Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
From Test Tube to Testate
As the definition of family becomes increasingly complex, so does the definition of children and further descendants. Who is (and who is not) deemed to be a legal child of a marriage has implications throughout family law. How the law treats adopted children, those born out of wedlock, those born as a result of egg and sperm donation, those born via surrogates and even children conceived after the death of a parent affects support obligations, visitation rights, and often the basic parental rights of heterosexual and same-sex couples. This article addresses the ever-changing definition of children and issue in the context of estate planning and inheritance. (Note: A great deal of the information set forth in this article can be found in Chapter 15 of Adoption and Reproductive Technology Law in Massachusetts entitled Inheritance and Estate Planning Issues for Adoptive and Reproductive Technology Assisted Families authored by Shari A. Levitan, Esq., 625-671 (Susan L. Crockin ed., 2000)).
Who Is One's 'Issue'?
In wills and trusts, it is common for an individual to make a gift to his or her 'issue.' The term 'issue' is meant to include the testator's children and any further descendants, including grandchildren, great grandchildren and so forth. Class gifts such as these are useful because they allow the testator to include descendants born after the date he or she signed the will or trust and remove deceased individuals, all without having to amend his or her estate plan. The challenge associated with using class gifts is that it is often difficult to determine who is included in the class.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.