There are two fundamental concerns imposed by society relative to wealth distribution. The first concern is 1) The power of decision-making the property owner shall possess in determining the distribution of his or her private assets; and 2) concerns as to whether or not an inheritance or estate may pass to one single descendent or heir.

The freedom given to an owner of property in stating who is to receive his or her property upon (their) death through the form of testation is believed to provide momentum to the economy.

It has been considered useful that the owner of property be allowed the choice to provide an inheritance based on the specific needs or situation of his or her family. To clarify this statement a step further, an example may be providing property and funds to a child suffering a chronic illness or incapacitated to some degree over a normally healthy dependent or individual.

There is also the freedom for the owner of property to disinherit a child who is disobedient in some respect. The property owner may provide (within the will) provision of proceeds to a favorite charitable institution or cultural organization.

Society, thus, may incur some disregard by the property owner pertinent to retaliation or acts of odd fancy. This is the consequence of a property owner’s right to freedom of testation. This freedom of a property owner to leave possessions and savings to descendents and heirs evolved slowly. There isn’t a place on earth that the freedom of testation exists without restrictions. The limits of such freedom have been addressed in many different ways (dependent upon the locale and specific circumstances.)

When property is owned (collectively or) as a societal group rather than by individual property owners, freedom of testation cannot exist. A transaction of land from a group to one single individual has almost never if ever occurred in a single transaction. Several steps normally have needed to occur before the land was passed to the single owner. The procedure of transferring land from one group to an individual historically has taken place over lengthy waiting periods (of time) in which several steps needed to occur before there was a transfer of ownership to the individual.

Ancient societies found ways around the dilemma of passing property from community groups to single individuals. These societies devised easy plans to minimize the complexities involved in transferring ownership. They achieved this by an illegitimate sale or gift to a middleman. The middle person would allow the grantor to possess the property during the grantor’s life, and upon the death of the grantor, the middle person would distribute the property according to the wishes of the grantor. This system was used and established in countries and regions such as ancient China, Japan, and India.

In ancient Greece the land was given as a gift, to be given to an individual designated by the owner upon the owner’s death. This setup had the same effect as that of a will.

In Rome, something similar to the institution of inheritance appeared at the earliest stages of its history. However, in its earliest stages, its effect seems to have been initiated by a lack of systematic direction to. To further clarify, the last will and testament made under government assembly, approved the adoption of a child to a “childless” official of a house of high society. This action was put into motion so that the house as well as the false gods could continue to exist.

The head of a Roman family was able to achieve (appearance) of a transaction of testamentary nature during fifth century B.C. This was achieved by way of a bogus sale to a purchaser of the family property. The testament was completely established and recognized in its true form in first century A.D. In sixth century A.D. the testament was handled in its most perfected form. During the latter part of the middle ages, it became the representation for Europe.

Among Anglo-Saxons as well as other Germanic peoples land was connected to groups and then to the economic, social, and political organization of medieval Europe. Therefore, property disposition could not be made through the use of a will. The church played a significant role, during such time period, in bringing about freedom of testation. The church was, in correspondence to this role, interested in attaining funds for education, charitable causes, and cultural activities. Shortly after the Norman Conquest (the conquest of England in 1066 by the Normans under William the Conqueror), the church was instrumental in establishing within the court system (of England) court jurisdiction over issues in regard to personal property distribution to heirs and successors upon death of the owner. The will designed by the Romans, therefore became the legal standard. A stipulation existed, however, that the testator must leave a meaningful portion of the estate (generally one-third) to his or her spouse and children.

The practice of illegitimate sale of property by way of a middleman in order to achieve the effects of a will became a standard practice throughout Europe.

During the eleventh century and forward the will put to use as Roman law was once again accepted. This first occurred in Italy and then in a region north of the Alps. In the latter part of the fifteenth century, the Roman design of the “will” had been established in the countries of Germany and France. Unfortunately, almost concurrently, within this same time period, Henry VIII through the “Statute of Uses” dated 1535 abolished the will acknowledged in England.

The ruler was interested in the restoration of escheat meaning that property would fall to the crown or government when there are no legal heirs. The public acted in strong discord to the king’s enforcement of this new system. Five years later, it was recommended to the king that he put into effect, once again, testamentary of land. The king enacted use of wills by way of enacting the Statue of Wills. Through the Restoration of the Military Tenures of 1662, limitations in bequeathing (real property) by will when serving in the military was also abolished.