Wills Estates and Trusts MCQs

A directs B to write the following on a piece of paper: "This is my will. I give all of my property to X." B writes it out by hand and dates it, and A signs it. A later dies. Can the paper writing be probated as A's will? (a) Yes, if A lives in a state where holographic wills are recognized. (b) No, because even a holographic will needs a witness. (c) Yes, but only if A later had the will certified by an attorney licensed to practice law in A's jurisdiction. (d) Possibly, if the jurisdiction has a harmless error statute.

D is the correct answer. The most common requirements for a valid will are that it be in writing, that it be signed by the testator, and that it be attested and signed by at least two witnesses. Sometimes the witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator and in the presence of one another. This will was not witnessed so it cannot qualify as a formal will. Although a holographic will is an alternative to a formal witnessed will and is recognized in just over one-half of U.S. jurisdictions, it is generally valid only if it is written out completely in the testator's handwriting and signed. Some jurisdictions require it to be dated. This will was not written in the testator's handwriting but rather was written by another person (B). Therefore it is not valid as a holographic will. Finally, a few jurisdictions contain a "harmless error" statute. A harmless error statute generally provides that a writing is valid as the will of a person if the proponent of the will provides clear and convincing evidence that the person intended the document to be his or her will. The facts indicate that A probably intended this document to be his will. Therefore, it might qualify as his will under a harmless error statute if the evidentiary standard is met. Thus, D is the correct answer.

D dies intestate, leaving his children, E, F and G, as his sole heirs. Subsequently, F, who has two children of his own, disclaims all of his interest in D's estate in accordance with the applicable disclaimer statute. Who will receive D's probate estate? (a) E and G will each receive one-half of D's estate. (b) E and G will each receive one-third of D's estate and F's descendants will receive the remaining one-third. ] (c) E, F and G will each receive one-third of D's estate. (d) E and G will each receive one-third of D's estate; the other one-third will pass to those persons F designates in his disclaimer.

Disclaimer statutes permit an heir to renounce or "disclaim" all or a portion of the heir's statutory share of the intestate decedent's estate. A person who disclaims a share will be treated for purposes of the disclaimed share to have predeceased the decedent. B is the correct answer, because F's disclaimer results in the disclaimed share being distributed as though he predeceased the decedent. If F predeceases D, then F's descendants will take his share by representation. A is not the correct answer because F's descendants receive his share by representation in the event he predeceases the decedent. C is not the correct answer because F disclaimed his interest in D's estate and therefore does not take a share. D is not the correct answer because a disclaimed share passes to those who would take if the disclaiming heir predeceased; the disclaiming heir is not permitted to direct the disposition of the disclaimed property.

The only will T ever executed leaves $100,000 to her favorite nephew, and divides the rest of her probate estate between her two children. The will is witnessed by T's daughter and T's neighbor. T dies. Assuming T's jurisdiction has a purging statute that follows the excess benefit rule, how will T's probate estate be distributed? (a) Exactly as the will is written; $100,000 to the nephew, and the rest divided between the two children. (b) $100,000 to the nephew and the rest to T's child who did not witness the will. (c) All of the probate estate will be distributed to T's child who did not witness the will. (d) All of the probate estate will be distributed to the neighbor.

The correct answer is A. A purging statute that follows the excess benefit rule provides that an interested witness to a will must "purge" the benefit she receives from the will. But in order to determine the extent to which a witness may benefit from a will under the excess benefit rule, we must compare what is received under the will with what would be received if the will were not executed. Since T did not have a prior will, she would die intestate if this will were not executed. Under intestacy, T's daughter would receive one-half of T's entire probate estate. Under the will, T's daughter will receive only one-half of what's left of T's probate estate, after the $100,000 is distributed to the nephew. So although T's daughter receives a portion of T's estate under the will, she derives no excess benefit from the will, and thus the will has no interested witnesses.

T executes a valid will containing the following devise: "I give the sum of $100,000 to my cousin, X." After T dies, T's executor discovers that T had two cousins named X. Will a court permit extrinsic evidence to determine which cousin T intended to benefit? a. Perhaps, because the provision in question contains a latent ambiguity. b. Perhaps, because the provision in question contains a patent ambiguity. c. No, because T's will is unambiguous. d. No, because extrinsic evidence is never admitted to clear up an ambiguity in a will.

