In Idaho, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Idaho Code Section 15-2-503 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that they are valid if the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. Unlike attested wills, holographic wills do not require witnesses. The key to validity rests on the entirety of the material provisions and the signature being in the testator’s own hand. This ensures that the document truly reflects the testator’s intent and is not the product of undue influence or fraud. If any part of the material provisions is typed or written by another person, the will generally fails as a holographic will, although parts of it might be incorporated by reference into an otherwise valid attested will if specific requirements are met. However, the question focuses on the validity of a will that is *entirely* in the testator’s handwriting, which directly aligns with the statutory definition of a holographic will in Idaho. Therefore, such a document, if properly executed in terms of handwriting and signature, would be considered valid as a holographic will in Idaho.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-301, addresses the revocation of a revocable trust. A trust is generally revocable unless its terms expressly state that it is irrevocable. In Idaho, a grantor can revoke a revocable trust by following the method prescribed in the trust instrument, or if no method is prescribed, by any other method that sufficiently manifests the grantor’s intent to revoke. Idaho Code § 15-7-301(b) states that “While a trust is revocable, the terms of the trust may be amended or revoked by the settlor.” The question presents a scenario where a grantor creates a revocable trust and later executes a will that purports to revoke the trust. The trust instrument itself specifies that revocation must be accomplished by a written instrument delivered to the trustee. The will, while a written instrument, was not delivered to the trustee during the grantor’s lifetime. Therefore, the will’s attempted revocation is ineffective because it did not comply with the trust’s prescribed method of revocation, which is the exclusive method for revocation when one is specified in the trust instrument. The will becomes effective upon the grantor’s death, but the trust’s revocation method required action during the grantor’s life.

Idaho Code §15-2-507 governs the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent will, by a physical act of destruction, or by operation of law. A subsequent will revokes a prior will if it expressly states revocation or if it is wholly inconsistent with the provisions of the prior will. A physical act of destruction, such as burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will, with the intent to revoke, also revokes the will. Revocation by operation of law occurs, for instance, upon divorce, which revokes any disposition to the former spouse. In this scenario, the testator’s intent to revoke the 2018 will is clear from the execution of the 2022 will, which contains an express revocation clause. The 2022 will, being the later-executed valid will, supersedes the 2018 will. The physical act of tearing the 2018 will, while indicating intent, is rendered superfluous by the existence of the later valid will. Therefore, the 2018 will is revoked by the 2022 will.

In Idaho, a trust created by a will is known as a testamentary trust. Upon the testator’s death, the will becomes effective, and the assets designated for the trust are transferred to the trustee. The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Idaho law, governs the administration of trusts, including testamentary trusts. Key provisions relate to the trustee’s duties, the beneficiaries’ rights, and the court’s oversight. Specifically, the trustee has a duty to administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries, to act with reasonable care, skill, and caution, and to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration. The creation of a testamentary trust does not require a separate trust agreement at the time the will is executed; the will itself serves as the instrument creating the trust. Idaho law does not mandate a separate filing with the court for the trust’s existence unless specific circumstances, such as a dispute or a request for judicial intervention, arise. The trustee’s authority and responsibilities are defined by the terms of the will and the applicable Idaho statutes. The trust becomes operative only after the testator’s death and the will’s admission to probate.

In Idaho, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Idaho Code Section 15-2-502 explicitly permits holographic wills, provided they are entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. The validity of such a will does not depend on it being witnessed. This is a key distinction from attested wills, which require witnesses. The scenario describes a document that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Therefore, it meets the statutory requirements for a valid holographic will in Idaho, regardless of the absence of witnesses. The purpose of this rule is to allow individuals to make valid testamentary dispositions in situations where formal witnessing might be impractical or impossible, such as during a personal crisis or in remote locations. The focus is on the testator’s intent and the unambiguous nature of the document as expressed through their own hand.

