The Instigator
law310
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jvega99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 65367
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

law310

Pro

1.On August 13th 1880 Francis B. Palmer made as well, where he left a small inheritance to his two daughters, Mrs. Rags and Mrs, Preston, and the rest was left to his grandson Elmer Palmer.
2.On March 1882, Frances married Mrs. Breeze, while entering an ante-nuptial contract, which states that instead of inheriting his estate upon his death she will have the support of his farm for the rest of her life.
3.Elmer lived with his grandfather until Frances died when I was 16.
4.He knew of his inheritance, but his grandfather was thinking of removing him from the will and to prevent that and to quickly receive inheritance he poisoned his grandfather.
5.Elmer said that because his grandfather is dead that his will should be put into effect because it is the letter of the law.
6.The statutes that regulate the making, proof and effect of wills cannot be controlled or modified.
7.These statues were created for the dead to legally dispose of their estate and objects that they leave behind.
8.Lawmakers created it so that the inheritor can inherit the property given to them, but they had not thought about if the inheritor murders the tester.
9.When something unforeseen happens it is the judges right to conclude that the parliament had not foreseen the consequences, and that they have the power to propose or disregard it
10. It is unreasonable to suppose that the legislation wanted the general law of passing property peacefully, intend for the murder of the ancestor to possess the property.
11. No one imagined someone would use the general language of the law in the manner of murdering their grandfather to receive their inheritance early.
12. All laws and contracts can be controlled by the fundamental Maxims. These maxims are; no profits for fraud, don"t take advantage of your wrongdoing, don't claim his own impropriety and don't use crime to get property.
13. In N.Y. the case of New York mutual life insurance company V. Armstrong, it was held that a person who takes on a life insurance policy on another person and then murders them couldn't receive any payment.
14. Mr. justice field said " no matter what Hunters motives for getting the life insurance, he forfeited any right to receive any payment when he murder the policyholder".
15. The same can be said when someone intentionally set fire to a building to receive insurance money.
16. There is no certainty that Elmer would survive Palmer, or that Palmer would not change his will to remove Elmer if he knew that Elmer was planning his murder.
17. Palmer made himself an heir by murdering his grandpa and then seeking his inheritance.
18. In Owens V. Owens a wife was convicted of aiding in the murder of her husband but she was still entitled to her dower.
19. The statute providing money for a wife who survived her husband and loses his support and protection.
20. There was no provision for a wife who made herself a widow.
21. The principle at the bottom of the maxim, volent non fit injuria, could be applied to this case as a widow should not for the purpose of receiving of property rights create her own widowhood.
22. Therefore, because Elmer murdered his grandfather he should not receive his inheritance

Non-Controversial: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Controversial:

9 is true because it is reasonable for the court to assume that if the benefactor of your will tries to kill you and you survive ,it is reasonable to assume that any sound and reasonable person would change their will and remove the person who tried to kill them from the will, so they would do it for them. They are protecting the rights of the murdered party by not letting his murderer receive and of the property that Francis worked hard to have.

10 is true because it is reasonable to assume that the legislation would not want an heir to murder their ancestor just to receive their would be inheritance.

11 is true because it is reasonable to assume that any reasonable and sound person would not imagine that someone would use the language of the law to inherit property by murdering their ancestor.

16 is true because any reasonable person would change his will so that his would be murderer would not inherit anything from them and there was also no guarantee that Elmer would have survived Palmer if Elmer had not been murdered.
jvega99