The correct answer is A. Although the general rule is that not extrinsic evidence will be admitted in determining what a testator intended in a will provision, many courts permit extrinsic evidence in the case of an ambiguity, particularly a latent ambiguity, as is the case here. B is not the correct answer because the provision contains a latent, not patent ambiguity. C is not the correct answer because the will is ambiguous in that it make a general devise to T's cousin X, and T has two cousins named X. D is not the correct answer because some courts permit extrinsic evidence in the case of an ambiguity, particularly a latent ambiguity, as is the case here.

On September 1, 2020, T prepares a valid formal will containing the following provision in Article 2: "Except as I may provide in a signed and dated separate writing, I give and devise my tangible personal property to those of my children who survive me, to be divided among them as they might agree." At T's death in 2022, her September 1, 2020 will is found, together with a typed writing, signed by T but not witnessed, dated April 13, 2021, which states as follows: "I give any stock I own in XYZ Company at my death to my best friend, X." Which of the following statements is the best assessment of the legal effect of the April 13, 2021 document? a. It is invalid because under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, a referenced document must be in existence at the time the incorporating will is executed. b. It is invalid, because under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, a document must be in the physical presence of the will at the time of execution in order to be integrated. c. It is valid, because under the doctrine of incorporation by reference, any document specifically referred to by the will may be incorporated into the will. d. It is valid because under statutory modifications to the common law that are now the majority rule, the doctrine of incorporation by reference applies to a referenced document regardless of when it is executed, but only with respect to the disposition of tangible personal property.

The correct answer is A. The common law doctrine of incorporation by reference requires that any document incorporated into the will be in existence at the time the will is executed. B is not the correct answer because the doctrine of incorporation by reference does not require that an incorporated document be in the physical presence of the will at the time of execution. C is not the correct answer because the common law doctrine of incorporation by reference requires that any document incorporated into the will be in existence at the time of the will is executed. D is not the correct answer because although it correctly states the law with respect to statutory modifications to the common law, corporate stock is not tangible personal property.

Testator, a single man, signs a will that devises all of his estate to his parents, if they survive him, and if not, then to his siblings in equal shares. A few years later, Testator meets and eventually marries Wife. Testator plans to change his will and devise his estate to Wife, but dies unexpectedly before a new will can be signed. Which of the following best describes the likely distribution of Testator's probate estate? a. Wife will receive a statutory share of Testator's estate and the remaining amount, if any, will be distributed according to his will. b. Testator's estate will be distributed according to his jurisdiction's intestacy statutes. c. All of Testator's estate will be distributed according to his will. d. Wife will receive all of Testator's estate.

The correct answer is A. Under the majority rule, a premarital will that makes no provision for the surviving spouse and expresses no intent to omit the future spouse is still valid, but the surviving spouse is entitled to a statutory share of the estate, despite the provisions of the will. Some jurisdictions provide for no intestate share if the spouse is provided for by a nonprobate device, but no such facts are apparent here. B is not the correct answer because the premarital will remains valid to distribute any probate property not included in the surviving spouse's intestate share. C is not the correct answer because under the majority rule the surviving spouse is entitled to an intestate or statutory share. D is not the correct answer because the surviving spouse's statutory share may not equal the entire estate

Lawyer prepares a will for each of H and W, who were recently married to one another. H's will provides that all of his property is to be distributed to W if she survives him and if not then fifty percent in equal shares to H's children and fifty percent in equal shares to W's children. W's will provides that all of her property is to be distributed to H if he survives her and if not then fifty percent in equal shares to W's children and fifty percent in equal shares to H's children. Although no language in the wills or elsewhere refers to any obligation not to revoke them, Lawyer assures the couple that the wills are "mirror image mutual wills." The couple executes their wills and H later dies with his will intact. W then changes her will and dies with a new will, which gives her entire estate to her children. In a majority rule jurisdiction, do H's children have a cause of action against W's estate for improperly revoking her will? a. Yes, the facts indicate that the parties executed a contract not to revoke their wills, and W breached that contract. b. No, nothing in the facts indicates that the parties executed a contract not to revoke their wills. c. Yes, these are mirror image mutual wills, and the surviving party cannot revoke her will once the first party dies with his will intact. d. No, but the new will is invalid, and the estate must be distributed in accordance with W's original mirror image mutual will.

