lawdopers: can blackacre vest in a zombie?

[Mr. Excellent]

Okay - so, say Orson conveys Blackacre to Alice for life, then to Alice's children who reach the age of 21. At the time of the conveyance, Alice has two children, Bob and Chris. Alice is bitten by a zombie, becomes zombified, and attacks her children. Bob is killed, Chris survives the attack (by decapitating Alice), but was wounded and later turns into a zombie himself.

Questions: Can Blackacre vest in Zombie Chris? If not, I assume it would revert to Orson - am I right? Also, do zombies raise any other property law issues I should be aware of?

(This is what happens when you tell Mr. Excellent he has a property final in thirteen hours.)

[Doctor Who]

I think we need to know Chris and Bob's ages at the time Bob is killed and Chris becomes the living dead, no?

[ultrafilter]

Before I saw this thread, I never knew how much I cared about property law and the walking dead.

[jackelope]

My answer (I graduated from law school yesterday, so my knowledge of property law is two years old) is to look at it in steps:Okay - so, say Orson conveys Blackacre to Alice for life, then to Alice's children who reach the age of 21.OK. At this point Alice is a non-zombie, living human. The conveyance vests in her and she owns in (IIRC) fee simple subject to condition subsequent.Alice is bitten by a zombie, becomes zombified, and attacks her children.At this point comes the crucial question: Is a zombie legally "alive"? I'm thinking the answer is yes; just as a patient with irreversible brain damage is legally alive, a zombie is still a living person, just horribly diseased.Bob is killed, Chris survives the attack (by decapitating Alice),That's good thinking on Chris's part. Decapitation is a sure way to kill zombies. I'm thinking at this point that, when Alice dies, Blackacre would go into trust for Chris on his 21st birthday (if possible), OR it would revert to Orson. But:

Most states (including Tennessee) have "slayer statutes," saying that a killer cannot take from a victim if the killing was felonious and intentional. There's a question here as to whether the killing was felonious; it sounds like self-defense to me. If it WAS felonious, then Chris can't take and it will pass to Alice's intestate successors.

Wait a second, or can he? Is he taking from Alice or from Orson? Suddenly I'm blanking on this. I think he's taking from Alice; she owned in "FEECOS," as my property prof called it, and Chris would gain nothing from killing Orson, while he would (probably) gain from killing Alice. OK, let's say he's taking from Alice.

Let's also assume Chris killed Alice in valid self-defense, so it's not felonious and we can keep going.but [Chris] was wounded and later turns into a zombie himself. (Emphasis added.) How old is Chris? Is he over 21 already? If so, he took in fee simple absolute when Alice died, because he was over 21 and not a zombie.

If Chris is not yet 21, then I think the devise would collapse and revert to Orson (again, depending on the legal status of zombies as living, dead, or "other"). The only other option I see is that it could go into constructive trust of some kind until Chris turns 21.

The big question here, of course, is the legal status of zombies. Are they dead? Alive? Some third possibility that's never existed before? Are they alive, but "new people" (i.e., not retaining the legal identity of the person they originally were)?Also, do zombies raise any other property law issues I should be aware of? The living/dead/undead issue could raise hell with the Rule Against Perpetuities. Can zombies get pregnant? (We know they can bear children because of that horrible scene in the remake of Romero's Dawn of the Dead, but that gal was already pregnant when she became a zombie. This is a crucial distinction here.)

If zombies can get pregnant, the question is whether they are "alive" legally. If they are legally "dead," but they can get pregnant, then you could never devise anything to "X's children," because the class could be open for more than 21 years after X dies and the Rule Against Perpetuities would kill the devise. (Unless you're in a USRAP jurisdiction. I don't think zombies can live for 90 years.)

Another question could arise about competence. Are zombies competent to enter contracts?

Also, if you're going to give real property to a zombie--say, a favorite nephew of yours who has become undead and thus rather inattentive--you should consider putting it in trust. Zombies don't seem likely to pay real close attention to what's going on with their country estates, and would thus be sitting sucks for adverse possessors.

[GuanoLad]

Okay - so, say Orson conveys Blackacre to Alice for life
What the flying fuck are you talking about?