Con

1.) On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made a will that will give his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the rest of his estates to his grandson, Elmer E. Palmer. When Elmer found out about the will, he decided to speed up the process of his grandfather's death in order to receive his grandfather's estates.
2.) Elmer E. Palmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. He claimed all of his grandfather's property.
3.) Elmer's defense is that his grandfather is dead and now the will must be effective according to the law.
4.) The law of the will should follow the wishes of the testators when he or she pass away.
5.) The writers of the law does not always completely interpret the laws but the judges will gather all the facts and laws to decide a rational interpretation.
6.) If parliament allows someone to take it upon themselves to speed the process of receiving the benefits and it is unreasonable for someone to determine the fate of his actions.
7.) A will that is a fraud and deceived, may be voided.
8.) Here there was no certainty that the testator would have survived and changed his will or receive the estate in the will.
9.) Under the civil law evolved from the general principles of natural law and justice by many generations of jurisconsults and statesmen, one can't take property by inheritance or will from a benefactor by killing him or her in order to receive it quickly.
10.) The case of Owens v. Ownes, a wife was convicted of being an accessory of the murder of her husband in order to receive the estate of her deceased husband because she was now a widow.
11.) The statues provide dower to the wife who was survived by her husband and lost his protection and support.
12.) The plaintiffs in that case was entitled to the will. Instead of a new trial, the facts of the trial is the same results.
13.) The judgement of the General term be reversed and decided that Elmer E. Palmer estate is taken because of the crime he committed towards his grandfather in order to receive the estate.
14.) The true benefactors are Elmer's mother and widow of the grandfather.
15.) The appellant's argument for a reversal was dismissed due to the grandfather's will.
16.) The statutes of the this state, the modes of alteration and revocation implies that a law should stop something from being altered or revised.
17.) The case is not based on how severe Elmer's punishment should be but if he should be rewarded from the crime he committed.
18.) Elmer was punished for the criminal act he committed to his grandfather.
19.) Therefore, he should be entitled to his grandfather's estates and obey his grandfather's wishes written in the will.

Non-Controversial: 1,2,3,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16

Controversial:
Pro#9: "When something unforeseen happens it is the judges right to conclude that the parliament had not foreseen the consequences, and that they have the power to propose or disregard it".
Con: There are reasonable people in the world that believe in forgiving others on the mistakes they make. Francis Palmer could have been a religious man and forgiven his grandson for the wrongful act he tried to commit if he survived.

Pro#10: "10 is true because it is reasonable to assume that the legislation would not want an heir to murder their ancestor just to receive their would be inheritance."
Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husband's estate.

Questions:
1) If the person that committed the criminal act served jail time and was punished, should the person receive the estates since he or she was punished?
2) What if Elmer murder someone else while his grandfather was still alive? Should the law be that anyone that commits a criminal and violent act such as murder, not be in a will that will leave them with property or other estates?
Debate Round No. 1
law310

Pro

Controversial:

Pro#9: "When something unforeseen happens it is the judges right to conclude that the parliament had not foreseen the consequences, and that they have the power to propose or disregard it".

Con: There are reasonable people in the world that believe in forgiving others on the mistakes they make. Francis Palmer could have been a religious man and forgiven his grandson for the wrongful act he tried to commit if he survived.

Pro's rebuttal: Francis Palmer could have been a religious men but there is no evidence of that fact. Even if he were, there are some thing that can not be forgiven even if you are a religious men. I believe that if your grandson wants to kill you for the financial gain that would have been his when you died would constitute as such a time. Religion also has no bearing in the law due to the separation of church and state. Furthermore in premise 4 it was stated that Elmer was already planning to remove his grandson from the will.

Pro#10: "10 is true because it is reasonable to assume that the legislation would not want an heir to murder their ancestor just to receive their would be inheritance."

Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate.

Pro's rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislations job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Isn"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will. If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any resonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been.

Questions: 1) If the person that committed the criminal act served jail time and was punished, should the person receive the estates since he or she was punished?

Pros Answer: No the person should not reseave the estate. Elmer was punished for the murder of his grandfather. The punishment he recovered for that crime should not be relevant to him getting his inheritance because these are two different matters. One is a criminal matter while the other is civil. The real question you should be asking yourself is does Elmer deserve a reward for murdering his grandfather because that is what the inheritance ultimately is. Should the court allow Elmer to be rewarded for murder? If so then how many other murderers or other criminals will receive benefits for the crimes that they have committed. Crime should not be rewarded.

2) What if Elmer murders someone else while his grandfather was still alive? Should the law be that anyone that commits a criminal and violent act such as murder not be in a will that will leave them with property or other estates?