The correct answer is B. A will is revocable up until the moment of death, and nothing in the facts indicates that the parties entered into a contract not to revoke their wills. A is not the correct answer, because nothing in the facts indicates that the parties entered into a contract not to revoke their wills. C is not the correct answer, because mirror image mutual wills do not create a presumption of a contract not to revoke, and nothing in the facts indicate that such a contract was entered into. D is not the correct answer, because nothing in the facts indicates that the parties entered into a contract not to revoke their wills, and such a contract does not typically invalidate a new will in any event. Instead, an action for breach of contract or constructive trust must be maintained against the estate.

Lawyer is approached by Son, whose very elderly father, Father, recently died. Son claims that Father executed a will a few years ago that split his estate equally between Son, Father's only son, and Daughter, Father's only daughter. But Son was surprised to find out that Father executed a will one month before his death that devised only $10,000 to Son and devised the rest of his $500,000 estate to Daughter. Father's will, which named Daughter as executor, was recently admitted to probate. Son tells you that Daughter lived at Father's home and that, in the few months preceding his death, Father was physically frail and often very confused when Son spoke with him by telephone, and that Daughter would not let Son actually visit Father due to his "health issues." Which of the following is good legal advice to Son with respect to a potential lawsuit alleging undue influence by Daughter? a. Once the lawsuit is filed, Daughter will bear the burden of proving that she did not unduly influence Father. b. Son will bear the initial burden of proving undue influence. c. Bringing forth evidence of a confidential relationship will shift the burden of proof to daughter. d. Son must exhaust his other probate remedies first; he will then be able to file a suit based on undue influence.

The correct answer is B. In an action for undue influence, the person challenging the will generally has the initial burden of proving undue influence. A is not the correct answer because in an action for undue influence, the person challenging the will generally has the initial burden of proving undue influence. C is not the correct answer because simply proving a confidential relationship would not typically shift the burden of proof. One or more suspicious circumstances must also be proved. D is not the correct answer because it incorrectly states the law.

D dies intestate and unmarried. D had three children, A, B and C, but A and B predecease D while C survives. A had three children, GC1, GC2 and GC3, all of whom survive D, and B had one child, GC4, who survives D. C has one child, GC5, who survives D. How will D's intestate estate be distributed under the Uniform Probate Code's per capita at each generation method of representation? (a) GC1, GC2 and GC3 each get 1/9; GC4 gets 1/3 and C gets 1/3. (b) C gets 1/3 and GC 1, GC2, GC3 and GC4 each get 1/6. (c) C gets 1/3 and GC1, GC2, GC3, GC4 and GC5 each get 1/15. (d) C, as the only surviving descendant of the first generation, gets the entire estate.

The correct answer is B. In the per capita at each generation form of representation, each surviving descendant in the nearest generation is allocated one share. The remaining shares, if any, are combined and brought down to the next row and distributed the same way among surviving descendants without a surviving ancestor. A is not the correct answer because it represents a per stirpes distribution. C is not the correct answer and does not make mathematical sense. D is not the correct answer because in intestacy property is distributed to descendants by right of representation.

Testator dies with a valid will containing the following disposition: "I give the sum of $10,000 to each grandchild of mine who survives me." At the time of execution of her will, Testator had three grandchildren, A, B and C. A predeceased Testator, leaving two of A's children, X and Y, surviving her and Testator. B and C survived Testator. No language in Testator's will addresses what might happen in the event of a lapsed devise. In a majority rule jurisdiction, who will receive how much of Testator's residuary estate? a. B and C will each receive $10,000, and X and Y will each receive $5,000. b. B and C will each receive $10,000, but X and Y will not receive a share. c. B and C will each receive $10,000, and A's estate will receive $10,000. d. B and C will each receive $10,000, and $10,000 will be distributed to Testator's intestate heirs.

The correct answer is B. Under the majority rule, survivorship language (here, "each grandchild of min who survives me") is respected. Therefore, a child is to receive a portion of the residue only if the child survives Testator, and no antilapse statute will apply. A is not the correct answer because the clause contains survivorship language, which, while it is ignored in a jurisdiction that has adopted the latest UPC antilapse provisions, prevents any antilapse statute from applying in the majority of jurisdicitons. C is not the correct answer because the clause contains survivorship language, and a lapsed devise does not go to a predeceased beneficiary's estate in any event. D is not the correct answer because the clause contains survivorship language, and a lapsed general devise does not go to the testator's intestate heirs in any event, unless there is no residuary clause.

