MovieChat Forums > Body Heat (1981) Discussion > Does the law in this picture bother anyb...

Does the law in this picture bother anybody else?

posted 14 years ago by Monica_M_C
22 replies | jump to latest

(For those of you who haven't seen the film and don't like plot giveaways, insert obligatory spoiler alert here.)

I'm an actress, but before that I was an attorney. And when I watched Body Heat, my brain did the needle scratching the record thing when they read the deceased husband's will.

Maddy tells Ned that her husband's will calls for a 50/50 split of his estate between Maddy and his niece. Maddy convinces Ned to murder her husband, and also to draft a will (forge it, in reality) that has the same split, but has a clause added that she knows would cause the will to be invalid as against the Rule Against Perpetuities ("RAP"). (Even lawyers have problems getting their heads around the RAP, so kudos to Maddy for figuring it out during her short stint in her past as a legal secretary.) Her scheme is, Will #2 gets invalidated, so she gets the entire state via intestate succession (i.e., surviving spouse gets the entire estate when there is no will).

*SCRATCH* So my law brain geeks out in front of a bunch of other actors. "WAIT A SECOND! That's not right! There's no way she gets the lot! That's completely against basic precepts of estate law - you go back to Will #1!" Or, from a paragraph out of an article that explains far more articulately:

If a second will proves to be invalid, it's assumed the testator would want the first one to remain in effect if doing so would more closely carry out the testator's intent than would intestacy. Since it is obvious that Edmund intended to benefit Heather (she got half under both wills) . . . the first will should have remained in effect. As a result, Heather should have gotten half of Edmund's estate.

(See http://usf.usfca.edu/pj/articles/BodyHeat.htm for the full article.)

Therefore, what Maddy really needed was for Ned to murder both her husband AND the niece for her to get the full estate. Even though Ned was a lazy lawyer, he would have known that. And even if he was too stupid (he thought with the wrong head throughout the entire picture, and iirc, didn't she confront him about a bar suspension in his past that people didn't know about?), the husband's lawyers would have known that you go back to Will #1. And so would a judge - IRL, the niece's mom is calling up another attorney to probate the will(s) -- if it even got that far, which it wouldn't.

How a big Hollywood movie could have made such an obvious blunder just floored me. Anyone who took Wills and Trusts -- anyone who SLEPT THROUGH Wills and Trusts -- would have picked that up.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Monica_M_C 14 years ago

I did realize after the fact that I misremembered. But unlike yourself I had neither the time nor the inclination to correct my error, especially given that it didn't relate to the point I was making. Actually, I err again: you have not corrected the error, but pounced on it and me, also displaying a classic straw dog argument in the process.

I did not sleep through the film; I did not sleep through Wills and Trusts; and I also did not sleep through logic. As for you - 2 out of 3 perhaps? :-)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FrankFranklin 14 years ago

Agree, it is a plot device. Also remember that this was 1981 and not 2011. Estate Law has always been a bit archaic, perhaps the law in Florida was still a little behind the times (though according to the trivia section, the story originally took place in New York law and the technical director did not check Florida law when the location changed).

Any way we can check NY and FL law from 1981 to determine if this was the correct ruling according to probate law at the time?

[–] Monica_M_C 14 years ago

The essay I cited stated the story was originally set in NJ, but same principle.

[–] Carolcan42 14 years ago

never mind the law. WHAT WAS THE DEAL WITH SO MUCH SMOKING?? All thru the film they lit um up put um out and lit up again!

...Grace beats Karma

[–] Monica_M_C 14 years ago

That was what 1980? I think smoking was still at least marginally acceptible. And the South is different - I remember visiting New Orleans in the late 1990s -- we drove -- seemed like from Tennessee southwards it was easier to get a table in the non-smoking section of restaurants than the smoking one.

[–] Carolcan42 14 years ago

They must forget certain things in films. Example:Ned tells Matty he has taken notice that she is smoking his brand now, in the next scene they show four butts in the ash tray and two are differnt from the other two.Guess they can't catch everything!While I'm on the subject, what do they do about CIGARETTE BREATH in the close ups??

...Grace beats Karma

[–] Carolcan42 14 years ago

My bad. Just watched the film again and the cigarettes are the same brand.

...Grace beats Karma

[–] c7c7c7r 13 years ago

I was surprised to read that NY/NJ was the original locale, because the tropical ambiance of Florida, the heat, humidity, the palm trees play such a strong part in the movie. Hard to picture all this taking place in Jersey City.
Also, when Ned got that phone call from Myles Hardin, why didn't he claim innocence? By dragging him into the picture, Maddy hanged Ned.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c7c7c7r 13 years ago

When Myles Hardin called Ned about 'that will you wrote on Edmund Walker'--Ned could have, and should have, said "What will? I never wrote a will on Edmund Walker"---just deny it all--it would've been his instinctive reaction, anyway. Just drop Matty then and there. He could say he never knew until he met her at a concert, where she came on to him, talked him up, and the next thing he knows, his signature is on a will.
He can say she then broke into his office and did all the changes (giving her all the money) Because--that's what really happened.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c7c7c7r 13 years ago

Remember--Ned didn't know Matty actually did break into his office--he never missed anything, so there was nothing to report. And since the changes to the will made Matty the sole benefactor, the police could suspect Matty only (and did). Ned's story could be believable--because it's what really happened.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] transmentalist 14 years ago

I did realize after the fact that I misremembered. But unlike yourself I had neither the time nor the inclination to correct my error, especially given that it didn't relate to the point I was making. Actually, I err again: you have not corrected the error, but pounced on it and me, also displaying a classic straw dog argument in the process.

I did not sleep through the film; I did not sleep through Wills and Trusts; and I also did not sleep through logic. As for you - 2 out of 3 perhaps? :-)

So you lacked the time to correct your error, but you DID have time to post this borderline-petulant reply?

Added to which, you claim not to have slept through logic, yet replace the classic logician's term "straw man" with the Dustin-Hoffman-based malapropism, "straw dog"?

[–] Monica_M_C 14 years ago

You win. Enjoy your hollow victory.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

I noticed this as well. The law actually makes sense most of the time, and I can't imagine any jurisdiction ignoring a previous, valid will just because a slightly modified subsequent will ended up being invalid. The obvious recourse would be to go back to the original will.

(The OP is correct that the fact Racine didn't draft the will is irrelevant to her point. What it does show, of course, is that Matty was orchestrating the whole thing, and that Racine was just a pawn -- given that she completely ignored his request not to mess with the will, and implicated him without his knowledge.)

Finally, yeah, it's a plot device. It was a way to show that Matty was pulling the strings, that she couldn't be trusted, and that Racine was a dupe. It also was a tool to justify further police suspicion on both Racine and the wife.

[–] Chainsaw-wrecks 13 years ago

I hate critical errors in a field I know that defeats the premise. This is not on par with the Perry Mason defendant who would always pick up the murder weapon when discovered, but it does hurt enjoyment even to knowledgeable laymen.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] emma57 13 years ago

The bottom line to all this argueing and disagreeing......It was in the script.