Some research I did after finding a form on Rhode Island & Providence Plantations Sec.

of State website that was titled:

De bonis non administratis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_bonis_non_administratis
De bonis non administratis, Latin for "of goods not administered," is a legal term for assets remaining in an estate after the death or removal of the estate administrator. The second administrator is called the administrator de bonis non and distributes the remaining assets. A longer title is administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo ("administrator of goods not administered with the will annexed"). In the Uniform Probate Code, these titles have been replaced by successor personal representative. The most common cause of a grant of de bonis non by a court is where the administrator dies. However, it can also be granted in cases where the chain of representation is broken. Such would happen, for example, when the executor of a will has obtained probate, but then dies intestate. (Normally, if the executor dies testate, the representation passes to the executor of the first executor's estate upon probate of the latter's own will. This is governed by Section 7 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 in the United Kingdom, for example.) See: personal representative

Personal representative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_representative In common law jurisdictions, a personal representative is the generic term for an executor for the estate of a deceased person who left a will or the administrator of an intestate estate. In either case, a surrogate court of competent jurisdiction issues a finding of fact, including that a will has or has not been filed, and that an executor or administrator has been appointed. These are often referred to as "letters testamentary", "letters of administration" or "letters of representation", as the case may be. These documents, with the appropriate death certificate are often the only license a person needs to do the banking, stock trading, real estate transactions and other actions necessary to marshal and dispose of the decedent's estate in the name of the estate itself. As a fiduciary, a personal representative has the duties of: 1. 2. 3. loyalty candor or honesty good faith.

In the U.S., punctilio of honor, or the highest standard of honor, is the term used to describe the level of scrupulousness that a fiduciary must abide by.

Types of personal representatives include:

Executor or executrix (term for females) Alternate executor Administrator Ancilllary administrator Administrator de bonis non - one acting without complete authority Public administrator Guardian Conservator

U.S. Department of Defense

In the U.S., the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants appointed a Personal Representative (CSRT) to meet with each captive who was still being held in extrajudicial detention in the United States Guantanamo Bay detention camps, in Cuba, in August 2004, when the Supreme Court forced the Department of Defense to start convening Combatant Status Review Tribunals. Such a personal representative is more like a guardian ad litem.

Uniform Probate Code

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Probate_Code
The Uniform Probate Code (commonly abbreviated UPC) is a uniform act drafted by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) governing inheritance and the decedents' estates in the United States. The primary purposes of the act were to streamline the probate process and to standardize and modernize the various state laws governing wills, trusts, and intestacy.

History of the Uniform Probate Code

Drafting of the Uniform Probate Code began in 1964. The final version of the original UPC was promulgated in 1969 as a joint project between NCCUSL and the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the American Bar Association. Richard V. Wellman served as Chief Reporter on the project. The UPC has been revised several times, most recently in 2006.

Adoption by the states

Although the UPC was intended for adoption by all 50 states, the original 1969 version of the code was adopted in its entirety by only sixteen states[2]: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. The remaining states have adopted various portions of the code in a piecemeal fashion. In any case, even among the adopting jurisdictions, there are variations from state to state, some

of which are significant. A person attempting to determine the law in a particular state should check the code as actually adopted in that jurisdiction and not rely on the text of the UPC as promulgated by NCCUSL. In general, the UPC has not been as successful a standardization of the law as the Uniform Commercial Code has been. In Payne v. Stalley, 672 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), a lawyer relied on the official text of the Uniform Probate Code and failed to check the statute as it had been adopted in Florida. As a result, the lawyer missed a filing deadline on a $3,760,909.49 claim. As the Florida appellate court pointed out, "[w]e cannot rewrite Florida probate law to accommodate a Michigan attorney more familiar with the Uniform Probate Code." Id. at 823.

Basic outline of the Uniform Probate Code

The UPC has seven articles, each covering a different set of rules for this area of the law: ART. TITLE General Provisions, Definitions, and Probate Jurisdiction of Court CONTENTS

Definitions; rules of interpretation; jurisdiction and venue

Intestacy, Wills, and Donative Transfers

Intestate succession of property; procedures for making, interpretation, and revocation of wills (includes Statutory rule against perpetuities and Uniform Simultaneous Death Act)

Probate of Wills and Administration

Procedural rules for the probate process

Foreign Personal Rules governing personal representatives outside the Representatives and decedent's domiciliary state Ancillary Administration Protection of Persons under Disability and their Property

Power of attorney and rules for guardianship of minors and incapacitated persons

Nonprobate Transfers on Rules governing nonprobate transfers, such as joint Death bank accounts, life insurance policies, and transfer-

on-death (TOD) securities Provisions governing management of trusts; fiduciary duties of trustees

Trust Administration

Administration (probate law)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_an_estate_on_death
In common-law jurisdictions, administration of an estate on death arises if the deceased is legally intestate, meaning they did not leave a will, or some assets are not disposed of by their will. Where a person dies leaving a will appointing an executor, and that executor validly disposes of the property of the deceased within England and Wales, then the estate will go to probate. However, if no will is left, or the will is invalid or incomplete in some way, then administrators must be appointed. They perform a similar role to the executor of a will but, where there are no instructions in a will, the administrators must distribute the estate of the deceased according to the rules laid down by statute and the common trust. Certain property falls outside the estate for administration purposes, the most common example probably being houses jointly owned that pass by survivorship on the first death of a couple into the sole name of the survivor. Other examples include discretionary death benefits from pension funds, accounts with certain financial institutions subject to a nomination and the proceeds of life insurance policies which have been written into trust. Trust property will also frequently fall outside of the estate but this will depend on the terms of the trust. An administrator (sometimes known as the administratrix, if female) acts as the personal representative of the deceased in relation to land and other property in the UK. Consequently, when the estate under administration consists wholly or mainly of land, the court will grant administration to the heir to the exclusion of the next of kin. In the absence of any heir or next of kin, the Crown has the right to property (other than land) as bona vacantia, and to the land by virtue of the historic land rights of the Crown (and the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancashire in their respective areas). If a creditor claims and obtains a Grant of Administration, the court compels him or her to enter into a bond with two sureties that he or she will not prefer his or her own debt to those of other creditors.

Letter of Administration
Letter of administration: Upon the death of a person intestate, or of one who left a will without appointing executors, or when the executors appointed by the will cannot or will not act, the Probate

Division of the High Court of Justice or the local District Probate Registry will appoint an administrator who performs similar duties to an executor. The court does this by granting letters of administration to the person so entitled, who must hire a lawyer to get this process started.[citation needed] Grants of administration may be either general (where the deceased has died intestate) or limited. The order in which the court will make general grants of letters follows the sequence: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The surviving spouse, or civil partner, as the case may be; The next of kin; The Crown; A creditor; A stranger.

Under the rules for distribution of estates without a will (the Intestacy Rules), where a child under 18 would inherit or a life interest would arise, the Court or District Probate Registry would normally appoint a minimum of two administrators. On some estates, even under an intestate, it is not clear who are the next-of-kin, and probate research may be required to find the entitled beneficiaries.

Letters of administration
The more important cases of grants of special letters of administration include the following: Administration cum testamento annexo, where the deceased has left a will but has appointed no executor to it, or the executor appointed has died or refuses to act. In this case the court will make the grant to the person, usually the residuary legatee, with the largest beneficial interest in the estate. Administration de bonis non administratis occurs in two cases: 1. Where the executor dies intestate after probate without having completely administered the estate 2. Where an administrator dies. In the first case the principle of administration cum testamento is followed, in the second that of general grants in the selection of the person to whom letters are granted.

Administration durante minore aetate, when the executor or the person entitled to the general grant is under age. Administration durante absentia, when the executor or administrator is out of the jurisdiction for more than a year. Administration pendente lite, where there is a dispute as to the person entitled to probate or a general grant of letters the court appoints an administrator till the question has been decided.

See also

Probate (administration (as to both testate and intestate estates) in the United States and England and Wales Administration of Estates Act 1925 Calendars of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration (CGPLA) Estate planning

Intestacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestate
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies owning property greater than the sum of their enforceable debts and funeral expenses without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate, the remaining estate forms the "Intestate Estate." Intestacy law, also referred to as "the law of descent and distribution" or "intestate succession statutes", refers to the body of law that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.

History and the common law

Intestacy has a limited application in those jurisdictions that follow civil law or Roman law because the concept of a will is itself less important; the doctrine of forced heirship automatically gives a deceased person's next-of-kin title to a large part (forced estate) of the estate's property by operation of law, beyond the power of the deceased person to defeat or exceed by testamentary gift. A forced share (or legitime) can often only be decreased on account of some very specific misconduct by the forced heir. In matters of cross-border inheritance, the "laws of succession" is the commonplace term covering testate and intestate estates in common law jurisdictions together with forced heirship rules typically applying in civil law and Sharia law jurisdictions. After the Statute of Wills, 32 Henry VIII c. 1, Englishmen (and unmarried or widowed women) could dispose of their lands and real property by a will. Their personal property could formerly be disposed of by a testament, hence the hallowed legal merism last will and testament. Common law sharply distinguished between real property and chattels. Real property for which no disposition had been made by will passed by the law of kinship and descent; chattel property for which no disposition had been made by testament was escheat to the Crown, or given to the Church for charitable purposes. This law became obsolete as England moved from being a feudal to a mercantile society, and chattels more valuable than land were being accumulated by townspeople.

Current law
In most contemporary common-law jurisdictions, the law of intestacy is patterned after the common law of descent. Property goes first or in major part to a spouse, then to children and their descendants; if there are no descendants, the rule sends you back up the family tree to the parents, the siblings, the siblings' descendants, the grandparents, the parents' siblings, and the parents' siblings' descendants, and usually so on further to the more remote degrees of kinship. The operation of these laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.

England and Wales

In England and Wales the Intestacy Rules have been uniform since 1925 and similar rules apply in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and many Commonwealth countries and Crown dependencies. These rules have been supplemented by the discretionary provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 so that fair provision can be made for a dependent spouse or other relative where the strict divisions set down in the intestacy rules would produce an unfair result, for example by providing additional support for a dependent minor or disabled child vis-a-vis an adult child who has a career and no longer depends on their parent. If a person dies intestate with no identifiable heirs, the person's estate generally escheats (i.e. is legally assigned) to the Crown (via the Bona Vacantia division of the Treasury Solicitor) or to the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster when the deceased was a resident of either; in limited cases a discretionary distribution might be made by one of these bodies to persons who would otherwise be without entitlement under strict application of the rules of inheritance. Under the current rules, the spouse or civil partner of someone who dies intestate will inherit as follows: If there are no children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren then the spouse or civil partner inherits all personal belongings of the deceased, the first 450,000 of the estate and half of the amount above 450,000. If there are children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren then the spouse or civil partner inherits all personal belongings of the deceased, the first 250,000 of the estate and a lifetime's interest in half of the amount above 250,000. A lifetime's interest means that the inheritor cannot sell or dispose of that part of the inheritance, but can draw interest from investing it. The capital amount may then be passed to the descendants on death of the spouse or civil partner.

United States and Canada

In the United States intestacy laws vary from state to state under the American practice of federalism. Likewise, in Canada the laws vary from province to province. As in England, most jurisdictions apply rules of intestate succession to determine next of kin who become legal heirs to the estate. Also, as in England, if no identifiable heirs are discovered, the property may escheat to the government. Attempts in the United States to make the law with respect to intestate succession uniform from state to state have met with limited success.

The distribution of the property of an intestate decedent is the responsibility of the administrator (or personal representative) of the estate: typically the administrator is chosen by the court having jurisdiction over the decedent's property, and is frequently (but not always) a person nominated by a majority of the decedent's heirs. Federal law controls intestacy of Native Americans. Many states have adopted all or part of the Uniform Probate Code, but often with local variations, In Ohio, the law of intestate succession has been modified significantly from the common law, and has been essentially codified. The state of Washington also has codified its intestacy law. New York has perhaps the most complicated law of descent of distribution, having been for many years. Florida's intestacy statute permits the heirs of a deceased spouse of the decedent to inherit, in the event that the decedent has no other heirs. In Alberta, under the current law which gives unmarried couples most of the same rights as married couples, the deceaseds family may discover that the surviving husband or wife might receive no part of the estate. Under Alberta's intestacy legislation, the deceaseds family may discover that a former or "ex" common-law partner may be given the entire estate; ahead of the deceaseds own legally married spouse, parents, or even children.

Rules
Where a person dies without leaving a will, the rules of succession of the person's place of habitual residence or of their domicile apply. In certain jurisdictions such as France, Switzerland, the US state of Louisiana, and much of the Islamic world, entitlements arise whether or not there was a will. These are known as forced heirship rights and are not typically found in common-law jurisdictions, where the rules of succession without a will (intestate succession) play a back-up role where an individual has not (or has not fully) exercised his or her right to dispose of property in a will. In England and Wales, the rules of succession are the Intestacy Rules set out in the Administration of Estates Act and associated legislation. The Act sets out the order for distribution of property in the estate of the deceased. For persons with surviving children and a wealth below a certain threshold (250,000 as from February 2009), the whole of the estate will pass to the deceased's spouse or also, from December 2005, their registered civil partner. For persons with no surviving children but surviving close relatives (such as siblings or parents), the first 450,000 goes to the spouse or civil partner (as from February 2009). Such transfers below the threshold are exempt from UK inheritance tax. In larger estates, the spouse will not receive the entire estate where the deceased left other blood relatives and left no will. They will receive the following: all property passing to them by survivorship (such as the deceased's share in the jointly owned family home); all property passing to them under the terms of a trust (such as a life insurance policy); a statutory legacy of a fixed sum (being a larger sum where the deceased left no children); and

a life interest in half of the remaining estate.

The children (or more distant relatives if there are no children) of the deceased will be entitled to half of the estate remaining immediately and the remaining half on the death of the surviving spouse. Where no beneficiaries can be traced, see bona vacantia. In the United States, each of the separate states uses its own intestacy laws to determine the ownership of its resident's intestate property.

See also

Administration of an estate on death Estate Planning Order of succession Testator Uniform Simultaneous Death Act

Bona vacantia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_vacantia Bona vacantia (Latin for "ownerless goods") is a legal concept associated with property that has no owner. It exists in various jurisdictions, with consequently varying application, but with origins mostly in English law.

Canada
Bona Vacantia is applied according to the laws of the relevant province, the roots of the laws tracing back to English law.

England and Wales

Bona Vacantia is partly a common law doctrine and partly found in statute. It deals with :
o o o o

Assets of dissolved companies that have failed to be distributed Assets of dissolved unincorporated associations that have failed to be distributed Assets of the estates of deceased persons that have failed to be distributed due to intestacy and a lack of known persons entitled to inherit Some failed trust property

In the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, a firm of solicitors, Farrer & Co, deals with bona vacantia. In both cases, if no rightful owner is found for the assets, they are donated to charity.

In England and Wales, the Bona Vacantia Division of the Treasury Solicitor's Department of the UK Government is responsible for dealing with bona vacantia assets except in the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.[3] The Treasury Solicitor is appointed by Royal Warrant to be the Crown's Nominee for the collection of Bona Vacantia The Division has a detailed website which sets out full practices and procedures. In estates cases the Division first seeks (by advertisement and some enquiry) heirs to an estate and if none come to their notice then eventually the assets are realised and the balance transferred to HM Treasury. The process can take a number of years to complete and deals only with solvent estates whose net value exceeds 500. In dissolved company cases the assets automatically pass to the Crown by law, are realised by the Division and the revenue passed to the Exchequer. The Division has a power to disclaim onerous assets and will routinely disclaim land in adverse possession, but not in every case. Liabilities associated with assets do not automatically follow those assets into Bona Vacantia. Care should be taken to distinguish between assets remaining when dissolution commences (which, e.g., might be distributed to shareholders or others in that process) and those that for various valid reasons remain undistributed at the end of dissolution. Some assets might only come to notice after dissolution has taken place.

Guernsey
In Guernsey, assets of dissolved companies may become bona vacantia under s.369 of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, as amended, and are administered by the Receiver-General (HM Procureur).

New Zealand
Similarly to England, unclaimed money will mostly revert to the Crown who may then make further distribution. Unclaimed property other than money might also be claimed on behalf of the Crown but (as with the UK jurisdictions) this is not inevitable.

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, bona vacantia is dealt with by the Crown Solicitor as the Treasury Solicitor's agent. The value of the assets collected in Northern Ireland are separately identified in the annual report of HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor Accounts for the Crowns Nominee.

Scotland
In Scotland, Bona Vacantia deals with assets of dissolved companies, the assets of missing persons and lost or abandoned property; lost or abandoned property involves a statutory saving for the Crown in ss.67-79 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. It is mostly controlled by Common Law with some statutes dealing with specific matters such as lost property; the concept also extends to such matters as Treasure Trove. The separate doctrine of ultimus haeres states that the assets of those who die

intestate leaving no other person entitled to inherit pass to the Crown. Both of these rights, together with treasure trove, are administered by the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, an office held by the Crown Agent, the senior official in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Bona Vacantia assets in Scotland are not aggregated with those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, being paid directly into the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

United States of America

Main article: Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property Bona Vacantia was inherited from English Common Law and continues in the form of Unclaimed Property Laws, which vary by state. The states do not take permanent possession, but act as the custodian of the property in perpetuity on behalf of the rightful owner.

See also

Escheat Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property Claims Conference - The Claims Conference administers compensation funds and recovers unclaimed Jewish property.

Legal guardian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_ad_litem#Guardian_ad_litem A legal guardian is a person who has the legal authority (and the corresponding duty) to care for the personal and property interests of another person, called a ward. Usually, a person has the status of guardian because the ward is incapable of caring for his or her own interests due to infancy, incapacity, or disability. Most countries and states have laws that provide that the parents of a minor child are the legal guardians of that child, and that the parents can designate who shall become the child's legal guardian in the event of death. Courts generally have the power to appoint a guardian for an individual in need of special protection. A guardian with responsibility for both the personal well-being and the financial interests of the ward is a general guardian. A person may also be appointed as a special guardian, having limited powers over the interests of the ward. A special guardian may, for example, be given the legal right to determine the disposition of the ward's property without being given any authority over the ward's person. A guardian appointed to represent the interests of a person with respect to a single action in litigation is a guardian ad litem. Some jurisdictions allow a parent of a child to exercise the authority of a legal guardian without a formal court appointment. In such circumstances the parent acting in that capacity is called the natural guardian of that parent's child.

