1. Corbin was named as executor in his father’s will. While going through his late father’s papers, he discovered a promissory note made by Fulsom in the amount of $ 10,000 that reflected a personal loan the decedent had made before he died. Corbin approached Fulsom and indicated that he would accept $ 5,000 cash in exchange for the note. Obviously Fulsom’s payment would not be included in the assets of the estate. One of the heirs discovered the cash payment and brought suit, charging misconduct. Will Corbin be required to cover the loss suffered by the estate?
2. Aversa, the personal representative of her late father’s estate, was presented with evidence that there was still $ 12,000 owing on his automobile. Rather than have the car repossessed, she borrowed $ 6,000 and refinanced the balance. Objection was made on the grounds that she had exceeded her authority. Is it likely that the court will approve her actions?
3. The trustees of a labor union pension fund delivered various stocks and bonds to a bank under an agreement that provided that the bank would act as the trustees’ agent in investing the fund’s assets. The agreement also provided that the bank was “authorized to invest any assets. . . of the investment fund or to dispose of any such asset or property and invest the proceeds of such disposition, as in its absolute and uncontrolled discretion it deem(ed) suitable.” The results of the bank’s investments were disappointing. The trustees claimed that since trustees may not delegate their power, the bank breached its contract of agency by making unauthorized investment decisions that decreased the value of the fund. Does it appear that the trustees delegated power to the bank to make the investments?
4. Before Dora Diggs, a widow, died, she left a handwritten document that read, “I want Tom R. Preston and Mattie Price to be the administrators (executors) to settle my estate.” Following this she listed various assets. A dispute arose about whether the decedent, Diggs, intended to give Preston and Price general power to dispose of her property. If this were the interpretation, Preston and Price would be the beneficiaries. Other relatives claimed (1) the document was not really a will at all, (2) Diggs merely wanted to name executors, (3) the document lacked testamentary intent, and (4) Diggs died intestate. If this were the case, state intestacy laws would determine the distribution of property. The other relatives would benefit significantly if this position was the decision of the court. Did the disputed document fail to qualify as a will because of the lack of testamentary intent?