Please answer the following questions

1) Why is it important that the law have rules about personal and real property ownership? Consider from a landowners' rights, property protections, and alienability perspective.

the picture below is for question number 2. and make sure to answer the questions in the last picture.

2) Read the Business Case Study, Peterson v. Harrell, on page 575 of your text and answer questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 on page 576.

UNIT NINE Property and Its Protection 576 The record [shows] that the will was her desire to substitute Julie Peterson as her executrix. found in good condition on testator's desk As found by the trial court, this evidence clearly indi- cates testator's intent to cancel only certain provisions of among her personal papers. It bore the signatures of both testator and her subscribing witnesses and set the will, not an intent to revoke the will in its entirety as out a primary bequest to Lucas which remained intact. required for revocation under OCGA [Official Code of Handwritten alterations crossing out the names of the Georgia Annotated] Section 53-4-44. successor beneficiaries with a single line were initialed * * * * by testator and she added language to the will indicating Judgment affirmed. Dissenting Opinion CARLEY, Presiding Justice, dissenting. the very presumption which they raise. The fact that * * * * Testatrix also cancelled another, less material provision, The will provided that the entire estate was to be held by altering the appointment of an executrix, is simply in trust for the primary beneficiary during her lifetime evidence of even more extensive cancellation than is and that, upon her death, the entire remaining estate necessary to raise the presumption of intent to revoke would be distributed to the successor beneficiaries in a the entire will. specified manner. The cancellation of all of their names Accordingly, contrary to the majority opinion, evi- was material because it directly affected the distribution dence of a material cancellation and an intent thereby of all property in the estate." to revoke the entire will arises from the face of the will Because the striking of the beneficiaries' names was and from the correct application of presumptions long a material cancellation, it "gave rise to a rebuttable pre- established by Georgia law, and there is a total absence sumption under [Georgia law] that [Testatrix] intended of any evidence to the contrary. The rationale and oper- to revoke [her] entire will." ation of the presumption in [the relevant Georgia stat- Neither the majority nor Appellee Richard Harrell ute] have been extensively considered and well settled, points out any evidence in rebuttal. There is no parol and any change therein should be solely a matter for the evidence as to the acts and declarations of Testatrix, legislature. Therefore, the trial court's judgment against although such evidence is admissible. The nature of Caveators should be reversed. the cancellations themselves obviously does not rebut Questions for Analysis 1. Law What was the central issue before the court in 4. Social Dimensions Why did the majority conclude his case? that the will had been only partially revoked? 2. Law Who was challenging the validity of Marion 5. Law Why did the dissent disagree with the majority's Peterson's will? opinion? 3. Law What specific changes had Peterson made to her will that led to this controversy?UNIT 9 Property and Its Protection . . . . . . ..... . . . . ...... Business Case Study with Dissenting Opinion Peterson v. Harrell As discussed in Chapter 29, a testator can revoke his or her will anytime during his or her lifetime. This can be done by a physical act, such as tearing up the will or by a subsequent writing. Most states have their own statutes regarding the partial revocation by a physical act, and those mandates must be followed exactly. In Peterson v. Harrell,' which we examine in this unit's Business Case Study with Dissenting Opinion, the court had to decide whether the maker of a will intended to revoke part or all of the will by making certain changes to it after the will was executed. Case Background Marion Peterson, a Georgia resident, executed Carolyn. Later, without witnesses, Peterson crossed her will. The trial court disagreed and admitted the a will that contained a bequest to Vasta Lucas in out the beneficiaries' names, but she left the will to probate court. Arvin and Carolyn appealed to the form of a trust. On Lucas's death, the trustee bequest to Lucas intact. After Peterson's death, the Supreme Court of Georgia. was to distribute the assets to four beneficiaries, Arvin and Carolyn contended that the will had been including Peterson's brother and sister, Arvin and completely revoked when Peterson partially altered Majority Opinion THOMPSON, Justice. shall distribute any remaining assets to four beneficia- Testator Marion E. Peterson died in 2008. She was ries, including caveators. Some time after the will was survived by her two siblings, Arvin Peterson and Carolyn executed, testator struck through with an ink pen the Peterson Basner (caveators ). After testator's death, Vasta names of all successor beneficiaries of the trust estate, as Lucas, testator's longtime companion and executor of well as language in the will nominating Richard Harrell testator's estate, filed a petition to probate testator's will as successor executor and trustee. None of the strike- in solemn form. Lucas died during the pendency of this throughs were witnessed or attested to. Near the end of appeal, and appellee Richard Harrell was appointed as the will, testator wrote, "My executrix is Julie Peterson.' successor executor and trustee for the estate. Caveators Caveators contend these alterations constitute material filed a caveat to the petition to probate, alleging the will cancellations that effect a revocation of the will. was not properly executed or had been revoked due to To effect a revocation of a will by obliteration, cave- obliterations. The trial court admitted the will to probate ators must show that testator made material oblitera- and caveators appealed. tions [eliminations] to her will or directed another to * * * The evidence supports the trial court's finding do so and that testator intended for this act to revoke that the will was duly executed. the will. Joint operation of act and intention is necessary The will contained a bequest to Lucas in the form of to revoke a will. The intent to revoke the will in its entirety a trust and provided that upon Lucas's death the trustee shall be presumed from the obliteration or cancellation of a material portion of the will, but such presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence. [Emphasis a. In the context of wills, a caveator is one who files a caveat added.] attacking the validity of an alleged will. * * * * 1. 286 Ga. 546, 690 S.E.2d. 151 (2010)