Pro's Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that, that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will.
jvega99

Con

Judge Gray (Dissenting opinion)....
1.) Complete freedom of testamentary disposition of one's property has not been an universal rule but in the Roman law.
2.) To the statutory restraints that will impose upon the final arrangement or final act towards one's property by will, should follow the validity and performance of the will.
3.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will.
4.) The appellant's argument is that the rules that the legislature are following are not the rules of the civil law or laws of the government that the heir is excluded from benefits under the testament, if he was convicted of murder.
5.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system.
6.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise".

Non-Controversial: 2,4,6

Controversial:
Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate.

Pros rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Is"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will. If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any reasonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been.

Con's Rebuttal: In the appellate argument the decision is not based on the crime that Elmer Palmer committed but whether he should receive his grandfather's estate. The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon themselves to decide on who gets the property of a dead man. He created a will for a reason and who should get his estate. The court's decision to give Mr. Palmer's estate between his daughter which was Elmer's mother and his widow. But what if Elmer's mother forgive him for his actions and decide to give some of his grandfather's property to him. Does that make it right?

Answer to Cons Question#2:
Pros Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will.

Cons Rebuttal: This is an assumption you are regarding if Palmer was alive from the attack, he would remove his grandson from his will because of what Elmer did. We can't assume that his grandfather would change his mind but we also can't assume he wouldn't either. But the courts should not be the one to decide to change a dead man's will and alter the wishes of a dead man's will.
Debate Round No. 2
law310

Pro

Controversial:
Con: Our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. Should we allow the government to rewrite a will that is meant to follow one's wishes before they pass away? An example is the case of Owens v. Owens, the wife was able to receive her deceased husband's estate and she help commit a criminal act by helping to kill her husband in order to get the estate. Our government allowed her to receive her deceased husbands estate.

Pros rebuttal: While you are correct with stating that our legislation's job is to protect the rights and laws of the people but a will is a written document based on the wishes of the person writing the will. But what would be the true wishes of Palmer if he was alive and he found out his grandson was plotting his murder. Isn"t it safe to assume that, that knowledge would make him rewrite his will? If he were already thinking about changing the will what is to say that this would not make him change it. I believe he would have because any reasonable person would. So is it hard to assume that the court would assume the same thing. While you are correct that in Owens V. Owens the wife received her dead husbands estate but if the court granted a new trial like it stated in the reading should have happened there is no saying what might have been.

Con's Rebuttal: In the appellate argument the decision is not based on the crime that Elmer Palmer committed but whether he should receive his grandfather's estate. The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon them to decide on who gets the property of a dead man. He created a will for a reason and who should get his estate. The court's decision to give Mr. Palmer's estate between his daughter which was Elmer's mother and his widow. But what if Elmer's mother forgives him for his actions and decides to give some of his grandfather's property to him. Does that make it right?

Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: But how can you know that the grandfather wouldn"t change his will. He is dead because his grandson killed him. The court has the right to assume that if his grandfather were alive then he would have changed the will anyway. His grandfather already had certain provisions in his will so you know that he was suspicious of his grandson. That was the reason Palmer killed him. So that Elmer couldn"t activate these provisions. (1.1.5) Your assumption is that Elmer"s mother would forgive him for killing his grandfather her father. What you are asking is for Elmer"s mother to forgive her Elmer for killing her father. Even though the killer is her own son, I believe you are asking too much. You are making her choose between her fathers Elmer her father who did nothing wrong except leave Palmer a large inheritance and her son Palmer who wanted easy money so he kills his grandfather. Is anyone that forgiving? Does it make it right? I believe so. What right does a murderer have to a property that the person he murders has left him. Does this give the right for others to follow in Palmers footsteps and kill their relative to receive their inheritance early? That is what would happen if palmer receives the inheritance. This precedence would allow others to follow his footsteps.

