The Instigator
BrianMonsanto
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Riggs vs. Palmer

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: 11/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 65985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

BrianMonsanto

Pro

Pro Argument (Brian)

(1) Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will. (516.2.6.) (Do statutes exist that determine the modifications that can be done to a will?)

(2) A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. (517.4.4.)
(Does a will exist and is this will going along with its duties as a will if it were not revoked by statute?)

(3) The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. (517.4.5-6.)

(4) The length to which an individual can dispose or make use of his property after death and the way by which their limits are to be reached are matters that legislature has taken entire control of and will regulate with appropriate action according to what is written in statute. (516.2.9.)

(5) Since there are no relevant laws present to the current case of Riggs v Palmer, neither in America nor in the legal systems of other countries, justice for this case cannot be determined based off of a previously determined case. (517.3.)

(6) Assuming that the testator would have altered his will had he known his grandson"s murderous intent cannot affect whether he is entitled to the provisions. (518.2.1.)

(7) Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. (518.)

(8) There are no imposed or implied conditions for the legatee made by the testator in regards to claiming the property. (519.2.3.)

(9) There exists a counterargument: Legatee is guilty of crime where he now appears to be sooner eligible to receive the benefits of the will and should therefore be stripped of his rights to the property and should no longer have ownership of the estate. (519.2.4.)

(10) To allow the counterargument to succeed is to place the estate into the hands of those who were not mentioned to be the rightful owners of the estate, as is written on the will, and would thus go against the terms written in the will. (519.2.5.)

(11) There is no law that warrants this judicial action, the court rewriting the terms written in the will, and presumptions would not be enough to sustain this act. (519.2.6-7.)
(12) Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the property should not be avoided because of his criminal act.

Summary: There already exists a certain set of conditions to which a will can be modified, legally, by legislature, in order to accommodate for any changes in the testator"s preference. These conditions are added on to the statutes and do not allow for any other reason to exist where the will can be modified. Having an intention or a reason for the will to be modified AFTER the death of the testator, this being the time period where the provisions written in the will should be given to the appropriated parties, cannot affect what the receivers have already been entitled to. No law exists where the courts can rewrite a will which is essentially what the opposing party would be requesting to do since they are trying to eliminate the legatee"s rights to the property as is written on the will. Since the rulings for wills can be found within the statutes that clearly dictate the instances where a will can be changed and since there does not exist an instance that pertains to this case in particular, the legatee"s succession to the property cannot be avoided.
Jerry1

Con

Con argument (jerry)

1. A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. (509.3.5)

2. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. (509.3.6)

3. Writer of laws may be unclear of their intention, so judges must collect it from reasonable conjectures; rational interpretation; we suppress the meaning of the writer, take in less or extend it. (509.3.7)

4. They were determined by an equitable construction and by that, a case not within letter may be within its meaning because a new statute may be created with every new case. (510.1.2)

5. Lawmakers can"t create statutes for every case. (510.1.3)

6. In some cases, the letter of law may be restrained, enlarged, or the opposite. (510.1.7)

7. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. (510.1.10)

8. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. (510.1.11)

9. All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. (511.3.1)

10. No one is allowed to profit from his own crime. (511.3.2)

11. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. (511.3.3)

12. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. (511.3.4)

13. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon. (511.3.5)

14. It would be unacceptable to law"s concept if one could receive the money payable on the death of assured after taking his life. (511.3.7)

15. Maxims control the language of wills. (511.4.1)

16. In the case of Allen v. M"Phreson, a will attained by fraud & deception may be nullified and so a certain part of a will may be held ineffective if triggered by the fraud or undue influence of the person who may favor from it. (511.4.2)

17. A will providing immoral irreligious concepts or be against public policy will be held ineffective. (512.1.1)

18. If he forcibly took the property while the testator lived, he would not be entitled to it. (512.2.4)

19. If he had forced or induced by fraud or undue influence the testator to give him his property, he lawfully can"t claim it. (512.2.6)

20. Under civil law, one cannot inherit property or will from a testator whom he murdered. (512.3.1)

21.Revisers & lawmakers found it unnecessary to imply civil laws into statutes of this subject. (512.3.4)

22.Maxims of the common law were enough to regulate such a case and a specific statement for that purpose was unnecessary. (512.3.6)
23. Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the estate should be held void for murdering the testator.

Summary:
Lawmakers cannot make a statute for every new case that occurs. Hence, the text of the statute does not state specifically the intention of the lawmaker. Therefore, the statutes are made for judges to interpret and conclude what the intentions of the lawmakers were in reasonable and rational manner, whether they suppress what the text of the statute or extend it. Past cases have shown this to be true. This is found in maxims of the common law which are based in universal law that have never been superseded by statutes. Maxims are implied in wills and anything immoral or against public policy is ineffective and under civil law, one can"t inherit property from a testator he intentionally murdered. Therefore, the respondent"s attempt for the estate by inducing the testator with fraud or undue influence cannot be permissible.
Debate Round No. 1
BrianMonsanto

Pro

Implicit Question #1:

Is it the case that statutes exist, within law, which dictate how wills can and cannot be modified, interpreted, revoked, or altered? (Can statutes be legally altered?)

Pro:
Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will.