In Idaho, the concept of an “interested witness” to a will is governed by Idaho Code § 15-2-505. This statute addresses the validity of a will when one or more of the witnesses are beneficiaries under the will. Idaho law generally presumes that a will is valid even if a witness is also a beneficiary. However, the statute provides that if a witness is a beneficiary, there is a rebuttable presumption that the witness procured the devise to themselves by undue influence. If this presumption is not rebutted, the witness-beneficiary is entitled to take only the share they would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning as if no will existed and their property passed according to Idaho’s laws of intestacy. This ensures that while the will remains valid, the witness-beneficiary cannot profit from their potentially compromised position as a witness. The purpose is to prevent fraud and undue influence in the execution of wills. Therefore, in this scenario, if the presumption of undue influence is not overcome, Elara, as a witness and beneficiary of \$50,000, would only be entitled to her intestate share of the estate, not the \$50,000 bequest. Assuming Elara is the sole heir under intestacy, and the estate’s net value after debts and expenses is \$200,000, her intestate share would be the entire \$200,000. The bequest of \$50,000 to her would be reduced to her intestate share.

The scenario involves the administration of a deceased person’s estate in Idaho. The core issue is the treatment of a debt owed by a beneficiary to the decedent. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code §15-3-903, addresses advancements and hotchpot. An advancement is a gift made by a decedent to an heir during the decedent’s lifetime that is intended to be taken into account in computing the final distribution of the estate. While a debt is generally an obligation, in the context of estate distribution, a debt owed by a beneficiary to the decedent can, under certain circumstances, be treated as an advancement or offset against the beneficiary’s share. This is particularly true when the intent is to ensure equitable distribution among heirs. Idaho Code §15-3-903 states that “If an heir has received an advancement from the decedent during the decedent’s lifetime, the value of the advancement shall be considered as part of the heir’s share of the estate for the purpose of calculating the distribution of the residue of the estate.” While a debt is not precisely a gift, the principle of equitable distribution often leads courts to consider a beneficiary’s outstanding debt to the decedent as an offset against their inheritance, especially if the debt was substantial and incurred without clear terms of repayment that would distinguish it from a testamentary gift. The executor’s duty is to marshal the assets and debts of the estate. In this case, the $50,000 debt owed by Mr. Abernathy to the decedent is a debt due to the estate. The decedent’s will directs that the estate be divided equally among the three children. Without specific provisions in the will to the contrary or evidence that the debt was forgiven, the executor has the authority and duty to collect this debt as an asset of the estate. The collected debt then becomes part of the distributable assets. If the debt is collected, the total estate value for distribution increases. Alternatively, and more commonly in practice when the beneficiary is also an heir, the debt can be offset against the beneficiary’s share. This means Mr. Abernathy’s share will be reduced by the amount he owes. Since the estate is to be divided equally among three beneficiaries, and Mr. Abernathy owes $50,000, his share of the remaining distributable assets will be reduced by this amount. The total value of the estate before considering the debt was $150,000 in liquid assets plus the $50,000 debt, totaling $200,000. If the debt is collected or offset, each beneficiary’s equal share would be \( \frac{\$200,000}{3} \approx \$66,666.67 \). However, Mr. Abernathy’s inheritance is reduced by the $50,000 debt. Therefore, Mr. Abernathy receives \( \$66,666.67 – \$50,000 = \$16,666.67 \). The other two beneficiaries, Ms. Chen and Mr. Davies, would each receive their full share of \( \$66,666.67 \). The question asks what Mr. Abernathy is entitled to receive from the estate. This is his equal share less the debt he owes. The total distributable estate value, after accounting for the debt as an asset to be distributed or offset, is the sum of the liquid assets and the debt owed. Thus, total estate value to be distributed is $150,000 (liquid assets) + $50,000 (debt owed by Abernathy) = $200,000. Divided equally among three beneficiaries, each share is \( \frac{\$200,000}{3} \). Mr. Abernathy’s share is then reduced by the $50,000 debt. So, Mr. Abernathy receives \( \frac{\$200,000}{3} – \$50,000 \). Calculating this: \( \frac{\$200,000}{3} \approx \$66,666.67 \). Then, \( \$66,666.67 – \$50,000 = \$16,666.67 \).

