Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Nicole comes from a very wealth family. Unlike the rest of her family, she has drifted in her life, spending several years in and out of mental institutions. Her family always paid for her treatment. During one of those stays, she was befriended by her roommate, Simone. Simone eventually became aware of Nicole's financial standing and encouraged her to prepare a will. Given her precarious mental state, Simone convinced Nicole that it was prudent to prepare a will. The will named Simone as the sole beneficiary. Shortly after its execution, Nicole died of an overdose. The will is valid.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct One of the requirements for executing a will is that the testator must have testamentary capacity at the time the will is executed. Without the requisite sound mind, the will is not valid. Here, Nicole's mental state was questionable. In addition, Nicole was probably unaware of the extent of her property, considering that it was family wealth not something she had earned herself. Plus, it was suspicious that Nicole would leave her assets to a stranger instead of a family member. As such, it is unlikely that she possessed the competency needed to prepare the will. Accordingly, if this instrument were submitted for probate, the court undoubtedly would reject it.
Incorrect! One of the requirements for executing a will is that the testator must have testamentary capacity at the time the will is executed. Without the requisite sound mind, the will is not valid. Here, Nicole's mental state was questionable. In addition, Nicole was probably unaware of the extent of her property, considering that it was family wealth not something she had earned herself. Plus, it was suspicious that Nicole would leave her assets to a stranger instead of a family member. As such, it is unlikely that she possessed the competency needed to prepare the will. Accordingly, if this instrument were submitted for probate, the court undoubtedly would reject it.
Question 2
Palmer worked on his family's farm in Alabama, so he never got the chance to learn to read or write. As such, he needed help with preparing a will. At the execution, he was uncertain how to sign his name, so he just marked an "X" on the signature line. The two witnesses also signed. Three years after executing the will, Palmer died in an accident on the farm. His two sons, the beneficiaries of the will, submitted the will to probate.
Correct Most courts take a liberal view as to what constitutes a testator's signature. If the testator is illiterate, an 'X' is an acceptable signature, as long as the mark is intended to be the testator's signature and is a volitional act by the testator. Here, although Palmer was illiterate, he intended to sign the will at the time of the execution. In addition, its execution followed the other requirements, such as having witnesses. As such, the will is valid and will be accepted for probate.
Incorrect! Most courts take a liberal view as to what constitutes a testator's signature. If the testator is illiterate, an 'X' is an acceptable signature, as long as the mark is intended to be the testator's signature and is a volitional act by the testator. Here, although Palmer was illiterate, he intended to sign the will at the time of the execution. In addition, its execution followed the other requirements, such as having witnesses. As such, the will is valid and will be accepted for probate.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Elton decided to prepare his own will. He consulted several books to get an idea as to how it should be prepared. After he was finished, he asked two of his neighbors to witness his signature. Several weeks later, Elton decided he wanted to add a few provisions to the will, which substantially changed his wishes. Accordingly, he typed another page with those provisions and stapled it to the rest of the will. Five years later, Elton died and his executor submitted the will to probate.
Correct Generally, everything appearing before the signature is given effect; only the provisions that follow the signature are void. However, all provisions must exist at the time the will was made. Yet, if eliminating those later provisions completely subverts the testator's testamentary plan, the entire will is void. Here, not only did Elton add provisions after the will was made, those provisions were such that they substantially altered his testamentary plan. It is impossible to honor Elton's wishes after deleting these later provisions. As such, the entire will is void and his assets will pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.
Incorrect! Generally, everything appearing before the signature is given effect; only the provisions that follow the signature are void. However, all provisions must exist at the time the will was made. Yet, if eliminating those later provisions completely subverts the testator's testamentary plan, the entire will is void. Here, not only did Elton add provisions after the will was made, those provisions were such that they substantially altered his testamentary plan. It is impossible to honor Elton's wishes after deleting these later provisions. As such, the entire will is void and his assets will pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Bill makes a will, leaving almost all of his assets to his wife, Traci. Bill makes a specific bequest of $10,000 to his neighbor, Monica. His neighbors, George and Monica, serve as the witnesses during the execution of the will.
Correct Historically, if one of the witnesses was an interested witness, the will was denied probate. Today, however, most jurisdictions have purging statutes that delete the gift to the interested witness so that the will is not denied probate. Here, Monica would be considered an interested witness since the will leaves a beneficial gift to her. Under a purging statute, this gift would be eliminated so that Monica could still count as a witness. Afterwards, both George and Monica would be considered
Incorrect! Historically, if one of the witnesses was an interested witness, the will was denied probate. Today, however, most jurisdictions have purging statutes that delete the gift to the interested witness so that the will is not denied probate. Here, Monica would be considered an interested witness since the will leaves a beneficial gift to her. Under a purging statute, this gift would be eliminated so that Monica could still count as a witness. Afterwards, both George and Monica would be considered
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Bill makes a will, leaving all of his assets to his wife, Traci. His neighbors, George and Monica, serve as the witnesses during the execution of the will, but sign the will before Bill. He is standing next to them at the time and signs right after they do.
Correct Most courts are indifferent about whether the attesting witnesses or the testator signs first. Of primary importance is that the execution ceremony is part of a single, continuous transaction. Here, although George and Monica signed first, Bill signed shortly thereafter. Since the signatures were made as part of a single, continuous transaction, the will was duly executed.
Incorrect! Most courts are indifferent about whether the attesting witnesses or the testator signs first. Of primary importance is that the execution ceremony is part of a single, continuous transaction. Here, although George and Monica signed first, Bill signed shortly thereafter. Since the signatures were made as part of a single, continuous transaction, the will was duly executed.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Libby was 70 years old when she decided to prepare her will. She had been putting if off for several years because she was still active in the company she had founded 40 years ago. It had grown into a $25 million company, which provided her with the means to acquire a lot of assets. Her seemingly loyal assistance, Tucker, had been with her for 20 years. So, Libby felt comfortable having him assist her with preparing the will. Tucker's brother, Art, was a lawyer, so she allowed him to prepare the will for her. Libby wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to her children, grandchildren and favorite charity. Tucker and Art assured Libby that the will did just that. However, Tucker was the sole beneficiary. At the time of the execution, Libby was too busy to actually read it; she just hurriedly signed it, along with the witnesses.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Fraud in the execution involves the testator being deceived as to the character or contents of the document she is signing. Here, Tucker lied when he told Libby that the will reflected her testamentary wishes. So, the document she signed was fraudulently executed.
Incorrect! Fraud in the execution involves the testator being deceived as to the character or contents of the document she is signing. Here, Tucker lied when he told Libby that the will reflected her testamentary wishes. So, the document she signed was fraudulently executed.
Question 7
Libby was 70 years old when she decided to prepare her will. She had been putting if off for several years because she was still active in the company she had founded 40 years ago. It had grown into a $25 million company, which provided her with the means to acquire a lot of assets. Her seemingly loyal assistance, Tucker, had been with her for 20 years. So, Libby felt comfortable having him assist her with preparing the will. Tucker's brother, Art, was a lawyer, so she allowed him to prepare the will for her. Libby wanted to leave the bulk of her estate to her children, grandchildren and favorite charity. Tucker and Art assured Libby that the will did just that. However, Tucker was the sole beneficiary. At the time of the execution, Libby was too busy to actually read it; she just hurriedly signed it, along with the witnesses. Two years later Libby dies.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct When there is fraud in the execution in preparing a will, the common remedy is either partial or full invalidation of the will. Here, the will did not reflect Libby's testamentary wishes at all. As such, the probate court likely would completely invalidate it, thereby allowing Libby's property to pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.
Incorrect! When there is fraud in the execution in preparing a will, the common remedy is either partial or full invalidation of the will. Here, the will did not reflect Libby's testamentary wishes at all. As such, the probate court likely would completely invalidate it, thereby allowing Libby's property to pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
Skylar had been a widower for 10 years before he met Candace, who was 30 years his junior. They married six months after meeting. Reluctantly, Skylar's children, Timothy and Kendall accepted Candace into the family. Shortly thereafter Skylar had to have surgery for lung cancer. Before his operation, Skylar signed a will naming Candace as his sole beneficiary. This new will replaced an old will that named Skylar's children as the beneficiaries. Skylar dies. Timothy and Kendall contest the will, citing undue influence.
Correct There is no presumption of undue influence arising from the confidential relationship that normally exists between a husband and wife. Here, there is no indication that Candace did anything improper in how she handled the will situation. Specifically, she did not try to alienate Skylar from his children. In addition, it is not unnatural that a husband would leave all his assets to his wife. Accordingly, Candace is entitled to the estate.
Incorrect! There is no presumption of undue influence arising from the confidential relationship that normally exists between a husband and wife. Here, there is no indication that Candace did anything improper in how she handled the will situation. Specifically, she did not try to alienate Skylar from his children. In addition, it is not unnatural that a husband would leave all his assets to his wife. Accordingly, Candace is entitled to the estate.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 9
Mia and Antoine recently prepared wills. Most of the provisions in both wills were similar. Each left his or her property to the other person. By mistake, during the execution of the wills, they signed each other's will. No one caught the error. Six months later, Antoine dies.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If a testator signs a document purporting to be his will but it is the wrong document, most courts will hold that there is no will. Here, Antoine's will was signed by Mia, not him. As such, it is not valid. Thus, the court will not probate it nor will it probate Mia's will, even though it was signed by Antoine.
Incorrect! If a testator signs a document purporting to be his will but it is the wrong document, most courts will hold that there is no will. Here, Antoine's will was signed by Mia, not him. As such, it is not valid. Thus, the court will not probate it nor will it probate Mia's will, even though it was signed by Antoine.
Question 10
Melanie is in the process of preparing her will. She decides to leave her personal residence to her daughter, Ursula. She wants to leave her beach house to her daughter, Melody. She plans to leave the residue of her estate to her nephew, Joseph. When the lawyer prepares the will, he inadvertently left out the provision for Ursula. Melanie did not notice this omission when she executed the will. Nine months later, Melanie dies.
Correct Generally, an omitted provision cannot be added postmortem because the will cannot be reformed or revised once the testator has died. Unfortunately, this exclusion bars Ursula from getting the personal residence. Instead, the home will become part of the residue and pass to Joseph.
Incorrect! Generally, an omitted provision cannot be added postmortem because the will cannot be reformed or revised once the testator has died. Unfortunately, this exclusion bars Ursula from getting the personal residence. Instead, the home will become part of the residue and pass to Joseph.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 11
Melanie is in the process of preparing her will. Initially, she decides to leave her personal residence to her daughter, Ursula. However, upon further reflection she decides not to. After all, Ursula already has a home out-of-state; Melanie knows she would not be interested in her old house. She wants to leave her beach house to her daughter, Melody. She plans to leave the residue of her estate to her nephew, Joseph. When the lawyer prepares the will, he mistakenly leaves in the provision for Ursula. Melanie did not notice this inclusion when she executed the will. Nine months later, Melanie dies.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A provision included in a will by mistake may be omitted by the probate court when the will is admitted to probate, if the inclusion is separable. The deletion of the provision cannot substantially alter the overall will or the intent of the testator. Here, Melanie had changed her mind about leaving her personal residence to Ursula. Deletion of this provision would not change Melanie's testamentary wishes. As such, the probate court would probably allow its deletion. Afterwards, the personal residence would pass to Joseph as part of the residue.
Incorrect! A provision included in a will by mistake may be omitted by the probate court when the will is admitted to probate, if the inclusion is separable. The deletion of the provision cannot substantially alter the overall will or the intent of the testator. Here, Melanie had changed her mind about leaving her personal residence to Ursula. Deletion of this provision would not change Melanie's testamentary wishes. As such, the probate court would probably allow its deletion. Afterwards, the personal residence would pass to Joseph as part of the residue.
Question 12
Melanie is in the process of preparing her will. She decides to leave her personal residence to her daughter, Ursula. She wants to leave her beach house to her daughter, Melody. She plans to leave the residue of her estate to her nephew, Joseph. When the lawyer prepares the will, he inadvertently left out the provision for Ursula. Melanie did not notice this omission when she executed the will. Nine months later, Melanie dies. When the probate court disallows her bequest, Ursula sues the lawyer for negligent drafting.
Correct Although the will may not be invalidated or changed, after the testator's death, the intended beneficiaries might be able to hold the attorney liable for negligent drafting. In jurisdictions that permit this type of action, Ursula would probably win her suit on either tort negligence or in contract as a third party beneficiary.
