| Course | GF593 Estate Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Will provision review |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GF593 Unit 3
Fourteen Clauses, Most of Them Idle: A Unit 3 Will Provision Review for a Young Maryland Family
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GF593: Estate Planning
Unit 3 Will Provision Review
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The couple, their children, their documents and every value are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real; this review is coursework, not legal advice.
Facts
Ben and Laura Okafor are 44 and 42, live in Annapolis and have two children, Theo, 9, and Ruby, 6. Their reciprocal wills, signed six years ago, leave everything to the surviving spouse and then to a trust for the children. Their net estate is $1,529,000:
1. House, $610,000 less a $290,000 mortgage, $320,000 of equity, held as tenants by the entirety.
2. Joint checking and savings, $52,000, tenants by the entirety.
3. Two cars, $15,000 of equity in total.
4. Laura's 401(k), $236,000. Primary: Ben. Contingent: Theo and Ruby equally.
5. Ben's 403(b), $118,000. Primary: Laura. Contingent: Theo and Ruby equally.
6. Ben's group life, $288,000. Primary: Laura. Contingent: the children.
7. Laura's term policy, $500,000. Primary: Ben. Contingent: the children.
If one spouse dies, nearly everything reaches the survivor by title or form, and the wills do almost nothing. The review therefore tests the scenario where the wills matter most: both parents dying in the same accident.
The Provision Table
Each clause is quoted briefly, then marked operative, partly operative or inert.
1. Revocation of prior wills. Operative. It clears away any earlier will.
2. Family identification. Operative as a record. It names both children, which avoids disputes over who counts as a child.
3. Payment of debts and expenses. Operative, but only probate assets can pay them. The mortgage stays with the house.
4. Tangible personal property to the spouse, then to the children. Partly operative. At a common death it sends cars and household goods into the children's trust, which is sensible.
5. Specific gift of the house to the spouse. Inert. Tenancy by the entirety carries the house to the survivor at the first death without any will, and at a common death the house is split between the two estates and falls into the residue.
6. Residue to the spouse. Partly operative. It catches only the small probate estate.
7. Contingent residue to the children's trust. Operative at a common death, but for probate property only.
8. Trust terms: income and principal for health, education and support, final distribution at 25. Partly operative. These are the most carefully written pages in the wills, and they would control only $387,000.
9. Trustee: Laura's sister, with Ben's brother as successor. Partly operative, for the same reason.
10. Guardian of the children's persons: Ben's brother and his wife. Fully operative. A will is the ordinary place to nominate a guardian, and no other document can do it as well.
11. Personal representative. Operative.
12. Survival requirement of 120 hours. Operative. It decides the order of death when the parents die close together, so neither estate passes through the other.
13. Estate tax apportionment. Inert. At $1,529,000 there will be no federal estate tax, and Maryland's own estate tax applies only to estates above $5,000,000.
14. Spendthrift clause. Partly operative. It protects only what reaches the trust.
The clause that matters most, the trust that holds the children's money until 25, would receive only a quarter of what the children inherit; the beneficiary forms send the rest straight to two minors.
Why the Forms Defeat the Trust
The four accounts total $1,142,000. Each names the spouse first and the children second, so at a common death all four pay Theo and Ruby directly. Nonprobate transfers like these follow the contract, not the will, however carefully the will is drafted (Langbein, 1984). Minors cannot receive the money themselves, so a court would appoint a guardian of the property for each child and supervise the funds, with annual accountings and court approval for spending. At 18 each child would receive the balance outright, about $571,000 each before growth, seven years earlier than the trust intends.
The retirement accounts add a second problem. A minor child of the account owner can stretch withdrawals only until age 21, after which the remaining balance must be withdrawn within ten years (Internal Revenue Service, 2025). Withdrawals at that point would be large and taxable, and nothing in the forms says who decides how to spend them.
Two Repairs
Repair A: name the testamentary trust as contingent beneficiary on all four accounts. The forms would read, for example, "the trustee of the trust created under Article VII of my will." This costs little and keeps one set of trust terms. Its weakness is that the trust does not exist until a court admits the will to probate, so payments wait for that step, and some plan administrators resist paying a trust that is not yet formed.
Repair B: sign a standalone revocable trust now and name it as contingent beneficiary. The wills would pour their residue into the same trust. This trust exists today, receives every asset at once and avoids court supervision entirely. It costs more to draft, and the retirement accounts need trust language that lets the trustee manage the required withdrawals sensibly.
Both repairs put all $1,529,000 under the same terms. Repair B is the stronger choice for a family with young children and large policies, because it delivers the money without waiting for probate and keeps it out of guardianship court (Sitkoff & Dukeminier, 2022).
What the Couple Should Do Next
Choose a repair, update all four beneficiary forms in the same week, and keep the guardian nomination, which is the one clause that already works exactly as intended. Clause 5 should be removed in the next revision, since it promises a gift the will can never make.
References
Internal Revenue Service. (2025). Distributions from individual retirement arrangements (Publication 590-B). https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b
Langbein, J. H. (1984). The nonprobate revolution and the future of the law of succession. Harvard Law Review, 97(5), 1108-1141. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340825
Sitkoff, R. H., & Dukeminier, J. (2022). Wills, trusts, and estates (11th ed.). Aspen Publishing.