[Cunctator]

What the flying fuck are you talking about?It's real property law-speak. In university exams the questions always seem to relate to a hypothetical piece of land called Blackacre/Greenacre/Insertcolouracre and the conveyance of title in that property.

[jackelope]

...the last line of my previous post should read "sitting ducks" instead of "sitting sucks," of course.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

You are me, on my first day of Property.


jackelope has it pretty much right- the main issues are the legal status of the zombie as living or dead, and how the property owner was killed.

My only question is- are these the kind of zombies that die and become reanimated, or ar they the "disease" kind?

Because the death might be a triggering event. And I don't know if a zombie would have standing to contest a property claim, as he has no need of property. Besides which, would you be able to get him to show up for court?

[Jurph]

Alice is bitten by a zombie, becomes zombified, and attacks her children.

It's clear that the question being posed does not pre-suppose death as a condition for becoming a zombie, or else it would state she is "bitten and killed by a zombie, rises from the dead, and attacks her children." We can call this Option B if anyone wants to go down that road, but I'll work from jackelope's excellent explanation under Option A.

In the matter of jackelope's question of the living status of zombies, this court finds that zombies are living. Once she is decapitated, the question about Alice becomes moot, although you might argue that her zombification makes her incompetent for pretty much all legal purposes.

Decapitation is a good move, especially if you can make it look like self-defense after the other heir is dead (or is he?). A better move, assuming you love your brother, is to work with him jointly to have the mother declared incompetent. This seems like a more straightforward property issue -- how would the brothers handle this, assuming neither is yet 21? Let's assume that Bob but not Chris is over 18, for whatever that's worth.

[Mr. Excellent]

My answer (I graduated from law school yesterday, so my knowledge of property law is two years old) is to look at it in steps:OK. At this point Alice is a non-zombie, living human. The conveyance vests in her and she owns in (IIRC) fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

Wait a second - is this right? I could be wrong, but I think Alice just has a life estate, without condition. When she dies, Blackacre passes to her kids who are over 21 - but there's nothing in the conveyance that could take Blackacre from Alice before her death. (Or zombification, if you disagree with this thread's consensus and think zombie = dead.) Or am I out to lunch here.

Excellent work, counselors. I especially like jackelope's point on the RAP.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Wait a second - is this right? I could be wrong, but I think Alice just has a life estate, without condition. When she dies, Blackacre passes to her kids who are over 21 - but there's nothing in the conveyance that could take Blackacre from Alice before her death. (Or zombification, if you disagree with this thread's consensus and think zombie = dead.) Or am I out to lunch here. I agree with you (though my Property class was longer ago than jackelope's).

I came in here just to see if the RAP would come up. I never did really understand the damn thing.

I do have some experience in elder law, though, and I'm thinking if someone is bitten by a zombie, and transforms into an animate zombie without a significant period of any death-like state, that the person would be generally considered alive, but incompetent. First, it wouldn't necessarily come to attention that the person has no pulse, since there are plentiful signs of life such as movement, respiration, moaning, and eating people. Plus these attributes would probably prevent a death certificate being issued in any case. However, since they are clearly unable to care for themselves personally and financially, zombies would have to have appropriate guardians appointed.

[jackelope]

D'oh! You're right, Mr. Excellent; Alice has a life estate, not a FEECOS.

The more I think about this (for some reason this question is preying on my mind, or EATING MY BRAIN, if you will), I'm not sure zombies would be considered legally alive, or at least not with all the rights of a non-zombie living human.

I have just called one of the world's foremost experts on zombie movies: My wife. Seriously, she's seen pretty much every zombie movie ever made, and she's starting to get bored with Netflix because she's seen their whole catalog. On her desk sits an autographed picture of George Romero.

So, having established the credibility of my source, here are a few more thoughts about the legal status of zombies:

In no zombie movie is there ever a moral/legal dilemma about "killing" zombies. Doesn't have to be in self-defense; you can walk up behind a zombie who's just minding his own business and blow its head off with a smile on your face. In the original Night of the Living Dead, even the cops are getting into the act, killing them indiscriminately. People even have some fun with it, using them for target practice and laughing.

The only time anyone shows any compunction about killing a zombie is when it's a family member or a good friend, at which time someone invariably says, "That thing isn't your brother anymore" and they kill it.

