遗嘱信托制度研究

遗嘱信托作为一种新的法律制度,具有诸多功能,可以进行非常灵活的财产管理设计,让遗产得到合理的运用和管理.但在我国,遗嘱信托却还是处于刚刚起步的状态,一方面是因为我国的法律法规不健全,导致遗嘱信托发展迟缓,另一方面则是我国国民传统观念还比较保守,法律意识淡泊,与遗嘱有关的制度均受到了不同程度的阻碍.我国现行法律仅在《信托法》少量条文中明确提及到遗嘱信托,但仍没有将遗嘱信托和一般信托进行区别,而且学术界、司法部门对遗嘱信托的研究也不多,本文对我国的遗嘱信托制度进行了相关概述,同时也根据目前我国遗嘱信托的现状进行阐述,同时找出该制度存在问题,也针对各项问题提出了相应的解决措施.     

我国遗嘱信托制度浅谈

随着我国社会财富积累程度的不断提高，具有遗嘱信托要求的客户群越来越广泛。作为一种现代投资理财方式，遗嘱信托制度弥补了原有继承制度的不足。通过遗嘱信托制度，被继承人不但可以实现财富的传承，还可以设计实现自己的各种未了的心愿，使财富得以延续和增值。本文立足于我国遗嘱信托制度的现状，介绍了遗嘱信托的功能和外国遗嘱信托制度的发展情况，分析了我国遗嘱信托制度存在的问题，提出了遗嘱信托制度的完善方向。     

遗嘱信托若干法律问题探讨

我国《信托法》第八条和第十三条规定了遗嘱信托制度,标志着我国遗嘱信托制度在立法上迈出了重要的一步。但是,除去与传统遗嘱信托法理有相悖之处,其本身规定又过于简单,在实践中很难操作,因此构建适应我国国情的遗嘱信托体制是当前信托领域的一个突出课题。本文在此主要探讨以下问题:遗嘱信托受托人范围、信托财产所有权权属以及遗嘱信托形式问题,进而提出一些拙见,以期有利于我国遗嘱信托制度的研究和发展。     

我国遗嘱信托制度的构建

遗嘱信托相比于信托形式,具有很大的优越性,但遗嘱信托在我国尚处于起步阶段,各项制度均未健全。当前我国《继承法》中遗嘱继承的方式存在诸多不完善之处,过度强调所有权的转移,所能调整的范畴仅为遗产的转移,因此,有必要在我国完善遗嘱信托的构建,但当前我国《信托法》中的遗嘱信托相关制度都存在缺陷,以受托人的承诺为信托成立的要件,与遗嘱构成矛盾,信托中的财产登记制度将导致遗嘱信托难以实现,同时信托并无存续期限的限制,因此遗嘱信托的构建应当从这些缺陷入手,以期更好地实现遗产的传承。     

浅议我国遗嘱信托制度之现状与完善

遗嘱信托制度由于其无与伦比的优势,已受到世界各国的青睐。随着我国经济飞速发展致使个人财富的不断积累,遗嘱信托将在我国有一个广阔发展的空间。文章从遗嘱信托的涵义与特征,遗嘱信托的优越性出发,分析我国遗嘱信托的现状及发展前景,从而提出对其完善的四条建议。     

遗嘱信托制度论

遗嘱信托作为一种处理遗产的方式,正日益受到世界各国或地区的广泛使用。我国目前已具有建立遗嘱信托制度的需求和基础,但仍然存在一系列的障碍。为此,有必要就遗嘱信托制度的内涵、历史沿革、在两大法系的运行情况等进行介绍,在此基础上探讨我国大陆现行继承法和信托法对此制度进行移植的可能性以及需克服的法制障碍。     

我国遗嘱信托制度之规范重构——立足于现有法律框架内的分析与反思

遗嘱信托是遗嘱人以遗嘱的方式,将信托财产托付于受托人,依一定的目的而管理或者处分,并将所得收益交予指定的受益人。本文力图在现有法律体系的基础上引入和构造遗嘱信托,以实现该制度在《信托法》、《继承法》、《物权法》上的调和。     

夫妻共同遗嘱制度立法分析

夫妻共同遗嘱是夫妻双方对其婚姻存续期间共同财产作出事先处分的一致意思表示.国内外学者对共同遗嘱主要有肯定、否定与折中三种态度..我国法律对共同遗嘱没有规定,然而从我国近年来的司法实践来看,进行共同遗嘱立法具有必要性和迫切性.本文通过对国外相关制度的了解和对我国司法判例的统计分析,认为应当承认共同遗嘱的效力,加快相关立法,并对共同遗嘱中存在争议的问题进行法理分析提出了实施建议.     

