Select Page

Wills and Estates
University of Illinois School of Law
Fleisher, Miranda Perry

I. INTRODUCTION:
Ø A. The Right To Transfer Property at Death: 24-34
o What is the point of letting decedent’s decide what to do with their property?
§ After all, they are not creating new wealth, just redistributing wealth
· But maybe it is an incentive to work harder during your life
· Another good argument—continued support
· Equalizer—otherwise people would start wasting money b/f death
o Tension that exists here: majoritarian rules (what people want) v. mandatory rules (administrative ease)
o Shapira v. Union National Bank:
§ FACTS:
· The portion of the will in controversy involves him devising 1/3 the residue of his estate to his son (other children got other 2/3) upon satisfaction of the condition that he is married to a Jewish broad who has parents that are both Jewish
o If not satisfied,(and after 7 years of trustee holding it to be satisfied) to the state of Israel (with certain time limits)
· Plaintiff in this case, Daniel, alleges that the condition upon his inheritance is unconstitutional, contrary to public policy and unenforceable b/c of its unreasonableness
o At time of this case, P is 21, in college, and not married at all
§ ISSUES:
· 1) Constitutionality
o P’s argument is based on the premise that the right to marry is protected by the 14th amendment of the Constitution
§ Based on Loving: the right to marry is constitutionally protected from restrictive state legislative action
o Thus, the argument goes, based on Doctrine of Shelly v. Kramer, that this protection is extended from direct state legislative action to the enforcement by state judicial proceedings of private provisions restricting the right to marry
o Ct. disagrees with P’s argument—says the probate court. Is not being asked to enforce the testator’s restriction
§ Ie: the court is not seeking to enjoin Daniel from marrying a non-Jewish girl (he just doesn’t take if does not comply)
o P’s final argument is that Shelly v. Kramer was extended in two cases
§ Ct. disagrees
o RULE: Basically, the right to receive property by will is a creature of the law, and is not a natural right or one guaranteed or protected by either the Ohio or U.S. Constitution
§ Ie: you can entirely disinherit your child
· 2) Public Policy
o Basically the test here is reasonableness:
§ If a total restraint on marriage (ie: 1/3 of estate if you n

ood summation of the Reasonableness Rule is Restatement 2nd of Property, Donative Transfers § 6.2 (1983): provides that a restraint to induce someone to marry within a religious faith is valid “if and only if, under the circumstances, the restraint does not unreasonably limit the transferee’s opportunity to marry”
· Comment a provides that, “the restraint unreasonably limits the transferee’s opportunity to marry if a marriage permitted by the restraint is unlikely to occur.
o Likelihood of marriage to occur is a factual question, to be answered by the court
· Bottom line from this section:
o 1) you have no const. right to inherit
o 2) conditions in wills are upheld if reasonable
§ if total restraint, then not valid
§ if partial, then upheld if reasonable
Ø B. Professional Responsibility (pg. 59-70):
o 2 recurring problems
§ 1) your duties as lawyers to others who are not your clients
· Simpson v. Calivas (pg. 59):
o FACTS: