Does the death of a party involved in the execution of a will mean that they do not inherit? A friend of mine is engaged in a lengthy probate process over her inheritance from her parents with her brother as the executor. Without getting into details of why it's been so protracted, it's been going on for well over a year now with all of the attendant drama and legal measures. Her health has been poor, and recently she's been worried that she might die (with attendant nightmares of parties involved plotting to hasten the situation), effectively turning the entire inheritance over to the remaining sibling (which yes, the inheritance wouldn't do her much good there, but her plans, including her will, involves disbursing her assets to various friends and charitable interests). So, my central question is, does the death of an inheritor during the probate process result in their &quot;share&quot; reverting to the remaining inheritors? This is a Pennsylvania case, for the sake of state law.
The common law rule was that to inherit you have to outlive the decedent from whom you are inheriting, and that the inheritance would pass to your estate if you died before distribution was made. Statutes in some jurisdictions provide that someone must survive for a longer period than that to be eligible to inherit, often five days, in order to simplify the factual issues in the common situation of a joint accident. Pennsylvania is one such state. But a will or trust can deviate from the default rule, and in U.S. practice, driven by federal estate tax laws, it isn't uncommon to require someone to survive the decedent by at least six months to inherit from them under an instrument. In this case, where more than a year has passed since the death, the inheritance would not lapse for these reasons. It also isn't uncommon for a trust, either established during life, or established at death, to provide that distributions from the trust are made at the discretion of the trustee and to require in those cases that the person receiving the distribution also be living at the time of the distribution. These trusts also typically contain specific provisions that spell out the rights of a beneficiary who dies before the trust is fully distributed.
There are multiple kinds of joint ownership, centered around the question of survivorship. One possible outcome is that the deceased willed their property to some other person Smith, therefore Smith will not have A's interest in the account. Let's assume that the accounts and house are both joint tenants with right of survivorship. Then the survivor simply is the only person who has the right to access the account. However, the account probably cannot be closed, because as far as the bank knows, the deceased spouse still has an interest in the account, and will require the spouse to sign the paperwork. Therefore the surviving spouse will have to bring in paperwork to establish that the deceased spouse is deceased. Similarly, a deceased spouse can remain on the deed, but when it comes time to sell the house, it will be necessary to legally &quot;extinguish&quot; the deceased spouse's interest in the house. It can also complicate mortgage-refinancing or using the house as security for a loan to leave the paperwork unresolved.
Conditions in a will are.. complicated. As a rule of thumb you can impose conditions but that doesn't mean they are always going to be upheld. Some will be ruled void where they are considered &quot;against public policy&quot; - where it's against the public interest to consider the condition valid. e.g: encouraging someone to commit a crime; inducing the future separation of a married couple; unreasonable restrictions on marriage; depriving a parent of control over their children; requiring a child to change their religion. That sort of thing. Another way is if the condition is &quot;impossible&quot; (or so improbable/impractical as would make no real difference) e.g. you can't say &quot;they have to leap the grand canyon on a skateboard&quot; or &quot;must visit mars and bring back ice cream first&quot; that sort of thing. Alternatively if the condition is too vague or uncertain e.g. &quot;the beneficiary will inherit when they are ‘suitably’ married&quot; or impractical to enforce e.g. &quot;no one with the surname Booth may enter the property on a Wednesday&quot;. I'm not sure those are going to apply here - the condition sounds specific and not particularly difficult to achieve or to measure compliance. That doesn't mean it's going to stick though - you can challenge the condition in court and they might chose to void the condition. Since the condition sounds like what's called a &quot;condition subsequent&quot; (i.e. it comes into effect after receiving the &quot;gift&quot;) the court can use discretion to have the gift still take place if the condition is voided. How about if they were not allowed to sell it for 20 years, or 100? The 100 years variant could fail under &quot;impossible&quot; - since it would take the time period the beneficiary was required to comply with the condition past the point they could reasonably be expected to comply with it (since people typically live that long), similarly with the 20 years (or even the 10) if it was going past the remaining expected lifespan of the recipient. Basically it boils down to &quot;challenge it in court and see what they say&quot; - but as ever consult an experienced solicitor before doing anything along those lines. Having a condition declared void doesn't always translate as &quot;you get it free and clear&quot; - in some circumstances it means the gift becomes part of the Residuary Estate instead.
