On or about April 30, 1993, Kent Van Der Veen murdered his parents, Morris and Deanne Van Der Veen. Kent was 19 years old at the time and had fathered a child two years earlier who had been legally adopted by persons not identified in the court
proceedings. Morris and Deanne were not aware of the existence of Kent's child prior to their deaths. Kent Van Der Veen was disqualified from inheriting any portion of his parents' estate under Kansas's slayer statute. Kent's child, the biological grandchild of Morris and Deanne, petitioned to inherit one-half of her biological grandparents' estate. What should the court do about the child's claim?
?The court held that neither the adoption nor the child being the child of the murderer precluded her from inheriting from her biological grandparents. The court noted that the statutes were not designed to result in an escheat of an estate. Here there was a biological heir who had not done anything wrong or violated the slayer statute and was most likely intended by her grandparents to be a beneficiary of their estate.
You might also like to view...
What is viral marketing? Please provide an example
What will be an ideal response?
Why did Congress establish favorable treatment for 1231 assets?
A. to help business owners replace assets which had declined in value B. to allow a larger deduction for losses C. to encourage the mobility of capital D. all of the above
Regular FMLA leave is typically associated with __________ leave?
A. 6 weeks paid B. 6 weeks unpaid C. 12 weeks paid D. 12 weeks unpaid E. 18 weeks unpaid
People are attracted to mentors who look, act and communicate like them.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)