Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
19. In such lawsuit, judgment should be that title to Purpleacre is in
Later the wife died. In an appropriate lawsuit to which the two remaining siblings and the friend are parties, title to Purpleacre is at issue.
The farmer was survived by his wife and by three adult children. Thereafter, one of the children died and by will duly admitted to probate devised his entire estate to a friend. The remaining two siblings were the deceased sibling's heirs at law.
A farmer owned Purpleacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By will duly admitted to probate after his death, the farmer devised Purpleacre to «any wife who survives me with remainder to such of my children as are living at her death.»
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. If the facts of this question had simply stated that the farmer's will created a remainder in «my children,» then the deceased sibling's estate would have been entitled to a share of Purpleacre, and the friend would have inherited that interest by virtue of the deceased sibling's will. However, the facts state that only living siblings will receive a share in Purpleacre, so the deceased sibling's estate receives nothing.
B is incorrect. As explained above, the deceased sibling's estate receives nothing because the deceased sibling had nothing to give. Only the living siblings received a share after the wife's death.
C is incorrect. If the deceased sibling had been entitled to a share of Purpleacre, his estate would be entitled to that share. However, because the devise of the farmer specifically willed Purpleacre to his living children, the deceased sibling receives nothing.