Answer to Cons Question#2:
Pros Answers: If Palmer was still alive when Elmer murdered someone else what is to say that Elmer would still be in the will. In premise 4 of my argument you will see that the reason that Elmer murdered his grandfather was because his grandfather was already thinking about removing him from the will. This has nothing to do with the law because if Palmer was alive and Elmer murdered someone there is a very good chance that would be the final straw that would make the grandfather remove him from the will. If that happened then this case would be irrelevant because he would not be in the will.

Cons Rebuttal: This is an assumption you are regarding if Palmer was alive from the attack, he would remove his grandson from his will because of what Elmer did. We can't assume that his grandfather would change his mind but we also can't assume he wouldn't either. But the courts should not be the one to decide to change a dead man's will and alter the wishes of a dead man's will.

Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: Is it really an assumption. It is stated in the reading that Palmer did put a provision in his will but to prevent him from revoking it he poisons his grandfather. (1.1.5) This is non controversial. What is to say that if he was alive then what is to say that Elmer wouldn't remove Palmer. Their is no saying what he would do, but you have to assume that Palmer is a reasonable men and wouldn't allow a person who wants him dead to receive any of the inheritance that would have been his. That would have been a reward and why would Palmer want to reward Elmer for killing him.
jvega99

Con

Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: Is it really an assumption. It is stated in the reading that Palmer did put a provision in his will but to prevent him from revoking it he poisons his grandfather. (1.1.5) This is non controversial. What is to say that if he was alive then what is to say that Elmer wouldn't remove Palmer. Their is no saying what he would do, but you have to assume that Palmer is a reasonable men and wouldn't allow a person who wants him dead to receive any of the inheritance that would have been his. That would have been a reward and why would Palmer want to reward Elmer for killing him.

Cons Previous Premises:
3.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will.
5.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system.
6.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise".

Even the courts have an opinion that a will should not change if the benefactor passed away. There are many laws that are not fair and individuals receive stronger sentences for crimes that are not harsh. But we have to follow the laws and obey them. Elmer did commit a harsh crime and was punished but changing the laws means that all future case may have a different outcome. I am not saying that Elmer should not be punished for the crime he committed but if he was punished for it, then we should not alter what the will states. We can't go by assumptions in our judicial system, our laws are not created by assumptions.

Pro"s rebuttal to Con"s Rebuttal: But how can you know that the grandfather would"t change his will. He is dead because his grandson killed him. The court has the right to assume that if his grandfather were alive then he would have changed the will anyway. His grandfather already had certain provisions in his will so you know that he was suspicious of his grandson. That was the reason Palmer killed him. So that Elmer couldn"t activate these provisions. (1.1.5) Your assumption is that Elmer"s mother would forgive him for killing his grandfather her father. What you are asking is for Elmer"s mother to forgive her Elmer for killing her father. Even though the killer is her own son, I believe you are asking too much. You are making her choose between her fathers Elmer her father who did nothing wrong except leave Palmer a large inheritance and her son Palmer who wanted easy money so he kills his grandfather. Is anyone that forgiving? Does it make it right? I believe so. What right does a murderer have to a property that the person he murders has left him. Does this give the right for others to follow in Palmer's footsteps and kill their relative to receive their inheritance early? That is what would happen if palmer receives the inheritance. This precedence would allow others to follow his footsteps.

Cons 2nd Rebuttal:
The Judicial System protect the laws and rights for the people. One of the many jobs that the system does is bring justice to the people and make sure the guilty gets punished for the crime they commit. If someone was guilty and sentenced to prison and served his time, then we should be able to move on and not reside on the past. If we allow our court system to change wills and maybe contracts, then we would have no say and the system will be in control. The court should not punish someone twice for the same crime, if he was already punished for the same crime.
Debate Round No. 3
law310