I can think of two contradictory possible explanations for this:

1. Zombies are dead, and people confronted with zombies know this immediately and instinctively.

2. The open-season on zombies is more in the manner of a declaration of martial law than an instinctive response to them. We do always see Army trucks rumbling around. The martial-law hypo suggests that zombies are alive, but treated like an invading army rather than U.S. citizens with rights.

Another point, and a more legalistic one (it's probably unwise to derive one's idea of the law from observing what cops do) is that in the law, "death" is generally tied to the cessation of the heart, not the brain. I did my big seminar research paper on similar issues this semester, and even anencephalic infants (born with only enough brain stem to control basic bodily functions like respiration and heartbeat) are legally "alive."

So here's the kicker: Zombies' hearts don't beat. Their brains work a little, and occasionally they do appear to act on some vague memories (like flocking back to the mall), but their hearts don't beat. This sounds like legal death to me, although we're clearly looking at a case of first impression here; I don't know of any non-zombie who's had their heart permanently stop while their brain kept functioning at any level.

Finally: My wife (who LOVED this conversation) says zombies can't get pregnant. Their nonessential bodily functions all shut down. There was apparently a movie in which some guy raped a zombie (ick) and no mention of pregnancy or the possibility thereof.

So the Rule Against Perpetuities is safe--for now. We must remain vigilant.

[Grossbottom]

I've just conducted an impromptu survey here at the office. Seven attorneys, two secretaries and one suit salesman all concurred that a zombie is, in fact, dead. I disregarded one respondent who yelled out "White Zombie!" as a answer. The really interesting part is that half of them answered with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever, suggesting that they were just sitting around waiting to answer that question. I'm not kidding, they didn't even bat an eye before answering. That's awesome.

So on the basis of this research I must conclude that Alice died upon rising as a zombie, bringing her life estate to an end. If none of the children were 21 at the time, then the Blackacre reverted to Orson.

[Doctor Who]

I've just conducted an impromptu survey here at the office. Seven attorneys, two secretaries and one suit salesman all concurred that a zombie is, in fact, dead. I disregarded one respondent who yelled out "White Zombie!" as a answer. The really interesting part is that half of them answered with absolutely no hesitation whatsoever, suggesting that they were just sitting around waiting to answer that question. I'm not kidding, they didn't even bat an eye before answering. That's awesome.

So on the basis of this research I must conclude that Alice died upon rising as a zombie, bringing her life estate to an end. If none of the children were 21 at the time, then the Blackacre reverted to Orson.
Ok - assuming zombies are considered dead, it goes back to how old the kids were. For old times sake, let's start diagramming this biotch (please feel free to correct as necessary):

1. Orson conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to A's children who reach the age of 21. A has two children, B and C. (We don't know how old they are).

O ---> possibility of reverter Reversion
A ---> life estate
B & C ---> Contingent remainder (It's an open class because more children can be born. It's contingent because they must attain the age of 21).

2. A is bitten by a zombie and becomes zombified (DEAD). Two possibilities:

If B & C are 21 years old:
O ---> Nothing
A ---> Nothing
B & C ---> Blackacre

If B & C are NOT 21 years old:
O ---> Fee simple subject to an executory interest
B & C ---> Executory interest (a *springing* executory interest - oh, it's flowing back now!)

3. Then A the zombie attacks B and kills him, and then zombifies C (also killing him).

If B & C are 21 years old, Blackacre goes to B & C's heirs.

If B & C are NOT 21 years old, then O keeps Blackacre (the executory interest never kicks in).

Thoughts?

[jacob wrestling]

If B & C are NOT 21 years old:
O ---> Fee simple subject to an executory interest
B & C ---> Executory interest (a *springing* executory interest - oh, it's flowing back now!)

If B and C are not 21 years old at the time of A's zombification [death], isn't their interest destroyed because it was still contingent at the end of the immediately preceding life estate? In that case, once A is zombified [dies], O owns the property in FSA. Period.

If the jurisdiction has abolished destructability, then once A is zombified [dead], O's got a fee simple subject to a springing executory interest and B and C have springing executory interests. I don't think there's a RAP problem because (assuming zombies can't have babies), their interest will necessarily either vest or be destroyed within 21 years of A's death (and A is a "measuring life").

