- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Liverpool FC 2012/13 Season Long Thread
Posted on 12/9/12 at 11:16 pm to BleedPurpleGold
Posted on 12/9/12 at 11:16 pm to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
The rights of an intestate successor who renounces accrete to those persons who would have succeeded to them if the successor had predeceased the decedent.
Done
1
Posted on 12/10/12 at 12:02 am to Bho
Right, but my problem is that article 1589 differs from 965 (the one your quoted) in situations where there is a testate succession and the successor renounces his legacy, creating a lapsed legacy. Under 965 you treat him as if he's predeceased in that situation (again, as you pointed out). But under 1589 the legacy accretes to the person who would have inherited if the legacy had never been given. The problem comes up because at some point you have to treat a testamentary succession with intestate rules.
Who gets the fricking money? shite.
Who gets the fricking money? shite.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News