{"title":"澄清“遗嘱贷款”之争:对霍顿和钱德拉塞克教授的回应","authors":"J. Kidd","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2870615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Third-party funding of legal claims is becoming more common, and has been quietly gaining a foothold in the probate arena. Probate funding, the transaction in which a third party purchases the right to some portion of an heir’s interest in an estate, shares many characteristics with broader litigation funding. It also differs in important respects, and a recent paper shines a light on the practice of probate funding. It does so, however, in a way that is likely to confuse, rather than clarify. Needed clarity is hereby added by illustrating the constraints of a limited empirical study, distinguishing between ex ante risk and ex post results, and strengthening the case that purchasing an interest in an estate is a contingent obligation.","PeriodicalId":113747,"journal":{"name":"Litigation & Procedure eJournal","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clarifying the 'Probate Lending' Debate: A Response to Professors Horton and Chandrasekher\",\"authors\":\"J. Kidd\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2870615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Third-party funding of legal claims is becoming more common, and has been quietly gaining a foothold in the probate arena. Probate funding, the transaction in which a third party purchases the right to some portion of an heir’s interest in an estate, shares many characteristics with broader litigation funding. It also differs in important respects, and a recent paper shines a light on the practice of probate funding. It does so, however, in a way that is likely to confuse, rather than clarify. Needed clarity is hereby added by illustrating the constraints of a limited empirical study, distinguishing between ex ante risk and ex post results, and strengthening the case that purchasing an interest in an estate is a contingent obligation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":113747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Litigation & Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Litigation & Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2870615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Litigation & Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2870615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clarifying the 'Probate Lending' Debate: A Response to Professors Horton and Chandrasekher
Third-party funding of legal claims is becoming more common, and has been quietly gaining a foothold in the probate arena. Probate funding, the transaction in which a third party purchases the right to some portion of an heir’s interest in an estate, shares many characteristics with broader litigation funding. It also differs in important respects, and a recent paper shines a light on the practice of probate funding. It does so, however, in a way that is likely to confuse, rather than clarify. Needed clarity is hereby added by illustrating the constraints of a limited empirical study, distinguishing between ex ante risk and ex post results, and strengthening the case that purchasing an interest in an estate is a contingent obligation.