Connection lost
Server error
In re the Estate of Morea Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A will was witnessed by a beneficiary-friend and a beneficiary-son whose gift was smaller than his intestate share. The court held the friend’s gift valid because the son’s gift was not “beneficial,” thus satisfying the two-disinterested-witness rule required by statute.
Legal Significance: This case interprets New York’s witness-beneficiary “purging” statute, defining a “beneficial disposition” as one that provides a financial advantage to the witness, not merely any disposition under a will, thereby saving a gift that would otherwise be void.
In re the Estate of Morea Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The decedent’s will was attested by three witnesses. One witness, George Buonaroba, was a friend of the decedent and was bequeathed a portion of her tangible personal property. A second witness was the decedent’s son, Kevin, who was also a beneficiary under the will. However, Kevin’s legacy under the will was less valuable than the share he would have received as one of six children if the decedent had died intestate. The third attesting witness received no disposition or appointment under the will. The probate of the will was uncontested, but the court faced the issue of whether the bequest to Buonaroba was void under New York’s interested witness statute, EPTL 3-3.2, because he and another witness (Kevin) were both beneficiaries.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a disposition to an attesting witness who is also a distributee, but whose legacy is smaller than their intestate share, qualify as a “beneficial disposition” that would void a bequest to another attesting witness under EPTL 3-3.2?
No. The bequest to the attesting witness, George Buonaroba, is not void. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a disposition to an attesting witness who is also a distributee, but whose legacy is smaller than their intestate share, qualify as a “beneficial disposition” that would void a bequest to another attesting witness under EPTL 3-3.2?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under New York's purging statute, a witness-beneficiary whose Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c
Legal Rule
Under New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 3-3.2(a)(1), a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol
Legal Analysis
The court interpreted EPTL 3-3.2 in light of its underlying legislative purpose: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A legacy to a distributee-attesting witness is not a “beneficial disposition”