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+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: 11/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 212 times Debate No: 65889
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. The will to his two daughters consisted of small legacies, nonetheless, it was a gift to them upon the testator's death. (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 Francis B. Palmer was killed by his grandson Elmer Palmer. The grandson lived with Francis B. Palmer and was considered a part of the family. (508.1.5.)
3) The will's basic 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 respectfully followed by the parties involved, especially if they are part of the writer's family. Such sacred document should never be taken lightly by anyone. The last wishes are reflected in the document,a will, to inform of anyone involved that those are the commands and wishes that need to fully dutifully executed into action, realized and followed after the testator's death.
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 grandfather from changing his mind and later cutting his grandson Palmer out of the will. The testator is indeed dead now and following his last wishes, the will shall take place of execution, which would make the grandson Palmer the beneficiary to his legacy from 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. The principle of the law was basically disregarded in this sense. The defendant Palmer changed its operation to profit therefrom.(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 Appellate decision, the Court sided with the 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. The Court cannot accept such atrocity that is so morally wrong. To reward someone for such cruel acts would and in fact will open the door for anyone to challenge the fact that now since it is written in a will, i can never be contested and those will play it to their advantage like for example in this Palmer case, to kill without consequence. 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. The same way that there is no determination that any more revisions would take place. The Court does not look at the fact of what could have happened but it was not up to the defendant Palmer to decide, it was not up to him to partake in the will but he still did.
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, manipulated it in a way to his advantage, Palmer 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

The power and construction of a will should be respected in every sense. The law is pretty much clear on the concept of a will construction. It is a contact, it is the last document that is on paper and therefore can be clearly interpreted, that the will should indeed be important and appreciated by the parties involved.
The will does dictate that part of the estate to be awarded to defendant Palmer, but only when the testator is deceased of natural causes and not by any donee's felonious actions that intervened with testator's future possible provisions/revisions to the will. Has the testator been aware of the defendant's intentions of murder, it is reasonable to foresee that Francis B. Palmer would include additional provisions to the will denying the defendant his right to the estate portion. And once it can be foreseen by a reasonable man, it must be taken into account that no right shall be invested t change a will into a person who is not the writer of it. It is not becomes a contradiction to the concept of a will that someone else other than the original testator played a part in drafting of a will. In this case, the defendant Palmer had played a part in changing the will from its originality to benefit his own needs, selfish needs.
Even though the last revision of the will was written by Francis B. Palmer before his untimely death, it stated that his grandson Palmer was now entitled to his portion of the will, does not mean that he is indeed entitled to the inheritance on a fact that he was the one causing the death and preventing the grandfather from making any more revisions.
The writing of a will is no one's business other that the writer himself. He might have had more provisions to add to the will and perhaps give the defendant a larger portion of his estate and if the defendant had knowledge of future provisions that can turn in his favor, would he murder his grandfather then and not wait for a bigger cut of the inheritance? It is unlikely that that would have taken place. He would be more than glad for the will to come into an effect and reward Palmer with a bigger portion of the will than originally promised.
I agree that the writer of a will should entrust that special person to respect the wishes in the will but the Court is not adjusting it, it is preserving it on the basis of fraud which occurred by the defendant. (E.g. We can relate this issue to the cases of insurance fraud, where the collection of money upon someone's death was a result of one committing the fraud, either by murder of the life insurance holder or a conspiracy between the two.) The preservation that should be secured by the Court is indeed the only thing that should happen in this case. The Court does not have the right to have any changes, brought into a will but simply to secure its standing in the eyes of the law and respect the wishes of a testator. (e.g. In these cases, the Court must take action into its hands and reflect back on uncoscionability. How was the contract carried out into reality, into action? Was the contract carried out unreasonably, did the contract benefit on party more than the other and was that the intention? No, once a contract or an agreement does not stand on reason and make no sense and in a way defeats the purpose of a construction of such, it must. Therefore, become void and/or annulled).
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.