Blaw Exam 3 Latest Updated -Solved
(1) A metal safe or vault in good order and fit for custody of money, bank notes, jewelry,
gold or silver articles, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or
tickets, negotiable or valuable papers and bullion.
(2) Suitable locks, bolts and fastenings on the doors, transoms and windows of the
Sleeping rooms used by goods.
(3) A copy of this section, posted and printed in distinct type in not fewer than 10
Conspicuous places throughout the hotel or inn.
(b) Exception - Notwithstanding compliance with subsection (a), a hotelkeeper is liable
for property loss or damage if a guest delivers property for custody in the safe or vault
and the hotelkeeper omits or refuses to accept it, deposit it in the safe or vault or
provide the guest with a receipt, except that a hotelkeeper is not:
(1) obliged to receive from any one guest property exceeding a total value of $300; or
(2) liable for an amount in excess of $300, whether or not the property was actually
Received.
Abatement - ANSWER-If the testator gives away more in his or her will than he or she
has to give, the doctrine of abatement provides for which gifts are to be reduced first.
General Rule: The general approach, based on the testator's presumed intent, is that
the residuary
clause is reduced first, then general gifts, then specific gifts last. This order is based on
the assumption that the more precise the nature of the gift, the more important it must
have been to the testator. In re Estate of Potter, 469 So.2d 957 (Fla. Dist. App. 1985). In
this case, testatrix's will left her residence outright to her daughter, and she provided in
her inter vivos trust that upon her death the trustee was to her son a cash disbursement
equal to the value of the house. When she died, there were not enough assets in the
trust to make the disbursement to the son. The court found that the will's reference to
the trust was sufficient to incorporate the trust by reference, but that while the testatrix
may have had a general intent to treat her children equally, the gift of the residence to
the daughter constituted a specific gift, the bequest of cash to the son constituted a
general gift, and under abatement, the general gift is abated first.
Absolute Discretion - ANSWER-The trustee's duty to act reasonably and in good faith in
making a discretionary decision is a default standard. A settlor may modify the duty by
express language in the trust instrument. It is not uncommon for the trust to authorize
the trustee to act in his or her "sole discretion," or "sole and absolute discretion." Courts
typically construe such language as virtually eliminating the duty to act reasonably, but
the trustee must still act in good faith.
,Act of State Doctrine - ANSWER-Provides that the judicial branch of one country will not
examine the validity of public acts committed by a recognized foreign government within
the latter's own territory.
Ademption - ANSWER-The common law doctrine of ademption states that where the
testator makes a specific gift, and thereafter the item that is the subject of the specific
gift is transferred, an irrebuttable presumption arises that the testator revoked the gift.
Air Rights Example - ANSWER-United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946)
Facts: The United States military flew regular and frequent flights over the property of
individuals who were engaged in chicken farming. The path of glide passed over the
property at 83 feet, which was 67 feet above the house, 63 feet above the barn and 18
feet above the highest tree on the property. Planes often came close enough to the
property to just miss the tops of trees and would sometimes come so close and would
blow the old leaves off. The plaintiffs had to give up their chicken business due to sleep
deprivation and the loss of chickens from chickens flying into the walls from fright.
The case established the "enveloping atmosphere doctrine." "If the landowner is to have
full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of
the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not
be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law
gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The
landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or
use in connection with the land." Id. at 264.
Any Factual Basis Test - ANSWER-Some states apply the any factual basis test to
determine what constitutes an insane delusion. If there is any factual basis to support
the testator's belief, it is not an insane delusion.
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution - ANSWER-"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
Articles exported from any State."
Thus, Congress cannot impose any export taxes.
However, Congress can pass other laws to restrict or encourage exports.
Bailment - ANSWER-Formed by the delivery of personal property, without transfer of
title, by one person (the bailor) to another (the bailee). Bailment agreements usually are
made for a particular purpose - for example, to loan, lease, store, repair, or transport the
property.
Personal Property Requirement: Only personal property, not real property or persons,
can be the subject of the bailment.
Benevolent Trust - ANSWER-A benevolent trust is a trust that performs kind acts or
does "good things." Benevolent trusts are not charitable trusts unless the kind acts
qualify as one of the recognized charitable purposes.
, Example: Shenandoah Valley National Bank v. Taylor, 63 S.E.2d 786 (Va. 1951).
