Recently, there has been a heated discussion on the Internet about the "California Silicon Valley Slam Man Incident" (this case). There are different views and interpretations of this incident, some based on morality and some based on law. A discussion based on morality is justifiable, as Mr. Yu's behavior is indeed not acceptable by the public's moral standards. Starting from the law, there are only two aspects, namely, "the establishment of a will" and "inheritance". As the United States is a common law system, the author also expresses some views on this issue from a common law perspective, especially the possible remedies for the parents of the deceased Ms. Deng.

First of all, let's take a look at the facts of this case. Here, we will only focus on the key facts. Other moral or more dramatic aspects can be viewed online by everyone. This article will not discuss them.

Mr. Yu, the male host, and Ms. Deng, the female host, are graduate students of Beijing Post, and have one son and one daughter. Mr. Yu works for Google, and Ms. Deng works for Facebook. In 2020, Ms. Deng suffered from stomach cancer. In March 2021, Ms. Deng's condition worsened and her parents came to the United States to take care of their only daughter. Two months later, Ms. Deng unfortunately died of illness. Just three days before Ms. Deng's death, her husband, Mr. Yu, allowed her to join the United States as she lay dying. And before, Ms. Deng had made a will, and the beneficial owners of her property were her husband and children, without mentioning her parents. After Ms. Deng's death, Mr. Yu remarried in a short time. After that, in addition to giving her parents $54000 (with another $18000 donated by various netizens and friends), he refused to give them any more money, and also "evicted" their parents from their homes.

Let's leave aside Mr. Yu's behavior. According to the law, it seems to be very unfavorable to his ex wife's parents. Because under the common law system, the beneficiary of a will usually "goes down, not up.". In other words, if a person dies without making a related will, the relevant department (usually the court) will make a will on behalf of him using the inheritance law. "Usually, after the death of a party, the estate will be given to the party's spouse (Spouse). If there is no spouse or has passed away, it will be given to their children.". "If none of the foregoing exists, or if the deceased was single and had no offspring at first, it is possible to divide the estate between the deceased's parents, siblings, etc.".

Therefore, from a purely inheritance law perspective, Ms. Deng's parents do not have any inheritance rights. In addition, it is learned from the Internet that Ms. Deng signed a will during her lifetime, with the beneficiaries being her husband and son. This in itself is already very certain. The concept of common law is not quite the same as that of civil law (such as China). In certain regions of the civil law system (not China), the estate has the so-called "reserved share" concept for certain individuals, which is not affected by wills. However, in the common law system, wills are the main method, and even if Ms. Deng gave all her property to her pet (in the United States, but not in the United Kingdom), other people would have no choice.

Is it completely impossible for Ms. Deng's parents to receive legal relief? Not necessarily, but it's very difficult. For example, they can prove that they came to the United States to take care of their daughter because they had "the daughter's future inheritance" as a consideration factor. In other words, there is an "Implied Contract" between them and their daughter.

One of the characteristics of the common law system is the considerable flexibility of decisions. Another point is that the common law is supported by equity. Due to space, I cannot elaborate on the history of equity under the common law system, but basically speaking, what equity mainly regulates is the principle of human conscience. "If the court should provide relief for any unconscionable matter, it will not provide a wrong without a remedy.". For this reason, litigation related to wills and estates is governed by equity, as most disputes arising in this regard are caused by a violation of the "principle of conscience" by one party.

As the common law is primarily case based, reference is made to a classic case in California, United States: Davis v. Jacoby 1 Cal.2d 370,34 P.2d 1026 (1934).

Mrs. Caro M. Davis, the plaintiff, is the niece of Mr. Blanche Whitehead. Before marriage, she lived in Mr. Whithead's home. Mr. and Mrs. Whithead had no children, and they loved Mrs. Davis very much, treating her as if she were their own. Mrs. Davis married and lived in Canada in 1913. She had frequent contacts with Mr. and Mrs. Wydehai and had a harmonious relationship. In 1930, Mrs. Huai Dehai became seriously ill, and Mr. Huai Dehai's business suffered setbacks. The couple's health was deteriorating, their lives were difficult, and they needed to be taken care of urgently.