Although the assailant (or their estate if they are killed) could lodge a claim for damages it does not necessarily follow that they would win - they would have to show that the shooting was not legitimate self-defence but rather was unlawful by, for example, negligence or use of excessive force - say by shooting them when they didn't pose an immediate and unjustified threat. The Federation rules, as far as I can see, are not actual legislation. Although they should be adhered to in normal circumstances, this shooting would be, in the given circumstances, legitimate self-defence according to Article 122-5 of the Code Pénal which says: N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d'elle-même ou d'autrui, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l'atteinte. N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'exécution d'un crime ou d'un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l'infraction. Which Google translates to English as: The person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act ordered by the necessity of the self-defense of himself or of others, is not criminally liable, except 'there is a disproportion between the means of defense employed and the seriousness of the infringement. The person who, in order to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offense against property, performs an act of defense, other than intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued, is not criminally liable. provided that the means employed are proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
Can the renter declare the contract to be void because of the death of the only other party to the contract? No. The estate of the decedent steps into the shoes of the decedent and the executor of the decedent's estate can enforce the lease. What if one of the heirs comes to the renter and tries to add additional conditions? The heirs do not have the authority to modify the lease without the tenant's consent, although the tenant knows that the lease may be less likely to be renewed if the tenant does not consent. Also, the heirs, strictly speaking, don't have the authority to do anything. Only an executor duly appointed by a court does.
The rules for a Texas power of attorney are summarized in this page from Texas Lawhelp. The actual law is 2005 Texas Probate Code CHAPTER XII. DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT Both of these indicate that the agent (aka attorney-in-fact) must be specifically named in the POA document. My experience with a POA in a similar situation in NJ is that multiple agents may be named, or backups in case the primary agent dies or is not available. However the Texas pages do not specifically say that. But in any case the agent or agents must be named in the POA signed by the principal, who must be of sound mind at the time the POA is signed. An agent does not have the power to name a replacement or backup agent. An Agent might be able to give a POA to another person to act in the agent's place, but that POA would lapse if the agent died, and the law does not specifically permit this, so it might not be valid in any case. A Texas court can appoint a Guardian for an incompetent person, and such an appointment takes precedence over an existing POA. That would be a way to deal with the situation if there is reason to think the agent might die or become unavailable while the principal is mentally incapable.
This is allowed in Colorado. Colorado's version of the Uniform Probate Code authorizes such a document for tangible personal property which is usually called a &quot;Personal Property Memorandum.&quot; This is authorized by Colorado Revised Statutes § 15-11-513. The section of Colorado's probate code states: Whether or not the provisions relating to holographic wills apply, a will may refer to a written statement or list to dispose of items of tangible personal property not otherwise specifically disposed of by the will, other than money. To be admissible under this section as evidence of the intended disposition, the writing shall be either in the handwriting of the testator or be signed by the testator and shall describe the items and the devisees with reasonable certainty. The writing may be referred to as one to be in existence at the time of the testator's death; it may be prepared before or after the execution of the will; it may be altered by the testator after its preparation; and it may be a writing that has no significance apart from its effect on the dispositions made by the will. New York State Law NYS has a requirement that the Will is signed by 2 Witnesses and (I believe -- keep me honest) notarized. So I'm hoping this is a way for me to add items to the Appendix without needing to re-sign, re-witness and re-notarize every time I think of something else. Is this strategy valid &amp; enforceable? This is generally not permitted in New York State The legal formalities for the execution of wills and trusts in New York States are among the most strict in the United States (Florida and Maine have been more strict from time to time). This cannot be done in a way that is valid and enforceable in New York State. One can determine this from a review of the relevant New York State Statute which is called the Estate, Powers, and Trusts Law (EPTL), that does not contain a parallel provision to the Colorado statutory section. Therefore, in New York States, all dispositive provisions of a Will related to tangible personal property must be executed with the same formalities as any other Will or Codicil (i.e. it must be signed by the testator and two witnesses, a notarization is not required). Oral and unwitnessed handwritten wills are rarely