Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

statutory share

Read a random definition: child molestation

A quick definition of statutory share:

Statutory share is a legal term that means a person has the right to receive a certain amount of money or property when their spouse dies, no matter what is written in the spouse's will. This is to make sure that the surviving spouse is taken care of. The amount of statutory share varies by state and can be based on things like how long the couple was married and how many children they had together. Some states also have similar laws for children in certain situations.

A more thorough explanation:

Statutory share is a legal term that refers to the amount of money or property that a spouse or other person is entitled to receive, regardless of what is written in a will. This means that even if a person's spouse leaves them out of their will, they may still be entitled to a portion of their estate.

For example, let's say that John and Jane are married, and John passes away. If John's will leaves everything to his children and nothing to Jane, Jane may still be entitled to a portion of John's estate under the statutory share laws in their state.

Each state has its own laws regarding statutory share, but they generally apply to spouses and sometimes children. The amount of the statutory share may be a specific dollar amount, a percentage of the estate, or based on the length of the marriage and the number of children the couple had together.

Statutory share laws are designed to protect spouses and children from being completely disinherited by their loved ones. However, they can also limit a person's ability to distribute their assets according to their wishes.

statutory rape | statutory subject matter

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
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.