Client meets with his lawyer, L, for the purpose of obtaining L's assistance with Client's estate planning. Client, who has no children and whose wife is deceased, tells L that he wishes to give all of his property in equal shares to "his nieces and nephews." Upon further discussion L learns that by reference to "nieces and nephews," Client was referring to those of the children of his wife's sister and the children of his own sister who survive him. Based on his conversation with Client, L prepares and Client executes a will that devises Client's estate to his "nieces and nephews." After Client dies with the will intact the probate court determines that, under state law, a decedent's "nieces and nephews" include only those persons who are the children of the decedent's siblings, and not those who are the children of a spouse's siblings. Assuming the will cannot be reformed to reflect Client's intentions, is L potentially liable to the children of Client's wife's sister? (a) No, L's contract for legal services was only with Client and his liability does not extend to others. (b) No, because the facts as presented do not point to any possible error on the part of L. (c) Yes, under the majority rule, a lawyer in this position is potentially liable to the intended beneficiaries of a client's estate. (d) Yes, but only in a minority of jurisdictions.

The correct answer is C. A large majority of U.S. jurisdictions provides that a lawyer is potentially liable to the intended beneficiaries of a client's estate plan, through either or both of the tort law of negligence and the law of third-party beneficiary contract. A is not the correct answer because most U.S. jurisdictions now hold a lawyer potentially liable to the intended beneficiaries of a client's plan. B is not the correct answer because the will drafted by the lawyer erroneously referred to the intended beneficiaries of the client's estate plan as the client's "nieces and nephews." D is not the correct answer because most U.S. jurisdictions provide that a lawyer is potentially liable to the intended beneficiaries of a client's estate plan.

T's will contains only the following dispositive provisions: "I give all of my real property in equal shares to my grandchildren. I give all the rest and residue of my estate to my grandchild Z. At the time of the execution of T's will T has three grandchildren, X, Y and Z. Z predeceases T leaving no descendants surviving him. X and Y survive T. Assuming no other language in the will addresses lapsed devises, how will T's probate estate be distributed? a. X and Y will each receive 1/3 of T's real property and the rest of T's estate will pass through intestacy. b. X and Y will each receive 1/2 of Z's estate. c. X and Y will each receive 1/2 of T's real property and T's heirs will receive the rest of T's estate. d. X and Y will each receive 1/2 of T's real property and Z's heirs will receive the rest of Z's estate.

The correct answer is C. The gift of real property is likely to be construed as a class gift, as it has a class label (grandchildren) and dynamic shares (equal shares). Under the common law, if a class member predeceases the testator then the remaining class members take the predeceased class member's share. An antilapse statute will not apply since Z had no descendants. Since Z, the sole residuary beneficiary, predeceased T, the residuary estate will pass to T's intestate heirs. An antilapse statute will not apply since Z had no descendants. A is not the correct answer because the gift of real property is a class gift and will be distributed in equal shares to X and Y (1/2 to each). B is not the correct answer because the residue will pass to T's intestate heirs under the common law lapse rules. D is not the correct answer because the residue will pass to T's heirs under the common law lapse rules.

T executes a will that devises her expensive ($200,000 value) automobile to her best friend, X. T is subsequently involved in an automobile accident that results in her death and the destruction of the automobile in question. The automobile is covered by insurance. T's jurisdiction generally follows the identity theory of ademption. Of the following, which is the best argument X might make as to why he should receive the proceeds of the automobile insurance policy? a. No argument is necessary. Since T's jurisdiction follows the identity theory, X will receive the proceeds, which can be identified as those to which T's estate was entitled due to the destruction of T's automobile. b. The identity theory is an old common law rule no longer followed, and X is entitled to the proceeds under the intent theory. c. Since the automobile was destroyed in the same accident that took T's life, T did not voluntarily remove it from her estate and had no chance to change her will with respect to the specific devise to X. d. The identity theory applies only to specific devises.

The correct answer is C. The identity theory aims to carry out the testator's presumptive intent. The identity theory carries out intent in most cases where a specific item of property is no longer in the testator's estate due to voluntary actions on the part of the testator, because the testator could have changed the will to give the devisee another item if that's what the testator wanted. In the situation described here, the testator did not voluntarily remove the item from her estate, and further would have been unable to make an alternative gift to X in her will. These circumstances present a compelling argument to follow the intent theory, and give X the proceeds of the insurance policy. A is not the correct answer because under the identity theory X would receive nothing. B is not the correct answer, because the identity theory is followed by many jurisdictions. D is not the correct answer because although it correctly states the law, the devise in question is a specific devise.

