Decide the Case Trivia Quiz

Answer: Yes

Probate Code §6110. (a) Except as provided in this part, a will shall be in writing and satisfy the requirements of this section.
(b) The will shall be signed by one of the following:
(1) By the testator.
(2) In the testator's name by some other person in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction.
(3) By a conservator pursuant to a court order to make a will under Section 2580.
(c) The will shall be witnessed by being signed by at least two persons each of whom (1) being present at the same time, witnessed either the signing of the will or the testator's acknowledgment of the signature or of the will and (2) understand that the instrument they sign is the testator's will.

Remember, an interested witness (one who would receive under the will) does not invalidate the will, however it might raise some presumptions as to the gift to that witness only.

Answer: The bank account is community property subject to equal division

Property acquired lucratively is by gift, succession, inheritance, devise... etc, and it is the donor's actions that determine property character. Here Jonathan left the property to Clark only, which would make this separate property if there was no commingling.

Property acquired during marriage is rebuttably presumed to have been community property. The fact that it was acquired by inheritance rebuts the presumption.

If funds used for acquisitions during marriage cannot be traced to their source and the spouse who has commingled can't establish that there was a deficit in the community accounts when the assets were purchased, the presumption prevails. Because Clark cannot trace the funds in the account, and no other evidence is available for tracing, the presumption of acquisition during marriage prevails.

Answer: Nothing - He can avoid the contract

Restatement (2nd) of Contracts, § 7 comment b states, "Grounds of avoidance. Typical instances of voidable contracts are those where one party was an infant (under 18 y/o), or where the contract was induced by fraud, mistake, or duress, or where breach of a warranty or other promise justifies the aggrieved party in putting an end to the contract."

Restatement (1st) of Restitution, § 62 comment b states, "...an infant to whom a person has transferred a non-necessary in the course of a contract is not under a duty of restitution to the transferor upon failure to pay for it, if the subject matter or its product is not available at the time when restitution is sought."

Thus, Bart, an infant under the law, owes Mr. Burns, nothing, and can avoid the contract at his discretion. Because the subject matter of the contract, the car, no longer exists, there is nothing to return, and Bart is under no obligation to make restitution. A party that enters into a contract with an infant does so at his peril.

Answer: The estate shall be divided as provided in the formal will

Probate Code §6111 (b) If a holographic [(one not meeting the elements of a formal will under §6110, ie. witnesses, and signatures...etc)] will does not contain a statement as to the date of its execution and:
(1) If the omission results in doubt as to whether its provisions or the inconsistent provisions of another will are controlling, the holographic will is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency unless the time of its execution is established to be after the date of execution of the other will.

Since the date is not present on the hand-written will and there is no other evidence as to when it was written, any inconsistencies between the hand-written will and the formal one will be invalid in the hand-written will. In this case that would be the entire will.

Answer: No

The Statute of Frauds is a statutory requirement that certain contracts (duty to act for another, marriage, sale of land, sale of goods over $500...etc) must be in writing. According to the Restatement (2nd) of Contracts §125 (2), "A promise to buy any interest in land is within the Statute of Frauds, irrespective of the person to whom the transfer is to be made."

Therefore, under the current fact pattern, because there was no written agreement between Fred and Ricky, there is no enforceable agreement between the parties.

Answer: Boo Boo

Civil Code §1214 Every conveyance of real property or an estate for years therein, other than a lease for a term not exceeding one year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee of the same property, or any part thereof, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded, and as against any judgment affecting the title, unless the conveyance shall have been duly recorded prior to the record of notice of action.

Thus, California is a Race-Notice state. This means that a subsequent purchaser is protected against prior unrecorded instruments only if the subsequent purchaser is without notice of the prior instrument and records before the prior instrument is recorded. This means that Boo Boo prevails over Ranger because, even though Ranger had no notice of Boo Boo's deed, Ranger did not record before Boo Boo did.

Answer: Data has entered into a valid agreement with Chunk

Restatement (2nd) of Contracts, § 63 (a) states, "an acceptance made in a manner and by a medium invited by an offer is operative and completes the manifestation of mutual assent as soon as put out of the offeree's possession, without regard to whether it ever reaches the offeror.

Because Chunk made his offer by mail to Data, he invited the mail to be used as an acceptable medium of communication. Since acceptance is effective upon dispatch, it does not matter that Chunk mailed his revocation to Data. Revocation is effective only upon receipt. Thus as long as Data mailed his acceptance before he received Chunk's revocation, an acceptance of Chunk's offer was made, and an agreement was formed.

Answer: No

Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 314 Duty to Act for Protection of Others

The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.

Comment (c) of that section illustrates: one human being, seeing a fellow man in dire peril, is under no legal obligation to aid him, but may sit on the dock, smoke his cigar, and watch the other drown. Such decisions have been condemned by legal writers as revolting to any moral sense, but thus far they remain the law.

Thus, while Bart's duty to act may have been a moral one, absent factual information of a special relationship existing between the parties, it was not a legal one.

Answer: The estate passes by intestate succession

Probate Code §6120 states, "A will or any part thereof is revoked by any of the following... (b) Being burned, torn, canceled, obliterated, or destroyed, with the intent and for the purpose of revoking it, by either (1) the testator or (2) another person in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction.

Probate Code §6124 states, "If the testator's will was last in the testator's possession, the testator was competent until death, and neither the will nor a duplicate original of the will can be found after the testator's death, it is presumed that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke it."

Thus because Papa Smurf's will was last in his possession, and there was no evidence of his incompetence, it is presumed that he was the one who burned the will with the purpose of revoking it. Because Brainy only had a copy (meaning a reproduction that is not duly executed with the proper signatures and statements of testamentary intent), but not a duplicate (reproduction containing all signatures, duly executed with statement of testamentary intent) of the will, there was no valid will in effect when Papa Smurf died. When a person dies without a will the intestate laws of that jurisdiction apply.

Answer: Canseco is entitled to full payment from Bonds

Uniform Commercial Code § 2-606. What Constitutes Acceptance of Goods.

(1) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer

(a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity; or

(b) fails to make an effective rejection... but such acceptance does not occur until the buyer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect them; or

(c) does any act inconsistent with the seller's ownership; but if such act is wrongful as against the seller it is an acceptance only if ratified by him.

(2) Acceptance of a part of any commercial unit is acceptance of that entire unit.

In this case, Bonds giving away Canseco's shipment is inconsistent with Canseco's ownership, as only the rightful owner can give property away. Therefore, because Bonds has impliedly accepted the shipment, they would have no right to withhold payment. Bonds would now be under obligation to pay for what they bought.