The Instigator
marusya
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tinibully07
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

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: 11/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 65637
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

marusya

Pro

1) On the day of August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made his last will and left a part of his estate to two of his daughters, Riggs and Preston. (508.1.1.)
2) The latest provision to the will was made by Palmer to include his 16 year old grandson, Elmer Palmer, to the will. This last provision was added right before Fracis B. Palmer was killed by his grandson Elmer Palmer. (508.1.5.)
3) The will's bacis principle is no alteration or manipulation should occur in reference to the provisions of a will with the exclusion of the writer himself. The writer is the one who drafts, writes, make alterations into the will which is later executed, after his or her death. It is a sacred document, in which all of the provisions, comments, notations should be respectfuly followed by the parties involved, especially if they are part of the writer's family.
4) The fact that defendant Palmer was very well aware of his grandfather's latest provisions to the will, he had long thoughts on how to stop his grandfather from never taking back what he wrote in his will. The defendant Palmer acted upon preventing his grandfather from making more alterations that might have been against his favor, the defendant Palmer intentionally murdered Francis B Palmer by poison. Palmer's intentions were clear and focused, how to stop his granfather from changing his mind and later cutting his grandson Palmer out of the will. (509.1.1.)
5) By securing the immediate collection of funds upon the will by the act of murder by poisoning, defendant Palmer manipulated the will to his advantage and therefore, altered it, which should result in the voidance of the will. (512-513.3.5-12) + (512.2.2.)
6) Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.

Noncontroversial: The original decision of the Court was to give the defendant Palmer his portion of the inheritance left to him by his grandfather Francis B. Palmer. On the Appelate decision, the Court sided withthe decision that Palmer should not receive the portion of the will originally left to him because of moral and human principles. It is a universal law and a public policy that have weight in the statutes of the law, that no man should come into possession of property by his own crime. It would be morally wrong for the Court to reward someone of inheritance when the Court is well aware that a defendant only acted with selfish reasons, profited from his own crime, killed his grandfather for money that he might have inherited anyway. Therefore, Palmer should not be rewarded in accordance with moral principles. (511.5.2-3.)

Controversial:
1) The draftsman of the will is dead and the will has had its revision of including the grandson into it. (509.1.7.)
2) The will must take into effect with respect to the law of contracts and pay out the defendant Palmer. (509.3.1.)
3) There is no determination made that the will has had its last revision.
4) The revisions and alterations could have been made to the will by Francis B. Palmer but the act of murder occured and therefore it eliminated the possibility of a will ever be revised.
5) Defendant Palmer took the right of revising the will from its original writer and therefore altering it in a way to benefit himself and acquiring the funds that originally belonged to him. The fact that he therefore altered the will, manipulaterd it in a way to his advantage, Plamer should be denied his portion of the will left to him by his grandfather Francis B. Palmer.
6) Therefore, the will should be annulled by the Court on the basis of fraud and wrongful act by the grandson Palmer. (512.2.2.)
tinibully07

Con

1. The defedant caused the death to the will writer, Francis B Palmer.
2. The power and construction of a will should be respected in ever sense.
3. To test a will's basic principle, one should consider that a court has no right of altering, annualling and / or voiding an already existing will upon it's writer's death.
4. There aren't any statues that support that the defendant should be denied any funds from the will because of his past criminal acts.
5. To accept such facts mentioned about the defedant criminal actions is to expand the statues that makes this particular case expost factor.
6. There are no conclusive facts that more provisions of the will were ever going to take place before the testor death.
7. No will shall ever be alter, revoked, as the court main priority is this case.
8. Therefore, should the court decide take away money that belong to the defendant that belong to the defendant, the court would be making a new will or altering one.

Non-controversial:
1. A valid will should always remain as it is unless a law or a statue to be otherwise.
2. The will of Frances B. Palmer is said to include his grandson as a heir to a part of his estate.
3. Therefore, defandant Palmer should have the right to funds in accordance with the will.

Contoversial:
The court does not have the right nor the power to rewrite or alter an existing will.

"
Debate Round No. 1
marusya

Pro

marusya forfeited this round.
tinibully07

Con

tinibully07 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
marusya

Pro

marusya forfeited this round.
tinibully07

Con

tinibully07 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
marusya

Pro

marusya forfeited this round.
tinibully07

Con

tinibully07 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.