In Idaho, a trust that is not for the benefit of identifiable individuals or a class of individuals, but rather for a purpose that is not charitable, is known as a non-charitable purpose trust. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 3, governs the creation and validity of trusts. While Idaho recognizes charitable trusts, it also addresses non-charitable purpose trusts. For such trusts to be valid, they must have a clear and ascertainable purpose and must not violate the rule against perpetuities. Idaho Code Section 15-3-301 addresses the creation of trusts, and while it doesn’t explicitly detail non-charitable purpose trusts, their validity is generally understood through common law principles as adopted by Idaho, subject to statutory limitations. A key consideration for non-charitable purpose trusts is their duration and the mechanism for enforcing the trust. Idaho Code Section 15-3-301(a) states that a trust is created by a settlor who, with intent to create a trust, delivers to a trustee the trust property for the benefit of a beneficiary. While the typical trust involves a beneficiary, purpose trusts are an exception. For a non-charitable purpose trust to be valid in Idaho, it must be created with a definite purpose that is not illegal, contrary to public policy, or impossible to fulfill. Furthermore, Idaho law, like many other jurisdictions, adheres to the rule against perpetuities, meaning the trust’s duration must be limited. The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified in Idaho, provides a framework for trust administration and enforcement. The enforceability of a non-charitable purpose trust typically requires a designated enforcer, who is appointed by the settlor to ensure the trust’s purpose is carried out. Without a proper purpose and a mechanism for enforcement, such a trust would likely fail. The question revolves around the fundamental requirements for a trust that serves a purpose rather than a specific beneficiary, a concept that requires understanding of both trust law principles and the specific nuances of Idaho’s statutory framework.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in Idaho that is subject to a spendthrift provision. A spendthrift provision in a trust generally protects the beneficiary’s interest from the claims of their creditors. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 55-1107, upholds spendthrift provisions, meaning that a beneficiary’s interest in income or principal that is subject to a spendthrift provision is generally not transferable by the beneficiary and is not subject to the claims of the beneficiary’s creditors or to any process of execution or sequestration. However, there are statutory exceptions to the enforceability of spendthrift provisions. Idaho Code § 55-1108 outlines these exceptions, which typically include claims for child support, alimony, or for necessary services or goods furnished to the beneficiary. In this case, the creditor is a medical provider seeking payment for services rendered to Elara. The question is whether this claim falls under one of the statutory exceptions that would allow a creditor to reach the trust assets despite the spendthrift clause. Idaho Code § 55-1108(1)(b) specifically allows creditors who have provided “necessary services or goods” to the beneficiary to reach the trust assets. Medical services are universally considered necessary goods or services, especially when related to health and well-being. Therefore, the medical provider’s claim for unpaid services is likely to be an exception to the spendthrift provision. The enforceability of the spendthrift provision would be limited to the extent of the necessary services provided to Elara.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 15-2-502, addresses holographic wills. This statute states that a will that does not comply with the signing requirements of Section 15-2-501 (attested wills) is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. In this case, the document is entirely in Elara’s handwriting, including the dispositive provisions and her signature. Therefore, it meets the requirements for a valid holographic will in Idaho, despite lacking witnesses. The question tests the understanding of what constitutes a valid holographic will under Idaho law, focusing on the handwriting requirement for both the dispositive provisions and the signature. The absence of witnesses is permissible for holographic wills in Idaho, as long as the other statutory requirements are met.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a testator in Idaho. The trust document specifies that income generated by the trust corpus is to be distributed to the testator’s daughter, Elara, during her lifetime, with the remainder to be distributed to her children upon her death. The trust instrument further states that if Elara dies without surviving issue, the trust corpus shall pass to a named charity, the “Idaho Wilderness Preservation Society.” Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-201, governs the creation and interpretation of trusts. The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Idaho, generally governs trust administration. In this case, Elara has died, and it is determined that she did not have any surviving children. The crucial question is how the trust corpus is to be distributed. Since Elara had no surviving issue, the condition precedent for the distribution to her children was not met. The trust instrument clearly outlines an alternative beneficiary: the Idaho Wilderness Preservation Society. Therefore, the remainder of the trust corpus will pass to this designated charity. There is no indication of intestacy or a partial intestacy situation as the trust instrument provides for an alternative disposition of the corpus. The concept of a contingent remainder is central here, where the interest of the charity is contingent upon Elara dying without issue. Upon the occurrence of this contingency, the charity’s interest vests. The absence of issue fulfills the condition, triggering the distribution to the charity as specified in the trust.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a testator in Idaho. The trust instrument specifies that upon the testator’s death, the trustee is to manage the trust assets for the benefit of the testator’s grandchild, Elara, until Elara reaches the age of 25. The trust further states that if Elara dies before reaching the age of 25, the remaining trust assets are to be distributed to Elara’s children. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 15-3-901, governs the administration of trusts. This section, along with general trust law principles, dictates that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to administer the trust according to its terms. The core issue is whether the trustee’s discretion to distribute income and principal for Elara’s “support, education, and general welfare” is sufficiently certain to be enforceable. Idaho law requires that a trust have a definite beneficiary and a definite purpose. While the term “support, education, and general welfare” is often used and generally considered sufficiently definite in trust law to grant discretion to a trustee, the question hinges on the specificity of the distribution standards. The trust instrument here provides a standard for distribution, meaning the trustee must act reasonably in applying the funds. This is not a situation where the trustee has absolute discretion to distribute or withhold funds arbitrarily. The phrase “support, education, and general welfare” implies a standard of reasonableness and good faith, making the trust enforceable. The trust is not invalid for indefiniteness of beneficiaries or purpose because Elara is a clearly identified beneficiary, and the purpose of providing for her well-being until a specified age is clear. The distribution standard, while discretionary, is guided by a common and legally recognized benchmark. Therefore, the trust is valid and the trustee has the power to make distributions according to the stated standard.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-101, addresses the modification of irrevocable trusts. An irrevocable trust can generally only be modified by the terms of the trust itself, by consent of all beneficiaries and the trustee, or by court order. In this scenario, the trust instrument does not permit modification. The beneficiaries are all adults and have consented to the proposed changes. However, the trustee has not consented. Idaho law requires the consent of all parties with a beneficial interest, which includes the beneficiaries, and the trustee, if their duties or powers are affected by the modification. Since the trustee’s consent is not present, and the trust instrument does not provide an alternative method for modification, the proposed changes cannot be unilaterally implemented by the beneficiaries alone. The question asks about the validity of the modification under Idaho law. Without the trustee’s consent, the modification is not valid. Therefore, the beneficiaries cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the irrevocable trust.

