Excerpts from speech at annual meeting of the Indiana State Bar Associat
But, succession, or probate as it's more likely to be called, is currently quite controversial. This fact, though possibly useful to would-be speech makers, is unfortunate. There should not be any controversy about the rules protecting individual freedom in regard to personal savings. The fundamental principles; e.g., the premise of private property that a decedent's unused savings should go as he indicates in his will, or to his heirs if he leaves no will, are not disputed or disputable. Nor can the troubles of the area be attributed to contentiousness of survivors and other claimants. Wills are rarely challenged, and the occasional challenges are usually unsuccessful. Creditors of decedents, protected in many situations by security or insurance, if not by survivors concerned about family credit ratings, are not a notable source of controversy. Indeed, the controversy arises from the charge that we have more rules than we need. ion, October 24, 1968.
The subject I want to cliscuss this evening should not be a topic for post-banquet speech making. It concerns the law of succession to property at death. The topic should be as dull as the alphabet.
Richard V. Wellman,
A Possible Answer to Probate Avoidance,
Law Quadrangle (formerly Law Quad Notes)
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/lqnotes/vol13/iss1/5