This is all assuming, of course, that zombies are legally dead and that neither B nor C are already 21 at the time of conveyance.

[Doctor Who]

If B and C are not 21 years old at the time of A's zombification [death], isn't their interest destroyed because it was still contingent at the end of the immediately preceding life estate? In that case, once A is zombified [dies], O owns the property in FSA. Period.
Yep - at common law, it would have been destroyed. Most states junked this rule, IIRC. It's been awhile though, forgive me if I'm wrong!

My brain hurts.

[pravnik]

There's got to be some way to word a defeasable future interest so that it's contingent on never becoming a zombie. An undead-defeating clause, if you will.

[pravnik]

My brain hurts.Keep an eye on it. This is zombie country.

[Mr. Excellent]

There's got to be some way to word a defeasable future interest so that it's contingent on never becoming a zombie. An undead-defeating clause, if you will.

Well, sure. It shouldn't even be that hard - wouldn't "Blackacre to A for life, and then to B, so long as B is not a zombie" create a contingent remainder in fee simple subject to condition subsequent? And then, if B got zombified, Blackacre would revert to O (or O's estate).

Or am I out to lunch here?

[Risha]

And here I was, always assuming that law school would be boring.

[Doctor Who]

And here I was, always assuming that law school would be boring.
Oh god no! You've got Maritime law, which almost exclusively deals with pirates. There's Torts (strawberry was always my favorite). Antitrust is just like that exercise where you stand behind someone and they close their eyes and fall backwards and you catch them --- except you don't catch them. Evidence, which is filled with bloody knives, hatchets, and CSI-like hijinks. Estate planning where you're given tons of fake money and you have to pretend you're a zillionaire lawyer (and plan what type of estate you are going to buy, natch). And of course you've got all the "and the law" classes --- Art and the Law (fingerpainting), Science and the Law (basically exploring the legal implications of killer robots and androids), and my favorite, Women and the Law (if you've never seen a woman in a bikini wearing a judge's wig and, er, banging a gavel, well... let me tell you YOWZA!) And then, of course, there's property which has zombies.

And people wonder why there are so many lawyers nowadays!

[Mr. Excellent]

I have just called one of the world's foremost experts on zombie movies: My wife. Seriously, she's seen pretty much every zombie movie ever made, and she's starting to get bored with Netflix because she's seen their whole catalog. On her desk sits an autographed picture of George Romero.


Slight hijack, but:

jackelope, you do realize you're the luckiest dude in the United States, right? Possibly on the planet?

[jackelope]

jackelope, you do realize you're the luckiest dude in the United States, right? Possibly on the planet?I'll give you one guess as to who gave her the autographed Romero photo.

:cool:

[Corner Case]

And I don't know if a zombie would have standing to contest a property claim, as he has no need of property. Besides which, would you be able to get him to show up for court?Well, that's simple, you'd just have to lure the zombie to the court room by having the room full of brains...

Oh, wait... :D

[Elendil's Heir]

I think it would depend upon just how common zombie outbreaks were.

If there was only one such outbreak in all of human history, and it was contained or defeated so that society continued much as before, it would be regarded as an aberration and the law wouldn't change much, if at all. Any litigation that resulted would be decided based upon long-settled principles of jurisprudence. I suspect that zombies would be regarded as "dead" for purposes of the inheritance of property, as they are incapable of caring for or improving property, cannot sue or be sued, like to eat probate judges' brains, etc. Public-policy interests suggest that zombies would not be considered as either living or human.

And if zombie outbreaks were relatively common, Congress and/or the state legislatures would have addressed this recurring social problem with legislation. The solons would not want to encourage zombieism, or to muddy the waters of who gets what if an inheritor turns into a zombie. They'd also want to encourage prompt responses from the military and law enforcement, probably classifying zombies as public menaces much like rabid dogs, killable by anyone without fear of legal repercussions.

I wish I had such interesting questions back when I was in law school. Wills and Trusts (aka "Stiffs and Gifts") would've been a lot more fun.

[Mr. Excellent]

I suspect that zombies would be regarded as "dead" for purposes of the inheritance of property, as they are incapable of caring for or improving property [. . .]

