The Instigator
Roy.S03
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LColon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Palmer receive his inheritance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 341 times Debate No: 65987
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Roy.S03

Pro

1. On August 13th 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his will, he gave small legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the remainder of his estate to his grandson. (1.1.1)
2. The testator owned a farm and considerable personal property. (1.1.2)
3. He was widowed and remarried in March 1882 to Mrs. Bresee, who agreed to keep the farm if he should pass. (1.1.3)
4. Elmer lived with the testator, he poisoned and murdered his grandfather to get his property that was going to be given to him faster than anticipated. (1.1.4-5)
5. Elmer owns the property now but can he have it? (1.1.6)
6. The defendant says, since the testator is dead the will should take effect and the property should be given to the murderer. (2.1.8-2.2.1)
7. The purpose of wills is for the property and objects of the testator to be carried out on their final wishes legally but never was it intended for a done on the will to make it benefit them. (2.3.1-3)
8. The Courts never thought they would have a case like this. (2.3.4)
9. There should be a law against the murder of a testator for speedy convenience. (3.1.6)
10. No one should be rewarded for their evil deeds. (4.1.1-3)
11. Because of the murder we will never know if the testator wanted to change his will, so, Elmer did it to make sure he received his estate. (5.9.1-2)
12. The will came into effect when Palmer died because of Elmer. (5.9.4-6)
13. Should Elmer receive the property and objects because he murdered Palmer? If he would have forced him he would have received nothing. (5.9.7-10)
14. For the same reason Elmer cannot have the property. (5.11.1)
15. In a similar case. Owens v. Owens, the wife murders her husband to receive dower and does not receive any dower as a result of murder. (6.13.1-6)
16. Therefore, Elmer E. Palmer will not receive property or become heir of his grandfather.

Non-Controversial:
1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 12

Controversial:
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,

The rest of the premises are controversial because they leave room for the courts to question things. The courts had to figure out of Elmer should receive the property and estates from the will. Premise 5 is most controversial because the case was on this question. The courts decided that Elmer was not to receive his inheritance from the will. This is what one would immediately assume would be the ruling because it is not right to murder someone for a benefit. This is why the court decided that no one should have a personal gain from murder or fraud, and may not acquire property by his own crime. Evil deeds should not be rewarded. This is why the court had to intervene in this case. Nobody knows if the grandfather wanted to change his will and we would never know because he is dead thanks to doing of Elmer Palmer. The courts did not have a law for instances like this and did not think this would happen as much as it was. In the other legal system they have laws like this to protect the value of the will. The slayer rule is one way for the court to stop criminals who murder to receive inheritance.
LColon

Con

1.On August 13th1880, Francis B. Palmer made his will, and gave legacies to his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the remainder of his estate to his grandson. (1.1.1)
2.The testator owned a farm and considerable personal property. (1.1.2)
3.He was widowed and remarried in March 1882 to Mrs. Bresee, who agreed to keep the farm if he should pass. (1.1.3)
4.Elmer lived with the testator and he poisoned his grandfather to get his property that was going to be given to him faster than anticipated. (1.1.4-5)
5.The question is that although Elmer now owns the land, is it really his to live in? (1.1.6)
6.The statues of a state suggestion that no written will can be revoked, altered, or anything along those lines due to the ability to add statutory restraints and claims. (8.3.1-4)
7.Had there been laws created to allow both systematic and strict statutory rules, they still must have been followed exactly in order to be able to void or alter a will.

Non- controversial
1,2,3,4,5

Controversal
6,7
6 In certain states, rules have been put in place in order for people to be able to inherit their loved ones property in a humane way. This therefore would eliminate the issue of having to allow murders to be able to keep the inherited properties due to their crime. However, one can not truly withhold someone from what is technically rightfully theirs despite on how they received it due to the written will, and the lack of specification. It is not the courts place to alter the will nor to revoke it if no laws have been broken or any statutory restraint.
7 As previous briefly mentioned, one cannot with hold a man from what is technically his to own. Although one may agree that it is not right to reward a murder, one cannot also assume that everyone can agree to that statement. It may be common knowledge but it is not law. Therefore nothing has been violated nor is there any reason technically to prohibit him. Even when statutory restraints are put inside a will, the person must violate them to the letter of the word in order for the will to be void. The courts can not simply alter nor void contracts unless there is a law that allows them to. If it were the case that they could, they may just be working daily to fix everyones wills. The court is limited to the statutes of the land, or state in which it governs. It can look at Owen v Owen case and use it as a guide but can not prohibit Elmer from enjoying his property because those rules/laws are not in effect in the specific land in which this court is ruling.
Debate Round No. 1
Roy.S03

Pro

Roy.S03 forfeited this round.
LColon

Con

LColon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Roy.S03

Pro

Roy.S03 forfeited this round.
LColon

Con

LColon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Roy.S03

Pro

Roy.S03 forfeited this round.
LColon

Con

LColon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.