An Estate Plan for the Dutton's of Yellowstone

 

This guest post is from Grace Henson, Regent Law 3L:

Paramount’s Yellowstone is full of drama surrounding land battles, relationships, and family, but it also raises several topics relevant to estate planning. John Dutton and his family are fighting to save their sixth-generation Montana cattle ranch from various attacks, one being development by a large corporation into an airport and ski resort. Dutton implores several tactics in order to save his ranch, most recently being his election as Montana governor.

It seems that John Dutton could benefit from a good estate planning attorney because it appears he does not have a will, and he faces several threats to his life. Without a will, Dutton’s assets will pass intestate. Given the strained nature of his relationship with his son, Jamie, Dutton would likely want to dispose of his property differently than it would pass intestate. Also, the unique nature of the land contributes to the need for this land to pass through Dutton’s specific wishes in a will because he wants someone to own the land who is passionate about running the ranch and is also committed to keeping the land within the family.

          Before his election as Montana Governor, Dutton placed the 750,000-acre ranch in a trust with his daughter, Beth, as trustee and both Beth and his youngest son, Kayce, as beneficiaries. Yet, this action was not as straight forward as it might seem. Dutton’s adopted son, Jamie, is an attorney and during certain parts of the show, actively fights against the family for the land. Jamie tries to claim future ownership in the land as an heir because he ascertains that the trust is invalid in Montana as Beth filed it in Salt Lake City, Utah. At that time, it is unknown to viewers and to Jamie that he is actually adopted by John, but that does not make a material difference because in Montana, adopted children have the same inheritance rights as biological children. Jamie’s claim, however, is incorrect because a trust need not be filed in a specific state to be enforced in that state. Instead, the state law that governs the trust is either the state law specified by the trust or the state in which the assets within the trust are located (in this case, Montana). Since Jamie is not a named beneficiary of the trust, he likely has no future interest in the land. Additionally, conflicts of interest would arise because Jamie is the Attorney General of Montana.  

          John and Beth also consider placing the land in a conservation easement with a land trust to avoid development. A conservation easement would permanently limit use of the land for specific conservation purposes and would eliminate the possibility of the land being developed into an airport and ski resort. Dutton would be compensated for essentially donating his land for conservation purposes by receiving a tax deduction. The family would continue living on the land, and the land could be passed to Dutton’s heirs, but all future owners of the land would be bound by this easement agreement.

          Yellowstone is evidence that estate planning is an important aspect of family restoration because it can work to create family harmony if it is done well, or family chaos if it is not.

Abortion at the Ballot Box in 2024

 

Reprinted from the Center for Christian Thought and Action at Regent Univ. 

Abortion was on the ballot in 7 states in last week’s election. Even with the presidential choice and those of numerous federal and state representative positions, the life issue dominated much of the American political conversation.  

That media colloquy was effective. Enshrining the abortion right into their state’s constitution became a reality in most states that considered the option. Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and New York now have enshrined a state constitutional right to abortion. Nebraska has protected the right to abortion in the first trimester, and Colorado and Maryland have enshrined the right to abortion throughout pregnancy, with Colorado adding the use of tax dollars to pay for that termination of life.

Florida and South Dakota were among the few states to say NO on a constitutional right to abortion. While Nebraska’s amendment “cement[ed] the state’s current 12-week abortion ban in the state constitution, a competing amendment to codify the right failed.”

The ballot in Missouri enshrined a new right to abortion.  This flipped that state from a completely pro-life state to now make abortion legal throughout pregnancy. This means that “citizens effectively voted to overturn their state’s abortion bans.”

Although the language of these amendments could have been intentionally vague, the lack of clarity does not change the fact that these outcomes have added a right to abortion to those state constitutions.  Comparing the numbers is enlightening:

AZ Trump 52.3% Abortion 61.6%

MO Trump 58.5% Abortion 51.6%

MT Trump 58.5% Abortion 57.6%

NV Trump 50.6% Abortion 64.2% (a second vote is still required to pass the measure)

NB Trump 55.9% (1), 76.3% (3), Abortion 55.1% for 1^st Trimester, 51.2% against

How did so many voters voice their conservative views on the presidential election but were not conservative on abortion?

