Decoupling the Law of Will-Execution

M. Glover
{"title":"Decoupling the Law of Will-Execution","authors":"M. Glover","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2341748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The law of will-execution includes two related but distinct components. The first is formality, including the requirements that a will be written, signed, and witnessed. The second is the standard that courts use to evaluate compliance with these formalities. Courts traditionally apply a rule of strict compliance, under which any formal defect invalidates the will. Fueled by longtime criticism of this rule, an ongoing reform movement seeks to relax the law’s insistence on strict compliance. However, despite broad support within the legal academy, this reform effort has been slow to instigate change.This Article argues that the reform movement’s struggles can be explained in part by the way that scholars evaluate the need for reform. When analyzing this area of law, they typically ask two questions: (1) What are the functions of will formalities? and (2) How can the law be changed so that these functions are better served? By focusing on formality’s purpose, the reform movement overlooks the purpose of strict compliance, and it therefore fails to clearly identify the costs and benefits of reform.Just as will formalities serve specific functions, the rule of strict compliance also serves various functions. The loss of these functions is a potential cost of reform that the reform movement disregards when it focuses on formality. This Article therefore illuminates the utility of reform by clearly identifying the functions of strict compliance and by analyzing whether these functions justify the rule’s place in the law of wills. This analysis clarifies the costs and benefits of reform and ultimately refines the argument in favor of change.","PeriodicalId":182251,"journal":{"name":"FinPlanRN: Wills & Trusts (Topic)","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FinPlanRN: Wills & Trusts (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2341748","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The law of will-execution includes two related but distinct components. The first is formality, including the requirements that a will be written, signed, and witnessed. The second is the standard that courts use to evaluate compliance with these formalities. Courts traditionally apply a rule of strict compliance, under which any formal defect invalidates the will. Fueled by longtime criticism of this rule, an ongoing reform movement seeks to relax the law’s insistence on strict compliance. However, despite broad support within the legal academy, this reform effort has been slow to instigate change.This Article argues that the reform movement’s struggles can be explained in part by the way that scholars evaluate the need for reform. When analyzing this area of law, they typically ask two questions: (1) What are the functions of will formalities? and (2) How can the law be changed so that these functions are better served? By focusing on formality’s purpose, the reform movement overlooks the purpose of strict compliance, and it therefore fails to clearly identify the costs and benefits of reform.Just as will formalities serve specific functions, the rule of strict compliance also serves various functions. The loss of these functions is a potential cost of reform that the reform movement disregards when it focuses on formality. This Article therefore illuminates the utility of reform by clearly identifying the functions of strict compliance and by analyzing whether these functions justify the rule’s place in the law of wills. This analysis clarifies the costs and benefits of reform and ultimately refines the argument in favor of change.
意志-执行法则的解耦
遗嘱执行法包括两个相关但不同的组成部分。首先是形式,包括遗嘱的书写、签名和见证等要求。其次是法院用来评估是否遵守这些手续的标准。法院传统上采用严格遵守的规则,根据该规则,任何形式上的缺陷都会使遗嘱无效。由于长期以来对这一规定的批评,一场正在进行的改革运动试图放松对法律严格遵守的坚持。然而,尽管在法律界得到广泛支持,这项改革努力在推动变革方面进展缓慢。本文认为,维新运动的斗争可以部分地解释为学者评估改革必要性的方式。在分析这一法律领域时,他们通常会问两个问题:(1)遗嘱手续的功能是什么?(2)如何修改法律以更好地履行这些职能?改革运动只注重形式的目的,而忽视了严格遵守的目的,因而未能清晰地识别改革的成本和收益。就像形式有特定的功能一样,严格遵守规则也有不同的功能。这些功能的丧失是改革的潜在代价,而改革运动在关注形式时却忽视了这一点。因此,本文通过明确界定严格遵守的功能,并分析这些功能是否证明了该规则在遗嘱法中的地位,来阐明改革的效用。这一分析澄清了改革的成本和收益,并最终完善了支持改革的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信