Shriner’s Hosp. v. Zrillic case brief

Shriner’s Hosp. v. Zrillic case brief summary

FACTS:
decedent was survived by P (daughter). Decedent’s will provided antique dishes to P with the bulk of the estate devised to the Hospital (D). decedent explained that she had already provided enough for P during her lifetime. The Florida statute in question said that P could avoid such a devise to D entirely if she did the paperwork within 4 months after the papers were issued.

ISSUE: Is a statute that allows descendants to avoid charitable devises reasonably necessary to limit the property rights guaranteed by Article I, section 2 of the Fla const? >>>NO<<<

ISSUE: does a statute that allows descendants to avoid charitable devises violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fla const and the 14th Amendment of the Us const? >>>YES<<<

REASONING:
 -The type of analysis is the Reasonable Relation Test. The general purpose of these statutes is the opposite today, these charitable devises are encouraged today.
-although it may be reasonable for the legislature to protect family members who are dependent or in financial need, it is unreasonable to assume that all lineal descendants are dependent, in need or otherwise not provided for.
-The Fla statute fails to protect against windfalls for lineal descendants who have had no contact with the decedent, but may benefit from the avoidance of a charitable devise.
-The Fla statute also fails to protect against windfalls for lineal descendants whose legacy has been specifically limited by the dead.
-The classification is Under Inclusive in that it does not protect against others who may be unscrupulous beside the charitable organizations. There is no reason to believe that testators need more protection against charities than against unscrupulous and greedy relatives, friends or acquaintances.
-The classification is also Over Inclusive because it voids many intentional bequests by testators who are not impermissibly influenced or who do not immediate family members in need of protection.
-The time limits placed on the statute are stupid because there is no rational distinction if testator survives the bequest by 4 mos. or 6 mos.
-There is no rational distinction drawn in the Fla statute, nor is it reasonably related to a legitimate govtal purpose. 

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?