Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

donatio inofficiosa

Read a random definition: quod clerici non eligantur in officio ballivi, etc

A quick definition of donatio inofficiosa:

Term: DONATIO INOFFICIOSA

Definition: Donatio inofficiosa is a Latin term that means an "inofficious gift." It refers to a gift that is so large that it reduces the amount of property that an heir would normally inherit from the donor. In other words, if someone gives away too much of their property as a gift, it can be considered an inofficious gift because it deprives their heirs of their rightful share.

A more thorough explanation:

DONATIO INOFFICIOSA

Donatio inofficiosa is a Latin term that means "inofficious gift." It refers to a gift that is so large that it reduces the amount of property that an heir is entitled to receive from the donor.

For example, if a father has three children and he gives one child a gift that is much larger than what the other two children receive, this could be considered a donatio inofficiosa. The gift is considered "inofficious" because it goes beyond what is reasonable and fair, and it diminishes the inheritance of the other children.

Another example would be if a wealthy person gives away most of their property to a friend or charity shortly before their death, leaving little or nothing for their heirs. This could also be considered a donatio inofficiosa because it deprives the heirs of their rightful share of the property.

Donatio inofficiosa is a legal concept that is designed to prevent people from unfairly depriving their heirs of their inheritance. It is based on the idea that people have a duty to provide for their family members, and that gifts that are too large can be harmful to the family's financial well-being. The examples illustrate how a gift can be considered inofficious if it is disproportionate to what other heirs receive or if it leaves the heirs with little or nothing.

dommage survenu | donatio inter virum et uxorem

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
Vandy gettin fat, that's what bandi did
Dont agree dkk but out of messages so this is a talk for another day
17:34
@LawIsForPeasants: I just want you to know that: you matter, you are important, and finally, I am proud of you. :D
That is so fucking cringe and leave me alone
llama i appreciate you
17:35
@LawIsForPeasants: while charlie kirk's facts do not care about your feelings, just know that I do!
texaslawhopefully
17:36
@Dkk: Fair enough, but if you're using political philosophy to defend Trump, it's hard to reconcile him as a candidate with very relevant classic political theory, like Locke's individual rights and limited government as illustrated in the 2nd treatise, or the constitutional framework limiting executive power (e.g., Federalist 51). Trump's disregard for constitutional checks and populist rhetoric directly is in tension with our very foundational principles.
Dkk
17:36
@SplitterusClitterus: sounds good. Trying to paint a wine glass rn anyway after I just woke up.
Dkk
17:37
@texaslawhopefully: Psssh I would not use gender relations as a way to defend Trump. He does not go that route and I think literally him and everyone in their cabinet has no idea what those are. I mean, just look at how many divorces Elon and Trump have had.
texaslawhopefully
17:38
Was that not why you said you voted for him?
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.