In Idaho, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Idaho law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-7-302 addresses the duty of a trustee to respond to beneficiaries’ requests for information. This duty is fundamental to ensuring transparency and accountability in trust administration. A trustee must keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about the trust’s administration and status. This includes providing copies of the trust instrument, significant reports on the trust’s administration, and any other information reasonably necessary for the beneficiary to protect their interests. However, this duty is not absolute. Idaho law allows a trustee to withhold certain information if the trustee reasonably believes that providing the information would be detrimental to the purposes of the trust. This exception is narrowly construed and requires a reasonable basis for the belief of detriment. In the scenario presented, the trustee has received a request for a detailed accounting and the trust instrument from a remainder beneficiary. The trust instrument itself is generally discoverable. The request for a detailed accounting is also a standard right of a beneficiary. The trustee’s concern about the beneficiary’s “speculative intentions” and potential for “unnecessary litigation” does not, on its own, constitute a reasonable belief that providing the requested information would be detrimental to the purposes of the trust under Idaho Code § 15-7-302. The statute requires a more concrete and demonstrable link between the information and a detriment to the trust’s objectives, not merely a subjective fear of the beneficiary’s actions. Therefore, the trustee is obligated to provide the requested information unless a specific statutory exception applies and can be reasonably justified. The trustee’s current justification is insufficient to invoke the exception.

