Law 535 Estates and Trusts

Professor Kordesh
Practice Exam

Please upload your practice exam to Blackboard. The instructions below are to give you an idea
of the instructions you will use for the actual midterm exam.

UIC LAW SCHOOL

LAW 535 Est and Trusts
OPEN-BOOK PRACTICE MIDTERM
EXAMINATION
PROFESSOR MAUREEN STRAUB KORDESH

PLEASE READ THESE DIRECTIONS VERY CAREFULLY.

You will have ninety (90) minutes to complete this exam. (For practice purposes, give yourself
two-three hours. The essay question is a bit on the long side.) This is an open-book, open-notes
exam: you may use anything on paper—your book, notes, personal or commercial outlines,
treatises, or other passive study aids—during the exam. You also may access your computer for
any materials available on your hard drive. You may not use the Internet. You are bound by
the Student Honor Code. This is an 11-page exam. Check now to be sure that you have all
pages.
The spacing between questions may be unusual because, where possible I have tried to keep all
responses to a question on one page, and groups of related questions on the same page.

The exam consists of seventeen (17) multiple-choice questions. Each of these questions is worth
two (2) points for a total of thirty-four (34) points. Please record your answers to the multiple-
choice questions directly onto the document you will submit with your essay. There is one essay
question, worth twenty (20) points.

DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF ANYWHERE ON THE (ACTUAL) EXAM IN ANY WAY

THAT WOULD COMPROMISE YOUR ANONYMITY. USE ONLY YOUR EXAM TOKEN.

Do not contact me about any aspect of the exam until grades are posted; otherwise, you could
compromise your anonymity and receive a failing grade. If you have a concern, contact the
Office of Academic Services. They will contact me.

Unless a question directs otherwise, Illinois law controls.

1
 MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS (30 minutes recommended)

1. A decedent dies without a will, survived by his spouse, his brother, his niece, and hismother.
In Illinois, to whom will the decedent’s estate be distributed?

A. His spouse.

B. His spouse and his mother.

C. His spouse, his mother, and his brother.

D. His spouse, his mother, his brother, and his niece.

A is the correct answer. In Illinois under 755 ILCS 5/2-1(c) where the decedent is survived by a spouse but
no descendants, the surviving spouse takes the entire estate.

2. How are the intestate shares of descendants usually distributed, including in Illinois?

A. Equally

B. Per stirpes

C. Per capita at each generation

Answer B is the correct answer. Under § 2-1 the estate passes per stirpes

3. In Illinois, if a decedent dies without a will and is not survived by a spouse or by

descendants, the estate passes in which order?

A. Parents and descendants of parents, grandparents, descendants of grandparents,

nearest kin.

B. Parents, descendants of parents, grandparents, descendants of grandparents, nearest kin.

C. Parents, grandparents, nearest kin.

D. Siblings, parents, grandparents, descendants of grandparents, nearest kin.

Answer A is the correct answer. See § 2- 1 (e) and (g).

2
 4. Who among the following CANNOT inherit from or through a decedent?

A The adoptive parents of the decedent.

B A child born to the decedent’s wife six months after the

decedent’s death.

C The decedent’s half-sister.

D The decedent’s stepchild who has been treated as the decedent's child since birth.

Answer D is the correct answer. Answer A is incorrect because § 2-4(b) expressly permits an
adoptive parent to inherit from the child. Answer B is incorrect because § 2-3 (a)(1) expressly
permits a child in utero at the death of the intestate parent to inherit. Answer C is incorrect because
§§ 2-1 (a) and (b) permit siblings to inherit, and in the language following the escheat provision at
§ 2-1 (h), the statute requires half-blood siblings to be treated the same as whole-blood siblings.
Because there is no statutory provision for stepchildren to inherit, by inference stepchildren are not
permitted to inherit.

3
 5. Albert Lombard had six children. Albert created a testamentary trust which paid income to
his children for life. Upon the death of the last of his children to die, the principal of his estate
was to be divided among his living descendants. Mary was the last to die of the siblings. Linda,
James, Alex and Kit also died before Mary.

What fraction of the principal will Kirsten receive under strict per stirpes?

A 1/8

B 1/12

C 1/16

D 1/48

Answer A is correct. Under strict per stirpes, the estate is divided into four shares because, at the first
generation there are only four descendants who have living descendants. Decedent Grace, Kristen’s
mother, takes a ¼ share, but because Grace is dead, her share goes to the next generation. Grace has
two descendants, Kristen and Einar. Her one-quarter share is divided into two shares, so Kristen takes
1/8.

6. A testator signs his will in front of two witnesses. Immediately after the witnesses sign, the
testator remembers that he wanted to include a legacy of $5,000 to his friend Fred. After
explaining this to the witnesses and while still in their presence, the testator handwrites the
legacy directly under his signature. The witnesses both give the testator the thumbs up. In
most states, the effect of the additional legacy is:

A Both the will and the legacy are void.

B The will is valid, but the legacy is

void. CBoth the will and the legacy are valid.

D The legacy is a valid holograph, but the will is void because it is not subscribed.
4
Answer B is correct. Under Illinois law, an amendment to a will is valid only if it is
executed with the same formalities as a will, which requires a signature by the testator
and the signatures of two witnesses. Once the will was signed and witnessed, it was
complete. To amend the will, even one moment after the completed execution of the
will, requires the wills statute formalities. Those were not present here; a “thumbs-up”
is not a signature, and the original witnessing signatures cannot do double duty to
validate the amendment. However, voiding the amendment does not invalidate the
entire will.

7. To have mental capacity to make a will, a testator must understand each of the following
EXCEPT:

A The nature of her property.

B The nature of her

C The persons who are the natural objects of her bounty.

D The nature of her act.

Answer B is correct. The standard test requires that the testator understand the nature of
her property, the natural objects of her bounty, and the understanding that she is making a
testamentary disposition (as opposed to an inter vivos gift or a contract, for example). The
test does not require the testator to know where she is.

8. In most jurisdictions that recognize them, a valid holographic will requires at least:

A. Material provisions in the testator's handwriting.

B. The date of execution.

C. At least one attesting witness.

D. The testator’s signature at the end

Answer A is the correct answer. While all of the above components are extremely helpful
for a holographic will, and it is best if the document contain A, B, and D, A is the best
answer. B is not required; if the will can be found and is the only one, the date will not
matter. C is not required; a holographic will is defined as a will that has no witnesses. D
is not required; so long as the will is signed somewhere by the testator, the signature will
be sufficient. The will does have to be written mostly by the testator in his own writing.
Therefore, A is the best answer.

Questions 9 and 10 are based on the following fact pattern:

7
 Ingrid Bergman was married twice. She had a daughter, Pia Lindstrom with her first
husband and three children, Robert, Isabella and Isotta Rossellini, with her second. Ingrid had a
very successful acting career, but even she found that acting parts fell off for her when she got
older. When she was 80, she moved in with her daughter and son-in-law Isotta and Richard
Aborn. When Ingrid was 84, she suffered a stroke that confined her to her bed.

Roberto and Isabella visited Ingrid frequently after the stroke. She also had many
visitors who were friends from her years of acting. However, when Pia tried to arrange a visit,
Isotta made excuses. On rare occasions when visits were set, Isotta almost always called to
cancel. The following year, Roberto (an attorney) drafted a will for his mother. The will left
the estate in equal shares to Isotta, Isabella and Roberto. It included a provision “I have
intentionally left nothing to my daughter Pia because she has rarely visited me since my
stroke.” Ingrid died one month after executing her will.

9. Can Pia successfully challenge the validity of Ingrid’s will?

a. Yes, because Ingrid was not mentally competent after suffering a stroke.

b. Yes, because Isotta exercised undue influence over her mother by

denying Pia access to her mother.

c. No, because Ingrid intentionally left nothing to Pia for reasons stated in the will.

d. No, because Isotta could not exercise undue influence because Ingrid
had many visitors who were not related to her.

B is the correct answer. Ingrid was susceptible because she had had a stroke and
needed to live with Isotta. Isotta had opportunity because she was with Ingrind all the
time. The result was unexptecte. Isotta had the disposition to exert undue influence
because she actively kept Pia away from her own mother. Answer A is not correct.
There is no evidence to suggest that Ingrid was incompetent after suffering the stroke.
That she left nothing to Pia is insufficient evidence, especially since it was Isotta who
prevented Ingrid from seeing her, without Ingrid’s knowledge. Answer C is not correct.
The evidence shows that Isotta was manipulating Ingrid by keeping Pia away from her.
Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, Ingrid would not have changed her
will if she had known of this fact. Answer D is not correct. Undue influence can occur
whether or not the testator has visitors beyond the person who exerts influence.

