MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Cathy Kennedy

From: Danielle Wendt

Date: February 20, 2011

Re: Dixon v. Cary

Probate of holographic will

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

You have asked me to prepare a memorandum of law addressing the question of whether Holly
Dixon (our client and the widow of Thomas Dixon) can challenge the probate of the holographic
will of Thomas Dixon which has been submitted for probate by Mary Cary, the sister of Thomas
Dixon and personal representative of his estate.

ISSUE

Under Tex. Prob. Code §59 and 60, is a will admissible to probate if it not fully handwritten and
there are no witnesses, but there is a self-proving affidavit?

BRIEF ANSWER

Based on Tex. Prob. Code §59 and 60, the holographic will submitted by Mary Cary will
probably be eligible for probate. Under that applicable state statute, the will is valid.

FACTS

The first half of Mr. Dixon’s will is in his own handwriting. The second half is typewritten by a
next-door neighbor, Edgar Mae. Mr. Mae states that Mr. Dixon asked him to finish the will
because Mr. Dixon was too weak to continue. The will is signed by Mr. Dixon. There are no
subscribing witnesses to the will, but it includes a self-proving affidavit.
 MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Cathy Kennedy

From: Danielle Wendt

Date: February 20, 2011

Re: Eldridge v. Eldridge

Modification of child support

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

You have asked me to prepare a memorandum of law to determine whether the trial court acted
properly when it excused Mr. Eldridge from paying $3,500 of the back child support.

ISSUE

Under Ind. Code § 31-2-11-12, can a divorced parent be excused from paying child support
during months that they were unemployed?

BRIEF ANSWER

Based on Ind. Code § 31-2-11-12 and Cardwell v. Gwaltney a parent cannot be completely
excused from paying child support even though the parent did not have a job. There is usually a
child support obligation established at some minimum level.

FACTS

The Eldridges were divorced in 2005. Mrs. Eldridge was awarded custody of their children and
Mr. Eldridge was to make child support payments of $700 per month. He lost his job in January
2006 and was unemployed until October 2006 during which time he did not make child support
payments. In January 2007, Mrs. Eldridge filed a motion with the court seeking an order forcing
Mr. Eldridge to pay the $7,000 in child support payments that he had not made. Mr. Eldridge
countered with a petition requesting that he be excused from having to pay the child support
during his ten months of unemployment. The court ordered him to pay one-half ($3,500) of the
amount due and excused him from pay the other $3,500.
 MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Cathy Kennedy

From: Danielle Wendt

Date: February 20, 2011

Re: Commonwealth v. Jones

Assault by means of a dangerous weapon – lightning

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

You have asked me to prepare a memorandum of law to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to support the charge the Mr. Jones assaulted Ms. Steward by means of a “dangerous
weapon.”

ISSUE

Under G.L. c. 265 § 15A, is there a sufficient basis to support charges of assault with a
dangerous weapon when the weapon is lightning, and a person is tied to a lightning rod attached
to a cottage during a violent electrical storm?

BRIEF ANSWER

No. For the purposes of section 15A, lighting cannot be possessed or controlled; it is not an
object or instrumentality capable of use as a weapon.

FACTS

Mr. Jones and Elizabeth Steward, who live in a cottage located on a bluff overlooking the
Atlantic Ocean, have had a stormy relationship for the past 10 years that includes multiple
instance of domestic violence. On April 5, after drinking and arguing, Mr. Jones dragged Ms.
Steward outside during a violent electrical storm, tied her to the lightning rod attached to the
cottage, and said, “I’ll fix you, you’re gonna fry.” Lightning never hit the pole. The state claims
that the dangerous weapon is lightning.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: Cathy Kennedy

From: Danielle Wendt

Date: February 20, 2011

Re: United States v. Canter

Armed bank robbery with a dangerous weapon

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

You have asked me to prepare a memorandum of law to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to support the charge the Mr. Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous
weapon.”

ISSUE

Under the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d), is there sufficient evident to
support charges of bank robbery with a dangerous weapon when the weapon is a crudely carved
wooden replica of a 9mm Beretta handgun, and the teller approached by the robber believed it
was a real handgun, but the only other witness did not believe it was real?

BRIEF ANSWER

Based on 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d) and U.S. v. Martinez-Jimenez, a dangerous weapon
includes a replica if it appears to be a genuine weapon to those present at the scene.

FACTS

On January 5, Mr Canter robbed the First State Bank. He entered the bank, approached a teller
with a crudely carved wooden replica of a 9mm Beretta handgun that he had carved from a
block of pine wood, stained it to look black, and drilled a hole in the barrel end to make it look
like a real Beretta. The teller was so frightened the he only glanced at the wooden gun but
believed it was real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica and afterward said that
she was fairly certain at the time that it was fake. No one else noticed whether the wooden
replica was real.