The Purdue Global GF593 Unit 3 instructions
GF593's third unit gives you a set of wills, or asks you to obtain one, and wants each provision tested against the client's actual property. Begin with the facts and a list of every asset, including how it is titled and whom its beneficiary form names. Choose the scenario in which the wills matter most; for parents of young children that is usually both parents dying together. Then take each clause in order, describe it in a line and mark it operative, partly operative or inert, giving the reason in terms of the property it reaches. Pay close attention to any trust the wills create and how much would actually flow into it. Explain what happens to assets that bypass the wills, including court supervision for money left to minors. Offer at least two repairs, describe each one's tradeoffs, and recommend one. Publication 590-B, Langbein's 1984 article and a casebook on trusts belong in the APA 7 list.
How the GF 593 Unit 3 example is put together
The facts list seven assets, from the house held as tenants by the entirety to Laura's $500,000 term policy, and explain why the review tests a common accident. The provision table then runs through all fourteen clauses. The guardian nomination is fully operative, the specific gift of the house is inert, and the children's trust is only partly operative. Tax apportionment is inert because the estate sits far below both federal and Maryland thresholds. The highlighted sentence states that the trust would receive about a quarter of what the children inherit. A section explains guardianship of the property and release at 18, and notes the ten-year withdrawal rule that follows a minor child's 21st birthday. Repair A names the testamentary trust on the forms; Repair B creates a standalone revocable trust now. The review recommends B, citing Sitkoff and Dukeminier, and lists next steps.
GF593 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
In this GF593 review, the rubric gives its largest share to correct classification of each clause and to the reasons behind it. A table that marks clauses without linking them to the property they reach earns little. Instructors pay particular attention to the trust provisions, since the gap between the trust and the beneficiary forms is the main finding. Explaining the practical result for minors, including court supervision and the age at which money is released, shows the writer understands why the gap matters. The scenario choice is also graded: a review that tests only the first death misses where the wills do their work. Repairs earn credit when their tradeoffs are named, such as timing of payment or cost of drafting, and when the review commits to one. IRS guidance on inherited retirement accounts, Langbein on nonprobate transfers and the Sitkoff and Dukeminier casebook back the analysis in APA 7.
GF593 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
GF593 Unit 3 reviews often stop at summarizing what each clause says. The unit asks a different question: whether the clause will ever do anything, given how the family's assets are held. Many reviewers miss that tenancy by the entirety or a beneficiary form can make a specific gift meaningless. Others praise a well-drafted trust without counting how little property would reach it. The guardian nomination is sometimes treated as minor, though it is often the most important clause for young parents. Retirement accounts left to minors raise a separate withdrawal schedule that reviews tend to skip. Some repairs are described in one line with no tradeoffs, which leaves the clients unable to choose. Keep each clause's verdict tied to dollars where possible, explain how money reaches minors when forms bypass the trust, and finish with the repair you would recommend and why.
Get a GF593 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Which will, which state, and which assets sit around it? Those three answers, with the Unit 3 prompt and rubric, are enough to build the review clause by clause, compute the common-accident split and compare two repairs on cost, delay and what each leaves exposed. Delivery takes 24-48h, with the first sample unbilled. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GF593 papers and MS in Finance samples
- GF593 Unit 1: Stale Beneficiary Form Discussion Post
- GF593 Unit 2: Ohio Widower Probate Property Inventory
- GF593 Unit 4: Incapacity Document Set
- GF593 Unit 5: Trust Structure Memo
- GF593 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GF593 Unit 7: Beneficiary Designation Audit
- GF593 Unit 8: Transfer Tax Calculation
- GF593 Unit 9: Business Succession Plan
- GF593 Unit 10: Estate Plan Report
- GF592 Unit 3: Deduction and Credit Value Problem
- GF500 Unit 3: Interest Rate Problem Set
- GF591 Unit 3: Endodontist Life Insurance Needs
- GF510 Unit 3: Likelihood and Impact Matrix
GF593 Unit 3 questions, answered
Why run a common-accident scenario at all?
For parents of minor children it is the event the will mainly exists to handle. At the first death, most property here passes to the surviving spouse by survivorship or designation whatever the will says. When both die together, the guardian nomination, the survival clause and the children's trust all come into play, and every gap between them shows.
What happens to money left directly to a minor?
It generally cannot be paid to the child outright. Depending on the state and the amount, a court may appoint a conservator or guardian of the property, or a custodian may hold it under the state's transfers to minors law until an age the statute sets, often 18 or 21. Either route ends control well before the age-25 trust intended.
Where can I find a free GF593 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GF593 Unit 3 will provision review of fourteen clauses in a Maryland couple's reciprocal wills, with a provision table, the trust that forms bypass, two repairs and APA 7 references.
Why is the gift of the house to the spouse inert in GF593 Unit 3?
The couple holds the house as tenants by the entirety, so the survivor owns it automatically at the first death without any will. At a common death the house is divided between the two estates and falls into the residue, so the specific gift never operates.
Which clause in the Okafors' wills works exactly as intended?
The nomination of Ben's brother and his wife as guardians of the children. A will is the ordinary place to name a guardian, and no beneficiary form or trust can do that job, so the review recommends keeping it unchanged.