No harmless error/dispensing power

New Cascadia (WA statute – CL Majority Rule)
Community Property Owns ½ undivided interest Waiver – not enforced if not voluntary Omitted spouse – intestacy Omitted child – intestacy M/C → Common Law No Holographic Will Rule Against Perpetuities 11.98.130 Trust Assets must vest in 150 Years Ambiguities and Extrinsic Evidence Strict Construction POA – RCW 11.94.050 Express provisions nec. to create/change nonprobate – no LWT Strict Construction Substituted Judgment Standard - CCE Wills Mental Cap.: 18, capable knowledge, property, bounty, disposition – MAJ: prima facie due execution; BOP contestant Insane Delusion: belief in facts that do not exist; not susceptible to correction. Causation. Burden Shifting. CCE. Majority Rule: Contestant must show that (1) the T labored under an insane delusion, and (2) the will (or some part thereof) was a project of the insane delusion. Undue Influence: w/or w/out confidential relationship, exertion of power over T causing a result that otherwise would not be. Susceptible, Position, Opportunity, Result No contest clause: upheld unless PC for contest Will Formalities: Strict Construction (traditional) Presence, Signature, Writing Execution: Writing, Signature, and (2) Attestation or Affidavit

Old Olympia (CL – Modern Trend)
Separate Property – 1969 Elective Share 50% augmented estate Includes inter vivos gifts, discretionary income, not Life Ins’r Waiver enforced Revocation by marriage – rebuttable by language in the will only Omitted child – no rights MC → Modern Trend Holographic Will Material Portions are handwritten, dated and signed

Ambiguities and Extrinsic Evidence Construction of terms to effect the P’s intent POA Not strict – look at express terms and context of will Construction to effect intent Substituted Judgment Standard - CCE Wills

Will Formalities: Substantial compliance with writing, signature and presence to show that the T’s intended to make a testamentary disposition

Calivas TRUSTS 11.080 Integration: at time of execution Republication by Codicil Incorporation by Reference: Existence.12.120 on the condition of survival Class: Group minded.d) Ademption and Abatement apply Old Olympia (CL – Modern Trend) Revocation: Presumption of revocation with Act+Intent Disso revokes DRR: Intent to revive (mistaken belief) – by operation of law Integration Republication by Codicil Incorporation by Reference Reformation: Ambiguities to admit Extrinsic Evidence Intestate Distribution: Modern per stirpes – per capita with representation Divided equally by degree of kinship No virtual adoption Posthumous: consent required (9th cir.12.005(3) Half-Bloods are Whole Step Children 11.96A.0002. Wasteful Presumption of general intent . See Simpson v.98 Capacity like wills Trust Pursuit Rule Res. intent description 11.04. No parentage) Advancement: UPC requires intent in writing Bars to Succession: CL. entity Impracticable.e. Illegal.04.040 Disso revokes DRR: no revival without intent 11.02. purpose. survivors take Ademption: Modern intent theory Abatement: Statute (includes nonprobate assets) MAJ: Duty to Intended Beneficiaries. Impossible. must be reported to Medicaid AntiLapse: 11.Equally Representation RCW 11.015 Community Property: All Separate Property: Issue/parents/Brothers & Sisters Same degree . no advancement Bars to succession slayers and abusers statutes (POE and CCE) Declaimer: subject to tax lien. Trustee.041 – proof of gift.095 – Avoid Escheat Adopted child is treated as natural child Posthumous: consent required Advancement: 11. is subject to tax lien AntiLapse: by statute – presumed intent of T to descendents Class Ademption Abatement: Honorary Trusts o.k.04.unworthy heirs do not take (POE) Disclaimers: must be reported to Medicaid.Reformation w/out ambiguity if CCE of true intent Descent and Distribution 11.12.New Cascadia (WA statute – CL Majority Rule) Revocation: Writing or Physical Act with Intent 11. Oral trust (CCE) Creditors can reach inter vivos discretionary trust for debts JT account rebuttable by CCE CY PRES: General Charitable intent. Beneficiary Non probate assets do not need to conform to will formalities (w.