Pro

1.On August 13th 1880 Francis B. Palmer made a will, where he left a small inheritance to his two daughters, Mrs. Rags and Mrs., Preston, and the rest was left to his grandson Elmer Palmer.
2.On March 1882, Frances married Mrs. Breeze, while entering an ante-nuptial contract, which states that instead of inheriting his estate upon his death she will have the support of his farm for the rest of her life.
3.Elmer lived with his grandfather until Palmer died when he was 16.
4.He knew of his inheritance, but his grandfather was thinking of removing him from the will and to prevent that and to quickly receive inheritance he poisoned his grandfather.
5.Elmer said that because his grandfather is dead that his will should be put into effect because it is the letter of the law.
6.The statutes that regulate the making, proof and effect of wills cannot be controlled or modified.
7.These statues were created for the dead to legally dispose of their estate and objects that they leave behind.
8.Lawmakers created it so that the inheritor can inherit the property given to them, but they had not thought about if the inheritor murders the tester.
9.When something unforeseen happens it is the judges right to conclude that the parliament had not foreseen the consequences, and that they have the power to propose or disregard it
10. It is unreasonable to suppose that the legislation wanted the general law of passing property peacefully, intend for the murder of the ancestor to possess the property.
11. No one imagined someone would use the general language of the law in the manner of murdering their grandfather to receive their inheritance early.
12. All laws and contracts can be controlled by the fundamental Maxims. These maxims are; no profits for fraud, don"t take advantage of your wrongdoing, don't claim his own impropriety and don't use crime to get property.
13. In N.Y. the case of New York mutual life insurance company V. Armstrong, it was held that a person who takes on a life insurance policy on another person and then murders them couldn't receive any payment.
14. Mr. justice field said " no matter what Hunters motives for getting the life insurance, he forfeited any right to receive any payment when he murder the policyholder".
15. The same can be said when someone intentionally set fire to a building to receive insurance money.
16. There is no certainty that Elmer would survive Palmer, or that Palmer would not change his will to remove Elmer if he knew that Elmer was planning his murder.
17. Palmer made himself an heir by murdering his grandpa and then seeking his inheritance.
18. Palmer should not be rewarded for murdering his grandfather and if he receives his inheritance that is exactly what would happen.
19. Although, the law says that the court does not have the right to change a persons will, the law can be changed.
20. The law has been changed many times before
21. An example the 19th amendment.
22. It used to be illegal for women to vote but then the court created the 19th amendment to sallow women to change.
22. If the court believes that the law is unjust and the rights of the individual are not protected it has the power to change it.
23. If the court allows Elmer to receive his inheritance it will give precedence for others to murder their aging relatives so they too would be able too receive their inheritance early.
24. Therefore, because Elmer murdered his grandfather he should not receive his inheritance
jvega99

Con

1.) On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made a will that will give his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the rest of his estates to his grandson, Elmer E. Palmer. When Elmer found out about the will, he decided to speed up the process of his grandfather's death in order to receive his grandfather's estates.
2.) Elmer E. Palmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. He claimed all of his grandfather's property.
3.) Elmer's defense is that his grandfather is dead and now the will must be effective according to the law.
4.) The law of the will should follow the wishes of the testators when he or she pass away.
5.) Here there was no certainty that the testator would have survived and changed his will or receive the estate in the will.
6.) The case of Owens v. Owens, a wife was convicted of being an accessory of the murder of her husband in order to receive the estate of her deceased husband because she was now a widow.
7.) The statues provide dower to the wife who was survived by her husband and lost his protection and support.
8.) The plaintiffs in that case was entitled to the will. Instead of a new trial, the facts of the trial is the same results.
9.) To the statutory restraints that will impose upon the final arrangement or final act towards one's property by will, should follow the validity and performance of the will.
10.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will.
11.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system.
12.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise".
13.) The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon themselves to decide on who gets the property of a dead man.
14.) There are many laws that are not fair and individuals receive stronger sentences for crimes that are not harsh.
15.) The case is not based on how severe Elmer's punishment should be but if he should be rewarded from the crime he committed.
16.) If someone was guilty and sentenced to prison and served his time, then we should move on and not reside on the past.
17.) The court should not punish someone twice for the same crime, if he was already punished for it.
18.) Therefore, Elmer should receive his grandfather's estate as it stated in his grandfather's will.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.