Guardian ad litem
United States
Guardians ad litem are often appointed in divorce cases or in parenting time disputes to represent the interests of the minor children. Guardians ad litem are also used in other family matters involving grandparents obtaining custody or grandparenting time as well as protection orders where one parent is attempting to get an order against another party with a legal connection to the mother of the child. The kinds of people appointed as a guardian ad litem vary by state, ranging from volunteers to social workers to regular attorneys to others with the appropriate qualifications. The two divorcing parents are usually responsible for paying the fees of the guardian ad litem, even though the guardian ad litem is not responsible to them at all. In some states, the county government pays the fee of that attorney. The guardian ad litem's only job is to represent the minor children's best interests. Guardians ad litem are also appointed in cases where there has been an allegation of child abuse, child neglect, PINS, juvenile delinquency, or dependency. In these situations, the guardian ad litem is charged to represent the best interests of the minor child which can differ from the position of the state or government agency as well as the interest of the parent or guardian. These guardians ad litem vary by jurisdiction and can be volunteer advocates or attorneys. For example, in North Carolina, trained Guardian ad Litem volunteers are paired with Attorney Advocates to advocate for the best interest of abused and neglected children. The program defines a child's best interest as a safe, permanent homes for children. They are also appointed in guardianship cases for adults (see also conservatorship). For example, parents may start a guardianship action to become the guardians of a developmentally disabled child when the child reaches the age of majority. Or, children may need to file a guardianship action for a parent when the parent has failed to prepare a power of attorney and now has dementia. Guardians ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent the interests of mentally ill or disabled persons. The Code of Virginia requires that the court appoint a "discreet and competent attorney-at-law" or "some other discreet and proper person" to serve as Guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a person under a disability.

England and Wales

Guardians ad litem are employed by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), a non-departmental public body, to represent the interests of children in cases where the child's wishes differ from those of either parent, known as a Section 9.5 case. The posts are filled by senior social workers with experience in family law proceedings.

Estates and financial decision making

Guardians ad litem are sometimes appointed in probate matters to represent the interests of unknown or unlocated heirs to an estate.

A guardian is a fiduciary and is held to a very high standard of care in exercising his or her powers. If the ward owns substantial property the guardian may be required to give a surety bond to protect the ward in the event that dishonesty or incompetence on his or her part causes financial loss to the ward. Depending on the jurisdiction, a legal guardian may be called a "conservator", "custodian", or curator. Many jurisdictions and the Uniform Probate Code distinguish between a "guardian" or "guardian of the person" who is an individual with authority over and fiduciary responsibilities for the physical person of the ward, and a "conservator" or "guardian of the property" of a ward who has authority over and fiduciary responsibilities for significant property (often an inheritance or personal injury settlement) belonging to the ward. Some jurisdictions provide for public guardianship programs serving incapacitated adults or children.

See also

Conservatorship Custodial account

Age of majority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them. The vast majority of countries set majority at 18, but ages as low as 14[citation needed] and as high as 21[citation needed] also exist. The word majority here refers to having greater years and being of full age; it is opposed to minority, the state of being a minor. The law in a given jurisdiction may never actually use the term "age of majority" and the term thereby refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority is a legally fixed age, concept, or statutory principle, which may differ depending on the jurisdiction, and may not necessarily correspond to actual mental or physical maturity of an individual. In practical terms, there are certain specific actions which a person who attains the age of majority is permitted to take, which they could not do before. These may include entering into a binding contract, buying stocks, voting, buying and/or consuming alcoholic beverages, driving motor vehicles on public roads, and marrying without obtaining consent of others. The ages at which these various rights or powers may be exercised vary as between the various rights and as between different jurisdictions. For example, the ages at which a person may obtain a license to drive a car or consume alcoholic beverages vary considerably between and also within jurisdictions. Age of majority should not be confused with the age of sexual consent, marriageable age, the driving age, the voting age, etc., which all may sometimes be independent of, and set at a different age from, the age of majority.

Although a person may attain the age of majority in a particular jurisdiction, he or she may still be subject to age-based restrictions regarding matters such as the right to vote or stand for elective office, act as a judge, and many others.

Inheritance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance For other uses, see Inheritance (disambiguation) and Heir (disambiguation). Inheritance is the practice of passing on property, titles, debts, rights and obligations upon the death of an individual. It represents also to pass a characteristic, genetically. It has long played an important role in human societies. The rules of inheritance differ between societies and have changed over time.

Terminology
In law, an heir is a person who is entitled to receive a share of the descendent's (the person who died) property, subject to the rules of inheritance in the jurisdiction where the descendent died or owned property at the time of death. In politics members of ruling noble houses may be heirs of a living person, called heirs apparent. In law, however, a person does not become an heir before the death of the descendent, since the exact identity of the persons entitled to inherit is determined only then. There is a further concept of jointly inheriting, pending renunciation by all but one, which is called coparceny. In modern law, the terms inheritance and heir refer exclusively to the succession of property from a deceased descendent intestate. Future recipients of property through a will are termed beneficiaries, devisees, or legatees.

History
Detailed studies have been made in the anthropological and sociological customs of patrilineal succession, is also known as gavelkind, where only male children can inherit. Some cultures also employ matrilineal succession only passing property along the female line. Other practices include primogeniture, under which all property goes to the eldest child, specifically it is often the eldest son, or ultimogeniture, in which everything is left to the youngest child. Some ancient societies and most modern states employ partible inheritance, under which every child inherits (usually equally). Historically, there were also mixed systems: According to Islamic inheritance jurisprudence, sons inherit twice as much as daughters. The complete laws governing inheritance in Islam are complicated and take into account many kinship relations, but in principle males inherit twice as much as females with some exceptions. However, the Indonesian Minangkabau people (from western Sumatra), despite being Muslim, employ only complete matrilineal succession with property and land passing down from mother to daughter.

Among ancient Israelites, the inheritance is patrilineal. It comes from the father, who bequeaths only to his male descendants (daughters don't inherit). The eldest son received twice as much as the other sons. The father gives his name to his children; for example: the sons of Israel are called Israelites, because the land belonged to the father, and every one of his twelve sons gave his name to his descendants. Example: the sons of Judah are called Yehudi (which is translated into Latin as Judaeus and into English as Jew.) In Galicia (Spain) it was typical that all children (both men and women) had a part of the inheritance, but one son (the one who inherited the house) inherited one-third of all the inheritance. This son was called the mellorado (literally, "improved upon"). In some villages the mellorado even received two-thirds of all the inheritance. This two-thirds would be all the family's lands, while other children received their part in money. In eastern Swedish culture, from the thirteenth century until the nineteenth century, sons inherited twice as much as daughters. This rule was introduced by the Regent Birger Jarl, and it was regarded as an improvement in its era, since daughters were previously usually left without.

Employing differing forms of succession can affect many areas of society. Gender roles are profoundly affected by inheritance laws and traditions. Primogeniture has the effect of keeping large estates united and thus perpetuating an elite. With partible inheritance large estates are slowly divided among many descendants and great wealth is thus diluted, leaving higher opportunities to individuals to make a success. (If great wealth is not diluted, the positions in society tend to be much more fixed and opportunities to make an individual success are lower.) Inheritance can be organized with bbc[clarification needed] in a way that its use is restricted by the desires of someone (usually of the decedent). An inheritance may have been organized as a fideicommissum, which usually cannot be sold or diminished, only its profits are disposable. A fideicommissum's succession can also be ordered in a way that determines it long (or eternally) also with regard to persons born long after the original descendant. Royal succession has typically been more or less a fideicommissum, the realm not (easily) to be sold and the rules of succession not to be (easily) altered by a holder (a monarch). In more archaic days, the possession of inherited land has been much more like a family trust than a property of an individual. Even in recent years, the sale of the whole of or a significant portion of a farm in many European countries required consent from certain heirs, and/or heirs had the intervening right to obtain the land in question with same sales conditions as in the sales agreement in question.

Islamic laws of inheritance

Main article: Islamic inheritance jurisprudence The Quran introduced a number of different rights and restrictions on matters of inheritance, including general improvements to the treatment of women and family life compared to the pre-Islamic societies that existed in the Arabian Peninsula at the time. The Quran also presented efforts to fix the laws of inheritance, and thus forming a complete legal system. This development was in contrast to pre-Islamic societies where rules of inheritance varied considerably. Furthermore, the Quran introduced additional heirs that were not entitled inheritance in pre-Islamic times, mentioning nine relatives specifically of which six were female and three were male. In addition to the above changes, the Quran imposed

restrictions on testamentary powers of a Muslim in disposing his or her property. In their will, a Muslim can only give out a maximum of one third of their property. The Quran contains only three verses that give specific details of inheritance and shares, in addition to few other verses dealing with testamentary. But this information was used as a starting point by Muslim jurists who expounded the laws of inheritance even further using Hadith, as well as methods of juristic reasoning like Qiyas. Nowadays, inheritance is considered an integral part of Shariah Law and its application for Muslims is mandatory.

Jewish laws of inheritance (Torah/Old Testament)

The inheritance is patrilineal. The fatherthat is, the owner of the landbequeaths only to his male descendents, so the Promised Land passes from one Jewish father to his sons. The Promised Land is called "The Land of Israel" because it belongs to Israel, and his sons are called Israelites denoting their connection with the land of their father. There was one exception. In Numbers 27:1-4, the daughters of Zelophehad (Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah) of the tribe of Manasseh come to Moses and ask for their father's inheritance, as they have no brothers. In Numbers 27:7-11, Jehovah grants that if a man has no sons, then his daughters may inherit, and lays down the order of inheritance: a man's sons inherit first, daughters if no sons, brothers if he has no children, and so on. Later, in Numbers 36, some of the heads of the families of the tribe of Mannasseh come to Moses and point out that, if a daughter inherits and then marries a man not from her paternal tribe, her land will pass from her birth-tribe's inheritance into her marriage-tribe's. So a further rule is laid down: if a daughter inherits land, she must marry someone within her father's tribe. (The daughters of Zelophehad marry the sons' of their father's brothers. There is no indication that this was not their choice.)