Life Insurance d. Impermissible racial or other categorical restrictions. Provisions promoting separation or divorce. Restrictions 1. INTRODUCTION Section A. The Power to Transmit Property At Death 1. Sometimes produces perverse incentives Section B. RAP (Washington does away with RAP at 11. Hodel v. The Problem of the Death Hand a.090. Conditional Restriction 1. Administration of Probate . Provisions encouraging illegal activity. Convey only that property that is owned at time of death ii. Joint Tenancy – vanishes at death b.130) b. Donative Intent i. Inter Vivos Trust Interest 2. Donors intent was shown in the gift over: to further the Jewish Faith c. Shapira v. No right to inherit 3. Spousal rights.98. The Policy of Passing Wealth at Death 3. Accumulations 2. Transfer of the Decedent’s Estate 1. Unreasonable restraints on alienation or marriage. Irving – Native Americans Restricted from Devising Property b.TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. The Right to Inherit and the Right to Convey a. Partial Restriction: marry a Jewish girl or gift over was not unconstitutional as it did not restrict marriage wholly 2. Shaw Family Archives – Marilyn Monroe i. Creditor’s rights. After Acquired Property – not in supplement 2. RCW 11.12. Union National Bank i. Probate and Nonprobate Property a. POD c. Freedom of disposition ii.

RCW 11. Calivas i. Simultaneous Death i. Extrinsic Evidence admitted if the terms of the will are ambiguous 2. Share of the Surviving Spouse a. Duties of Intended Beneficiaries a. Skip Section D.015 Family Protection c. The Basic Scheme 1. Share of Ancestors and Collaterals a. i.05A.035 – same as full ii. Simpson v. B. RCW 11.Section C. Duty of Confidentiality v. Janus v. Traditionally No Negative Will (disinheritance) 4. Default Rules Probable Intent of Decedent b.04.005(3) Representation 2. A.02. Duty to Inform CHAPTER 2. Half-Bloods i. RCW 11. Requires sufficient evidence b. Modern per stirpes: Per capita with representation . Tarasewicz: Tylenol. Introduction a.04. RCW 11. Share of Descendents a. v. Minority: Privity required 1. Elective Share 3. INTESTACY Heirs Apparent: Expectancy Destroyed by will Intestate: no will Testate: will Section A. Majority: Some duties to intended beneficiary ii. Conflicts of Interest a. Professional responsibility 1.030: 120 hours/5 days Per Capita: Divided equally ii.

Transfers to Children 1. Dissent: No contract. Minary v. must be in writing 3. Of Social Security: genetics. In re: Martin: Controlling factor is grantor’s intent for trusts 2. Comm. performance is what creates the virtual adoption b. Guardianship of the property: Under strict court supervision ii. Raised and Educated iii. Annual reporting only if an accounting is requested by an interested party iv.04. Reproductive Technology i.710 & 730: Consent required iii. Custodianship: Person who is given property to hold for the benefit of a minor under UTMA and UGMA a. Woodward v. RCW 1.04. consent to conception. Adopted Children i. Guardianship and Conservatorship of Minors a. RCW 11.Section B. 1. Wilkes: Virtual adoption is not upheld because there is no authority to contract. Nonmarital Children: 11.26. Custody and Care ii. Posthumous Children c. Vallandingham: No natural inheritance if adopted (dual benefits) iii.041. less reporting than guardianship iii. CL: presumption of advancement b. Guardian of a Person i. Property Management Options i. not advancement c. O’Neal v. Advancements a. Trusts: Flexible and highly customizable property mgmt arrangement . Shown to be a gift. Medical Care b.: Husband adopts wife. she cannot take under mother’s will because it disrupts the T’s intent. UPC requires intent of advancement. iv.081 – no effect if parents are not married d.085.04. RCW 26. Hall v. Conservatorship: Under court supervision. Adopted child is treated as a natural child ii. consent to support ii. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co. Meaning of Children a.

WA Estate of Bussler: Will rational on its face.010. Bars to Succession 1. Mental Capacity 1. BOP on contestant – presumption of competency. Drye v. The Test of Mental Capacity i. Personal autonomy within the bounds of social norms. BOP on contestant i. presumption of sanity. Disclaimer a. In re Estate of Mahoney: Common law bars unworthy heirs b. Homicide a. In re the Estate of Washburn: Minority rule. United States: disclaimed property is subject to federal tax lien b/c it is an exercise of dominion over property b. Capacity Thresholds based on protection of interests ii. . sufficient evidence shifts BOP to proponent) a.84. Majority Rule: Contestant must show that (1) the T labored under an insane delusion. b. Lane: Majority rule. Delusion must have caused the disposition. RCW 11.030 – Slayer/abuser statutes 2. c. Minority Rule: Lower standard of causation: dispositive provisions “might have been caused or affected” by T’s insane delusion d. Stone: enforced b/c insane delusions did not materially affect the will (POE) – minority? e. Dead man’s statute . due execution. not susceptible to correction. Breeden v. set aside. due execution. and (2) the will (or some part thereof) was a project of the insane delusion. Wilson v. 18 years or older and capable of knowing and understanding the natural objects of bounty. the nature and extent of property and the relation of these to the disposition of same. b. presumption of capacity – CCE of insane delusion f. .Section C. Require Capacity to incentivize mutual support and principal of reciprocity 2.020. Conduct-Based restrictions in other countries c. Insane Delusion – belief in irrational facts that do not exist. Medicaid: Required to report disclaimers CHAPTER 3 WILLS: CAPACITY AND CONTESTS Testamentary Freedom & Personal Autonomy Section A. In re Strittmater: will of extreme feminist challenged. BOP on proponent c.

Fraud 1.Section B. and that the testamentary disposition was the result of that influence. Presumptions. What influence is undue? a. Duress v. . the donor’s free will is overcome to the effect that dispositions are made that would not have been made otherwise.  Portions of the will that are cause by undue influence will be stricken if those portions do not disrupt the testamentary scheme intended by the testator. 2. Lipper v. Burden Shifting and Undue Influence c. Undue Influence ii. Insane Delusion 1. Not going cover in class. Welsow: Control exerted to cause T to do what would not have been done otherwise f. that alleged wrongdoer was in a position and had the opportunity to exert influence over the donor. Introduction:  With or without a confidential relationship. Estate of Lakotosh: CCE that donor was susceptible and the alleged wrongdoer was in a influential position b. Planning for and Avoiding a Will Contest Contest Grounds A. Contestant must prove that the donor was susceptible to the influence. but it’s on the syllabus iv. but for causation Washington follows the minority rule iii.  Circumstantial evidence is aided by the presumption of undue influence. Washington Follows the Majority Rule. In re Kaufmann’s Will: homosexuality and undue influence e. No Contest Clauses: Majority upholds unless PC for contest 3. Tortious Interference (focusing on conduct of alleged wrongdoer) Warning Signs  Radical departure from previous plans  Multiple or blended families  Mistress or other unpopular person  Unnatural disposition o Omission of a close family member or unexplainable distinction among family members of equal relation. sister gets estate d. Challenges to Mental Capacity i. The Will of Moses: older woman’s will devising estate to younger lover overturned. Undue Influence 1.