I'm not sure this is correct. In "Day of the Dead", Bob the Zombie is capable of saluting and (I think) operating a gun. In "Land of the Dead", several zombies are shown using tools, and one of them leads a fairly well-organized army of zombies. Zombies may not be capable of sophisticated or purely aesthetic improvements to land, and they may require at least some guidance from living humans, but I think it's probable that high-functioning zombies could build crude shelters, clear abandoned lots of debris, etc.

In other words, zombies would be capable of blending their labor with the land - and this is a long-recognized basis for property ownership. For example, adverse possession cases are much likelier to go in favor of the adverse possessor if he's improved the property.

As for not being able to sue or be sued - you're probably correct that zombies lack the higher reasoning powers (or lack thereof) required for litigation, but a court could always appoint a guardian ad litem if a zombie was sued.

I'm not saying that zombies wouldn't necessarily be seen as "dead" for inheritance purposes, but I don't think they would be seen as such because of the incapacities you mentioned. Your public-policy argument (not wanting to encourage tolerance of zombie-ism) is probably more the way courts and legislatures would go.

[Hello Again]

Gosh I [heart] you guys. This is almost like studying for Property.

[middleman]

Thanks for bringing up some dreadful law school memories.

You guys suck!


No way a zombie is a life in being!

[Strain of Thought]

In no zombie movie is there ever a moral/legal dilemma about "killing" zombies. Doesn't have to be in self-defense; you can walk up behind a zombie who's just minding his own business and blow its head off with a smile on your face. In the original Night of the Living Dead, even the cops are getting into the act, killing them indiscriminately. People even have some fun with it, using them for target practice and laughing.

The only time anyone shows any compunction about killing a zombie is when it's a family member or a good friend, at which time someone invariably says, "That thing isn't your brother anymore" and they kill it.

I can think of two contradictory possible explanations for this:

1. Zombies are dead, and people confronted with zombies know this immediately and instinctively.

2. The open-season on zombies is more in the manner of a declaration of martial law than an instinctive response to them. We do always see Army trucks rumbling around. The martial-law hypo suggests that zombies are alive, but treated like an invading army rather than U.S. citizens with rights.

I would assume that the behavior of any persons described as 'zombies', either literaly or figuratively, would by definition fall within the Uncanny Valley.

I'm no law student, but I expect zombie law would probably fall within the "Illegal because patently immoral" category, rather than the "Illegal because prohibited" one.

[jacob wrestling]

I'm not saying that zombies wouldn't necessarily be seen as "dead" for inheritance purposes, but I don't think they would be seen as such because of the incapacities you mentioned. Your public-policy argument (not wanting to encourage tolerance of zombie-ism) is probably more the way courts and legislatures would go.The zombies are already in the legislature! Run!

[The Scrivener]

As sympathetic as I am to the "kill all Zack" principle, I'm disquieted by some contrary evidence undermining the subhuman theory. Not only did the Romeroesque zombie universe have allowance for some limited zombie sentience and socialization (Land of the Dead), but the coda ending to Shaun of the Dead depicts zombies as continuing to hold down menial, entry-level jobs, living at home (or in a shed or a padded, secure room) with their still-human families, and associating with their friends. I'm no lawyer, but that seems to suggest that zombies are not necessarily or at least entirely non compos mentis. At the very least, wouldn't zombies have to be declared subhuman or dead on an individual basis, following a thorough examination by a professionally qualified expert (psychiatrist, or maybe a "zombieologist," etc.)? And under this framework, couldn't zombification be just another entry in the DSM-IV?

A post-Z-Day world would be revolutionized indeed: along with the legions of the undead would be entirely new categories of legal, medical, psychiatric and government social-welfare service providers, and new provisions in civil and criminal law. Everything from marriage contracts to EEOC and fair-housing statutes to the criminal justice system would reflect the advent of the undead.



You've got Maritime law, which almost exclusively deals with pirates.

