I would disagree if he already had an established will, and the court decided to supersede it by substituting the unsent text.
But, isn't the unsent text preferable to nothing? Seems like the unsent text is the superior to nothing.
An interesting case for sure.
But, is it more likely that his true wishes are closer to nothing?
He doesn't have a 'his bank account' in that x% of that is his wifes and the same with the hidden money etc (baring a prenups)
Also it was not considered a draft/unsent legally. The judge considered it purely a medium to get a final will to his family without them learning of his plans.
"I find that having the mobile phone with him at the place he took his
life so it was found with him and not sending the message, is consistent with the fact
that he did not want to alert his brother to the fact that he was about to commit suicide,
but did intend the text message to be discovered when he was found."
I write "drafts" of things and leave them unsent from time to time. After a cooling off period I decide that I don't actually feel that way or think better of it.
Unsent to me is a really bold line to cross. Email / draft form stuff is a scratchpad for developing how you feel and working out your thoughts.
In this case the guy wrote this very close to the time he took his own life, and the wording does signal that he intended this to be his will and last wishes.
If I were a judge I would have decided the same.
Killing himself was a pretty clear signal that he was done trying to work out his thoughts.
The message might not have sent due to bad signal.
He may have written the message days before when he was feeling suicidal but didn't send to not alert the family. Later on he killed himself impulsively. Anywhere from one-third to 80% of all suicide attempts are impulsive acts, according to The New England Journal of Medicine. 24% of those who made near-lethal suicide attempts decided to kill themselves less than five minutes before the attempt, and 70% made the decision within an hour of the attempt. .
My guess would be that he knew that sending an SMS will to his brother would cause his brother to reach out to him.. a conversation he'd rather just avoid since he seems like his mind was made up.
> In the message, the man gave details of how to access his bank account and where he had hidden money in his house.
How would someone else know this? You can't just ignore facts that don't fit your theory and still expect people to take you seriously.
How difficult would it really be to hide money/cash in the family members house and “identify” the amount/location of said funds in the fake Will to give it credibility?
Think about what you just said and whether Occam's razor might apply here.
That said, you may be very surprised at what fraudsters do in practice. Accessing bank accounts of elderly parents with or without their knowledge, accessing their electronic devices, or even creating actual forged Wills (complete with signature and notarized) is not exactly unheard of in law. Even murders made to look like suicide specifically to claim inheritance isn't just the stuff of fantasy and movies, same goes for murders made to look like accidents to claim life insurance. In fact very often it is actually a parent who murders a child for insurance money.
Here is a link that includes 21 such cases: https://www.jrcinsurancegroup.com/murder-for-life-insurance-...
In terms of bizarre things family members have done to inherit things, this sort of escapade probably wouldn't even breach the top 100.
Not a lawyer, not legal advice, you know the drill. However, the above is from my lawyer and is the policy I follow. He witnesses it AND it is notarized by a third party.
A not-so-uncommon issue with holographic wills is that multiple versions may exist, in which case only the last one (date) is valid.
Also, parts of a holographic will may be nullified if contrary to Law provisions, such as - an example - violations to the reserve share.
With this in mind, a final arbitrator makes a lot of sense. The point isn't to find out how the universe works, make a product that is economical viable and functioning, or determine absolute truth. The point is to keep people from killing each other in the fairest way possible.
It also doesn't have to be consistent. That's why we have laws AND judges. Sometimes the law is wrong because of the context of the specific case. In the US we throw a lot of layers at the problem to try to avoid human tyranny, but at the end of the day human tyranny is preferable to the tyranny of an ambiguously written law.
The theory is that there's a social analogue of Gödel's theorem, the humans are incapable of defining a formal set of rules for governing themselves that provides non-absurd outcomes in all cases. I believe this, but of course we don't have solvers for human reasoning (otherwise we could test the theory).
So sure, I absolutely agree with you that civil forfeiture is just a new name for highway robbery by the King's men. But for literalist constitutionalism to be viable, it has to handle hard cases as well as simple ones in zero-and negative-sum games, and the US Constitution (any document) leaves huge areas of potential conflict undefined. So your choice reduces to either it won't work with real humans, or you have to interpret it. To interpret it means designating someone (or some people) as official interpreters. And at some point, you find yourself back where we started, arguing about the interpretation of justices who are right because they are final.
Let's say that suddenly there's a law that makes it illegal for the police to take anything out of a car AND we also eliminate all human judges. This completely stops civil forfeiture. Everyone is happy.
One day someone steals a priceless wax sculpture that represents invaluable cultural history for an area. This person throws the sculpture into a car and then drives off. After a short car chase the police disable the getaway car. The day is saved! Wait not yet. It happens to be a very hot day.
There's two things that can happen. The first is that the police can leave the wax sculpture in the car and because it's so hot it melts. The locals get mad and riot because the police willfully let their cultural history turn into a puddle. The second is that a police officer takes the wax sculpture out of the car, but then that officer is arrested for violating the law mentioned above. Then the locals get mad and riot because the government arrested the hero who saved their cultural history.
A lot of governance is a balancing act to prevent anarchy from taking over. If a human is in charge someplace then they can overrule a law that either doesn't make sense or is otherwise problematic. This can lead to tyranny, but hopefully the government itself is setup to prevent this as much as possible.
For instance, most left-leaning people probably think that in the civilian forfeiture rule, the judges should take a strict constructional interpretation of the constitution and forbid it.
However, when it comes to striking down immigration bans based on an economic argument, all of a sudden you want an activist judge.
I'm not saying I care either way, but I care about consistency. I think we are based on a common law system, and once an economic argument is successfully made it can be make at any time. If we're ok with that, we should be ok with civil forfeiture.
 The state says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.
sorry things turned out that way for her and him.