By mark. WILLS: FORMALITIES AND FORMS Section A. Presence 1. Conscious Presence (sight. Attested Wills a. Duress Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Ritual.12. Casdorph: Not signed in the presence of the witnesses iii. or general consciousness) iv. Evidentiary.Strategies  Client to handwrite a letter to attorney setting forth in detail the disposition sought  Video discussion  Family meeting  Professional examination  Extra precautions at the will execution  No-contest clause  Inter vivos trust Section C.060. Execution of Wills 1. Estate of Morea: Interested witnesses and the purging statute 1. Channeling CHAPTER 4. The Function of Formalities b. font v. Writing. Line of Sight (seen) 2. Puckett v. Krida: confidential relationship and encouragement of false beliefs a. Stevens v. RCW11. Presumes gift is faulty vii. Recommended method of execution & safeguarding a will . Signature 1. Intent to deceive Section D. hearing. Protective. and Attestation: Strict Compliance (traditional) i. Section E. Signature. Writing vi. In re Groffman: Witnesses not present in the room during attestation ii. Fraud 1.

In re Will of Ranney: iii. Minority: no revival without due execution d.12. Kimmel’s Estate: Letter probated (w/out real intent that it was a will but that it provided a disposition to bounty) b. Estate of Gonzalez: form will.12.051 . Curative Doctrines: Substantial Compliance and Harmless Error 1. In re the Estate of Hall: joint will in draft form probated v. Harmless Error 3.12.12. no relief ii. material provisions c. In re Pavlinko’s Estate: Will switch. disso revokes RCW 11. Holographic Wills: Materially in handwriting of T.2. Dependent Relative Revocation and Revival (mistaken assumption of law or fact. Note: Signature and Handwriting in Holographic Wills d. Notarized Wills 4.040: By subsequent will or physical act b. Majority: Intent to Revive. See RCW 11. Revocation by Operation of Law: Change in Family Circumstances a. Harmless Error – Minority Rule – can prove T’s intent CCE iv. Thompson v. signed and dated a. 2nd generation. Revocation of Wills 1. Bird: (atty ripped and mailed) rebuttable presumption of revocation c. Curing Defects in the Execution of Attested Wills a. CCE of Intent to be the will ii. In re Estate of Kuralt: substantial compliance. No revival without intent b. Minority: Premarital will is revoked upon marriage b.091 and . relief (GAL objected minor child’s interest more intestate) b. Revocation of later will or codicil i. In re Snide: Will switch. Harrison v. RCW 11. lacks intent) a. See RCW 11. Excusing Execution Defects by Ad Hoc Exception i. letter deemed testamentary as codicil with intent to devise specifically Section B.080. Revocation by Writing or Physical Act a.080 ii. No partial revocation – potential for fraud 2. Royall: Act and Intent d. Revival i.12. RCW 11. UPC 3. Fulfill the purpose of formalities v. Estate of Alburn: Earlier will to be probated as per intent of T b/c of mistaken belief that the earlier will stands c.095 for omitted spouses and children. Note: Substantial Compliance vs.

Acts of Independent Significance a. Simon v. Johnson: interwoven will and codicil upheld although contrary to statute 4. Clark v. In the case of any inconsistency between the writing and the will. and adequate description b. Putnam: Mutual wills. Contract to Make a Will 2. UPC §2-512 SECTION D. Grayson: letter dated before codicil was incorporated by reference e. Contracts Not to Revoke a Will a. Incorporation by Referencei a. RCW 11.12. UPC b. children are not creditors A will may incorporate by reference any writing in existence when the will is executed if the will itself manifests the testator's intent to incorporate the writing and describes the writing sufficiently to permit its identification. the will controls . Johnson v. Greenhalge: farm painting and memorandum d. Integration of Wills – must be present at execution and intended to be integrated 2. Republication by Codicil 3.SECTION C. pretermitted spouse takes as if T died intestate (elective share). Via v. UPC §2-510 c. intent to incorporate.255 – In existence at the time of execution. Components of a Will 1. UPC §2-513 f. Contracts Relating to Wills 1.

