lessons from my T&E outline

turns out that in some instances, my outlines are as bad as my notes. these aren’t particularly funny, but i think they’re a smidge funny when you think about the fact that they came from my outline, which is supposed to be the document that gives you all the information you should have readily available during the exam.

feel free to use any of this in your own outline. very helpful if you used the dukeminier casebook.

lesson I. why bother putting it in the outline when it’s already in the book?

• this includes certain written provisions, which you’ll find on p. 330 if they really matter
• there are all sorts of problems with this and you can read all about it on p. 289
• should anti-lapse statutes apply to non-probate transfers?, p. 397 if it matters

lesson II. lots of people get “screwed” in T&E cases. just no better way to explain it.

• in past [non-marital children], were just screwed
• Estate of Lakatosh (Pa. 1994), p. 159—elderly woman with weakened intellect gives Roger power of attorney and he totally screws her over
• cases on p. 368 with outcomes that really screwed people b/c of a lack of extrinsic evidence

lesson III. detail schmetail

• In re Strittmater (NJ 1947), p. 149—woman who left her money to the National Women’s Party. Of course she was crazy.

as a comparison, here is how someone else described that same case in his outline:

In re Strittmater (N.J. Ct. App. 1947) [21 CB 149]: Evidence presented that testator exhibited hate of men and regard for feminism, which manifested itself in certain physical acts (smashing clock, killing pet kitten); testator left her estate to the Nat’l Women’s Party. Rule: Evidence doesn’t show testator took great interest in the Party, so it is her insane delusion regarding men that caused her to leave it to the Party, thus voiding the bequest on account of insane delusion.
i. Case appears an anomaly based on judge’s conception that this doesn’t fit very well into socially accepted mores of this time
ii. Judgment is based on his social beliefs rather than testamentary intent, and the paranoia is founded based on social mores rather than testator’s state of mind