In March 1913, Mr. Wydehai wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Davis, hoping that they could come to the United States to take care of the couple. After discussing with his wife, Mr. Davis sent a reply in his own name, stating that Mrs. Davis would leave within two weeks. If you want him to come with you, please contact Mr. Wydehai for a reply. After receiving the phone call, Mr. Wydehai replied on April 10th, detailing his current situation. He hoped that Mr. and Mrs. Davis would come to California together, not only to take care of Mrs. Wydehai's illness, but also to assist Mr. Wydehai in his career. He also pointed out that his property would be bequeathed to his wife, Mrs. Wydehai. At that time, Mrs. Wydeheigh had a fortune of about $150000, and she would bequeath her fortune to Mrs. Davis in the form of a will. Three days after Mr. Wydehai's telegram was sent, that is, on April 12th, he sent another telegram stating, in addition to the amount of his property, the arrival of the Davies and his wife. After receiving a letter on April 14th, Mr. and Mrs. Davis replied and set off for the United States on April 20th. However, Mr. Wydehai committed suicide on April 22. After receiving the bad news, the Davies immediately set out to California to take care of Mrs. Wydehai, who also died of illness in May.

After Mrs. Wydehai's death, the Davies discovered that the circumstances of the legacy mentioned in Mr. Wydehai's letter and telegram were inconsistent with the facts. Mr. Wydehai's personal will was signed on February 28, 1931, leaving all his possessions to his wife, and after his wife's death, he left them to his nephews and two others. Mrs. Wydehai's will was made earlier on December 17, 1927, bequeathing her property to her husband and relatives. However, in fact, their nephews have little contact with the Huai Dehai couple, and they have never taken care of the Huai Dehai couple. Therefore, the Davies filed a lawsuit against both of their nephews to make it clear to Mr. Wydehai that his niece, Mrs. Davies, had inherited his property. The defendant argued that Mr. Wydehai had died on April 22nd, and the Davies were unable to perform the actions requested by the other party, as Mr. Wydehai had died before the plaintiff performed the actions requested by the other party.

After a detailed review of the case, the Court of Appeal found that the Whiteheads wanted the Davies to come to California to take care of the couple until they died. After the arrival of the Davies, although Mr. Wyndheim was already dead, his wife, Mrs. Wyndheim, was still alive. The Davies took care of Mrs. Wyndheim, sent him to his death, and handled all subsequent matters. Therefore, the plaintiff in this case has made a valid commitment, and both parties have a contractual relationship. Therefore, the court ruled that the parties have a contractual relationship based on the principle of equity. The main purpose of this contract is that the deceased will make a will, the purpose of which is to give the entire estate of the Wydehai couple to the Davies couple. "That is, the plaintiff requested the court to appeal in accordance with the principle of equity before the prosecution of this case, and requested the court to enforce the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties. According to the contract, there must be a will to grant specific performance of an agreed contract to make a will, and the plaintiff was awarded the victory.".

The core of this case is that Mr. Wydehai previously promised to make a will to give the property to the Davies in exchange for the Davies coming to California to take care of them, but violated the principle of conscience. Afterwards, he made another will to actually give the property to his two nephews. Therefore, the court held that the principle of equity was equivalent to helping Mr. Waidehai make a will that did not originally exist, and at the same time overturned the will made by Mr. Waidehai himself. Davis v. Jacoby is a classic case in the United States and is still a legally binding precedent, so it naturally applies in this case.

Returning to this case, is there any "conscience violation" factor in this case? Readers must think that what Mr. Yu did was not enough to violate their conscience? "But no, now if Ms. Deng's parents want equitable relief, they must be able to prove whether her daughter violated her conscience, not her husband.". For example, it is possible to find corresponding evidence, such as letters, emails, WeChat (with slightly weaker evidence), to prove that their daughter invited them to take care of her in the United States and promised to give them some or all of their inheritance after her death. Even if her husband, Mr. Yu, is invited to remit money to their elderly couple on a regular basis, it can prove that they have a consensus on the disposition of their inheritance with their daughter, which can prove that they have a consideration relationship when they come to the United States to take care of her daughter. In other words, there is a "default contract". If they can do this, they will be able to sue Mr. (executor and beneficiary) and request the court to provide corresponding relief based on the legal principles of Davis v. Jacoby. "If the court issues a" new "will in equity based on the previous default contract.". In this new will, it is possible to obtain part of Ms. Deng's estate, or to completely overturn the will made by Ms. Deng and leave the property to the old couple.

After all, as the author has said before, the difficulty of this case is still relatively high, because from the current facts, there should be no evidence or circumstances between Ms. Deng and her parents as mentioned above. According to the personality of ordinary Chinese people, the performance of their consideration is not as obvious as that of foreigners. On the other hand, Ms. Deng has been in the United States for many years, and she also knows to make a will to plan for her future affairs. Therefore, she is not a person who does not understand the law. Why didn't she mention her parents in her will? At present, there seems to be only one explanation, that is, she is not willing at all. Of course, if Ms. Deng's true intention was to do so, it would be understandable, after all, it was her will. Therefore, it may not be the human law that can truly claim fairness and justice for this case, but rather rely on "God Intervention".