Probate, the judicial process for settling a decedent’s estate, has been vilified and shunned for nearly five decades. Its cost, delay, and lack of privacy motivate the public and their advisors to utilize a multiplicity of title formats and alternative devices to transfer assets at death. For some time the Uniform Probate Code promised an avenue of reform. Modest adoptions, however, and the emphasis on court involvement restrict its ability to modernize estate settlement. This Article proposes a markedly different approach, an approach that would replace a thousand years of settling estates solely within a judicial system. The proposal is to remove probate from the courts and to substitute a registration system. This proposed nonjudicial approach validates a will by a simple recording, permits a fiduciary to take office by a statement of acceptance, and allows beneficiaries to transfer assets with simplicity and privacy.
News & Events
-
2011 Symposium Webstreaming
Live webstreaming for the 2011 Minnesota Law Review Symposium, Citizens United: Democracy Realized—or Defeated?, will be available at: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/minnesota-law-review-symposium-citizens-united-democracy-realized–or-defeated. Be sure to check it out!
-
Article Submission Policy Announcement
On April 19, 2011, the Minnesota Law Review and several peer journals released a joint letter committing to give every author at least seven days to decide whether to accept any offer of publication. Eliminating “exploding offers” will improve the quality of our deliberations and the scholarship that we publish, [...]
-
Congratulations!
Class of 2011 Excellence in Public Service Award recipient: Steve Schmidt (vol. 95 Note & Comment Editor); and Class of 2011 Most Outstanding Contribution Award recipient: Chelsea Brennan (vol. 95 Lead Managing Editor). Congratulations Steve and Chelsea!
-
2011 Minnesota Law Review Symposium
Citizens United: Democracy Realized—or Defeated?
Recent Issues
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1