FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W48860561> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W48860561 endingPage "475" @default.
• W48860561 startingPage "445" @default.
• W48860561 abstract "I. INTRODUCTIONPolice found Ms. Brown, a seventy-four-year-old woman, partially fused to an arm chair surrounded by her own filth.1 Her son and primary caretaker, James Owens, left her in the chair for days, allegedly complying with her request to let her die at home.2 Luckily for Ms. Brown, James tried to endorse her social security check, and authorities eventually found her.3 Ms. Brown was pried from her arm chair and died of a stroke in the hospital several days later, and James was eventually sentenced to one year in prison.4 Although it is shocking that police found Ms. Brown in such a life-threatening and atrocious condition, it is almost equally shocking that nothing in Missouri's elder abuse statutes would keep James from inheriting from his mother's estate.5Accounts like this are disconcerting for several reasons. First, for every disheartening story of elder abuse, there are several-perhaps dozens of-other stories that are never reported. Second, abusers have an eighty-four percent chance of living in a state that has not yet enacted a statute that disinherits elder abusers.6 Third, even in the eight states that have recognized that stories like Ms. Brown's are a major problem,7 the statutes that states have enacted to deal with this problem fail to provide strong incentives for people closest to elders to report abuse.Existing scholarship tends to welcome elder abuse disinheritance statutes without extreme criticism, noting their potential deterrent effects.8 However, I argue that these statutes have severely limited their potential deterrent effects by relying too strongly on antiquated notions of inheritance rights, by refusing to treat many forms of elder abuse as perpetrations that can be deterred by probate law, and by refusing to disengage themselves from criminal law.Most enacted elder abuse disinheritance statutes suffer from one of two common deficiencies. First, six of the eight states that have enacted such statutes require a criminal conviction, which deprives family members of an incentive to report and prosecute the abuse because they may lack evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, three of the states provide for disinheritance only in cases of financial elder abuse, relying on false ideas about which kinds of abusive acts actually relate to inheritance.California's statute does not suffer from the foregoing deficiencies, but it is particularly weak because it merely offsets the amount that an abuser would receive through inheritance by the amount of any judgment awarded to the abused elder's estate.9 These statutes provide a poor guide for states that are considering such legislation, as evidenced by a recent proposal in Connecticut that perpetuates many of their shortcomings.10 Figure 1 outlines the current condition of elder abuse disinheritance statutes in the eight states that have passed them.Several authors have criticized California's incomplete effort at disincentivizing elder abuse,11 but none have proposed language to fix this statute. Small changes in California's elder abuse disinheritance statute could transform it into a model statute that effectively disincentivizes many forms of elder abuse while still respecting testamentary freedom of elders, and I propose such changes in this Comment. The most effective way to ensure that states are aware of this model statute would be to include it in the Uniform Probate Code.12Following this introduction, Part II explains why treating elder abuse as a probate law problem-and not just a criminal law problem-will successfully supplement state criminal elder abuse statutes by disincentivizing elder abuse by family members. Part II also explains why enacting elder abuse disinheritance legislation falls clearly within states' powers under the Constitution, even if it is a break from antiquated notions of inheritance rights. Part III explains why the common law doctrine of undue influence is inadequate to prevent or remedy elder abuse. …" @default.
• W48860561 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W48860561 creator A5021845322 @default.
• W48860561 date "2014-09-22" @default.
• W48860561 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W48860561 title "Disincentivizing Elder Abuse through Disinheritance: Revamping California Probate Code § 259 and Using It as a Model" @default.
• W48860561 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W48860561 type Work @default.
• W48860561 sameAs 48860561 @default.
• W48860561 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W48860561 countsByYear W488605612015 @default.
• W48860561 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W48860561 hasAuthorship W48860561A5021845322 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C163401089 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C2779182270 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C2780195191 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C2780495726 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C526869908 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W48860561 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C144024400 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C163401089 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C17319257 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C17744445 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C199539241 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C2778061430 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C2779182270 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C2780195191 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C2780495726 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C2780656516 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C3017944768 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C526869908 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C545542383 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C71924100 @default.
• W48860561 hasConceptScore W48860561C73484699 @default.
• W48860561 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W48860561 hasLocation W488605611 @default.
• W48860561 hasOpenAccess W48860561 @default.
• W48860561 hasPrimaryLocation W488605611 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W117315210 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1516002458 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1550264964 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1565518069 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1579506206 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1580461677 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W1584069686 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2197980785 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2209701515 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2270426641 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2320199177 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2613491216 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W263425191 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W278925594 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W2907620311 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W305099522 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W3123349526 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W3125661182 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W3177058231 @default.
• W48860561 hasRelatedWork W862784856 @default.
• W48860561 hasVolume "2014" @default.
• W48860561 isParatext "false" @default.
• W48860561 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W48860561 magId "48860561" @default.
• W48860561 workType "article" @default.