10. Did Roberto violate the Cannons of Professional Responsibility?

a. Yes.

b. No.

B is the correct answer. An attorney many not be named a beneficiary of a will he has
drafted without violating the Canons of Professional Responsibility. However, there is an
exception to this canon. An attorney who is related to the testator may be named a
beneficiary even though the attorney has drafted the will. Here, Roberto is Ingrid’s son;

8
therefore, he may draft his mother’s will AND be named a beneficiary without violating
the Canons of Professional Responsibility.

Thomas Hansen, a widower, moved in with his daughter Elizabeth, her husband and children in
1994. In 1998, Thomas Hansen executed a valid will which provided in part:
I give $10,000 to each of my sons: Matthew, Luke and John.
I give the residue of my estate to my daughter Elizabeth.

He left the will with his attorney in Chicago for safekeeping.

In 2006, after an argument with his daughter, Hansen moved to Springfield to

live with his son John. One month after the move he contacted an attorney in
Springfield. The Springfield attorney helped him execute a valid will which provided
in part:

I hereby revoke all prior wills.

I give $10,000 to each of my children: Elizabeth, Matthew and Luke.
I give the residue of my estate to my son John.

In early 2007, Hansen decided to move back to his daughter’s home. His friend, drove
him to his daughter’s. During the long drive, Hansen talked about how good his daughter had
been to him and how he hadn’t appreciated her. He said that he was going to give the bulk of
his estate to Elizabeth because she had taken care of him for many years. Shortly afterwards he
called his attorney in Chicago and asked if he still had his will. When the attorney said that he
still had it, Thomas Hansen said, “Good; that is how I want my estate distributed.”

Thomas Hansen lived with his daughter until he died in 2011. After his death, the
Springfield will was found among his papers. At the top of the first page he had written, “This
will is hereby revoked.” This sentence was signed. His estate totaled $160,000.

11. Assume the Springfield will was revoked. How would Hansen’s estate be distributed?

a. By the 1998 Chicago will, because Hansen intended that his daughter
take the bulk of his estate because he lived with her for many
years.

b. By the 2006 Springfield will because he satisfies the doctrine of

dependent relative revocation because he revoked it under a
mistaken belief that it would revive the Chicago will.

c. By intestacy, because under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, he still

would have revoked the Springfield will even if he had known that it would
not revive the Chicago will.

Answer C is correct. Under the doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation, if a testator

undertakes to revoke her will upon a mistaken assumption of law or fact, under the doctrine of
dependent relative revocation (DRR) the revocation is ineffective if the testator would not have
revoked the will but for the mistaken belief. The basis for disregarding the revocation is that the

9
testator’s mistake negates her revocatory intent. Here, Thomas revoked the Springfield will
because he wished to reduce his gift to Elizabeth for reasons that were not mistaken. Therefore,
the second will was also revoked. Since there was no valid will, his estate passes by intestacy.
Answer A is incorrect. Thomas validly revoked the Chicago will by executing a new will that
expressly revoked all prior wills. Under Illinois law, in order to “revive” an earlier will, that will
must be re-executed with the proper testamentary formalities. Answer B is incorrect. Dependent
relative revocation is appropriate only when the testator revokes a will for reasons that are
mistaken. Here, revocation of the Springfield will cannot revive the Chicago will because the
Chicago will was revoked for reasons having nothing to do with a mistake in revoking it.

Albert and Penelope were married and had three daughters, Faith, Hope and Charity.
Albert died suddenly when the girls were 2, 4, and 6 years old. Two years later, Penelope
married William. William adopted the three girls.

Twenty-five years later, Albert’s wealthy brother, Robert, died without a will. Robert
was unmarried and had no descendants; his parents were also deceased.

12. Are Faith, Hope and Charity entitled to inherit from Robert?

a. Yes

b. No

Answer A is correct. Illinois law allows an adopted child to inherit from collateral kindred
if the natural parent died before the child was adopted. Because the father of Faith,
Hope, and Charity died before they were adopted, they may inherit from their Uncle
Robert.

