06.09.2021 Views

Law of Wills, 2016A

Law of Wills, 2016A

Law of Wills, 2016A

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

was taken <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> life support on April 14, 2000 and pronounced dead. Trina gave the hospital<br />

permission to remove Anita from last support on April 17, 2000. Was there sufficient evidence that<br />

Anita survived Parker?<br />

3.3.3 UPC and Modern USDA (120 Hour Rule)<br />

It was basically impossible to determine if one person survived another person by an instant.<br />

In addition, as the situation in problem 3 indicates, the order <strong>of</strong> death may sometimes be controlled<br />

by doctors or other circumstances. In the interests <strong>of</strong> judicial economy and judicial consistency,<br />

states legislatures adopted a bright line survival rule as a default approach. That approach was<br />

codified in both the UPC and the USDA. It should be noted that the 120 hour rule does not really<br />

solve the life support situation discussed in problem 3. In acknowledgment <strong>of</strong> that fact, most<br />

probate attorneys include survival clauses in wills that mandate that the person survives the decedent<br />

by 30 or 60 days.<br />

Uniform Probate Act § 2-104. Requirement that Heir Survive Decedent for 120 Hours.<br />

An individual who fails to survive the decedent by 120 hours is deemed to have predeceased the<br />

decedent for purposes <strong>of</strong> homestead allowance, exempt property, and intestate succession, and the<br />

decedent’s heirs are determined accordingly. If it is not established by clear and convincing evidence<br />

that an individual who would otherwise be an heir survived the decedent by 120 hours, it is deemed<br />

that the individual failed to survive for the required period. This section is not to be applied if its<br />

application would result in a taking <strong>of</strong> intestate estate by the state under Section 2-105.<br />

Stephens v. Beard, 428 S.W.3d 385 (Ct. App. Tex. 2014)<br />

HOYLE, Justice.<br />

Elaine Stephens, independent executrix <strong>of</strong> the estate <strong>of</strong> Vencie Beard and <strong>of</strong> the estate <strong>of</strong> Melba<br />

Beard, appeals from declaratory judgments construing Vencie Beard’s will and Melba Beard’s will. In<br />

two issues, Stephens asserts that the trial court erred in determining that Vencie and his wife, Melba,<br />

died in a common disaster and that the Simultaneous Death Act applies to this case. We affirm.<br />

BACKGROUND<br />

Vencie Beard shot and killed his wife, Melba, on April 16, 2011. The death certificate states that the<br />

time <strong>of</strong> her death was 8:59 p.m. Vencie died that same night at 10:55 p.m. from a self-inflicted<br />

gunshot wound.<br />

Paragraph 2.02 <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the decedents’ wills provided for specific cash bequests to nine named<br />

individuals if both Vencie and Melba died in a common disaster or under circumstances making it<br />

impossible to determine which died first. Paragraph 2.03 <strong>of</strong> each will provided that if the spouse did<br />

not survive the testator by ninety days, Janet Lea Hopkins would receive a portion <strong>of</strong> a tract <strong>of</strong> land.<br />

Paragraph 2.04 <strong>of</strong> each will provided that if the spouse did not survive the testator by ninety days,<br />

Matthew C. Hopkins would receive the remaining portion <strong>of</strong> that tract <strong>of</strong> land. In paragraph 2.05 <strong>of</strong><br />

104

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!