Class Gifts . and Extrinsic Evidence i. Note: Worlds of Purchase. Ruotolo v. Words of Survivorship – Washington gives effect to the words b. Rule Against Reformation: No relief for mistake b. Mistaken or Ambiguous Language in Wills 1. Erickson: Modern Trend. Not the Majority – 2 days before marriage b. CCE even without ambiguity c. inducement to sleep with woman Section B. Mahoney v. does not change street c. Openly Reforming Wills for Mistake a. Morrison: Sham will. Arnheiter: wrong address. Estate of Russell: Tradition no-residue-of-a-residue rule 2. UPC §2-605. Words of Limitation and the Meaning of “And” versus “Or” 3. Arnheiter v. Death of Beneficiary Before Death of Testator 1. Latent Ambiguities: As applied 1. Slouching Toward Reformation: Correcting Mistakes without the Power to Reform Wills a. Equivocation 2. The Traditional Approach: No Extrinsic Evidence. Estate of Gibbs: Wrong middle initial 3. UPC §2-805. Note: Application of Antilapse Statute to Class Gifts . Patent Ambiguities: On it’s face iii. Yucus: Named individuals. not group minded c. Note: Plain Meaning.“Group minded” a. Grainger: Common testamentary language is not ambiguous b. No Reformation a. Erickson v. Traditionally Not allowed ii. Reformation to correct mistakes. Ambiguity. The Causes and Effects of Will Defects i. CL lapse rule: surviving members of the class take everything b. Fleming v. Personal Usage Exemption 2. Curing Execution Errors and Mistaken terms in Wills d.CHAPTER 5 CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS Section A. Introduction a. Dawson v. removes numbers. Antilapse Statutes a. Tietjen: presumption against disinheriting a line c.

Power of Appointment d. Hold Equitable Interests ii. Trust Pursuit Rule. Exoneration of Liens – CL doctrine liens to be paid from residue f.no enough to go around i. General iii.Section C.98. The Beneficiaries i. Residuary ii. Prudence. 11. Trustee Duties RCW 11. Specific or general.0009 c. The Settlor i. Duties: Loyalty. mere change in form d. In re Estate of Anton: Specific Bequest is extinguished if done voluntarily by the T. b. Inform and Account ii. Impartiality. Introduction 1. Stock Splits and the Problem of Increase i. Background 2.0001 iii. RES iii. Definite Beneficiaries b. Tradition: Extinguished c.98. Satisfaction of General Pecuniary Bequests – Transfer to beneficiary after execution e. Ademption by Extinction a. Commercial Uses of the Trust TRUSTS Settlor Trustee Beneficiaries Power of Appointment Future Interests Legal Title Equitable Title Bifurcation Express Implied (Constructive) Inter Vivos Testamentary RIGHTS/DUTIES . Changes in Property after Execution of Will 1. The Trustee i. Specific/Demonstrative CHAPTER 7 TRUSTS: INTRODUCTION AND CREATION Section A. Parties to A Trust a. Modern Intent Theory: Intent required i. INTENT to create Trust and Capacity ii. Abatement .

Farkas v. Campbell: Requires ascertainable beneficiaries – fails for want of certainty “friends” b. not a trust b. Necessity of Trust Property (3 elements – trustee. beneficiary. In re the Estate of Fournier ii. Will Substitutes and the Wills Act 1. Lux b. Jimenez v. Necessity of a Written Instrument a. Rudi – beneficiaries lack standing during life of T 2. Intent to Create a Trust (“for the use and benefit”) a. Unthank v. Note: taxation of grantor trusts 3. Lee c. Note: Trusts for Pets and Other Noncharitable Purposes 4. Payable on Death Contracts and Other Nonprobate Transfers a. In re the Estate of Atkinson – non probate asset b. Wells CHAPTER 6 NONPROBATE TRANSFERS AND PLANNING FOR INCAPACITY – Pure Will Substitutes Section A. UTC §603 c. res) a.Section B. Rippstein: Gift of $200/month. Note: Precatory Language d. Pascal: Expectancy and License . Brainard v. Commissioner: c. Speelman v. Linthicum v. Revocable Trusts a. UPC §6-101 d. No Hebrew 2. An Introduction to Will Substitutes Section B. Oral Trusts for Disposition at Death i. Clark v.property d. Olliffe v. Estate of Hillowitz – do not need to conform to formalities of wills c. Creation of a Trust 1. In re Searight’s Estate – honorary – no beneficiary capable of enforcement c. Williams – Inter vivos trust b. Lux v. Necessity of Trust Beneficiaries (Ascertainable beneficiaries) a. Note: TOD Deed for Real Property? .

