This paper seeks to write a memo that critiques the dispositive provisions of the will instruments drafted for the purpose of suggest specific addition, deletions and modification and explain the reasons for suggestions. To attain of the objectives of this paper it is therefore necessary to have the documents to conform to Columbia law while accomplishing the Cook’s goals. 1. Issue Statement The issue is determine whether the wills of Andy Cook and Betty Cooks are valid or if there are provisions that must be added, deleted or modified to attain what was desire as goals by the spouses in accordance with Columbia Code of Trust and Estate.
2. Brief Answer The answers to the question may only be found by an examination of the very provisions of the will analyzing its validity as against the requirements of the law and existing jurisprudence on the matter. 3. Statement of Facts The will of Andrew Cook and Betty Cook are given for possible specific addition, deletions and modification with explanation of the reasons. The will of the spouses assume the existence of trusts already created before the will and under theirs will by stating how they should be managed after his death.
Andrew is also assumed to have not made any contract with her spouse Betty who also prepared almost the same will as that of Andrew. It would appear the Andrew is assumed to die ahead of Betty and their deaths would be followed by their children if such so happen from the point of Andrew’ will. But from the point of view of Betty’ will, Andrew will die later. In effect, both will are in anticipation of the death of two. Wills are ways to make dispositions of properties and right while the person are alive but they are to take effect upon the death of the testator.
To establish their validity, there is need to compare the same with the provisions of the Columbia’s Trust and Estate Code and the existing jurisprudence. 4. Discussion The Will of Andy Cook provides: 1. I, Andrew Cook, a resident of De Vivos Country, Columbia, declare to be my will. 2. I am married to Betty Cook, who is hereafter as my “spouse”. 3. The names and birth dates of my children are: Denise Cook: Michael and Elizabeth. All references in this to my “children” are to the children just names and no others. All references in this will to my “issue” are to my children so defined.
The above part of the will appears not to violate the provisions of the Columbia Trusts and Estate Code and the Andrew Cook has all the right to make the same. His acknowledgement of his spouse and children in the will therefore excludes all others that may have share in the property he is bequeathing. By so excluding all others from the definition of children, he appeared to have impliedly committed pretermission of his child named Nancy by another woman before her marriage with Betty but expressed desire that it be held confidential.
But since Andy sought advice, what was told to him was to take a life insurance. It is therefore presumed that Mr. Andy might take the advice and made Nancy as beneficiary and therefore also no need to put the name of the Nancy as Andrew wanted it to be a secret. The same will further provide: 4. No provision of this will is intended to force my spouse to make an election between the benefits of the will and any rights my spouse may have to shares of community and quasi-community property under the Columbia Trusts and Estate Code
I have not entered into any contract to make this will and similarity of the provisions of the will of a will of my spouse shall not be construed as evidence of such a contract. It is suggested that Section 4 above should be deleted since only provision that will not violate the under the Columbia Trusts and Estate Code will be effective. Hence, there is no need for the provision of will as it accomplishes no added value. The same must be done for Section 5 provision above. There is no added value as it does not make any incorporation by reference. The same will of Andrew further provides: 6.
I give the sum of $ 53,000 or sum equal to 10% of the residue of my estate which ever is less, to the Charles Village Hospital, run by Dr. Frankie, hereafter refereed to as the hospital, to be held and administered as the Denise Cook Endowment Fund. For investment purposes, the Hospital may merge assets of the fund with any of its investment assets. If on the death of my death the Hospital is not an organization described in Internal Revenue Code as charitable institution, this shall lapse. The Hospital has promised to provide care to my daughter, Denise, as long as she may need such care.
The highlighted portion should be changed by simpler provision as follows: “The Hospital should remain as an organization described in Internal Revenue Code as charitable institution for the amount given to be valid. ” Andy cannot mind the management of the hospital as his designation of an administrator is enough. The will further provides as follows: 7. Disposition of the Cook Family Trust 2008 until the death of Andrew Cook. During the lifetime of Betty Cook the trusted shall hold, administer, and distribute the assets of the Cook Family Trust 2008 as follows:
a. The trustee shall pay to or apply for the benefit of my spouse, so long as my spouse lives, the entire net income of the trust in monthly or other convenient installments agreed upon by my spouse and the trustee, but not less than annually. b. Upon the death of my spouse, my son Michael Cook, and my daughter Elizabeth Cook, shall become designated beneficiaries. Until both Michael and Elizabeth reach the age of 16 years, the trustee shall accumulate all income from the trusts and add to the principal of the trust.
c. When Michael Cook reaches age 18 years, the trustee shall apply the benefit of education and support Michael at an education institution of Michael’s choosing, the necessary part of the income of the trust, not to exceed 50% percent of such income. d. When Elizabeth Cook reaches age of 18 years, the trustee shall apply for the benefit of education and support of Elizabeth at an educational institution of Elizabeth choosing, the necessary part of the income of the trust , not to exceed 50% of such income.
e. After the death of my spouse, the trustee shall pay or distribute to or apply for the benefit of Michael Cook and Elizabeth Cook, until Elizabeth reaches the age of 25 years, in monthly or other convenient installment, but not less often than annually as much of the net income of the trust and as much of the principal to the trust, as the trustee, in the trustee’s discretion, deems necessary for each one’s health and maintenance.
All decisions of the trustee regarding payments under this subsection, if any are within the trustee’s discretion and shall be final and incontestable by any one. The trusted shall accumulate and add to principal any net income not distributed. f. When Elizabeth Cook reaches the age of 25, the trustee shall divide the trust property into two equal market shares. One share shall be distributed outright to Elizabeth and one share shall be distributed outright to Michael, provided each and then living.
If either Elizabeth or Michael are not living, but leave living issue, the share will continue to he held in trust until such issue reaches the age of 25 years. If either Elizabeth or Michael dies before reaching 25 years, then the other shall receive both shares outright when the deceased would have reached 25 years of age. The Disposition of the Cook Family Trust 2008 until the death of Andrew Cook should be reword as to mean disposition of the trust after the death of Andrew Cook for failure to do could mean that management or disposition the trust ends upon death of Andrew.