Estates and Trusts Commons^™

Wills, Trusts, And Estates, J. William Gray Jr., Katherine E. Ramsey

University of Richmond Law Review

The Supreme Court of Virginia has handed down seven recent

decisions addressing the authority of an agent to change the principal's

estate plan, legal malpractice claims in estate planning,

rights of incapacitated adults, limits of the constructive trust doctrine,

effects of a reversionary clause in a deed, ownership of an

engagement ring, and proof of undue influence. The 2017 Virginia

General Assembly clarified rules on legal malpractice and tenancies

by the entireties, adopted the Uniform Trust Decanting Act

and the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, and expanded

provisions governing estate administration, life insurance,

and advance medical directives. Other …

In States We "Trust": Self-Settled Trusts, Public Policy, And Interstate Federalism, Brendan Duffy

Northwestern University Law Review

Over the last twenty years, domestic asset protection trusts have risen in popularity as a means of estate planning and asset protection. A domestic asset protection trust is an irrevocable trust formed under state law which enables an independent trustee to allocate money to a class of

persons, which includes the settlor.

Since Alaska first enacted domestic asset protection legislation in 1997, fifteen states have followed its lead. The case law over the last twenty years addressing these trust mechanisms has, however, been surprisingly sparse. A Washington bankruptcy court decision, In re Huber, altered this drought, but caused more confusion …

Wills, Trusts, And Estates, J. William Gray Jr., Katherine E. Ramsey

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Re Gilmore, Andrew C. Thompson '13

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Case For The Retention Of The State Death Tax Credit In The Federal Transfer Tax Scheme: "Just Say No" To A Deduction, John M. Janiga, Louis S. Harrison

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defeasance As A Restrictive Device In Michigan, William F. Fratcher

Michigan Law Review

Quite apart from any question of their validity, the imposition of use restrictions by means of a prohibition was not practicable before the development of equitable remedies because the common law afforded no method of enforcing such a prohibition. One who conveyed land in violation of a prohibition on alienation might attempt to enforce the prohibition by attacking the validity of his own conveyance but one who violated a prohibition on use had neither motive nor method for challenging his own acts. Hence attempts to restrict use by common law devices are necessarily confined to penalty restraints and to limitations …