Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LA240 Legal Writing Unit7 Assignment Legal Memos Sandra Black or-1

LA240 Legal Writing Unit7 Assignment Legal Memos Sandra Black or-1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,921|Likes:
Published by LegalDoomUT

More info:

categoriesTypes, Research, Law
Published by: LegalDoomUT on Sep 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, DOC, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





To:Supervising AttorneyFrom:Sandra Black, ParalegalDate:May 22, 2010Case:Dixon v. CareyRe:Probate of holographic willStatement of AssignmentI have been assigned the task of determining, within the meaning of the state statue, whether Thomas Dixon’s
would be admissible for probate when there were no witnesses and onlyhalf of the will is handwritten.IssueUnder Texas Statutory Law, Probate Code. Ann. § 59
Requisites of a Will
(Vernon 1980), isthere sufficient evidence to support that Thomas Dixon’s
is invalid. The Petitioner allegesthat the will is contestable due to the method of preparation and signature.
Brief Answer Qualification is highly probable. In the case of 
 Dean v. Dickey
, 225 S.W.2d 999 (Civ. App. Tex.1949) upheld the trial court’s judgment that the
was invalid under Section 59. Holographic
must be written wholly in the hand of the testator and signed.Statement of FactsMary Cary is the Personal Representative of the Thomas Dixon estate. Ms. Cary has submittedthe
for probate to the court. The first half of the
was written in Thomas Dixon’s ownhandwriting. The second half of the
was typewritten and completed by his neighbor, Edgar Mae. Mr. Mae stated that Mr. Dixon asked him to finish his
 by typing it out because he wastoo physically weak to complete it himself. The
is signed by Mr. Dixon but there were nowitnesses to attest to the signing. The
does include a self-proving affidavit that meets therequirements of the statute. However, the statute clearly states that a
must be entirely and
wholly written in the hand of the testator to be considered a legal and probatable holographic
To: Supervising AttorneyFrom:Sandra Black, ParalegalDate:May 22, 2010Case:Eldridge v. EldridgeRe: Modification of Child SupportStatement of AssignmentYou have asked me to prepare a memorandum on the question of whether the trial court’s ruling,which granted Mr. Eldridge’s request to modify past-due child support within the state’sstatutory law when an obligor spouse is delinquent due to temporary unemployment. The secondquestion does Mrs. Eldridge have grounds for an appeal of the trial court’s ruling.IssueIndiana Statutory Law: Ind. Code ž 31-2-11-12. Modification of delinquent support paymentsstates that a court may not retroactively modify an obligor's duty to pay a delinquent support payment. A court with jurisdiction over a support order may modify an obligor's duty to pay asupport payment that becomes due after notice of a petition to modify the support order has beengiven to the obligee before a final order concerning the petition for modification is entered.Brief Answer Qualification: Yes. In the case of 
. Gwaltney
, 556 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. App. 1 Dist.1990), the statute states that even in situations where the non-custodial parent has no income, thecourts have routinely established a child support obligation at a minimum level. An obligor cannot be held in contempt for failure to pay support when he does not have the means to pay.However, the obligation accrues and serves to reimburse the custodial parent if the non-custodial parent later acquires the ability to meet his support obligations. He did obtain employment as anelectrician.Statement of FactsThe Eldridges divorced in 1992 and Mrs. Eldridge was awarded custody of their two minor children. Mr. Eldridge was ordered to make child support payments of $700 per month. He losthis job in January of 1993 and was unemployed from that date through October of 1993. Mr.Eldridge did not make child support payments for the months he was unemployed. Mrs. Eldridgefiled a motion with the court that entered the divorce decree in 1994 seeking an order forcing Mr.Eldridge to pay the child support payments due for the months he did not make payments. The

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Nakeya Johnson liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Alex Williams liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->