Article on the Restatement (Third) of Property’s Power of Appointment Sections

Charles E. Rounds, Jr. (Professor, Suffolk University LawSchool) recently published an article entitled, Old Doctrine Misunderstood, New Doctrine Misconceived: Deconstructingthe Newly-Minted Restatement (Third) of Property’s Power of AppointmentSections, 26 Quinnipiac Prob. L.J. 240 (2013).  Provided below is the abstract of hisarticle:

TheUnited States Constitution is quickening into an organism with common lawattributes, while state common law as enhanced by equity, once aprinciples-based regime, is suffocating under the weight of layer upon layer ofpartial, hyper-technical codifications. Major players in the codificationmovement are the Uniform Law Commission and The American Law Institute. Thelatter drafts model statutes, while the former drafts legislation, that, whenenacted into law by the states, partially codifies or fills perceived gaps inassorted corners of state common law, as that body of law has been enhanced byequity. The Institute doctrinally supports the Commission’s efforts via theserial revision of myriad law restatements. Coordinating the entirecodification process is a small cadre of academics, some of whom arenon-practicing lawyers. One influential cadre member involved in the craftingof the power of appointment sections of the newly-minted Restatement (Third) ofProperty (Wills and Other Donative Transfers), for example, has had minimalexperience practicing in the areas of the law he would presume to reform. Thosesections are the subject of this Article. The focus, however, is ultra-narrowand deep, deep into the weeds: I critique their quality. My conclusion: Thecoverage of power of appointment doctrine in the prior two propertyrestatements was generally superior.