Reversal of a will

The case study provided illustrates a situation where wealth inheritance is based on a person who is a non-family member. Madam Lucy, in her last stages of life, is left stranded and with no confidence of who actually should possess her wealth upon her death. Mr Ronald, a non-family member, turns up and is left with the wealth through a written will whose copy is under the possession of the Attorney. A situation arises when a family member who has not been in close contact with Lucy files a case in court intending to get the wealth back. Jane lively has a right to possess Lucy’s wealth upon her death since she is linked to her through the blood.¹ However, the will has much cover on Ronald as it is the only evidence left.

According to the law, a person’s wealth is entitled to his/her family members upon death. Cases may vary, ranging from a point when a will is left for the distribution of the deceased’s wealth to where no intention is written. Each of these conditions has specific rules that serve as guidelines for the delivery of wealth.

The laid down rules that enable a person to challenge a will include when the testator lacked sufficient testamentary capacity in signing the will or when the signing of the will doesn’t comply with the state laws applicable to it.⁵  Another case when a will may be revoked is when the dead person wrote the will under the influence of another person. This condition of writing will preferably occur among older people due to frustration and poor reasoning. A mature person tends to think slowly and may sometimes make unnecessary mistakes. Lastly, a will can be challenged when the person who wrote the will was tricked hence making the person sign.¹ 

Some of the conditions under which a will may be revoked are applicable in this case. At her age of writing the will, Lucy was too old, that is, 83 years of age. The intention is written under the influence of Ronald as he informs her to visit the power of Attorney. The person in charge of control of Attorney is a cousin to Ronald, increases the chances that Lucy might have been influenced in signing Ronald as the beneficiary of her wealth. Her condition, old age, is another factor that might have increased her chances of influence by the lawyer¹. Besides, she was influenced by Ronald to go for the will as this had not crossed her mind before. Moreover, under the terms of conditions of wealth inheritance, a non-family member should not have access to the dead’s wealth unless stated in a will signed by a sound mind.

Several issues are addressed concerning the written will, and therefore Jane Lively should prove the will invalid, thus accessing the wealth. Ronald should, on the other hand, organize with the cousin who is a lawyer to get access to the left copy of the will as it is the only tool that can protect him in accessing the wealth.²

Breach of fiduciary duties

Advice to Mary concerning her cause of action due to Robert’s breach of fiduciary duties

The resumption of responsibilities by Robert as the successor Trustee sets in with challenges which at most affect Mary, the only living spouse to the late James. To begin with, she is denied access to Trust administration annual accounting for an extended period of 5 years. Also, Robert sells an asset of the Trust without their consent, only to be realized through a newspaper publication. Robert again fails to admit her request for Trust distributions obtained from the principal of Trust for medical expenses that she incurred. All these issues are outlined in the revocable inter vivas trust, which approved Robert as the Successor Trustee filling the gap left by James Sr.

The laws provide for the following circumstances under which a trust can be revoked. Firstly, Trust can be reversed when the spouses tied to the Trust get divorced. It can also be withdrawn when the grantor intends to make some changes and only if it is easier to dissolve it to make changes than altering it⁶. Furthermore, a grantor may want to appoint a new trustee or change its provisions as well.

The trustee, however, can only terminate the Trust after retitling trust property to his name, enabling him to work with it. He then has to comply with the trust instructions regarding the distribution of wealth. However, none of these conditions is met by Robert. Trust rules prevent any member from selling its assets without the consent of others. It as well gives guidelines to be followed by its members⁴.

Mary should, therefore, consider removing the trustee since he fails to follow terms of the Trust and mismanages the trust assets.

Advice to James Jr due to Robert’s breach of fiduciary duties.

An indicator of underperformance of duties by Robert from James Jr perspective is when the trust asset is sold without informing him. One of the features that may make a trustee to be removed is evident at this point as it proves mismanagement of trust assets. Family assets bound by Trust should have proper management as per the trust terms guidelines.

The same conditions stated in the case of Mary are applicable in this case as they are common to both the two parties. The rules provide that Trust should not be provoked unless cases like death sets in within the circle of beneficiaries. Additional procedures are given which guide in terminating a trust.

Based on the above issues, James Jr should seek judicial approval to terminate the Trust. He should also consider involving all the beneficiaries, ensuring that they all sign, thus ending it. James can even think having a dialogue with Robert concerning the internal operation of the trust assets since the revocation of a trust is a long process³. He should closely monitor the entire activities, ensuring he is up to date with the current affairs revolving around those facilities.

References

1. Banta, Natalie M. “Death and privacy in the digital age.” NCL Rev. 94 (2015): 927.
2. Chauncey, Ritam. “Labor regulations and contract labour use: Evidence from Indian firms.” Journal of Development Economics 114 (2015): 224–232.
3. Halonen, Kirsi-Maria. “Termination of a Public Contract–Lifting the Veil on Art. 73 of 2014/24 Directive.” Forthcoming in Public Procurement Law Review 5 (2017): 187–198.
4. Klasivcek, Dubravka, and Marija Ivan. “Modification or Dissolution of Contracts due to Changed Circumstances.” Pravni vjesnik 34.2 (2018): 27–56.
5. Landry, Joshua T, Thomas Foreman, and Michael Kekewich. “Ethical considerations in the regulation of euthanasia and physician-assisted death in Canada.” Health policy 119.11 (2015): 1490–1498.
6. Verhaert, Dominique VM and Bonnes, Judith L and Nas, Joris and Keuper, Wessel and van Grunsven, Pierre M, et al. “Termination of resuscitation in the prehospital setting: A comparison of decisions in clinical practice vs recommendations of a termination rule.” Resuscitation 100 (2016): 60–65.