Incorrect! Although the will may not be invalidated or changed, after the testator's death, the intended beneficiaries might be able to hold the attorney liable for negligent drafting. In jurisdictions that permit this type of action, Ursula would probably win her suit on either tort negligence or in contract as a third party beneficiary.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 13
Generosa (age 46) recently prepared a new will. It will supercede a will she prepared in 2002 that left all but $1.5 million of her estate to her now estranged second husband, Danny (age 40). Her first husband, Ted, was bludgeoned to death in their home in East Hampton (Danny is a suspect in that murder). The new will appoints the nanny of her 13-year-old twins, Kathryn, as guardian, giving her a $1 million gift and lifetime free use of the East Hampton home. At Kathryn's death, the home (valued at $9 million) will pass to her children. The balance of the estate (valued between $34-100 million) will go to her children and a charitable foundation founded by her late husband. Lastly, she bequeathed $250,000 to her mother-in-law, Janet (Danny's mother). Danny was excluded from the will because he signed a post-nuptial agreement that waived his rights to a share of Generosa's estate. As consideration, he received $2 million and a waterfront home in Center Moriches, Long Island. Generosa died last week of cancer. Now, Danny claims that his attorneys "directed him to sign some documents," one being the post-nuptial agreement. Danny's waiver is valid.
Correct Although this is a real case that is currently in the headlines, there is no court decision to refer to. Nevertheless, looking at the facts, it seems unlikely that Danny would win his argument that he was unaware that he was signing a post-nuptial agreement that waived his rights to his wife's estate. Besides, he signed the document in the presence of his attorneys, who undoubtedly reviewed the document and apprised their client of its contents before he signed. As such, there does not seem to be a mistake here. The contract should be valid because he received consideration and legal counsel before entering into the agreement.
Incorrect! Although this is a real case that is currently in the headlines, there is no court decision to refer to. Nevertheless, looking at the facts, it seems unlikely that Danny would win his argument that he was unaware that he was signing a post-nuptial agreement that waived his rights to his wife's estate. Besides, he signed the document in the presence of his attorneys, who undoubtedly reviewed the document and apprised their client of its contents before he signed. As such, there does not seem to be a mistake here. The contract should be valid because he received consideration and legal counsel before entering into the agreement.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 14
Gordon had recently remarried after being a widower for a dozen years. His four children were already grown. His new wife, Tammy, was 20 years his junior. Tammy convinced Gordon that they should both draft new wills. Gordon went to his attorney to draft a new will. Since he had been out of touch with the attorney for several years, he did not know that he had retired. Tammy suggested they use another attorney, Otis, to prepare the wills. Unbeknownst to Gordon, Tammy and Otis had been high school sweethearts. Gordon intended to leave the bulk of his estate to Tammy; he also wanted to include a bequest to his children. The final will excluded any mention of the children; however, Otis had added a $50,000 bequest for himself. Gordon dies. The children contest the will on the ground of undue influence.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Ordinarily, there is no presumption of undue influence arising from the confidential relationship between husband and wife. Furthermore, it is not unusual to leave the bulk of one's estate to a wife. Nevertheless, gifts to attorneys who also drafted the will are suspect and deserve further scrutiny. Here, the will did not reflect Gordon's wishes because it excluded a bequest to his children. In addition, the $50,000 gift to Otis, the attorney who drafted the will, is highly irregular, considering Otis is a stranger. As such, Otis probably exerted some type of undue influence over Gordon to get him to agree to such a bequest, if he even knew about it. Thus, the will would likely be invalid and the estate would pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.
Incorrect! Ordinarily, there is no presumption of undue influence arising from the confidential relationship between husband and wife. Furthermore, it is not unusual to leave the bulk of one's estate to a wife. Nevertheless, gifts to attorneys who also drafted the will are suspect and deserve further scrutiny. Here, the will did not reflect Gordon's wishes because it excluded a bequest to his children. In addition, the $50,000 gift to Otis, the attorney who drafted the will, is highly irregular, considering Otis is a stranger. As such, Otis probably exerted some type of undue influence over Gordon to get him to agree to such a bequest, if he even knew about it. Thus, the will would likely be invalid and the estate would pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes.