and Chinco movements. Along with this, the second wave focused more on equality in the workplace and reproductive rights, whereas the first wave was more focused on voting rights. During this time period, the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan was popularized encouraging women the challenge the “homemaking rules” and the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was formed. Along with this, the Equal Rights Act (ERA) was passed just one year before in 1972. Overall the 1960s and 70s were a time of great progression for equal rights.

The state of Missouri enacted slave laws that were based upon those of Virginia and Kentucky. The laws provided an opportunity for slaves to file suits for freedom.

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

Dred Scott was an African American who had been a slave in Missouri, but starting from 1833 to 1843, he lived in Illinois, which was a free state, and a part of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was outlawed. When he returned to Missouri, he tried to sue for his freedom by saying that by living in an area that was slavery free, it made him a free individual. Unable to win in the state court, he brought a new suit to the federal court. It wasn’t until 11 years after the original suit was brought up was it finally addressed by the Supreme Court. Some issues that were conversed in this case include: If an individual goes into a free state, does it mean the slaves are

On May 23, 1957, Dollree Mapp(1923-2014) took Ohio to court. Looking at this historical case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, “cannot be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had formerly been the law (Mapp v. Ohio. 1960)”. The Supreme Court completed this by use of selective incorporation as explained by the Court. The Fourth Amendment was violated due to the absence of a search warrant.

He pointed out that a trust should not be dependent on this distinction and that a trustee should look for beneficiaries in order to fulfill their fiduciary duty under the trust. In his opinion, Lord Wilberforce, noted that a discretionary trust is a trust and the trustee must identify beneficiaries. He continued that where a trust was made for the benefit of a group, the complete list test will not be appropriate in establishing certainty of objects. The list of beneficiaries in a discretionary trust cannot be completed and the trustee is, therefore, not required to provide equal benefits for all beneficiaries. In his view, the most appropriate test would be to inquire whether an individual is or is not a member of a beneficial

However we feel that this strategy also has several weaknesses. Compared to the first option presented by the VP of Advertising, we would still need to advertise that our product is coming down in price. If we don’t advertise, the consumer is still going to be drawn to our competitors because they will remain unaware of the new parity in pricing. Also, if we

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

The problem with this case is that Dillon is giving the trustee of the will who only has legal title subject to the terms of the trust an executor status, i.e. putting him in the shoes of the sethlow. This is a problem because the executor acquires legal

A harsh decision would been seen in the case of Re Fry (1946), as the donor in this case had completed necessary forms and returned them. He also applied for the necessary consent which required by the Defence Regulation (Amendments No.2) SI 1939/1620, but the consent was not given before his untimely demise. Romer J. did not upheld the trust because the donor has not done everything that is necessary for the transfer of the title. As Romer J. stated that if the donor had been asked for further details, he is not compelled to proceed with the transfer, he have the choice to refuse as he obtain more details about the transfer of share.The law had been very clear with regards to imperfect gifts or incompletely constituted trust, as some judges even decided harshly to comply with the maxim and general rule. However there are judges that came out with different rule to curb such harsh decision and strict principle, this is known as ‘the every effort rule’. The ‘every effort rule’ which was established in the case of Re Rose [1952] explained by Rimer L.J in Zeital v Kaye [2010] that “once a donor has done all in his own power to transfer the shares, he will be regarded as holding the legal title to them upon trust for the donee, who will thereupon become their beneficial owner”. This rule will not render the gift or trust failed