In Idaho, a will contest can be initiated by an interested party who has a direct financial stake in the estate. Idaho Code §15-3-401 outlines who qualifies as an interested party, generally including heirs, beneficiaries of prior wills, and beneficiaries of the current will. The grounds for contesting a will are typically limited to issues such as lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, or improper execution. For a contestant to succeed, they must present evidence supporting these claims. The burden of proof initially rests on the proponent of the will to show it was properly executed, but if evidence of undue influence or lack of capacity is presented, the burden can shift. A will that is found to be invalid is treated as if it were never made, and the estate would then pass according to the laws of intestacy or a prior valid will. In this scenario, since Elara is a beneficiary in the prior will and would receive less under the contested will, she has a direct financial interest in its validity, making her an interested party. Her claim that the testator was suffering from advanced dementia at the time of the will’s execution directly challenges testamentary capacity, a recognized ground for contest. Therefore, Elara possesses standing and a valid basis to contest the will under Idaho law.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-302, addresses the revocation of a revocable trust. A revocable trust can be revoked by the settlor, or by another person to the extent provided by the terms of the trust. Idaho Code § 15-7-304 outlines the method of revocation. If the terms of the trust specify a method of revocation, that method must be followed. If the terms do not specify a method, revocation can be by any method that clearly manifests the settlor’s intent to revoke the trust. In this scenario, Elara created a revocable trust and later executed a will that explicitly stated her intention to revoke the trust and distribute its assets according to the terms of her will. This will, being a separate legal document, clearly manifests Elara’s intent to revoke the trust. The trust document itself did not specify an exclusive method for revocation. Therefore, the will serves as a valid instrument to revoke the trust. The key is the clear manifestation of intent to revoke, which the will provides. The fact that the will was executed after the trust and clearly articulates the revocation is determinative. The trust assets are therefore subject to distribution via the will.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-302, addresses the revocation of a revocable trust. A revocable trust can be revoked by the settlor in any manner provided in the trust instrument. If the trust instrument does not specify a method, or if it specifies multiple methods, the trust can be revoked by any method that manifests clear and convincing evidence of the settlor’s intent to revoke. This is often accomplished through a written instrument, such as a trust amendment or a separate revocation document, that is properly executed and delivered. The question involves a settlor who created a revocable trust and later executed a will that purported to revoke the trust. In Idaho, a will generally does not revoke a trust unless the trust instrument specifically permits revocation by will, or the will is executed with the same formalities as a trust instrument and clearly manifests intent to revoke the trust and that intent is also clear and convincing. The scenario states the will did not contain language specifically revoking the trust. Therefore, the will, by itself, without further action to manifest intent and deliver it in a manner consistent with the trust’s terms or Idaho law for revocation, would not be sufficient to revoke the revocable trust. The trust remains in effect.