Settlor's trust provided that the income was to be distributed on the last day of school
preceding Easter and
Christmas break to the children in the first, second, and third grades at a local
elementary school, to be used by the children to further their education. The timing of
the payments indicated that the true purpose of the trust was to be a benevolent trust,
not a charitable trust. There were no enforceable restrictions on how the children used
the money, and in light of the timing of the payments, the children would not use it on
education. Where a trust conveys mere financial enrichment, the trust qualifies as a
charitable trust only if from a totality of the circumstances, it becomes apparent that the
intended beneficiaries are poor or in necessitous conditions. There was no evidence
that these children were poor. Thus, it did not qualify as a charitable trust. As a
benevolent trust, it also failed because it violated the rule against perpetuities (a rule
adopted in some states which bar non-charitable trusts from lasting indefinitely).
Caapcity for Will Example - ANSWER-Facts: Dr. Marshall died July 29, 1968. His
daughter challenged a will and two codicils executed shortly before his death on the
grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity. 3 lay witnesses testified that starting as
early as 1940 Dr. Marshall claimed to be the only person on earth who could speak with
the Lord, that the Lord had given him special powers, and that the Lord had told him to
run for president, and if elected, "kill the damn bankers and the crooks and the thieves
that were robbing the people." A lay witness also testified that in talking about these
people Dr. Marshall became highly emotional, he would pound his fists on the table, use
profanity, turn red with rage, eyes would bug out, and the veins in his neck would stick
out. Dr. Rowling saw the testator in 1940 and concluded that Dr. Marshall was then
suffering from manic-depressive psychosis, an incurable mental disease, which only
gets worse. Dr. Rowing also concluded Dr. Marshall was not of sound mind on
particular days in 1968 when he executed the will and codicils. In response to a
hypothetical question, Dr. Hartman, a specialist in psychiatry and neurology, concluded
that Dr. Marshall was of unsound mind when he executed the instruments and
incapable of generalized logical thinking. The defendants presented evidence that the
testator was calm, quiet, collected, and of sound mind the day will was executed.
How should the Court rule on testamentary capacity?
Concluded that testator's stated views on government, religion, morals, and finances
went beyond peculiarities and eccentricities and were sufficient evidence which a jury
could reasonably find that he lacked sound mind when he executed the will and codicils.
Evidence of testator's mental condition prior to the execution is admissible if it tends to
show his condition at the time of execution.
Charitable Trust - ANSWER-A charitable trust is a trust for a charitable purpose. Courts
limit a charitable purpose to one of six delineated purposes:
1) to relieve property;
2) to advance education;
3) to advance religion;
4) to promote health;
(1) A metal safe or vault in good order and fit for custody of money, bank notes, jewelry,
gold or silver articles, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or
tickets, negotiable or valuable papers and bullion.
(2) Suitable locks, bolts and fastenings on the doors, transoms and windows of the
Sleeping rooms used by goods.
(3) A copy of this section, posted and printed in distinct type in not fewer than 10
Conspicuous places throughout the hotel or inn.
(b) Exception - Notwithstanding compliance with subsection (a), a hotelkeeper is liable
for property loss or damage if a guest delivers property for custody in the safe or vault
and the hotelkeeper omits or refuses to accept it, deposit it in the safe or vault or
provide the guest with a receipt, except that a hotelkeeper is not:
(1) obliged to receive from any one guest property exceeding a total value of $300; or
(2) liable for an amount in excess of $300, whether or not the property was actually
Received.
Abatement - ANSWER-If the testator gives away more in his or her will than he or she
has to give, the doctrine of abatement provides for which gifts are to be reduced first.
General Rule: The general approach, based on the testator's presumed intent, is that
the residuary
clause is reduced first, then general gifts, then specific gifts last. This order is based on
the assumption that the more precise the nature of the gift, the more important it must
have been to the testator. In re Estate of Potter, 469 So.2d 957 (Fla. Dist. App. 1985). In
this case, testatrix's will left her residence outright to her daughter, and she provided in
her inter vivos trust that upon her death the trustee was to her son a cash disbursement
equal to the value of the house. When she died, there were not enough assets in the
trust to make the disbursement to the son. The court found that the will's reference to
the trust was sufficient to incorporate the trust by reference, but that while the testatrix
may have had a general intent to treat her children equally, the gift of the residence to
the daughter constituted a specific gift, the bequest of cash to the son constituted a
general gift, and under abatement, the general gift is abated first.
Absolute Discretion - ANSWER-The trustee's duty to act reasonably and in good faith in
making a discretionary decision is a default standard. A settlor may modify the duty by
express language in the trust instrument. It is not uncommon for the trust to authorize
the trustee to act in his or her "sole discretion," or "sole and absolute discretion." Courts
typically construe such language as virtually eliminating the duty to act reasonably, but
the trustee must still act in good faith.
