Nominal Bequests

De minimis non curat lex. <br><br>This maxim provides that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Regardless of whether the law generally abides by this principle, the law of wills does not not. For centuries, case after case has delved into the consequences of de minimis bequests of one shilling or of one dollar or, in fact, of one cent. Should the law of wills concern itself with these trifles?<br><br>Somewhat ironically, this Article extensively considers this question and reaches this answer: Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. The law's concern with some nominal bequests is justified because they represent true benevolent acts of donors. Legal recognition of them furthers the law's overarching policy objectives of facilitating donative transfers and efficiently administering decedents' estates. Other nominal bequests, however, are not acts of generosity. Instead, they are either induced by mistakes of law or motivated by spite. As such, the law's regard for them is inconsistent with its policy goals.<br><br>Policymakers should therefore fundamentally reconsider how the law treats nominal bequests. Some should be treated like any other bequest. The law should respect them and facilitate their completion. The law, however, should curtail the use and effect of other nominal bequests. Distinguishing nominal bequests about which the law should be concerned from those about which it should not is a nontrivial endeavor. This Article develops the analytical framework to do so.