Comments on: July 2010 MBE Question of the Day #53

By: Sherry MacManes

Sherry MacManes — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:21:04 +0000

D, seeems correct, but I haven’t studied property yet.

By: Dina Allam

Dina Allam — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:19:51 +0000

Answer D is correct. It correctly states that there is no remaining life estate, and correctly divides the interests of the issue of the investor. Under the doctrine of acceleration, the renunciation of a life estate causes the remainder to vest immediately, at least in the case of a vested remainder. The case is treated as though the life tenant had predeceased the decedent. In this case, the investor’s will created a class gift of a vested remainder in her children, with its own anti-lapse provision detailing what should happen with each child’s share if the child predeceased the investor’s husband but had surviving issue. The property should pass immediately according to the terms of the investor’s will, to her surviving daughters and her deceased son’s children. The only question is what interest each of the surviving daughters and grandchildren should take. The usual rule, and the disposition which seems to be called for by the terms of this will, is that the surviving daughters should each take a one-third share and the two grandchildren should share the deceased son’s one-third share. The grandchildren should not be brought into the class and share equally with their aunts. If that were the case, the share of each of the surviving daughters would depend on how many children survived their predeceased sibling(s) and the actual distribution of the estate would then be markedly different from what the testatrix seems to have intended from the terms of her will. Therefore, A, B, and C are incorrect.

By: BC

BC — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:57:59 +0000

By: Jared A.

Jared A. — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:22:15 +0000

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:58:28 +0000

By: Parie

Parie — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:40:36 +0000

By: marie

marie — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:11:01 +0000

ok I am stuck between B and D. but residuary legatee takes if no one else can take like the remainder of whatever is left. if I was guessing I would pick D.

By: Charece

Charece — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:47:14 +0000

I had this question before and I can’t remember the answer! I can’t remember what happens when a person renounces his interest. I am going with B–it’s definitely B or D, simply because, what is A even talking about? And the two daughters and two grandchildren could not have equal shares (in answer C) because the two grandchildren would equally share in their father’s 1/3 interest (per stirpes), while the daughters would equally take 1/3 share each (per capita). I’m just not sure if the residuary legatee takes a life estate or the estate automatically goes to the owners of the remainder. But (after all of that), I’m going with B.