Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Trust Code in a Nutshell
Authors:
Averill Jr., Lawrence H. / Radford, Mary F.
Edition:
7th
Copyright Date:
2021
35 chapters
have results for Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Trust Code
Outline 147 results (showing 5 best matches)
Preface to the Sixth Edition 4 results
- The two most dominant uniform laws in the area of trusts and estates are the Uniform Probate Code and the Uniform Trust Code. Both have had significant acceptance throughout the country either in complete enactments or piecemeal adoptions. The two Codes are inherently related and interconnected and thus it was a logical step to produce a single Nutshell that includes both of them.
- This edition includes discussion of other uniform acts that have had an impact on and in some cases been integrated into the UPC or the UTC. These include: the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act, the Uniform Multiple-Person Accounts Act, the Uniform Nonprobate Transfers at Death Act, the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, the Uniform Simplification of Fiduciary Security Transfers Act, the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act, the Uniform Statutory Rule against Perpetuities, the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act, the Uniform TOD Security Registration Act, and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.
- Professor Averill has been primarily responsible for the UPC and its revision. Professor Radford has concentrated on the UTC. Both have tried to integrate the two Codes. Overlapping subject matter has been combined into single discussions. Superseded materials have been eliminated or cross-referenced.
- To accomplish this in a reasonably compact text, it was necessary to compact and refine the UPC coverage in order to have space for the UTC coverage. This was accomplished without harming the basic comprehensiveness of the UPC portion. It required greater care to organization. The number of chapters has been reduced and the text in these chapters has been consolidated into a more efficient and reader friendly design. A few charts have been eliminated and most references to case law removed. Careful edition has reduced length to the benefit of the text.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. General Introduction and History 58 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As noted above, at the time the UTC was enacted, a variety of existing Uniform Acts covered various aspects of the law of trusts. The drafters of the UTC noted that the following Uniform Acts were not affected by the UTC and thus should continue to be available for enactment in free-standing form: Uniform Common Trust Fund Act (1938), Uniform Custodial Trust Act (1987), Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (1972) (which in 2006 was updated and renamed the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act), Uniform Principal and Income Act (1997) (which some states have incorporated into their trust codes), Uniform Probate Code (1969) (with the exception of Article VII, as discussed below), Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (1986), Uniform Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act (1954), and Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act (1960, 1991).
- Development of the Uniform Probate Code and UniformTrust Code
- Major comprehensive reform did not really come to the states until the late 1960’s when the UPC was promulgated. Many of the modern and improved rules and procedures presently existing under English law greatly influenced the drafters of the Uniform Probate Code. [Fratcher, Probate Can Be Quick and Cheap]. But the UPC is an amalgamation of many sources including state statutes, uniform acts and academic analyses. [See Averill, Eclectic History and Analysis, at 893–901]. Likewise, the UTC integrated a variety of trust-related uniform acts, state statutes, and analyses of trust law that appear in the Restatements of the Law of Trusts.
- In 1962, the Probate Section and the Uniform Law Commission (formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) [hereinafter referred to as the ULC] accepted a suggestion made by J. Pennington Straus of the Philadelphia Bar to revise and consolidate the Model Probate Code and other related and relevant uniform laws into a uniform probate law. In response, each organization formed a separate committee and Professor William F. Fratcher of the University of Missouri School of Law was appointed Research Director to conduct preliminary studies during 1963–64. Thereafter a Reporting Staff was recruited to draft the Uniform Probate Code under the supervision of the two committees. The late Professor Richard V. Wellman, then of the University of Michigan and subsequently of the University of Georgia, became the Reporting Staff’s Chief Reporter.
- When the initial enthusiasm and national effort to enact the Uniform Probate UPC as a comprehensive code lost much of its original momentum, the ULC altered its promotional approach regarding several new and old matters. In relevant, and appropriately separable, areas of probate law, the ULC developed freestanding acts from similar provisions integrated into the UPC as it existed at the relevant time. The reverse chronology also occurred. Some separate Uniform Acts have been subsequently integrated into the UPC in order to broaden its coverage. These techniques permitted the provisions to become law either as part of the whole Uniform Probate Code or as a separable and possibly more palatable distinct uniform act.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 19. Trust Administration 118 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The UTC was designed to incorporate or supersede certain other uniform laws that dealt with various aspects of trust law. UTC Section 1105 provides that the following uniform acts will be repealed when the UTC is enacted: (1) Uniform Trustee Powers Act; (2) Uniform Probate Code, Article VII ; (3) Uniform Trusts Act (1937); and (4) Uniform Prudent Investor Act. States that have adopted the UTC have been somewhat sporadic in their enactment of UTC Section 1105 and thus in their repeal of these related uniform acts.
- spells out the duties and powers of trustees. Prior to the enactment of the Uniform Trust Code, many of these same duties were set forth in the Uniform Prudent Investor Act and the Uniform Trustees Powers Act.
- At the time of the promulgation of the UTC, the drafters took note of the fact that almost all states had adopted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act. This Act deals comprehensively with the duties of a trustee in the investment and management of trust funds. The UTC drafters suggest that any state that enacts the UTC and has already enacted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act should simply re-codify the Uniform Prudent Investor Act as Article 9 of their Trust Code. The drafters noted, however, that some of the provisions in the Uniform Prudent Investor Act would overlap provisions in Article 8 of UTC, which deals with trustees’ general duties. To avoid duplication, the drafters’ recommendation is that states that have enacted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act should delete from Article 9 those provisions of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act that overlap provisions in Article 8 of the UTC. Chart 19-1 shows the suggested integration of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act into the UTC. The...