Inheritance inequality
The distribution of inherited wealth is unequal. The majority receive little while only a small number inherit larger amounts. Arguments for eliminating the disparagement of inheritance inequality include the right to property and the merit of individual allocation of capital over government wealth confiscation and redistribution. In terms of inheritance inequality, some economists and sociologists focus on the inter generational transmission of income or wealth which is said to have a direct impact on one's mobility (or immobility) and class position in society. Nations differ on the political structure and policy options that govern the transfer of wealth. According to the American federal government statistics compiled by Mark Zandi, currently of "Moody's Economy.com", back in 1985, the average inheritance was $39,000. In subsequent years, the overall amount of total annual inheritance was more than doubled, reaching nearly $200 billion. By 2050, there is an estimated $25 trillion average inheritance transmitted across generations. Some researchers have attributed this rise to the baby boomer generation. Historically, the baby boomers were

the largest influx of children conceived after WW2. For this reason, Thomas Shapiro suggests that this generation "is in the midst of benefiting from the greatest inheritance of wealth in history."

Inheritance and race

Inheritances are transfers of the unconsumed material accumulations of previous generations. Inheritances therefore take on a special meaning with respect to black and white Americans: they directly link the disadvantaged economic position and prospects of today's blacks to the disadvantaged positions and outright slavery of their ancestors. Depending on one's race, one inherits an inevitable amount of privilege or disadvantage at the time of their birth. A number of possible explanations for this gap have been suggested, particularly differences in income and various socio-economic characteristics between black and white households. Research reveals that race could be serving as a proxy for other, more fundamental, determinants of differences in inheritance. Among the findings, it was stated that a "father's education and variables indicating the economic conditions of childhood were the most important in predicting the size of inheritances." Based on samples of households in 1976 and 1989, researchers found that white households are at least twice as likely to receive an inheritance (than black households). White households are almost three times as likely to expect to receive an inheritance in the future. Hence, controlling for other factors, these researchers found that race is important in explaining whether or not a household has received an inheritance and the size of the inheritance. Whites average both better health and inheritance than minority groups in the United States. Blacks and Hispanics are disadvantaged with respect to financial and human capital resources, more specifically, lower educational attainment, income, inheritances, and great concentrations in lower-skilled occupations. Additionally, due to employment discrimination and residential segregation, minority households "have historically been denied the opportunity to accumulate wealth" and thus, acquire inheritance.

Inheritance and social stratification

Inheritance inequality has a significant effect on stratification. Inheritance is an integral component of family, economic, and legal institutions, and a basic mechanism of class stratification. It also affects the distribution of wealth at the societal level. The total cumulative effect of inheritance on stratification outcomes takes three forms. The first form of inheritance is the inheritance of cultural capital (i.e. linguistic styles, higher status social circles, and aesthetic preferences). The second form of inheritance is through familial interventions in the form of inter vivos transfers (i.e. gifts between the living), especially at crucial junctures in the life courses. Examples include during a child's milestone stages, such as going to college, getting married, getting a job, and purchasing a home. The third form of inheritance is the transfers of bulk estates at the time of death of the testators, thus resulting in significant economic advantage accruing to children during their adult years. The origin of the stability of inequalities is material (personal possessions one is able to obtain) and is also cultural, rooted either in varying child-rearing practices that are geared to socialization according to social class and economic position. Child-rearing practices among those who inherit wealth may center around favoring some groups at the expense of others at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Sociological and economic effects of inheritance inequality

The degree to which economic status and inheritance is transmitted across generations determines one's life chances in society. Although many have linked one's social origins and educational attainment to life chances and opportunities, education cannot serve as the most influential predictor of economic mobility. In fact, children of well-off parents generally receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural, and genetic inheritances. Likewise, schooling attainment is often persistent across generations and families with higher amounts of inheritance are able to acquire and transmit higher amounts of human capital. Lower amounts of human capital and inheritance can perpetuate inequality in the housing market and higher education. Research reveals that inheritance plays an important role in the accumulation of housing wealth. Those who receive an inheritance are more likely to own a home than those who do not regardless of the size of the inheritance. Often, minorities and individuals from socially disadvantaged backgrounds receive less inheritance and wealth. As a result, minorities are more likely to rent homes or live in poorer neighborhoods, as well as achieve lower educational attainment compared whites in America. Individuals with a substantial amount of wealth and inheritance often intermarry with others of the same social class to protect their wealth and ensure the continuous transmission of inheritance across generations; thus perpetuating a cycle of privilege. For this reason, it can even be argued that one's inheritance places them in a specific social class position that requires a level of participation in certain activities that promote the oppression of lower-class individuals in terms of the social hierarchy and system of stratification. Nations with the highest income and wealth inequalities often have the highest rates of homicide and disease (such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension). A New York Times article reveals that the U.S. is the world's wealthiest nation, but "ranks twenty-ninth in life expectancy, right behind Jordan and Bosnia." This is highly attributed to the significant gap of inheritance inequality in the country. For this reason, it is clear that when social and economic inequalities centered on inheritance are perpetuated by major social institutions such as family, education, religion, etc., these differing life opportunities are transmitted from each generation. As a result, this inequality becomes part of the overall social structure.

Taxation
For more detail on this topic see Inheritance tax and Death duty. Many states have inheritance taxes or death duties, under which a portion of any estate goes to the government.

See also

Beneficiary Inheritance law of Russia Inheritance law in Canada Digital Inheritance Family law Inheritance Tax (United Kingdom) Intra-household bargaining Old money

Pubilla Succession order Transformative asset

Partible inheritance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_inheritance Partible inheritance is a general term applied to systems of inheritance in which property may be apportioned among heirs. It contrasts in particular with primogeniture, which requires that the whole inheritance passes to the eldest son, and with agnatic seniority where the succession passes to next senior male. Partible inheritance systems are therefore common ones to be found, in both Common Law and Napoleonic Code-based systems; in the latter case, there may be further requirement implying division according to a scheme, such as equal shares for legitimate children. Partible inheritance has been common in clannish tribal societies, an example of this pattern is so-called Salic patrimony. Historically speaking, non-partible inheritance has been associated with monarchies, and the wish that landed estates be kept together as units. In the Middle Ages, the partible inheritance systems of (for example) the Carolingian Empire and Kievan Rus had the effect of dividing kingdoms into princely states; and are often thought responsible for their decline of power. Partible inheritance was the generally accepted form of inheritance adopted by New Englanders in the 18th century.

Property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.[citation needed] Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things. Important widely recognized types of property include real property (the combination of land and any improvements to or on the land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations,

inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced. A title, or a right of ownership, establishes the relation between the property and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispose of the property as the owner sees fit.[citation needed]

Overview
Property is usually thought of as being defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority, it would be sovereignty, not ownership.[original research?] Some philosophers[who?] assert that property rights arise from social convention, while others find justifications for them in morality or natural law. Various scholarly disciplines (such as law, economics, anthropology or sociology) may treat the concept more systematically, but definitions vary within and between fields. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a bundle of rights. They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things. Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Private property is any property that is not public property. Private property may be under the control of a single person or by a group of persons jointly.

General characteristics
Modern property rights are based on conceptions of owners and possession as belonging to legal persons, even if the legal person is not a natural person. In most countries, corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to those of citizens. Therefore, the corporation is a juristic person or artificial legal entity, under a concept that some refer to as "corporate personhood". Property rights are protected in the current laws of most states, usually in their constitution or in a bill of rights. Protection is also prescribed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 1. Traditional principles of property rights include: 1. control of the use of the property 2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent) 3. a right to transfer or sell the property (but not all property can be transferred or sold) 4. a right to exclude others from the property. Traditional property rights do not include: 1. uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party (the right of quiet enjoyment) [See Nuisance] 2. uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience. [See Nuisance, Police Power]

Not every person or entity with an interest in a given piece of property may be able to exercise all possible property rights. For example, as a lessee of a particular piece of property, you may not sell the property, because a tenant is only in possession and does not have title to transfer. Similarly, while you are a lessee, the owner cannot use their right to exclude to keep you from the property, or, if they do, you may be entitled to stop paying rent or sue for access. Further, property may be held in a number of forms, such as through joint ownership, community property, or lease. These different types of ownership may complicate an owner's ability to exercise property rights unilaterally. For example, if two people own a single piece of land as joint tenants then, depending on the law in the jurisdiction, each may have limited recourse for the actions of the other. For example, one of the owners might sell their interest in the property to a stranger whom the other owner does not particularly like. Legal systems have evolved to cover transactions and disputes that arise over the possession, use, transfer, and disposal of property, most particularly involving contracts. Positive law defines such rights, and the judiciary is used to adjudicate and to enforce property rights. According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights. It is an assumption central to capitalism that property rights encourage their holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of markets. From this has evolved the modern conception of property as a right enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this will produce more wealth and better standards of living. However, Smith also expressed a very critical view on the effects of property laws on inequality: "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."[7] (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations) In his text The Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to persons, as opposed to families or entities such as the church.

