[SUBMITTED] Honoring Final Wishes

[Millenhaal]

Honoring Final Wishes Act | Proposed by: Millenhaal

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,
Believing that every individual has the right to determine the distribution of their wealth and property after they pass away,
Noting that left unprotected this right can be easily infringed upon,
Hoping that through this resolution, inhabitants may be safely assured that their wills shall be honored and their wishes carried out,
The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines
   
   1. "final wish", for the purposes of this resolution, as a will, or other instruction pertaining to the distribution of one’s wealth and property, that a person can be proved to have made before death.
   2. "beneficiary", for the purposes of this resolution, as a group or individual that is mentioned as a recipient of inheritance in a deceased person's final wish.
2. Member nations shall provide inhabitants with a public executor to carry out their final wish, as well as legal counselling to guide inhabitants with creating a professionally codified and legally sound will.
3. Member nations shall forbid the execution of a final wish that:
   
   1. Funds or supports an activity or cause deemed illegal in accordance with laws of the member nation,
   2. Distributes among beneficiaries illegal and ill-gotten wealth and/or property, in which case what is to be done with it will be decided by the government,
   3. Is created while the individual is medically determined to be unable to establish a final wish,
   4. Has been illegally altered from its original state.
4. Member nations shall allow inhabitants to set terms and conditions for the inheritance of their estate by their beneficiaries in their final wish, so long as the terms and conditions do not violate the parameters set out in clause 3.
5. Member nations shall protect the assets of deceased inhabitants from arbitrary seizure by a government, individual, or other organization unless the deceased or beneficiary is indebted to said individual or organization. This excludes the taxation of a deceased inhabitant’s estate.
6. Member nations shall punish those who attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish, doing so in accordance with their laws.

Co-authored by Xernon.

I used to play this game a lot, and now I'm getting back into it. So I thought of writing a resolution. I accept all criticisms short of completely scrapping the proposal.

[Tinhampton]

3. Forbidding the execution of a death wish that;

i: Causes physical or emotional harm to an individual or group

Congratulations - you have just banned people from disinheriting any of their surviving direct family members in a will because it might cause them distress.

[Millenhaal]

3. Forbidding the execution of a death wish that;

i: Causes physical or emotional harm to an individual or group

Congratulations - you have just banned people from disinheriting any of their surviving direct family members in a will because it might cause them distress.

Fair enough.

[Bananaistan]

... executioner ...

"Perhaps the word you're looking for executor?

"In any event, this is bad policy. Something somebody mumbles on their deathbed should not take precedence over a properly considered, prepared and witnessed will And the potential for spouses to be disinherited contrary to sensible public policy is bad."

[Millenhaal]

... executioner ...

"Perhaps the word you're looking for executor?

"In any event, this is bad policy. Something somebody mumbles on their deathbed should not take precedence over a properly considered, prepared and witnessed will And the potential for spouses to be disinherited contrary to sensible public policy is bad."

The point of this resolution is to make sure that everyone's wishes upon death are successfully carried out. If you feel that any part of my writing hinders that, feel free to correct it.

[Barfleur]

"Perhaps the word you're looking for executor?

"In any event, this is bad policy. Something somebody mumbles on their deathbed should not take precedence over a properly considered, prepared and witnessed will And the potential for spouses to be disinherited contrary to sensible public policy is bad."

The point of this resolution is to make sure that everyone's wishes upon death are successfully carried out. If you feel that any part of my writing hinders that, feel free to correct it.

OOC: There is nothing in the proposal excluding death wishes which were made under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so why should a wish spoken while on morphine override a written will to which someone has attested that the soon-to-be-deceased has made while of sound mind?

[Millenhaal]

The point of this resolution is to make sure that everyone's wishes upon death are successfully carried out. If you feel that any part of my writing hinders that, feel free to correct it.

OOC: There is nothing in the proposal excluding death wishes which were made under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so why should a wish spoken while on morphine override a written will to which someone has attested that the soon-to-be-deceased has made while of sound mind?

This should fix it.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The morphine and substances provision is unnecessary and overly restrictive. If you are intoxicated, you are not of sound mind anyway, so it adds nothing. Morphine especially is highly variable in its effects. Someone on long-term morphine for cancer pain can remain quite cogent, and this provision would stop them from expressing their wishes.

I’d recommend removing the references to morphine etc. if you’re really keen, maybe replace it with “in a state of intoxication” or something similar.

[Barfleur]

The morphine and substances provision is unnecessary and overly restrictive. If you are intoxicated, you are not of sound mind anyway, so it adds nothing. Morphine especially is highly variable in its effects. Someone on long-keen morphine for cancer pain can remain quite cogent, and this provision would stop them from expressing their wishes.

