Managing and preventing cross-border disputes arising with the increasingly popular use of succession substitutes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, many people are faced with increasing challenges in the planning and execution of wealth-transfer strategies upon death when they have property in different countries. At the same time, the rising popularity of succession substitutes or, as they are called in the common law world, will substitutes or non-probate devices that transfer property at death otherwise than by succession, is increasingly posing challenges for cross-border legal disputes, particularly in the absence of uniform choice of law rules relating to succession substitutes. In this article, Professor Jeffrey Talpis reviews the existing approaches for managing and preventing cross-border disputes involving, for example, the use by parties in civil law jurisdictions of common law non-probate devices, such as acquisitions in joint tenancy, pay-on-death or transfer-on-death accounts, and revocable inter vivos trusts. The author first defines and classifies succession substitutes used in domestic laws, then examines different approaches for managing cross-border disputes involving these devices in civil law and common law jurisdictions. While the author continues to promote the adoption of an international instrument to provide uniform solutions to resolve cross-border disputes arising from the use of succession substitutes, he proposes certain suggestions that, in the interim, could assist prevention of such conflicts of law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".