The scenario presented involves a testamentary trust established by a deceased Idaho resident, Silas, for the benefit of his granddaughter, Elara. The trust instrument dictates that Elara is to receive income from the trust corpus for her lifetime, with the remainder passing to her children upon her death. A key provision states that if Elara dies without surviving issue, the trust corpus should be distributed to Silas’s nephew, Finn. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code Title 15, governs the administration of trusts and the distribution of estates. In this case, Elara has died, but she is survived by her two children, Liam and Maya. Therefore, the remainder interest in the trust corpus vests in Liam and Maya upon Elara’s death, as per the terms of the trust and Idaho’s intestacy and trust laws, which generally favor the direct lineal descendants of a beneficiary when a remainder interest is designated to “her children.” The condition precedent for Finn’s inheritance – Elara dying without surviving issue – has not been met. Consequently, the trust corpus is to be divided equally between Liam and Maya, assuming no other provisions in the trust or Idaho law dictate otherwise, such as specific per stirpes or per capita distribution clauses that might alter the division among Elara’s children. However, the question specifies “her children,” which typically implies a per capita distribution among surviving children unless otherwise specified.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-201, addresses the validity of trusts. A trust is generally considered valid if it has a definite beneficiary or a class of beneficiaries that is ascertainable, a trust property, and a lawful purpose. In this scenario, the trust instrument clearly identifies the beneficiary as “my living nieces and nephews.” This phrase denotes a specific class of individuals, whose identities can be ascertained at the time the trust becomes irrevocable or upon the death of the settlor, depending on the trust’s terms and the settlor’s intent. The trust property is the parcel of land in Boise, Idaho, and the purpose is to provide for the education and support of these beneficiaries. Idaho law does not require a trust to be in writing unless it concerns real property, as is the case here. Idaho Code § 9-503 mandates that a contract for the sale of an interest in real property, or a trust concerning real property, must be in writing. Therefore, the trust instrument’s written nature, coupled with a definite class of beneficiaries, identifiable property, and a lawful purpose, satisfies the requirements for a valid trust under Idaho law. The fact that the settlor retained the power to revoke the trust does not invalidate it; rather, it makes it a revocable trust, which is still a valid form of trust. The trust is not invalid due to the potential for future additions to the class of beneficiaries, as the beneficiaries are ascertainable at the relevant time.

The Idaho Uniform Trust Code, specifically Idaho Code § 15-7-201, addresses the circumstances under which a trust may be revoked. A trust is generally irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly permit revocation or modification. In this scenario, the trust instrument created by Elara explicitly states that it is irrevocable and does not contain any provisions allowing for its revocation or amendment by the settlor or any other party. Therefore, Elara cannot unilaterally revoke the trust. The trust’s irrevocability is a fundamental characteristic that binds the settlor to the terms established. The trustee’s fiduciary duties are owed to the beneficiaries as defined by the irrevocable terms of the trust. Idaho law, like many jurisdictions, upholds the sanctity of irrevocable trusts, preventing settlors from altering or undoing them without the consent of all beneficiaries or a court order, neither of which are present here. The intent of the settlor, as clearly expressed in the trust document, is to create a permanent arrangement for the benefit of her grandchildren, and this intent is legally binding due to the irrevocable nature of the trust.

In Idaho, a trust that is not for the benefit of a named individual or a class of individuals, but rather for the accomplishment of a charitable purpose, is known as a charitable trust. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 55-111, addresses the validity and enforceability of such trusts. For a charitable trust to be valid, it must generally have a charitable purpose and be for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons. While a specific beneficiary is not required, the purpose must be sufficiently defined to be ascertainable and enforceable. The Uniform Trust Code, adopted in Idaho, further governs the administration and interpretation of trusts, including charitable trusts. Idaho Code § 13-1-409, for instance, deals with the cy pres doctrine, which allows a court to modify a charitable trust if the original purpose becomes impossible, impracticable, or illegal to fulfill, by directing the trust property to a purpose that approximates the original intent as closely as possible. This doctrine is crucial for ensuring the continued efficacy of charitable giving even when unforeseen circumstances arise. The question revolves around the legal framework for establishing and managing charitable trusts in Idaho, emphasizing the distinction between private and charitable beneficiaries and the role of the cy pres doctrine in maintaining the intent of the settlor.