Implicit Question #2:

Should the statutes be interpreted based solely on what is written within their legislation.
Pro:
A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text.

Implicit Question #3

Is it the case that new cases, such as Riggs v. Palmer, can be determined without previous rulings?

Pro:
Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. Therefore, since previous cases do not shed light on the effect that intent has on will alteration, Riggs v. Palmer must be based off of statute.

Implicit Question #4

Is it relevant that there is no law that allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite the terms written within a will? Pro

Is it relevant that maxims of common law are sufficient to regulate such a case that it is unnecessary to write them into legislation? Con

Pro:
It is relevant that there is no law which allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite terms within a will because without this law, the court has no legal access to make any modifications. If they do, it is illegal, and, therefore, it cannot be done.
Jerry1

Con

implicit question #1
Is it the case that statutes exist, within law, which dictate how wills can and cannot be modified, interpreted, revoked, or altered? (Can statutes be legally altered?)
A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. (509.3.5)

Implicit Question #2:

Should the statutes be interpreted based solely on what is written within their legislation.

Con:
A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it.

Implicit Question #3

Is it the case that new cases, such as Riggs v. Palmer, can be determined without previous rulings?

Con:
All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon.
Debate Round No. 2
BrianMonsanto

Pro

Round 2:

Non-controversial:
- Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will.
- A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers.|
- A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text.
- A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it.

Pro:
Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. Therefore, since previous cases do not shed light on the effect that intent has on will alteration, Riggs v. Palmer must be based off of statute.
It is relevant that there is no law which allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite terms within a will because without this law, the court has no legal access to make any modifications. If they do, it is illegal, and, therefore, it cannot be done.
Jerry1

Con

Is it relevant that maxims of common law are sufficient to regulate such a case that it is unnecessary to write them into legislation?
Yes it is relevant that maxims of common law are unnecessary to write them into legislation because maxims of the common law are substantial to regulate such a case.

- Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will.
- A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers.|
- A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text.
- A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it.

Con:
A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it.
All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon.
Debate Round No. 3
BrianMonsanto

Pro

(1) A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes.

(2) Assuming that the testator would have altered his will had he known his grandson"s murderous intent cannot affect whether he is entitled to the provisions.

(3) Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law.

(4) There exists a counterargument: Legatee is guilty of crime where he now appears to be sooner eligible to receive the benefits of the will and should therefore be stripped of his rights to the property and should no longer have ownership of the estate.

(5) To allow the counterargument to succeed is to place the estate into the hands of those who were not mentioned to be the rightful owners of the estate, as is written on the will, and would thus go against the terms written in the will.

(6) There is no law that warrants this judicial action, the court rewriting the terms written in the will, and presumptions would not be enough to sustain this act.
(7) Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the property should not be avoided because of his criminal act.
Jerry1

Con

1. A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. (509.3.5)

2. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. (509.3.6)

3. Writer of laws may be unclear of their intention, so judges must collect it from reasonable conjectures; rational interpretation; we suppress the meaning of the writer, take in less or extend it. (509.3.7)

4. They were determined by an equitable construction and by that, a case not within letter may be within its meaning because a new statute may be created with every new case. (510.1.2)

5. Lawmakers can"t create statutes for every case. (510.1.3)

6. In some cases, the letter of law may be restrained, enlarged, or the opposite. (510.1.7)

7. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. (510.1.10)

8. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. (510.1.11)

9. All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. (511.3.1)

10. No one is allowed to profit from his own crime. (511.3.2)

11. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. (511.3.3)

12. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. (511.3.4)

13. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon. (511.3.5)

14. It would be unacceptable to law"s concept if one could receive the money payable on the death of assured after taking his life. (511.3.7)

15. Maxims control the language of wills. (511.4.1)

16. In the case of Allen v. M"Phreson, a will attained by fraud & deception may be nullified and so a certain part of a will may be held ineffective if triggered by the fraud or undue influence of the person who may favor from it. (511.4.2)

17. A will providing immoral irreligious concepts or be against public policy will be held ineffective. (512.1.1)

18. If he forcibly took the property while the testator lived, he would not be entitled to it. (512.2.4)

19. If he had forced or induced by fraud or undue influence the testator to give him his property, he lawfully can"t claim it. (512.2.6)

20. Under civil law, one cannot inherit property or will from a testator whom he murdered. (512.3.1)

21.Revisers & lawmakers found it unnecessary to imply civil laws into statutes of this subject. (512.3.4)

22.Maxims of the common law were enough to regulate such a case and a specific statement for that purpose was unnecessary. (512.3.6)
23. Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the estate should be held void for murdering the testator.

Summary:
Lawmakers cannot make a statute for every new case that occurs. Hence, the text of the statute does not state specifically the intention of the lawmaker. Therefore, the statutes are made for judges to interpret and conclude what the intentions of the lawmakers were in reasonable and rational manner, whether they suppress what the text of the statute or extend it. Past cases have shown this to be true. This is found in maxims of the common law which are based in universal law that have never been superseded by statutes. Maxims are implied in wills and anything immoral or against public policy is ineffective and under civil law, one can"t inherit property from a testator he intentionally murdered. Therefore, the respondent"s attempt for the estate by inducing the testator with fraud or undue influence cannot be permissible.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.