- The duties that were set forth in the Uniform Prudent Investor Act were described specifically as they related to the trustee’s investment function. The Uniform Prudent Investor Act was promulgated in 1994 and had been adopted by about two-thirds of the states by the time of the promulgation of the UTC. As explained in § 19.03, the drafters of the UTC suggest that states that have adopted the Uniform Prudent Investor Act should incorporate it as Article 9 of their new trust code. [Art. 8, Gen. Comment
- requires a trustee who has special skills or expertise to use those skills and that expertise in administering the trust. The same rule applies if the trustee has represented that the trustee has special skills or expertise and has been named trustee as a result of the representation. This Code section mirrors the Uniform Prudent Investor Act § 2(f), the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, § 174 and UPC Section 7–302
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. General Provisions Relating to Trusts 72 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Article 1 of the UTC contains definitions that apply throughout the UTC and a number of general provisions that do not fit into any of the other articles of the Code. UTC Section 101 states that the Code may be cited as the “Uniform Trust Code.” [UTC 101 ]. Many states entitle their enactments as the {State} Trust Code.
- The UTC drafters devote an entire Code section, UTC Section 104 provisions in the UTC are dependent upon whether and when persons (beneficiaries, trustees, third parties) “know” a fact. [See, e.g., UTC 109 ]. A person has knowledge of a fact if the person has actual knowledge; has received notice of the fact; or has reason to know the fact due to all the other facts and circumstances known to the person. Because, as noted above, “person” is defined broadly in UTC Section 103(10) ...of a fact. As noted in the Comment, notice to an organization does not occur when a notice is delivered to the organization’s mail room. Notice or knowledge of a fact is achieved by an organization only when an employee who has responsibility for acting for the trust learns the fact or receives the notice or would have received such notice had the organization exercised reasonable diligence. “Reasonable diligence” means that the organization “maintains reasonable routines for communicating significant...
- As noted above [see § 1.03], the UPC is now complimented by the UTC which was promulgated in 2000, over 30 years after the UPC. Conscious of the growing use of trusts in both personal and business transactions, and of the fact that few states had codified their trust law, the National Conference drafted the first national comprehensive trust code. The UTC was intended, among other things, to supersede the provisions in Article VII of the UPC that relate to trust administration. In fact, that Article was withdrawn from the UPC in 2010. However, while some states that adopted the UTC expressly repealed the trust provisions of the UPC, others did not. Some states make the UTC applicable only to trusts created after the date of enactment, so the UPC provisions may still be relevant for older trusts. Also, there are some states that have adopted the UPC but not the UTC, so the trust provisions of the UPC remain viable in those states. Part Six of this Nutshell is devoted primarily to an...
- Under the UPC, registration is accomplished merely by filing with the proper court a statement that includes the following information: (1) The name and address of the trustee; (2) An acknowledgment of trusteeship by the trustee; (3) A statement whether the trust has been registered elsewhere; and (4) A brief identification of the trust. [7–102 Identification specifications differ depending upon whether the trust is inter vivos or testamentary. If the trust is inter vivos, the statement must give the name of each settlor, the name of the original trustee and the date of the instrument. If the trust is testamentary, the statement must give the name of the settlor-testator and the date and location of the domiciliary probate. With the exception of oral inter vivos trusts, the registration statement does not require revelation of the beneficiaries or of the terms of the trusts. The registration statement must be filed in the court where the principal place of administration is located....
- provides an optional provision relating to subject matter jurisdiction. This provision allows the enacting states to designate which court (probate court, chancery court, superior court) has exclusive jurisdiction over trust matters and which courts have concurrent jurisdiction over trust matters.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Powers of Attorney 156 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In 1997, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws Promulgated the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (UGPPA) as a Freestanding Act. The Provisions in this Act were also integrated into the Uniform Probate Code as a Revision to Article V.
- Although the 1946 Model Probate Code attempted to improve and modernize guardianship laws, it did not stir reform in the states. [Model Probate Code, at 189–234]. In order to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs, the UPC included comprehensive and modernized articles on the law dealing with the protection of persons under a legal disability and their property. These originally appeared in the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act of 1982.
- ]. However, for guardianship proceedings, this Code section contains this proviso: “Except to the extent the guardianship is subject to [the state’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act].” The Comment explains that this Uniform Act, which is modeled after the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, contains comprehensive provisions relating to minors,
- The UPC now incorporates three freestanding uniform acts that deal with the management of person and property. The first, which appears as Article V of the UPC, is the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, as revised in 1997/1998 (“UGPPA”). This Act covers the guardianship and conservatorship of both minors and adults. The second, which appears as Article 5a of the UPC, is the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (2007) (“UAGPPJA”). As the name indicates, this Act covers only proceedings relating to adults and is restricted to issues relating to jurisdiction. [See §15.11]. The third uniform act, which appears as Article 5b of the UPC, is the Uniform Power of Attorney Act. This Act deals with a popular mechanism that can be used to
- The provisions for registration of the guardianship or conservatorship of another state that appear in the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act [see § 15.11(d)] apply only if both states have adopted this uniform act.
- Open Chapter
Preface to the Seventh Edition 3 results
- The Seventh Edition incorporates the 2019 amendments to the Uniform Probate Code that were necessitated by the amendment in 2017 of the Uniform Parentage Act. Because the 2019 amendments to the UPC have not yet enjoyed widespread enactment by the states, the Seventh Edition includes discussion of the relevant UPC provisions as they appeared both before and after the 2019 amendments. The 2019 amendments appear primarily in the intestacy provisions and the class gift provisions.
- The Seventh Edition also includes updated discussions of uniform acts that are incorporated into the UPC and that have been amended or newly promulgated. These include the Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (2017), the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (2007), the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (2009), the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act (2006), and the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (2006).
- Professor Radford has taken over primary responsibility for the Seventh and future editions to the Nutshell. The name of Professor Lawrence H. Averill, Jr., who was the sole author of the first five editions, has been retained as co-author due to the extensive contributions he made to the former editions and the Sixth Edition.
