Quiz 39: Family Law, Wills, and Trusts
In the given case, Mr N raised two main issues on the cross appeal. The award of chancellor to Mr N was an abuse of judgement as he was very capable of supporting himself. It is clear that the given award is a reasonable resolution of the uncontroverted fact that contribution of Mr N was substantial.
The first will which got executed about or on June 10, 1959 must be admitted into probate. All the will should be signed by testator, in written form and attested by more than two witnesses. In the given case, it was uncontroverted that the document which is handwritten is not counter signed by deceased and the document which is typewritten and signed; do not get implemented by the two witnesses. Appellant struggles a valid will be constituted only when both the documents get compiled. Not even a single authority supported a proposition and the statutory requirements got satisfied only on the basis of first document.
Doctrine of Ademption: It states that if a testator leaves certain property of his estate to a beneficiary, but does not hold that property at the time he dies then the beneficiary gets nothing. It is a principle defining distribution of only that property which are present in the state after the person dies. If they are sold or destroys before the person dies and does not changes the will, then the beneficiary is left empty handed. Person ER prepared her will distributing and made three bequest, first the stock of Company P, second was the stocks of the Company HN stock and the remainder of her estate to Company B. The stocks of P and HN were sold by her before she died and the amount was accounted in the bank account having no prior funds in them. Person A and Person B contended that they were entitled to the cash deposits in the bank. The facts of the case show that ER failed to update her will before dying. All the stocks hold by her and which were mentioned in the will were sold before her death. As per the doctrine of Ademption the proceeds of stock were entitled to no one. The two beneficiaries of stocks are left with nothing because R does not own the stocks anymore before she dies. Hence, the amount against the stocks in the banks is counted as the remainder of the estate and is thus provided to Company B. Thus, it can be concluded that the bequest to A and B were adeemed when the stocks were sold by ER.