Estates & Trusts - Spring 2009 (Hibbitts)

Modification of charitable trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:09:00 +0000

Like private trusts, charitable trusts too can be modified in certain circumstances. The modification procedure is known as "cy pres", a medieval law French expression literally meaning "as near [as possible]".

In effect, a charitable trust that has become impossible or impracticable or (per the Uniform Trust Code) otherwise wasteful may continue if a court can find an alternate specific purpose for the trust derived from the general purpose behind the trust's original (and now impossible or impractical) specific purpose. Simple inefficiency or inconvenience is not enough.

Cy pres should be distinguished from administrative deviation, where the charitable trust's specific purpose can be generally achieved but where technical compliance will defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust's purpose, or otherwise will render that problematic.

The case of the Pennsylvania-based Barnes Foundation illustrates many of the challenges posed by the cy pres and deviation doctrines. At what point do the implementation of these do impermissible violence to the charitable intent of the settlor? And to what extent should that count?

Charitable trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:13:00 +0000

Charitable trusts are trusts established for a recognized charitable or public purpose that may survive even if they are for unspecified individuals and/or operate indefinitely. In this context they are exempt from rules that would burden and limit private trusts. Despite their lack of identifiable beneficiaries, they are enforceable by a state's attorney general, who supervises them in the public interest.

A charitable trust must fall into one or more specific categories:

advancement of religion
advancement of education
promotion of health
relief of poverty
governmental and municipal purposes
other public purposes

These categories may themselves be problematic. Consider the following would-be charitable trusts?:

for the Democratic Party
to pay the salary of all Pitt professors of Estates & Trusts
to establish communism in the United States
to fund a public radio (NPR) station
to promote Scientology
for such persons as the Rev. Eleazer Wells should select
for the support of the working classes
to publish the judgments of Antonin Scalia
for the upkeep of a cat
for the support of veterans

Charitable trusts must be charitable on objective grounds, not just in the mind of the settlor.

Apart from being good in themselves, charitable trusts may yield certain tax advantages for settlors.

Modification and termination of trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:07:00 +0000

Because trusts are designed to operate over time, circumstances - such as an economic downturn, for example - may arise which suggest or even in theory require the modification of trust terms. Private trusts can be modified beyond the settlor's death by agreement of the beneficiaries so long as the modification is deemed in accordance with the settlor's original intent. At times, however, this may be hard to determine. A number of scholars have argued that the rules for modification should be liberalized.

The law of trust termination is similar. Even if all beneficiaries consent to premature termination of the trust before its purpose has been accomplished, it cannot be terminated if that would have been contrary to the interest of the settlor. The English rule on termination is broader.

Discretionary trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:41:00 +0000

Trusts can be either mandatory or discretionary. Mandatory trusts require the trustee to follow the specific direction of the settlor to pay income or principal as required. Discretionary trusts, on the other hand, allow the trustee to decide what specific amounts of income and/or principal to pay to beneficiaries, and may even allow the trustee to decide which beneficiaries to favor or to pay beneficiaries at all.

Because the right of beneficiaries to specific funds under a discretionary trust is indeterminate, courts have held that creditors may not be able to reach discretionary trust funds that have not yet been paid down to a beneficiary.

The existence of discretionary powers imposes responsibility on a trustee to adhere to the settlor's discretionary terms and not to be reckless in exercising those powers. This does not mean, however, that the trustee in a discretionary trust does not have significant latitude, to the extent that beneficiaries may have little remedy in the face of all but the most atrocious actions. At the same time, trustees may have precious little guidance on just how to exercise their discretion.

Revocable trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:09:00 +0000

Revocable trusts are frequently used or recommended as "will substitutes" capable of transferring property at death without will formalities or the burdens of the probate process. Often referred to as revocable living trusts or just "living trusts" (here's a sample living trust form) they pass some degree of control over the settlor's assets out of the settlor's hands but may be modified or canceled outright by the settlor at some future time.

Precisely because they allow the settlor to "have his cake and eat it too" they have traditionally been suspect as devices for potentially avoiding creditors or other dependents, but in recent decades - urged on by convincing (but sometimes over-zealous) advocates drawing on general public dissatisfaction with the probate process - courts and legislatures have been more accepting of them while generally cutting down the extent to which they can be used as shelters. They can still go too far, however - so called "control trusts" where the settlor holds virtually all powers over property while purporting to hold it under trust terms are invalid.

As revocable trusts have become more common as will substitutes the law governing them has become more elaborate. In a variety of instances, courts have applied rules and principles from the law of wills to cover gaps in revocable trusts law, but this begs the question of whether they should, as treating the two instruments as subject to a single wills-derived scheme may ultimately burden trusts law with the very assumptions, conditions and requirements it was designed to avoid.

