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… read them below or add one }
Answer C is correct. The contract concerning testamentary dispositions between the husband and the wife is valid and can be best enforced by a constructive trust of all of the assets of the husband’s estate if he dies without complying with the contract.
Answer A is incorrect. Even if the wife’s estate cannot recover damages because it has not suffered any damage at this time, but that would not preclude it from bringing suit later to specifically enforce the contract. Answer A is incorrect, because it does not acknowledge the other forms of relief available.
Answer B is incorrect. Money damages recovered by the wife’s estate do not benefit the son. Instead, any money collected by the wife’s estate would go right back to the husband under the terms of the wife’s will. Moreover, the remedy that the wife seeks is that the husband shall leave his property to the son, which can be better enforced by an injunction or the imposition of a constructive trust.
Answer D is incorrect. A contracting party to a third-party beneficiary contract has a right to sue to enforce the contract, even if performance is not intended to benefit the contracting party personally, but a third-party beneficiary instead.
C. even though new wife may have legal title, the court can give equitable title to son. Like ‘may’, anything may happen. Also, the will is a contract with the first wife.
Answer C, because the court can impose an equitable remedy by creating a constructive trust. The bank acting as the executor may act on behalf of the wife to transfer the title and possession to the intended beneficiary (the son).
C
C
answer C
C is the best answer. The son, is the intended beneficiary of the contract between Husband and Wife. However, Husband has not died yet, so that contract has not become effective. If Husband does not change his will and then dies, then the bank may issue a constructive trust on Husband’s estate in order to prevent the high school sweetheart from gaining the husband’s estate from the intended beneficiary.
The answer is C. There was a will as well as a contract agreement between the husband and wife to not change the dispositions in their will. Husband broke that contract and the bank (as executor) can sue on behalf of the Wife who is not able to do so herself (breach of contract).
I like C here. Husband’s revocation of the will is effective. However, (at his death) it would be a breach of the contract (agreement) signed by husband and wife. A constructive trust would prevent the unjust enrichment of high school sweetheart.
I tentatively think D, because the son is the proper plaintiff. In the alternative, I think A because it’s the son who suffered damage.