There's a wonderful history of an extreme case of Maritime jurisprudence, The Custom of the Sea by Neil Hanson. Said "custom" being the desperate resort to [sometimes murder-facilitated] cannibalism amongst survivors of shipwrecks and related measures, such as throwing some survivors overboard to better ensure the survival of the rest. According to the author, a very healthy and distressingly active subfield of British jurisprudence evolved (generally 17th-19th C's) under the rubric of "Lifeboat Law," and some lawyers even made it their specialty. The actual number of unfortunate individuals thus imbricated in one mishap or another was shockingly high, involving over these centuries quite possibly tens of thousands of survivors and hundreds of thousands lost (and usually never found). British law evolved to incorporate a certain pragmatic and compassionate accomodation towards the survivors of such cases; eventually even instances of homicide for purposes of cannibalism were exonerated, provided that certain fairness provisions had been maintained (such as the drawing of lots, to ensure genuine randomness in the selection of the victim).

I've joked that I'd only become a lawyer to practice lifeboat law... and I've yet to meet someone who knew what the hell I was talking about. :D

[Doctor Who]

Scrivener - I don't know if your book hits it (I'm sure it does) - but R v. Dudley and Stephens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._Dudley_and_Stephens) is still touched on in many law school casebooks.

[NicePete]

Clearly the Rule Against Perpetuities does not apply.

It's been nigh on 20 years, but as I recall: Any interest must vest, if ever, within 21 years after the death of a LIFE IN BEING at the time the interest is created.

Excuse me if I have it wrong. It's been a long time and it's late.

Anyway.

A zombie is a dead person. Perhaps they are also an animated unholy undead person as well -- that's subject to debate.

But clearly a zombie is dead and therefore no longer a life in being. C's re-animated status has no bearing on the issue. "Living" dead or "Dead" dead, C is dead and therefore unable to acquire title to real or personal property.

[Zog_10]

I've just conducted an impromptu survey here at the office. Seven attorneys, two secretaries and one suit salesman all concurred that a zombie is, in fact, dead. I disregarded one respondent who yelled out "White Zombie!" as a answer.
IANAL.

However, I feel compelled to point out that at least 7 out of the 11 beings surveyed are likely zombies themselves, therefore invalidating this result.

[jackelope]

A post-Z-Day world would be revolutionized indeed: along with the legions of the undead would be entirely new categories of legal, medical, psychiatric and government social-welfare service providers, and new provisions in civil and criminal law. Everything from marriage contracts to EEOC and fair-housing statutes to the criminal justice system would reflect the advent of the undead.For a pretty good examination of these issues, check out the French film Les Revenants (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378661/) (English title: They Came Back), which has the dead in a small, present-day French town coming back to life and the problems caused thereby. They don't come back as brain-eating monsters; they come back pretty much as themselves (or do they?). They're bummed that their spouses have remarried, they're distressed because their old jobs are taken now, etc., and the city government has to figure out how to deal with all these new people with "unusual" medical conditions.

Granted, it gets a bit more supernatural later on, but the whole thing is really low-key and cool. Probably the least scary and most thought-provoking zombie movie I've seen.

[The Scrivener]

Scrivener - I don't know if your book hits it (I'm sure it does) - but R v. Dudley and Stephens is still touched on in many law school casebooks.

Well, I'll be damned! That's it -- Dudley was the captain of the Mignionette. Probably the chief problem he and his co-defendant had upon their rescue, was that in selecting their victim they followed common sense (and self-interest) instead of drawing lots -- and then admitting as much after the fact.

******

Back to the zombies -- in a post-Z world, there's entire categories of employment which might be taken over (or relegated to) zombies, due to their already being biologically dead, not having to breathe, and being possibly insensate to pain. OTTOMH, rescue and recovery work, fire-fighting, response teams for radiation/chemical/bio agent crises, r&r- and salvage-diving operations, coal mining, asbestos and lead-paint removal, cleaning out industrial tanks, sewage treatment plant, recycling ops.... to say nothing of high-risk military applications. Of course, the zombies might have to be specially restrained with face masks or mouth guards, as in the case of rescue & recovery work, or carefully segregated from the living to prevent accidental contamination (as in clearing minefields or finding I.E.D.s in Iraq), but we the living are resourceful and clever opportunists.

[Elendil's Heir]

Hey, I remember R. v. Dudley and Stephens! Good stuff. I also made sure that my law prof got a copy of this: http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/lifeboat.htm

[jacob wrestling]

I think we may be overlooking the most important issue, which is whether zombies, as quasi-living animi, would be deprived of their Constitutional rights should they not be allowed to inherit property based on their "undead" status.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.This whole issue turns not on whether zombies are living or dead, but whether they are "people". Arguments could be made either way, but I think most would agree they they are "people", even if somehow mentally incapacitated. Therefore, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state within which they reside, which clearly they are because otherwise the police wouldn't chase them down when they destroy property and rip people limb from limb, then they have a right to equal protection of the laws. Categorically depriving zombies of their property without due process of law would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Edited to add: My crim law professor made sure we well and understood that Dudley and Stephens killed the kid to drink his blood - it was liquid they needed, not food. Ewwwwwwwww.

[Elendil's Heir]

Good point re: the 14th Amendment. That's why I think they would be legislatively put in a category all their own, which (given their typical and apparently immutable homicidal and destructive behavior) would justify their destruction on sight.

[Richard Parker]

This whole issue turns not on whether zombies are living or dead, but whether they are "people". Arguments could be made either way, but I think most would agree they they are "people", even if somehow mentally incapacitated. Therefore, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state within which they reside, which clearly they are because otherwise the police wouldn't chase them down when they destroy property and rip people limb from limb, then they have a right to equal protection of the laws. Categorically depriving zombies of their property without due process of law would be a gross miscarriage of justice.


Ah, but zombies are not a suspect class, so they will only receive rational basis review. Given the compelling state interest, I think we're fine.

[Thing Fish]

[QUOTE=The Scrivener]
And under this framework, couldn't zombification be just another entry in the DSM-IV?

First Draft:

666.0 POSTMORTEM ANIMATION DISORDER

1. Maintenance of certain basic life functions including ambulation, speech, and consumption of food, in the absence of normal cardiovascular function, following a period of age-appropriate cardiovascular function.

2. A maladaptive pattern of eating the brains of the living, marked by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others to not have their brains eaten.

3. A decline in cognitive functioning that is not better accounted for by a preexisting, established, or evolved dementia.

4. The symptoms lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

5. The symptoms are not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder, the direct physiological effects of a substance, or a general medical condition.

[The Scrivener]

Hee-hee! Well done, Thing Fish!

Picking up on what Jacob Wrestling said, I just want to add that there is a legal precedent for entities which are not living persons to be considered, for legal purposes, "persons" -- namely, corporations, as re-defined by at least a couple of Supreme Court decisions during the Victorian Era. I'll leave it up to the lawyers to elaborate on this, but it suggests to me that if, say, General Motors has certain rights as a "person," then why not a zombie which retains even a merest sliver of his or her humanity?

[cher3]

All these posts and Mr Slant hasn't peeped in yet?!

[vibrotronica]

What claim would a resurrected Jesus have on his family's property?

[Doctor Who]

What claim would a resurrected Jesus have on his family's property?
From a legal perspective, Jesus is fucked. Remember, he *died*. That means that his property passed through his will or through intestacy. He no longer has any claim, regardless of coming back to life.

So potentially: 'tis better to be a zombie than a messiah!

[NDP]

From a legal perspective, Jesus is fucked. Remember, he *died*. That means that his property passed through his will or through intestacy. He no longer has any claim, regardless of coming back to life.

So potentially: 'tis better to be a zombie than a messiah!

It was a good thing He didn't have any property. (That dirty, long-haired, hippie with His "my kingdom is not of this world" and "blessed are the peacemakers" commie crap! But I digress...)

Getting back to the problem posed in the OP, what issues are raised if the zombie is a drug or spell-induced "old school" zombie (e.g., those in I Walked with a Zombie or The Serpent and the Rainbow) rather than a "new school" Romero-type (which are technically ghouls)? How would this change things?

[Doctor Who]

It was a good thing He didn't have any property. (That dirty, long-haired, hippie with His "my kingdom is not of this world" and "blessed are the peacemakers" commie crap! But I digress...)
What, he carpentered for free? Also (and this is not meant to be disrespectful in any way) is the capitalized "He" and "His" some sort of christian convention I missed? This (http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v01i08&art=caps) is the most informative thing I could find through googling. ;)

Getting back to the problem posed in the OP, what issues are raised if the zombie is a drug or spell-induced "old school" zombie (e.g., those in I Walked with a Zombie or The Serpent and the Rainbow) rather than a "new school" Romero-type (which are technically ghouls)? How would this change things?
Being drugged or bewitched? I think that's probably just going to be incapacity - not something that would cause you to lose legal title of your property.