allowed in New York State New York State does recognize oral wills (called nuncupative wills) and wills in the handwriting of the person making them (called holographic wills) as well, but only in very limited circumstances. The pertinent provision of the EPTL state: (a) For the purposes of this section, and as used elsewhere in this chapter: (1) A will is nuncupative when it is unwritten, and the making thereof by the testator and its provisions are clearly established by at least two witnesses. (2) A will is holographic when it is written entirely in the handwriting of the testator, and is not executed and attested in accordance with the formalities prescribed by 3-2.1. (b) A nuncupative or holographic will is valid only if made by: (1) A member of the armed forces of the United States while in actual military or naval service during a war, declared or undeclared, or other armed conflict in which members of the armed forces are engaged. (2) A person who serves with or accompanies an armed force engaged in actual military or naval service during such war or other armed conflict. (3) A mariner while at sea. (c) A will authorized by this section becomes invalid: (1) If made by a member of the armed forces, upon the expiration of one year following his discharge from the armed forces. (2) If made by a person who serves with or accompanies an armed force engaged in actual military or naval service, upon the expiration of one year from the time he has ceased serving with or accompanying such armed force. (3) If made by a mariner while at sea, upon the expiration of three years from the time such will was made. Wills valid where executed will generally be honored If a Will accompanied by a Personal Property Memorandum were drafted and executed in Colorado while someone was domiciled there, and then was presented to a Surrogate's Court in New York State for probate, because the person who wrote it was domiciled in New York State when they died, however, the New York courts might honor the Personal Property Memorandum on the theory that the validity of the execution of a Will is usually governed by the law of the place where it is signed and not by the law of the place where it is probated. The alternative of a revocable trust in New York State A workaround somewhat similar to a personal property memorandum could be done with a revocable trust, but this has its own limitations. In New York State a trust or amendment to a trust not created by a last will and testament must be either (1) signed and notarized by the creator of the trust and also by the trustee if there is one separate from the creator of the trust, or (2) signed by the creator of the trust and witnessed by two witnesses in essentially the same way that a will would be witnessed. Unlike most U.S. states, New York State does not recognize trusts that are signed but are not notarized or witnessed, and unlike most U.S. States, New York State does not recognize orally created trusts. Trusts validly formed and amended outside of New York will generally be honored This is, of course, assuming in both cases that New York State law governs the formation of the trust. New York State choice of law rules, however, will generally recognize the validity of a trust formed with formalities that were valid in the place where it was executed if the person executing it was domiciled there.
In the United Kingdom: A person has no authority to access an online account of a deceased relative, unless this has been agreed with the operator of the website (etc). If a Power of Attorney over the deceased's financial affairs existed, this ceases upon death. Using a person's login credentials without permission from the owner of the website would be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, as amended by Part 5 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, and Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Actus Reus The offence is made out once a defendant has caused a computer, which would include his own computer, to perform a function with intent to secure access. The access to the program or data which the accused intends to secure must be 'unauthorised' access. Mens rea There are two elements: There must be knowledge that the intended access was unauthorised; and There must have been an intention to secure access to any program or data held in a computer. There has to be knowledge on the part of the offender that the access is unauthorised; mere recklessness is not sufficient. This covers not only hackers but also employees who deliberately exceed their authority and access parts of a system officially denied to them. Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance Additional note for accessing online banking and similar accounts: A person who accessed a bank computer with the intention of transferring the deceased's funds to themself (such funds being the property of the estate, not the person) thus committing theft, would potentially be committing the further offence under Section 2 of the CMA of Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences If the person has a legitimate claim on the funds in the bank account, i.e. they are an executor or administrator of the estate, there is an established procedure to claim the funds from the bank. This does not include being given access to the deceased's accounts or statements, as these remain confidential. The bank will provide a closing balance at the date of death, together with a list of regular payments in/out of the account (those being parties the executor/administrator should advise of the death) together with a statement for any transactions after death ie during the period of executry of the estate.