Classical liberals subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others. "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government) "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government)

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frdric Bastiat, The Law)

Socialism's fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that, even when property rights encourage their holders to develop their property or generate wealth, they do so only for their own benefit, which may not coincide with benefit to other people or to society at large. Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else lose ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct". Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate and workers own the machines or other equipment that they work with. Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private ownership of capital should be abolished.

Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private ownership of capital is inherently illegitimate. This argument centers mainly on the idea that private ownership of capital always benefits one class over another, giving rise to domination through the use of this privately owned capital. Communists are not opposed to personal property that is "hard-won, self-acquired, selfearned" (Communist Manifesto) by members of the proletariat. Both socialism and communism are careful to make the distinction between private ownership of capital (land, factories, resources, etc...) and private property (homes, material objects, and so forth).

Types of property
Most legal systems distinguish different types (immovable property, estate in land, real estate, real property) of property, especially between land and all other forms of propertygoods and chattels, movable property or personal property. They often distinguish tangible and intangible property. One categorization scheme specifies three species of property: land, improvements (immovable man-made things), and personal property (movable man-made things). In common law, real property (immovable property) is the combination of interests in land and improvements thereto, and personal property is interest in movable property. Real property rights are rights relating to the land. These rights include ownership and usage. Owners can grant rights to persons and entities in the form of leases, licenses and easements.

Later, with the development of more complex theories of property, personal property was divided into tangible property (such as cars and clothing) and intangible property (such as financial instruments, including stocks and bonds, and intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, and trademarks). Much more on Property at the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

Title (property)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_%28property%29 Title is a legal term for a bundle of rights in a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or an equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other.

Elements
The main rights in the title bundle are usually:

Exclusive possession Exclusive use and enclosure Acquisition Conveyance, including by bequest Access easement Hypothecation Partition

The rights in real property may be separated further, examples including:

Water rights, including riparian rights and runoff rights In some U.S. states, water rights are completely separate from landsee prior appropriation water rights Mineral rights Easement to neighboring property, for utility lines, etc. Tenancy or tenure in improvements Timber rights Farming rights Grazing rights Hunting rights Air rights

Development rights to erect improvements under various restrictions Appearance rights, often subjected to local zoning ordinances and deed restrictions

Possession is the actual holding of a thing, whether or not one has any right to do so. The right of possession is the legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person. For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been an heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s). The extinguishing of ancient, forgotten, or unasserted claims, such as E's in the example above, was the original purpose of statutes of limitations. Otherwise, title to property would always be uncertain.

Equitable versus legal title

The equitable title is the right to obtain full ownership of property property, where another maintains legal title to the property. legal title is actual ownership of the property. When a contract for the sale of land is executed, equitable title passes to the buyer. When the conditions on the sale contract have been met, legal title passes to the buyer in what is known as closing. Legal and equitable title also arises in trust. In a trust, one person may own the legal title, such as the trustees. Another may own the equitable title such as the beneficiary. Another example is a land contract (also known as a contract for deed) whereby a seller transfers equitable title to a buyer and promises to transfer legal title upon the buyer's full payment. Similarly, mortgage servicers that sell REO (foreclosures) in bulk transfer equitable title to their buyers with the promise of delivering a trailing deed upon receipt of a foreclosure deed.

Applications
In countries with a sophisticated private property system, documents of title are commonly used for real estate, motor vehicles, and some types of intangible property. When such documents are used, they are often part of a registration system whereby ownership of such property can be verified. In some cases, a title can also serve as a permanent legal record of condemnation of property, such as in the case of an automobile junk or salvage title. In the case of real estate, the legal instrument used to transfer title is the deed. A famous rule is that a thief cannot convey good title, so title searches are routine (or highly recommended) for purchases of many types of expensive property (especially real estate). In several counties and municipalities in the US a standard title search (generally accompanied by title insurance) is required under the law as a part of ownership transfer.

Paramount title is the best title in Fee simple available for the true owner. The person who is owner of real property with paramount title has the higher (or better, or "superior") right in an action to Quiet title. The concept is inherently a relative one. Technically, paramount title is not always the best (or highest) title, since it is necessarily based on some other person's title. A Quiet title action is a lawsuit to settle competing claims or rights to real property, for example, missing heirs, tenants, reverters, remainders and lien holders all competing to get ownership to the house or land. Each of the United States have different procedures for a quiet title action. However, most personal property items do not have a formal document of title. For such items, possession is the simplest indication of title, unless the circumstances give rise to suspicion about the possessor's ownership of the item. Proof of legal acquisition, such as a bill of sale or purchase receipt, is contributory. Transfer of possession to a good faith purchaser will normally convey title if no document is required.

Political issues
California prevented aliens (mainly Asians) from holding title to land until the law was declared unconstitutional in 1952. Currently there are no restrictions on foreign ownership of land in the United States, although sales of real estate by non-resident aliens are subject to certain special taxation rules.

Aboriginal title
Main article: Aboriginal title Prior to the establishment of the United States title to Indian lands in lands controlled by Britain in North America was governed by The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763. This proclamation by King George III reserved title in land to the Indians, subject to alienation only by the Crown. This continued to be the law of Canada following the American Revolution. In the United States Indian title is the subservient title held by Native Americans in the United States to the land they customarily claimed and occupied. It was first recognized in Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823). It very early became accepted doctrine in this Court that although fee title to lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign first the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States a right of occupancy in the Indian tribes was nevertheless recognized. That right, sometimes called Indian Title and good against all but the sovereign, could be terminated only by sovereign act. Once the United States was organized and the Constitution adopted, these tribal rights to Indian lands became the exclusive province of the federal law. Indian title, recognized to be only a right of occupancy, was extinguishable only by the United States. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida , 414 U.S. 661, 667 (1974). The usual method of extinguishing Indian title was by treaty.

See also

Chain of title Fee Feu Land ownership and tenure Land tenure Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Manufacturer statement of origin Vehicle title

Debt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt
A debt is an obligation owed by one party (the debtor) to a second party, the creditor; usually this refers to assets granted by the creditor to the debtor, but the term can also be used metaphorically to cover moral obligations and other interactions not based on economic value.[citation needed] A debt is created when a creditor agrees to lend a sum of assets to a debtor. Debt is usually granted with expected repayment; in modern society, in most cases, this includes repayment of the original sum, plus interest. In finance, debt is a means of using anticipated future purchasing power in the present before it has actually been earned. Some companies and corporations use debt as a part of their overall corporate finance strategy.

Payment
Before a debt can be made, both the debtor and the creditor must agree on the manner in which the debt will be repaid, known as the standard of deferred payment. This payment is usually denominated as a sum of money in units of currency, but can sometimes be denominated in terms of goods or services. Payment can be made in increments over a period of time, or all at once at the end of the loan agreement. Lots more on Debt at the link above

Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal

system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived." The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations. Much more on Rights at the link above

Heir apparent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirs_apparent
An heir apparent or heiress apparent is a person who is first in line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting, except by a change in the rules of succession. An heir presumptive or heiress presumptive, by contrast, is someone who is currently in line to inherit a title but whose claim can be displaced at any time (in legal terms, is "subject to divestiture") upon the occurrence of one or more events or sets of events for which the system of inheritance allows, such as the birth of a more eligible heir. Today these terms most commonly describe heirs to hereditary titles, particularly monarchies. They are also used metaphorically to indicate an "anointed" successor to any position of power, e.g., a political or corporate leader. The phrase is only occasionally found used as a title, where it usually is capitalized ("Heir Apparent"). Most monarchies give (or gave) the heir apparent the title of Crown Prince or a more specific title, such as Prince of Orange in the Netherlands, Prince of Asturias in Spain, or Prince of Wales in the United Kingdom. See crown prince for more examples. This article primarily describes the term heir apparent in a hereditary system regulated by laws of primogenitureas opposed to cases where a monarch has a say in naming the heir.

Heir apparent versus heir presumptive

Throngs before the Imperial Palace in Japan awaiting the appearance of the Crown Prince Hirohito for the recent proclamation of his official recognition as the heir apparent to the Japanese Imperial Throne -New York Times, 1916.

In a hereditary system governed by some form of primogeniture, an heir apparent is easily identifiable as the person whose position as first in the line of succession is secure, regardless of future births. An heir presumptive, by contrast, can always be "bumped down" in the succession by the birth of somebody more closely related in a legal sense (according to that form of primogeniture) to the current title-holder. The clearest example occurs in the case of a title-holder with no children. If at any time they produce children, they (the offspring of the title-holder) rank ahead of whatever more "distant" relative (the titleholder's sibling, perhaps, or a nephew or cousin) previously was heir presumptive. Many legal systems assume childbirth is always possible, regardless of age or health. The possibility of a fertile octogenarian, though slim in reality, is never ruled out. In such circumstances a person may be, in a practical sense, the heir apparent but still, legally speaking, heir presumptive.

Daughters in male-preference primogeniture

Daughters (and their lines) may inherit titles that descend according to male-preference primogeniture, but only in default of sons (and their heirs). That is, both female and male offspring have the right to a place somewhere in the order of succession, but when it comes to what that place is, a female will rank behind her brothers regardless of their ages or hers. Thus, normally, even an only daughter will not be her father's (or mother's) heiress apparent, since at any time a brother might be born who, though younger, would be heir apparent. Hence, she is an heiress presumptive. For example, Queen Elizabeth II was heiress presumptive during the reign of her father, King George VI, because at any stage up to his death, George could have fathered a legitimate son. Indeed, when Queen Victoria succeeded her uncle King William IV, the wording of the proclamation even gave as a caveat: "...saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV, which may be born of his late Majesty's consort." This provided for the possibility that William's wife, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, was pregnant at the moment of his deathsince such a (so-named posthumous) child, if born and regardless of the gender of the child, would have displaced Victoria from the throne. Adelaide was 44 at the time, so pregnancy was possible even if unlikely.

Women as heirs apparent

In a system of absolute primogeniture that does not consider gender, female heirs apparent occur. Several European monarchies that have adopted such systems in the last few decades furnish practical examples: Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden is the oldest child of King Carl XVI Gustaf and is his heir apparent; Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway are all heirs apparent to their fathers (who are in each case heir apparent to their respective countries' thrones). Victoria was not heiress apparent from birth (in 1977), but gained the status in 1980 following a change in the Swedish Act of Succession. Her younger brother Carl Philip

(born 1979) was thus heir apparent for a few months. It was reported in October 2011 that discussions would take place between the heads of government of the Commonwealth realms aimed at changing the rules of succession to the 16 thrones of Elizabeth II to give equal rights to females. Following the CHOGM meeting, which took place in Perth, Australia, between 2830 October 2011, it was announced that the rule change had the unanimous backing of all 16 member nations. However, the effects would not be felt for many years since the first two heirs (Charles, Prince of Wales, and his son Prince William, Duke of Cambridge) are already eldest born children, and it has been claimed that the gender-equality changes would apply only to descendants of Prince Charles. But even in legal systems that apply male-preference primogeniture, female heirs apparent are by no means impossible: if a male heir apparent dies leaving no sons but at least one daughter, then the eldest daughter would replace her father as heir apparent to whatever throne or title is concerned, but only when it has become clear that the widow of the deceased is not pregnant. Then, as the representative of her father's line she would place ahead of any more distant relatives. Such a situation has not to date occurred with the English or British throne; several times an heir apparent has died, but each example has either been childless or left a son or sons. However, there have been several female heirs apparent to British peerages (e.g. Frances Ward, 6th Baroness Dudley, and Henrietta Wentworth, 6th Baroness Wentworth). In one special case, however, England and Scotland had a female heir apparent. The Revolution settlement that established William and Mary as joint monarchs in 1689 only gave the power to continue the succession through issue to Mary II, eldest daughter of the previous king, James II. William, by contrast, was to reign for life only, and his (hypothetical) children by a wife other than Mary would be placed in his original place (as Mary's first cousin) in the line of succession after Mary's younger sister Anne. Thus, although after Mary's death William continued to reign, he had no power to beget direct heirs, and Anne became the heir apparent for the remainder of William's reign. She eventually succeeded him as Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Displacement of heirs apparent

The position of an heir apparent is normally unshakable: it can be assumed they will inherit. Sometimes, however, extraordinary eventssuch as the death or the deposition of the parentintervene.

People who lost heir apparent status

Parliament deposed James Francis Edward Stuart, the infant son of King James II & VII (of England and Scotland respectively) whom James II was raising as a Catholic, as the King's legal heir apparentdeclaring that James had, de facto, abdicated and offered the throne to James II's oldest daughter, the young prince's much older Protestant half-sister, Mary (along with her husband, Prince William of Orange). When the exiled King James died in 1701, his Jacobite supporters proclaimed the exiled Prince James Francis Edward as King James III of England and James VIII of Scotland; but neither he nor his descendents were ever successful in their bids for the throne. Crown Prince Gustav (later known as Gustav, Prince of Vasa), son of Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden lost his place when his father was deposed and replaced by

Gustav IV Adolf's aged uncle, the Duke Carl, who became Charles XIII of Sweden in 1809. The aged King Charles XIII did not have surviving sons, and Prince Gustav was the only living male of the whole dynasty (besides his deposed father), but the prince was never regarded as heir of Charles XIII, although there were groups in the Riksdag and elsewhere in Sweden who desired to preserve him, and, in the subsequent constitutional elections, supported his election as his great-uncle's successor. Instead, the government proceeded to have a new crown prince elected (which was the proper constitutional action, if no male heir was left in the dynasty), and the Riksdag elected first August, Prince of Augustenborg, and then, after the death of the latter, the Prince of Ponte Corvo (Marshal Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte). Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, at his birth in 1979, was heir apparent to the throne of Sweden. A year later a change in that country's succession laws instituted absolute primogeniture, and Carl Philip was supplanted as heir apparent by his elder sister Victoria.

Breaching legal qualification of heirs apparent

In some jurisdictions, an heir apparent can automatically lose that status by breaching certain constitutional rules. Today, for example:

a British heir apparent would lose this status if he became a Catholic or married a Catholic. According to The Act of Settlement, the loss of any place in the succession would persist even if he later renounced Catholicism or if his Catholic spouse were to pre-decease him. This is the only religion-based restriction on the heir-apparent. However, as of October 2011, the governments of the 16 commonwealth realms of which Elizabeth II is Queen have agreed to remove the restriction on marriage to a Catholic. a Crown Prince/Princess of Sweden would lose heir apparent status if they marry without approval of the monarch or, contrary to Swedish law, married the heir to another throne. a Dutch Prince or Princess of Orange would lose status as heir to the throne if he or she married without the approval of the Dutch parliament, or simply renounced the right. a Spanish Prince of Asturias would lose status if he married against the express prohibition of the monarch or the Cortes. a Belgian Crown Prince or Princess would lose heir apparent status if he or she married without the consent of the monarch, or became monarch of another country. a Danish Crown Prince or Princess would lose status if he or she married without the permission of the monarch. When the monarch grants permission for a dynast to enter marriage, he/she may set conditions that must be met for the dynast to gain/maintain a place in the line of succession; this also applies for Crown Princes/Princesses.

Heirs apparent as of 2012

HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales - Commonwealth realms

Go to link for this page & look at the charts/tables of all the

Heirs apparent who never inherited the throne:

Heirs apparent who predeceased the monarch Heirs apparent who were forced to abandon their claim Heirs apparent of monarchs who themselves abdicated or were deposed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirs_apparent

Coparcenary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-parceners Coparcenary is the concept whereby two or more people inherit a title equally between them as a result of which none can inherit until all but one have renounced their right to the inheritance. This could arise when a title passes through and vests in female heirs in the absence of a male heir. Before they could inherit, each of the females heirs would be an heir presumptive. After they inherited, since the title could not be held by two people simultaneously, two daughters (without a brother) who inherited in this way would do so as co-parceners. In these circumstances, the title would in fact be held in abeyance until one of them renounced for herself and her successors in favour of the other. In England and Wales, passage of a title in this fashion is effected under the rules laid down in the Law of Property Act 1925. The term coparcenary is not in use in the United States, joint heirship being considered as tenancy in common. It is common in Hindus in India, whereby members of a (Joint) Hindu Undivided Family (HUFs) usually hold assets available through inheritance. The HUF have a corporate-body-like structure (evolved over thousands of years), whereby the liability of each member (co-parcenar) is limited to their undivided share in HUF. The head of the family (known as Karta, either the senior-most male member or the eldest son of the decreased karta or anybody else from the family nominated as such), is vested with authority to control decisions related to HUF. His liability towards the HUF creditors, is however, unlimited.

Tenancy in common
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenancy_in_common#Tenancy_in_common

Concurrent estate
A concurrent estate or co-tenancy is a concept in property law which describes the various ways in which property is owned by more than one person at a time. If more than one person own the same property, they are referred to as co-owners, co-tenants or joint tenants. Most common law jurisdictions recognize tenancies in common and joint tenancies, and some also recognize tenancies by the entirety. Many jurisdictions refer to a joint tenancy as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, and a few U.S. States treat the phrase joint tenancy as synonymous with a tenancy in common. The type of ownership determines the rights of the parties to sell their interest in the property to others, to will the property to their devisees, or to sever their joint ownership of the property. Just as each of these affords a different set of rights and responsibilities to the co-owners of property, each requires a different set of conditions in order to exist. Law can vary from place to place, and the following general discussion will not be applicable in its entirety to all jurisdictions.

Rights and duties of co-owners (general)

Under the common law, Co-owners share a number of rights by default: 1. Each owner has an unrestricted right of access to the property. When one co-owner wrongfully excludes another from using the shared property, the excluded co-owner can bring a cause of action for ouster. As a remedy, the court may grant the wronged co-owner the fair rental value of the property for the time that they were ousted. 2. Each owner has a right to an accounting of profits made from the property. If the property generates any income (e.g. rent, farming, etc. . . .) each owner is entitled to a pro-rata share of that income. 3. Each owner has a right of contribution for the costs of owning the property. Coowners can be forced to contribute to the payment of expenses such as property taxes, or mortgages for the entire property.

Contribution and improvements

Co-owners generally do not have any obligation to contribute to any costs of repairing or improving the property. If one co-owner adds a feature that enhances the value of the property, that co-owner has no right to demand that any others share the cost of adding that feature - even if other co-owners reap greater profits from the property because of it. However, at partition, a co-owner is entitled to recover the value added by his or her improvements of the property if the "improvements" resulted in an increase in property value. Conversely, if the co-owner's "improvements" decrease the value of the property, the co-owner is responsible for the decrease. In an Australian case,[1] the High Court said that the costs of repairing by one co-owner must be taken into account on the partition or final distribution (i.e. sale) of the property.

Mortgages
Furthermore, each co-owner can independently encumber the co-owner's own share in the property by taking out a mortgage on that share (although this may effectively convert a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common, as described below); other co-owners have no obligation to help pay a mortgage that only runs to another owner's share of the property, and the mortgagee can only foreclose on that mortgagor's share. Bank loans secured by mortgages on individual shares of co-owned property are one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the mortgage lending industry. Finally, co-owners owe one another a duty of fair dealing. Because of this, any co-owner who acquires a mortgage claim against the property must give his co-owners a reasonable opportunity to purchase proportionate shares in that claim.

Tenancy in common
Tenancy in common is the default form of concurrent estate, in which each owner, referred to as a tenant in common, is regarded by the law as owning separate and distinct shares of the same property. By default, all co-owners own equal shares, but their interests may differ in size. This form of ownership is most common where the co-owners are not married or have contributed different amounts to the purchase of the property. The assets of a joint commercial partnership might be held as a tenancy in common. Tenants in common have no right of survivorship, meaning that if one tenant in common dies, that tenant's interest in the property will be part of his or her estate and pass by inheritance to that owner's devisees or heirs, either by will, or by intestate succession. Also, as each tenant in common has an interest in the property, they may, in the absence of any restriction agreed to between all the tenants in common, sell or otherwise deal with the interest in the property (e.g. mortgage it) during their lifetime, like any other property interest.

Destruction of tenancy in common

Where any party to a tenancy in common wishes to terminate (usually termed "destroy") the joint interest, he or she may obtain a partition of the property. This is a division of the land into distinctly owned lots, if such division is legally permitted under zoning and other local land use restrictions. Where such division is not permitted, a forced sale of the property is the only alternative, followed by a division of the proceeds. If the parties are unable to agree to a partition, any or all of them may seek the ruling of a court to determine how the land should be divided - physically division between the joint owners (partition in kind), leaving each with ownership of a portion of the property representing their share. Courts may also order a partition by sale in which the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed to the owners. Where local law does not permit physical division, the court must order a partition by sale. Each co-owner is entitled to partition as a matter of right, meaning that the court will order a partition at the request of any of the co-owners. The only exception to this general rule is where the co-owners have

agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to waive the right of partition. The right may be waived either permanently, for a specific period of time, or under certain conditions. The court, however, will likely not enforce this waiver because it is a restraint on the alienability of property.

Joint tenancy
A joint tenancy or joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTROS or JTWROS) is a type of concurrent estate in which co-owners have a right of survivorship, meaning that if one owner dies, that owner's interest in the property will pass to the surviving owner or owners by operation of law, and avoiding probate. The deceased owner's interest in the property simply evaporates and cannot be inherited by his or her heirs. Under this type of ownership, the last owner living owns all the property, and on his or her death the property will form part of their estate. Unlike a tenancy in common, where co-owners may have unequal interests in a property, joint co-owners have an equal share in the property. It is important to note, however, that creditors' claims against the deceased owner's estate may, under certain circumstances, be satisfied by the portion of ownership previously owned by the deceased, but now owned by the survivor or survivors. In other words, the deceased's liabilities can sometimes remain attached to the property. This form of ownership is common between husband and wife, and parent and child, and in any other situation where parties want ownership to pass immediately and automatically to the survivor. For bank and brokerage accounts held in this fashion, the acronym JTWROS is commonly appended to the account name as evidence of the owners' intent. To create a joint tenancy, clear language indicating that intent must be used - e.g. "to AB and CD as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common". This long form of wording may be especially appropriate in those jurisdictions which use the phrase "joint tenancy" as synonymous with a tenancy in common. Shorter forms such as "to AB and CD as joint tenants" or "to AB and CD jointly" can be used in most jurisdictions. Words to that effect may be used by the parties in the deed of conveyance or other instrument of transfer of title, or by a testator in a will, or in an inter vivos trust deed. If a testator leaves property in a will to several beneficiaries "jointly" and one or more of those named beneficiaries dies before the will takes effect, then the survivors of those named beneficiaries will inherit the whole property on a joint tenancy basis. But if these named beneficiaries had been bequeathed the property on a tenancy in common basis, but died before the will took effect, then those beneficiaries' heirs would in turn inherit their share immediately (the named beneficiary being deceased).

Four unities of a joint tenancy

Main article: Four unities To create a joint tenancy, the co-owners must share "four unities":

Time - the co-owners must acquire the property at the same time. Title - the co-owners must have the same title to the property. If a condition applies to one owner and not another, there is no unity of title.

Interest - each co-owner owns an equal share of the property; for example, if three co-owners are on the deed, then each co-owner owns a one-third interest in the property regardless of the amount each co-owner contributed to the purchase price Possession - the co-owners must have an equal right to possess the whole property

If any of these elements is missing, the joint tenancy is ineffective, and the joint tenancy will be treated as a tenancy in common in equal shares.

Breaking a joint tenancy

If any joint co-owner deals in any way with a property inconsistent with a joint tenancy, that co-owner will be treated as having terminated (sometimes called "breaking") the joint tenancy. The remaining coowners maintain joint ownership of the remaining interest. The dealing may be a conveyance or sale of the co-owner's share in the property. The position in relation to a mortgage is more doubtful (see below). For example, if one of three joint co-owners conveys his or her share in the property to a third party, the third party owns a 1/3 share on a tenancy in common basis, while the other two original joint co-owners continue to hold the remaining 2/3s on a joint tenancy basis. This result arises because the "unity of time" is broken: that is, because on the transfer the timing of the new interest is different from the original one. If it is desired to continue to maintain a joint tenancy, then the three original joint coowners would need to transfer, in the one instrument, the joint interest to the two remaining joint coowners and the new joint co-owner. A joint co-owner may break a joint tenancy and maintain an interest in the property. Most jurisdictions permit a joint owner to break a joint tenancy by the execution of a document to that effect. In those jurisdiction which retain the old common law requirements, an actual exchange with a straw man is required. This requires another person to "buy" the property from the joint co-owner for some nominal consideration, followed immediately by a sale-back to the co-owner at the same price. In either case, the joint tenancy will revert to a tenancy in common as to that owner's interest in the property. A significant issue can arise with the simple document execution method. In the straw man approach, there are witnesses to the transfer. With the document, there may not be witnesses. With either method, as soon as the break occurs, it works both ways. Because there may not be witnesses, the party with the document could take advantage of that fact and hide the document when the other party dies.

Mortgages to break joint tenancy

If one joint co-owner takes out a mortgage on jointly owned property, in some jurisdictions this may terminate the joint tenancy. Jurisdictions which use a title theory in this situation treat a mortgage as an actual conveyance of title until the mortgage is repaid, if not permanently. In such jurisdictions, the taking of a mortgage by one owner terminates the joint tenancy as to that co-owner. There are exceptions, and the law in the State of Georgia is a notable exception. In Georgia, joint tenancy is commonly conveyed in a deed as "Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship". The legal effect of this type of tenancy is a "life estate" with a "contingent remainder". Translated, this means that the interest of each joint tenant can be thought of in two parts: the "present" interest while the parties are both alive and what happens in the "future" when one of the tenants dies.

Viewed separately, the interest of each independent co-tenant is only "temporary" interest while they both co-tenants are alive and neither owns a "full" interest. The "full" interest is determined by who outlives the other and vests automatically in the survivor at, and only at, the time of death. In the case of a mortgage executed by only one of the living joint tenants, the mortgage does not sever the tenancy. Instead, the mortgage is interpreted as conveying whatever interest the debtor holds. In this example, that would be the debtor's life (or "temporary") estate only, since both parties are still living, but the lender would also be entitled to the full estate, but only if the debtor were to outlive the other jointtenant. Consequently, if the debtor dies first, the co-tenant, who is not party to the mortgage, would take full ownership interest of the property free and clear of the mortgage. In sum, under Georgia law, execution of a mortgage (called a "Deed to Secure Debt" or "Security Deed") by one co-tenant does not sever the joint tenancy. However, in jurisdictions which use the lien theory, the mortgage merely places a lien on the property, leaving the joint tenancy undisturbed. As a lien is not enough to terminate a joint tenancy, if the debtor dies before the creditor sues, the creditor is left with no claim against the property, as the debtor's interest in the property evaporates and automatically vests in the other surviving co-owners.

Petition to partition to sever a joint tenancy

A co-owner of a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship deed may sever the joint tenancy by filing a petition to partition. A petition to partition is a legal right, so usually there is no way to stop such an action. When a court grants a partition action for a joint tenants with rights of survivorship deed, the property is either physically broken into parts and each owner is given a part of equal value OR the property is sold and the proceeds are distributed equally between the co-owners regardless of contribution to purchase price. No credits would be issued to any tenant who may have made a superior contribution toward purchase price. Some states allow a co-owner the option of buying out the other co-owners to avoid a public sale of the property. Some states also allow multiple co-owners to join their shares together to claim a majority ownership to avoid public sale of the property and to have the property awarded to the majority owners. If the property is sold publicly, the usual method is a public auction. During a partition process, credits may be granted to co-tenants who have paid property expenses in excess of their share, such as utilities and property maintenance. Credit may be given for improvements done to the property if the improvements have increased the value of the property. No credit would be given for excess contribution to purchase price, as joint tenancy with rights of survivorship deeds are taken in equal shares as a matter of law. Pennsylvania partition case example: In DArcy v. Buckley, 71 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 167 (August 21, 1998), two persons purchased property as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The Plaintiff contributed five times more than the Defendant toward the purchase price. In a partition action, the Plaintiff sought credit for the full amount of his superior contributions. The Court held that, in the absence of fraud, the working of the deed operated to convey a one-half interest to each of the two joint tenants. The decision relies the authorities of Masgai v. Masgai, 460 Pa. 453, 333 A.2d 861 (1975) and DeLoatch v. Murphy, 369 Pa. Super. 255, 535 A.2d 146 (1987). The Plaintiff argued, to no avail, that he did not intend to make a lifetime gift to defendant.

Tenancy by the entirety

A tenancy by the entirety (sometimes called a tenancy by the entireties) is a type of concurrent estate formerly available only to married couples, where ownership of property is treated as though the couple were a single legal person. (In the State of Hawaii, the option of Tenants by the Entirety ownership is also available to domestic partners in a registered "Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship"; Vermont's Civil Union statute qualifies parties to a civil union for tenancy by the entirety). Like a JTWROS, the tenancy by the entirety also encompasses a right of survivorship, so if one spouse dies, the entire interest in the property passes to the surviving spouse, without going through probate. In some jurisdictions, to create a tenancy by the entirety the parties must specify in the deed that the property is being conveyed to the couple "as tenants by the entirety," while in others, a conveyance to a married couple is presumed to create a tenancy by the entirety unless the deed specifies otherwise.[citation needed] Also, besides sharing the four unities necessary to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship time, title, interest, and possession - there must also be the fifth unity of marriage. However, unlike a JTWROS, neither party in a tenancy by the entirety has a unilateral right to sever the tenancy. The termination of the tenancy or any dealing with any part of the property requires the consent of both spouses. A divorce breaks the unity of marriage, leaving the default tenancy, which may be a tenancy in common in equal shares. Many US jurisdictions no longer recognize tenancies by the entirety. Where it is recognized, benefits can include the ability to shield the property from creditors of only one spouse, as well as the ability to partially shield the property where only one spouse is filing a petition for bankruptcy relief. If a non-debtor spouse in a tenancy by the entirety survives a debtor spouse, the lien can never be enforced against the property. On the other hand, if a debtor spouse survives a non-debtor spouse, the lien may be enforced against the whole property, not merely the debtor spouse's original half-interest. In many states, tenancy by the entireties is recognized as a valid form of ownership for bank accounts and financial assets. One must be careful to ensure that the tenancy by the entireties designation is chosen as opposed to other forms of joint ownership such as joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, so that the benefits of tenancy by the entireties status is not lost. For example, under Florida law, if a bank account titling document allows for tenancy by the entireties and joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, if the account is opened as a joint tenancy with rights of survivorship account, the benefits of tenancy by entireties will not attach.

Strawperson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_%28law%29 A strawperson or straw man is a figure not intended to have a genuine beneficial interest in a property, to whom such property is nevertheless conveyed in order to facilitate a more complicated transaction at law. The unity of time rule requires a joint tenancy be granted both parties at the same time. When the current owner of a property wishes to create a joint tenancy with another party, the grantor conveys the property

to a strawperson (often a lawyer or the lawyer's secretary), who in turn creates a second deed conveying property to the original grantor and their desired joint tenant(s). A strawperson at times is someone engaging in some other kind of transaction where the principal remains hidden or to do something else which is not allowed. A straw person is also "a person of no means," or one who deliberately accepts a liability or other monetary responsibility without the resources to fulfill it, usually to shield another party.

Nunc pro tunc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunc_pro_tunc Nunc pro tunc is a Latin expression in common legal use in the English language. It means now for then. In general, a court ruling "nunc pro tunc" applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling. Nunc pro tunc is a phrase which theoretically applies to acts that are allowed to be done after the time expires. In the probate of an estate, if real property, such as lands, mineral interests, etc., are discovered after the Final Decree or Order, a nunc pro tunc order can include these discovered lands or assets into the estate and clarify how they were meant to be distributed.

Corporate application
A corporation may have been created by an individual, but since a corporation has the standing in law of a person (although not a natural person), it is possible for its human creator to go bankrupt and for the assets of the corporation to be seized to satisfy unpaid taxes. Then, if others bought the assets from the tax authority and the corporation shell passed into other hands, it is possible for the person who bought the assets to also buy the corporation shell and, after paying corporate franchise taxes, for that person to claim that the corporation is the original corporation with the original assets.

IRS application
According to IRS Notice 2007-30, the following is considered a "frivolous" position and is subject to $5,000 fine. Inserting the phrase nunc pro tunc or similar arguments on a return or other document submitted to the Service has no legal effect, such as reducing a taxpayers tax liability, and such phrase is described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2006-17, 2006-15 I.R.B. 748.

Litigation
A judgment nunc pro tunc is an action by a trial court correcting a clerical (rather than judicial) error in a prior judgment. A nunc pro tunc may be signed even after the trial court loses its plenary power. For appellate purposes, a nunc pro tunc judgment correctly taken ordinarily does not extend appellate deadlines.

remit - http://www.encyclo.co.uk/webster/R/48 Remit - Remit" transitive verb [ imperfect & past participle Remitted ; present participle & verbal noun Remitting .] [ Latin remittere , remissum , to send back, to slacken, relax; prefix re- re- + mittere to send. See Mission , and confer Remise , Remiss .] 1. To send back; to give up; to surrender; to resign. In the case the law remits him to his ancient and more certain right. - Blackstone. In grevious and inhuman crimes, offenders should be remitted to their prince. - Hayward. The prisoner was remitted to the guard. - Dryden. 2. To restore. [ Obsolete] The archbishop was . . . remitted to his liberty. - Hayward. 3. (Com.) To transmit or send, esp. to a distance, as money in payment of a demand, account, draft, etc.; as, he remitted the amount by mail. 4. To send off or away; hence: (a) To refer or direct (one) for information, guidance, help, etc. " Remitting them . . . to the works of Galen." Sir T. Elyot. (b) To submit, refer, or leave (something) for judgment or decision. "Whether the counsel be good I remit it to the wise readers." Sir T. Elyot. 5. To relax in intensity; to make less violent; to abate. So willingly doth God remit his ire. - Milton. 6. To forgive; to pardon; to remove. Whose soever sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them. - John xx. 23. 7. To refrain from exacting or enforcing; as, to remit the performance of an obligation. "The sovereign was undoubtedly competent to remit penalties." Macaulay. Syn. -- To relax; release; abate; relinguish; forgive; pardon; absolve.

Remittal - Remit"tal (-t a l) noun A remitting; a giving up; surrender; as, the remittal of the first fruits. Swift.

Remittance - Remit"tance noun 1. The act of transmitting money, bills, or the like, esp. to a distant place, as in satisfaction of a demand, or in discharge of an obligation. 2. The sum or thing remitted. Addison.

Remitter - Remit"ter noun 1. One who remits. Specifically: (a) One who pardons. (b) One who makes remittance. 2. (Law) The sending or placing back of a person to a title or right he had before; the restitution of one who obtains possession of property under a defective title, to his rights under some valid title by virtue of which he might legally have entered into possession only by suit. Bouvier.

Remittitur - Remit"titur noun [ Latin , (it) is remitted.] (Law) (a) A remission or surrender, -- remittitur damnut being a remission of excess of damages. (b) A sending back, as when a record is remitted by a superior to an inferior court. Wharton.

Remittor - Remit"tor noun (Law) One who makes a remittance; a remitter.

Remitter - 1. Also: remittor a person who remits 2. property law the principle by which a person out of possession of land to which he or she had a good title is adjudged to regain this when he or she again enters into possession of the land Example Sentences- The system produces a remittance receipt, which is given or mailed to the remitter.

http://sos.ri.gov/documents/probate/PC2.9.pdf - Link there to an interesting form that reads:

[ ] DISCHARGE TO GUARDIAN (SECTION B) (see page 2) SECTION A PETITION TO RELEASE FROM GUARDIANSHIP
Your petitioner respectfully represents that on: _________________________________________________________

Date of Appointment

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Name of Guardian Relationship to Ward Name of Co-Guardian (if any) Relationship to Ward

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
No. Street No. Street

_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
City/Town State Zip Phone Number City/Town State Zip Phone Number

was/were appointed GUARDIAN of my person and estate. I request that I may be released and such Guardian discharged. ________________________________________________________________
Signature of Ward

The undersigned hereby confirms the above statement and joins in the prayer of said petition. ________________________________________________________________
Signature of Guardian

DECREE
Upon hearing, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the ward be released and said Guardian discharged.

SECTION B DISCHARGE TO GUARDIAN

(to be filed with final account)

I, ____________________________________, having attained the age of eighteen years,

Name of Ward

and having, since my arrival at full age, examined the accounts of _________________________________________,
Name of Guardian/Co-Guardian

who was the guardian of my person and estate during my minority; and having adjusted and settled accounts of said guardianship, and received the balance of my estate in his/her hands: DO BY THESE PRESENTS, exonerate, acquit, release and fully and absolutely discharge ____________________________________________________________
Name of Guardian/Co-Guardian

and the surety(ies) upon such guardianship bond, and his/her and their heirs, executors and administrators, from all claims which I now have upon them for or on account of said guardianship, or any matter or thing relating thereto. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Date Signature of Ward

Signed in presence of: _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Date Signature of Witness