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.

5. Suppose that Congress required registration <strong>of</strong> handguns and assault weapons, prohibited sale<br />

and provided that at the death <strong>of</strong> the owner the weapons became the property <strong>of</strong> the government to<br />

redistribute. Would that be constitutional?<br />

Class Discussion Tool<br />

Janet executed a will leaving her house to her son, Terrance. The jurisdiction had a statute that<br />

prohibited convicted felons from inheriting property if they still owed restitution for their crimes.<br />

Terrance was convicted <strong>of</strong> armed robbery and sentenced to seven years in prison. He was also<br />

ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution. When Janet died, Terrance had three years left on his sentence<br />

and he had not paid any money towards the restitution. The state’s attorney filed a motion seeking<br />

to have Janet’s house sold to pay the $50,000 in restitution. In the alternative, the state’s attorney<br />

asked the court to attach a $50,000 lien on the house. Evaluate the constitutionality <strong>of</strong> the statute<br />

and the potential court action.<br />

7.2 The Decedent’s Right to Place Restrictions on the Right to Inherit<br />

Since children do not have the right to inherit from their parents, they can be totally<br />

disinherited. Nonetheless, the majority <strong>of</strong> persons who prepare wills tend not to disinherit their<br />

children. Based on the particular circumstances, the testator may decide to place some type <strong>of</strong><br />

condition or restriction on the child’s right to inherit. Courts usually uphold those conditions unless<br />

they require the heir to engage in an activity that is illegal, unconstitutional or against public policy.<br />

Also, Courts will not enforce conditions that infringe on fundamental or constitutional rights. As the<br />

next two cases indicate, factually similar cases can have different judicial outcomes<br />

7.2.1 Some Restrictions are Unreasonable<br />

Maddox & al. v. Maddox’s adm’r & als., 11 Grat., Va. 804 (Va. 1854)<br />

1. A member <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Friends, by his will, gives a legacy <strong>of</strong> a remainder after a life interest,<br />

to his niece M, “during her single life, and forever, if her conduct should be orderly, and she remain<br />

a member <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Friends.” When M arrived at a marriageable age, there were but five or<br />

six unmarried men <strong>of</strong> the society in the neighborhood in which she lived: And during the life estate<br />

she married a man not a member <strong>of</strong> the Society <strong>of</strong> Friends, and by that act she ceased to be a<br />

member <strong>of</strong> the society.<br />

Held:<br />

1. The condition is an unreasonable restraint upon marriage, and is void.<br />

2. There being no bequest over, and no specific direction that upon breach <strong>of</strong> the condition the<br />

legacy shall fall into the residuum <strong>of</strong> the estate, the condition is therefore in terrorem merely, and does<br />

not avoid the bequest.<br />

2. On a bequest <strong>of</strong> a legacy upon a condition requiring any religious qualification, the condition is<br />

against the policy <strong>of</strong> the law <strong>of</strong> Virginia, and therefore void.<br />

349

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!