Paper Example on Estate Distribution: Liability, Complexity & Responsibilities

Introduction

Liability and complexity directs how and to whom the property of the late should be shared in the unfortunate event of his/her death. It was formulated as primary legislation in 1965. The property is passed on to the personal representatives who may include an executor if the deceased or an administrator if the late had no written will or had not nominated an executor in his will. The representatives are then charged with the responsibility of transferring the beneficial ownership to the appointed inheritors. The intestate succession whereby the intention is not valid, it doesn't exist at all, or the property has not been disposed of. The partial intestacy where by the late leaves behind a will that is valid but it doesn't cover all the property. The succession act also entails a codicil which supplements, adds or alters the will should the testator fell the need to do so. Sections 77 and 78 of the 1965 act outline the various requirements that need to be fulfilled for a will to be considered valid and acceptable to the court of law. The sections demand that; the will must be in writing, the testator should be above the age of 18 or married and of sound mind. It should also encompass the signature of the testator signed at the end in the presence of a minimum of two witnesses who must also sing. It's important to note that section 82 of the act allows the spouse or a beneficiary to be a witness but are forbidden from getting any gift. Also under section 84, an executor is an acceptable witness. Any form of visual representation is considered to be enough, and it doesn't matter whether the will is handwritten, typed or printed. The language used can either be coded, local or foreign and depends on the writers choice. Under the Omnia praesumuntur rite essence, the assumptions are that an official act as been done and it's upon the plaintiff to prove otherwise. Section 85 of the statute allows for a revocation of the will under the following circumstances; where an another new decree has been written or through a codicil. By the destruction of the original intention by the writer or another person who is permitted by the testator and by civil partnership or marriage.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The act also made various provisions aimed at protecting family members of the deceased. it gives rights to both the spouse and children of the late to overrule his/her will and make a claim to the share of his property should they fill that they have been left out intentionally. The 2010 act also accommodates the cohabitants and civil partners as well. S.111 of the '65 act was amended by s.81 of the 2010 act to grant rights to spouses or civil partners to claim half of the property of the deceased's or one- third if the deceased had children. Although under s .113, the legal right share may be forgone. In cases where the civil partners or spouses have been left out of the will, the legal share is accorded to them automatically. S.115 makes it mandatory for the LPR to inform the spouses of their legal rights through writing in cases where there is involvement of gifts. Under s.117 the court has the power to make provisions that allow the children of the deceased to right to claim part of the deceased's property. The court argues that parents have a moral duty to provide for their children either in their lifetime or through a will.

Oklahoma voters approved the "Save Our Nation" proposed constitutional amendment on November 2nd 2010. The amendment would restrict Oklahoma state courts to use Sharia law. However, the Oklahoma election board had first to satisfy the results of the elections before the amendment could be enacted. According to Oklahoma constitution a constitutional amendment must take a particular procedure before its amendment. Any amendments proposed at the legislature branch and passed on to the state secretary if it was supported by the majority of the voters at the branch level. In the next general election, the amendment proposal is voted for by the majority of the voters, and the proposal becomes part of the constitution. Mr. Muneer Awad who was one of the opposers of the proposed amendment sued the election board members of Oklahoma as he claimed that the constitutional amendment would violate his rights and the rights of other Muslims in Oklahoma.

The district therefore had to grant a preliminary injunction in consideration of Mr. Awad request. The appellants, that is, the Oklahoma election board members claimed that the district court had abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court had to listen to both Mr. Awad and the appellants to decide whether the district court had abused its discretion and also decide whether the preliminary injunction should be passed or denied.

At the end of the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court had not abuses its discretion and also allowed a preliminary injunction of the proposed constitutional amendment. There are a variety of factors that the court had to consider before making its rulings. One, a preliminary injunction was to be granted by the district court if Mr. Awad would suffer more injuries if the injunction was denied than his appellants. Also, if the merits outlaid by Mr. Awad outweighed the demerits, a preliminary injunction was necessary. In addition, the preliminary injunction would be necessary if it would not have any negative effects to the public interest. Mr. Awad portrayed all the factors that were required for a preliminary injunction to be allowed by the court which is why the Supreme Court ruled that the district court had not abused its discretion.

The Parties in the Case Study and Their Position

There are two main parties in the case study, that is, MuneerAwad and the Oklahoma Election Board who are called the Appellants in this case. Mr. Awad stands one of the citizens in America and one of the executive directors of Oklahoma chapter in relations of America and Islamic religion. Mr. Awads sues the Appellants as he claims that the proposed amendment may have a variety of adverse effects to the Muslims such as stigmatization and encouraging excessive predicament between the Islamic religion and the government. Also, according to Mr. Awad, the implementation of the proposed amendment would result in scarce relief from Oklahoma Courts to the Muslims and also prevent the court from considering the probation of his last statement and will as a Muslim. This called for a preliminary injunction for the court to hear Mr. Awad's request.

However, the appellants were against the preliminary injunction as they claimed that Mr. Awad's claim failed to meet the requirements of a preliminary injunction even if it was justifiable. They challenge that Mr. Awad's claim lacks a strong standing since he had not suffered an imminent or actual injury. They also argued that he took his religion as a personal opinion.

The Procedural History of the Case Study

The case commenced in the year 2010, November 4th, when Mr. MuneerAwad prosecuted the Election Board of Oklahoma. He pursued to prevent approval of election results of the SQ 755. As one of the executive directors of the Chapter of the council for Oklahoma in American-Islamic relations, he was concerned about how the enactment of the proposed constitutional amendment would have adverse effects on the Muslims.He claimed that the amendment desecrated his rights and the rights of other Muslims under the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses stated in the initial United States Amendments.

In the year 2010, November 9th, there was a hearing by the court concerning Mr. Awad's claim for a preliminary injunction. The injunction was granted a week later. However, the appellants filed an appeal on the 1st of December 2010. In the year 2011, 12th September, there was a panel involving an oral argument by both the parties where the court required them to fill auxiliary briefs. The court then acted according to 28 U.S.C $ 1292 (A) (1), that approves the district court review of interlocutory order conceding a preliminary injunction.

The Legal Issue and How the Court Ruled on the Issue in the Case Study

The legal item in question according to the case study is the consideration of the preliminary injunction on the approval of the "Save Our Nation" constitutional amendment. Also, the Supreme Court was to determine whether the district court had violated its discretion by allowing the preliminary injunction. The court had to consider some facts and also listen to both of the parties to come up with the final decision. The court ruled that the claim for Mr. Award was justiciable and that the district court had not abused the discretion by allowing a preliminary injunction. The court based its decisions on the fact that for an abuse of discretion only occurs when the particular court makes its decisions based on a flawed judgment of the law or if there is no realistic evidence for the decision (Bowe & Hoewe, 2016). For the district court to grant a preliminary injunction, it was a must for Mr. Award to portray four significant factors. One is that he the merits would outweigh the demerits. Second, if the injunction would fail, he would suffer irreparably, and third, the injury he would experience would outweigh the injury of the appellants. The fourth and last factor is that the injunction would not have adverse effects on the general public.

The United States courts use Larson Test to act against religious discrimination. According to Larson, laws that engage in religious discrimination are considered cruel to the citizens of the nation. Therefore, a U.S court cannot enforce a clause in a contract that specifies that Sharia law will apply since it is against religious discrimination of any party in a given contract. In other words, if in contact, there are two parties from different religious backgrounds with one being Muslim, the court would be discriminative if it enforces a clause applying only the Sharia law.

A national court should consider the laws of other nations when interpreting its constitutional law when dealing with the behavior of the international organizations and tribes, states, and independent countries. International law should be considered by the national courts, especially when dealing with international contracts or agreements and treaties.

I agree with the court's decision to affirm the preliminary injunction because according to Mr. Awad's claims, the injunction would not have adverse effects on the public interest. If the constitutional amendment were enacted preventing Oklahoma courts from using the Sharia law, Muslims rights would be violated, including the rights to vote, express their opinions in courts and rights to freedom of religion among others. In addition, the decision of the court should consider the decisions of the public to protect their rights. Besides, it is clear that Mr. Awad would suffer more injuries if the preliminary injunction failed than the damages that would be sustained by the appellants. Some of the injuries would include denial of rights to vote, religious discrimination where Muslims would suffer stigmatization and limitation of relief that they should get from Oklahoma courts. Also, the merits would outweigh the demerits if the injunction was passed. The appellants did not have an interest in supporting the general public rights. In addition, their claims were not compliant with the constitution. According to Oklahoma's constitution, a constitutional amendment must claim to solve a particular problem in the country. The religious discrimination that the appellants wanted to assert had intensions to solve any particular problem in Oklahoma. As a matter of fact, the discrimination would result in to more harm in the society. Business, state and any other organization's law should be com...