D dies intestate leaving no surviving spouse. D's only descendants are his two children, A and B, and his two grandchildren, X and Y, who are the children of D's deceased child, C. Which of the following is necessarily true of D's probate and nonprobate property? (a) It will be divided equally between A and B. (b) A and B will each receive one-third and X and Y will each receive one-sixth of all of D's property. (c) Each of A, B, X and Y will share in D's probate property, albeit not in equal proportions, while it is unclear from the facts what will happen to D's nonprobate property. (d) It is unclear from the facts presented what will happen to any of D's property.

The correct answer is C. The intestacy statutes only affect probate property. Since D left no surviving spouse, all of his probate property will be distributed to his descendants, by right of representation. There is no information in the fact pattern regarding the distribution of D's nonprobate property. B is not the correct answer because it describes only what is necessarily true of D's probate property.

X dies intestate and unmarried. X had two children, A and B, but neither survives X. A has one child, G1, who survives X. B has three children, G2, G3 and G4, who survive X. Which of the following is a correct assessment regarding the distribution of X's intestate estate? (a) Under modern per stirpes, G1 would receive 1/2 and G2, G3 and G4 would each receive 1/6. (b) Under English per stirpes, each of X's grandchildren would receive 1/4. (c) Under modern per stirpes, each of X's grandchildren would receive 1/4. (d) Under per capita at each generation, G1 would receive 1/2 and G2, G3 and G4 would each receive 1/6.

The correct answer is C. Under modern per stirpes, we start with the first row that has survivors. That is the grandchildren's row. We then count four live columns so each gets ¼. A is not the correct answer because under In modern per stirpes, we start with the first row that has survivors. B is not the correct answer, because under English per stirpes, we start counting columns at the first row, here the A/B row. So under English per stirpes, G1 would get ½, and the rest of the grandchildren would get 1/6 each. D is not the correct answer, because under per capita at each generation, we start at the first row with survivors.

Decedent signs a will (Will 1) that devises her jewelry to her daughter and devises "all the rest and residue" of her property to her daughter and her son in equal shares. Two years later, Decedent signs another will (Will 2) that does not mention or expressly revoke Will 1 and does not mention her jewelry but devises her automobile to her son and devises "all the rest and residue" of her property to her daughter and her son in equal shares. Decedent dies without having executed another will, survived by her daughter and her son. Assuming both wills were validly executed, how will Decedent's estate be distributed? a. Decedent's daughter will receive the jewelry, her son will receive the automobile, and the rest of Decedent's estate will be divided equally between them. b. Decedent's daughter will receive the jewelry and the rest of the estate will be divided equally between the daughter and the son. c. Decedent's son will receive the car and the rest of the estate will be divided equally between the daughter and the son. d. All of Decedent's estate will be divided equally between Decedent's daughter and her son.

The correct answer is C. Where a subsequent will does not expressly revoke a previous will, any dispositive provisions in the previous will are revoked to the extent that they are inconsistent with the subsequent will. Here, Will 2 disposed of Decedent's entire estate, as it contained a residuary clause. A is not the correct answer because Will 2 revoked the specific devise of the jewelry to Decedent's daughter by inconsistency. B is not the correct answer because Will 2 revoked the specific devise of the jewelry to Decedent's daughter by inconsistency, and Will 2 also devised Decedent's automobile to Decedent's son. D is not the correct answer because Will 2 devised Decedent's automobile to Decedent's son.

Lawyer, who is just starting out in practice and has no employees, prepares to conduct her first will execution ceremony. She persuades two workers from a neighboring accounting firm to be witnesses, but she is unable to procure a notary. Nonetheless, she decides to proceed with the will execution, and the testator and the two witnesses assemble in Lawyer's office and sign and witness the will according to the statutory requirements. Because there is no notary, however, Lawyer omits the attestation clause and the self-proving affidavit. Which of the following best describes the legal validity of the will? (a) The will is not likely valid, because although a self-proving affidavit is not generally necessary, a will must include a properly signed attestation clause. (b) The will is not likely valid, because although an attestation clause is not strictly necessary, a will must include a properly signed self-proving affidavit. (c) The will is not likely valid, because most jurisdictions require both an attestation clause and a properly signed self-proving affidavit. (d) The will is likely valid, because neither an attestation clause nor a self-proving affidavit are necessary for a valid will.