遗嘱信托概念之辨析

遗嘱信托在经济快速发展的社会中已经被运用得越来越多,本文通过理清遗嘱信托的概念,以解决遗嘱信托在运用中所遇到的相关问题。     

我国遗嘱执行人制度的立法构想

遗嘱执行人制度是近现代继承法的重要内容,我国现行继承法没有建立完整的遗嘱执行人制度,系立法缺陷,应予弥补.遗嘱执行人制度应当包括的内容有:遗嘱执行人的资格、指定及其就职与拒绝,遗嘱执行人的权利、义务、责任与监督,无遗嘱执行人的处理等.     

Testamentary competency

This paper examines the development of the doctrine that restricts testation to competent persons, and the use of expert testimony in implementing that doctrine. Since 1870 the leading articulation of this doctrine has been Lord Cockburn's Rule, which among other things requires that the testator knew the natural objects of his bounty at the time the will was made. The facultative theory of mind underlying Lord Cockburn's Rule is consistent with the contemporary, functional approach to competency to make medical decisions taken by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Where expert testimony, based on training in the behavioral sciences, takes a functional approach to discovering the nature of the testator's values regarding other persons, it can assist the trier of fact significantly more than the lay opinion testimony which many courts have preferred in questions of testamentary competency. The concern of commentators that courts make false attributions of testamentary competency out of a perceived need to protect the family would be lessened, and the freedom of testation promoted, if courts directed their attention, through the kind of expert testimony proposed, to the testator's psychological family, instead of the persons identified as family members in intestacy statutes.The author wishes to thank Professors John Monahan, Roberta A. Morris, and Richard J. Bonnie for their helpful critiques of an earlier draft of this paper. The author also gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Vicki L. Epling and Paul A. Lombardo, law students at the University of Virginia.A portion of this paper was presented by the author at the 1982 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association under the title, The Application of Psychology to Legal Problems Involving Trusts and Estates, as part of the symposium, Psychological Questions in Legal Areas Largely Unexplored by Psychologists. This symposium was proposed and organized by Professor Gary B. Melton of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.     

Testamentary capacity

Wills are more prone to challenge on the issue of testamentary capacity because, as people live longer, they are more likely to have the kind of conditions that interfere with capacity and because the courts seem to be more apt to hear evidence and allow findings of lack of testamentary capacity than in the past. Therefore, it is incumbent on attorneys to protect the interests of their clients by addressing the issue of testamentary capacity in any case in which a will contest might be anticipated. Ideally, attorneys in such situations should have their clients counsel with a psychiatrist who is knowledgeable and experienced in matters of probate and will contests. Further, the attorney and the client must provide extensive data (of the kind which a jury might ultimately obtain) on which the psychiatrist can base his or her conclusions that the client is of "sound mind."     

Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence: Assessments and Problematic Techniques

Psychological Injury and Law - As the population of the USA ages, mental health practitioners are increasingly called upon to assess civil capacities. This paper provides information regarding the...     

精神障碍者的遗嘱能力研究进展

遗嘱能力是指自然人享有的依法设立遗嘱以处分其财产的能力或资格。是众多民事行为能力中的一种．近年来精神障碍者遗嘱能力评定的案例呈增多趋势。本文首先介绍遗嘱及遗嘱能力的概念．然后对遗嘱能力的评定标准进行总结,主要是以Banks v．Goodfellow案例为基础制定的标准,包括理解遗嘱的性质和附加条款、对自己资产的基本认识、对自己可分配物品的认识、理解自己财产分配所带来的影响和不受妄想影响下分配财产,并归纳遗嘱能力的影响因素,包括痴呆、情感障碍、精神分裂症、酒中毒、精神活性物质和不适当影响等。最后简要介绍了其相关的评定工具如简明精神状态检查量表、画钟测验和遗嘱定义量表。     

论遗嘱自由之限制:立法干预的正当性及其路径

从平衡遗嘱人意愿与其近亲属利益、否定歧视妇女的传统、维护社会公序良俗、保护社会公平等考虑,均有必要找到遗嘱自由的"恰当底线"。在域外继承法中,无论大陆法或英美法传统的国家和地区,普遍采取措施对遗嘱自由进行一定限制。我国现行《继承法》却对遗嘱处分无所限制,仅必留份除外。该种过度信赖遗嘱人自治的立法,与财产继承法自身承担的职责不符。改革开放以来,遗产分配争议明显增多,与现行遗嘱继承立法不足有直接关系。我国遗嘱继承立法宜借鉴域外继承法经验,对遗嘱处分实施适当的限制,引入结婚导致婚前所立遗嘱无效、特留份制,限制遗嘱处分婚姻居所等,以保护被继承人近亲属的应得继承份额。     

西方遗嘱继承理念变迁及规律

＂家族协同说＂是古代社会的遗产继承理论,近代思想家依据自然法提出了遗嘱继承＂意志说＂,现当代法学家从关注社会利益的视角出发,提出了遗嘱继承＂社会利益说＂。西方遗嘱继承理念的变迁,表现为从＂家族协同说＂、＂意志说＂再到＂社会利益说＂这样一个历史发展过程,并呈现出多样化特质,但总的发展趋势与规律是走向个人、家庭与社会之间的利益平衡。