,Act of State Doctrine - ANSWER-Provides that the judicial branch of one country will not
examine the validity of public acts committed by a recognized foreign government within
the latter's own territory.
Ademption - ANSWER-The common law doctrine of ademption states that where the
testator makes a specific gift, and thereafter the item that is the subject of the specific
gift is transferred, an irrebuttable presumption arises that the testator revoked the gift.
Air Rights Example - ANSWER-United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946)
Facts: The United States military flew regular and frequent flights over the property of
individuals who were engaged in chicken farming. The path of glide passed over the
property at 83 feet, which was 67 feet above the house, 63 feet above the barn and 18
feet above the highest tree on the property. Planes often came close enough to the
property to just miss the tops of trees and would sometimes come so close and would
blow the old leaves off. The plaintiffs had to give up their chicken business due to sleep
deprivation and the loss of chickens from chickens flying into the walls from fright.
The case established the "enveloping atmosphere doctrine." "If the landowner is to have
full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of
the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not
be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law
gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The
landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or
use in connection with the land." Id. at 264.
Any Factual Basis Test - ANSWER-Some states apply the any factual basis test to
determine what constitutes an insane delusion. If there is any factual basis to support
the testator's belief, it is not an insane delusion.
Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution - ANSWER-"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
Articles exported from any State."
Thus, Congress cannot impose any export taxes.
However, Congress can pass other laws to restrict or encourage exports.
Bailment - ANSWER-Formed by the delivery of personal property, without transfer of
title, by one person (the bailor) to another (the bailee). Bailment agreements usually are
made for a particular purpose - for example, to loan, lease, store, repair, or transport the
property.
Personal Property Requirement: Only personal property, not real property or persons,
can be the subject of the bailment.
Benevolent Trust - ANSWER-A benevolent trust is a trust that performs kind acts or
does "good things." Benevolent trusts are not charitable trusts unless the kind acts
qualify as one of the recognized charitable purposes.
, Example: Shenandoah Valley National Bank v. Taylor, 63 S.E.2d 786 (Va. 1951).
Settlor's trust provided that the income was to be distributed on the last day of school
preceding Easter and
Christmas break to the children in the first, second, and third grades at a local
elementary school, to be used by the children to further their education. The timing of
the payments indicated that the true purpose of the trust was to be a benevolent trust,
not a charitable trust. There were no enforceable restrictions on how the children used
the money, and in light of the timing of the payments, the children would not use it on
education. Where a trust conveys mere financial enrichment, the trust qualifies as a
charitable trust only if from a totality of the circumstances, it becomes apparent that the
intended beneficiaries are poor or in necessitous conditions. There was no evidence
that these children were poor. Thus, it did not qualify as a charitable trust. As a
benevolent trust, it also failed because it violated the rule against perpetuities (a rule
adopted in some states which bar non-charitable trusts from lasting indefinitely).
Caapcity for Will Example - ANSWER-Facts: Dr. Marshall died July 29, 1968. His
daughter challenged a will and two codicils executed shortly before his death on the
grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity. 3 lay witnesses testified that starting as
early as 1940 Dr. Marshall claimed to be the only person on earth who could speak with
the Lord, that the Lord had given him special powers, and that the Lord had told him to
run for president, and if elected, "kill the damn bankers and the crooks and the thieves
that were robbing the people." A lay witness also testified that in talking about these
people Dr. Marshall became highly emotional, he would pound his fists on the table, use
profanity, turn red with rage, eyes would bug out, and the veins in his neck would stick
out. Dr. Rowling saw the testator in 1940 and concluded that Dr. Marshall was then
suffering from manic-depressive psychosis, an incurable mental disease, which only
gets worse. Dr. Rowing also concluded Dr. Marshall was not of sound mind on
particular days in 1968 when he executed the will and codicils. In response to a
hypothetical question, Dr. Hartman, a specialist in psychiatry and neurology, concluded
that Dr. Marshall was of unsound mind when he executed the instruments and
incapable of generalized logical thinking. The defendants presented evidence that the
testator was calm, quiet, collected, and of sound mind the day will was executed.
How should the Court rule on testamentary capacity?
Concluded that testator's stated views on government, religion, morals, and finances
went beyond peculiarities and eccentricities and were sufficient evidence which a jury
could reasonably find that he lacked sound mind when he executed the will and codicils.
Evidence of testator's mental condition prior to the execution is admissible if it tends to
show his condition at the time of execution.
Charitable Trust - ANSWER-A charitable trust is a trust for a charitable purpose. Courts
limit a charitable purpose to one of six delineated purposes:
1) to relieve property;
2) to advance education;
3) to advance religion;
4) to promote health;
