Estates and Trusts Outline

E&T Outline
1.Introduction

Estates/Trusts:Power to transfer property at death is a right, which may be limited but not completely abrogated, consistent with a system of private property.
1. Self-Policing: State has no interest in the enforcement of wills. Instead this aspect is left to greed. Only the interested parties are allowed to litigate an estate case. If everyone receiving benefit under the will agrees to different conditions of the will then the testator’s intent does not need to be upheld

$12,000 = The amount of money able to be given tax free per person. If more, than you must file a gift tax return. For a married couple = 24k.
$2 Million = Anything over 2 million will be taxed at 50%. ($1 million may be passed during life)
$ Infinity = How much money you can give to your spouse or a charity upon death

2. Transfer: Public Policy Debate
i. Pro: Person should have the power to transfer property at death b/c consistent w/ the view of private property, thus encouraging hard work, promoting family ties, encouraging the accumulation of wealth and encouraging families to love and protect their elders.
ii. Con: Perpetuates economic disparity and discrimination, undeserved power and wealth, denies equal opportunity to all children.
iii. Human Capital: Inter vivos investments of education, health, culture and connections arguably account for more disparity.
iv. Academic v. Public Opinion: Academics tend to favor stiffer inheritance taxes, arguing that such taxes are inherently fairer; b/ the public tends to oppose inheritance taxes.
v. U.S. Trend: Impose higher taxes on wealth transferred then on wealth earned. The modern trend is anti-estate tax w/ proposals to abolish the estate tax.

The Dead Hand
1. Dead Hand Control: Use of wealth to influence the conduct of friends and family after death.

· Shapira v. Union National Bank (Testamentary Intent)

Estate: FS Subject to Executory Limitation. Daniel has a springing executory limitation. Israel has a shifting executory interest. Possibility of reverter is Israel stops to being a state and \ estate passes through intestacy.
Facts: Father’s will states that P must marry a Jewish girl of Jewish parents in order to inherit the estate, but if he did not marry in 7 years after the Father’s death then the estate would got to the State of Israel. P claimed that the court was being asked to enforce an unconstitutional restriction upon the right to marry.
The right to receive property by will is a creature of the law and is not a natural right guaranteed by state or U.S. constitution. There is no state action like unto Evans v. Abney.
Since the testator may entirely disinherit the P, he may certainly restrict the conditions of receipt. A complete restraint on marriage is considered unconstitutional Maddox v. Maddox.
Court duty to honor the intent and testamentary plans of the testator
No forfeiture of rights or property exists in the failure of the P completing the conditions. There is no state action like unto Evans v. Abney.