The correct answer is D. Although both an attestation clause and a self-proving affidavit are recommended best practices for wills, neither is required for a valid will. Instead, a self-proving affidavit generally establishes a prima facie case for the validity of a will and a self-proving affidavit generally eliminates the need for proof of the will by testimony from the witnesses at the testator's death, making the will "self-proving." For the same reasons, A, B and C are not the correct answers.

H dies intestate, married to W. Three years after the date of H's death, a child, C, conceived by H's banked sperm, is born to W. Which of the following, if true, is likely to be W's best legal argument that C should be entitled to Social Security survivor's benefits? (a) H consented, in writing, to the banking of his sperm in anticipation of possible posthumous conception. (b) Much evidence exists that H always wanted to have a child but was unable to conceive one. (c) C is H's biological child. (d) Under the law of H's jurisdiction, C would be considered H's child for purposes of the intestacy statutes.

The correct answer is D. In the case of Astrue v. Caputo, as referenced in the casebook and in class, the US Supreme Court held that in determining who is a child of the decedent for purposes of eligibility for social security survivors' benefits, the intestate succession law of the decedent's state of domicile would apply. A, B and C are not correct answers, because for purposes of determining social security survivors' benefits, the only consideration is whether the intestate succession law of the decedent's state of domicile would consider the child to be a child of the decedent in question.

Dad, a widower, and his only child (Son) and Son's daughter who is Dad's only grandchild (Granddaughter) are riding in a car together when they are involved in a tragic collision with another car. Dad is killed instantly, survived only by a sister, and by Son and Granddaughter. Three days after Dad's death Son dies from his injuries. Granddaughter survives. Dad has no will. Assuming the current version of the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act is in effect in Dad's jurisdiction, what will happen to Dad's probate property? (a) Dad's probate property will be distributed to Son's estate. (b) One-half of Dad's probate property will be distributed to Son's estate and the other one-half will be distributed to Granddaughter. (c) Dad's probate property will be divided between Son's estate and Dad's sister. (d) All of Dad's probate property will be distributed to Granddaughter.

The correct answer is D. Since Dad died intestate without a surviving spouse, his property is distributed to his descendants, by representation. Who are Dad's descendants? The Uniform Simultaneous Death Act (USDA) provides that "an individual who is not established by clear and convincing evidence to have survived the other individual by 120 hours is deemed to have predeceased the other individual." Son survived Dad by only three days, which is less than 120 hours (five days), so Son is deemed to have predeceased Dad for intestacy purposes. Granddaughter will take Dad's estate by right of representation. A is not the correct answer because in intestacy descendants of the intestate decedent take by right of representation. Neither of B or C are correct answers because when a person dies intestate with no spouse, all of their property is distributed to their descendants, by representation.

T is the trustee of the "O Trust," an irrevocable trust created by O and funded with several million dollars. T has mismanaged his personal funds (property owned by T outside of the O Trust) and one of T's personal creditors obtains a judgment against him. If T's personal assets are insufficient to satisfy the judgment against him, can T's judgment creditor seek satisfaction of the judgment against the assets of the O Trust? a. Yes, because as trustee of the O Trust T has legal title to the trust property. b. Yes, because as trustee of the O Trust T has beneficial title to the trust property. c. No, because T has beneficial title to the trust property only in his capacity as trustee. d. No, because T has legal title to the trust property only in his capacity as trustee.

The correct answer is D. Under the legal fiction of the "title split," or "bifurcation of title," a trustee is said to have legal title to trust property in his capacity as trustee, while the trust beneficiaries are said to have equitable or beneficial title. Although T's legal title to the trust assets allows him to deal with those assets as an owner, he may do so only in his capacity as trustee. Consequently, only creditors of T in his dealings as trustee have recourse against the assets of the trust; T's personal creditors do not. A is not the correct answer because T has legal title to the trust property only in his capacity as trustee. B is not the correct answer because T, as trustee, has no beneficial title to the trust assets. C is not the correct answer because T, as trustee, has no beneficial title to the trust assets.