- Open Chapter
Table of Authorities 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- American Law Institute—American Bar Association, Uniform Probate Code Practice Manual (2d ed. 1977), 7, 387, 442, 481, 535
- American Law Institute—American Bar Association, Uniform Probate Code Practice Manual (Wright ed. 1972), 7
- Effland, Richard W., Caring for the Elderly Under the Uniform Probate Code, 17 Ariz. L. Rev. 373 (1975), 541
- Kurtz, Sheldon F., Powers of Appointment Under the 1990 Uniform Probate Code: What Was Done—What remains to Be Done, 55 Alb. L. Rev. 1151 (1992), 323
- Millard, Kevin D., Rights of a Trust Beneficiary’s Creditors under the Uniform Trust Code, 34 ACTEC J. 58 (2008), 710, 713, 715, 717, 718, 719, 727
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Elective Share of Surviving Spouse, the Augmented Estate, and Election Procedure 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- For income and other partial interests includable under Segment 3 and Segment 4, value equals the commuted value of any amounts payable to the surviving spouse either currently or after decedent’s death under trusts, life insurance settlement options, annuity contracts, public or private pensions, and disability compensation arrangements. [2–208(b)(2) ]. This means that the date of death value must be determined for serial payments of income to the surviving spouse in the future. The method of determining such value is not specified and will be part of the advocative process when an elective share is sought and will have to be determined by the court under the particular circumstances of the case. [See Langbein & Waggoner, The New Uniform Probate Code
- ; see § 4.03]. Examples of common interests that might be retained in pre-marriage transfers and not cause inclusion include life interests and nongeneral powers of appointment. An example of a retained interest that would cause inclusion in the augmented estates is an unrestricted, unshared power to revoke held at death. [2–205(1)(A) ]. Second, irrevocable and outright gifts to third persons up to $12,000 per donee per year are excluded whenever they are made. [2–205(3)(C) ]. The first exclusion assists in clearing titles and reduces disruption to finalized gratuitous transfers that an elected share petition can cause. The second exclusion protects normal donative transfers from elective share attack. Both exclusions may be occasionally abused by spouses and might propel a court to ignore the literal application of the UPC and apply inherent equitable powers over abusive spousal share avoidance transfers. [See Langbein & Waggoner, New Uniform Probate Code
- If the surviving spouse is incapacitated and the election is exercised by a proper person representing the spouse, amounts received by the fiduciary in satisfaction of the elective share amount from Segment 1 and Segment 2 must be placed in a custodial trust under the Uniform Custodial Trust Act or, if the enacting state does not have that Act, under the terms of a custodial trust established in the UPC. [2–212(b) ]. Under the statutory custodial trust, the fiduciary electing for the surviving spouse is the trustee, the surviving spouse is the beneficiary, the decedent spouse is the settlor, and the date of the trust is the date of the decedent’s death.
- Finally, the UPC permits third persons, e.g., parents, grandparents and other relatives, to transfer property in trust for the benefit of a person who is married or may get married and still protect the property from the elective share of the person’s surviving spouse. Unless the trust beneficiary holds an unshared presently exercisable power to appointment, a fractional share held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, or the remainder of the trust estate passes as part of the beneficiary’s probate estate at death, the trust assets will not be part of the augmented estate if the beneficiary’s surviving spouse seeks an elective share against the beneficiary’s estate. This trust is exempt even if the beneficiary holds any one or more of the following interests: a life interest, an inter vivos or testamentary nongeneral power of appointment, and a presently exercisable general power of appointment if the latter power is limited by an ascertainable standard or is exercisable only...
- A fourth device is a judicial share determined after death by some tribunal on the basis of set criteria. The financial needs of the surviving spouse and children are the primary considerations. The process empowers the appropriate judicial tribunal, usually a probate court, with the authority to entrust assets of the decedent’s estate into a type of statutory trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse and other dependent persons. It springs from an assumed legal obligation on the part of the decedent to provide support for certain designated relatives. It suffers from indefiniteness as to application and result. A system of this nature prevails in England and other commonwealth countries. [See, e.g., Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, c. 63].
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. General Miscellaneous Provisions and Topics 98 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In 1990, the USRAP was made a part of the Uniform Probate Code and is found in Part 9 of Article II. Although the comments concerning the provisions are extensive in the UPC, the comments and prefatory note materials incorporated into the separate Uniform Act are even more extensive and constitute one of the best sources of information concerning how the act works. For anyone who wishes to peruse the details of USRAP provisions, reference to these materials is essential. The following is but a brief outline of the relevant concepts promoted by the USRAP as well as a brief description of its provisions.
- The purposes of the USRAP are broad. Obviously, as part of the Uniform Probate Code and as a separate uniform act, it is designed to bring uniformity of the law to the various states in this country. In addition, promulgation of the provisions reaffirms that there is a need for a Rule Against Perpetuities. Abolition of the Rule was rejected. Another important factor and feature of the provisions is that transfer language in instruments effective prior to enactment of the USRAP continues to be valid after enactment. The USRAP does not enlarge the range of invalidity. It is designed to recognize devices currently valid and to expand the scope of validity to other drafting techniques. Consequently, those who are well versed in the old law will not have to learn new law in order to qualify their transfer techniques.
- single amalgamated discussion of them is helpful for their comprehension. [Kurtz, Powers of Appointment]. Although a complete explanation of the law of powers of appointment is beyond the scope of this Nutshell, a short review of powers and the UPC’s references to them is appropriate. [See generally, Simes, Future Interests §§ 55–60]. This review includes references to the Uniform Powers of Appointment Act (UPAA), which was promulgated by the Uniform Laws Commission in 2013. The UPAA, in turn, drew on the power of appointment provisions of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, which was approved by the American Law Institute in 2010. The UPAA was not incorporated into the Uniform Probate Code; however, in 2014 relevant provisions of the UPC were amended to reflect UPAA changes.
- Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act of 1999 [hereinafter the UDPIA] to the UPC. [UPC, Pt. 11]. It replaced the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act of 1978. The UDPIA is more than a mere revision: it is a new act. It is comprehensive, complex and supported with extensive comments. It is not without controversy. [Hirsch, Revisions in Need of Revising].
- and 2–804 were amended in 2019 to replace gendered language (such as “he” or “she”) and to cross-reference the new rules that establish the parent-child relationship in accordance with the 2017 amendments to the Uniform Parentage Act. [See § 3.02(B)].
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Creation and Modification of Trusts 127 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The efficiency of this transfer is deemed by many to be an attractive feature of the use of revocable trusts as will substitutes. Other attractive features are: privacy (a will is a matter of public record while a trust is not); efficiency of administration (because there is no probate and no on-going involvement by the probate court); and lower cost (in those states that charge a probate fee that is based on the size of the probate estate). As noted above, under UTC Section 505 , a revocable trust is not a device for the avoidance of claims by the settlor’s creditors. Nor in most cases will the use of a revocable trust avoid federal estate tax as the Internal Revenue Code causes trust property to be included in the settlor’s taxable gross estate if the settlor retained the power to control, amend or terminate the trust. [
- Often trusts will contain withdrawal powers that lapse or otherwise become unexercisable after a certain period of time. The most common of these is the powers are important for donors who wish to exclude as a countable gift for gift tax purposes property that is transferred to a trust. Under
- The drafters refer to Article 6 of the UTC as “one of the most important of the Code.” [Art. 6, General Comment ]. The provisions in this section are grounded in the theory that a revocable trust is the functional equivalent of a will. The drafters cite the “widespread use in recent years of the revocable trust as an alternative to a will.” Because this is a relatively new phenomenon, traditional trust law has left unanswered many questions relating to the use of a revocable trust as a will substitute. [English, UTC Significant Provisions , pp. 186–87.] This estate planning mechanism involves the settlor establishing a trust during life to which the settlor transfers most if not all of the settlor’s property. The settlor is most often the trustee of the trust during life. The trust may be revoked at any time without the consent of the trustee. [See UTC 103(14) ...that she had over the property before the transfer. The trust usually contains dispositive provisions that direct... ...trust...
- addresses the ability of the creditors of the settlor to reach the assets in a trust that was revocable during the settlor’s death after the settlor has died. To a limited extent, this section treats the trust property as if it had been owned outright by the settlor during life, thus making it available to the creditors as if it were part of the settlor’s probate estate. [See § 13.04]. The Comment indicates that this subsection reflects the fact that many settlors use revocable trusts as will substitutes. [See § 18.03 on revocable trusts]. Specifically, this subsection makes the trust property subject to “claims of the settlor’s creditors, costs of administration of the settlor’s estate, the expenses of the settlor’s funeral and disposal of remains, and statutory allowances to a surviving spouse and children.” The subsection does not attempt to ...such matters to the enacting state’s probate laws. The subsection does specifically allow the settlor to direct the source from...
- The final issue addressed in UTC Article 6 is that of causes of action brought in an attempt to invalidate a revocable trust. As the Comment to UTC Section 604and fraud, duress, or undue influence [see 406 , § 18.01(A)(1)]. The probate codes of most states contain statutes of limitations beyond which such actions may not be brought to contest the validity of a will. [See, e.g., UPC 3–108 , § 10.01(B)(5)]. These statutes provide finality in the distributions from a decedent’s estate after a specified period of time. Consistent with the theme that a revocable trust is the functional equivalent of a will, UTC Section 604 provides that an action to contest the validity of a revocable trust must be brought within three years after the settlor’s death or 120 days following the delivery of a notice “informing the person of the trust’s existence, of the trustee’s name and address, and of the time allowed for commencing a proceeding.” Both of these time periods are bracketed and the drafters...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Will and Donative Transfers 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
- When a testator physically revokes a will or a part thereof with the immediate present intent of making a new will or of substituting a new partial alteration and when the will or alteration is not made or is ineffective for any reason, many courts under the “dependent relative revocation” doctrine have presumed that the testator would prefer to die testate than intestate. Consequently, the revoked will or its provisions, if the contents can be ascertained, have been admitted to probate in the absence of evidence overcoming this presumption. [Atkinson, Wills § 58]. The UPC takes no official position on the scope and extent of this doctrine. It merely makes an affirmative reference to the doctrine in the Comment to Section 2–507 and leaves the doctrine’s recognition and development to the courts. There may be occasional situations where this doctrine would produce the better result than revocation or revival would. [See Langbein & Waggoner, New Uniform Probate Code
- revival of the previous will. The UPC permits extrinsic evidence including statements by the testator to be admissible to prove intent. Accordingly, if no evidence is introduced or if the evidence is inconclusive, the prior will will not be revived. For example, if T executed Will 1 and wholly revokes it by express terms in Will 2, T’s physical revocation of Will 2 is presumed not to revive Will 1 unless adequate proof of T’s intent to revive is admitted into evidence. [2–509(a) ]. Extrinsic evidence including statements by T is admissible to determine T’s intent. Revival intent means an intent that the previous will will take effect as executed. Information concerning the testator’s knowledge of the contents of the previous will is relevant evidence. [See Langbein & Waggoner, New Uniform Probate Code
- The distinction between the International Wills Act and the choice of law provision is significant. Whereas the choice of law rule attempts to validate wills executed under the laws of other jurisdictions, the Act anticipates an execution intended to be valid in jurisdictions that recognize it. By following the Act, the testator selected a procedure that anticipates probate in different jurisdictions. The expectation that this execution process will be valid for probate of the will wherever necessary is greater than the expectation of the testator who, at death, happens to have an estate requiring probate in several jurisdictions. Enactment of the International Wills Act is crucial to the protection of these expectations. Unless the federal government adopts the Act in the form of an international will convention, it will be up ,International Wills Act, Prefatory Note, 88–89]. As of 2020, nineteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted the free-standing uniform act.
- The UPC’s provisions have been converted into Section 1 of the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act (1991). [2–511, Comment
- The UPC contains no special limitation on the probate of a lost or destroyed will other than to require that such will be probated in a “Formal Testacy” proceeding. [3–402(a) ; see § 11.02]. The apparent rationale is that specific guidelines either create a rigidity which prevents appropriate adaptation in all cases or cause interpretations of the statutes which are direct affronts to the literal meaning of the language. [See Model Probate Code, at 20]. The UPC avoids these problems by leaving this matter to the rules of procedure and evidence of the probate proceeding itself. Legal presumptions concerning lost wills may also be relevant. For example, some jurisdictions have a presumption that if a will is traced to the testator decedent and cannot be found, there is a presumption of revocation. This rule may be applicable under the UPC as well. [
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Nonprobate Transfers 58 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Article VI of the UPC incorporates several uniform acts, including the Uniform Multiple Persons Account Act and the Uniform TOD Security Registration Act (both of which were incorporated in 1998 into the Uniform Nonprobate Transfers on Death Act) as well as the 2009 Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act.
- First, it is necessary to understand what the Act means when it uses the terms “security” and “security account.” The Act adopts the definition of security provided in Section 8–102 of the Uniform Commercial Code. [6–301, Comment ]. This definition means any share, participation, or other interest in property, business or in an obligation of an enterprise or other issuer and includes certificated and uncertificated securities and security accounts as well as mutual funds and other investment companies. [6–301(4) ]. Because individuals commonly own securities and related interests in security accounts set up by brokers, the Act permits beneficiary form ownership for these accounts. “Security account” is broadly defined to include (1) security operated reinvestment accounts; (2) accounts of securities with a broker; (3) cash balances in brokerage accounts; (4) cash, interest, earnings and dividends earned or declared on a security in security accounts; (5) brokerage reinvestment...
- in 1998, the UPC contained provisions that covered the rights of creditors and others who had claims against a decedent’s estate to reach amounts transferred through multiple-party accounts to the degree the decedent’s probate estate was not sufficient to pay these claims. [Former 6–215 ]. This Code section was repealed in 1998 with the adoption of the broader 6–102
- The UPC addresses the question of the validity of multiple-person accounts as well as their pre-and post-death problems, including the protection of financial institutions. [Art. VI, Part 2]. The UPC incorporates the Uniform Multiple Persons Account Act, as amended in 1998. The UPC’s technique (1) eliminates references to the “joint” account and substitutes the more generic term “multiple-person account” and (2) consolidates treatment of the POD account and the trust account so that the same rules apply to both. [Prefatory Note, Art. 6]. Its provisions are divisible into three categories:
- In 2009, the Uniform Laws Commission promulgated the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (the “Real Property TOD Act”). This Act provides a simple process for the nonprobate transfer of real property upon the death of the owner [6–407 ] that is similar to the nonprobate transfer of securities registered under the Uniform TOD Registration Act. [See § 16.03]. The Real Property TOD Act has been incorporated into the UPC as Part 4 of Article VI. The provisions of this Act are applicable to transferors dying on or after the effective date of the Act even if the TOD deed itself was made before the effective date of the Act. [6–403
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Administration and Administration Avoidance Procedures 118 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The subject matter jurisdiction of probate courts throughout this country is varied, complicated, and often perplexing. Generally, states confer probate jurisdiction on one of four types of courts: (1) on their chancery court; (2) on a separate probate court that has an equal status with courts of general jurisdiction; (3) on a probate court that definitely is inferior to the court of general jurisdiction; and, (4) on the court of general jurisdiction. [Model Probate Code, 420]. Inevitably, there are variations between those even in the same general category.
- One of the key provisions of the UPC concerns its time limitations on probate, testacy, and appointment of personal representatives. [3–108 ]. With five exceptions, this provision provides that no informal or formal proceeding may be commenced beyond three years after the decedent’s death. The first exception concerns the request for the probate of a will in the UPC state where the will has previously been probated in the decedent’s domicile. Under such circumstances the foreign will may be probated.
- The most obvious additional procedure that must be used if decedent dies testate is that the will must be probated. With only two exceptions, which are not applicable at this point to this situation, the UPC provides that title to property passing by will cannot be proved unless the will is declared valid by informal or formal probate. [3–102 ]. If universal succession is sought, the application must include the information necessary and a request for informal probate of the will. [3–313 ]. This would be the only additional requirement under this procedure. Similarly, if administration is desired, the named executor or other person with priority should file an application simultaneously for both informal probate and informal appointment. [3–301(a) proceedings within the later of three years from death or one year from the date of informal probate, informal probate provides the devisees with proof of title so long as the contingency of a formal probate does not occur. [3–108 ...and...
- The devisees, however, may not wish to wait this long before their rights as devisees are secure. Another option would be to combine informal probate and informal appointment, followed immediately by a formal probate proceeding. This approach would start the administration processes and would quickly adjudicate the validity of the will thereby shortening the limitation period within which such issues can be litigated. If the question of validity is a serious problem, the formal probate proceeding litigates this issue at an early time thereby increasing the potential for early distribution.
- If informal probate is requested, the requirements admitting a will to probate have been satisfied; and,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. General Provisions, Definitions and Probate Jurisdiction of the Court 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- even be on the document thereby eliminating the need for notarization of documents filed with the Court. [See 18 Uniform Probate UPC Notes (Joint Editorial Board for the Uniform Probate UPC) 15 (Hereinafter cited as UPC Notes)].
- In addition to the above general provisions on jurisdiction and venue, the UPC includes special subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue rules for the probate of wills and administration of decedents’ estates under Article III [see § 10.02(C)], for the protection of protected persons and their property under Article V [see § 15.04] and, formerly, for the administration of trusts under Article VII
- of the UPC includes introductory provisions that generally define its purposes and rules of construction in conformance with the rules of good statutory draftsmanship. As is customary with uniform laws, it requests that courts liberally construe and apply the UPC in a manner that will best carry out and promote its underlying purposes and policies. [1–102(a) ]. In their broadest sense, the most obvious purposes of the UPC are to make uniform and to improve the areas of law and procedure with which it is concerned among the several jurisdictions in the United States. [1–102(b) ]. Hallmark principles for accomplishing this meritorious reform include simplification, clarification, efficacy, efficiency and serviceability. [See 1–102(b)(1)–(5) ]. Only time and experience with the UPC’s provisions will prove whether it can achieve its goals.
- provide that general principles of law and equity are to supplement the UPC’s own provisions [1–103 , § 17.01(C) for discussion of a similar provision in the UTC], that provisions held to be invalid are to be severed from those that are valid and effective [1–104], and that if reasonably avoidable, subsequent legislation shall not impliedly repeal Code provisions in whole or in part. [1–105
- , and 3–1201. The purpose is to make it unnecessary in the future for the Uniform Law Commission or individual enacting states to continue to amend the UPC periodically to adjust the dollar amounts for inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reports each January on the CPI (annual average) for the preceding calendar year. The information can be obtained by telephone or on the Bureau’s website.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. The Personal Representative 88 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The reason why the exercised power is improper makes no difference in the application of these protective rules. The impropriety of the action may be because of procedural irregularities, jurisdictional defects occurring in proceedings leading to the issuance of the letters, and even due to the fact decedent is found to be alive. Although this very comprehensive protection for third persons dealing with fiduciaries is much broader than that which generally exists under the law of many non-UPC states, it is not intended to replace comparable statutes relating to commercial transactions and security transfers by fiduciaries such as the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Act for the Simplification of Fiduciary Security Transfers.
- In an estate where the will has been probated in the testator’s domicile, the domiciliary foreign personal representative may also exercise the authority to file for informal probate. [3–303(b) ]. Because the UPC requires devisees to probate a will in order to prove title, informal probate in the UPC ancillary state would at least be necessary if the devolution of real estate is involved. [3–102 ; see § 10.02(A)]. There is no three year after death limitation on such informal probates. [3–108
- in 2019 to reflect the extensive changes to the UPC that conform with the 2017 amendments to the Uniform Parentage Act. New 3–703(d)
- When there are two or more co-representatives and when one or more of their appointments terminate for any reason leaving one or more personal representatives surviving, the survivors may exercise all the powers incident to the office. [3–718 ]. This applies as well in the situation in which less than the number nominated as co-executors is appointed. A validly probated will, however, may restrict or alter the application of these two rules. [See § 19.01 for similar provisions relating to successor trustees and cotrustees.]
- Locally interested persons are not without protection. Within the UPC’s rules on statute of limitations and res judicata, interested persons have all of the affirmative action protections accorded interested persons in the domiciliary jurisdiction. [4–207 ]. These protections would include the possibility of petitioning for formal probate, appointment, or closing, for supervised administration or for any other proceeding or order permissible under Article III
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Intestate Succession and Related Concepts 146 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The parent-child relationship or parentage may be defined or established under the relevant state law, such as the Uniform Parentage Act [UPA], approved by the Uniform Law Commission in 1973, substantially revised in 2000, amended in 2002, and substantially revised in 2017. [UPA (2017); Susan N. Gary, We Are Family at 171].
- The UPC adopts as a default rule of construction the same durational survivorship technique for all types of gratuitous transfers including wills and all other governing instruments. [See 2–702; § 8.02]. The 120-hour survivorship requirement is now part of the 1991 version of the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act. [Uniform Simultaneous Death Act (1991)].
- The 2019 amendment changed these rules substantially to reflect the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) concept that a child may have more than two parents and, consequently, more than four grandparents. [See § 3.02(B)]. The 2019 amendments also removed the “outdated” adjectives of “maternal” and “paternal” when referring to the decedent’s grandparents. [2–103, Comment
- Because of advances concerning assisted reproductive technology, the determination of parentage is substantially more complicated than in the past. The Uniform Parentage Act (2000 as amended in 2002 and in 2017) has provisions dealing with the matter. The UPA provides rules to determine legal parents in order to facilitate child support and to provide clear rules for determining who will make decisions about a child’s welfare. The UPA, if adopted in a state, will define the parent-child relationship for all purposes in the state, unless the law of the state provides otherwise. [UPA § 203]. If adopted by a state, the 2008 UPC Amendments provide otherwise and will govern for intestacy purposes. There are some differences between the two uniform acts. [See Gary, We Are Family
- The parent-child relationships related to these agreements can be a problem. If everything is normal, the intended parent(s) are the parents of the child and the gestational carrier is not. The gestational carrier will be found to be the parent only if a court under § 807 of the Uniform Parentage Act declares that existence or, if she is the child’s genetic mother [2–115(6) ] and a parent-child relationship does not exist under section 2–121
- Open Chapter
Table of Statutes 1654 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter 7. Rules of Construction Applicable to Wills Only 88 results (showing 5 best matches)
- E’s properly executed and probated Will, in relevant part, exercises the above power and appoints the trust estate to A.
- As with any area of law, there are frequently used words of art or common recurring situations. Because of the frequency of the use of these words or of the occurrence of the situation, the law must develop uniform and set definitions and interpretations. These definitions and interpretations serve two purposes: (1) they provide a rule of construction for wills where the testator’s expressed intent is inadequate or lacking; and (2) they provide a set of uniform rules that drafters of wills may incorporate by reference either explicitly or implicitly. The UPC not only includes a long list of general definitions that are useful for these purposes, [see § 2.01(B)(4)] but also incorporates rules of construction for many of the most common problems concerning will interpretation and construction. [Art. II, Pt. 6
- D’s properly executed and probated Will devised, in relevant part, the residue to T in trust for E’s life, remainder to any person or persons E shall appoint by will but in default of such appointment the remainder goes to Charity C.
- A will take $30,000 or the $50,000 devise less the $20,000 satisfaction. A question may arise whether the $30,000 constituted full satisfaction of the devise. If the satisfaction formality expresses the intent in that the gift is full satisfaction, then A would take zero. Because the gift was less than the devise and without outward expression that full satisfaction was intended, a presumption of partial satisfaction would be compatible with the purposes of the Code’s provision.
- Because C did not survive T, C does not take from T’s estate, but C’s satisfaction is not ignored. It affects G’s substitute devise because G takes C’s devise under the Code’s antilapse provision, 2–603. Consequently, because C’s devise is apparently fully satisfied by the gift which equals the amount of the devise, G will take zero from the estate.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Appointment and Testacy Proceedings 108 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The devisees and executors of any will that has been probated or offered for informal or formal probate in the UPC state or that the petitioner knows has been probated or offered for informal or formal probate elsewhere; and
- When a decedent dies with a will, the UPC ordinarily requires that that will must be probated in order to effectively pass title to the devisees. One method by which this will may become effective is by informal probate. As with informal appointment, informal probate is initiated merely by an applicant filing an application directed to the Registrar. This proceeding is also truly nonadversary. The Registrar is only required to see that the application (1) satisfies the statutory requirements, (2) is not statutorily precluded from informal probate, and (3) in the Registrar’s opinion, is otherwise satisfactory. The informal probate proceeding does not provide a procedure for persons who are adversely affected by the probate of the will to object. Concomitantly, applicants cannot appeal a denial of informal probate by the Registrar. All disappointed applicants and objectors must rely on the procedures and protections of formal testacy. [3–305]. If denial of informal probate was due to...
- Because the pre-application notice for informal probate was considered by many to be inadequate if informal appointment was not also granted, the 1975 Technical Amendments inserted an optional provision. This provision provides that when no personal representative is appointed who would otherwise be required to give written information under Section 3–705 , the applicant for informal probate must give written information of the probate to the heirs and the devisees. This writing must include the name and address of the applicant, the name and location of the court granting the informal probate and the date of probate. [3–306(b) ]. It may either be delivered or sent by ordinary mail to each of the heirs and devisees whose addresses are reasonably available to the applicant. Failure to give this information does not affect the validity of the probate but constitutes merely a breach of duty to the heirs and devisees by the applicant.
- If the petition requests the probate of a will and the will is found to be valid and unrevoked, the Court must order the will formally probated. When a formal testacy proceeding concerns the validity of two or more instruments that do not expressly or impliedly revoke one or the other, the Court may order the probate of more than one of these instruments. Although such an order must indicate what provisions control with respect to the nomination of an executor, it may but need not indicate how each provision of one instrument interrelates or is reconciled with each provision of the other instruments. [3–410 ]. If the Court does not reconcile the various instruments, subsequent proceedings for interpretation and construction may be necessary. [3–410, Comment ]. A formal and final order that a will is formally probated, however, precludes any subsequent petition concerning the probate of any other instrument of the decedent except when a petition to vacate or modify is timely filed under
- notice of the hearing of the petition has been given and the required search has been made as required above, the finding of fact of death is made conclusive on the alleged decedent. This finality is not complete, however, as to the decedent’s assets in certain circumstances. [3–412(5) ]. If the alleged decedent proves to be alive and not dead as assumed, and notwithstanding any notice sent or search made, the alleged decedent may recover the estate assets possessed by the personal representative. This person may also recover any of the estate or its proceeds that distributees presently possess or their value if equitable in view of all the circumstances. Naturally, the alleged decedent would also have all of the remedies available by reason of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. The finality of a finding of fact of death as far as the alleged decedent is concerned, therefore, is only generally applicable for the protection of creditors of the estate and the good faith actions on the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Rules of Construction Applicable to Wills and to Other Governing Instruments 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The 120 hour survivorship requirement is now part of the new version of the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act of 1991. This Act incorporates the relevant portions of the UPC and covers all types of gratuitous transfers. [§ 3.02(D)].
- : Wills and Other Donative Transfers. First, if the time for closing the class occurs during a gestational period [as defined in 2–104 ] and a child is born and survives by 120 hours, the child is deemed to believing at the time. Second, if the time for distribution is the date of the parent’s death but the pregnancy does not begin until after the parent has died, then the individual is deemed to be alive on the distribution date if that individual is born, survives by 120 hours, and (a) the embryo was in utero not later than 36 months after the parent’s death or (b) the child was born not later than 45 months after the parent’s death. Third, as provided prior to the amendment, if the individual is in the process of being adopted when the class closes, the individual is a member of the class if the adoption is completed. Fourth, if an adjudication of de facto parentage is in progress when the class closes and the de facto parentage is subsequently established, the child is a member...
- The 120 hours rule for all gratuitous transfer documents including wills, deeds, trusts, appointments and other beneficiary designations tracks the same rule that is applicable in the intestacy situation. [See 2–104 ; § 3.02(D)]. The difference between these concepts is that in regard to intestacy, the requirement is a rule of law and is not rebuttable whereas the rule applicable to voluntary transfers is alterable by the terms of the document. The UPC is very specific, however, in regards to what is necessary to rebut the statutory rule of construction. [2–702(d) ...deaths in a common disaster and that language is operable under the facts of the case. Second, the rule of construction is rebutted if the governing instrument expressly indicates that the beneficiary is not required to survive to a particular time or event, by any specific length of time or that expressly requires the individual to survive an event or time by a specific period. The specific period in the above exception...
- This determination is a problem of status. Because of the importance of this problem for distribution purposes under the terms of dispositive instruments, the UPC includes a specific provision concerning the status of adopted children, children of assisted reproduction, gestational children, nonmarital children, half blooded individuals and individuals related by affinity. [2–705 ]. These provisions appeared in the UPC, with amendments in 2008 and 2010. The 2019 amendments reworded these provisions and added references to the changes put in place by the Uniform Parentage Act (2017). This section discusses separately the provisions as they appeared in 2010 and as they appear after the 2019 amendments.