Joint Tenancies in Realty Section F. UPC b. Pour-Over Wills a. Advance Directives: Living Wills. Eglehoff v. Multiple-Party Bank and Brokerage Accounts a. Note: A Superwill? 4. Clymer v. EgelhoffI: ERISA preempts state statute revoking on dissolution 5. Note: Defined Benefit Versus Defined Contribution Pension Plans b. Equitable Life Assurance Society: will does not trump designated beneficiaries of life insurance b. Planning for Incapacity 1. State Street Bank and Trust Co. Consequences at Death of Settlor: Avoiding Probate 5. Cook v. Varela v. Avoiding Probate 3. Construction to effect the intent 2. Consequences During Life of Settlor 4. In re Estate and Trust of Pilafas – b. duties a. Reiser – bank can reach inter vivos trust assets to pay debt b/c discretionary (reserved right to amend and revoke or direct disposition of p/i) 3.Section C. Pension and Retirement Accounts a. Introduction 2. Strict Construction ii. Pour-Over Wills and Revocable Trusts in Modern Estate Planning 1. The Durable Power of Attorney – agency relationship. trust stands i. Bernachea: donative intent in JT account with mistress Section D. Health Care Proxies. Mayo Section E. Introduction a. Revocation of Trusts – vests at death a. Life Insurance a. v. Directives Regarding Health Care and Disposition of the Body a. Will Substitutes and the Subsidiary Law of Wills 1. and Hybrids . Restatement 2. In re the Estate of Kurrelmeyer – not a breach of fiduciary duty.

Bush v. Property Subject to Elective Share i. Elder Law CHAPTER 7 – Restrictions on the Power of Disposition: Protection of the Spouse and Children Section A. Subjective intent b. Elective Share c. Adult Brother/Sister iii. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide 1. Cannot be forced by creditors d. intent to defraud a. MAJORITY: a revocable trust created by the decedent spouse is included in determining the surviving spouse’s elective share vi. Objective intent: control retained. Community Property b. invalid trusts.i. Rights of the Surviving Spouse 1. Parents 4. Burkin: changed the rule from inter vivos trust being unreachable in elective share to reachable if the deceased alone had general power of appointment. Consider: Illusory trusts. time between transfer and death. Schiavo – Substituted Judgment Standard 1. Incompetent Surviving Spouse i. Community Property ii. iv. Disposition of the Body – no assurance i. Rights of Surviving Spouse to Share of Decedent’s Property a. Bonegaards v. Fact sensitive v. Adult Child 3. Sullivan v. Introduction 2. MINORITY: no subject to elective share . other means of support 2. OREGON b. Statutory schemes for what non probate assets are subject to the elective share iii. Rights of Surviving Spouse to Support 3. Death with Dignity ii. Millen: does not apply to trusts created by 3d parties 1. Spouse 2.

Rhew: Chapter 9 Section A. Fair and Reasonable Disclosure 4. Migrating Couples and Multisstate Property Holdings a. Allowed and enforced in Separate Property states ii. UPC c. Kidwell v. Must the surviving spouse accept a life estate? i. Domestic Approach b. 1969 not charged or credited for the value of the life estate against her share 1. Abroad 2. Putting the Survivor to an election 5. Prop. Rights to Distributions from the Trust Fund Rights of the Beneficiary to Distributions . Protection from Intentional Omission a. Reese v.e. Spouse Omitted from Premarital Will a. Elliott iii. Waiver i. Rights of Descendants Omitted from the Will 1. In re the Estate of Prestie – rebuttable presumption of revocation by marriage if language is in the will (not trust) Section B. Later changes charge to force the SSp to take the life estate f. Protection from Unintentional Omission a. Property State – no change to preacquired 6. Gray v. Basic information – Strong presumption of community property b. Moving to a Sep. Moving to Comm. Rights of Surviving Spouse in Community Property a. Note: Anna Nicole d. State – where acquired b. Gray: b.

