purging statute: purges out of the will the gift to the interested person (NY and IN)(strike the gift to the extent Estate of Morea of the gain: only strike the part of the will that is the extra benefit of the will being admitting into probate) UPC: strike nothing CA: creates a presumption of undue influence, fraud, etc.; might strike the gift SS: probably better than UPC; but, costs (more litigation) Mistakes in Execution and Inducement mistake: misperception of reality; an inaccurate mapping of the world onto the client’s brain two general types of mistake mistake in the inducement (reasons for making the will); will is admitted to probate mistake in the execution (misperception about the content of the documents she is signing; did not intend for document to be will); will is not admitted to probate if mistakenly included clause, deny probate to that clause (there is no intent for it); if mistakenly omitted clause, may not add it document switch (special type of mistake) (Penn. 1959)(Because the testators In re Estate Pavlinko’s switched signatures, the will is null) (NY 1981)(Even though there was a switched In re Snide wills error, the will should be probated)(SS: dissent is right—it did turn out to be an early step towards relaxation of formalities; UPC became more relaxed) UPC 2-503 (dispensing power)(Stake hates it and thinks it should be optional): court can relax formalities if document was intended to be will of decedent; clear and convincing evidence an instrument was intended to be a will does not require court to find that all purposes of formalities are satisfied; just need to find that intent formality was satisfied (NJ 1991)(“A careful practitioner will still observe the In re Will of Ranney formalities surrounding the execution of wills. When formal defects occur, proponents should prove by clear and convincing evidence that the will substantially complies with statutory requirements”)
purging statute: purges out of the will the gift to the interested person Estate of Morea (NY and IN)(strike the gift to the extent of the gain: only strike the part of the will that is the extra benefit of the will being admitting into probate) UPC: strike nothing CA: creates a presumption of undue influence, fraud, etc.; might strike the gift SS: probably better than UPC; but, costs (more litigation) Mistakes in Execution and Inducement mistake: misperception of reality; an inaccurate mapping of the world onto the client’s brain two general types of mistake mistake in the inducement (reasons for making the will); will is admitted to probate mistake in the execution (misperception about the content of the documents she is signing; did not intend for document to be will); will is not admitted to probate if mistakenly included clause, deny probate to that clause (there is no intent for it); if mistakenly omitted clause, may not add it document switch (special type of mistake) In re Pavlinko’s Estate (Penn. 1959)(Because the testators switched signatures, the will is null) In re Snide (NY 1981)(Even though there was a switched wills error, the will should be probated)(SS: dissent is right—it did turn out to be an early step towards relaxation of formalities; UPC became more relaxed) UPC 2-503 (dispensing power)(Stake hates it and thinks it should be optional): court can relax formalities if document was intended to be will of decedent; clear and convincing evidence an instrument was intended to be a will does not require court to find that all purposes of formalities are satisfied; just need to find that intent formality was satisfied In re Will of Ranney (NJ 1991)(“A careful practitioner will still observe the formalities surrounding the execution of wills. When formal defects occur, proponents should prove by clear and convincing evidence that the will substantially complies with statutory requirements”)
WillsandTrustsOutline.docx