Random Thoughts on Wills & Trusts
Friday brings a mid-term exam covering Wills and Intestate Succession.
Although I've been warned his tests are difficult, at this point I am extremely grateful I've taken this course with Prof. Wills&Trusts. Not only did he write the book -- well, all the books for the class including the E&E -- but he also recorded some review sessions and made them available in an audio format for download.
The only problem being . . . given Prof. Wills&Trusts style and rhythm of speaking, listening to the recordings is much like a bedtime story. I get too comfortable, begin to drift off, and then continually need to listen to it again. It took me 45 minutes to get through 18 minutes of audio.
"And this potential heir wanted an advancement,
And this potential heir wanted none,
And this potential heir wanted to be the sole beneficiary of a testament,
And this potential heir went 'we we we' all the way home."
Elle from LegallyBlonde helped somewhat last night by explaining a Will contest case she's working on right now. I was able to consider it in the context of Texas law, that helped.
But I still don't understand why some wealthy old man would honestly feel sufficiently threatened by his young girlfriend's threats enough to make her his wife. She's living on your sprawling estate, eating from your table, and dressing by your dime. It has been that way for years or more -- why change it months before you die, especially if you want to limit her role as a beneficiary by will.
Anna Nicole Smith, anyone?
I'd bet a majority of the Supreme Court enjoyed the oral arguments the day she came to D.C. I can just picture it . . .
Roberts: Clarence? Clarence?? Clarence?!?
Thomas: Chief?
Roberts: You are hanging over the bench. And drooling. Do you have a question for counsel?
Thomas: Uh, yes . . . Ms. Smith --
Roberts: A question for counsel, Mr. Justice.
Thomas: Okay, Counselor, if Ms. Smith were in my office and I was drinking a can of Coca-Cola, and I realized it had a hair on it . . .
The other Justices: Noooooo!
Okay, I realize its a lame thought. But it made me smile this morning. And that is what counts.
DISCLAIMER: Mary Wahne neither endorses the content of this blog, nor finds anything about it even mildy entertaining. That being said, Mary now owns Moonlighting in Misery and so just be thankful I have allowed him time to write this nonsense in between his picking up my dry cleaning and waiting on me hand-and-foot.
Although I've been warned his tests are difficult, at this point I am extremely grateful I've taken this course with Prof. Wills&Trusts. Not only did he write the book -- well, all the books for the class including the E&E -- but he also recorded some review sessions and made them available in an audio format for download.
The only problem being . . . given Prof. Wills&Trusts style and rhythm of speaking, listening to the recordings is much like a bedtime story. I get too comfortable, begin to drift off, and then continually need to listen to it again. It took me 45 minutes to get through 18 minutes of audio.
"And this potential heir wanted an advancement,
And this potential heir wanted none,
And this potential heir wanted to be the sole beneficiary of a testament,
And this potential heir went 'we we we' all the way home."
Elle from LegallyBlonde helped somewhat last night by explaining a Will contest case she's working on right now. I was able to consider it in the context of Texas law, that helped.
But I still don't understand why some wealthy old man would honestly feel sufficiently threatened by his young girlfriend's threats enough to make her his wife. She's living on your sprawling estate, eating from your table, and dressing by your dime. It has been that way for years or more -- why change it months before you die, especially if you want to limit her role as a beneficiary by will.
Anna Nicole Smith, anyone?
I'd bet a majority of the Supreme Court enjoyed the oral arguments the day she came to D.C. I can just picture it . . .
Roberts: Clarence? Clarence?? Clarence?!?
Thomas: Chief?
Roberts: You are hanging over the bench. And drooling. Do you have a question for counsel?
Thomas: Uh, yes . . . Ms. Smith --
Roberts: A question for counsel, Mr. Justice.
Thomas: Okay, Counselor, if Ms. Smith were in my office and I was drinking a can of Coca-Cola, and I realized it had a hair on it . . .
The other Justices: Noooooo!
Okay, I realize its a lame thought. But it made me smile this morning. And that is what counts.
DISCLAIMER: Mary Wahne neither endorses the content of this blog, nor finds anything about it even mildy entertaining. That being said, Mary now owns Moonlighting in Misery and so just be thankful I have allowed him time to write this nonsense in between his picking up my dry cleaning and waiting on me hand-and-foot.
posted by Moonlighting in Misery at 7:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home