Creation of trusts (cont.)

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:45:00 +0000

A private trust requires specific trust beneficiaries, although those may remain undetermined for an amount of time defined by the rule against perpetuities. If there are no specific beneficiaries or if the beneficiaries are indeterminate, then the trust is unenforceable and will fail unless it can be classified as charitable. The beneficiaries must be legally-recognized entities who can enforce the trust terms against the trustee - a trust for the benefit of a specific animal, for example, is per se invalid unless the trust can be regarded as precatory.

Although trusts can theoretically be created orally or in writing, oral trusts can be problematic if they are in relation to land or ancillary to a will where the will itself is insufficiently specific to create a valid trust. "Secret trusts" where the trust is not at all evident from a will are particularly problematic.

Creation of trusts

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:57:00 +0000

We've already encountered trusts incidentally when talking about wills, and you may already have a good sense of what they are, but here's some boilerplate from the ABA that sums the concept up nicely:

A trust is a legal relationship in which one person (or qualified trust company) (trustee) holds property for the benefit of another (beneficiary). The property can be any kind of real or personal property--money, real estate, stocks, bonds, collections, business interests, personal possessions and automobiles. It is often established by one person for the benefit himself or of another. In those cases, it generally involves at least three people: the grantor (the person who creates the trust, also known as the settlor or donor), the trustee (who holds and manages the property for the benefit of the grantor and others), and one or more beneficiaries (who are entitled to the benefits).

This may sound complicated, but, respectfully taking exception to some of Justice O'Connor's cautionary comments in Hodel v. Irving, they are really fairly simple devices.

Trusts may be used for lifetime purposes or as part of - or even as *the* - estate plan. The device has a long history, going back to the Middle Ages and the concept of the use.

Trusts can be created orally or in writing. How you create a trust really depends on what you are putting in trust. Trusts of real property must be in writing. A trust can be set up in a will ("testamentary trust"); a will can also pour assets into a pre-existing trust ("pourover will").

Trusts are generally easier to create and change than wills. So-called living trusts can and certainly have been used to avoid probate but that does not mean that trusts are necessarily appropriate for all after-death transfers. Living trusts are not subject to same degree of court oversight and they may end up not covering all a decedent's assets, raising the prospect of partial intestacy if a decedent dies without a will. In this context estates lawyers still advise their clients to make a will and - if a living trust is the centerpiece of their estate plan - to provide for a pour-over of any probate assets into the trust for distribution according to its terms.

Omitted issue

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:07:00 +0000

While surviving spouses are generally protected by statute from decedents who would cut them off, children can be disinherited, with few exceptions. Courts, however, have traditionally been inclined to protect them indirectly by manipulating other doctrines such as mental incapacity, undue influence, etc. and have been wary of barring them except in cases of fairly explicit statements of contrary intent.

Certain children find themselves in an especially problematic position when they are born after a will which, upon probate, appears to leave them out. These so-called pretermitted children are generally allowed to recover unless it appears the omission was intentional, the testator passed all his/her property to the surviving parent (with presumably no intent to make a separate gift to the child) or the testator provided for the pretermitted child outside of the will.

The share obtained by a pretermitted child varies from state to state, but in some cases it may be problematic if computed on the basis of what other children get, especially if they are cut down to nominal amounts in a will.

Rights of a surviving spouse

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:34:00 +0000

Virtually all US states give specific rights to a surviving spouse intended to protect them, even in the face of a will by the deceased spouse that purports to transfer all their assets away from the survivor. Some of these rights, such as dower, homestead, personal property set-aside and family allowance, are highly traditional. Others, such as elective share, social security and private pension plans, are of much more recent provenance.

"Elective share" (sometimes called forced share) is the term given to the amount that a surviving spouse can choose to take from a decedent spouse's estate in the event that the spouse leaves them less than an amount designated by statute. Note that "taking against the will" in this context is a matter of choice, and sometimes a spouse may not, for various reasons, choose to elect.

Elective share is mostly relevant in so-called "common law" states where property in a marriage may vest in the earner, as opposed to going into some kind of "community property" pot. The common law approach raises the specter of a surviving spouse being left destitute if the decendent spouse exercises complete freedom of testation.

Election must be made within a certain statutorily-designated period of time, in order to avoid lingering claims against the estate clogging the probate process.

Election may be problematic for several reasons. In the first place, the range and definition of the property elected against may not be entirely clear. In the second place, election may force abatement of other gifts. In the third place, personal election by a surviving spouse may not be possible in instances where the spouse is incapable of making a choice, in which case a choice may be made on their behalf by a guardian acting in the surviving spouse's best interest.