1
0
Questions 13, 14, 15, and 16, relate to the following facts:

Several years after Walter Elliot’s wife died, he drafted a will that left $10,000 to his
friend Emily Russell and the residue of his estate in equal shares to his daughters, Elizabeth
Elliot, Anne Wentworth and Mary Musgrove. The witnesses to the will were two neighbors.

Five years later, Walter executed a second will. He increased the bequest to Emily
Russell to $20,000, and he devised to the residue in four equal shares to his three daughters and
Penelope Clay. The witnesses to that will were Frederick Wentworth (Anne’s husband) and
Emily Russell. Soon thereafter Walter died.

13. Will Anne Wentworth take her 1/4 interest in the residue?

a. Yes, because she is a daughter of the testator, Walter Elliot.

b. Yes, because the 1/4 interest is less than she would have received
under the first will.

c. No, because her husband witnessed the will, her bequest will be purged.

d. No, because the second will is invalid because it does not have
two disinterested witnesses.
Answer B is correct. Although a witnessing signature from a beneficiary under the will
or the spouse of a beneficiary under the will normally purges the gift, there is an
exception. If the interested witness/beneficiary will take a share that does not exceed
the value of a gift that he or she would have received had the will not been established,
then the interested witness/beneficiary may take that smaller gift. Here, Anne’s interest
was reduced to 1/4 under the second will. Because the gift she would have received
had the later will not been established would have been larger, she may keep the
smaller gift. Answer A is not correct. Blood relationship is not relevant under the
purging statute unless the conditions are as described in the explanation of Answer B.
Answer C is incorrect for the reason explained for Answer B. Answer C is incorrect.
The will was validly witnessed. Frederick Wentworth and Emily Russell are perfectly
competent to witness a will. The only relevant question is whether the bequest is void.

14. Will Emily Russell take her bequest?

a. Yes, she will take $20,000 because she was a beneficiary of the first will.

b. Yes, but it will be reduced to $10,000.

c. No, because she witnessed the will and would not take under intestacy.

d. No. The estate passes by intestacy because it does not have

two disinterested witnesses.

11
 Answer A is correct. Illinois law does not preclude the spouse of an interested witness
from acting as executor of an estate.

15. Does the execution of the codicil affect the bequest to Emily Russell?

a. Yes, because the execution of the codicil relates back and republishes
the will as of the date of the codicil.

b. Yes, because Emily Russell would have taken under the second
will without a codicil.

c. No, because the validity of the bequest to Emily Russell is determined

on the date of the execution of the will.

d. No. The codicil does not republish the will because that would
invalidate the nomination of Charles Croft as executor.
Answer A is correct. This is exactly what republication by codicil does. It can have the
effect of correcting the invalidity of a gift to an interested witness if it uses two different
witnesses. Because the two new witnesses are not Emily, she is now free to take the
larger amount under the second will. Answer B is only partially correct. Emily would
have taken something under the second will, but the gift would have been smaller
because of her interested witness status. Under these facts, she would be entitled to
the $20,000. Answer C is incorrect. The date of a will is the latest date of valid
execution of the will, or a codicil if relevant. Answer D is incorrect. It’s nonsense. The
republication in fact validates the nomination of Charles Croft as executor.

16. If a husband and wife die simultaneously,

a. all of the husband’s assets pass as if his wife survived him.

b. all of the husband’s assets pass as if his wife predeceased him.

Answer B is correct. Illinois law states that if spouses die without being able to
establish who died first, then half of the probate estate passes as though Spouse 1
predeceased Spouse 2, and half of the probate estate passes as though Spouse 2
predeceased Spouse 1.

END MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

12
ESSAY QUESTION (30 minutes recommended)

(Realistically, this problem is likely to take an hour to answer. I want you to use it also for review
of the material. msk)

Elizabeth Bennet and Mark Darcy were married and had two children, Catherine and James.
Mark died, and Elizabeth married Daniel Cleaver. Daniel adopted Catherine and James.
Elizabeth and Daniel had one child of their own, Charlotte.

Mark’s brother Charles never married and had no children. Charles had two sisters, Caroline and
Louisa. Louisa was married but neither she nor Caroline had children. Charles’ mother is
deceased, but his father, David is still living. Before David married, he had a child, Stephen, out
of wedlock. David paid child support pursuant to court order for Stephen and saw him
occasionally, but he never included him in any family functions. Charles has never met Stephen.

