Posted: February 9th, 2023

Fact: Miguel Ruiz

Group #
Chapter # 31 Case # 1
Fact: Miguel Ruiz, who had a wife and two small children, lacked a will. A friend of Miguel told him that he should have a will because in case he died and did not have a will, everything he owned would be taken by the state.
Issue/Problem: Was the friend correct when he told Miguel that in case he died and did not have a will, the state would take everything he owned?
Homework help - Summary of law: Under the usual state law, if an individual dies without a will, and has a spouse, the rights of the surviving spouse are indicated as follows: if the deceased is survived by issue (i.e. children, grandchildren), the surviving spouse has a right to one half of what the deceased owned. Under the same typical state law, if an individual dies without a will, subject to the rights of the surviving partner, the property will be distributed as follows: if the deceased had children, the property will be distributed among the children in equal shares, with the issue of any deceased child taking the share of that child.
Decision/Reason: No. The friend was not correct when he told Miguel that in case he died and did not have a will, the state would take everything he owned. What would happen if Miguel died intestate is that his property would be distributed among his wife and two children. As such, Miguel’s wife would be given half of what Miguel owned as property, and the other half would be distributed equally among his two children.
Name: Group #
Chapter # 31 Case # 10
Fact: The will of Whitman Winsor read in part: “I give, develop, and bestow all my property, real and personal to my daughter Lucy T. Winsor…I consider it only right and just that my said daughter Lucy T. Winsor shall have all my property…since she has lived with me and cared for me for many years, and it is my will that all shall be hers.” Caroline was another daughter of Winsor, and was not provided for in the will.
Issue/Problem: Is Caroline entitled to an intestate share of her father’s estate?
Homework help - Summary of law: Under the law, children who are able to prove that they were left of a parent’s will by mistake (instead of intentionally) are protected. As such, children who are forgotten have the right to get a similar share that they would have gotten had their parents died without having a will. This circumstance does not mean that the parent has no right to disinherit a child. Parents do not have the obligation to leave their children with everything, but to avert lawsuits, it is prudent to show the intention in the will. Therefore, a testator who wants to disinherit their child is required to name the child in the will and make the statement that the child was omitted from the will intentionally. By doing so, the child is not able to assert that that they were omitted from the will by mistake.
Decision/Reason: No. Caroline is not entitled to an intestate share of her father’s estate. The testator omitted Caroline from her will intentionally. In his will, he clearly stated that Lucy is the one who should be his heir to the exclusion of all others, and then went ahead to explain why that was to be the case. The language he used in the will removed any doubt that the omission of specific mention of his other daughter, Caroline was other than deliberate or that it was occasioned by mistake or accident.