AGRICULTURE AND FAMILY FARMS:INTESTATE SUCCESSION AND ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD IN TRANSFERS

This Article is intended to contribute to the scholarship regarding family farms by focusing on caselaw in three distinct areas. First, this Article examines the legal issues that may arise with intestate succession of a family farm. The second part of this Article analyzes the legal issues surrounding family farms and alleged fraudulent transfers, conveyances, and deeds. In conclusion, given the myriad of considerations that arise with the transfer of family farms, producers and agricultural law practitioners must be aware of the risks of intestate succession and alleged fraudulent transfers, conveyances, and deeds to ensure the smooth succession of family farm

AN ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF SUCCESSION LAW SYSTEMS: PRIORITIZING SPOUSES VS. FORCED SHARES FOR CHILDREN AND PROPOSAL FOR A STANDARDS BASED APPROACH TO CHILD DISINHERITANCE

In the United States (“U.S.”), the foundation of succession law is the freedom of disposition. Priority is placed on the testator’s freedom to choose what happens with their property after they die. Thus, laws governing the distribution of property in both testate and intestate situations are aimed at honoring the testator’s intent. In the U.S., spouses are given preferential treatment under succession laws and intestacy laws. However, children are not given as great a level of protection as spouses and a testator can legally disinherit a child. This approach is unique because several other countries, along with one U.S. state, have some form of a forced inheritance for children. Proponents of a forced inheritance for children note the negative externalities associated with disinheriting kids and have analyzed the potential economic benefits of using a standards-based approach to children’s disinheritance, rather than the U.S. rule allowing disinheritance under all circumstances. On the other hand, research in favor of prioritizing spouses under succession laws shows that there can be economic benefits because it leaves a surviving spouse in a stronger financial position. This article serves as a comparative analysis from an economic perspective of the two succession systems: one where the spouses are prioritized over children and one where children are given a forced share of their parents’ estate. Further, this article argues that rather than a blanket allowance or blanket disallowance of the disinheritance of children no matter the situation, the better approach from an economic perspective could be to adopt a standards-based approach where child disinheritance is allowed only in certain circumstances. This article contributes to the growing area of research that relates economic concepts to succession law

Leandro v. State: The Challenges of Litigating School Funding Equity in Hyper-Partisan Times

The Leandro case serves as a critical case study highlighting the limitations of litigation in addressing educational inequities, particularly in states committed to undermining public education. Despite the judiciary\u27s constitutional role as an independent check on legislative actions, the politicization of state supreme courts has transformed them into partisan entities. This shift erodes public trust in the legal process and disproportionately harms marginalized groups, many of whom have historically relied on the courts to safeguard their constitutional rights, including equitable access to public education. The Leandro case underscores the challenges of achieving meaningful educational reform through litigation in a highly politicized environment

Stop WOKE Acts: How the Legislative Attack on CRT Harms Equality in Employment

In recent years, a growing media movement has publicized the concept of “wokeness” in America. Stopping wokeness is now a lightning rod for the political right and the political left, with the issue exploding from the traditional political arena to social circles, families, businesses, and even workplaces. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “woke” as being aware of and actively attentive to issues of racial and social justice. Prejudice and discrimination are not new concepts – they are the ancient obstacles in the path of society’s march towards equality. America’s journey on this path began with passing anti-discrimination legislation through the Civil War Era Constitutional Amendments, aimed at ensuring equality for African Americans, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Its successor, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expanded protection against discrimination to include religious belief, sex, national origin, and familial status, represented the next mile marker on this journey. In the minds of many, its passing rectified the issue of discrimination entirely. In 2022, more than a dozen bills were proposed or enacted related to social and other issues, including “divisive concepts” like critical race theory. These anti-woke laws, aimed at individuals, education, and corporations, are used as political tools as America has become more politically polarized over issues from racial justice and LGBTQ rights to the environment and COVID-19 vaccines, and most recently abortion. This article examines how these anti-woke acts harm equality in America by examining the specifics of one of the first bills to pass into law. Florida’s recently enacted law dubbed the “Stop WOKE Act” prohibits an employer from conducting, as a condition of employment, training that it specifies as divisive, however, the actual intended effect of this training is to stop tackling issues of implicit bias and discrimination. This article explains the heart of the conflict between the Act and federal law, reasons for supporting anti-discrimination training, and the positive effects of preventative discrimination training in the workplace

Suppressing Learning About Race and Law: A New Badge of Slavery? – A Brief Commentary

[There is a war being waged against African Americans, and their ability to speak out against racial injustice, which is more intense than any past attempt at suppression, since post-reconstruction in America. This war has been characterized by state legislative initiatives aimed at denying consideration or discussion of Critical Race Theory. Under the guise of “Anti-WOKE,” states, such as Florida have sought not only to prevent serious discussion of Critical Race Theory, but to broaden the attack to deny advocacy or discussion of the more general issue of systemic role of race in our understanding of American jurisprudence, as well. These actions have, to date, resulted in legal challenges drawn from First and Fourteenth Amendment considerations. While these constitutional issues are currently in litigation and have yet to be determined, there has not been additional consideration of the possible impact of silencing voices of communities of color in ways reminiscent of the voiceless role of slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibition of” Badges of Slavery” suggests an analytical perspective that has heretofore not been discussed. This brief commentary explores both the history and possible current application of the Badges of Slavery doctrine as a counter to current state legislative efforts at silencing. Because the author is currently involved in litigation challenging these attacks on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds, discussion of those issues are not addressed here. Instead, this commentary focuses exclusively on an argument not made – the Thirteenth Amendment ban on badges of slavery. enter Abstract Bod