Will PQ #3 incorrect
M/E The testator executed a will and had his brother and his sister attesting as witnesses. There was a clause after the signatures in which the testator acknowledged that the document was his will, and that he signed in the presence of the witnesses. The witnesses also acknowledged the document was the testator's will and swore the will was signed in their presence and in the presence of each other. They all signed in the presence of a notary public who affixed her seal to the document. Years passed and the brother and sister eventually died. The testator however was still alive. When the testator died, a petition was filed to admit the will to probate. Will the court admit the will to probate? Answers: Yes, because the will is self-proving. Yes, because the will had two witnesses. No, because the witnesses can no longer testify about the contents of the will. No, because the will was invalid.
Answer choice A is correct. A will may be made self-proving if there is an acknowledgment of it by the testator and the affidavits of the witnesses. The acknowledgment and affidavits must be made before an officer authorized to administer oaths and evidenced by the officer's seal. The self-proving may occur at the time of its execution or at any subsequent date; although generally, they are executed at the same time. Self-proving wills may be admitted to probate without further proof. Here, the acknowledgment and affidavits signed by the testator and two witnesses in the presence of the notary public make the will self-proving.
M/S In her lawyer's office, the testator, a resident of Florida, executed a will in which she devises one-fourth of her estate to her nephew, one-fourth of her estate to her sister, and the remaining half of her estate to her brother. She hands the original executed will to her lawyer for safekeeping; she keeps an unexecuted copy of the will for herself. One evening, the testator and her nephew are having dinner. On their way home, the testator and her nephew get into a heated argument. When they arrive at the testator's home, the testator immediately pulls out her copy of the will, and in front of her nephew crosses out the provision in which she left him one-fourth of her estate, and tells him he is getting nothing. The nephew leaves. After the nephew leaves, and still incensed about the argument, the testator yells out that none of her relatives deserve to get anything. She then phones her lawyer, who is working late at the office, and tells him to destroy her will because she is revoking it. The lawyer tears up the will while on the phone with the testator, allowing the testator to hear the tearing of the will. Later that evening, the stress of the argument causes the testator to suffer a heart attack. She is found dead the next morning. What is the effect of the phone call to the lawyer on the will? Answers: The will is not revoked because a third party cannot revoke the will. The will is not revoked because it was not done in the presence of the testator. The will is revoked because it was destroyed at the testator's direction. The will is revoked because it was destroyed at the testator's direction and the testator heard will being torn up.
Answer choice B is correct. A testator retains the ability to revoke his will at any time prior to her death. Generally, a will may be revoked in one of three ways: (i) by subsequent writings; (ii) by physical destruction of the will; or (iii) by operation of law. A third party can revoke a will on behalf of the testator as long as the revocation is at the testator's direction and in the presence of the testator. Thus answer choice A is incorrect. Here, the revocation is not valid because even though it was done at the testator's direction, it was not done in the testator's presence.
E The testator, a widower, had his attorney prepare a will according to the testator's instructions. The attorney mailed the will to the testator. The testator signed the will in the presence of his father, and asked his father to sign the will as a witness, which his father did. The testator then showed the will to his adult son, told him that the signature on the will was his, and asked his son to sign the will as a witness as well. The testator's will devised $100,000 to his adult son, with the remainder of the testator's estate passing to his other two sons in equal shares. When the testator died, the will was offered for probate. The testator was survived by the father, the adult son, and the other two sons. As witnesses, the father and the son are asked to testify to the facts concerning the execution of the will. Should the testator's will be admitted to probate? Answers: Yes, because the father and the adult son both testified to the facts concerning the execution of the will. No, because the father and the adult son did not sign the will in each other's presence. Yes, because the will had the necessary two witnesses. No, because the father and the adult son are also beneficiaries.
Answer choice B is correct. A will requires a writing that the testator signs with present testamentary intent in the joint presence of two attesting witnesses, and that both witnesses understand the significance of testator's act and sign in the presence of each other. By statute in Florida, the attesting and subscribing witnesses are required to sign in the presence of each other. Here, the father and the adult son did not sign in each other's presence.
M/E A man is convicted of manslaughter for negligently killing his mother while driving drunk. His mother was extremely wealthy, and she had left her money and property to the man in a properly executed will. Which of the following would the man be entitled to based upon the provisions of the will? Answers: Money only Property only Money and property Neither money nor property
Answer choice C is correct. By statute, Florida prohibits any person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent from getting any benefits under the decedent's will or under the Florida Probate Code. The estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property devised by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Although the man's actions resulted in his mother's death, his conviction of negligent homicide indicates he lacked the intent to kill her. Therefore, he would inherit all money and property as determined by the provisions in her will. Note, too, that a conviction for murder is not required to bar a beneficiary from taking; only proof that a killing was intentional and unlawful.