One explanation may be that pro-lifers are not as predominant as one may think. According to a 2023 Statista survey, only 44% of Americans identify as pro-life, meaning they oppose abortion, while 52% of Americans identify as pro-choice, meaning they would accept abortion as a valid decision in pregnancy.

Another explanation may be that voters were responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, putting voice to a sort of backlash against what might have appeared to be judicial removal of a federally enshrined right.

Yet another, and dare I say more likely, explanation may be that in 2024 pro-life voters voted for abortion rights. This may come as a shock for some. Being pro-life generally carries with it a level of integrity.  The reality may be, however, that many who claim to be pro-life may not be so much at all. Sentiments may appear something more like, “I’m pro-life, but I believe in the exceptions – rape, incest, life of the mother, and my situation.” It is quite clear from the statistics that many who claim to be pro-life voted for abortion.

What does this mean for the pro-life movement going forward and how should Christians respond?

While we know the critical role that governing bodies play in our lives and how important it is for citizens to vote, these results provide some insight into a possible lack of veracity or authenticity in many who may give homage to a pro-life position. That can only change by a clear understanding that abortion is life-ending, killing a child. And it leaves a woman scarred forever by that decision to willfully take the life of her own child. The pro-life movement must give an empathetic voice to that understanding.

There are also some key indicators of the path that lies ahead for the pro-life movement politically speaking. This was the first time that any state blocked abortion rights. Thankfully, three states (Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota) blocked the bad initiatives from passing, actually winning on abortion at the ballot box.  There is hope for voters to uphold life. 

The losses in Arizona and Missouri are a bit more devastating because of the protections for the unborn that were already in state law.  With the passage of the amendments, Arizona went from restricting abortion after 15 weeks to restricting any state interference with abortion up through fetal viability (about 24 weeks).  Missouri went from protecting all unborn children to establishing a “right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, without any governmental interference.”  Both states eliminated the protections that existed in law for women and children.   

And yet, according to Human Life Action, this is not a time to be discouraged. “Progress in the post-Roe world created by Dobbs will take determination, perseverance, and hard work. Facing the challenges before us, we must create plans to educate people on the deadly proposals that abortion proponents are pushing and, above all, on the possibilities before us to nourish and protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. A majority of citizens are not looking for abortion on demand or abortion without restrictions.  In the same way, people also understand the need to protect young girls from abusers and predators through parental and informed consent.” 

Citizens who wish to protect life at all stages, for both mother and child, must be ready to take opportunities that may arise to defend life and the vulnerable among us.  The success of the three states that fended off abortion amendments can serve as a guide. 1) Have a head of the State (a Governor) who wholeheartedly backs the pro-life position. 2) Work a grass roots effort that is effective, and 3) Labor to make a future that respects life at all stages of development. 

The bottom line is this: the life issue will continue to dominate much of the American political conversation. Your next chance to vote to protect human life can make a big difference to the future of a child – whether that child has a future at all - or not. And whether that mom can be encouraged to protect the life of her child, rather than end it.

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Choosing life genuinely and faithfully in our personal lives and decisions, and in the ballot box, will make all the difference for family restoration.

Can Your Pet Inherit Your Money?

 

This guest post is from Isabell Wooddell, Regent Law 2L:

Every dog or cat owner wishes that their pet could live forever. Unfortunately, owning a pet comes with the recognition that you’ll eventually have to say goodbye to your furry friend.

More than likely you’ll outlive your pet, but, this isn’t always the case. Sometimes, you may die first. What exactly happens to your pet in the unfortunate event that you cross the rainbow bridge first?

Every year, thousands upon thousands of pets are surrendered to pet shelters simply because they outlived their owner. There’s no guarantee that these pets will be surrendered to no-kill shelters or even that they will end up in loving homes.

There is actually a way to guarantee that your pet will be cared for even after you die - by creating a “pet trust.” What is that?

A trust is a document whereby one individual places assets under the management of another individual or institution for the benefit of a third person. In the case of a pet trust, your pet would be the third party benefiting from the trust funds. It allows you to set aside funds in a trust to provide for the care and maintenance of your pet if you’re unable to. By establishing a pet trust, you are able to provide immediate care for your pet in the event that you die first, become ill or incapacitated.

Some people criticize pet trusts because your money can arguably be put to better use. Take for example, Leona Helmsley. She was a real estate billionaire who left $12 million in her will to her dog, while she left nothing whatsoever to two of her grandchildren. These types of situations are correctly criticized, however, one has to remember that the Helmsley case is an extreme one.

Setting aside funds for a pet trust can actually be a great use of your funds once you pass on, as long as you don’t take things too far (like Helmsley). Giving a reasonable amount of funds for the care of your pet if you are no longer able to can actually be a biblical pursuit. God entrusts us to care over the Earth, including the animals that preside on it, by giving us dominion over the Earth. Furthermore, Proverbs 12:10 (NIV) tells us that “a man who is right with God cares for his animal, but the sinful man is hard and has no pity.”

Setting aside extra funds you may have to guarantee that your pet is cared for after you pass on is a way that you can honor your biblical duty to take care of those over whom you have dominion.

The Impact of Foster Care and Juvenile Detention on Our Children’s Future

 

This guest post is from Madison Durner, Regent Law 3L:

According to the Children’s Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families, approximately 407,000 children were reported in foster care in 2020, and this number has continued to rise in the last several years. In addition to the rising numbers of youth in foster care, each year over 700,000 children in the United States face adjudication within the juvenile justice system. The “foster care to prison pipeline” is something that we cannot continue to ignore within the population.

These government-funded programs are designed to help take our youth out of a negative or dangerous home-life and provide them with the tools and resources to be adequately cared for or reformed through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant to restore a person, or in this case a child, to lead a useful life. However, by the age of 17, over 50% of children that have been in foster care have had some kind of connection or encounter with the juvenile legal system whether this be an arrest, conviction or detention. The lack of resources within foster care as an institution is prevalent and is creating a disproportionate number of children that have an increased probability of being intertwined with the justice system after being placed in foster care.

In addition to children in foster care being more likely to commit crimes, both children within the foster care and the juvenile justice systems are placed at a much higher risk of human sex trafficking or violent victimization. These children experience a various of risk factors that increase their vulnerability including family dynamics, socioeconomic and psychological factors. When children become in the custody of our governmental facilities, we should be taking more than the necessary precautions to make sure they have livable conditions, but we should be taking strides towards rehabilitation. These children deserve to have highly skilled and trained individuals to analyze their mental health needs, identify the signs and indicators of abuse or trafficking, and provide educational resources to put them on the right path even after their time at a facility has concluded.

Children placed in the care of the state or the government in any capacity are not likely to have come from a safe and loving environment that nourishes and encourages positive emotions and behaviors. Their innocence continues to be stripped away as they lose trust in all adults around them and turn to the streets for comfort.

Our children are the future. By neglecting their needs even after being presented with the evidence that they are struggling in their home life, they are having criminal tendencies, and their mental health is declining, we are failing them. Family restoration requires us all as a community to help restore their future.

Ministering to Families in Crisis

 

When people encounter a crisis, they often turn to ministry leaders, who may feel unprepared to guide them. Families face a multitude of challenges, from depression and anxiety to relational conflict to trauma and abuse. Providing the right resources and tools to help church members navigate their journeys is a solid starting place for every pastor and ministry leader.

Ministering to Families in Crisis provides leaders with an essential shelf reference for supporting your community's mental and emotional health. In each chapter, Christian leaders with unique expertise address common ministry challenges, providing evidence-based insights and practical suggestions. The book covers a full range of topics affecting families, marriages, children, and teens―including mental illness, LGBTQ+ issues, divorce, disability, poverty, racial trauma, and technology use. Contributors guide leaders on how to provide care and when to offer referrals.

Whatever members' background or experience, the church is a spiritual family that God designed to contribute to their formation and sense of belonging. This book gives ministers the tools and encouragement they need to help family members find hope amid the storms of life.

Get it today at Amazon or InterVarsity Press.

This excellent resource includes Chapter 8 which is entitled "Handling Divorce as a Ministry Leader: Tutorial from a Family Lawyer" by Regent Law Professor Lynne Marie Kohm. 

Ministering to Families in Crisis: The Essential Guide for Nurturing Mental and Emotional Health (October 22, 2024)

Eds. Jennifer S. Ripley, James N. Sells, Diane J. Chandler            

What’s Your View On Being An Organ Donor?

 

This guest post is from Kaitlyn Lancaster, Regent University School of Law 2L: 

This question has been debated for decades and plagues the minds of many Americans, particularly, and oddly, when standing in line at the DMV. For me, however, this question was the easiest I’ve ever had to answer, an absolute “Yes, I’d very much like to be an organ donor!” As morbid as that sounds, consider this backstory.

My grandfather, Willie Lancaster, was born in 1949 and in 1954 was sent to the Free Will Baptist Children’s Home in Middlesex, North Carolina, where he was raised. Willie loved playing basketball. To this day, he still holds the single-season scoring record for his high school’s basketball team, and, were he to have been healthy, could’ve provided him a pathway to a college basketball career. However, unbeknownst to Willie, or the orphanage staff, he was a type one diabetic, which was only discovered after he passed out in the middle of a game. This realization hindered his ability to play basketball, his college prospects, and many aspects of his future.

Willie married my grandmother, Paula, in 1970. Throughout their marriage, he was plagued with illness after illness which greatly impacted their lives. He lost his eyesight completely in his right eye due to the late detection of his diabetes. He was suffering incredibly and was placed on the transplant list for both a pancreas and a kidney. For a family, being on the transplant list is very much a waiting period. It’s a constant up and down of waiting for the phone to ring, being so excited for the prospect of it being your time, and then being let down all over again when the transplant falls through. However, on February 15, 1993, Willie got the call, a real call this time, and was able to get the life-saving transplant that he needed at Duke University Hospital. However, this transplant came with a cost. On Valentine’s Day, 1993, a young girl, attending North Carolina State University, was driving to meet up with a friend and got into a horrific car accident, ending her life. Her parents donated her organs to those in need, to my grandfather specifically. Were it not for her parent’s generosity and selflessness, I may not have had the opportunity to meet my grandfather, and he may never have been able to live for as long as he did, ironically, as a Duke Basketball fan.

Tragically, on July 28, 2011, Willie was on his way to a local diner, which he frequented every morning. On the way, another, distracted, driver hit Willie head-on, ending his life. Because of the gracious, selfless, and priceless gift, we were given by being able to know, love, and be loved by Willie, we extended that gift to another family. Willie’s cornea from his left eye was donated at the time of his death and was provided to a young boy who would now be given the gift of sight.

While obvious hesitations are presented regarding organ donation, I encourage you to remember this story. After your loved one has passed, their organs are useless to be kept with them. Particularly, if they are a person of faith, they have already been given their new body in Heaven with Christ. With that in mind, organ donation provides the opportunity of life, love, and family to so many individuals across the United States every year. What is a better gift, than the gift of a happy and healthy life?

Dower and Curtesy: a Jane Austen Novelty or a Present-Day Reality?

 

This guest post is courtesy of Heather Grace Spencer, Regent Law 2L:

When you hear the words dower and curtesy, what comes to your mind? Perhaps, you think of a Jane Austen novel or a time when marriages were arranged. While true that dower and curtesy relate to marriage, you likely believe that these archaic-sounding words are no longer used in the legal profession. You would be partially right because all states in the United States of America except Arkansas, Ohio, and Kentucky have abolished dower and curtesy rights. This blog will briefly explain the development of dower and curtesy rights by using the state of Arkansas as an example.

You may still be wondering what the words “dower” and “curtesy” mean. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “dower” as “at common law, a wife’s right, upon her husband’s death, to a life estate in one-third of the land that he owned in fee.”[1] Black’s Law Dictionary also defines “curtesy” as “at common law, a husband’s right upon his wife’s death, to a life estate in the land that his wife owned during their marriage, assuming that a child was born alive to the couple.”[2] As you can see from the definitions, common law showed preference for the wife to obtain her right of dower over the husband’s right to obtain his right of curtesy because the husband had to fulfill the additional condition of having marital children in order to obtain curtesy rights.

