Property Keyed to French
In re Estate of Kinert v. Penn. Dept. of Revenue
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Hildreth M. Kinert died in 1990. Kinert’s will “devised” to her foster sons, James B. Quade and James R. Lawley, a “terminable life estate” consisting of the right to occupy her house for the rest of their natural lives or until they had both vacated the premises for 60 days, subject to the condition that they pay taxes on the property and keep it up. Once the property ceased to be used by Quade and Lawley, it was to pass to a local church. Quade and Lawley had resided at the house before Kinert’s death, and continued to reside there after her death, abiding by the conditions set forth in her will. Kinert’s executor (Defendant) filed an accounting of the estate in 1995, classifying the bequest to the foster sons as a license to occupy the property. The state Department of Revenue (Plaintiff) argued that Quade and Lawley instead had a life estate in the property. The trial court agreed with Kinert’s estate that the foster sons had a license to occupy the house. Plaintiff appealed, arguing again that the foster sons had a life estate, and asked the appeals court to determine the taxable value of the foster sons’ interest in the house.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.