The more interesting issues, I would think, will arise in Contract. For example, what if you contract to sell a brain in a jar to a drug-induced zombie. You deliver the brain and he eats it. Then the drugs wear off before the zombie pays - and he refuses to honor the contract. Is there legal recourse?

[Hello Again]

Well, how did you come by the brain? Was it stolen goods, or the result of a murder? Dealing in stolen goods and generally profiting by crime is a no-no, and contracts to do illegal acts are always void. in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis -- between parties both at fault, the defendent is in the better condition. The court will not allow the plaintiff to recover the cash. Zombie get the brains!

Even if the brain was lawfully owned, you also have to ask if, when the contract was formed, the zombie had contractual capacity. Although intoxication does not *usually* bar contractual capacity, in some extreme cases it could. If one is acting "like a zombie" due to some form of intoxication, I say no contractual capacity.

Thus, no contract is breached, because none was ever formed. In this case, while the plaintiff cannot recover the contract value necessarily, he can recover restitution for the value of the benefit conferred.

[Doctor Who]

Well, I presume the brain was acquired legally. Igor brought it to me. Abbey something or another's brain.

[Olive, The Other Reindeer]

From a legal perspective, Jesus is fucked. Remember, he *died*. That means that his property passed through his will or through intestacy. He no longer has any claim, regardless of coming back to life.

So potentially: 'tis better to be a zombie than a messiah!

I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played one on TV. I dated one once many years ago - worst night of my life! But that's another thread.

OK - here's a couple of questions:

1) From my reading of the thread, I understand that the passing of property occurs at the moment of death. OK, take this example: GreatGrandaddy has a heart attack while he's playing golf. The doctor on the scene declares him dead. They take him to the hospital, and in a last ditch effort, the ER doctors there manage to revive him. What happens to his property? Since he was declared dead does it pass to his estate, or is the point moot since he is obviously alive (and not a zombie), and the original doctor might have made a mistake, because GreatGrandaddy was only mostly dead?

2) How would the scenario in the OP change if Alice became a vampire instead of a zombie?

Olive

[Polycarp]

Actually, the accurate answer to all Blackacre-type property law questions, but woe betide whoever is foolish enough to put it on an exam, is:

F. Blackacre must be sold, at public auction or whatever other means will prove most profitable and comply with the law of the jurisdiction, to pay the fees of the various lawyers engaged in litigating the title. Any pittance which may remain after they are paid should be distributed to the remaindermen per stirpes, unless someone can be induced to contest, in which case it all goes to the lawyers.

[Doctor Who]

1) From my reading of the thread, I understand that the passing of property occurs at the moment of death. OK, take this example: GreatGrandaddy has a heart attack while he's playing golf. The doctor on the scene declares him dead. They take him to the hospital, and in a last ditch effort, the ER doctors there manage to revive him. What happens to his property? Since he was declared dead does it pass to his estate, or is the point moot since he is obviously alive (and not a zombie), and the original doctor might have made a mistake, because GreatGrandaddy was only mostly dead?
I don't know if this happens (IANAD) because they stop working on you after somebody declares you "legally dead."

That said (in keeping with the spirit of this thread), these are almost exactly the issues raised by Cryonics. If you freeze someone right after they die, and then later you revive them ... uh? Legal ramifications? It shouldn't surprise you that there's all kinds of debate about this stuff, and whether or not you can basically leave a trust for yourself. (Herein lies the dreaded Rule Against Perpetuities nonsense - I'll leave it for others to discuss, if they so choose).

2) How would the scenario in the OP change if Alice became a vampire instead of a zombie?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, not much. That's because, I think legally, they would probably both be considered undead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undead)

And Polycarp, IIRC in all 50 states it's considered malpractice to be involved in any legal transaction involving a property called "Blackacre." Because you know, or you should know, that some crazy legal shit's gonna go down. :p