• Recent Article: The Nominal Bequest Problem: Why $1 Disinheritance Creates More Problems Than It Solves

    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.

  • Recent Case: U.S. v. Leeds – FBAR Penalties Survive Death

    FBAR penalties have been in the legal news over the past several years. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bittner v. U.S. ruled whether non-willful FBAR penalties are applied on a per account or a per report basis (it’s per report).

    Recently, FBAR penalties came up again in March 2025 in the case of U.S. v. Leeds (D. Idaho Mar. 7, 2025). In that case, the Personal Representative of a decedent’s estate argued that FBAR penalties did not survive death, so the estate was not obligated to pay. The court ruled, however, that FBAR penalties do indeed survive death.

    Of course there are other aspects of FBAR penalties that will appear in future litigation (Eighth Amendment concerns, innocent spouse relief, etc.).

    Don’t forget about FBAR.

  • Why Do Personal Injury Attorneys Love Billboards?

    In 2024, an estimated $2.5 billion was spent on legal services ads in the United States, according to the American Tort Reform Association’s 2025 report. Spending on out-of-home and outdoor ads, such as billboards, increased more than 260% when compared with 2017. In 2024, advertisers spent an estimated $541.6 million on out-of-home ads. Legal services were the fastest growing out of home advertising category in 2024, with a 16% increase from 2023. Out-of-home advertising, which includes billboards, is the third most popular (after television and digital) advertising medium for the legal sector.

    This raises the question of why personal injury attorneys love roadside billboards so much? PI attorneys use billboards to advertise at a much higher rate compared with other attorneys. One reason may be billboards are relatively cheap advertising (Google Ads for PI attorneys can cost from $140 to over $600 per lead or click). Another reason may just be tradition; we are all familiar with the concept by now, so new attorneys just continue. Likely it has something to do with repeated exposure by constant drivers, who are more likely to get into car accidents. I suppose another reason may be the contingency fee basis of PI attorneys compared with attorneys that charge hourly or a flat rate, advertising to one-off clients instead of repeat clients.

    One personal injury firm, Morgan & Morgan, spent $218 million on advertising in 2024. That seems high. As one legal marketing website says, “One could argue that if it weren’t for this particular industry, the entire billboard sector might collapse.”

  • Recent Article: Taxing Dynasties

    Brian Galle, David Gamage, and Bob Lord, in a new law review article entitled “Taxing Dynasties” (forthcoming, 174 Univ. Penn. Law Review _____ (2025)), estimate that around $4.5 trillion is already inside GST exempt dynasty trusts and will remain beyond the estate and GST tax even if Congress eliminates GRATs, IDGTs, and valuation discounts. The authors argue that this shows that such measures are not adequate solutions. Instead, they argue that Congress should adopt something along the lines of a 1-2% tax per year on these GST exempt dynasty trusts, which would be a credit against any future transfer tax. They argue this small annual tax would avoid liquidity problems and that such a small amount over a longer period of time is more likely to be acceptable.

  • Recent Article: Will as Thing

    Adam Hirsch’s forthcoming U.C. Davis Law Review article entitled “Will as Thing” argues that courts overemphasize the paper will and should treat it instead as evidence of an underlying bundle of testamentary rights, in the line of Hohfeld. Professor Hirsch favors wider use of harmless‑error rules, similar to those found in the Uniform Probate Code. I worry that relaxing formalities may create more legal fights over “what the decedent really meant,” but the article is interesting nonetheless.

Recent Posts