Professor Mark Glover’s upcoming article entitled “Nominal Bequests” in the UC Davis Law Review examines the myth that a parent must “cut off the heir with a dollar” to prove the intent to disinherit. Professor Glover shows that this false belief routinely drags estates into needless expense and delay.
The myth traces back to Blackstone’s description of Roman heirs who could attack a will unless they received a token shilling. Neither English nor American law ever required it. Modern statutes let a testator omit a child altogether, usually subject only to a spouse’s elective share rights.
The one dollar bequest creates several problems. For example, the beneficiary gains probate standing and can contest several aspects of the administration, slowing distribution and increasing legal fees. If that beneficiary refuses the dollar or has predeceased the testator, additional problems are created.
Professor Glover proposes that legislatures allow such nominal bequests to be voided against public policy and discusses criteria that could be used in drafting such a statute. I have some objections to Professor Glover’s proposal, for example how to define nominal, but he is on the right track. This is a problem in North Carolina law as well. Worth a ponder.