From settlement for injury as long as there is a provision of repayment d. Supplemental Needs Trust – provides above and beyond state and not reachable by state Section C. In re Estate of Brown b. Introduction 2. WA presumes spendthrift a. Shelley v. Self-settled are considered for eligibility ii. Modification and Termination of Trusts 1. In re Lawrence c. Bank National Assoc. FTC v. Affordable Media b. Revocable vs. 3rd party created not considered iii. Scheffel v. Discretionary Trusts – not assigned or alienated a. Trusts for the State Sponsored i. Bankruptcy Law and Trust Asset Protection 3.: b. “For the benefit of” c. Davis v. Shelley : Spousal and child support c. Spendthrift Trusts – disabling restraint. Created by spouse upon death not considered iv. Claflin and Material Purpose a. Virtual Representation . Protective Trusts: Mandatory subject to a protective provision 2. Trustee Removal a. In re the Trust of Stuchell b. In re Riddell c. Rights of the Beneficiary’s Creditors 1. Trust Protectors 3.Section B. Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts a. Irrevocable 4. US. Deviation and Changed Circumstances a. Krueger: cannot be reached by tort b. Support Trusts b.

Carl J.260 Separate writing may direct disposition of tangible personal property — Requirements. or signed by. University of Bridgeport 2. 2. 1. 3. Smiters v. (b) the writing is either in the handwriting of. education. 5. Introduction Section B. Nature of Charitable Purposes Poverty. (1) A will or a trust of which the decedent is a grantor and which by its terms becomes irrevocable upon or before the grantor's death may refer to a writing that directs disposition of tangible personal property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will or trust other than property used primarily in trade or business. Shenadoah Valley v. Such a writing shall not be effective unless: (a) An unrevoked will or trust refers to the writing. Herzog Foundation v.CHAPTER 11 – CHARITABLE TRUSTS Section A. health. 4. St. government 1. and (c) the writing describes . the testator or grantor. Supervision of Charitable Trusts 1. Administrative Deviation Barnes Foundation Discriminatory Trusts Section D. Lukes i RCW 11.12. Shaw: Alphabet Section C. Modification of Charitable Trusts: Cy Pres Approximates the settlor’s intention In re Neher – general charitable rather than specific Buck Cy Pres vs. Taylor 2.

airplanes. (4) As used in this section "tangible personal property" means articles of personal or household use or ornament. as well as precious metals in any tangible form. (2) The writing may be written or signed before or after the execution of the will or trust and need not have significance apart from its effect upon the dispositions of property made by the will or trust. for example. the most recent writing controls. money that is normal currency or normal legal tender. for example. documents of title.the items and the recipients of the property with reasonable certainty. A writing that meets the requirements of this section shall be given effect as if it were actually contained in the will or trust itself. (3) The testator or grantor may make subsequent handwritten or signed changes to any writing. evidences of indebtedness. furnishings. in the case of a will. If there is an inconsistent disposition of tangible personal property as between writings. bank accounts or other monetary deposits. the disposition shall lapse and. and jewelry. bullion or coins. for example. The term includes articles even if held for investment purposes and encompasses tangible property that is not real property. except that if any person designated to receive property in the writing dies before the testator or grantor. boats.12. furniture. RCW 11. the property shall pass as further directed in the writing and in the absence of any further directions. The term does not include mobile homes or intangible property. . or securities.110 shall not apply to such lapse. automobiles.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful