Do Not Write on the Evidence

How many times has a client come in with a great piece of evidence only to find it is ruined because they have indelibly added their testimony to the face of it in blue or black ink. It is as if the intense need to control events blots out any kind of judgment they might have had, or restraint to action until they can get some legal advice.

A letter might have proved their point, but who can say who is the author of all the rest of the commentary?document

I can hear the objection already, the document is not authentic because the author is undetermined.

Or in the case of a bank statement which was certainly produced by the bank, but who wrote “Uncle Charlie told me I was supposed to get this!!!” on the face of it?

 

 

I have vivid memories of a judge examining the offered exhibit then angrily declaring “Some one has written all over it!” knowing that someone was seated at counsel table next to me.

 

Objection Sustained.mean judge

Advertisements

Primogeniture

It is extraordinary how many people come into my office believing the oldest son somehow has some inherent right to govern the estate of the parents.

Being a lawyer, I start looking for authority for this rule. I start with Exodus 13-

The Lord said to Moses, “Set apart for me the first boy born in every family. The oldest son of every Israelite mother belongs to me. Every male animal that is born first to its mother also belongs to me.”moses

And thus Primogeniture was born, as well as animal law.

Note the ancient practice of Primogeniture called for the first born male to actually inherit, not just govern his parents estate. This lead to the ancient practice of fratricide as well.

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”
And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

—Genesis 4:1-8
cain and abel
It has never been clear to me his motive, Abel was not the oldest. Cain was going to inherit anyway. Perhaps Cain got bad legal advise from the internet.

Here is something to keep the modern mind away from such sin; slayers do not inherit. See Revised Code of Washington.

Need Not Be Present To Win

After the funeral a dozen people or so show up at the lawyers office, some times the same day, for the reading of the will. I think they get this idea this must happen from television and the movies. Television and the movies is where this unnecessary step belongs.
funeral procession
First, there generally is no reading of the will. Instead everyone with an interest in the estate gets a copy, but there are no elderly barristers with cherry lined law library waiting with fire blazing to read wills as funerals end.
read will

Second, you need not be present to win. When a person dies with a will leaving someone else property, the gift vests. Even if there is no will, by operation of law some heirs just plain take by doing nothing.

But there is always a catch, the vesting is subject to probate.
spendthrift
In other words, we have to pay the bills first.

Occasionally the lawyer will be hired to read the will but usually it is a huge disappointment for everyone involved. We don’t have a cherry wood lined conference room full of old books with fire blazing in the fireplace.
lawyers office
People fail to wear black or otherwise dress appropriately.
bad funeral wear

People do get upset, say things they might later regret, and otherwise misbehave. That part is like television and the movies. And that is why most lawyers refuse to read any wills to the family.

Title credits to Valetta King, Office Manager at Newton Kight LLP

Dying Declarations Are For Slayers Only

After the funeral people come to see me about probating the Last Will and Testament the family member left behind. The interview sometimes begins like this:
“Dad wanted me to have the farm. He told me so on his death-bed. He said, ‘I want you to have the farm’.”
family farm

I ask for the will and can find no reference to this bequest. Instead the client and all her siblings are listed share and share alike which means they all get an equal portion ownership.

“I am afraid you have a hearsay problem”, I tell the shocked client.

eager person
This “dying declaration” always seems to benefit the client immensely.

There is some room for dying declarations to be admitted in court.

First, the person has to understand they are about to die when the statement is made.

Second, it is only admissible to prove the client is guilty of murder of the decedent.

Third, if proven, the client is not going to inherit in any case because of the rule that says slayers do not inherit. axe murderer

Fourth, I refer this person out to a firm that handles criminal law.

A good example of what might be admitted against the client was John Lennon’s exclamation “I’m Shot!” if offered in the prosecution of Mark Chapman. john lennon

Faced with this and other evidence, Chapman plead guilty to 2nd Degree Murder and is still in prison.

So friends and neighbors let’s go with what is on paper and not a dying declaration. If admitted at all, it might mean you are going to jail.

The Estate of Elvis

Well of course there had to be a lawsuit when Elvis passed.

elvis

His will referenced “lawful” children being beneficiaries of his testamentary trust. Now who would that be? Children born during his marriage, certainly. Those adopted, OK, but there were none.

elvis and lisa marie

What about those Elvis may have sired on tour and never claimed? What if Elvis dies before a paternity action can be brought?

elvis in concert

Well as it turned out The King of Rock and Roll successfully defended a paternity suit in California, only to have the claimant return to haunt him post mortem, like in a horror picture. One wonders what forgettable music would be produced for that film, something from “The Trouble with Girls” perhaps?

Elvis the trouble with girls

If that Elvis love child was sired in Washington State it means that poor child should have you get nothing. Same in Tennessee apparently. Text from his Will:

..the Trustee is authorized to accumulate the net income or to pay or apply so much of the net income and such portion of the principal at any time and from time to time for the health, education, support, comfortable maintenance and welfare of: (1) my daughter, Lisa Marie Presley, and any other lawful issue I might have, ….

There is no Equal Protection argument either, it’s the parent that failed the child, not the state. Yes, New Age reader, “Lawful Issue” still means something.

Indeed, every word of a will means something, and how carefully chosen each word may be will not be examined post mortem, as this unfortunate appellant tried to claim. It is presumed every word means what it says.
elvis easy come easy go
It should be noted there are about 40% of children born in America to unwed parents at the present time. Even among the highly educated, it seems an acceptable practice. It’s remarkable people who clearly love their children simply chose to ignore great bodies of law that will have an impact upon them should they perish without taking care of matters.

What do you say to this child? Return to Sender?

elvis stamp
So, for those that presume the law has caught up with your Brave New World of family, take care to ensure terms are not thrown around in your will like “lawful” when you mean “all”.

Regardless of new concepts of family, people who have had children without benefit of clergy also want their offspring to say kind things about their parents when they pass, perhaps the way Elvis would end a concert:

Thank ya, Thank ya vury much.

elvis grave

The Forgotten Child

Last willFor some reason I have a run of kids that seem to have been forgotten during the first will preparation interview of late.

The client comes in, even fills out the form about who their children are, then we have the meeting, discuss what is their desires, and a first draft is sent out US Mail as a hard copy.

Then something happens. Perhaps it is guilt. Perhaps they just remember that long ago in another state another child was born, but the fates separated them somehow. An excited call comes to the office to amend to include this flesh and blood so long ignored, often with stressful questions as to what trouble this means. Shakespeare missed a good plot, but I believe there was a child of this nature that undermined everything in the musical “Camelot”.

This happens so often there is actually legislation about children who are forgotten. They are called “pretermitted”. This forgotten child is due whatever percentage he or she would have received had the parent died without a will.

The most recent iteration of our statute has the pretermitted claim limited to children born after the will is signed. Still, there will be a fight in any case.

Death is a good time to remember children, particularly in a will. You may have cause to disinherit, but do so expressly, lest that Iago child of your youth return to spoil Othello’s estate.

The Super Will

Red S

When one dies, one leaves behind two kinds of property: Probate Property, and Non-Probate Property. The SuperWill Statute can blur this distinction and the only kryptonite which can weaken the will are contained in exceptions buried deep in the Code that spawned this hero to some, foe to others.

Probate property is that which is controlled by the will of our departed. The most common example is the house he lived in. Non-probate property is that which, by contract, avoids the probate process and goes directly to those who are designated as beneficiaries payable on death. The most common example is a bank account with a payable on death or joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

But lo- what if we make that contract, perhaps even in a trust with your spouse, then later make a will that says something different about the same property? What if you don’t even know the SuperWill statute exists? Worse, what if you decide to rely on it but are not aware of the limitations on its use?

Lying underneath the surface of many wills is a reference to re-directing property that was non-probate, and suddenly becomes probate, often without a lot of forethought. A recent Supreme Court decision  in our state strongly suggests one can undo the intent of a trust one may have made with a predeceased spouse just by writing a new will. After reading the decision I can say this is not going to happen every time.

Like the man of steel, the Superwill statute is not something to mess with unless you have your own member of the Justice League evaluate what you are doing. The estate planning forms you may get from a paid or unpaid source are not members of the Justice League. After reading the aforementioned case, I am not sure even the new licensed legal technicians Washington now allows have membership.

Like Superman the SuperWill can change everything, or not, and knowing what you are doing means everything.