The scenario describes a testamentary trust established by a will. In Idaho, as in many jurisdictions, a trust created by a will is known as a testamentary trust. The primary characteristic of a testamentary trust is that it comes into existence only upon the death of the testator and the admission of the will to probate. This means that the trust is not an independent legal entity during the testator’s lifetime; rather, it is a creature of the will itself. Upon the testator’s death, the assets designated for the trust are typically transferred from the estate to the trustee, who then manages them according to the terms outlined in the will. This contrasts with an inter vivos trust, also known as a living trust, which is created and operates during the grantor’s lifetime. Therefore, the trust described, established by the will of Eleanor Vance, is accurately classified as a testamentary trust.

In Idaho, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or descendant who is born or adopted after the execution of a will and is neither provided for nor mentioned in the will. Idaho Code § 15-2-302 outlines the circumstances under which such an heir is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. Generally, a pretermitted heir receives the same share that they would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), meaning they inherit according to Idaho’s laws of intestacy. This share is taken from the portions of the estate that pass by the will. However, there are exceptions. If the testator intentionally omitted the child or descendant from the will, or if the testator provided for the child or descendant outside of the will in a manner that demonstrates this intent, the pretermitted heir will not inherit. The key is the testator’s intent, which must be clearly demonstrable. The question presents a scenario where a will was executed prior to the birth of a child, and the child is not mentioned. Without any evidence of intentional omission or provision outside the will, the child qualifies as a pretermitted heir under Idaho law and is entitled to an intestate share of the estate.

The scenario involves a holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 15-2-502, addresses holographic wills. This statute states that a will that does not comply with the signing requirements for attested wills is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. The crucial element here is that the entire will, including the dispositive provisions and the testator’s signature, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. The document in question, a video recording, does not meet this requirement as it is not written. While Idaho law does permit oral wills (nuncupative wills) under very limited circumstances, these are generally for soldiers in active military service or mariners at sea, and they have specific statutory limitations and are not applicable to this general scenario. Therefore, the video recording, lacking the written and handwritten material provisions, would not be considered a valid will in Idaho. The question tests the understanding of the specific requirements for holographic wills in Idaho and distinguishes them from other forms of wills.

In Idaho, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Idaho law, governs the administration of trusts. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-7-201 addresses the duties of a trustee. When a trustee has knowledge of a breach of trust, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to remedy the breach. This includes, but is not limited to, compelling the breaching trustee to perform their duties, compelling an accounting, or compelling the trustee to redress the breach by paying money or restoring property. If the trustee fails to take reasonable steps, they may be held personally liable for the resulting loss. In this scenario, the co-trustee, Mr. Abernathy, was aware of Ms. Gable’s improper investment of trust assets in speculative ventures, which constitutes a breach of trust. His failure to take immediate action, such as demanding an explanation, seeking court intervention, or attempting to recover the misused funds, means he has also breached his fiduciary duties. The proper course of action for Mr. Abernathy, upon learning of Ms. Gable’s breach, would have been to take reasonable steps to enforce Ms. Gable’s obligations as a trustee and to protect the trust’s assets. This would involve actions aimed at preventing further loss and rectifying the existing damage.

In Idaho, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or descendant of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of the testator’s will. Idaho law, specifically Idaho Code § 15-2-302, provides protections for such heirs. A pretermitted heir is generally entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the omission was intentional and expressed in the will, or where the testator had other children and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted heir. The question presents a scenario where Elias executed a will in 2010, devising his entire estate to his spouse. Subsequently, in 2015, Elias and his spouse had a child, Anya. Elias passed away in 2020 without updating his will. Since Anya was born after the will’s execution and Elias did not make any provision for her in his will, nor did he express an intention to disinherit her, she qualifies as a pretermitted heir under Idaho law. Therefore, Anya is entitled to receive a share of Elias’s estate as if Elias had died intestate. Idaho Code § 15-2-302(a) states that if a testator fails to provide in the will for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, the omitted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to that which they would have received as a intestate share. An intestate share in Idaho for a surviving child when there is no surviving spouse is the entire estate. However, the statute also provides an exception in § 15-2-302(a)(2) where the testator devised property to the other parent of the omitted child and that other parent is alive when the testator dies. In this scenario, Elias’s spouse is the other parent, and Elias devised his entire estate to her. Therefore, Anya, the pretermitted heir, will not receive a share of the estate because Elias’s will provided for her other parent, who was alive at the time of Elias’s death.

In Idaho, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Idaho Code Section 15-2-502 specifies that such a will need not be witnessed. The validity hinges on the entire document being in the testator’s own handwriting, demonstrating testamentary intent. The core of the question revolves around whether a will that is primarily handwritten but contains a single typed sentence indicating the testator’s intent can still be considered a valid holographic will under Idaho law. Idaho Code § 15-2-502(b) states that a testament to the disposition of property and property interests, written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is valid as a holographic will without regard to the will’s attestation. The key phrase here is “entirely in the testator’s handwriting.” The presence of a typed sentence, even if it expresses testamentary intent, breaks the “entirely in the testator’s handwriting” requirement. Therefore, such a document would not qualify as a holographic will in Idaho and would likely be treated as an improperly executed attested will, meaning it would need to be signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals who are present at the same time and witness the signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will, as per Idaho Code § 15-2-502(a). The question tests the strict interpretation of the holographic will statute.

The question pertains to the concept of a “pretermitted heir” in Idaho law, specifically concerning a will executed before the birth of a child. Idaho Code § 15-2-302 addresses the situation where a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of a will. Under Idaho law, if a testator has a child born or adopted after the execution of their will and the will does not provide for that child, the child receives a share in the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. This share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died without a will, meaning it would be a proportionate share of the estate after considering any specific bequests to a surviving spouse. In this scenario, the testator executed the will before the birth of their daughter, and the will makes no mention of her or any intention to disinherit her. Therefore, the daughter is considered a pretermitted heir. The estate is valued at \( \$750,000 \) after debts and expenses. If the testator had died intestate with a surviving spouse and one child, the spouse would receive \( \$250,000 \) and half of the remaining estate, while the child would receive the other half. This would amount to \( \$250,000 \) for the spouse and \( \$250,000 \) for the child. However, the question states the testator has only the daughter and no surviving spouse. In such a case, if the testator died intestate, the daughter would inherit the entire estate. Since the will does not mention the daughter and there’s no indication of intentional omission, she is entitled to the portion of the estate she would have received had the testator died intestate, which is the entire estate. Thus, the daughter inherits \( \$750,000 \).

In Idaho, a holographic will is valid if it is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Idaho Code § 15-2-502 addresses the requirements for attested wills, but the validity of holographic wills is a matter of common law and specific statutory interpretation. Unlike an attested will which requires witnesses, a holographic will bypasses this requirement as long as the material provisions are in the testator’s own hand. The key is the absence of any part of the will being typed or printed, and the testator’s intent to make the document their will. The scenario describes a document entirely in Elara’s handwriting, including the dispositive provisions and her signature. This meets the criteria for a valid holographic will in Idaho, assuming no other defects are present and it clearly expresses testamentary intent. The presence of a date, while good practice and helpful for establishing testamentary capacity and the order of wills, is not strictly required for the validity of a holographic will in Idaho, unlike some other states that mandate it. The fact that it was found in a safe deposit box further supports its status as a deliberate testamentary instrument.

In Idaho, a holographic will is a will that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Idaho Code § 15-2-502 specifically addresses holographic wills. The statute requires that the “testamentary provisions” of the will must be in the testator’s handwriting. This means that the entire dispositive plan, the identification of beneficiaries, and the designation of an executor must be in the testator’s own hand. If any material part of the will is printed or typed, it generally invalidates the holographic nature of the will, unless those printed or typed portions are merely formal or introductory and not essential to the testamentary intent. For example, a pre-printed will form filled out by the testator, where the blanks are completed in their handwriting, would not typically qualify as a holographic will in Idaho if the pre-printed text constitutes a material part of the testamentary disposition. The key is that the dispositive intent and its essential components must originate from the testator’s handwriting.