An elective share may theoretically be waived in advance as well as afterwards, but preliminary waiver raises questions about voluntariness.

Elective share laws are still controversial in some states.

The expanding definition of "spouse" - to potentially include common law partners, co-habitees, and same-sex partners of various types - has complicated the law of spousal share in recent years, although courts have to this point been hesitant to open the category broadly for purposes of succession and inheritance.

Lapsed devises and property changes

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:10:00 +0000

What happens if a beneficiary predeceases the testator? In this case the bequest lapses. Under common law, it may pass as a gift over, to other members of a set class, into the residual clause, or ultimately by intestacy.

Nowadays, however, many states have so-called anti-lapse statutes to provide for additional means of recovery short of forcing gifts into the residue. These, however, frequently apply only to certain beneficiaries who are close blood-relatives of the testator. Testators may also opt out of them by evincing a contrary intent to the statute.

Property too can change over time, forcing executors and courts to effectively amend gifts to beneficiaries or even eliminate them entirely. Ademption by extinction occurs when an asset gifted in a will is no longer in existence - or is substantially changed - at the time the will is probated. What happens in this situation generally depends on the nature of the devise - is it specific, general or demonstrative. If specific, ademption eliminates the gift in deference to the presumed intent of the testator to give precisely that thing. If the devise is general or demonstrative, however, the value of an adeemed asset may be realized and passed in other ways. A gift can also be the subject of ademption by satisfaction when it is given away to the beneficiary in the lifetime of the testator.

If assets are sold off to satisfy certain bequests, other bequests made in a will may have to be abated. i.e. cut down in whole or in part. Abatement of bequests generally takes place in the order of 1) residuary devises; 2) general devises; 3) demonstrative and specific devises, the presumption being that the testator, if he or she had been given the choice, would want to give greatest protection to the most particular gifts.

Mistakes and ambiguities in wills

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:07:00 +0000

Wills have traditionally been interpreted according to their "plain meaning", and courts have generally rejected invitations or opportunities to reform wills according to extrinsic evidence of testamentary intent where there is no ambiguity, and even then extrinsic evidence may be rejected.

Whether there is in fact a plain meaning to any will or any statement is, of course, another matter, although some legal scholars would suggest that recent criticisms of it are exaggerated.

Ambiguities are of two sorts: latent and patent. A latent ambiguity arises when the will is applied to outside circumstances. The will, however, appears fine on its face. In this situation courts may admit extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity. Patent ambiguities arise on the face of the will, but here courts have often resisted extrinsic evidence, preferring to resolve the ambiguity within the four corners of the instrument. Newer cases, however, lay less stress on this distinction.

What should the limits of attorney liability be for errors of this nature?

Is the more recent trend toward limited will reformation in instances of mistake to be welcomed?

Will components

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:47:00 +0000

The law of will components is governed by a series of interrelated doctrines, including:

1) integration
2) republication by codicil
2) incorporation by reference
3) acts of independent significance.

The first two of these have to do with testamentary documents, the third allows a non-testamentary document to be tied into a will, and the third generally relates to physical conduct outside the scope of any document.

Revocation of wills

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Good wills are not just made, they are maintained. As a person goes through life their circumstances, assets and desires often change. Major life events like marriage or the birth of a child may concentrate a testator's attention on changing their will, but even apart from that, attorneys often recommend reviewing a will every few years to keep up with the testator's general sitiation.

Changing a will may involve anything from simple modification to outright revocation. Change is generally accomplished by the execution of a valid codicil to an existing will, execution of a new will, or a physical act destroying an old will. Sometimes, however, testators and their lawyers do things incorrectly, with the result that a testator dies with a will that he/she thought he/she had changed/revoked, or dies intestate when he/she believes there is a valid will on record.

Here are some additional resources on changing and revoking wills:

Changing, Adding to, Revoking Your Will or Trust [ABA]
Requirements for Will Validity at the Testator's Death [Washington state law, but helpful on general concepts]

Holographic wills

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:27:00 +0000

A holographic will is an instrument fully or substantially handwritten by the testator that may be probated without certain traditional formalities: e.g. (depending on jurisdiction) witnesses, signature, etc. Some 25 US states allow some form of holographic will, although specific requirements vary from state to state.

Holographic wills can be written or scrawled on paper, walls, or any other surface. They may be handy in emergencies. They may look like formal wills or they can be letters or other messages having testamentary intent. Often derided by legal experts they do, however, have a certain all-American democratic appeal that has led some law professors in recent years to describe them as highly useful and effective devices. Holographic wills (or alleged holographic wills!) have even figured in the estates of the rich and famous!