Historically, the rights of dower and curtesy have existed in the common law and were codified in the Magna Carta. Some estimate these spousal rights might possibly be even more ancient.[3] From the time of its statehood, Arkansas has used dower and curtesy and continues to do so.[4] Although dower and curtesy were and still are inherently gender-based laws, the Arkansas Supreme Court of the United States took the position at first in Stokes v. Stokes that gender-based laws are valid as long as the laws “serve a legitimate governmental purpose and are reasonably designed to accomplish that purpose.”[5] Later that year, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Hess v. Wims realized that showing preference to dower over curtesy rights was discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional. This ruling caused the Court to treat dower and curtesy as equivalent.[6]   

Although statutory law still differentiates between dower and curtesy in word, the actual rights of dower and curtesy are the same in deed. Evidence of this can be seen in A.C.A. § 28-39-401 (2024), which states:

(1) The surviving spouse, if a woman, shall receive dower in the deceased husband's real estate and personal property as if he had died intestate. The dower shall be additional to her homestead rights and statutory allowances; and (2) The surviving spouse, if a man, shall receive a curtesy interest in the real and personal property of the deceased spouse to the same extent as if she had died intestate. The curtesy interest shall be additional to his homestead rights and statutory allowances (emphasis added).

Some argue that Arkansas should abolish dower and curtesy rights because these rights are basically nonexistent. However, a study examining 2,027 warranty deeds from just one county (i.e., Pulaski County) in Arkansas dating from April 2001 to October 2015 showed 18.6% of couples relied on dower and curtesy rights to claim property.[7] Thus, if hypothetically 18.6% of all the couples of the seventy-five different counties in Arkansas depend on dower and curtesy rights, then quite a few could be adversely affected by the legislature eliminating these rights.

In a sense, the Arkansas legislature’s choice to keep dower and curtesy produces two results. First, dower and curtesy rights encourage an Arkansan to marry by knowing his or her respective spouse will more likely than not be provided for in the event of his or her death. Second, although divorce, being married for less than a year if testate (e.g., having a will that does not explicitly name one’s respective spouse), or a prenuptial agreement could take away dower and curtesy rights, a prudent Arkansan should still be careful to marry wisely by knowing his or her spouse might take against his or her will in the event of his or her death. These results fit well with the Christian principles of caring for widowed spouses and marrying wisely. Whether the rights of dower and curtesy will continue or become a relic of the past remains to be seen. For the present, dower and curtesy continue to exist in Arkansas, Ohio, and Kentucky.

---

[1] Dower Definition, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

[2] Curtesy Definition, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).

[3] J. Cliff McKinney, With All My Worldly Goods I Thee Endow: The Law and Statistics of Dower and Curtesy in Arkansas, 38 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 353, 355 (2016), https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol38/iss3/8.

[4] Id. at 353.

[5] Stokes v. Stokes, 613 S.W.2d 374, 375, 271 Ark. 301, 303 (1981).

[6] Hess v. Wims, 613 S.W.2d 85, 87, 272 Ark. 45, 48-49 (1981).

[7] J. Cliff McKinney at 424.

A United America for Family Restoration

 

Upon the conclusion of the 2024 Elections, Family Restoration is happy to share the message from Regent University Chancellor Gordon Robertson, as we move forward to family restoration for all Americans in Unity and Hope:

Today, I felt compelled to reach out to you all with a message of unity and hope, inspired by the scripture from Daniel 7:27.

 

Then the kingdom and dominion,

And the greatness of the kingdoms

under the whole heaven,

Shall be given to the people,

the saints of the Most High.

Daniel 7:27 NKJV

 

In a world often divided by political differences, I believe we can find common ground in our shared humanity and our collective aspiration for a better world. Regardless of our individual faiths or beliefs, we all seek peace, understanding, and harmony among people.

 

Let us come together in a spirit of mutual respect and compassion, recognizing that our diversity is a strength rather than a weakness. May we set aside our differences and focus on the greater calling that unites us all - the desire to create a shared society that acts justly, loves mercy, and walks humbly before God. A society known for love and kindness; a society of Samaritans who care for the poor and needy.

 

As we look to the future, let us work together to build a world where all people, regardless of their faith or background, can live in dignity and peace. May our unity be a beacon of hope for those who feel marginalized or forgotten. Let us strengthen our bonds of friendship and deepen our understanding of one another. Let us support each other in times of challenge and celebrate together in times of joy.

 

Through our collective efforts, we can create a nation that cares for all. I call upon all the saints of the Most High to serve our fellow human beings with one heart and one mind, working towards a future where compassion and understanding prevail. If we do, then we will become one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

May God bless us and give us a united future

 

Gordon Robertson