- The 2019 amendments incorporated the provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act (2017), including the provisions for de facto parentage, the recognition of same sex marriages, and the updated provisions relating to assisted reproduction. Most of these provisions were already incorporated into the UPC by the 2019 amendments to the intestacy rules. [See § 3.02]. Amended 2–705(b) provides that, with two exceptions that are set forth in subsections (c) and (d), terms of relationship in class gifts are to be defined as they are defined in the intestacy rules. Thus, for example, there is no need to set forth rules for “half-bloods” as 2–107
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Distribution and Closing Provisions 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The UPC has a special section dealing with abatement caused by the payment of estate taxes, both federal and state. [3–916 ]. The UPC basically copies the Uniform Estate Tax Apportionment Act except that it tailors the Act to UPC terminology and philosophy and packages the Act in one multi-subparagraphed section. [3–916, Comment ; see Uniform Estate Tax Apportionment Act ]. Under such a circumstance, the decedent’s will controls. Directions in the will, however, must be specific, clear and not susceptible to reasonable contrary interpretation if they are to override this section’s tax apportionment scheme. [
- Several prerequisites must be satisfied before the Court can approve a compromise. First, notice must be given to all interested persons or their representatives, including any appointed personal representative of the estate and all trustees of trusts affected by the compromise. Actual notice of the settlement proceedings to all interested parties is essential. [ heir, who did not receive notice of the settlement, was not barred, in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the other parties by reason of the heir’s delay after gaining actual knowledge of the settlement, from challenging the settlement anytime prior to the close of the probate estate. [Id.]. Only those affected by the settlement agreement, however, are interested persons within the notice requirement. [
- The UPC also contains a formal procedure for compromising and settling controversies between persons holding the beneficial interests in a decedent’s estate. [3–1101 ]. The types of controversies that may be compromised under this procedure are very broad in scope. They include controversies as to the admissibility of a will to formal probate, to disputes concerning other governing instruments covering gratuitous transfers, to construction, validity or effect of wills or other instruments, to the rights or interests of any successor in the estate and to issues arising during the administration of the estate. A compromise under this procedure is binding on all persons made parties to the procedure so long as it is approved in a formal proceeding before the Court. [3–1101 ...of an approved compromise is also applicable as against trusts or other inalienable interests. Necessarily, creditors or taxing authorities who are not parties to the compromise cannot have their rights impaired...
- . The lack of an adjudication of testacy and the limitation on the scope of the proceeding means that this particular procedure will not be used by interested persons very often. Its principal use arises where it is desired to totally distribute, terminate and discharge the personal representative before the ordinary statute of limitations on initiating proceedings has run, i.e., the later of three years from death or one year after informal probate, and where the petitioners do not want to rouse the interest and curiosity of heirs by providing them notice of a formal closing proceeding. [1 UPC Practice Manual , 392]. Since the passage of time will finalize testacy questions under informal probate, it would appear that letting the time run would be the most practical solution to this problem rather than bringing this type of closing proceeding. [3–108
- ]. Under its probable cause test, this clause protects the devisee and other direct or indirect beneficiaries under the will who would receive more if the will were denied probate or who is also a creditor of the estate and wishes to collect on his claim.
- Open Chapter
Index 72 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Uniform TOD Security Registration Act, 628–35
- UNIFORM LAWS
- See Table of Statutes—Uniform Laws
- See Claims Against Decedents’ Estates; Claims Against Protected Persons and Their Estates; Claims Against Trustees and Trust Estates; Multiple-Person Accounts
- See also Abatement, Order of; Claims Against Decedents’ Estates; Claims Against Protected Persons and Their Estates; Claims Against Trustees and Trust Estates; Multiple-Person Accounts
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Family Omissions and Protections 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Under the Code’s pretermitted children section, the pretermitted child C would not be entitled to take anything from the estate because pre-existing children of the testator were not devised property under the will. Thus, all children are treated equally even if decedent’s children are born both before and after the will is executed. Some pretermitted heir statutes give C a share although A and B would take nothing.
- If the surviving spouse is incapacitated and the spouse’s representative elects to exercise the elective share, unexpended portions of the three family protection provisions may be added to the custodial trust created under the elective share procedure. [2–405(b)
- Because pretermitted heir statutes are intended and designed to prevent injustice and reduce will contests when unintentionally omitted heirs survive a testator, the statute should be designed to accomplish these goals. Unfortunately, some statutes that exist in non-UPC states have actually produced the opposite results. Accordingly, the UPC’s provision contains very precise prerequisites and limitations that are designed to reduce this litigation and judicial misinterpretation.
- The justification for this provision is that it attempts to do what most testators probably would want to do had they contemplated the prior will and the changed marital circumstances. [2–301, Comment ]. In addition, it may reduce the number of elections against the estate under the elective share provisions. With the stated liberal extrinsic evidence rules and relatively complete elaboration of differing situations, the UPC exceptions should provide sufficient barriers to the application of this section where it was not intended. On the other hand, although the provision attempts to address the variables and to protect against misuse of the provision, it does not contain the explicit limitations and procedures imposed by the elective share provisions designed to address these problems.
- Testator has two living children, A and B, when will was executed. Will provides nothing for A and B. Subsequent to will execution, C is born. Testator dies.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Creditors’ Claims 27 results (showing 5 best matches)
- , held that a nonclaim statute, which barred creditors’ claims not filed within two months after notice by publication only, is unconstitutional as applied to known or reasonably ascertainable creditors. In 1989, the UPC was amended to respond to this decision despite a belief that the decision did not affect the UPC’s notice procedure. [Code, App. IV, Background Comment].
- See § 18.02 for a discussion of the claims of creditors against property that is held in trust.
- ]. The Court may determine the value of the claim in one of two methods: (1) with the claimant’s consent, the claim’s present or agreed value may be set taking into account all uncertainties; or (2) an arrangement for future or contingent payment may be made, which for this purpose creates a trust fund, gives the claimant a mortgage, bond or security from the distributee, or sets payment in any other agreed manner.
- As indicated, the UPC includes a set of provisions dealing with the determination and settlement of creditors’ claims. The primary issues considered in the following discussion include notice and the time limitations on presenting claims, the procedures for presentation, allowance and rejection of claims, the payment of claims and special issues related to these matters.
- If the estate is not sufficient to pay all claims, the UPC sets the following order or priority: (1) costs and expenses of administration; (2) reasonable funeral expenses; (3) federal preferred debts and taxes; (4) reasonable and necessary medical expenses of the last illness including compensation for services rendered; (5) state preferred debts and taxes; (6) all other claims. [3–805(a)
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
Copyright Page 3 results
- and the Nutshell Logo are trademarks registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: March 17th, 2021
- ISBN: 9781647085797
- Subject: Trusts and Estates
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Authoritative coverage provides detailed explanation of the provisions, definitions, and concepts of the UPC and the UTC. UPC topics covered include, e.g., probate jurisdiction of the courts; intestate succession; wills and donative transfers; probate of wills; and administration of estates. UTC topics include, e.g., creation, validity, modification, and termination of trusts; discretionary and revocable trusts; creditor's claims and spendthrift trusts; duties, powers and liability of trustees; and rights of persons dealing with trustees.