Execution of wills

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:58:00 +0000

Most wills are executed in some kind of lawyer-supervised execution ceremony. This can be quite elaborate, and perhaps should be. A good will execution ceremony can help avoid problems with the estate down the line. A bad one, of course, may breed those problems and potentially undermine the entire estate plan. Indiana (1988) and Louisiana (2005) have enacted legislation declaring that video recording of a will execution ceremony is admissible in cases where the details of the execution ceremony may be material to the will's legal status.

Sometimes, however, will execution videos may be as troubling as they are potentially helpful, especially when one is dealing with elderly or otherwise infirm testators. For instance, watch this video [click on "Video" in the horizontal menu, then in the drop-down click "The Will"] of the will execution ceremony (if you can call this that) of Mary Ellen Bendtsen, a prominent Dallas 1930s-era model and socialite who died in 2005, controversially leaving her grand home at 4949 Swiss Ave. in Dallas to two male antique dealers unrelated to her. The Dallas Morning Herald produced a series of special reports on the disposition of the Bendtsen estate to document problems associated with financial exploitation of the elderly. After a challenge alleging undue influence, Bendtsen's will was denied probate on technical grounds, leaving her estate to go by intestacy to her daughter. In August 2008, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the would-be will beneficiaries' appeal.

What are the ethical responsibilities of the lawyer in the will execution process? In the Bendtsen case, Bendtsen's lawyer was originally the lawyer for the antique dealers, the would-be beneficiaries here. Did Mary Ellen have "independent advice"?

Problems in will execution are less severe than they once were. A recent decline in judicial formalism and the growing popularity of doctrines allowing harmless error have mitigated some of the severity of the old approach.

Will-making capacity

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:57:00 +0000

It is often said that the mental capacity standard for will-making is minimal: less than the legal competency standard to stand trial, take care of one's own affairs in life, execute a contract, or even marry.

Generally speaking the burden is on a would-be challenger to prove a decedent's lack of mental capacity. Challengers may introduce expert evidence on the matter into court. A testator's mere eccentricity is not enough. Mental illness or dementia may, however, be another matter.

Wills must also be free of undue influence and fraud. Usually these too must be proven, but undue influence in particular may be presumed in some jurisdictions where there is a so-called "confidential relationship" between the parties that makes it especially plausible. In those situations, the presumption must generally be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

Wills may also theoretically be burdened by what the authors of your text call "tortious interference with expectancy", the concept at the heart of the notorious Anna Nicole Smith case, which, much to chagrin of some estates lawyers, made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The essential problem in that case, some would say, was predictable.

A good lawyer and a proactive testator can take a number of steps individually and together to avoid a will contest based on the alleged presence of any one or more of these factors.

Bars to succession

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Bar to succession are of two principal types:

involuntary
voluntary

Involuntary bars arise when the conduct of the would-be inheritor or beneficiary is deemed to disqualify him or her from receiving the property of the decedent. The most dramatic instances of disqualification arise when the would-be taker kills the decedent. In most states, this scenario has prompted the passage of so-called slayer statutes barring benefit.

But are all killings the same? It's one thing to withhold benefit by intestacy or will if a would-be taker is guilty of murder, but what about voluntary manslaughter, or even involuntary manslaughter? These questions are still being litigated in some jurisdictions. What if the slayer is a minor? What if the would-be taker simply helps the decedent kill himself? What if the would-be taker is only found guilty of attempted murder?

Transfers to children

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:06:00 +0000

In everyday life, children come in all shapes and sizes. In law, there are also many types of children: children born in wedlock, adopted children, step-children, illegitimate ("nonmarital") children, even posthumous children. Some of these groups are legally deemed eligible to take by intestacy from a deceased parent, but some are not.

The situation of adopted children varies widely between states. Step-children generally cannot inherit by intestacy from a step-parent, although there are exceptions.

Multiple questions still exist about the inheritance and associated rights of posthumous children, a class that has become much larger with the advent of assisted reproduction technology. Massachusetts broke new ground in this area in 2002 in the case of Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, where the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that under certain circumstances posthumously-conceived (not just afterborn) children were entitled to inheritance rights under state law ; more recently, in 2007, the New York Surrogate's Court held that posthumously-conceived children could be considered “issue” and “descendants” under the terms of a trust.

Intestate distributions to children and other issue (grandchildren, etc.) of the decedent often give rise to questions of division. Who gets how much? What happens if there are descendants at different levels?