M A testator properly executed a will appointing his wife, daughter, and son as joint personal representatives of his estate. After the testator's death, an asset of the estate is corporate stock. Who may effect the sale of the stock on behalf of the estate? Answers: Any of the three personal representatives may sell the stock on behalf of the estate without the agreement of the other two personal representatives. The surviving spouse and at least one of the testator's children must agree to sell the stock. At least two of the three personal representatives must agree to sell the stock. All three of the personal representatives must agree to sell the stock.
Answer choice C is correct. When there is more than one personal representative, a majority of the personal representatives must generally concur on all acts related to the administration of the estate, unless the will provides otherwise.
M/S Through various investments, the testator, an 80-year-old man, has accumulated a great deal of wealth. He is separated from his spouse and has two children who both live in Florida. The son is from the testator's first marriage and the daughter from the testator's second marriage. The testator plans to move to Florida to be closer to his family. Prior to his move, however, the testator meets the woman of his dreams. He becomes engaged and decides to leave his estate to his new 20-year-old fiancée. He handwrites a will devising his entire estate to his fiancée and signs the will. Although no one witnesses the will, the will is a valid will in the state in which the testator lives. The testator then moves to Florida and dies not long after he arrives. He is survived by his fiancée, his two children, and his spouse. Who will receive the estate in Florida? Answers: The fiancée The two children in equal shares The spouse and the two children each receive one-third of the estate. The spouse receives one-half of the estate; and the two children the remaining half in equal shares.
Answer choice D is correct. A holographic will is a will written entirely in the handwriting of, and signed by, the testator. In some states, such a will is valid even though it is not witnessed. Florida does not recognize an unwitnessed holographic will as a valid will, even if the state in which the holographic will was executed does. Thus, the property passes through intestacy to the testator's spouse and two children.
M/H Lulu is a sixteen-year-old high school student living at home with her parents. Over the years, she has developed a close friendship with her elderly neighbor, Flo. Flo approached Lulu's father, Al, whom she knew to be a lawyer licensed to practice in Florida, and asked him to draft a will for her. Upon learning that Flo wished to make a bequest to Lulu, Al declined, but recommended Mary, another Florida lawyer in solo practice. Mary drafted Flo's will, but before she could schedule a time with Flo to execute the will, had to leave town. While Mary was out of town, Flo fell and was seriously injured. Flo, concerned that she might die without a will, asked Al to oversee the execution of her will. Al, after contacting Mary and securing her agreement, did so. The will was properly executed, including being witnessed and acknowledged by two disinterested witnesses. Is the bequest to Lulu subject to challenge? Answers: No, because neither Al nor Lulu solicited the bequest. No, because the bequest was made to Lulu, not Al. Yes, because Lulu is not an adult. Yes, because Al oversaw the execution of the will.
Answer choice D is correct. Florida, by statute, prevents not only the lawyer who prepares or executes a will from receiving a gift under a will but also a person related the lawyer unless the lawyer or related person is also related to the testator. Consequently, the bequest to Lulu is void.
M/S The only provision in Talia's will regarding her jewelry is the following provision: To my niece Astrid I leave any jewelry of which I die possessed, not to exceed collectively in value $100,000. Subject to this dollar limitation, Astrid may select the pieces of jewelry she wishes to have. Any remaining jewelry I leave to Minnie, my friend. After execution of her will and shortly before her death, Talia gave Astrid a gold necklace valued at $20,000 and a diamond ring valued at $30,000. There is no documentation relating to gold necklace, although Talia orally told Astrid that the necklace was part of her inheritance at the time that she gave Astrid the necklace. With regard to the diamond ring, Talia sent it to Astrid along with a note that the ring was given in partial satisfaction of Astrid's rights to Talia's jewelry upon Talia's death. After Talia's death, Astrid may select jewelry in Talia's estate that collectively is valued at no more than Answers: $100,000 $80,000 $70,000 $50,000
nswer choice C is correct. Talia's limited devise of her jewelry to Astrid has been partially adeemed by Talia's lifetime gift of her diamond ring to Astrid, but not by her similar gift of her gold necklace. Florida, by statute, provides a devise is adeemed by satisfaction through a lifetime gift, but only if the i) the will specifically provides for the deduction of the gift; ii) the testator declares in a writing contemporaneous with the gift that the gift should be deducted from the devise (or is in satisfaction of the devise); or iii) the recipient of the gift acknowledges in writing that the gift is in satisfaction of the devise. Since this statutory provision is satisfied with respect to the diamond ring, but not the gold necklace, the $100,000 devise is reduced by the value of the diamond ring ($30,000) to $70,000.