Charles decided that he should have a will. He went online and found a form. The completed
will provides as follows:

I, Charles Darcy, being of sound mind and memory, revoke all prior wills and make this my will.
I give $10,000 to George.
I give $10,000 to Collin.
I give the remainder of my estate to Ascension Church in Oak Park.

George and Collin are Charles’ best friends.

Charles signed the will by himself. He went next door to ask his neighbor, William, to sign.
William wasn’t home so Charles left a note with his will saying, “This is my will. Please witness
my signature and bring the will back as soon as possible.” William signed the will and brought it
back. When William brought it back, he pointed to his signature. “Here’s where I signed it. Is
that correct?” Charles said “Yes” and thanked William.

Next day Lydia, George’s wife, came to pick up Charles to take him grocery shopping. Charles
asked Lydia to witness the will, and she did.

Charles decided that it would be a good idea to have a third witness just in case. So, he asked the
mail carrier to sign his will. He did. The mail carrier was a substitute, and Charles never saw
him again.

Under Illinois law, is the will valid? Identify the issues. Explain your analysis for each issue. If
the will is valid, how will the estate be divided? If it is not valid, how will the estate be divided?
Be sure to provide the section numbers of the statute that support your analysis and conclusions.

13
SAMPLE ANSWER

Is the will valid?

Section 4-3 governs execution of wills. The will must be signed by Testator but he does not have
to sign in the presence of the witnesses. So, it doesn’t matter that Charles was alone when he
signed the will. The will must be signed by two witnesses in the presence of Testator. William did
not sign in Charles’ presence so he doesn’t count. Lydia was the wife of a devisee so she may lose
her bequest, but she still counts as witness 1 (see below). The mail carrier signed in Charles’
presence so he counts as witness 2; there’s no requirement that the witness know the testator before
the signature occurs. (Many secretaries and paralegals sign for people they don’t know.)
Therefore, the will was validly executed.

If the will is valid, how is the estate divided?

Section 4-6 provides that any bequest to a witness or the witness’ spouse is void. A bequest to the
spouse of a witness is also void. However, the witness’ signature is still valid (see above). There
are two exceptions. 1. If there are 2 other witnesses who are not devisees. Although there were
two other witnesses here, William doesn’t count. 2. If the attesting witness would receive more “if
the will were not established.” Since there is no prior will and George is a friend and doesn’t take
under intestacy, this exception is not satisfied. Therefore, Collin takes $10,000 and Ascension
Church takes the residue including the $10,000 that would have gone to George.

If the will is not valid, how is the estate divided?

Under Section 2-1d since Charles has no spouse or descendants, the estate is divided among his
father, brothers and sisters and descendants of deceased brothers and sisters.

Since Charles’ dad is living but his mother is not, his dad gets two shares.

Since Mark is dead, Catherine and James split their father’s share. They take even though they
were adopted by Daniel because under 2-4d1 they were adopted by the spouse of their mother and
under 2-4d2 they were adopted after the death of their father.

Stephen can inherit as a sibling of Charles under 2-2 because he was adjudicated the child of
Charles’ dad when the court ordered payment of child support. It doesn’t matter that he had no
relationship with Charles because they are half-siblings under 2-1 (last sentence).

Therefore, 2/6 to Charles’ Dad, 1/6 each to Caroline, Louisa and Stephen and 1/12 each to
Catherine and James.

14
 Estates and Trusts
Practice Midterm
Essay Rubric
Exam __________________

Total __________________

1. Was the will properly executed?

Rule: 4-3
Signing by T does not have to be in presence of anyone
Signature of William is invalid because not in presence of T
Signature of Lydia is valid even though her husband is devisee
Signature of mail carrier is valid even though stranger
Therefore will was properly executed.

2. If will is valid, how is estate divided?

Rule: 4-6
Bequest to spouse of witness is void
There is only one other “good” witness
George is a friend and doesn’t take under intestacy and there is no prior will
Therefore, George’s $10,000 passes to Ascensin Church under residue.

3. If will is not valid, how is estate divided?

Rule: 2-1d
Dad gets double share because spouse is dead.
Catherine and James split a share because they were adopted by spouse of their mother (2-4d1)
and were adopted after death of their father (2-4d2)
Stephen inherits under 2-2 because there was a court order of paternity
Therefore, 2/6 to dad, 1/6 to Caroline, Louisa and Stephen and 1/12 to Catherine and James

15