Introduction Of Law Case Law

* Dr. Bisson died in 1985, and shortly thereafter Greer filed a petition in probate court to admit the June 18, 1982, will and two codicils thereto dated August 20, 1984, and August 6, 1985, respectively, to probate as and for the Last Will and Testament of Wheelock

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.

The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was

Sandy Glastor (Paralegal) has joined his family for Thanksgiving. Sandy’s grandfather asks a general question (to everyone sitting at the table) about writing a holographic will on letterhead stationery. (Grandfather’s question is whether the printed part of the stationery invalidates the will because the will is not written entirely in the testator’s handwriting.) Sandy takes Grandfather’s question as a hypothetical and responds to it along with everyone else at the table throwing in their opinions. Later that night, Grandfather rewrites his holographic will on a blank piece of paper based on Sandy’s reply to the question. Which of the following is true?

Charles Smith executed a Last Will and Testament on January 01, 2000. The last Will and Testament was filed with the local probate court. Smith died on June 20, 2015. His Last Will and Testament appointed Ralph Jones as Personal Representative and appointed Henry Robinson as Successor Personal Representative. Robinson would like to have Jones removed from Personal Representative for the Estate of Charles Smith due to the lack of fulfilling his Personal Representative duties. Jones has failed to publish notice in the local newspaper that Smith died on June 20, 2015 and he is now the Personal Representative. Since Jones did not publish notice, creditors or possible creditors are unaware and were unable to make a claim against the Estate. Jones failed to post bond which is required by the court to serve as a Personal Representative of the Estate. In addition, Jones has not taken the necessary

Nadine did not effectively revoke her Will. According to Conn. Gen. Stat. 45a-257, to revoke a Will the testator must burn, cancel, tear, or obliterate the Will or by someone at the direction of the testator, in the testator’s presence. Although Nadine left a voicemail requesting her lawyer to destroy her original Will, it was not done in her presence. Nadine, at a last attempt to modify her Will on her deathbed, she writes on each page of her copy of the Will “This Will is Revoked”. Unfortunately for Nadine’s son, Richard, this is not a valid form of modification. Conn. Gen. Stat. 45a-251 tells us any Will or codicil, change to the Will, has to be in writing, signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses. Connecticut does not recognize holographic Wills and furthermore, it has to be the original Will, not a copy.

The case of Demoulas v. Demoulas, 1996 Mass. Super LEXIS 735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug 20, 1996) involved the request on the part of the plaintiffs, Evanthea, George Demoulas’ wife, Evan, Diana, Fotene and Arthur Demoulas, their children, who comprise the surviving family of the deceased, George Demoulas, brother of the defendant, Telemachus Demoulas, to have the court take action in light of a verdict returned in 1994 finding the defendant in breach of his fiduciary duty to handle the finances of his deceased brother’s Estate and see to it the deceased’s surviving children benefit from the Estate of George Demoulas. The Middlesex County jury found Telemachus additionally guilty of fraudulently transferring funds to himself, his family, as well

This request for review is in reference to a grievance received on September 16, 2014. M. Denise Rockett filed a request for investigation against the respondent, Eugene A. Nigro. The respondent had been named as a co-trustee in J. Hilary Rockett’s Will; J. Hilary Rockett was Denise’s late husband, who passed away on November 26, 2009. Additionally, Nigro was “directed” to assist Denise with the administration of the estate, after Hilary died.

Our office represents Dearing Dee English. Ms. English declines to act as a successor trustee of the Survivor’s Trust, Meyers Family Trust Agreement dated April 10, 1992. Attorney Jerry Cluff represents David Meyers, successor trustee of the Decedent’s and Q-Tip Trusts, Meyer’s Family Trust Agreement dated April 10, 1992. Mr. Cluff’s office phone number is (619) -222-0503.

Jeremy Slick, a lawyer that has represented the West family for decades called three days after the funeral and says. he had a delicate matter to discuss and wanted to hand deliver a copy of my mother’s last will and testament. Therefore, two hours later he arrived, allocated a measly sentence to my mother’s untimely death and then proceed to share the reason I’d received that dinner invitation last Friday evening. She wanted to disclose that she had disinherited me. Mr. Slick pauses and waited for my response. But, I just stood there stoically, without saying a word. When my silence became too much for him to bear, he opened his Louis Vuitton briefcase, placed a copy of the will in my hand and without asking gave me the Cliff’s note version

The idea of the provisions set out in the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 were to help benefit the younger person who is presumed to have predeceased the elder so that the possible whom failing clause can be met rather than the estate falling into partial intestacy. A case which illustrates this outcome well is the Ross’s Judicial Factor v Martin when both died and the common law rule was applied it was determined that neither would have survived the other. This therefor caused both of the estates to be treated as

Considering Rod and Rachel have not updated their Wills, this presents the issue of the assets of their estate potentially no longer going to the beneficiaries that they would currently like or intend to receive.

Many types of lawyers offer this service, but it is the probate attorney that has a lot of experience with people who have died without a will. This is when the fighting begins. However,

Those who determine that they don’t need an estate plan typically die without a will or living trust. When this occurs, state law determines what and how much is distributed where. The result, not surprisingly, is usually not in line with the wishes of the

In addition, the legality of living wills is still being challenged in about 25 percent of all cases, decisions are made -– by family or physician – that are contrary to the patient’s wishes as stated in their living will (i.e.