From the daily archives:

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Feb
16

A husband and his wife had been married for 30 years and had one adult son. The husband and the wife agreed that each would make a will leaving his or her entire estate to the other, and in the event that one predeceased the other, the entire estate, including any inheritance received from the other spouse, would be left to the son. The husband, the wife, and the son visited a lawyer, who prepared wills for the husband and the wife which carried out their testamentary intentions. The lawyer also prepared an agreement which was signed by the husband and the wife in which each promised not to change the alternative testamentary disposition benefiting the son. The son, who was present during the execution of the documents, was asked by the husband and the wife if he agreed to the estate plan. He replied “yes.”

Shortly thereafter, the wife died. After collecting his distribution of the estate, the husband moved in to live with his high school sweetheart. The husband then made a new will leaving his entire estate to his high school sweetheart.

If a bank, as the executor of the wife’s estate, learns of the husband’s new will and sues the husband, the bank will:

A.  Recover nothing, because the estate has suffered no damage.

B.  Recover damages in the amount of the wife’s estate which was paid over to the husband.

C.  Obtain no relief at that time, but a constructive trust may be imposed on the husband’s estate if he dies and fails to perform his agreement with the wife.

D.  Recover nothing, because the estate is not a proper plaintiff.

{ 10 comments }

Feb
16

Illinois required that all trucks operating on its highways be equipped with a type “N” mudguard. The United States Supreme Court held the Illinois statute unconstitutional. Ohio has a statute which requires all trucks operating on its highways to be equipped with a type “X” mudguard. All other states permit either a type “N” or “X” mudguard. Congress has passed no legislation on the subject.

If Congress should pass legislation requiring that all trucks be equipped exclusively with type “X” mudguards, and that legislation is challenged, the most likely result would be:

A.  The act would be upheld under the power to regulate commerce between the states.

B.  The act would be upheld pursuant to the Commerce Clause only if the court finds that the present scheme of regulation is a substantial burden on commerce.

C.  The act would be held unconstitutional, because most states authorize type “N” mudguards.

D.  The act would be held unconstitutional, because Congress cannot interfere with the states’ police power right to regulate the roads that belong to the states.

{ 13 comments }

Bar Exam Brief, News and tools to help you study for and pass the bar exam.

Copyright © 2012 Multistate Edge

All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy