미국 상속법상 유언의 의존적 철회 법리
Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation in American Wills
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The doctrine of dependent relative revocation(DRR) in Anglo- American case law treats a revocation as presumptively ineffective if the testator made the revocation either ① in connection with an attempt to achieve a dispositive objective that fails under applicable law or ② due to a misunderstanding of law or fact. Originating in early 18th-century English decisions on equitable grounds, DRR served as a remedy against severe injustices arising from will revocations based on mistakes of law or fact. The doctrine was subsequently adopted by American courts and has evolved over time to be more commonly explained as a doctrine of conditional revocation. Initially applied only when revocation involved specific revocatory acts, DRR’s applicability expanded by the mid-20th century to include revocations executed by subsequent wills. DRR has significantly contributed to fulfilling testators’ intentions by assessing the effectiveness of will revocations according to whether the testator, if fully informed, would prefer the revocation to stand or be set aside. The modern trend in donative transfers law increasingly seeks to honor the donor's dispositive intent, for instance, through more liberal applications of revival rules and the harmless error doctrine. As these legal mechanisms become more effective in supporting donors' dispositive intentions, the need for DRR may diminish. However, until such measures are widely adopted in state statutes or case law, DRR remains necessary to prevent severe injustices stemming from certain revocations. While numerous influential studies and decisions have systematically developed the doctrine, including its specific formulation in the 3rd Restatement ─ particularly through testator intent analysis with comprehensive comments and reporter’s notes ─ there remains room for greater coherence and consistency in its application.
Abstract
The doctrine of dependent relative revocation(DRR) in Anglo- American case law treats a revocation as presumptively ineffective if the testator made the revocation either ① in connection with an attempt to achieve a dispositive objective that fails under applicable law or ② due to a misunderstanding of law or fact. Originating in early 18th-century English decisions on equitable grounds, DRR served as a remedy against severe injustices arising from will revocations based on mistakes of law or fact. The doctrine was subsequently adopted by American courts and has evolved over time to be more commonly explained as a doctrine of conditional revocation. Initially applied only when revocation involved specific revocatory acts, DRR’s applicability expanded by the mid-20th century to include revocations executed by subsequent wills. DRR has significantly contributed to fulfilling testators’ intentions by assessing the effectiveness of will revocations according to whether the testator, if fully informed, would prefer the revocation to stand or be set aside. The modern trend in donative transfers law increasingly seeks to honor the donor's dispositive intent, for instance, through more liberal applications of revival rules and the harmless error doctrine. As these legal mechanisms become more effective in supporting donors' dispositive intentions, the need for DRR may diminish. However, until such measures are widely adopted in state statutes or case law, DRR remains necessary to prevent severe injustices stemming from certain revocations. While numerous influential studies and decisions have systematically developed the doctrine, including its specific formulation in the 3rd Restatement ─ particularly through testator intent analysis with comprehensive comments and reporter’s notes ─ there remains room for greater coherence and consistency in its application.
참고문헌 (33)
- 곽윤직, "상속법(개정판)" (2004), 박영사
- 김상훈, "미국상속법" (2012), 세창출판사
- 김주수, "친족상속법" (2023), 법문사
- 박동섭, "친족상속법" (2020), 박영사
- 송덕수, "친족상속법" (2024), 박영사
- 신영호, "가족법강의" (2023), 세창출판사
- 윤진수, "친족상속법 강의" (2023), 박영사
- 윤진수, "주해상속법 제1권" (2019), 박영사
- 이경희, "가족법" (2021), 법원사
- 이상윤, "영미법(개정판)" (2009), 박영사
- 지원림, "민법강의" (2022), 홍문사
- 현소혜, "유언의 해석" (2010), 경인문화사
- 김영희, "신분행위와 유언의 철회", 가족법연구, 27(3) (2013)
- 김형석, "유언의 성립과 효력에 관한 몇 가지 문제", 민사판례연구, 38 (2016)
- 오병철, "유언의 취소", 가족법연구, 25(3) (2011)
- 이상훈, "로마법상 유증의 철회와 변경", 서울대학교 法學, 59(1) (2018)
- 현소혜, "유언철회의 철회", 홍익법학, 8(3) (2007)
- Atkinson, Thomas, "Handbook of the Law of Wills" (1953), West Group
- Averill, "Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Trust Code in a Nutshell" (2010), West
- Beyer, Gerry, "Wills, Trusts, and Estates" (2019), Wolters Kluwer
- Gallanis, Thomas, "Family Property Law" (2014), Foundation Press
- Page, William, "The Law of Wills Vol.1" (1926), Anderson Company
- Sitkoff, "Wills, Trusts, and Estates" (2017), Wolters Kluwer
- Cornish, Francis, "Dependent Relative Revocation", Southern California Law Review, 5(4) (1932)
- Cunningham, John, "Mortmain Statutes: The Dead Hand Still Survives, 27 IDLR 49", Idaho Law Review, ~ (1990)
- Henderson, R.G, "Dependent Relative Revocation", The Modern Law Review, 32(4) (1969)
- J. Langbein, "Reformation of Wills on the Ground of Mistake: Change of direction in American Law?", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 130(3) (1982)
- Lynch, Gary, "Wills — Testator’s Intent and the Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation", Missouri Law Review, 41 (1976)
- Palmer, George, "Dependent Relative Revocation and its Relation to Relief for Mistake", The Michigan Law Review, 69(6) (1971)
- Storrow, Richard, "Dependent Relative Revocation: Presumption or Probability?", Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, 48(3) (2014)
- Swenton, Julia, "The Missing Piece: The Forgotten Role of Testator Intent in the Application of Dependent Relative Revocation in Oklahoma", Oklahoma Law Review, 59(1) (2006)
- Warren, Joseph, "Dependent Relative Revocation", Harvard Law Review, 33(3) (1920)
- The American Law Institute, "Restatemenr of the Law(Third): Property — Wills and Other Donative Transfers Vol. 1" (1999), American Law Institute Publishers