The traditional distribution schemes are per stirpes ("by the roots") and per capita ("by the head"). In recent decades, per stirpes distributions have become less popular with legislatures, giving rise to variants such as per capita with representation and, most recently, per capita at each generation, favored by the 1990 UPC.

Intestacy

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:53:00 +0000

Most American adults do not have a will and die intestate. Why? Anecdotal and survey evidence suggests the reason is some combination of lack of education, lack of time, concern about costs, a disinclination to think about their own deaths, and perhaps a lack of lawyer marketing.

Even some famous lawyers have died fully or partially intestate.

Here are a few online resources on the general subject of intestacy:

Understanding Intestacy: If You Die Without an Estate Plan [FindLaw]
state intestacy laws (including Pennsylvania)
interactive summary of state intestacy laws (fancy - try it!)

Intestate succession to parties other than spouses generally follows a pattern most easily seen in the classic Table of Consanguinity. The Table has been around for a very long time - see, for instance, this 12th century example, now in the Getty Museum.

For new developments in intestate succession given the expanded range of state-recognized partnerships and dependencies, see, inter alia:

Charles Patrick Schwartz, "Thy Will Not Be Done: Why States Should Amend Their Probate Codes to Allow an Intestate Share for Unmarried Homosexual Couples"
Jennifer Berhorst, "Unmarried Cohabitating Couples: A Proposal for Inheritance Rights under Missouri Law"

Class assignment correction

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0000

For Tuesday's class, please also read Simpson v. Calivas on professional responsibility in the will drafting process (pp. 48-54 in the text). The pages were left off the printed syllabus in error.

The probate process

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:54:00 +0000

Not all property owned by the decedent will go through probate. See e.g.:

Richard T. DeCou, Probate Property and Non-Probate Property
Joel A. Schoenmeyer, Probate vs. Non-Probate Property: The Trump Card
Joel A. Schoenmeyer, Using a Will for Non-Probate Property

There are lots of probate process overviews available online. Keep in mind that the precise details will vary from state to state.

Here are a few general summaries:

The Probate Process [ABA]
Overview of the Probate Process [New York Life]

It may be helpful to see the process in diagram form. Again, specifics vary by state, but take a look at this diagram of the California probate process.

The California probate process is explained in detail here. Here's the standard petition for probate in that state. The same petition in Berks County PA looks like this.

In Allegheny County, jurisdiction over probate is held by the Orphans Court.

The problem of the dead hand

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000

Two extra tidbits on "dead hand control":

Ronald Morton, Dead Hand Contol (the Leona Helmsly case)
Ronald Chester, From Here to Eternity? Property and the Dead Hand (the latest book on the subject, FYI)

Keep in mind that, in theory, the "dead hand" can seek to control institutions - charities, for instance - as well as individuals. There may be various ways around this, some of which are unorthodox.

Transmitting property at death

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:32:00 +0000

Most of the textbook materials on this general subject are available online in full text versions that give you more information and context than the excerpts in the printed book:

Jefferson's letter to Madison
Blackstone on the right of inheritance (from his Commentaries, 1753)
Irving Trust v. Day (SCOTUS, 1942)
Hodel v. Irving (SCOTUS, 1987)
- listen to the oral arguments and check out the argument transcript here
- read the the post-Hodel version of the descent and distribution provisions of the Indian Land Consolidation Act

On inheritance and the significance of inherited wealth in the United States, see generally:

Jens Beckert, Inherited Wealth (Princeton University Press, 1987), Chapter 1
Adam Hirsch (Florida State), "American History of Inheritance Law" [download to read PDF]
G. William Domhoff (UCLA), "Wealth, Income and Power" (includes some great charts and graphs on wealth distribution in the United States):
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%...

According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000).
...and finally, a diversion!

First day of class reading assignment

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:04:00 +0000

The assignment for the first day of class on Monday is pages 1-30 of the course text (Dukeminier, Johanson, Lindgren & Sitkoff, Wills, Trusts, and Estates, 7th ed.).

You can see a PDF copy of the full course syllabus here.

See you bright and early Monday morning!

Standing room only (well, not even that...)

noreply@blogger.com (Bernard Hibbitts) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:48:00 +0000

I'm very aware of the fact that this class is oversubscribed at the moment, as more than a few people have asked to get in by special permission of the instructor. My understanding, however, is that registration has hit the physical capacity of Room 107 and we are at something like 124 enrollees, so I'm not optimistic that we can accommodate any more people barring a mass exodus in the Add/Drop period. So please tell any of your friends who might be on the wait list that their chances are slim at this point.

Having said that, and for what it's worth, I expect to be offering this class again in the 2009-10 academic year (term yet to be determined).