I’d recommend removing the references to morphine etc. if you’re really keen, maybe replace it with “in a state of intoxication” or something similar.

OOC: I agree. Simply having an exception for "death wishes" made while not of sound mind is enough, as it ensures that (1) the deceased legitimately gave thought to what his/her death wish would be, and (2) relatives cannot ply a dying person with alcohol or drugs to "convince" the soon-to-be-deceased to make a death wish more favorable to them.

[Millenhaal]

The morphine and substances provision is unnecessary and overly restrictive. If you are intoxicated, you are not of sound mind anyway, so it adds nothing. Morphine especially is highly variable in its effects. Someone on long-keen morphine for cancer pain can remain quite cogent, and this provision would stop them from expressing their wishes.

I’d recommend removing the references to morphine etc. if you’re really keen, maybe replace it with “in a state of intoxication” or something similar.

noted and fixed. I appreciate your comments greatly.

[Great Nortend]

OOC: Looking at this, it seems to make drastically more ambiguous the laws of succession when compared to extant succession laws in Australia as an example. It appears to merge donationes mortis causa and wills, and introduces the novel concept of a “wish”, which seemingly can be altered by persons unknown and still be considered a final wish. On the other hand, it seems like the majority can disinherit the minority simply by casting a valid will as “dubious”, despite being the “highest” final wish. It is unclear what other “provable testaments” include if they do not include wills.

It also seems to prevent the execution of “gifts” which do something which they cannot do, a somewhat pointless prohibition. On the other hand, it is unclear what a “wish” can contain—do “items” and “belongings” include real property, chattels real, incorporeal hereditaments or choses in action, to take common law examples? Can it dispose of equitable interests or establish perpetual trusts? Then again, the prohibition against the execution of “illegal” death wishes is somewhat vague—are legal impossibilities illegal?

It also prevents seizure of ill-gotten property or proceeds of crime where no debt is established, yet the same property cannot be distributed to beneficiaries, leading to an unclear legal limbo. It also seems to prohibit death taxes since there is no provision for indebtedness to a government.

It is also unclear how the World Assembly can provide a public executor and “legal counselling”. Does the WA-provided executor displace the executor named in the will? Does the executor have to execute the will or “final wishes” of the deceased?

[Imperium Anglorum]

What if we add that any interest, to be valid, must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

[Great Nortend]

Why should something like that be part of international law? What if it is better for it to be 22 years, or there be no rule against perpetuities? This is just an overly domestic piece of legislation which ignores local needs and expectations.

[Goobergunchia]

5. Prevents the seizure the deceased's assets by a government, individual, or other organization unless the deceased or beneficiary is indebted to said individual or organization.

We cannot support a proposal that would outlaw estate taxes.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Imperium Anglorum]

4. Punishes those who attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish in any way to an extent decided by the member nation that this legislation applies to.

C Marcius Blythe. I don't like this clause, mostly because it puts me in mind of a clause written in the lex Clodia making it illegal to propose repealing the lex Clodia. I would advise being clearer as to what is being punished and only act on that.

5. Prevents the seizure the deceased's assets by a government, individual, or other organization unless the deceased or beneficiary is indebted to said individual or organization.

We cannot support a proposal that would outlaw estate taxes.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

We concur on this matter as well. Estate tax is an effective source of revenue and very well historically grounded. From a philosophical standpoint, if we truly believe in equality in something akin to the original position, surely we also would want patrimonies to be at least partially shared rather than agglomerated into a few latifundia as the common farmer sees himself drowning in debt and his land bought up for the benefit of the few?

[Millenhaal]

My resolution has been updated and fixed.

[Tinhampton]

"The General Assembly hereby member nations shall [blah blah blah]" has already popped up in one resolution over the past few weeks - I'm also not convinced it's grammatically correct ("...requires member nations to..." instead?)

[Untecna]

(Image)

Honoring Final Wishes Act | Proposed by: Millenhaal

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,
Believing that every individual has the right to determine the distribution of their wealth and property after they pass away,
Noting that left unprotected this right can be easily infringed upon,
Hoping that through this resolution, inhabitants may be safely assured that their wills shall be honored and their wishes carried out,
The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines "final wish", for the purposes of this resolution, as a will, or other instruction pertaining to the distribution of one’s wealth and property, that a person can be proved to have made before death.
2. Defines "beneficiary", for the purposes of this resolution, as a group or individual that is mentioned as a recipient of inheritance in a deceased person's final wish. These definitions should be consolidated into one Section of the proposal, by making them subsections.
3. Member nations shall provide inhabitants with a public executor to carry out their final wish, as well as legal counselling to guide inhabitants with creating a professionally codified and legally sound will.
4. Member nations shall forbid the execution of a final wish that:
   
   1. Funds or supports an activity or cause deemed illegal in accordance with laws of the member nation,
   2. Distributes among beneficiaries illegal or ill-gotten wealth and/or property,
   3. Is created while the individual is medically determined to be unable to establish a final wish,
   4. Has been illegally altered from its original state. What defines it being "illegally altered"? This is more of a nitpick, but this choice of wording feels too vague.
5. Member nations shall allow inhabitants to set terms and conditions for the inheritance of their estate by their beneficiaries in their final wish, so long as the terms and conditions do not violate the parameters set out in clause 4.
6. Member nations shall protect the assets of deceased inhabitants from arbitrary seizure by a government, individual, or other organization unless the deceased or beneficiary is indebted to said individual or organization. This excludes the taxation of a deceased inhabitant’s estate.
7. Member nations shall punish those who attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish in accordance with their laws.

Co-authored by Xernon.

I used to play this game a lot, and now I'm getting back into it. So I thought of writing a resolution. I accept all criticisms short of completely scrapping the proposal.

[Great Nortend]

I would object, if I had any stake in the matter, to the breadth of the “final wish” insofar as it seems to give improperly attested documents the character of a binding will. The definition as it stands also does not clearly state that the final wish is the final will or instruction taken as a whole collectively as a single will. Furthermore clause 4 seems to require all nations to follow the clause 3 requirements only. To take one example, the phrase “medically determined” is objectionable. Clause 4 makes it impossible for nations to set stricter tests of capacity than “ medically determined to be unable to establish a final wish” which is incredibly vague. In English law, capacity is not solely a question of medical fact or opinion. A doctor cannot pronounce a person unable to make a will since that would require expertise beyond merely giving his medical opinion of capacity. Is it a delusion which poisoned the testator's affections? Did it overbear his will? Could he comprehend and appreciate the claims?

“Supports an activity” is also vague, and it is unclear how a cause can be illegal per se without a person acting in furthering the said cause.

What does “ill-gotten” mean? It cannot mean illegal, as illegal is also stated with “or”, so it must mean something immorally attained. If so, what happens to the residue undistributed? Further as a matter of draughting, what is the difference between wealth and property?

Clause 6 is also vaguely draughted as it is not clear whether nations punish those who subvert by “altering in accordance with their laws a final wish” or those who subvert “altering a final wish”, punishing “in accordance with their laws”.

[Millenhaal]

I would like you all to know I have not forgotten about this draft, and intend to continue working on it.

[Millenhaal]

Due to stagnation of feedback, this resolution is now being submitted.

[Port Ames]

Member nations shall punish those who attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish, doing so in accordance with their laws.

Can the author provide an example of what they're trying to prevent with this provision? Generally speaking, people should have the right to alter their wills as they see fit. How would they do so in a way that "subverts this legislation"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is a public executor necessary? Most wills appoint an executor privately. Is there some issue with that framework?

Your definition of final wish seems iffy to me:

"final wish", for the purposes of this resolution, as a will, or other instruction pertaining to the distribution of one’s wealth and property, that a person can be proved to have made before death.

Is this merely the money that someone has created or earnt for themselves? Or would it include all the property they have? What about the property they made but alienated?

In this line, you say 'Member nations shall protect the assets of deceased inhabitants from arbitrary seizure by a government, individual, or other organization unless the deceased or beneficiary is indebted to said individual or organization. This excludes the taxation of a deceased inhabitant’s estate'. But I'm unclear as to what makes a seizure 'arbitrary'; could you clarify?

The last line about punishing those who 'attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish' seems to have the effect mostly of punishing people who draft their wills incorrectly: someone who alters a final wish (drafts a new will) which bequeaths a painting inherited from an ancestor which was actually ill-gotten because it was stolen from Ctesiphon is now to be punished. Perhaps a tighter implementation of whatever policy you're trying to implement would be better.

[Great Nortend]

A case of a dangling modifier.

[Millenhaal]

Member nations shall punish those who attempt to subvert this legislation by altering a final wish, doing so in accordance with their laws.

Can the author provide an example of what they're trying to prevent with this provision? Generally speaking, people should have the right to alter their wills as they see fit. How would they do so in a way that "subverts this legislation"?

The resolution has this clause to prevent fraudulent interference by third parties.