palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.
Debate Rounds (4)
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 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 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 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. 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.)
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 occurred 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.)
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.
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.
The court does not have the right nor the power to rewrite or alter an existing will.
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 te 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).
2. Defendant Palmer should be entitled to his inheritance after his grandfather death.
3.A court can't assume the creator of a will made a mistake because that will mean that the court is assuming that the person who created the will is a reasonable person. By allowing the will to predict what a person would have done if they were alive is asking for too much from court. If the will was follow by the people who were part of it correctly than the court should not punish someone for finding a loop hole in the will. (E.g if someone who created the will states that the only way a person who is suppose to receive the assets of a will is by killing someone can the court than assume the person is reasonable?) if the court assumes the creator of the will is a reasonable person and they change or adjust a will then the judgment of the will no longer rest on the hands of the creator but left to the court instead.
4. The point of a will is for the person writing it, is allow to assign whoever to follow their wishes with their property or money. If the court could adjust these ideas, then the very idea of a will is likely to be one non-existent.
There are special circumstances where a Court may intervene and one of those circumstances is when a will becomes the result of fraud: when a beneficiary has the power of attorney to conduct the last wishes of the testator, e.g. making false statements in a will to benefit himself/herself. (e.g. and that would make a contract, as previously mentioned, unconscionable. There is no way that one party would consent to a legal contract, an agreement to not benefit them in any way. The same way follows a will. When writing a will, a testator asserts as a reasonable man to whom the assets will be awarded upon his or her death. It is obvious to believe that the testator would be happy and satisfied that the beneficiary of his will become his own murderer. Culpable mental state should never be questioned. Defendant formed an intent upon which his actions were brought out in a form of murder. The intent was clear, to secure an immediate payout by the will. The defendant Palmer was indeed charged and convicted on the charge of murder. That was a criminal proceeding, contesting the will is a civil matter an in civil suit, cases are intended to resolve, correct private issues such as breaches of contracts and in this case, the will in question left by Francis B. Palmer. The breach of contract in this case was that the contract, the will's "life span" was cut short due to the defendant Palmer's act not towards his grandfather, but the will itself. That is true that if the defendant killed someone else other than his grandfather, he would have received the assets fro the will anyway. But what was his intent upon committing the crime? He committed fraud and the fraudulent element in this case is that he manipulated the will, his actions prevented the will of ever being revised, defendant Palmer hindered the possibility of Francis B. Palmer to ever bring any amends to the will, possible ones that might have been even more advantageous and/or beneficial to the defendant.
Is the court allowing to revise a person's will under special circumstances?
If the court can adjust or change someone's will due to special circumstances, then one can argue the defendant can then respond by saying he would not have murdered his grandfather if he would be denied the assets left to him by the will. This does not mean that the grandson should not be punished for the murder, but to be denied his assets due to the outcome of his grandfather death regardless of how he died. If the grandson would have killed someone else, he would have received the assets from the grandfather. If the grandson killed someone aside from his grandfather, he would have received his property that was stated in the will. This idea takes away from the idea that the law does not reward a person for illegal acts. Even though Palmer did not kill his grandfather in this situation he was still eventually given the property when the grandfather died. Therefore, the court can award someone for an illegal act.
2) It is reasonable to conclude that should Francis B. Palmer has been aware of his grandson's true intentions of murdering him and speeding up the process of obtaining his share, the testator Palmer would have altered his own will accordingly and that would have been honored by the Court.
3) There are special circumstances where a Court may intervene and one of those circumstances is when a will becomes the result of fraud: when a beneficiary has the power of attorney to conduct the last wishes of the testator, e.g. making false statements in a will to benefit himself/herself. The defendant Palmer was indeed charged and convicted on the charge of murder. That was a criminal proceeding, contesting the will is a civil matter an in civil suit, cases are intended to resolve, correct private issues such as breaches of contracts and in this case, the will in question left by Francis B. Palmer. The breach of contract in this case was that the contract, the will's "life span" was cut short due to the defendant Palmer's act not towards his grandfather, but the will itself. That is true that if the defendant killed someone else other than his grandfather, he would have received the assets fro the will anyway. But what was his intent upon committing the crime? He committed fraud and the fraudulent element in this case is that he manipulated the will, his actions prevented the will of ever being revised, defendant Palmer hindered the possibility of Francis B. Palmer to ever bring any amends to the will, possible ones that might have been even more advantageous and/or beneficial to the defendant.
4) 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, he would not have murdered his grandfather then and not wait for a bigger cut of the inheritance.
5) The Court in this case is not the modifier of the will. The defendant took the first action of altering the will by preventing Francis B. Palmer from entering any more provisions to it by murdering him and therefore manipulating the will to benefit his own self.
6) The fact that Francis B. Palmer never had the chance to make any last provisions to the will because of the defendant criminal actions would constitute a modification of it on the part of the defendant and not the Court.
7) Therefore, Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: this is a pain to read. remind me to vote later.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.